September 1, 2024
The root of the tree, which we call Calvinism, depends on the meanings of 1) the sovereignty of God, and 2) Original Sin.
Sovereignty of God according to Calvinists
According to most Calvinists, God’s sovereignty means His comprehensive and detailed control over everything in the universe. This includes His specific, exhaustive, and meticulous micromanagement of every person’s thoughts, desires, emotions, will, actions, and choices. This is what they mean when they talk about God’s sovereignty.
By the way, this idea of determinism (no free will or a necessitated will) is very similar to the Ash’arite Muslim theology, which dominates the Sunni Muslim world, according to author Robert R. Riley in his book The Closing of the Muslim Mind-How Intellectual Suicide Created the Modern Islamist Crisis. “Ash’arite theology, reflected in Sunni Orthodoxy, does not embrace causality. There is no cause and effect because the will of Allah is the explanation for everything (voluntarism). Man doesn’t have free will. This Muslim view is an atomistic view of the will of Allah and his sovereignty. Everything is miraculous or supernatural, as there are no natural laws or secondary causes at work. Allah wills (creates, destroys, creates, destroys, and so on) everything moment by moment, instant by instant”. (Excerpts from my third article on Islam).
There is no doubt that Islam borrowed several ideas for the Qur’an from Roman Catholic theology and practice. It would be interesting to understand how the emerging Roman Catholic Church and one of its fathers, Augustine, and his pagan deterministic theology influenced the development of Islam. Dr. Jay Smith is an excellent resource on all things Islam. Check him out if you’re interested in learning more about the truth regarding Islam and the Qur’an.
Original Sin
The other fundamental belief of Calvinism is that Adam’s original sin completely corrupted all of Adam’s descendants. People are born with a totally depraved nature in body, mind, and spirit. They are born sinners who can do nothing but sin. Human beings lack the free will to choose good; they can only choose evil. They are incapable of doing any good (total inability), including believing in Jesus Christ or repenting on their own.
Most Calvinists, as far as I know, also believe that Adam’s children are born guilty of his sin.
Calvinism
From these two foundational beliefs, all five points of Calvinism are derived. These five tenets are: Total Depravity (or Total Inability), Unconditional election/salvation, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, and Preservation/Perseverance (TULIP). Some add S to TULIP = STULIP in reference to Sovereignty. (See my articles on Augustine, Parts 1 and 2, or my book, When Lies Become Truth, for more detailed information.)
Predestination and election
If these two Calvinist beliefs are Biblically true, then it follows that God alone determines who will be saved and who will not. This is called predestination or election, according to Calvinists. (There are some differences between the two, but these terms are often used interchangeably.) The elect are compelled—against their will (they deny this, but it remains true)—to become part of God’s family by His choice or decree and through irresistible grace. They remain in faith until the end by the same irresistible grace. The atonement of Christ is limited to saving those who are predestined and elected to heaven, not the rest of humanity. God loves only the elect, or the few chosen. The rest of humanity is sent to hell for eternity of torment to glorify Himself. God does not love the non-elect.
If Calvinism is wrong, then what is God’s sovereignty?
The simple idea is that God, as the creator of the universe, owns everything in it and can do with it as He pleases. He is in complete and total control. Just about all Christians would agree with this definition of sovereignty.
The problem enters into the discussion regarding what complete and total control actually looks like. It basically boils down to two options: 1) God controls everything by causing it directly, or 2) God delegates causation to men and women but with limits. To some of us, that means God, as the one and only supreme Sovereign in the universe, has determined to delegate to men and women a real free will and ability. God’s will is to give men and women sovereignty over most of their choices, especially their moral decisions. They can choose to accept God or reject Him. God is in overall control, and mankind has limited sovereignty, all of which is under God’s discretion. Examples of limitations would be, man can’t create new kinds of animals out of nothing. Mankind can’t travel at the speed of light. Men and women can’t will their own immortality. However, when it comes to making moral choices, men and women have the freedom of the will and the natural ability to choose either what God commands or what they want, even if it goes against God’s laws. This is God’s sovereign plan, and He is in control of it. This is His will.
The will of God
The will of God is multi-dimensional. God is one, and His will is one. Some of the dimensions of God’s will are: 1) It is God’s will to permit sin even though He hates it and commands us not to sin. 2) It is God’s will that every person come to a knowledge of Jesus Christ and that no one perish. Salvation for all people is what God desires (His will) for us, but He allows us to choose whether we want it. 3) Another dimension of God’s will is what He plans to do without any person’s approval or cooperation. For example, someday Jesus Christ will return, and everyone will stand before God to be judged. No one can opt out. It is God’s required or mandatory will. We see all these dimensions of God’s will in scripture.
Why did God create men and women with free will?
I believe that God created us so that we would freely and voluntarily love Him, and He would love us. Real love is voluntary, and that is why God chose to give humanity free will, or the ability to make choices. Commanding and then forcing involuntary obedience and love make humanity robotic. Robots can’t love, worship, and praise God in any way that brings delight, pleasure, and joy to the heart of God.
The love of God is also multi-dimensional
We often hear that God’s love is unconditional. While that is partly true, it is also true that God’s salvific love is conditional. God’s salvific love depends on our response, whereas God’s general benevolent love is unconditional. The benevolent love of God is given to all people, even those who hate Him. To participate in the love of God that leads to salvation, we must repent of our sins and believe in Jesus Christ. God is love, and His love is both conditional and unconditional.
More on the Calvinist’s understanding of God’s sovereignty
Unfortunately, Calvinists who adhere to the five points of Calvinism take this definition of sovereignty and expand it to include the idea that God’s control (His sovereignty) encompasses direct and meticulous oversight over absolutely everything that occurs in the universe and within the lives He created, including human beings. God causes everything, both good and bad. Why do they do that? One reason is that if God doesn’t direct and will everything, then how can it be said He is sovereign and in control? Another reason might be because they believe human beings are born sinners with a totally depraved nature and can’t do anything at all to save themselves, a total inability. Therefore, God wills or causes everything to happen. God causes a few people to be saved and go to heaven. The many others God sends to hell. God meticulously and exhaustively controls all the good and evil in the universe. He is the author of it all, all evil and all good. That includes sin and all forms of evil. It includes natural evil (hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, fire, volcanoes, and so on) and all moral evil (fornication, adultery, homosexuality, baby killing, lying, gossip, murder, idolatry, theft, and so on).
It should be noted that not every Calvinist believes exactly the same thing or explains everything in exactly the same way. Just like in any group, there are many variations. For example, some people I would call Calvinists do not call themselves Calvinists. They prefer other names, such as Reformed. But not all Reformers were Calvinists. Dr. Flowers stated that Philip Melanchthon, a friend of Luther, was one such reformer and not a Calvinist. Some Calvinists may not agree with the teaching that babies are born guilty of Adam’s sin, while others do. Some may allow for some variation from complete and total determinism. Some Calvinists may dislike the term “determinism” and prefer to be called by another name. James White prefers being called someone who believes in God’s decrees, a decretalist.
Calvinists today that you may know of
Calvinism has lots of adherents today. By some accounts, it is growing. For more details on the origins of Calvinism, please refer to my two articles on Augustine. Augustine inspired Luther, Calvin, and many other Reformers. Today, we think of men such as John MacArthur, R. C. Sproul, Voddie Baucham, Gregory Beale, Alistair Begg, D. A. Carson, Kevin DeYoung, Tim Keller, Albert Mohler, Paul Washer, Douglas Wilson, James White, John Piper, and many others who are well-known Calvinists.
But did you know that there are a number of individuals, including theologians, who have left Calvinism? They no longer call themselves Calvinists. However, that doesn’t necessarily mean they have rejected all five points of Calvinism.
To be a full-fledged Calvinist, someone must believe in all five points of Calvinism. However, some only accept some of these five points.
Can someone believe in a few of Calvinism’s tenets and not be considered a Calvinist? Don’t all five tenets fit together to form a single logical system, with each supporting the others? Is it really possible to reject only some of these tenets while maintaining a consistent and logical system?
There are a number of former Calvinists who have purportedly rejected all of Calvinism but appear to still embrace at least one or more of its tenets. Can a believer reject Calvinism yet hold to some of the tenets and not be a Calvinist? If not a Calvinist, then what are they?
Provisionism
A few ministries and individuals that I looked into are:
- Beyond the Fundamentals, a YouTube Channel, hosted by Kevin;
- Faith on Fire, YouTube channel, hosted by Brian;
- YouTube channel, Examining Calvinism hosted by Richard Coards;
- YouTube channel, Idol Killer, hosted by Warren McGrew;
- Author, Laurence M. Vance, who wrote a 600-700 page book on Calvinism titled, The Other Side of Calvinism;
- and Dr. Leighton Flowers and his website, Soteriology 101.
There are others, but these are the ones with which I am most familiar. These folks no longer consider themselves Calvinists for a variety of excellent reasons. Some of them consider themselves to be,
Provisionists
Provisionism (a relatively new term) is the belief that God ‘provides’ salvation for all of humanity (not just the few elect) conditioned on our faith. (See Dr. Flowers ‘ website, Soteriology101, for the acrostic, Provides. He explains what each letter represents. The “e” most definitely means Eternal Security.) However, unlike Arminianism, maybe all of them believe in the doctrine of eternal security, which seems to me to be at least one tenet of Calvinism. How is that to be explained and understood?
Are the doctrines of Eternal Security and the Calvinistic doctrine of the Preservation of the Saints identical?
What I find strange and somewhat confusing is that these theologians recognize the errors in the other four points of Augustinian Calvinism but still hold to the fifth point, which is the perseverance or preservation of the saints. Some theologians equate that with the doctrine of eternal security.
Are eternal security and perseverance the same? I know they aren’t exactly the same, but they are similar.
Are Provisionists really just Calvinists who reject a bit of Calvinism?
This article will explore the differences and similarities between them. I aim to explain how these former Calvinists have reintroduced Calvinistic beliefs—such as determinism, inability, no free will, and irresistible grace—into their doctrine of eternal security. In my view, they are actually closer to four-point Calvinists than one-point Calvinists. They claim to have rejected all of Calvinism, but upon closer inspection, I don’t believe that’s accurate. Is it possible that to truly reject Calvinism, all of it must be completely repudiated? That’s my position. I reject all five points of Calvinism because I find all of them unreasonable, irrational, and unbiblical.
What follows is an excerpt from my book titled “When Lies Become Truth.” This excerpt briefly recaps Calvinism’s T.U.L.I.P. and introduces Chapter one, which covers the first and most important doctrine of Calvinism: Total Depravity/Total Inability. The “T” in TULIP stands for Total Depravity. In my book, I examined the views of John MacArthur, Charles Ryrie, and R. C. Sproul regarding Total Depravity. If we are totally depraved as they define it, we are incapable of obedience, belief in Jesus Christ, and repentance.
“This is an excerpt titled: R. C. Sproul
The title of chapter two of his (Sproul) book is, “We are incapable of obedience: Augustine.” Brother Sproul, along with many others, thinks very highly of Augustine. Luther and Calvin were greatly influenced by the works of Augustine. “Augustine is generally regarded as the greatest theologian of the first millennium of Christian history, if not all time.”[1] Wow, that’s quite an endorsement. I will give you the opportunity to decide if you agree with his statement. I disagree that he is the greatest theologian of the first millennium, if not all time. However, I do believe he was probably a good man and a genuine Christian. I am very content with leaving the final judgment regarding Augustine to the Wonderful Judge of the universe. However, be very careful when you are told how great some person (not including the writers of the Bible) is, because it’s very natural to drop your guard and simply believe what they believed. As the author states, Augustine is possibly the greatest theologian of all time, so who dares disagree with the greatest?
From the title, it’s apparent that Augustine believed we are not capable of obedience to the law of God. Am I now disagreeing with possibly the greatest theologian of all time? Who am I to disagree with such a great and good man? Am I the only one who disagrees with Augustine? Are there others who disagree with what he taught?[2] Some theologians believe Augustine was wrong in several of his teachings on critically important subjects. Only the writers of the Bible were inspired by God and wrote, without error, the truth. All other writers, including Augustine and I, are prone to error. There is a mixture in every other person’s work. There was an error in his, and I am sure there is a mine. I am attempting to avoid error, and I am sure Augustine was as well. Let’s not put our hope of eternal life in any man or woman and their interpretations of the Word of God.
I aim to summarize Augustine’s teachings on the subject of inability in this section and expand on them in chapter two, where I will discuss free will. Augustine believed Adam possessed the ability to obey God. Adam was truly free in that he could choose to obey or not to obey. Sproul then quotes Augustine in his book, The City of God, “the will, therefore, is then truly free, when it is not the slave of vices and sins. Such was it given us by God; and this being lost by its own fault, can only be restored by Him who was able at first to give it.”[3]
According to Augustine, the ability to obey was lost when Adam sinned. This is original sin. It not only affected Adam, but it also affected all humanity after him in the same way. Adam and all humanity lost the ability to obey God. We lost free will like Adam possessed before he sinned. After the fall or after original sin, humanity could only do evil and nothing good. The inability to do anything good includes believing or trusting God, of which humanity is now incapable as a result of original sin. For mankind to regain this ability to will and choose good, the grace of God must operate in such a way as to change this involuntary inability into involuntary ability without mankind lifting so much as a finger to cooperate. It’s all of God because mankind cannot help themselves, not even a little bit. Augustine, Luther, and Calvin, along with other Reformers, developed this line of thinking into a theological system, with each premise building on another in a logical system referred to today as Calvinism. Just like in any system not everyone agrees on all points. The basic teachings are these.[4]
- Total Depravity. Fallen man, in his natural state, lacks all ability to believe the gospel and obey the law. Mankind can’t participate in redemption. Salvation is unconditional.
- Unconditional election/salvation. God’s election is a sovereign and unconditional choice of some, not all, sinners to be saved by Christ, given faith, and brought to glory. Man contributes nothing to it at all. God chooses to save the elect. The atonement is limited to just the elect.
- Limited atonement. The redeeming work of Christ on the cross saves only the elect. The non-elect are passed by or damned because the sovereign decree of God does not save them. Christ died for only the ones He chose to save, apart from anything they might do or say. Christ brings the elect to Himself by the force of grace.
- Irresistible grace. The work of the Holy Spirit in bringing a few, when He could have just as easily chosen all, souls to faith in Jesus never fails. The elect will be saved without their prior permission or consent and will be made to desire salvation. The grace of Christ never fails to bring the elect to initial and final salvation. Final particular perseverance or preservation is decreed for all elected believers.
- Perseverance/Preservation. Believers are kept in faith and grace by the raw, irresistible power of God. Sin and unbelief in the believer no longer damn the soul, while it does in the unbeliever.
Add to these five beliefs the concept of imputed obedience to round out the system and complete the unit. It all goes together very well. Each thought builds on the other. They all tie together and form a whole logical system. Currently, I am primarily concerned with the first point, Total Depravity, as it impacts the discussion regarding the ability to obey the law. If we are totally depraved and unable to do anything good by ourselves, even believe, then Augustine is right-we are incapable of obedience. If, however, we are not totally depraved, as defined above, then the first point is wrong and the Calvinistic theological foundation has a serious structural defect.
Augustine believed that we not only lost the ability to obey God in the fall of Adam, but we too are guilty of Adam’s sin. Babies are conceived and born condemned and on the way to hell. Enter the Roman Catholic doctrine of infant baptismal regeneration. Augustine believed that infant baptism removed the guilt of Adam’s sin but not the corruption of our natures. In other words, with baptism we are freed from the guilt of Adam, but still are sinners by natural generation, only capable of sinning. We can’t obey God. We are unable to believe in God and follow Him, yet we are forgiven. Even though Adam’s guilt is removed in baptism, we sin unavoidably and are again guilty by the rules of physical law, I suppose. At the macro level, our choices are predetermined, and they are always sinful. At the micro level, we may have some liberty to choose the types of evil we will practice. Some theologians would even disagree with that statement because they do not believe that we have the kind of free will Adam had before he sinned. God determines whatsoever comes to pass.
Have you ever wondered why theologians created the dogma of infant baptismal regeneration? To the best of my knowledge, you will not find this doctrine or practice in the Bible. If you start with the assumption that babies are born condemned to hell for Adam’s sin, how does God appear just? Without this doctrine, God is made to look unjust in sending babies to hell. Apparently, that is why this doctrine was created out of what appears to be thin air. God made a way for babies to have the guilt of Adam’s sin removed if parents meet the condition of baptism. If parents neglect infant baptism, then it’s their fault, not God’s, if their baby goes to limbo. But this does not succeed in removing the implication that God is unjust. Let’s assume for a moment that Augustine was correct, infant baptism removes the guilt of Adam’s sin. The reason God still appears to be unjust is that we all sin because we were born sinners who can do nothing but sin. So infant baptism removes the initial guilt of Adam, but we involuntarily and unavoidably sin and are again guilty of an eternal sin, and on our way to hell. Infant baptism raises the question of God’s justice one step further.
This is what Augustine believed. Mr. Sproul believes he may be the greatest theologian of all time.[5] I don’t know how much Augustine loved God, but I assume he loved God with all his heart, soul, mind, and strength. I do not question his personal integrity, but I do question his ideas. Is that okay? Are you not doing the same thing to me right now? The idea that we are guilty of Adam’s sin is untrue in my estimation. The idea that babies are born condemned for another person’s sin is utterly ridiculous and violates any rational concept of justice and love, as far as I am concerned. It also contradicts the Bible. Seriously, doesn’t this notion dishonor God?
Augustine assumes that when Adam sinned, he lost the ability to obey God in total. Now, what is the justification for this view? Where is it taught that Adam lost the ability to obey God when he sinned? Where is it taught that humanity lost the ability along with Adam? In Genesis chapter 3, God explains the consequences of the fall, and nowhere is it indicated in any way, shape, or form that a consequence of the first sin was this supposed inability to obey. If you don’t believe me, please open a Bible and read it for yourself.” (end of excerpt)
Calvinism and Eternal Security
This article will focus on the last point, the perseverance or preservation of the saints. How is that similar to and different from the doctrine of eternal security that many former Calvinists still believe in?
Men like Charles Stanley, Charles Ryrie, John MacArthur, Laurence M. Vance, Leighton Flowers, and many others believe in eternal security, and two of these guys claim they are no longer Calvinists. Some are outspoken critics of Calvinism, even calling it a different gospel, a different Jesus, and a heresy. How can someone reject the tenets of Calvinism and hold firmly to one point of Calvinism at the same time? Isn’t the doctrine of eternal security or once saved always saved the same as the Calvinistic doctrine of the perseverance of the saints? The answer is that they are not identical but closely related in a few important ways.
Eternal Security
This is the belief that once a person has faith in Jesus Christ, they can never lose their salvation. The only condition we need to meet to receive salvation is belief in Jesus Christ. Some of these individuals do not believe that repentance from sin is a requirement for salvation or even a necessary result of salvation. I believe the Word of God states that both repentance and faith are conditions of and outcomes of salvation.
Provisionists believe that all people are given the opportunity of meeting this one condition of salvation, which is faith in Jesus Christ. That, by definition, means the grace of God is resistible. Many people reject Christ and His grace all on their own or of their own free will. That is unlike 5-point Calvinism, where the grace of God is irresistible from initial salvation to final salvation.
The problem with eternal security is that when we stop resisting the truth and grace of God and we meet the condition of faith to be saved, God’s resistible grace instantly becomes irresistible. Before salvation, grace is resistible, but after salvation, it is irresistible (that is, Calvinism). That seems very inconsistent.
Eternal Security means that a Christian can never be lost or separated from their relationship with God. Once a person believes in Christ, the grace of God becomes irresistible. In other words, we have free will and the ability to enter into faith in Christ, but we lose our free will and ability (that is, Calvinism) once we are saved, if eternal security is true. Once we are in, we can’t get out, even if we want out. That makes no sense, nor is it Biblical.
Calvinism’s Perseverance/Preservation, the P in TULIP
In five-point Calvinism, no person is able (inability) to believe the gospel or obey the law, which commands us to believe and be holy. God is the sole cause of a person’s salvation. There are no conditions that we can meet to be saved because we are totally unable to meet any conditions, even repentance and belief in Jesus. You and I are either one of the elect or we are not, and we will never be. The choice is God’s alone.
Obviously, if God determined or elected to save someone before the foundation of the world, that person will be saved and made to want to be saved by the raw, irresistible power of God. Their final salvation was already predetermined at the time of their election, which was decreed by God in eternity. They are eternally secure, not based on their own choice or works, but exclusively on God’s choice. Salvation can’t be lost, because election can’t be lost, and God’s decrees cannot be undone.
So, what exactly is the difference between eternal security and the fifth point in Calvinism-perseverance/preservation?
The Calvinist asserts that it is monergism, meaning that God alone is the cause of both initial and final salvation. God chooses who will and who will not be saved. Salvation is unconditional. Mankind has no ability to believe, repent, or respond to the offer of God’s salvation. Man doesn’t have free will. Some Calvinists would, of course, object to that statement, but it remains true nonetheless. Their redefined ‘free will’ is an enslaved free will or a non-free, free will, that can only choose sin. It can’t choose God, righteousness, or faith. It is in no sense free will as Augustine first defined free will. (See chapter two of my book, When Lies Become Truth, for a lengthy discussion of free will.)
Believers in eternal security, who may not be Calvinists and may even reject Calvinism, would say that eternal security only accrues to the one who uses their free will and ability and believes in and trusts Christ to save them. (Dr. James White states that he has never advocated for the “once saved, always saved” doctrine based on a momentary act of faith. As a Calvinist, Mr. White believes that a Calvinist’s expression of faith, if it is real, is a result of election and not a free choice on our part.)
Believers in Christ can never lose their salvation, even if they openly reject Christ at a future time. They are saved whether they continue to want to be saved or not. Some might say that the person who continues to live in open sin or walks away from God was never born again to begin with. In some cases, that may be true, but not in all cases of apostasy. Many Christians have walked away from genuine faith in Christ.
Do Christians lose free will and ability once they are saved?
Believers in eternal security never seem to think about the fact that they must exercise their free will/ability and believe in and trust Jesus Christ to be saved. And once they do, they lose their free will/ability and can never walk away from Christ, never stop trusting Christ, and never be unsaved or lost. This is the ‘T’ in TULIP. The first tenet of Calvinism is Total Depravity, also known as Total Inability. But now it is the inability to reject Christ, whereas it was initially the inability to accept Christ. In either case, it is an inability, which is a tenet of Calvinism and determinism.
That is exactly what Calvinists teach and believe, with one exception. Calvinists believe God chooses the individual, while those who believe in Eternal Security believe that the individual chooses God. Then once that choice is made, it can never be undone. That makes no sense at all. We all actually know that is not and can’t be true.
Provisionists appear to be 3- or 4-point Calvinists.
Inability, unconditional election/salvation, and irresistible grace are clearly tenets of Calvinism. It seems to me that these former Calvinists are not just one-point Calvinists but actually three or four-point Calvinists, all things considered. It appears that the only thing they completely disagree with is the limited atonement. Unlike a five-point Calvinist, who believes the atonement is limited to the elect, they believe the atonement is for all people, not just the elect few.
The YouTube site “Got Questions” states that eternal security and perseverance are essentially the same thing. The author of this YouTube site is a strong believer in eternal security.
Perseverance is founded on the Calvinist doctrine of unconditional election. God predestines some to eternal life; therefore, they are guaranteed to be preserved and go to heaven. Eternal security is not based on an unconditional decree of God. It is based on an individual’s decision to believe in Jesus Christ. It is based on the promise of Jesus to all those who will trust Him for salvation.
The real test to determine who is and who is not born again
Perseverance means that people who fall into error, sin, or unbelief were never elected to begin with because they fell away. Eternal Security means that a single act of faith in Jesus Christ brings salvation or eternal life that can never be lost, even if that person walks away from the faith for all practical purposes. The damnable concept of Carnal Christianity was birthed in this system called Calvinism and eternal security. Both groups believe that the saved may actually live in habitual sin and still go to heaven. I do not believe for a minute that the Bible actually teaches any such thing. It teaches the exact opposite. For the one truly born again by the Holy Ghost, sin becomes the exception and not the rule in their life. As Paul says in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, “and such were some of you.” He did not say that some of you still are living in sin.
Sanctification
Calvinists believe that sanctification is also unconditional. Since they are elect, they will never fall into major sin or unbelief in this life but will persevere in faith and good works until death. However, most also believe that believers in Christ sin in thought, word, and deed every day. Recent examples of popular full Calvinists falling into major sin (adultery) challenge this idea. Go figure. This theology is hard to understand.
Believers in eternal security see sanctification as conditional. Believers must choose to walk in righteousness and good works. They must grow in the grace and knowledge of Jesus Christ. But if the person does not repent of sin, walk in righteousness, and perform good works, they are still saved. No wonder the church is full of unsaved hypocrites. No wonder the institutional evangelical church is so ineffective and unattractive.
Assurance of Salvation
The Calvinist doctrine of Perseverance does not provide assurance of salvation because a person does not know if they will, in fact, stay the course until death. Like Solomon, they may fall away at the end of their life. In eternal security, the assurance of salvation is the essence of saving faith. Repentance from sin is not the issue; trusting that Christ paid for your sins is the issue, and believing in the promise of Jesus Christ to save you is the issue. The truth is that believing in eternal security will not provide anyone with assurance of salvation if they are living in unrepentant sin. God, through the Holy Ghost, will make sure of that.
Conclusion
All five points of Calvinism must be rejected because it is unbiblical, irrational, and unreasonable. Eternal Security and the Perseverance of the saints are almost identical except for one minor point, a temporary free will, which is lost once a person believes.
In Chapter Seven of my book, which I have already mentioned, there is a whole chapter on Eternal Security. I used a book written by Charles Stanley titled “Eternal Security” and refuted his misuse of scripture, logic, and reason, point by point. The false doctrine of eternal security has led many to hell, in my not highly regarded opinion. At one time, I was a strong believer in eternal security.
What is the origin of Original Sin and Adam’s sin and guilt being transferred to Adam’s posterity?
Some of these former Calvinists also reject Augustine’s teaching that babies are born guilty of Adam’s sin and that humanity is totally depraved in the whole person. According to Dr. Ken Wilson, Augustine was the first patristic writer to associate Adam’s guilt with the birth of a child and the concept of infant baptismal regeneration. Dr. Wilson states that Augustine brought this into Christianity from pagan influences in his earlier days. Early in his writings as a Christian, Augustine believed in the traditional view of man’s free will in cooperating with God in salvation. The traditional view had been around for about 400 years before Augustine and his supporters changed the orthodoxy. Augustine wrote against the pagan philosophies of determinism, as found in Gnosticism, Stoicism, Neoplatonism, and Manichaeism. In 412, Augustine was converted back to these pagan ideas, and the result is the Augustinian-Calvinistic theology of today, which is the same determinism that he once rejected.
Mr. Flowers showed a video of a young woman who recently left the Calvinism taught by John MacArthur. Her name is Alana Lagares, and she has her own YouTube channel. Check it out if you’re interested. She was a disciple of MacArthur for around twenty years, I believe. In the video clip shown by Flowers, Pastor John suggested that she keep quiet and say nothing because he is the expert and not her. Anyone who claims to be the final authority—the scholar, the expert—must be watched closely. Never take my word as the final authority. The Holy Ghost is the ultimate authority, and I am happy to open all my beliefs for anyone who wants to examine them.
As mentioned, some former Calvinists also reject the idea that we are born with total depravity as defined by Augustine and his successors, because they acknowledge that we can believe in Christ and it is our responsibility to do so. Unfortunately, they also believe we inherit not a totally depraved sin nature from Adam, but a bent toward sin as a result of Original Sin.
Was Adam created with either a totally depraved sin nature or a bent toward sin? Was Jesus born with a sin nature or bent toward sin? If not, then He doesn’t know what it is like to be tempted as we are, as the Bible plainly teaches. Did Adam, Eve, and Satan have a sin nature or bent toward sin before they sinned? Of course not. (See appendix two of my book on the myth of Original Sin.). Some Calvinists will immediately reject anyone who states that they do not believe in Augustine’s theory of Original Sin, as a Pelagian and a heretic. They appear to be unable to answer the objections; therefore, they dismiss the messenger. They do that by calling them derogatory names.
The word of God in 1 Corinthians 10:13 says that God will not allow us to be tempted beyond what we can bear. The idea of inability is repudiated. The idea that we are born with a bent toward sin or a sin nature is a clear contradiction to that scripture.
I believe the truth of scripture is that we are not born with a totally depraved sin nature that can only sin. I also believe that we are born neutral and must choose, when we reach the age of accountability, and afterwards, whether we will obey God or sin in the selfish gratification of our lusts.
Temptation is a word without meaning if Calvinism is true.
Moreover, I believe that everyone succumbs to temptation voluntarily. We voluntarily recapitulate Adam’s choice. That truth, unlike the Augustinian Calvinistic doctrines, places all the blame on humanity and none of it on God. For if Augustinian Calvinism is true, then God is the cause of sin and evil in us and the universe. Temptation by the devil becomes unnecessary and a word without a definition. Calvinism is not biblically true, and lust-temptation are sufficient explanations for sin in Satan, Adam, and ourselves. A totally depraved nature is not necessary to explain sin in us.
Calvinists’ most significant objection to conditional salvation.
For the Calvinist, if mankind contributes anything at all to his own salvation, that means 1) he partially earns salvation, and 2) God doesn’t get all the credit because man gets some of the credit, and 3) man will boast about saving himself.
They are, of course, mistaken on all three counts. Meeting the conditions of salvation, such as repentance from sin and faith in Jesus Christ, does not earn any part of salvation, but they are reasonable and necessary conditions. All sins against God are capital offenses. Once a person sins personally, they can never earn salvation. Their capital crime must be dealt with, and they have nothing to offer God to offset or pay for this horrible crime.
Christ, by His vicarious suffering and sacrifice on the cross, tasted death for every sinning man and woman. The atonement of Christ makes forgiveness and salvation possible to capital offenders. Repentance and faith are two conditions of being reconciled to God. These conditions of salvation are the “that not without which.” The conditions of salvation are not the procuring cause of salvation. The “that for the sake of which” is the procuring cause of salvation, which is the love of God toward sinners. All the credit, glory, and honor belong to God, who is the procuring cause of our salvation. The repentant have nothing at all to boast about. They know they are saved by grace through faith and not of themselves.
Calvinism is a logical system, but it is a severely flawed Biblical theology. It paints a demonic caricature of the one true God. Eternal Security closely aligns with most of the five central tenets of Calvinism. I agree with John Wesley, Charles G. Finney, and others that these doctrines have caused countless souls to go to hell. The good news is that a person can reject all this nonsense and find God through a Biblical theology that makes sense and does not portray God as worse than the devil.
[1] R .C. Sproul, Willing to Believe, The Controversy Over Free Will,1997, Published by Baker Books a Division of Baker Book House Company,p.50.
[2] Consider the following as examples. “Professor Seeberg, a doctrinal historian friendly to Augustine said there was a “multitude of inconsistencies and self-contradictory tendencies in his teaching.” Other historians agree with Professor Seeberg’s opinion of Augustine’s self-contradictory tendencies his teachings…Dr. K. R. Hagenbach in his “A History of Christian Doctrines” wrote in volume 1, page 429-430, “but the doctrine in question (Augustine’s predestination) became to many a stone of stumbling which orthodox theologians themselves, specially, those of the Greek Church, endeavored by every possible means to remove.”…The noted professor of church history, Adolph Harnack, of Berlin (1851-1930) wrote, “Augustine contradicted himself…(p.217). His doctrinal teachings were a “bundle of inconsistencies and extremely questionable ideas” (p.209). His doctrinal teaching was “an impious and foolish dogma” (p.217). Augustine’s contradictions were enormous” (p.220). All of these quotes are taken from “If Ye Continue, Guy Duty, A Study of the Conditional Aspects of Salvation, Bethany House Publishers, A Division of Bethany Fellowship, Inc.pp.157-158. See Appendix 2 for a fuller treatment of the dogma of Original Sin.
[3] R. C. Sproul, Willing to Believe, p52.
[4] A good case can be made that the primitive church, before Augustine, almost universally rejected these ideas especially particular unconditional election, reprobation and original sin.
[5] Be careful when any man is elevated to such a high position. It can lead to blindness.
