Defending the Doctrines of Grace and God's Sovereignty Part 5 Irresistible Grace

Defending the Doctrines of Grace and God's Sovereignty Part 5

Irresistible Grace

     Probably one of the most often misunderstood, misrepresented, and strawmanned doctrines on the TULIP, is the doctrine of Irresistible Grace. IG, simply put, is that those whom God has changed their heart, will come to Him. That the call of God is effectual for the elect. Or even more simply stated, God doesn't fail. Now, the same as last time, I will put forth the argument for IG, and then address a few arguments against it. First, here are a few verses that teach irresistible grace.

     John 6:37-40: "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.” I'm sure we're all familiar with this passage by now, as it quite efficiently supports many of the Doctrines of Grace. Again we see that the Father's will is that He draw an elect people into Jesus, that Jesus lose none of them, and that those who were drawn would be saved (raised up on the last day.) I've exegeted this passage in the last article, so I don't think much more need be said here, except to point out that there is a proscription on Jesus losing any who the Father gives Him. It is an impossibility. However, if IG is untrue, then this passage would be incorrect, as Jesus would not be able to fulfill the Father's will, and would lose some of those whom He was given.

     Now, since we are dead in our trespasses and sins, (Ephesians 2:1,5) we must be regenerated before we can respond to the Gospel message. As an illustration of this, we could point to John 11:43 and the raising of Lazarus from the tomb. Since spiritual death is the flip side of the physical death coin, we see that, the same as if we were physically dead we could not respond to a call, spiritually we must be alive to respond to the spiritual call of the Gospel.

     In John 1:12-13 we read "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God." Here we see quite clearly, that to be born again, it must be of the will of God! That man cannot will himself to become a child of God, that He did not make us "savable" and then leaves the decision to man, but that it is His will whom He saves. How does this relate to irresistible grace? Quite simply because God's will is sovereign over man's will. Perhaps I should lay this out more clearly.

     As I posted in the article on total depravity, mankind is incapable and unwilling, to come to God. Since this is the case, we must have our hearts changed, and as Ezekiel 36:26, we must have our heart of stone replaced by God with a heart of flesh, or we will not only deny God, but love our sin and curse God! Since this is the case, then it must be that His grace changes our hatred of God, to love for Him. Otherwise we could never be saved. This is the essence of IG.

     Now, there are passages that make mention of people resisting God's grace. Well there is a difference between God's saving grace which He bestows upon His elect at the moment of their salvation(not their birthright as my previous article tackled), and the common grace of God that, without question, keeps us from turning this planet into a smoldering ash heap with our hatred and sin. The general call, or common grace, is seen in passages such as  Matthew 2:14, and His salvific grace is seen in passages such as above in John 6:37. (As an aside, this is how one properly harmonizes the texts of Scripture as opposed to setting one against another like our inconsistent Arminian friends have a tendency to do. I've shown this before, and will again momentarily.)

     In Acts 13:48 it reads "When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed." What had they heard? What were they rejoicing over? Why the Gospel! And as the verse concludes, those who had been appointed to eternal life, believed! Not only is this verse a strong support for Unconditional Election, it is also a solid support for Irresistible Grace. Those who were appointed by God, His elect, were saved. Does this passage leave it ambiguous? Certainly not! Since God saves those whom He chooses to save, this verse shows His salvific grace is efficacious!


     Now, before this gets too long (as I've been accused of being a bit long winded), I will wrap up here where I wrapped up in the last article. The Golden Chain of Romans 8:29-30 "For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified." As before, we see an unbroken chain from those whom God foreknew to the same ones who would be glorified. So if the same ones whom are called, always end up glorified, it shows that God's irresistible grace is effectual, in that He always saves those whom He calls.

     Now, on to some of the strawmen- er I mean arguments against IG:

     Now, we see here, as usual, a claim put forth with no Biblical backing. No verses cited, no exegesis given, just a portion of an overly long article. This is not only a begging the question fallacy, it's also akin to the elephant hurling fallacy, where one throws so much information at their opponent, that there is no way to sift through it all and still give a response. It also shows a fundamental misunderstanding of IG, in that it isn't God forcing His will upon us (though I find it hysterical that out of one side of their mouths our CAHCT friends will claim to be giving God more sovereignty than Calvinists yet out of the other side claim that God gave us free autonomous will) but it is a changing of our heart to be able to become saved, and is stating that those whom God calls will be saved. They seem to relish the idea that God should be able to fail! This also establishes that our CAHCT friends sacrifice God's will on the altar of man's will, while denying that Jesus Himself said that man's will is a slave of sin. I'd also like to know what Calvinist "concedes" this point? I have a feeling they "concede the point" much like our friends here "understand" the Doctrines of Grace. In other words, words are twisted and meanings shredded to fit neatly into their worldview. And while I agree with the all caps portion, I deny that anything about it is "simple". You'll never hear a Calvinist argue that people aren't saved by coming to Christ through the hearing of the Gospel, it's just that our friends here cheapen that call to nothing more than bringing man to a moral "neutral point."

     Again, we see here the fundamental ignorance of IG, fueled by emotionalism. You'll also note the category error in comparing God's love to man's. How do we define love? If it isn't through the Biblical teaching of what love is, then it is flawed. Is it loving for God to let us all go to hell for our sins in an effort to protect "autonomous human free will", or is it more loving to change ones heart from one that hates God, to one that can love Him? That isn't forced, we aren't at some neutral point, and God is forcing our hand, we are dead in our sins, and God is bringing us back to life. We see that the ignorance runs deeply as again, God isn't forcing anyone to love Him, we are utterly incapable of loving Him until He changes our heart. (How many times must I quote Ezekiel 36:26?) He isn't "wooing" us in hopes we'll choose Him. As the word in John 6:40 "draw" means in the original Greek, it's a dragging, a bodily pulling towards or away from something. It's used elsewhere when the disciples are pulling up the net of fish, or when the apostles were forced out of a town square. This isn't a "please please I hope you pick me!" where God is eternally frustrated and sad because so many millions don't choose Him. And lastly, for the love of all things sane, Arminians, please stop using the "Calvinism isn't the Gospel" line! It's a huge red herring! No Calvinists say that it is! Sheesh!

     On the face of the first line, we might almost think we saw someone who legitimately wanted to ask questions. It's a bit of a flawed question, as God's irresistible grace has always existed as the salvation of His people is a part of His eternal decree, but perhaps we could get somewhere! And then we see the next argument...they conflate the physical speaking of God to Adam, to His irresistible grace in salvation. Also, if we take this line of thought to its logical conclusion, then God really didn't know where Adam was when He called him. Do you really want to go this route? To claim that God is so limited He didn't know where Adam was? That's the direction of open theism, and believe me, you don't want to go down that heretical path. But let's think about the passage for a second. Sin has just entered into the world. Adam and Eve have committed the first sin, and now they commit their second in running from God. We see how sin, even the very first, has led to the second, and how even with it being only the first sin, those who walked with God in perfection, are now running and hiding from Him, just as we do because we are sinners! We also see that after God calls Adam, what does he do? He comes to God, so the attempted "gotcha" question, has backfired stupendously!

And finally, we have our same friend from last time. They again open with a field of strawmen just waiting to have the stuffing knocked out of them. They do not understand the analogy of the Potter and the clay from Romans 9:21. The entire point of that verse is to show that God has made all for a specific use, some for honorable use (the elect) and others for common use (the non-elect). Why would God need or want to pour out wrath on those whom He has elected? This line of thinking denies God's sovereignty by forcing Him to have to change His plans, instead of all things being His plan. In the second paragraph we see that even in their assertion of what we claim IG is, they still make a mistake. IG states that God's grace is effectual for those whom God has elected, it's not a matter of resistance. We also again see the attempt to sound more knowledgeable than they are, by inserting "intelligent" sounding words into their post. This makes it an unfortunate word salad. However, if I'm deciphering it correctly, they're trying to make an argument based on the idea of "autonomous free will" or claiming that Calvinism turns people into robots. Nothing could be further from the truth. Calvinism states that man has a will, but as was shown in the Total Depravity article, this will is enslaved to sin, and therefore cannot do anything but sin. In Irresistible Grace, God has already changed the heart, has freed the slave, and brought them to Himself.

     Does that sound like something you desire? To be freed from the chains of sin? The only one who can free you is Jesus. If you wish to be free, pray to Him right now, and ask Him for salvation. God bless.

Defending the Doctrines of Grace and God's Sovereignty Part 4: Limited Atonement

Defending the Doctrines of Grace and God's Sovereignty Part 4

Limited Atonement

     After my last article, I realized that I had veered off course a bit, and was spending too much time refuting our confused CAHCT friends, and not enough time on the doctrines themselves. I hereby apologize, and attempt to get back on track.


     Limited Atonement is the doctrine that states that Jesus died, not for every person that ever lived or will live, but for the elect of God. This doctrine, probably above all others, garners the most animosity. In fact, this is where Calvinists and Amyraldians, part ways. While Amyradianism confirms the other four points of TULIP, they deny Limited Atonement, sometimes referred to as Particular Redemption. Let's look at a few verses that support Limited Atonement, and then move on to objections.

     John 6:37 "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out." We see here that the Father is giving those whom are to be saved, to Christ, and that those whom Christ receives, He will not cast out. Is the Father drawing all men at all times to Jesus? If He is, then He is failing miserably as we see millions of people reject Him. Or is it more likely (and maintains God's sovereignty and power) that He is drawing only those whom He has chosen, His elect, to Christ? Also note, that in verse 39, Jesus says that of all the Father gives to Him, He will lose none. However if one were to take an Arminian view, then Jesus would lose some, as not all are saved by Jesus, yet they would claim that all are being drawn by the Father. This creates a rift in the Godhead, as it means Jesus is unable to do the will of the Father.

     John 6:44 "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day." Continuing His thought and expanding it a bit, Jesus here tells us first, that no one can come to Him unless the Father draws them, and that those same someone's are to be raised up, or saved, at judgement. Are all people going to be saved? Since the Biblical answer is a resounding NO then that must mean that the Father is only drawing a particular people to the Son.

     John 10:15: "even as the Father knows Me and I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep.". Immediately what springs to mind is the idea of Christ's sheep. Who are they? Are they all of humanity? Obviously not, or a delineation would not be made where Jesus says "my sheep know my voice", denoting that those who are not His sheep, do not know His voice. As we read in Ephesians 1:4, the sheep are the ones God predestined before the foundation of the world. Obviously God did not predestine all people to salvation, so the sheep must be a limited number, or a particular people.

     Isaiah 53:8 "By oppression and judgment He was taken away; And as for His generation, who considered That He was cut off out of the land of the living For the transgression of my people, to whom the stroke was due?" Here we have Isaiah speaking of the future Jesus, and that He would take the penalty of His people. This being the case, then the number of people whom Christ would atone for would be limited to a certain people. Unless one wishes to read universalism into the text, which is the only other logical direction one can go.

     Isaiah 53:11-12 "As a result of the anguish of His soul, He will see it and be satisfied; By His knowledge the Righteous One, My Servant, will justify the many, As He will bear their iniquities. Therefore, I will allot Him a portion with the great, And He will divide the booty with the strong; Because He poured out Himself to death, And was numbered with the transgressors; Yet He Himself bore the sin of many, And interceded for the transgressors." Again, we see here a limiting of the ones that Jesus will justify. If His atonement were universal, we would see here the word all. Now, since this mentions justification, let's move to another text, Romans 8:28-34.

     Romans 8:28-34 "And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified. What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us? He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things? Who will bring a charge against God’s elect? God is the one who justifies; who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us." Now, let's begin with a simple logical following of what the golden chain (verses 28-30) is telling us. Firstly,  it says "Those He foreknew". This is not the idea that God looked down the corridors of time, and saw who would come to Him, because as the next part states, the ones He foreknew, He foreknew because He'd predestined them! It then moves on to say that those who are predestined, are the one's He called. These are the ones whose heart of stone has been replaced with a heart of flesh. These same ones whom are called are also justified (made right with God) and then glorified, or the idea of the glory in our salvation. Note there is no break here. From the first, those foreknown, will be the ones glorified. There are no breaks, no walls, no stops. It is a continuous chain.

     Now, you may ask, why bring this up? Good question, you see the beginning states those whom God foreknew. This denotes the idea that God had a special group of people whom He had planned for salvation. The idea of universal atonement cannot be wedged into the text. There are no breaks or changes of direction where one could say that those who are foreknown, are not the same as those who will be glorified.

     I could've stopped at verse 30, but I added through verse 34 for a reason. Note in verse 34 that if states that Jesus intercedes for "us". Who is the us? Let's follow the pronouns. In verse 31, Paul uses the word "us" to denote those who were justified at the end of the chain. The "us" meaning Christians. In verse 32 Paul says "for us all", where he continues discussing the same us from the previous verse, so we're still talking about Christians. In verse 33 Paul leaves absolutely no doubt, when he calls those same "us", God's elect. And finally, in verse 34, we see that Jesus intercedes for those elect. There is again, no break, no change of view, and no sidetracking from verse 28 through verse 34. It is undeniable that those whom God foreknew, were His elect, who Jesus intercedes for and God will glorify. Paul's words are the final nail in the coffin for unlimited atonement. That being said however, many will try to deny such a clear biblical teaching in defense of the autonomous free will of man, and will subjugate God's will to their own. Let's take a look at some of these arguments.

     We see in this first slide the fundamental misrepresentation of what the doctrine of Limited Atonement is. There is a rather raggedy strawman put up in its place, but it misses the mark by a country mile. The only way to reach such a conclusion is to assume one's view of universal atonement, without having first proven such. This is the begging the question fallacy. It also ignores the fact that under their view, God's sovereignty is thwarted by man's free will, and therefore God fails. Limited Atonement however, states that those whom God elected (see my last article on Unconditional Election) are saved perfectly. That God is in no way a failure, or eternally frustrated, and that there is no tension in the Godhead. Instead, we give and protect all the honor and glory due to God, as He has perfectly accomplished His plan in salvation of those whom the Son intercedes for. In the beginning of the next paragraph, we see a major flaw in their argument. It states that only some of the sins of the whole world. Aside from once again begging the question, it also creates another strawman. Jesus atoned for all the sins of the elect, not just some. To put in in such terms is what makes it seem a failure, so if the only way to make it a failure, is to make a strawman out of it, then you've defacto proven the original case correct. I don't expect of CAHCT friend to see that however. You'll note they put "election" in quotes, as though that isn't exactly what the text says. I'll refer you back to earlier in Romans 8. The next sentence is a block of gibberish, but if I'm piecing it together correctly, they are claiming that this who are elect have some kind of birthright to their election. If this is what they believe, then they really have no concept of Unconditional Election or Limited Atonement. As I stated in my last article, UC literally means that we have no reason in ourselves as to why God would choose us, and that it is entirely of His choosing. To make the claim it is a "birthright" is yet another strawman. I hope no one is smoking while reading this, the flammability of this slides due to all the strawmen could cause a forest fire!

     In our final slide (I could go on with any number of images from our friends, but they all boil down to similar arguments) we see an appeal to Sola Scriptura. I find that interesting, as our friend here has abandoned Sola Scriptura, in favor of their tradition, which teaches unlimited atonement. Note above the solid exegesis and explaining of the texts of Scripture in which we find the doctrine of limited atonement. Also note that our friend has made a great number of strawmen and unproven assertions, citing no verses, and exegeteing no passages. This is the sign of a shallow, emotional thinker. You see that they call those who hold to the Doctrines of Grace as "anti-Christ", and claim we are apathetic in our knowledge of God, yet I see no deep thinking, no exegesis, no discussion (as such things are not allowed on their page) or debate. They are projecting greatly in this, as they revel in their shallow ignorance and lack of a critical evaluation of their own position. I know of at least two others who have been banned from their page since the beginning of this series, by doing nothing more than forcing those whom cling to this unbiblical view with cult-like fervor, into examining their position. This is the definition of willful ignorance. Where one is so wedded to a tradition, that they refuse to examine it in the light of Scripture.  As always, the link to their page is in the first article in this series.

     Don't be overwhelmed by the idea that Jesus died for His elect, because as I've said numerous times, we don't have a stamp on our forehead, or special vision that shows who the elect are. We are to preach the Gospel to all nations, and allow God to do His work in bringing His people to Him. If you've never heard the Gospel before, let me give it to you now. From before the foundations of the world, God knew man would fall, but He always had a plan. That plan was that at the proper time, God the Son, would take on human flesh, in Jesus Christ. That He would live a perfect and sinless life here on earth, and then to be put to death. Three days later, Jesus rose again, having defeated death, and broken the bonds of slavery to sin, for those who would draw unto Him, and believe. If you feel that drawing, don't hesitate, and pray to God for your salvation. God bless.

Defending the Doctrines of Grace and God's Sovereignty Part 3 Unconditional Election

Defending the Doctrines of Grace and God's Sovereignty Part 3

Unconditional Election

     As before in my previous articles, I'd like to begin this one with a definition of the term being addressed. In this case, Unconditional Election. Basically, UE is the doctrine that states there is nothing inherent in a person that causes God to choose them for salvation. Of all the doctrines, the angst and hatred for this particular doctrines has me at a loss. I fully understand why people would hate Total Depravity. No one likes being told they're sinful, and wretched in God's sight! Limited Atonement? It's "unfair" to many that Jesus didn't die for every human being ever, etc., etc. In a way, I think it makes sense though. It's of course linked to total depravity in that, human nature wants there to be something special about themselves. Yet the ignorance of the doctrine, and the hatred for it that will be provided by our friends from CAHCT in the following images surprised me.

     Let's begin with this one. I've broken them up a bit so as to aid in dissecting each argument. Let's begin at 1 Timothy 2. If one merely goes back to verses 1-3, where the "all men" is clarified to mean "all types of men". (Kings, those in authority, etc.) However, this also ignores a major point many Arminians refuse to acknowledge. Calvinists make a distinction between God's sovereign will and His permissive will. The basic delineation being that while God decrees all things, He knows that those who are not of the elect, will not do what is pleasing to Him. (IE come to faith, etc.) To place the emphasis this contributor has on 1 Timothy 2:4, while ignoring God's sovereignty, pits Scripture against itself. For as we see in John 6:44: "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day." So if the flawed hermeneutic of our CAHCT friend were followed, then Jesus would be lying here, or Paul was in his letter to Timothy. As we see, Jesus says that unless the Father draws a person to Jesus, they cannot and will not, come to Him. He also says that those who come to Him, He will raise up on the last day, in other words to heaven. Does Jesus raise any non-believers up to heaven? Of course not, so this passage can only be referencing Christians. Another thing to point out is, that only those whom the Father has chosen then, would be the ones brought to Christ.

     You'll also note on this first slide they attempt to make themselves appear perhaps a bit more learned than they are, claiming something is "grammatically unlawful". This is a nonsense term. Grammatically incorrect? Sure, that makes sense and puts across the point that it isn't proper to use grammar in a certain manner. However, this statement in and of itself is an improper use of a term, and is therefore violating the same premise they're attacking the respondent for. Sorry, let me continue!

     Now, here the opening line is a real hoot! Calvinists don't study but simply repeat what is told to them? Meanwhile this contributor is simply regurgitating his tradition, while eisegeting their little backside off! This series alone puts the lie to this statement, as well as the fact that Calvinism is so well attested to by numerous people within theological studies!  People like D.A. Carson, Tim Keller, Bill Mounce, James White, John Piper, J.I. Packer, Michael J. Krueger, just to name a few! However, I digress, back to the topic at hand!

     This next paragraph comes across as a complete word salad. I think the contributor was so focused on sounding "authoritative" that they forgot to make the paragraph make sense first, nevertheless I'll try to decipher it. Now, the preservation of the word of God, has nothing to do with the exegesis of this verse of Scripture. This is a complete red herring, and has no logical consistency with the rest of the discussion. (At least what context was provided to us, though based on past experience, there may be a great deal left out.) The second half of this paragraph makes even less sense. Calvinists are secular now and have a destroyed soteriology? Besides begging the question( since they're assuming that Calvinists aren't Christian without providing evidence) this assertion is utterly groundless. There's no evidence given, no frame of reference to go by, nothing. Just a very oddly worded paragraph that leaves one scratching their head as to what the contributor meant. (Although if how they write is related to how they're thinking process works, it's not hard to see why they have such a difficult time with sound exegesis. ;) ).

     The next sentence I totally agree with. However, it's evident they themselves don't follow those same rules when they write, or the previous paragraph would've been understandable. I also agree, to some extent, with the next sentence.... conditionally. Now the next paragraph is where we see the poor exegesis. I've already corrected it above, so I won't go through it again, but as we can see, they've ignored the rest of the passage in favor of their tradition, and set the passage against the rest of Scripture.

     Now, in this last slide of the first group, we see (aside from the misspelling of sentence) they've utterly ignored the context as pointed out both earlier in verses 1-3 and the fact that this sets the verse against other Scripture like John 6:37, 44,  Romans 8:28-30, Ephesians 1:11-12, Malachi 1:2-3, etc. With such a faulty hermeneutic, it's easy to see where the error originates. On to the next one!

     In this one we open right away with a poisoning the well fallacy, as well as the begging the question fallacy. The claim is made that 1) Calvinism is a false belief system and does not back this up, and then follows that with 2) the claim that it attacks the body of believers. Lets unpack that last statement a little. To believe that "believers" would walk away because they're not sure if they're "elect" shows us a few things. That those who walk away due to not knowing if they're elect (something I've never heard of before) simply fulfills what Jesus said when He said " they go out from us to show they were not of us." I see this "false belief" didn't stop this person from believing, nor attacking it with strawmen, so I guess they've refuted their own point. I'd also point out, that if you're that worried about people leaving over something so easily "refuted" then apparently you're perfectly happy with a church full of false converts. Because in many of these people's churches, it's about quantity, not quality. Now that that rant is out of my system, let's move on. Now, this first paragraph is a shining example of one who is railing against something, of which they are utterly ignorant. One could not come to Christ, unless they were of the elect, as I pointed out above! To say that someone's faith is "in vain" is pure emotionalism. One cannot have "vain faith". If they have true and enduring faith, it is a gift from God, and cannot be in vain. If they do not, they were a false convert as Jesus said. It's very simple. Now we see them say "election is a truth of Scripture." Had they stopped there, they would've been spot on, but they threw in the "however" in the very next sentence. How can you acknowledge that the Scriptures each something, and then repudiate that teaching in your very next breath? We see the common Molinist teaching here where "election is a result of your faith", taking away God's sovereignty, and replacing it with either man's or some cosmic card dealer. They then quote a passage of Scripture that refutes their very point! Ephesians 2:8! It's pointing out that God's grace saves you! God has to give you the faith! I'll point back again to Ezekiel 36:26, as well as my article on total depravity! (See how these are so nicely interwoven.) Now, they begin quoting verses (without context) and end it with these:

     This is a wonderful strawman built up by Arminians lately. No one has ever claimed Calvinism is the gospel, only that it's the most consistent with the gospel.

     Now, since this article is getting long, and appears to be more of a refutation of CAHCT than a defense of Unconditional Election, I present the last section of slides:

     Again we find someone attempting to write above their vocabulary level, hoping to sound more authoritative, and more knowledgeable than they are. The opening line is a hodgepodge of words designed to boggle the reader with the author's "stunning intellect"! It fails, and not just because it misrepresents Calvinism. Now, as I've already pointed out in part 1 of this series, it is the Calvinist who holds God's sovereignty in the higher regard. The Arminian subjugates God's sovereignty to man's sovereignty, leaving God hoping people will come to Him with no direct ability to make it so, and ultimately failing billions and billions of times as those who reject Him burn in hell. But let's see if this contributor has some new argument, some new evidence for us to examine!

     And in the rest of the paragraph, we see the absolute lack of self awareness we've come to expect from CAHCT. How can the group, who holds God is literally sovereign over everything, be downplaying His sovereignty, while those who force God's sovereignty to submit to man's sovereignty is holding it up? Hopefully we'll see in a moment, though I'm not holding my breath.

     And the hits just keep coming! From condemning Calvinists as "satanic", to immediately citing a passage that adds evidence to both total depravity, and unconditional election! You have to ask, why did men love evil and hate the light? Why would men who love evil turn from it to the light? These are not questions I'm confident will be raised in the coming section....

     It's quite obvious this contributor has no idea what theosophy means, or who it's associated with. Theosophy is roughly the idea that mystical or occult philosophies can give you direct knowledge of the divine. It's related to Western esoterism, which is very distinct from Christianity. Western esoterism is nearly impossible to define, yet Christianity, in general, and Calvinism in particular, are easily defined. Those who ascribe to theosophy include groups like Buddhists and liberal Catholics. To lump Calvinism into this group is a gross error. Also note that, yet again, no evidence is given for this assertion, it's simply thrown out and you are supposed to accept it without question. This is the mark of a cult. Now, what truly blows my mind in this, is the next small section of definitions from the online dictionary on sovereignty. Setting aside the fact that these definitions are not theological in nature, they still explode the idea that Calvinism, and Unconditional Election, somehow limit God's sovereignty! In fact, they prove the exact opposite! If God is sovereign (and to the Calvinist He is) then HE CHOOSES whom to save, however in the Arminian theology, this is turned on its head. Man becomes sovereign, and God is told who He will save based on man's choices. Now, as to the "searing of the conscience, and accountability, this shows another stellar lack of knowledge on our contributors part, as Calvinists believe that accountability still lies with humanity. That if we go to hell, it is because we rejected God, and that once God has changed our heart, we will turn to Him. The lack of self awareness is real folks! Remember, a link to their page is available in my first article in this series, so make sure you check out everything I've posted, so that you can see the entire context, and make the final decision yourself!

     Now enough of the refutation. Let's discuss unconditional election for a moment. I take us back to John 6:44, and I'm most interested in the word "drawn" in that verse. That word, ἑλκύσῃ in the Greek, means to haul bodily, and is used in John 21:6 and 11 in hauling nets full of fish from the water, or in Acts 16:19 and 21:30 to describe bodily forcing someone into or out of an area. This is not a passive wooing, or a plea to come, but a forceful command. This is the Father grabbing you by the collar and dragging you to the Son! To then say that one might second guess their salvation because of unconditional election is ludicrous! If one is drawn, they will not fail to be saved! There is nothing special about oneself that gets God's attention to say "Look at John Smith! He's so much better than Jeff Brown! I'll elect him to salvation!" No! It's exactly the opposite! There is nothing within us to allow us to boast, and since that's the case, then there's nothing within is to cause God to choose us! It's His sovereign choice! He is the final decider of all things. To say it is any other way, is to diminish His sovereignty, not enhance it! If you've been drawn, rejoice! If you feel the draw, rejoice! If you do not, do not despair! We do not know who the elect are, only God does, and He works on His timetable, not ours! Your drawing may be in the future, and we will welcome you into the brotherhood of discipleship! God bless!

Defending the Doctrines of Grace and God's Sovereignty Part 2: Total Depravity

Defending the Doctrines of Grace and God’s Sovereignty Part 2

Total Depravity

*WARNING! Explicit images!*

     So begins my quest in defending the Doctrines of Grace, and what better place to start than the beginning! Ok so that's a bit melodramatic, but the point remains the same. Let’s start, as I did in my article on God’s Sovereignty, with a definition. Something you’ll undoubtedly notice is that each of the five doctrines (also referred to as the five points of Calvinism) are interlinked. Like a chain, one is locked to the next in such a way that they logically and biblically flow from one to the next. There are of course some out there who claim only four of the five points (Amyraldianism denies limited atonement) but we’ll deal with that later.

     Put simply, Total Depravity is the doctrine that, due to the fall of man in Adam, humanity is so corrupted, that we cannot come to God of our own choosing, and in fact, without His grace, and His replacing of our hearts of stone with a heart of flesh (Ezekiel 36:26) we will always hate God and love our sin. I once heard it put like this. We are all drowning, yet if Christ threw us a life preserver, we would throw it back, spit in His face and dive! That may seem like hyperbole, but I assure you it’s closer than you might think to the truth. For now, let’s focus on an argument against Total Depravity from our friends at CAHCT:

     As we see, a lack of a decent biblical understanding and hermeneutic is rather apparent. So to begin with we must first exegete John 15:24. Here we see Jesus talking with His disciples, explaining to them that they will be hated and persecuted for His name and the Gospel. In fact, here’s that verse with a bit of context John 15:22-25: “If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin. He who hates Me hates My Father also. If I had not done among them the works which no one else did, they would not have sin; but now they have both seen and hated Me and My Father as well. But they have done this to fulfill the word that is written in their Law, ‘THEY HATED ME WITHOUT A CAUSE.’”

     So as we can see, by adding just that small amount of context, what they were doing in hating Jesus, was what was foretold and decreed by God to happen. We also see that Jesus is saying that had He not come and done the miracles and signs among them, they would have an excuse, and claim ignorance of their sin. Something else we must also realize, and it’s rarely acknowledged by Arminians, is that total depravity, as well as the rest of the doctrines of Grace, do not negate the idea of human free will. It negates the idea of “autonomous” or “libertarian” human free will. It shows a mirror onto the heart of man, one from which the wicked heart flees. You see, we may have a will, but as Jesus said in John 8:34, “everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin.” In other words our nature can do nothing else but that which it truly desires, to sin. And since last I checked, Romans 3:23 is still in the Bible and still says: “for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God", then that means all people are the slaves of sin. That’s what a proper biblical hermeneutic looks like. We see at the end of this failstorm the attempt at tying verse 25 back into the idea of total depravity. As I’ve already shown, this isn’t even a surface level understanding of total depravity, let alone a proper exegesis. They completely ignore the “fulfill” (whilst highlighting it showing an extreme level of lack of self awareness) which means that it was preordained by God to happen! It had to be fulfilled or God would’ve been a liar! And how do we wrap this up? First by misspelling “depraved” (I wouldn’t comment on it as I’m one to misspell words quite a bit, however they go on to continue to misspell “depraved” numerous times amongst comments in the group) and second by missing the entire point as to why the did not choose Jesus! They didn’t because they were still slaves of sin! There are of course, numerous other discussions within the group that touch on total depravity, but they are generally in long diatribes that only touch on the subject briefly, and continue on through other topics. If you follow the link from my first article in this series, you’ll see what I mean. For now, let me offer some biblical verses that support and shape the doctrine of total depravity.

     Let’s begin with Jeremiah 17:9 - “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?” Titus 1:15-16 – “to the defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure; but both their minds and their consciences are defiled.” Matthew 15:19 - “For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander.” Genesis 6:5 – “The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” 2 Peter 2:19 – “They promise them freedom, but they themselves are slaves of corruption. For whatever overcomes a person, to that he is enslaved.”

  There are of course a good deal more, but I’d prefer not to belabor the point. I’d so like to take a quick look at the passages from Genesis 6, and 2 Peter.

     Genesis 6 struck me a bit more than some of the others, as it was part of a recent debate I had with another brother in Christ on the flood of Noah. If I recall a question was asked of whether or not all people in that time were wicked. As this verse proves, that was, and is, the case today. In fact it was only five chapters later that God confused the languages at the tower of Babel, because man thought himself worthy to build a tower to heaven.

     Now a quick look at 2 Peter 2:19, which is a great contrast of the two positions one can find themselves in. If one is still the slave of sin, and still holds the heart of stone, then that is what overcomes you, that is what defines what your will, will choose. However, if one has been freed of sins grip, has had their heart of stone removed for one of flesh, then the Holy Spirit has overcome them, and to God we are servants!

     One needn’t look far in this day and age, to see the effect total depravity has on humanity. Everything from “gay pride” events:

To “trans-gender/species” celebration:

To people shooting others in mass violence:

     Its easy to see the ripples of God’s wrath as He allows man’s depravity to run wild. Thankfully, He is in control, nothing is outside of His decree (as I pointed out in my last article) and so therefore I know all things will work to the good for those that love Him. I will also point out one last verse. One that should inspire an immense hope among those who love God, or those who are just awakening to their depravity. 1 Corinthians 6:11: “Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.” So after Paul’s list of examples of sins which man commits on a regular basis, he lifts our hearts with that line: “such were some of you!” He is showing us here that no matter how grievous the sin, God can and will wash and sanctify you! So if you are feeling that draw of God, know that there is no sin, no wrongdoing, that could ever separate those that love Him from His sight. Even in Acts 8 we see God pick up Phillip and bring him to a eunuch so that he would be saved! Beloved there is nothing that you can do, that God cannot forgive. Call out to Him right now, and know His love! Until next time, God bless!