Confronting Calvinism's Perserverance of the Saints

            We have undertaken a study on the five principle tenets encompassing the theology known as Calvinism.  Briefly reviewing we have discovered that John Calvin’s teaching was formalized in the Institutes of the Christian Religion in 1559.

These writings required two significantly large volumes which no doubt contain many statements of truth. However, as we would evaluate the whole content it has been broken down into five major theological premises. These equate to what has come to be known and propagated forward through the centuries as Calvinism. There was a major gathering of theologians, ministers and religious academics from Western Europe held in 1618 and 1619 entitled the Council of Dort lasting a full seven months. Its purpose was to debate theological issues and address the remonstrances of Arminian theology which comes into very stark contrast with Calvinism on all five of its principle tenets. Unfortunately Calvinism prevailed and was determined to be the true dogma of the Christian church.  My focus and purpose in submitting this series has been to correct the errors of Calvin’s precepts and prove from the Scripture that all five points are unsupported by the Bible. In fact the theology of James Arminius represents a sound understanding of soteriology (the doctrine of salvation) and stands in opposition to Calvinist dogma. Our current and final treatment will examine the Calvinist doctrine of perseverance of the saints sometimes expressed as the doctrine of “eternal security”.

            Calvinism teaches that all who are chosen by God, redeemed by Christ, and given faith by the Spirit are eternally saved. These are kept in faith by the power of Almighty God and thus persevere unto the end. Salvation is accomplished by the almighty power of the triune God.  The Father chose a people, the Son died for them and the Holy Spirit makes Christ’s death effective by bringing the elect to faith and repentance thereby causing them to willingly obey the gospel. The entire process (election, redemption and regeneration) is the work of God entirely and is not dependent upon an exercise of man’s willingness or subsequent obedience being necessary to preserver in the faith.

            In direct contrast Arminian theology asserts that even for the regenerated person the falling from grace is a very real possibility and danger. Those who believe and are ‘born again’ can fall from or subsequently turn back or away from Christ.  Salvation is accomplished through the combined activity of God’s initiative towards the sinner and the subsequent response of the person to the ongoing work of the Holy Spirit.  Man has been given a free will and is therefore capable as well as accountable to “choose” whether or not he will faithfully continue in the obedience of faith. Or he may reject the narrow pathway of sanctification and ultimate salvation by serving the carnal ways of the flesh and loving the things of this world. There is an enemy seeking the destruction of every man’s soul.

              Let us examine the Scripture to find which of these two doctrines are true.

The parable of the unjust servant appears at Luke 12: 41-47. It states in part. “The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him asunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers.”  (read full context).

           Colossians chapter 1 qualifies salvation by stating at verses 22-23: “In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight: if ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel….”  Does this sound like salvation is unconditional? (emphasis mine).

            “For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things comes the wrath of God on the children of disobedience.  Be not ye therefore partakers with them.”(emphasis mine). Does this sound like “eternal security”? Or is salvation conditioned upon denying the flesh and faithfulness unto purity of conduct?

            “For we are made partakers of Christ if we hold the beginning of our confidence firm unto the end.”  (Heb.7:14) “Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest any of you should seem to come short of it.”

(Heb.4:1)  Does this teach ‘eternal security’ (perseverance of the saints) or is it conditioned upon being found faithful to the end? (again emphasis mine).

            “Let that therefore abide in you which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son and in the Father. “(I John 2:24) Is it not clear that one must abide in Christ remaining under the abiding presence and government of the Holy Spirit denying the fleshly appetites and conduct of the ‘old man’.

            “He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name from the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father and before his angels.” (Rev. 3:5). Do you understand that you must continue steadfast in the faith unto the end? This is overcoming that your name may be found in the nook of life at the judgement. (See Rev.20:15).                                       

          The foregoing five scripture citations are a few among many throughout the New Testament that adamantly deny the doctrine of eternal security or the Calvinist dogma known as perseverance of the saints. The heretical doctrines of Calvinism will lead you to your destruction.  We are living in times of great apostasy as these doctrines as well as others are commonly taught in the denominational churches.

David Lance Dean                   website and blogs at: authordavidlancedean.com

Confronting Calvinism's Irresistible Grace

             We are utilizing a series of five blogs to address and subsequently refute the five basic precepts of Calvinism. Calvinism lies at the heart of the Protestant Reformation which developed in the late fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries in reaction to the heresies and corruption of the Catholic Church which had become anathema to the gospel of Christ as revealed in the scriptures. Through the course of our investigation what we are finding is that the prevailing doctrines found in Calvin’s theological system does not bring the church into a condition of recovery which aligns itself with the clear testimony of the Scripture. Calvinism prevailed during the period of the Reformation and those precepts have been handed down in large measure during the subsequent generations at least in part even unto this present time. There remains a viable alternative which would bring the Christian church into  much better alignment with the truth of the Bible. It was formulated in the teachings of James Arminius (1560-1609) and has come to be known as Arminianism. Its precepts stand in stark contrast to Calvinism.

            In pursuit of our current topic we will investigate the doctrine of Irresistible Grace. What is meant by this theological tenet of Calvinism and do we find a support for it in the scriptures? Outlining what is meant and how it is held will follow. Calvinists would assert that there is an efficacious call of the Spirit or irresistible grace. In addition to the outward general call to salvation which is made to everyone who hears the gospel, the Holy Spirit extends to the elect a special inward call that inevitably brings them to salvation. The external call which is made to all without distinction can be, and often is rejected; whereas the inward call which is made only to the elect cannot be rejected; it always results in conversion. By means of this special call the Spirit irresistibly draws the sinner to Christ. He is not limited in his work of applying salvation by man’s will, nor is he dependent upon man’s cooperation for success. The Spirit graciously causes the elect sinner to cooperate, to believe, to repent, to come freely and willingly to Christ. God’s grace is therefore invincible; it never fails to result tin the salvation of those to whom it is extended.

            Arminian doctrine presents the exact contrast in asserting that the Spirit’s call or conviction can be effectively rejected as a matter of the will and choice of the individual so convicted. The Spirit calls inwardly to all of those who are called outwardly by the gospel invitation.  He does all that he can to bring the sinner to salvation.  But as much as man is free, he can successfully resist the Spirit’s call and man’s free will limits the Spirit in in the application of Christ’s saving work. The Spirit cannot regenerate the sinner until he believes. Faith which is man’s contribution precedes and makes possible the new birth. Thus, man’s free will limits the Spirit in the application of Christ’s saving work.  The Holy Spirit can only draw to Christ those who will allow him to have his way with them.  God’s grace is therefore not invincible; it can be and often is resisted by man.

            As with all matters of sound doctrine we must look to the word of God for its validation and establishment.  At Acts 3:22-23 we read:” For Moses truly said  unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.  And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.” (emphasis mine).

            Moving further into the Book of Acts in chapter seven we are given Stephen’s lengthy admonition to the Jewish Sanhedrim, i.e. the elders of Israel.  Concluding his summary of their history and transgression even to the rejection of their Messiah he states at verse 51 “Ye stiff necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost, as your fathers did so do ye.” As it isclear from the passage that Stephen is speaking to the plurality of the Jewish elders, and is it not also clear that he is speaking in the power of the Spirit? So then is it not obvious that they had the opportunity to receive his words. So then it is clear that there existed not only an unwillingness to receive the word but an exercise of the will to resist it? This does not support  Calvinist doctrine.

            Let us look at two passages in Hebrews which illustrate the fallacy of irresistible grace. “For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, if they shall fall away, to renew the again to repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.”(Heb.6:4-6   emphasis mine). Does this sound like irresistible grace or is it a willful act to fall away and depart through a choice favoring sinful activity or rebellion?(again emphasis mine).

            “He that despised Moses law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: of how much sorer punishment suppose ye, shall be thought worthy, who have trodden under foot the Son of God , and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified , an unholy thing, and hath done despite (insulted-Strg. Conc.) unto the Spirit of grace.” (Heb. 10:25-26). If grace is irresistible and election is unconditional how then is it possible to fall from a place of being sanctified by the blood  and being made a partaker of the Holy Ghost and then  to do despite unto the Spirit of grace? The context of this passage is clearly addressing anyone who has come to Christ and been regenerated but subsequently has turned aside and done despite to the Holy Spirit.  The passage affirms that such a one cannot be renewed to repentance and most certainly will be subjected to the judgement of God. “The Lord shall judge his people” (verse 30). Calvinist doctrine again miserably fails in its conclusions when measured by the testimony of Scripture.

David Lance Dean                         website and blogs: authordavidlncedean.com

Confronting Calvinism's Limited Atonement

                     We have embarked upon a series of studies featuring the doctrines held by

multitudes who have embraced the teachings  of Calvinism whether in part or more or less completely? The theology has a nearly five hundred year history originating from the teaching of John Calvin and dating back to the mid-sixteenth century. It is to be noted that he was not alone in his convictions but shared them with contemporaries both at the time of his formalizing the doctrine and moving forward for literally centuries afterward. Truly the principal doctrines that emerged with the Protestant Reformation were more or less aligned with what we now understand as Calvinism. Because, as it will be seen as we progress, these theological concepts do not bear the scrutiny of scriptural examination.  They also stand in stark contrast to another much less acknowledged theological system identified as Armenianism. This writer through years of study in the Bible endorses strongly the later of these two theological opponents. In fact the apostate state of the Christian church today is a direct result of the credence given to John Calvin when he formalized his work in Institutes of the Christian Religion.

            This current discourse will be focused on a tenet of Calvinism which they would identify as limited atonement. By endorsing a doctrine of limited atonement they would assert that Christ’s redeeming work was intended to save the elect only and actually secured salvation for them.  His death was as substitutionary endurance of the penalty of sin in the place of certain specified sinners. In addition to putting away the sins of His people, Christ’s redemption secured everything necessary for their salvation, including faith which unites them to Him. The gift of faith is infallibly applied by the Spirit to all for whom Christ died, thereby guaranteeing their salvation.

         Note then from the above definition two very significant points. First that salvation was only intended to reach or apply to a selected number of elect people and was never extended for all men.   Also take note that faith is seen by them as a gift from God and not something which has any relevance to the exercise of faith by the individual. These conclusions would necessarily lead us to believe that God is a receptor of persons and his character includes neither mercy nor justice. Are we then to assent that God has caused multitudes of people to be created so that he can subject them to eternal punishment and they have no avenue for potential correction and are incapable of exercising either faith or repentance to escape His eternal wrath and judgement? How much Scripture does this render irrelevant?

            The Arminian view stands in stark opposition and complete contrast to this tenet of Calvinism. Let us examine some relevant scriptures to establish he truth and then some commentary supported by those scripture texts. At John 1:29 we read as follows: “The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world.” Paul in his first letter to Timothy writes: “For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who will have all men be saved, and come unto the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and me, the man Christ Jesus. Who gave himself a ransom for all to be testified in due time.”(I Timothy 2:3-6).The evidence against limited atonement continues in Hebrews at chapter 2 and verse 9 where we read: “For we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.” We continue the argument at II Peter 3:9 with Peter’s revelation: “The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness: but is longsuffering to us-ward not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.” And at I John 2:12 we find: “And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.”

            Summarizing from the above New Testament scriptures it becomes clear that the Calvinist doctrine of limited atonement does not stand up under an investigation of the scriptures. In fact we find that potentially the Lord’s death on the cross was sufficient for anyone and everyone who would avail themselves of its redeeming benefits through the exercise of faith and the fruit of faith which is obedience.

            Erroneous doctrines are the product of an incomplete examination of the entire scriptural record.  Biased conclusions are derived from taking scriptures out of a context which spans the entire scriptural record. Adding to or subtracting from the testimony of the entire word of God is error of the greatest consequences for it inevitably produces a distortion of truth that becomes a stumbling block to the unwary and she  uninformed. When the complete and entire body of scriptural truth is taken into account there is a reasonable and necessary purpose for the fact that the work of Christ in redemption is potentially available for every individual.  I suspect that at least some of that understanding would come when we realize that there is more than one resurrection. The eternal value of redemption goes beyond the first resurrection and the second death and will be found to extend beyond this age. I would suggest you review my March blog entitled A Better Resurrection which reaches truth beyond this age and encompasses all of the biblical record on the subject of resurrection.

David Lance Dean               Visit my website and blogs: authordavidlance dean.com

Confronting Calvinism's Unconditional Election

            This is the second of a five part series exploring the tenets of Calvinist doctrine. Since Calvinism breaks down into five major areas or points claiming to have the authority of scripture it is necessary to examine each one to arrive at a clear understanding of the truths presented in the word of God. This system of theology was prevalent after the Protestant Reformation and has had a strong and continuing influence even unto the present time. It was formalized by the writings of the theologian John Calvin in the sixteenth century. It then received confirmation through a gathering in the early seventeenth century known as the Counsel of Dort (1618-1619)lasting seven months. This gathering convened in Dort, Holland and was attended by a significant number of participants from across Europe. Also at issue were five remonstrances or objections to this theology formalized and presented by those who were proponents of Arminianism.  James Arminius had died only of few years prior to the counsel.

            The first of this series dealt with the total depravity of man doctrine held by Calvinism even to the extreme that a man had any capability to embrace God by or through his own act of the will. This is opposed directly by Arminius’s doctrine of free will. For details and related scripture you will need to refer to the previous posting. We will now move on the second assertion of Calvinism which has been described as unconditional election.

            Pure Calvinism would assert that God has made a choice in selecting out from among mankind an elect number of people according to his own sovereign will. It would deny that faith is exercised by any individual as a prerequisite to his choosing, but that his faith itself is planted in the heart of the elected person. It is not then a matter of the sinner’s choice of God but rather God’s choice of the sinner apart from any action to repent or believe on the part of the one who has been chosen. We see this doctrine manifest dramatically in dispensational theology as concerns Jewish Israel for they contend that Jews are God’s ‘chosen’ people and are thus destined at a future time to believe collectively and establish a kingdom on the earth. They must revert to scriptures in the Old Testament in an attempt to support this view for it is entirely refuted by the content of the New Testament epistles as well as the prophets including Christ.

            Before looking at scriptures bearing on the subject we need to examine the Arminian view which we will entitle conditional election. God’s choice of certain individuals unto salvation before the foundation of the world was based on His foreknowledge.  He selected or elected only those who He knew in advance would respond freely of their own will to His convicting work and calling. Election was therefore determined by what he foreknew any individual would do. The faith which is the requirement of election and salvation is not therefore a gift of God but that which is exercised as a result of free will. Let us now look at some scriptures explaining the complete contrast of these two opposing theological views.

            Peter begins his first epistle at verse two stating: ”Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ; grace be unto you , and peace be multiplied.” The verse gives us the proper sequence leading to the salvation of the soul. It begins with election but that determination being in accordance with God’s perfect foreknowledge and then leads to the process of sanctification which is seen to be the result of obedience not to the law but to the Spirit.  Each one who is consistently obedient to the Spirit experiences the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit which brings grace and peace. Grace and peace follow after and are the reward of one’s obedience.

            In the epistle to the Romans, chapter eight, we see the same order of the sanctifying work of the Spirit. “For whom he did foreknow he did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn of many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.” (vss. 29-30). The prerequisite for this work of the Spirit in any one is clearly set forth in the early portion of chapter eight, i.e. in summary it is that we learn obedience to the Spirit and walk after His directives.

            The mandate for our sanctification and conditional election are found in numerous places in Scripture. “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, pace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance against such there is no law. And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with its affections and lusts.  If we live in the Spirit let us also walk in the Spirit.”(Gal.3:22-

24). Is it not clear that the tenets of Calvinism not only run contrary to the Scripture but deny the opportunity to obtain and partake of the fruitful sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit?

David Lance Dean                    website and blog access: author davidlancedean.com

Confronting Calvinism's Total Depravity

          Having written extensively on the errors and heresies of dispensational theology, I have purposed to delve further into its roots in the concepts of Calvinism dating backinto the sixteenth century. John Calvin (1509-1564) was themost prominent and influential theologian of the second generation after the  onset ofthe Protestant Reformation. Born in France his original training was in the law. His major lifetime works were the volumes entitled Institutes of the Christian Religion. His profound effect on the development of Protestantism cannot be overestimated. The theology of Calvinism was subsequently broken down into five major points summarizing the massive writings propagating his conclusions which were spread widely over Europe. Each of his five points was subsequently challenged by Janes Arminius who was a godly Dutch professor of theology. There occurred a few years after the death of Arminius a large gathering at what became known as the Counsel of Dort convened in Holland in 1618 and lasting a period of seven months in which the major issues of these two opposing views of theology were discussed and debated. Followers of Arminius presented a series of remonstrances (objections) to each of the five points of Calvinism. The final result of this lengthy theological debate was that Calvinism was established as the standard of Christian thought and has been projected historically in one form or another for centuries in the Christian churches. Armenian thought was greatly restricted after the Counsel of Dort, but was still held by some of note including John Wesley. This reality of the prevalence of Calvinism is a centuries old impediment to the development of sound Biblical truth. We will prove the forgoing statement through an extensive search of the Scriptures concerning each of the five punts.  In each case we will present the Calvinist tenet and then arguing from the Scriptures the inherent errors represented.  We will then present commentary based on the Bible showing that James Arminius had developed a sound foundation for the emerging Protestant church which unfortunately was largely rejected and did not obtain a place of dominance.

            The first and basic tenet of Calvinism is that of total depravity. Adherents of the doctrine would say that because of the fall and the original sin of Adam, man is totally unable of himself to savingly believe the gospel. The sinner is dead, blind and deaf to the things of God. His will is not free, but is in bondage to his evil nature; therefore he will not—indeed cannot choose good over evil. It takes much more than the Spirit’s assistance to bring him to Christ.  It takes a gift of enablement sovereignly bestowed and the man has nothing to contribute.

            Armenian doctrine would contest this view adamantly by asserting while agreeing that man’s nature has been corrupted completely and he has become sinful, fallen and separated from God. This condition has not, however, deprived him of his free will. God graciously enables a sinner to repent.  The sinner can respond to the Spirit’s conviction upon his conscience and he can exercise the act of repentance. He is able to believe and exercise faith unto regeneration.

            Having outlined these two opposing views it will be necessary to find out what the Scriptures say. Early in the gospel of Matthew we find the words of John the Baptist speaking to the Pharisees and the Seduces “ O generation of vipers who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance.” (Matthew 3:8-9). Is it not clear that these sinners could in fact repent?

            At John 7:17 Jesus says: “If any man will do his will, he shall know the doctrine, whether it be of God or whether I speak of myself. One can then respond

to the ministry of the word  assenting in his will to align himself with the will of God and thus to know that which has been communicated to him.

            “And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now comandeth all men everywhere to repent.” ( Acts 7:30) Notice that it is all men everywhere.

            “And showed first unto them of Damascus, and Jerusalem, and throughout the coasts of Judea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.” (Acts 26:20).

            “Wherefore as the Holy Ghost saith, Today if you hear his voice harden not your hearts…”(Heb.3:7).  When the Holy Spirit speaks we not only can but must respond.

            “And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And him that heareth say, come. And him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take of the water of life freely.” (Rev. 22:17).

            There are many other like scriptures in both the New and the old testaments which make it clear that man’s will is free to choose, and although he is certainly lost in trespasses and sin God has made available forgiveness and ultimately the possibility of salvation.

            “Now the Spirit speaks expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared  with a hot iron.” (I Timothy 4:1=2). It is sad to say that the modern day church has largely come to this state.

David Lance Dean             Visit my website and blogs at: authordavidlancedean.com