October 30, 2025

Introduction

It is common to hear Calvinists complain that those who critique the errors of their theological system do not understand Calvinism. What they mean is that critics do not understand their particular nuanced version of Calvinism. Granted, there are probably those who criticize Calvinism because they do not understand it. But I think that many do understand it, and that is precisely why they are so critical of it.

Do all Calvinists adopt 100% of the Westminster Confession of Faith? Of course not. This is no different than Roman Catholics, who often find themselves at odds with specific teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. They still consider themselves Roman Catholic, despite disagreeing with particular teachings.

Gavin Ortlund, PhD from Fuller Theological School, is a pastor, author, speaker, and Christian apologist. He has a very active ministry on YouTube and is such a likable man that it is hard to disagree with him. He is just one example of many that might be quoted. In a video titled “Calvinism Isn’t Crazy!”, he attempted to justify Calvinism’s Compatibilism. He firmly believes that Compatibilism is reasonable and Biblical. He tries to explain that position with arguments that convey ‘yes and no’ simultaneously. Jesus said, Let your yes be yes, and not yes and no at the same time. Gavin claims that it is reasonable and Biblical to claim that God exercises sovereignty (exhaustive, meticulous, and effectual control of everything that happens, both good and bad) and, at the same time, humans are responsible for their own sin. He says we sin because we desire to sin, but neglects to mention that God is sovereign over our desires and actions both. All this in an effort to refute the critique that the God of Augustinian Calvinism is the author of sin and evil in the universe if Calvinism is true. It is plainly absurd, and I mean no disrespect, that if the Calvinist view of God’s sovereignty is accurate, then God is the author of all evil and that humanity is innocent of personal guilt. If Calvinism is true, then personal sin is impossible. No moral being is responsible for breaking a law they are unable to keep. And if exhaustive determinism is true, then lawbreakers are simply doing the will of God. They should be congratulated, not condemned.

Mike Winger runs another well-known Calvinist YouTube site called BibleThinker. He is an apologist and teacher. He is also a very likable man, who is hard to disagree with. He doesn’t identify as a strict Calvinist, yet he holds to certain distinctives, such as Penal Substitutionary Atonement, monergism, and the doctrine of depravity. What he rejects about Calvinism are ideas such as total depravity and absolute monergism, since he sees that human response plays a role; he also rejects the absolute notion of limited atonement. He holds that humans can, in some sense, reject grace, so it is resistible.

I think he also believes in eternal security or something close to it. However, he doesn’t fully accept or reject it, which troubles me. In my opinion, nothing could be clearer than that salvation is conditional. Why can’t he be dogmatic about it? Is he trying to appease both sides at the same time? Is he more interested in growing his YouTube subscribers than telling the whole truth? I am left wondering.

Years ago, I attended a holiness church and inquired about the Pastor’s view on eternal security. He told me he didn’t know the correct answer and didn’t have an opinion. The fact that a pastor of a large church, which identified as a holiness church, could not have an opinion on such an important issue told me all I needed to know about whether this would be our church home, which it wasn’t.

In a Facebook post, Mike claims to be a Calvinist, but he doesn’t accept all they teach. He denies that God is the source of evil and claims Calvinism doesn’t teach that, which is not true, for some hyper Calvinists do indeed claim that. His version of Calvinism may not embrace it, but others do. Could it be that he doesn’t understand Calvinism?

Another refuge for the Calvinist, which they eventually run to, is the idea of mystery. The tough things to understand and accept, they claim, are wrapped up in the mystery of God. Some things are mysterious, I agree. But Calvinism and its propositions are no mystery. Contradictions are not mysterious. Their ideas about God are in many ways blasphemous and not mysterious. What is frightening is that the many apologists for Calvinism can’t seem to break out of the darkness in which they have entrapped themselves. These otherwise bright individuals, who are sometimes logical, rational, and even reasonable, embrace ideas that are neither logical nor reasonable, nor biblical. Now that is the mystery of Calvinism, in my not highly regarded opinion. But there is no mystery in the character of God, which is holy, pure, and truthful.

Calvinists are masters at sophistry (intentional or unintentional), which is not a compliment. Their theological word salads are lofty and pious-sounding but empty of truth, common sense, and Biblical support. I firmly believe that many of these individuals are brainwashed by the constant repetition by their peers and their refusal to actually think through the issues advanced by critics of the system.

All of us are being brainwashed each day by what we read, hear, and watch on TV. Some of us actually think about all that and reject what is unbiblical. Others drift mentally from one absurdity to the next. Think of the mental lunacy of the progressive left. They go from one level of insanity to the next, singing songs of denial while they sink deeper into incoherence. It is no different in theology. Charles Finney once said that if you will not think, you can’t be saved. Thinking is hard work and requires honesty, humility, and a willingness to correct one’s errors in the light of the evidence. (Please refer to my article titled, Unteachable, on my website, seekgodintruth.com.)

Many Christians claim to hold to some but not all of the tenets of Calvinism. They may declare that they have left Calvinism, even though they actually embrace one or more of its tenets. To me, they are partial Calvinists because they hold onto several tenets of the system. I firmly believe that all principles of Calvinism must hold together, or none of them stand.

This article will take the reader directly to one of the most critical confessions of faith by Calvinists, written to justify their beliefs and system. If the Westminster Confession of Faith doesn’t understand Calvinism, then no one does. This confession doesn’t speak to everyone’s version of Calvinism, but it does speak for its own, and many subscribe to it even today.

We will examine the five pillars of Calvinism, known as T.U.L.I.P., which are derived directly from the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF). ChatGPT assisted in assembling this material and providing the scriptural references.

 Total Depravity and Total Inability = the T in TULIP

WCF Location: Chapter VI (Of the Fall of Man, of Sin, and of the Punishment Thereof), esp. §§2–4; cf. Chapter IX (Of Free Will) §3

Key Confession Excerpts

“VI.2 – By this sin (of Adam), they fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, and so became dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the parts and faculties of soul and body. Emphasis added.

VI.4 – From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions.

IX.3 – Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation; so as, a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.”

All of these three citations presuppose you believe in total depravity and total inability as a result of Adam’s Original Sin. These are pagan, not Biblical ideas. It is from these foundational presuppositions (assumptions) that the entire structure of Calvinism is built. Augustine, in the 5^th Century, incorporated these pagan ideas into Christianity. (See my other articles on my website, seekgodintruth.com. See page titled Augustinian Calvinism. Also see my articles titled “When Lies Become Truth, Chapter 1 on Ability, under the Salvation page,” which goes to great lengths to refute the idea of inability from the Bible. There are other articles on ability, inability, and Original Sin under the page titled Sin Nature – Original Sin.)

Total Inability is not taught in the Bible. Therefore, total depravity is not taught in the Bible, nor is the false doctrine of Original Sin. Hence, the foundation of Calvinism is sand, not rock.

Representative KJV Proof Texts for Calvinism’s Total Depravity

Genesis 6:5 — Every Imagination of the Heart is Evil
“And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.”

This verse says nothing at all about how man became wicked. It most certainly doesn’t claim that mankind became wicked as a result of being born a totally depraved and unable sinner because Adam sinned and we inherit a sinful nature from Adam. It simply states that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, which prompted God to destroy the world in a flood.

Why would God destroy the world for wickedness if He predetermined or decreed that mankind would be wicked? If that is accurate, mankind was ‘obeying’ God’s sovereign, effectual, and meticulous plan by being exceedingly wicked. And that plan determined that “every imagination and thoughts of man’s heart was on evil continually.”

This verse actually confirms man’s free will to obey or disobey God. Disobedience brought judgment. Sowing wickedness yields judgment. Whatever a man sows that shall he also reap is a Biblical principle from Genesis through Revelation. If inability and total depravity are genuine, then sowing and reaping what we sow are meaningless terms and directly contradict the Calvinist presupposition that God determines everything.

Jeremiah 17:9 — The Deceitful Heart
“The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?”

Please see my article on this passage. You will find it on my website under the ‘Sin Nature – Original Sin’ page. The title is ‘The heart is desperately wicked, who can know it?’ This passage doesn’t at all support the Calvinist interpretation that we are born totally depraved. Nonetheless, they assume it does. This passage is about the heart of the impenitent Jew, not the righteous.

Romans 3:10-12.  No one is Righteous, all have sinned.
“As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.”

Please see my article on this passage. You will find it on my website under the ‘Sin Nature – Original Sin’ page. This passage doesn’t at all support the Calvinist interpretation. Nonetheless, they must assume it does. If you consider my article, you will notice that the context is that the fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.” This comes directly from the Psalms. This is not about the repentant but the unrepentant.

Romans 5:12. Death by Sin, all have sinned
“Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:”

Please see my article on this passage. You will find it on my website under the ‘Sin Nature – Original Sin’ page. The article is titled ‘Original Sin Dogma’. This passage doesn’t at all support the Calvinist interpretation. Nonetheless, they assume it does. This is a favorite passage among Calvinists. Unfortunately, it doesn’t teach what they assume it does.

Ephesians 2:1-3. Dead in Trespasses, by nature, children of wrath
“And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.”

Please see my article on this passage. You will find it on my website under the ‘Sin Nature – Original Sin’ page. The article is titled ‘Original Sin Dogma’, page 15. This passage doesn’t at all support the Calvinist interpretation. Nonetheless, they assume it does.

Please notice that this passage states, “among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind.” Does this convey to you an inevitability (Total Depravity) or a voluntary decision on their part? (Also, read my article on Ephesians 2:8-10, Saved by Grace Through Faith. It will correct the salvation error of Calvinism, and it is under the Salvation page on the website.)

John 6:44. No Man Can Come to Me
“No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day”.

This verse appears to have little to do with total depravity on the surface, except for the fact that the Father draws individuals to Christ. Calvinists assume that means humanity is unable to come to Christ because we are totally depraved. And without this effectual drawing, no one would ever come to Christ. They see it as a forceful drawing or dragging, like a net full of fish being pulled to shore. This applies only to the elect, and no one else. As part of this Calvinistic system, one of its entailments is that the non-elect is not drawn or pulled to salvation. Therefore, they are passed over and assigned to damnation. There are only two options: heaven or hell.

Do you believe that God would create most of us for the sole purpose of our damnation, which Calvinists tell us brings glory to God? That is what Calvinism asks us to believe. Is that not blasphemous?

Others, like me, understand this passage as God pursuing us and inviting us to come to Him. Jesus said, ‘If I be lifted up, I will draw all men to myself’. It is universal and offered to all men, not limited to the elect. It is an invitation, not an effectual, irresistible call contrary to Calvinism. Many men and women often resist this drawing or calling. They refuse God’s gracious offer by their own will. That makes them morally culpable. But the Calvinistic interpretation exonerates them, for they are only doing what God determined they would do. There can be no moral wrong in that. They had no choice in the matter.

The Calvinist interpretation is that God never offered salvation to all men, just to the few chosen elect. Which position honors God more?

The early church Fathers primarily emphasized human response to the divine invitation. See Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Clement of Alexandria. They saw ‘draw’ means to attract 1) by moral influence, 2) by the truth of Christ, and 3) the Holy Ghost’s conviction, not to compel by decree. According to the early church fathers, no force is involved. The early church fathers do not speak ex cathedra, but since they were closer to the apostles, their testimony should be considered and given the appropriate weight. After all, is that not the basis for textual criticism? The older the manuscript, the better? Critics of the Bible assume that Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are better manuscripts because they are closer to the autographs, so they claim.

Now, which view do you think better reflects the nature and character of our Holy God?

Augustine was a hearer (auditor) of Manichaeism for 9 or 10 years. See Appendices A and B for a plausible Manichaean interpretation of this passage, even though there is little extant evidence.

The second Appendix (B) includes Augustine’s interpretation of this passage and its direct connection with determinism and Manichaean Gnosticism. This change altered the course of Western Christianity thereafter. (See my articles regarding Augustine under the page Augustinian Calvinism on my website.)

1 Corinthians 2:14. The Natural Man Receiveth Not
“But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”

True to form, the Calvinist interprets this as the natural man who was born a sinner because of Adam’s Original Sin. But it doesn’t state that at all. Calvinists say that fallen man or natural man is not able to understand the things of God and can’t accept spiritual truth apart from regeneration by the Holy Spirit. The natural man is dead and therefore incapable of perceiving divine truth, according to them. But how can they be sure they are one of the elect and can understand spiritual truth? They must assume it is true. This is much like dating rocks by the fossils and dating fossils by the rock layers. Not just a few Christians believe that Calvinism is entirely wrong and that they do not understand scriptural truth, far from it.

Arminians are named after Jacob Arminius, a Dutch Reformed minister and professor of theology at the University of Leiden. He studied under T. Beza, who was Calvin’s immediate successor. Jacob respected Beza deeply and esteemed Calvin’s writings, which were of great use to him, even though he disagreed on some crucial points. He also agrees that natural man is incapable of ‘fully’ understanding and embracing spiritual truth. However, Arminius rejects the idea of irresistible grace and total inability. Arminians embrace the concept of prevenient grace, which I call convenient grace because it shows up just in time to make this false doctrine seem plausible. Prevenient grace restores our ability to understand and respond to God. Arminius also believed that salvation was conditioned on God’s foreknowledge of who would believe through grace. He also rejected limited atonement. Later in his life, he felt that a person could fall into damnation and affirmed the conditional nature of security. In some ways, he was a partial Calvinist (in his view of Original Sin and depravity). Arminianism varies but shares these points of difference from the teachings of strict Calvinism.

On the other hand, the early Church fathers, before Augustine, understood this verse as contrasting the carnal or worldly man with the spiritual, obedient believer, rather than as a metaphysical doctrine of inherited depravity. Their focus was moral and practical, not deterministic, as reflected in Calvinism and pagan philosophies.

Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215) wrote this: “The natural man lives according to his passions, but he who is spiritual walks according to the Logos. The spiritual man receives illumination through obedience and purity.” (Stromate, 2.4). The spiritual man depends on purity and obedience to the divine Word, not predestination or election or inability.

Origen wrote this, “The natural man, not trained in divine doctrine, rejects those things which are taught by the Spirit of God. But he may, through instruction and discipline, become spiritual and perceive them.” (Commentary on 1 Corinthians, fragment.) He saw this verse as a matter of spiritual maturity and training, not as an indication of inability or total depravity. He said that the natural man can grow into a spiritual man through repentance, study, discipline, and grace. He was no Calvinist in the making.

Athanasius (c. 296-373 AD) wrote this: “Without the Spirit, the heart remains in darkness; but when a man receives the Spirit through faith and purity, he discerns the things of God.” (Letters to Serapion, 1.24). The meaning is that faith and purity allow illumination; the Spirit enlightens those who believe, but human response is expected. That is the opposite of the Calvinistic idea of total depravity, total inability, election, and irresistible grace.

John Chrysostom (c.349-407 AD) stated that the natural man is a person who lives in pleasure and luxury, trusting in human wisdom, not the wisdom of God. As long as this remains, the natural man, in his unrepentant state, can’t understand the things of God. The natural man is in love with the world and the things of the world. The spiritual man doesn’t love the world or its things. The natural man is what he is by his own choice, not the determination of God, which is the foundation of Calvinism.

Natural = carnal, worldly, untrained, self-centered, not totally depraved, and totally unable, as in Calvinism.

Spiritual = obedient, purified, and receptive to divine truth.

None of these ‘fathers’ taught total depravity, total inability, original sin, or irresistible grace. The work of the Spirit of God was dependent on man’s faith and voluntary moral transformation, and not the automatic work of election. They saw this verse as a call to spiritual growth and receptivity, rather than as proof of human inability or predestined salvation.

Romans 8:7-8. The Carnal Mind Enmity Against God
“Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.”

               Obviously, the Calvinist sees this as evidence of total depravity and total inability. Fallen man is hostile to God, and all men are born in a fallen state because of Adam’s sin. This will change only when the Spirit of God regenerates him, through no effort of his own. The verse states that the carnal mind is enmity against God and is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can it be. They assume that means total depravity and total inability.

            The Arminian views this as the carnal mind, which is the mindset of those who live according to the sinful desires of the flesh. This passage describes what life in the flesh is like, not a fixed, unchangeable condition. This verse describes the condition of an unregenerate sinner before the Spirit’s renewing work begins, not an irreversible inability, as Calvinists claim. With God’s grace, man can turn, repent, and respond in faith.

            Early church fathers generally viewed the carnal mind as a moral and spiritual disposition, rather than a metaphysical state of total inability and depravity. They emphasized free will, moral struggle, and cooperation with divine grace, all of which are rejected by hyper and most partial Calvinists and many evangelicals who are not sure what they are. I have quotes from Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Chrysostom, and Athanasius that attest to their position in the Appendix.

See Appendix 1 for details.

Psalm 51:5. Shapen in Iniquity
“Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.”

Please see my article on this passage. You will find it on my website under the Sin Nature – Original Sin page. The article is titled ‘Original Sin Dogma’. This passage doesn’t at all support the Calvinist interpretation. Nonetheless, they pretend and assume it does.

Job 14:4. Who Can Bring a Clean Thing Out of an Unclean?
“Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? Not one.”

Please see my article on this passage. You will find it on my website under the Sin Nature – Original Sin page. The article is titled ‘Original Sin Dogma’. This passage doesn’t at all support the Calvinist interpretation. Nonetheless, they assume it does.

Romans 7:18. In My Flesh Dwelleth No Good Thing
“For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not”.

Please see my articles on this passage. You will find it on my website under the ‘Salvation’ page. The article is titled ‘Romans 7, parts 1 and 2’.  This passage doesn’t at all support the Calvinist interpretation. Nonetheless, they assume it does.

Psalm 14:2–3. None That Doeth Good
“The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God. They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one”.

Please see my article on this passage. You will find it on my website under the ‘Sin Nature – Original Sin’ page. This passage doesn’t at all support the Calvinist interpretation. Nonetheless, they must assume it does. And this is why Dr. James White tells his audience to think presuppositionally. In other words, go to the Bible with the foundation of Original Sin and all that entails, and then you will rightly understand the Bible.

Additional Proof Text References (Not quoted and analyzed.)

We examined 12 of 19 Calvinist “proof texts,” and not one of them proves or verifies their claims about total depravity. They claim that these additional seven passages also support their claims: Genesis 2:17; Romans 1:21-32; Romans 5:15-19; Ephesians 4:18-19; Titus 3:3; Proverbs 20:9; Isaiah 64:6. If you are interested, check these verses out for yourself. I will not repeat this notice for the other four tenets of Calvinism as described by the WCF.

Total Depravity Conclusions (the T in TULIP)

None of their proof texts provides solid or convincing evidence to support the Calvinists’ claims. The early church fathers, before Augustine and others distorted the truth, had a better understanding of these passages. Even today, most Christians have been brainwashed into believing the typical Calvinistic interpretations because they are so common, widespread, well-funded, and so often repeated. Someone once said that if you tell a lie often enough, loudly enough, and long enough, people will believe it.

The Bible knows no such thing as total depravity, total inability, or the myth of Original Sin. I am absolutely convinced of this and am probably as firm in that belief as the most ardent Calvinist is in their beliefs. Which belief best represents the God of Truth and the truth of God as revealed in the Bible? Come, let us reason together. Do you recall where that statement originates in the Bible and which prophet was told by God to utter these words? Yet some Christians, including Calvinists, tell us that we are not governed by reason but by revelation. Why do they make that claim?

They say this because their doctrines are unreasonable. If their doctrines were reasonable, they would not repeat such foolishness. God gave us reason and expects us to use it. If you do not think, you can’t be saved. Come let us reason together, says God.

Westminster Confession of Faith. Unconditional Election (Predestination), The U in TULIP.

WCF Location: Chapter III (Of God’s Eternal Decree), especially §§3–6

Key Confession Excerpts

“III.3 – By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death.

III.5 – Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to His eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of His will, hath chosen in Christ unto everlasting glory, out of His mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions or causes moving Him thereunto; and all to the praise of His glorious grace.

III.6 – As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath He, by the eternal and most free purpose of His will, foreordained all the means thereunto”.

Like the T in TULIP, the U is also presupposed in Calvinism. If the T is assumed to be true, then the U must also be considered to be true. If people are born sinners who can do nothing but sin because they are totally depraved and totally unable, then obviously, they can do nothing to save themselves. If they are saved, it must be because God alone decided to save them. As the WCF states, God decrees that some will find eternal life and the rest will inherit eternal damnation or everlasting death.

 Seriously, is that what the God of scripture is like? Does God really decree the damnation of most of humanity for His own glory? Could God not get more glory and honor by saving everyone rather than damning to eternal hellfire the majority of His creation? (See my articles on Theism to understand better how these perverted ideas regarding God came to be in the first place and how they were imported into Christian theology.)

Calvinists refer to this as “unconditional election” or “grace”. What an insult that is. I guess the elect may view this as grace, but those not elect certainly will not see any of God’s grace in their own eternal damnation. Nor will the thinking world see this as God’s grace. God chose, before the foundation of the world, to damn the greater part of humanity to eternal death for His own glory and honor, which is what we are asked to believe. To validate their claims, the Calvinists offer the following proof texts.

However, let us remember that the foundation of Calvinism is the doctrine of total depravity and total inability, which are its cornerstones. In the first segment, we refuted all their claims with abundant scriptural and rational evidence. No matter what is now provided to prove Unconditional Election, the cornerstone of the foundation has been destroyed, and it will be impossible to keep the building from falling.

Representative KJV Proof Texts for Unconditional Election, the U in TULIP.

Ephesians 1:4-6. Chosen in Christ Before the Foundation of the World
“According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved”.

               Calvinists, of course, see this as proof that God picks, makes, and chooses winners and losers, and He did this before the foundation of the world, according to this verse. And God did this according to the good pleasure of His will; therefore, mankind has nothing to do with it.

The verse declares that we are to be holy and without blame. According to the Calvinist, election is unto holiness, not because of holiness in us. God doesn’t choose us because we repent and believe of our own free will. He chooses a few of us apart from anything we do and damns the rest apart from anything they do. Our holiness must therefore be a fictional, imputed holiness, as Calvinism holds. They believe the election is personal, unconditional, eternal, and sovereign. Sowing and reaping have nothing to do with salvation (and everything to do with rewards). People are born sinners who sow only sin and reap the consequences, even though they have no other option than to sin.

Most other Christians differ sharply with the Calvinists on this one. They see the election as being corporate, not personal. The Father chose Christ as the elect one, and all who are united with Christ by faith and repentance share that election. That means we are in Him. Being in Christ means the choice is conditional. And we are told in scripture repeatedly to abide in Christ. This is something we must do, and God will not do it for us. God’s predestination concerns the destiny of the class of believers in Christ by their faith and repentance, not the unconditional pre-selection of individuals taught by Calvinism.

The early church fathers, before Augustine’s doctrine of unconditional election, saw this passage as teaching God’s foreknowledge, gracious purpose, and calling of believers in Christ, but not as proof of predestination to salvation or damnation apart from free will. They consistently emphasized human cooperation, faith, and holiness as the conditions of election. Amen to that.

Refer to Appendix 2 for more details.

Romans 8:29-30. Whom He Did Foreknow, He Also Did Predestinate.
“For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among 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.”

               The Calvinist sees what they want to see in this passage. They call this the Golden Chain of Redemption. They see an unbreakable sequence of divine acts, foreknowledge, predestination, calling, justification, and glorification. All that only applies unconditionally to the elect and no one else. Calvinists claim that foreknowing is understood not as foresight of human faith, but as fore-love. By that, they mean God’s sovereign choice to set His affection on specific individuals. Interesting that they use the word affection because most hyper Calvinists are Classical Theists and do not believe God feels anything because God, in their minds, is impassible. See my articles on Theism under the Augustinian Calvinism page on my website.

That comment by Calvinists is really rich! God loves the elect and hates the non-elect, not because either group did anything of themselves to warrant the hate or the love, but because this is how the creator of the universe glorifies His Holy name. I find that to be preposterous, unreasonable, and unbiblical. How about you?

Predestinate means to determine their destiny beforehand. Called refers to the effectual call of God on specific individuals, the elect. When God calls, no one can resist. Justified and glorified are the natural outgrowth of the preceding acts of God.

If you are a consistent Calvinist, you actually do not believe that God knows anything before (or pre). That means you can’t believe in either foreknowledge or predestination because that implies that God is not atemporal and stuck in a state of pure actuality. It means that God is in time and has sequence, which Classical Theists must deny. When confronted with the inconsistency, the typical Calvinist will claim that foreknowledge and predestination are metaphors or anthropomorphisms, not to be interpreted literally. This should take you back to my earlier comments about the duplicity and sophistry of Calvinism and way too many Calvinists. I know some may not understand their own beliefs and are ignorant of such matters. I do not believe that is true of most Calvinists, who love their Calvinism more than the truth. That is my impression based on my research and reading. I know of professing Christians who:

• Believe that the Roman Catholic Church is the way, the truth, and the life.
• Believe that Calvinism is the way, the truth, and the life.
• Believe that their denomination is the way, the truth, and the life.
• Believe that Jesus Christ alone is the way, the truth, and the life. Only these believers are actually teachable.

Arminians believe foreknowledge is God’s knowledge beforehand of those who will reach out to God in repentance and faith. The call of God is universal, to all people, not only the elect. All the rest of the chain is conditional as well.

The Eastern Orthodox view is different. They emphasize synergy, the cooperation of individuals with God. God knows all and ordains salvation for those who freely choose to love Him. God predestines no one to evil. His foreknowledge is not causative. See St. John of Damascus, Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, 11.30.

Early Church fathers, before Augustine, believed the following. They believed that foreknowledge is literal, God knowing in advance what free agents will do without causing it to happen. Predestination is based on that foreknowledge, not the decree of God. They rejected fatalism, contained in Calvinist determinism. They upheld human freedom and moral responsibility in a way that makes sense and is Biblical. Calvinism attempts to reconcile God’s determinism/fatalism, human freedom, and ethical responsibility, but it fails miserably. Compatibilism is empty rhetoric and pious sophistry.

Refer to Appendix 3. This contains quotes from early church fathers.

Refer to Appendix 11 on Romans 8:29-30 and Ephesians 1:4-6, including historical quotations.

Romans 9:11-13. The Purpose of God According to Election
“For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated”.

Appendix 4 contains extensive information on how these passages in Romans 9:11-13 and 9:15-16 have been interpreted over the years. You will find information about the pagan ideas that served as the source of Augustine’s faulty interpretations, which eventually became part of the theology of Augustinian Calvinism.

Romans 9:15-16. I Will Have Mercy on Whom I Will Have Mercy
“For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.”

Calvinists see in these passages strong evidence of God’s unilateral election (salvation) of Jacob over Esau before their birth. Therefore, it could not have been based on their works. To the Calvinist, this shows that God chose to save Jacob and not Esau.

The Arminian rightly points out that the choice between Jacob and Esau is not about personal salvation but about the line through which the Messiah would come. It is not a decree about saving Jacob and damming Esau. Mercy is sovereign but given on the gospel condition of faith, which God makes available to all who come to Him in repentance and faith. Scripture states, ‘Those who confess and forsake their sins will find mercy’. Hardening is judicial, based on persistent and stubborn unbelief and impenitence. It can be removed with repentance and faith.

The Eastern Orthodox Church emphasizes synergy, as already mentioned. Synergy is everywhere in the Bible. God extends the offer of free salvation conditioned on repentance and faith. They see hardening as permissive and medicinal, intended to lead to repentance.

Early church fathers, before Augustine, understood this chapter much as non-Calvinists do, with varying explanations and emphasis.

There are books written on this chapter, some by former Calvinists, that you may want to consider if you are having a difficult time understanding this chapter of the Bible. I suggest the book, ‘The Potter’s Promise’ by Dr. Leighton Flowers. He also has a YouTube channel called Soterology101. He is an excellent resource on the errors of Calvinism, as he was once a devoted Calvinist.

Let us assume for the moment that the Augustinian Calvinist interpretation is accurate. God loved Jacob and hated Esau. How are we to reconcile that with the next truth? We read in both the Old and New Testaments that God is love. This passage in Romans 9 states that God hated Esau in direct contradiction to the truth that God is love. In the New Testament, we are told, ‘For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever would believe in Him should not die but have everlasting life,’ John 3:16. That is a universal invitation to all people, not just the elect. How can both of these be true?

The context in Romans 9 has nothing to do with personal salvation and everlasting life. God hated Esau means that God rejected him for carrying the line of the Messiah. God chose Jacob (God loved Jacob) for the honor of being the lineage of the Messiah. But salvation was still open to Esau, as it is to every soul, through repentance and faith.

Refer to Appendix 5, 6, and 7 for much more detail.

2 Timothy 1:9 — Called with a Holy Calling
“Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began.”

This passage, like the others, is read by Calvinists who already believe their assumptions. Therefore, they see in this more evidence of unconditional election, total depravity, and total inability.

2 Thessalonians 2:13 — God Hath from the Beginning Chosen You to Salvation
“But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:”

I trust that you can understand and project the Calvinist interpretation of this passage follows all the rest. The same is true for the other positions. Your presuppositions will determine your interpretation.

Refer to Appendix 8 for more details.

See Appendix 9 for Historical quotations from the Early Church, Gnostics, and Manichaean sources.

See Appendix 10 for quotes by Athanasius and Clement of Alexandria on Election and Predestination.

Acts 13:48. As Many as Were Ordained to Eternal Life Believed
“And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed”.

Calvinists view Acts 13:48 as a clear affirmation of unconditional election and divine sovereignty in salvation. The phrase ‘as many as were ordained to eternal life believed’ is taken to mean that only those whom God had predestined to salvation from eternity were enabled to believe the gospel. The verse is thus seen as a simple statement of fact: the reason some Gentiles believed was not due to their free choice, but to God’s appointment of them to eternal life.

According to Calvinist theology, the verb ‘ordained’ (Greek: τεταγμένοι, tetagmenoi) implies divine appointment and passive reception of God’s decree. Faith is the result, not the cause, of election. God’s sovereign will determines who believes, consistent with doctrines later summarized as unconditional election and irresistible grace.

John Calvin wrote: ‘Luke does not say that they were disposed or inclined to eternal life, but that they were ordained. Thus, the cause of faith is God’s election. It is therefore vain to imagine that men attain faith by their own effort, since faith itself is a gift that proceeds from God’s eternal counsel.’ (Commentary on Acts 13:48)

Arminians and many other non-Calvinist interpreters understand Acts 13:48 differently. They argue that the verse does not teach an eternal decree selecting specific individuals for salvation, but instead describes those who were rightly ‘disposed’ or ‘prepared’ for eternal life through faith and receptiveness to God’s word.

The key Greek term ‘tetagmenoi’ can also be translated as ‘appointed’ or ‘set in order,’ but, in context, may mean ‘those who had aligned themselves’ or ‘those who were ready’ for eternal life. In this view, Luke is describing a human disposition influenced by God’s prevenient grace rather than a fixed divine decree. Those who were open to the gospel believed, whereas the Jews rejected it.

John Wesley commented: ‘They who were disposed for eternal life, who were willing to receive the gospel, believed. God’s grace had prepared their hearts, not by an irresistible decree, but by awakening them to repentance and faith.’ (Explanatory Notes upon the New Testament, Acts 13:48)

Similarly, Eastern Orthodox and other non-Calvinist traditions emphasize that this passage reflects God’s foreknowledge and providence rather than absolute predestination. God grants eternal life to all who respond to His call in faith, and His grace cooperates with human freedom.

Comparison from ChatGPT

• Calvinist View: Election is unconditional and individual; God’s decree determines belief.
• Arminian View: Election is conditional upon faith; God’s grace enables but does not coerce belief.
• Other Non-Calvinist View: The phrase means those who were receptive or prepared for eternal life believed, reflecting divine providence and human cooperation rather than deterministic predestination.

See Appendix 10 for quotes by Athanasius and Clement of Alexandria on Election and Predestination.

John 6:37. All That the Father Giveth Me Shall Come
“All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.”

The context in John 6 contains Jesus’ Bread of Life discourse. Verses 35-45 emphasize the Father’s initiative in drawing, the Son’s reception of believers, and the assurance of final resurrection (vv. 39–40).

Not surprisingly, the Calvinist interpretation and core idea are Unconditional election and effectual calling. “All that the Father giveth me” refers to the elect, specific persons chosen by the Father in eternity. “Shall come to me” expresses the certainty of their coming through efficacious grace (irresistible grace). The second clause guarantees the perseverance of the saints (eternal security); those who come will never be cast out, because Christ keeps them (cf. vv. 39–40).

Key points:
• The Father’s giving logically precedes and causes the sinner’s coming.
• Coming = believing; faith itself is God’s gift produced by regeneration.
• The promise “I will in no wise cast out” grounds assurance in Christ’s will, not human resolve.

The Arminian interpretation views conditional election, rather than unconditional election, in Christ, alongside God’s prevenient grace. The Father “gives” to the Son those who respond to enabling (but resistible) grace by faith. “Shall come” reflects God’s faithful drawing and the believer’s free, responsible response. The second clause offers full assurance to all who genuinely come and persevere in faith, will not be excluded or rejected. The Father’s giving is in view of foreknown faith (or corporate election of the believing community in Christ). Grace precedes and enables, but does not necessitate, faith; humans may resist. Perseverance is by abiding faith, not unconditional election; the promise is for those who continue to trust Christ and abide in Him.

The Eastern Orthodox interpretation is that of synergy: divine initiative and human cooperation. The “giving” highlights the Father’s providence and foreknowledge of those who freely cooperate with grace. The verse is read within a liturgical or sacramental life: those who are illumined and united to Christ through faith, baptism, and the Eucharist are received by Him and are not cast out as they persevere in repentance and life in Christ. There is no deterministic predestination; God draws without violating freedom (cf. v. 44, interpreted as persuasive drawing). The promise grounds pastoral assurance while calling believers to ongoing synergy (ascetic struggle, repentance).  Salvation is therapeutic (healing and deification), not merely juridical.

ChatGPT produced the following. The interpretation of the Early Church fathers, before Augustine, reveals the following themes. While not uniform, many pre‑Augustinian commentators stress God’s initiative alongside human response, typically rejecting fatalism and determinism. They link “coming” to faith and obedience and understand the Father’s “giving” in terms of foreknowledge, instruction, and providence.

Representative themes:
• John Chrysostom: Emphasizes that God draws by teaching and persuasion, not compulsion; those who learn from the Father come (cf. vv. 44–45).
• Origen: Often connects divine foreknowledge with human freedom. God knows those who will freely come and thus gives them to the Son.
• Cyril of Jerusalem/Cyril of Alexandria (later): Stress unity of Father and Son in saving work; the Son receives all whom the Father brings through instruction and faith.
• General patristic motif: Assurance for the penitent, Christ excludes none who come; the warning passages elsewhere stress the necessity of perseverance.

Summary

All traditions affirm that Christ truly receives those who come to Him. They differ on what explains the ‘coming’:

• Calvinists ground it in unconditional election and effectual calling;
• Arminians in prevenient grace and free response;
• Orthodox in synergy and foreknowledge, but a free response;
• Many early Fathers emphasize divine initiative without coercion, highlighting teaching, persuasion, and human assent, free response.

Again, you can readily see that only the Calvinist believes that God unilaterally chooses some and rejects others. And this mainly stems from Augustine’s later, decidedly pagan influence.

Refer to Appendix 12 for Augustine’s interpretation of John 6 compared to Manichaean and Gnostic views.

John 15:16. Ye Have Not Chosen Me, But I Have Chosen You
“Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.”

Before Augustine’s deterministic theology, the early Fathers typically read this verse not as unconditional election to salvation, but as Christ’s sovereign appointment of the Apostles to their particular mission and fruit-bearing. Consider the following.

• Origen (185–254 AD): Interpreted John 15:16 as referring to the apostolic calling, not eternal predestination. He wrote that Jesus chose them ‘for the work of the Gospel,’ not apart from their free will: “They were chosen because they were willing to receive His word, and He foreknew their faith.” (Commentary on John, Book 6)
• Clement of Alexandria (c. 150–215 AD): Taught that divine calling is offered to all, but each person must respond freely. “It is up to each one to receive or reject the call; God compels none.” (Stromata 7.7)
• Tertullian (c. 155–240 AD): Emphasized human cooperation with divine grace. “God invites, He does not compel; for the will of man He preserves free.” (Against Marcion 2.5)
• Cyprian of Carthage (c. 200–258 AD): Saw Christ’s choosing as a commissioning of the disciples: “The Lord chose apostles, that through them He might call the rest; yet each must answer that call by faith and obedience.” (Epistle 70)
• John Chrysostom (c. 347–407 AD): Explicitly rejected a Calvinistic reading: “He speaks of their apostleship; for they did not first choose Him to be their teacher, but He chose them to be His disciples and preachers.” (Homily on John 78.1)

Summary: The early church interpreted “You have not chosen me, but I have chosen you” as referring to the apostolic vocation, rather than eternal election to salvation. God’s choice initiates, but man’s cooperation consummates. Grace and free will operate together, which refutes Calvinism.

Arminians and other non-Calvinists interpret John 15:16 in harmony with those early Fathers. They emphasize that Jesus was addressing the eleven disciples (after Judas left) and that ‘chosen’ means appointed for mission, not predestined to salvation.

• Divine initiative, not determinism, God’s grace always takes the first step (‘prevenient grace’) but does not eliminate human freedom.
• God chooses those who respond to His call by faith: ‘Many are called, but few are chosen’ (Matthew 22:14).
• Arminius (1560–1609) argued that the ‘choosing’ in John 15:16 is not of persons unto salvation but of apostles unto office.
• John Wesley (1703–1791) interpreted it as divine initiative in mission: ‘He loved us first; He called us to Himself and appointed us to bear fruit. But He forces none; the choosing is to the work, not to eternal life unconditionally.’

Contrast with Calvinist Reading

The following summarizes the contrast between the early church, Arminian, and Calvinist readings of this passage:

Early Church (pre-Augustine): Appointment to ministry and fruit-bearing; God foreknows faith.
Arminian / Non-Calvinist: Divine initiative in calling, conditional on response.
Calvinist: Unconditional election to salvation; irresistible grace; no free will in the initial choosing.

In the early Christian and Arminian understanding, John 15:16 is a statement of Christ’s gracious initiative in choosing and appointing His disciples to bear fruit, rather than a statement of predestination to salvation. The pre-Augustinian Fathers saw divine grace and human freedom as cooperative, while Calvinism later emphasized determinism rooted in Augustine’s post-Manichaean theology.

Romans 11:5-6.  Election of Grace
“Even so, then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work”.

Like the last verse we looked at, before Augustine’s deterministic theology, the early Fathers interpreted Paul’s phrase ‘election of grace’ not as unconditional election to salvation, but as God’s gracious preservation of a faithful remnant within Israel. They saw this as an act of divine mercy that still allowed and required human cooperation through faith and obedience.

• John Chrysostom (c. 347–407 AD): In his Homilies on Romans, Chrysostom explained: ‘When he says, Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace, he shows that they also were saved by grace. By saying election, he showed their approval of them; but by saying grace, he showed the gift of God.’ He emphasized that grace saves the willing, not those who refuse it, combining divine initiative with human response.
•  
• Clement of Alexandria (c. 150–215 AD): Clement maintained that salvation is by grace, yet dependent on a person’s faithful response. ‘It is for the man to follow or to flee. God compels none.’ Thus, God’s election is understood as His gracious call to those who freely receive it.
•  
• Origen (c. 185–254 AD): Origen taught that grace is the divine initiative that precedes and enables faith, but that human will must consent. In his Commentary on Romans, he said that God’s election of grace calls those whom He foreknows will respond in faith.
•  
• Cyprian of Carthage (c. 200–258 AD): Cyprian viewed divine grace and human obedience as partners in salvation. He saw the ‘remnant’ as those who, by faith and perseverance, remained faithful within the Church.

Summary

The early Fathers held that the ‘election of grace’ refers to God’s merciful choice to preserve a believing remnant, not a fixed decree of predestination. Grace initiates, but man must cooperate in faith and obedience. The concept was corporate (the faithful remnant), not an unconditional individual election.

Arminians and other non-Calvinist interpreters agree with the early Fathers that Romans 11:5-6 concerns the gracious calling of a faithful remnant, not an absolute decree of election, as the Augustinian Calvinist claim maintains. The emphasis lies on God’s grace as the source of salvation, which excludes human merit but not human faith. God’s grace takes the first step (prevenient grace), enabling but not forcing human faith. The ‘remnant’ refers to those within Israel who believed, not to individuals arbitrarily chosen from eternity.

The contrast between grace and works excludes works of law or merit, but not faith, as the condition of receiving grace. (Please also consider my articles that address the conditions of salvation and explain how they are not the “that for the sake of which” or the procuring cause of salvation. Conditions are the “that not without which.” Think of the gift of an inheritance that contains conditions that must be met before the gift is distributed.)

• Jacob Arminius (1560–1609) taught that election is conditional upon faith: ‘God has determined to save believers, and to condemn unbelievers.’
•  
• John Wesley (1703–1791) explained Romans 11:5-6 as proof that salvation is by free grace: ‘If by grace, then it is through faith, not through works of the law; grace excludes merit, but not believing.’

Arminians interpret Paul’s words as teaching that God’s election operates through His gracious call to all. Still, only those who freely believe and meet the conditions become part of the elect remnant. Grace is sovereign in its origin, but conditional in its effect and application.

The following summarizes the differences and similarities between early Church Fathers and non-Calvinist interpreters regarding Romans 11:5-6:

Early Church Fathers: God’s election of grace preserves a faithful remnant; grace initiates, man cooperates; election is understood corporately.

Arminian / Non-Calvinist: Election is conditional upon faith; grace excludes merit but not human response; God’s choice is based on foreknown faith, not arbitrary decree.

In closing, Romans 11:5-6 teaches that the salvation of the remnant is wholly of God’s grace, not of human merit. Both early Fathers and Arminian theologians affirm that grace is the cause of salvation, but they reject the Augustinian Calvinistic idea of unconditional election without human response. Grace does not destroy freedom; it enables faith. The ‘election of grace’, therefore, highlights divine mercy and human cooperation, not deterministic predestination and fatalism.

Ephesians 2:8-9.  By Grace Are Ye Saved Through Faith
“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast”.

See my article on this passage. It is under the Salvation page. This article demonstrates that the idea that human effort is not a condition of salvation is refuted. The book of Ephesians makes it very clear that unrighteous professing Christians will not inherit the kingdom of Christ and of God, contrary to the teachings of Calvinism and most of evangelical Christianity. Final salvation is conditional, which is the opposite of Calvinism’s unconditional election and perseverance of the saints (The P in TULIP).

Carnal Christians love to use this verse to justify their ongoing sinful lifestyles and the eternal security of the carnal believer. Read in the context of the entire book, their arguments hold no ground.

John 10:26-29. My Sheep Hear My Voice
“But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them to me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand.”

I have written about this passage in my book ‘When Lies Become Truth’, Chapter 5 on Eternal Security. You will notice that the Apostle John lists the conditions of salvation in the body of the text, which Calvinists and those who espouse carnal Christianity often overlook, failing to recognize the conditions Jesus laid out. Jesus said My sheep hear my voice and they follow me. Anyone who meets these conditions will be saved, and no one can pluck them out of the hand of the Father. But this promise of salvation is conditional and clearly contradicts Calvinism’s monergism and its doctrine of unconditional election.

Additional Proof References (Not Quoted)

John 17:2, 9, 24; Titus 1:1–2; Revelation 13:8; Isaiah 46:9–10; Proverbs 16:4; Psalm 33:11; Ephesians 3:11; 1 Peter 1:2; Matthew 11:25–26.

Summary of the U in TULIP

It is essential to understand that all five tenets of Calvinism must stand together or fall together. It may be true that unconditional election seems to be supported in their proof-text passages more readily than those passages that are claimed to teach Total Depravity and Total Inability. However, it appears that way only until one delves deeper into the texts and their inferred meanings.

Please keep in mind that we have not considered all the many passages of scripture that instruct all men and women to repent and believe, because God is waiting for them to fulfill their duty and participate in their own salvation. And there are very many such passages. Many more passages confirm that all of us have the ability and responsibility to repent and believe than those quoted by Calvinists, who say they teach Calvinism. This is something we are commanded to do, and not to wait on God to do it for us. At the root of Calvinism lies determinism: passivity and fate.

See my articles on the conditions of salvation and the articles that explain that conditions do not mean we earn salvation. Sinners can never earn salvation because of their past sins. Therefore, the procuring cause of salvation is grace and love. Meeting the conditions of salvation qualifies us to receive this gift of grace. You can find these articles on the Salvation page of my website.

Westminster Confession of Faith. Limited Atonement (Particular Redemption), the L in TULIP.

WCF Location: Chapter VIII (Of Christ the Mediator), especially §§5 and 8

Key Confession Excerpts

“VIII.5 – The Lord Jesus, by His perfect obedience and sacrifice of Himself, which He through the eternal Spirit once offered up unto God, hath fully satisfied the justice of His Father; and purchased, not only reconciliation, but an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, for all those whom the Father hath given unto Him.

VIII.8 – To all those for whom Christ hath purchased redemption, He doth certainly and effectually apply and communicate the same; making intercession for them, and revealing unto them, in and by the Word, the mysteries of salvation; effectually persuading them by His Spirit to believe and obey; and governing their hearts by His Word and Spirit; overcoming all their enemies by His almighty power and wisdom, in such manner, and ways, as are most consonant to His wonderful and unsearchable providence”.

Before we get into their proof texts, let us briefly consider their position. The passages are their evidence to support Limited Atonement. The first reference discusses penal substitutionary atonement (PSA) to satisfy God’s justice and secure final salvation (eternal security, perseverance).  

Please see my articles on the Atonement, especially my refutation of the Penal Substitutionary Atonement model that Calvinists claim is the truth. Additionally, please refer to my articles that disprove eternal security. See the pages “Salvation” and “Augustinian Calvinism” on my website, seekgodintruth.com

You will notice in the second WCF citation this phrase, “effectually persuading them by His Spirit to believe and obey; and governing their hearts by His Word and Spirit;”. Why do I highlight that phrase? For these determinists to use the phrase “persuading them” is in direct contradiction to their own beliefs and sounds Arminian, which is a more reasonable approach. But there is no persuading going on here as God decrees everything that comes to pass. God does not persuade anyone, including the elect. Is this more Calvinistic sophistry?

Representative KJV Proof Texts of Limited Atonement

John 10:11, 15. The Good Shepherd Giveth His Life for the Sheep
“I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep. As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep”.

This verse says nothing at all about Christ laying down his life for the predetermined elect only. This passage applies to all Christian theological systems, not just Calvinism. Are you with me? I, too, believe that Jesus is the good shepherd and that He died for me, and at the same time, I reject all the tenets of Calvinism.

Matthew 1:21 — He Shall Save His People from Their Sins
“And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.”

I can’t believe my good fortune in having the WCF list this passage of scripture to defend their doctrine of a limited atonement. First of all, it says nothing about the elect chosen by God in eternity past. It simply says that Christ came to save His people from their sins. That might involve a moral example to follow —His example —as well as an atonement or ransom for the sins of the world. And it doesn’t state that Christ died for only the elect, which is what they are trying to prove. Christ died for everyone, but only those who repent and believe experience the benefits of the atonement. God provides the way out, but people must choose it.

This is a critical point to understand. For Calvinists and most evangelicals, Jesus came to save His people in their sins and not from their sins, as the angel announced. Calvinists and most evangelicals do not believe that Christians can stop sinning in this life because they all think we inherit a sinful nature from Adam that will never be destroyed until we die. And yet they can quote this passage with a straight face. (Please refer to the many articles I have written addressing this significant false teaching.)

This verse says nothing about a limited atonement for the elect, and it indeed refutes both the Calvinists’ understanding of unconditional salvation and the doctrine of limited atonement.

Ephesians 5:25-27. Christ Loved the Church and Gave Himself for It
“Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish”.

There is not one word in this passage about Christ dying only for the elect, chosen by God in eternity past. Not a word. Christ died for the church; those who repent and believe in Him are the church. However, Calvinists believe the atonement is limited to the elect whom God chose in eternity; however, this thought is not present in the text until it is introduced.

It also states that Christ “might sanctify and cleanse the church with the washing of water by the word, so that the church would not have spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that it should be holy and without blemish.” The only holiness Calvinism knows is the fictional kind, but that is not what Jesus claimed for His church in this verse.

Refer to my article on Ephesians 2:8-10, mentioned earlier. This is a favorite passage for Calvinists because they think it confirms their false understanding of eternal security and unconditional salvation. Paul rebukes them and their false teaching that Christians can live in sin and still inherit the Kingdom of God and of Christ.

John 17:9 — I Pray Not for the World
“I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine”.

            Again, this text doesn’t prove limited atonement, since Christ prays for them, not dies for them, as in atonement.

This document presents early Church Fathers’ reflections on John 17:9, where Jesus says, ‘I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which Thou hast given Me; for they are Thine.’ This verse, part of Christ’s High Priestly Prayer, has long been central to debates about election, intercession, and the scope of divine grace. Later Christian traditions interpret it differently:

• Five‑Point Calvinists emphasize it as evidence of particular redemption;
• Arminians view it as a prayer for believers without implying limited atonement;
• Eastern Orthodox writers read it through the lens of theosis and union with Christ.
• What follows are excerpts from several early Fathers, showing how they understood the meaning of this passage.

John Chrysostom (c. 347–407 AD).

What then is ‘I pray for them’? … ‘Not for all the world,’ He saith, ‘but for them whom Thou hast given Me.’ He continually puttest the ‘hast given,’ that they might learn that this seemeth good to the Father. Then, because He had said constantly, ‘they are Thine,’ and, ‘Thou gavest them unto Me,’ to remove any evil suspicion, and lest anyone should think that His authority was recent, and that He had but now received them, what saith He?”
— *Homily on John 17*, in *Nicene and Post‑Nicene Fathers*, Series 1, Vol. 14 (Schaff ed.), and *Catena Aurea* (Aquinas), John 17:9.

Chrysostom stresses that Jesus’ repeated phrase ‘Thou hast given Me’ demonstrates divine will and unity between Father and Son. The exclusion of ‘the world’ emphasizes Christ’s special intercession for His disciples, not a denial of love for humanity in general.

Augustine of Hippo (354–430 AD)

“When He adds, ‘I pray not for the world,’ by the world He means those who live according to the lust of the world, and have not the lot to be chosen by grace out of the world, as those had for whom He prayed: But for them which Thou hast given Me. It was because the Father had given Him them that they did not belong to the world. Nor yet had the Father, in giving them to the Son, lost what He had given: For ‘they are Thine.’”

— *Tractate 107 on the Gospel of John*, *Nicene and Post‑Nicene Fathers*, Series 1, Vol. 7.

Augustine interprets ‘the world’ as those living carnally and apart from divine grace. He views the verse as illustrating the Father’s election of believers out of the world and the Son’s unity with the Father in caring for them. I included this to demonstrate that Augustine was a determinist.

Theophylact of Ochrid (c. 1050–1108 AD)

“To make it clear that everything He has been saying to the Father is purely for the benefit of His disciples, the Lord now adds, ‘I pray for them, and not for the world. I love and take care of My disciples; I bestow upon them what is Mine; and I beseech You, Father, to protect them. I do not pray to You on behalf of coarse, vulgar men who think about nothing except this world; I pray for them whom Thou hast given Me; for they are Thine.’”

— *Explanation of the Gospel of John*, translated in *The Explanation by Blessed Theophylact*, Chrysostom Press, 2007.

Theophylact interprets Christ’s prayer as pastoral, focusing on divine protection for His disciples. He maintains that the Father’s ‘giving’ of believers to the Son is eternal and relational, not recent or temporary.

Cyril of Alexandria (c. 376–444 AD)

“When therefore He says, ‘I pray not for the world,’ He does not mean that He utterly casts aside His care for it; for He came to save the world. But He prays rather for those already united to Him by faith, that they may be preserved. For while the world has not yet believed, they who have believed are already sanctified in truth.”

— *Commentary on the Gospel of John*, Book 11, ch. 9, in *Patrologia Graeca* 74:725–728.

Cyril distinguishes between Christ’s general love for the world and His specific intercession for believers. He stresses that the prayer aims at perseverance and sanctification for those already in faith.

Origen of Alexandria (c. 184–253 AD)

“It is not that the Savior hates the world, for He loved it and gave Himself for it, but that He prays particularly for those who have believed. For as the High Priest entered the Holy of Holies bearing the names of the tribes, so also Christ bears those given Him into the presence of the Father.”

— *Commentary on John*, Book 32, fragment 19 (ed. Preuschen, *GCS* 10).

Origen interprets John 17:9 through the image of priestly intercession. The distinction between the world and the given ones is functional, about who currently participates in Christ’s sanctifying prayer.

Ambrose of Milan (c. 340–397 AD)

“He prayed not for the world, but for those whom He had redeemed out of the world; for the world is that which lies in sin, and they are His who have been cleansed by faith.”

— *Exposition of the Christian Faith* 3.14.118, in *Nicene and Post‑Nicene Fathers*, Series 2, Vol. 10.

Ambrose emphasizes moral distinction rather than predestinarian logic: the ‘world’ lies in sin, while believers are the cleansed faithful. The prayer demonstrates Christ’s priestly concern for the redeemed community.

Notes and References

Primary Sources:
– John Chrysostom, *Homilies on the Gospel of John* 17 (NPNF 1:14)
– Augustine, *Tractates on the Gospel of John* 107 (NPNF 1:7)
– Theophylact of Ochrid, *Explanation of the Gospel of John* (Chrysostom Press, 2007)
– Cyril of Alexandria, *Commentary on John*, Book 11 (*PG* 74)
– Origen, *Commentary on John*, Book 32 (GCS 10)
– Ambrose, *Exposition of the Christian Faith* 3.14.118 (NPNF 2:10)

               These excerpts reflect the Fathers’ shared conviction that Christ’s prayer in John 17:9 is directed toward believers entrusted to Him by the Father, distinguishing them from the unbelieving world, while still affirming the universal love and redemptive mission of Christ.

John 17:2. Power Over All Flesh, to Give Eternal Life to the Given Ones
“As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him”.

There is not a word about atonement being limited to the elect in this passage, which is what they are attempting to prove. I asked ChatGPT to produce the following.

In John 17:2, Jesus says: “just as You have given Him authority over all flesh, that to all whom You have given Him He should give eternal life.” This verse is often appealed to in the discussion of the extent of the atonement (i.e., did Christ die for the sins of all persons, or only for some, the elect?). This document summarizes how the Calvinist, Arminian, early church fathers, and Eastern Orthodox traditions interpret this verse and its implications for atonement theory.

1. The Calvinist Position

Doctrine: Limited Atonement (also called Particular Redemption). Christ died specifically for the elect, not every individual.

How John 17:2 is interpreted: “all flesh” = all humanity under Christ’s dominion; “all whom You have given Him” = the elect whom the Father has given to the Son; Christ gives eternal life only to this group.

Strengths: Maintains a precise ‘effectual’ atonement for those saved.
Challenges: Must account for the language of “all flesh” and reconcile verses that appear to say “for the whole world” (e.g., 1 John 2:2).

Note: Calvinists often emphasize that the atonement is sufficient for all but is efficient only for the elect. What is that explanation but sophistry? The point is that Christ died only for the elect, who are the only individuals God chose to save. Saying it is sufficient for all is a red herring; it is a diversion from the ugly truth of their unbiblical position, a theological distraction. It is irrelevant.

2. The Arminian Position

Doctrine: Unlimited Atonement – Christ died for all persons (provisionally), although only believers receive the benefit.

How John 17:2 is interpreted: “all flesh” = all humanity; “all whom You have given Him” = those who believe and respond (they are ‘given’ by the Father through prevenient grace and response); thus Christ gives eternal life to all believers.

Strengths: Emphasizes the universal scope of the gospel invitation; aligns more straightforwardly with ‘all’ language.
Challenges: Critics ask whether this compromises the definite effect of the atonement (i.e., does Christ ensure the redemption of all for whom He died?).

No one is advocating for universalism; they are aware of this. The atonement is for all people, but certain conditions must be met to receive its benefits.

Note: Arminians maintain that Christ’s death truly secures salvation for all who believe and continue in the faith, but does not guarantee it for those who do not.

3. Early Church Fathers

Theological context: The explicit ‘limited vs unlimited atonement’ debate is essentially a post‑Reformation development. The Fathers spoke more in terms of ransom, victory over death and sin, and the universal provision of Christ’s work.

It is essential to understand that, until the 16th Century, the limited atonement concept was neither widely accepted nor formally developed as a doctrine in the Christian Church. Let that sink into your thinking.

Summary of their view: Christ’s atonement was for the world (humanity) in its offering; the application of that atonement occurs in those united with Christ (i.e., believers).

Evidence: Scholars describe the patristic consensus as ‘provisionary sacrifice for all humankind, salvific only for those who believed.’ For example, John Chrysostom in Homily 80 on John 17:2 sees ‘power over all flesh’ meaning the mission to Gentiles as well as Jews.

Implication: The early church would likely emphasize the universal mission of Christ and the particular reception of eternal life by the faithful, rather than a narrowly defined elect subset as in Augustinian Calvinism.

4. Eastern Orthodox View

Soteriology: Emphasizes deification (theosis), healing, and communion with God. Atonement is viewed in terms of Christ’s victory, restoration of humanity, and the offering of communion.

Interpretation of John 17:2: ‘all flesh’ affirms Christ’s universal authority and mission; ‘all whom You have given Him’ refers to those joined to Christ (the Church) who receive eternal life through union with Him.

Scope of the atonement: Christ’s work is universally offered (for all), though actual salvation involves human response, participation in sacramental life, and synergy between divine grace and human freedom.

Distinctives: The Orthodox affirm that Christ died for all, emphasizing His victory over death and the opening of the path to communion with God rather than a forensic purchase for specific individuals.

Conclusion

John 17:2 is a rich verse because of its dual language (‘all flesh’ and ‘all whom You have given Him’). Depending on how one interprets these, it can support a universal scope of Christ’s mission or a particular redemption for the elect.

          The Calvinist tradition reads the narrower phrase as pointing to the elect (supporting limited atonement). The Arminian tradition sees the verse as affirming universal provision (Christ died for all) with benefit for believers. The early church fathers and Eastern Orthodox tradition lean toward a universal offering of Christ’s atonement, applied in the context of union with Christ and ecclesial life.

When studying this verse, key questions include:
• What does ‘given to Him’ mean in the context of John 17?
• Does ‘all flesh’ mean literally every individual or every kind of humanity (Jews + Gentiles)?
• Are we speaking of the provision of the atonement (Christ died for all) or the effect (who actually receives eternal life)?

Let us say that the Calvinist position is the accurate one. Where does that leave us? It takes us right back to all of the undesirable entailments of their system. It is a packaged deal; you can’t have one part without all the rest of the baggage. God hates most people and loves a much smaller number whom He will save. And He did this for His own glory. Are you really willing to accept that?

How about this entailment of the Calvinist system? God is sovereign over all that comes to be, including all good and all evil. He is the one who is the author of every instance of rape, child abuse, child sexual abuse, mass murder, and all sexual perversions. Are you ready to accept this aspect of Calvinism?

Romans 8:32-34. Who Shall Lay Any Thing to the Charge of God’s Elect?
“He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things? Who shall lay anything to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us”.

Again, there is not a word about the atonement being limited to just the elect, which is what they are trying to prove. It must be assumed and read into this passage, for it is not there. Even some hyper-Calvinists agree that this passage has nothing to do with limited atonement.

See Appendix 11 for more details on this passage, as well as Ephesians 1:4-6 with historical quotations.

Hebrews 9:12. By His Own Blood He Obtained Eternal Redemption for Us
“Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us”.

Not one word about Christ dying (limited atonement) for only the predetermined elect. Not a word. The Calvinist assumes it.

Hebrews 9:28. Christ Offered to Bear the Sins of Many
“So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation”.

It is written that Christ died to bear the sins of many. It says nothing about dying for just the elect. Christ died for all as the Bible clearly teaches, but only those who repent and believe will experience the benefits of the atonement. The offer and invitation are open to everyone, and the decision to accept them is theirs.

Isaiah 53:11-12. He Shall Bear Their Iniquities.
“He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. Therefore, I will divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death, and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors”.

Again, there is not one word about the prechosen elect or a limited atonement, which they claim is taught in this passage.

See Appendix 14 for interpretations across Christian Traditions.

Revelation 5:9. Redeemed to God by Thy Blood
“And they sang a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;”

Again, not a word about a limited atonement, which they are attempting to prove.

Titus 2:14. Who Gave Himself for Us
“Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works”.

My good fortune has shown up again in this verse that Calvinists use to prove a limited atonement, which it does not. Jesus gave himself for us. Why? “To redeem us from all iniquity and purify unto himself a peculiar people zealous of good works”. But do Calvinists actually believe that is true? They do not because they believe even Christians, filled with the Spirit of God, will sin in thought, word, and deed every day of their lives. What unbelief the Calvinist has in the truth of the Word of God. Christ promises to redeem us from all, not a bit, of iniquity and to purify us. They flatly deny that truth, yet we are supposed to trust them about their understanding of the rest of the word of God and believe in the unbiblical absurdity of the TULIP.

John 6:37-39. Of All That He Hath Given Me, I Should Lose Nothing
“All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.”

            We already know the Calvinist interpretation of this passage, as they use this passage as a proof text for Limited Atonement. They assume that the Father has already predetermined who will receive new life, and that, of those, Jesus will lose none. Jesus died only for the elect, not for anyone else. They can’t be lost because Jesus paid for all their sins, even those they have not yet committed. Absurd.

            Augustine’s interpretation of John 6 resembles the Manichaean and Gnostic views. His mature views on the theology of John 6 incorporate ideas from pagan philosophies into the Christian doctrines of grace and election.

Additional Proof References (Not Quoted)

Isaiah 53:4–6; John 3:16; Acts 20:28; Hebrews 2:9; Hebrews 10:14; 1 Peter 1:18–20; 1 John 2:2.

Westminster Confession of Faith – Irresistible Grace (Effectual Calling), The I in TULIP.

WCF Location: Chapter X (Of Effectual Calling), especially §§1–2

Key Confession Excerpts

X.1 – All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, He is pleased, in His appointed and accepted time, effectually to call, by His Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death, in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God; taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them a heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and, by His almighty power, determining them to that which is good; and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ: yet so, as they come most freely, being made willing by His grace.

X.2 – This effectual call is of God’s free and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man, who is altogether passive therein, until, being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit, he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it.

Opening comments. The Calvinist doctrine of Irresistible Grace is a necessary piece of the puzzle. I have written an article specifically addressing the concept of grace in Calvinism, because, as I see it, there is no grace in Calvinism at all.

Calvinism redefines free will in a way that makes it less evident that it denies free will. They know that if all Christians understood what they teach, which denies free will, most would leave Calvinism in the dust. Calvinism also redefines grace, making it significantly different from the biblical definition.

I could fill many more pages with quotes from early church fathers and non-Calvinistic interpretations to refute each of their proof texts, much as I did for the others. None of the following proof texts directly addresses the doctrine of Irresistible Grace. Grace is inferred, but Irresistible grace is part of Calvinism’s eisegesis of these passages.

Representative KJV Proof Texts

Romans 8:30. Whom He Called, Them He Also Justified
“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”.

You will notice that this verse says absolutely nothing about irresistible grace. The Calvinist must engage in eisegesis of this passage to arrive at their interpretation. They read into this text what their presuppositions are and what they want to find.

We have already talked about this passage. See Appendix 3. It doesn’t support any of Calvinism’s claims.

2 Timothy 1:9-10. Called with a Holy Calling
“Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began, But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel:”

See my previous comment regarding the Calvinist interpretation. There is not a word about grace in this passage. Calvinism gives us more eisegesis for the gullible.

1 Corinthians 1:26-30. God Hath Chosen the Weak Things of the World
“For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence. But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:”

Not a word is said about Irresistible Grace, which is what the Calvinist claims is evident from this passage, and it is not. The following analysis provides a more precise explanation of the options, utilizing ChatGPT.

Calvinists interpret this passage as supporting the doctrines of irresistible grace and unconditional election. Paul’s reference to God’s choosing of the weak, base, and despised demonstrates that salvation depends entirely upon divine sovereignty rather than human will or merit. The calling in verse 26 is viewed as the effectual, internal call of God that irresistibly brings the elect to faith.

John Calvin writes, ‘He shows that God designedly brings to nothing whatever men glory in, that His grace may be the more illustrious. It is therefore by His secret election that He has called those whom He knew to be of no account in the world.’

Similarly, Matthew Henry comments, ‘God’s design in calling the foolish and weak is to magnify the riches of His grace, and to humble all flesh before Him.’

Thus, Calvinists regard these verses as affirming that God’s grace is effectual, ensuring that those whom He chooses will indeed come to faith.

Arminians affirm that salvation is entirely by grace but reject the Calvinist notion of irresistible grace. They view this passage as emphasizing God’s gracious choice to overturn worldly values rather than an unchangeable decree of election. The calling is understood as universal and resistible, offered to all but effective only for those who humbly accept it in repentance and faith.

John Wesley explains, ‘Ye see your calling—that is, what kind of persons they are whom God hath called. Not many mighty… God hath chosen the weak, that He might stain the pride of all human glory.’

Adam Clarke similarly notes, ‘God has chosen such to show that the salvation of mankind is owing to His own mercy and not to the excellency of men.’

Hence, Arminians see the passage as God humbling human pride through the gospel, without implying that it implies an irresistible grace.

Before Augustine, the early Fathers generally emphasized humility and divine grace rather than deterministic election inherent in Calvinism and some pagan philosophies. They interpreted Paul’s words as God’s preference for the humble and faithful rather than as evidence of predestinarian exclusion, as Calvinistic determinists believed.

Clement of Alexandria stated, ‘God chooses the humble and the teachable, that the wise of this world may be put to shame. For knowledge without obedience is folly.’ (Stromata, 7.13)

John Chrysostom wrote, ‘See how he humbles them! Not that the wise or noble are rejected, but that pride excludes itself. God’s choice is not of necessity (as in deterministic Calvinism) but of purpose—to remove boasting.’ (Homilies on 1 Corinthians, Homily IV)

Origen observed, ‘Those whom the world despises, God receives, not because they are despised but because they are disposed to faith.’ (Commentary on Romans, 7.14)

The Fathers consistently upheld the universality of God’s call and the necessity of humble cooperation with divine grace, which refutes Calvinism.

Eastern Orthodoxy adheres to the patristic understanding, rejecting the concept of irresistible grace as taught by Calvinism. The passage is read through the framework of synergy, divine grace, and human freedom working together in salvation. And that is precisely what the Bible abundantly teaches.  Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.

God’s calling is universal, but the fruit of salvation depends on man’s humility and willingness to cooperate with grace and repent. The Orthodox emphasize that God’s ‘choosing’ reveals His preference for those who embody Christ’s humility, not arbitrary selection.

St. Theophylact of Ohrid explains, ‘God chose the foolish, not by compulsion or force, but because in humility they accepted His wisdom. The wise did not wish to be taught by God, and so He passed them by.’

Thus, Orthodoxy interprets this passage as an illustration of God’s transformative grace, which calls all but compels none. Does that not make perfect sense?

The following table summarizes the significant interpretive differences among the four traditions:

Calvinist: Effectual and irresistible calling; God’s sovereign election ensures faith.
Arminian: Universal and resistible calling; faith depends on human response.
Early Church Fathers: Universal call; humility and faith determine reception of grace.
Eastern Orthodox: Synergistic view; grace transforms those who cooperate with it.

2 Thessalonians 2:13-14. Called by Our Gospel
“But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Not a direct word about Irresistible Grace. The passage itself lists at least one condition that we must meet. We must believe the truth.

Ezekiel 36:26-27. A New Heart Also Will I Give You
“A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them”.

But what about the following passage, where we are told to make for ourselves a new heart? “Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel?” Ezekiel 18:31. In Ezekiel 36:26, a similar promise is made, and God is the person giving the new heart and spirit. Both are true, but Calvinism denies that absolutely and claims that we have no part in our own salvation. Their monergism is false as this passage clearly indicates. The grace of God is resistible in all these passages contrary to the doctrine of Calvinism.

John 6:37, 44–45, 65. No Man Can Come Except the Father Draw Him
“All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me. And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father”.

We have already talked about this passage. Please see the explanation of this passage in the first section on Total Depravity and Total Inability.

Acts 16:14. The Lord Opened Her Heart
“And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul”.

Again, not a word about Irresistible Grace. Only eisegesis will give Calvinism what they are looking for. They must read into the passage to find what they’re looking for.

Philippians 2:12-13. God Worketh in You to Will and to Do
“Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure”.

Not a word about Irresistible Grace. Non-Calvinists also believe that ‘God is at work in us both to will and to do of his good pleasure’. But God’s work can be and often is thwarted by us. Calvinists deny this. Even in this passage, it is clearly stated that the beloved must continue to obey and to work out their own salvation with fear and trembling. Now we know why the WCF cites only verse 13 and omits verse 12: it destroys their entire false belief system. It clearly tells Christians that they must remain faithful to be saved. Consider the following Chat analysis, which I have edited and added to.

Calvinists interpret Philippians 2:12-13 as teaching that salvation is wholly the work of God’s sovereign and effectual grace, despite the apostle’s clear teaching to the contrary. While believers are commanded to ‘work out’ their salvation, this refers to living out the results of regeneration, not contributing to it, according to the Calvinist. But why then tell Christians to do this with fear and trembling if their salvation is unconditional? Does that make sense to you? Verse 13, they argue, grounds this call in divine initiative: God is the one who works internally to produce both the desire (‘to will’) and the ability (‘to do’) His good pleasure.

John Calvin writes, ‘Believers do not bring to completion their salvation by their own strength, but by the power of God, who works in them, not only that they may will aright, but also that they may act aright. Thus, free will is so far from having any power of itself that it must be wholly renewed by grace.’

For Calvinists, these verses demonstrate the doctrine of irresistible grace: God’s inward work effectively renews and transforms the elect’s will. Too bad that is not what this verse actually teaches.

Arminians hold that God’s grace is necessary but not coercive and irresistible. They interpret this passage as affirming the believer’s responsibility to cooperate with grace. Verse 12 emphasizes human effort (‘work out your own salvation’), while verse 13 reveals that God empowers such effort through His indwelling Spirit. Thus, the relationship between divine initiative and human response is synergistic rather than monergistic.

John Wesley wrote, ‘It is God that worketh in you—by His enlightening Spirit, to convince you of sin and righteousness, and to strengthen you for every good work. Therefore, work out your own salvation, use all the grace God has given you, lest you fall short of the glory of God.’

Arminians therefore see this passage as a balance between divine grace and human freedom: God provides the power, but believers must yield and obey in repentance and faith.

The early Church Fathers unanimously emphasized both God’s grace and human participation. They viewed Philippians 2:12-13 as an exhortation to active cooperation with divine energy. Grace precedes, sustains, and perfects human effort, but never nullifies free will and human responsibility to repent and believe.

John Chrysostom explained, ‘Paul did not say, Work for your own salvation, but Work out your own salvation—that is, bring it to its full result. It is God that worketh in you—therefore we must not be slothful, but neither must we be arrogant, as though everything were from ourselves.’ (Homilies on Philippians, 8)

Origen observed, ‘God inspires the will to good, yet we must consent to His operation. The grace of God does not destroy free will but perfects it.’ (Commentary on Romans, 7.16)

Hence, for the Fathers, salvation involves a continuous partnership between divine grace and human obedience, which Augustinian Calvinism calls heretical.

Eastern Orthodoxy interprets this passage within the framework of synergy (συνεργεία), the cooperation of divine and human wills in salvation. ‘Work out your salvation’ emphasizes human cooperation, while ‘for it is God who works in you’ underscores divine initiative. God’s grace is seen as the divine energy that enables man’s participation in sanctification and deification (theosis).

St. John of Damascus wrote, ‘It is not of him that willeth alone, nor of him that runneth alone, but of God who showeth mercy. Yet without willing and running, man does not attain. Therefore, both divine grace and human freedom are necessary.’ (Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, II.30)

St. Gregory Palamas similarly taught, ‘God’s energy works in us to will what is good, but we must freely receive and act upon it. Thus salvation is neither imposed nor autonomous, but a union of wills—divine and human—in love.’

Accordingly, Orthodoxy sees these verses as the perfect illustration of the mystery of synergy: God initiates, empowers, and sustains, while man responds freely in faith and obedience.

Calvinist: God effectually causes both the will and the act; grace is irresistible.
Arminian: God enables both will and action, but humans must freely cooperate.
Early Church Fathers: Grace and free will operate together—God works, and man cooperates.
Eastern Orthodox: Synergy between divine energy and human will; salvation is cooperative and relational.

John 3:8. Born of the Spirit
“The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit”.

Again, not a word about Irresistible Grace. Grace is inferred, but Irresistible grace is forced into their interpretation. This is similar to the Ezekiel passages, where both God and humanity cooperate. Man must meet the conditions before he can be born of the Spirit of God.

Romans 9:23-24. Called Not of the Jews Only, But Also of the Gentiles
“And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?”

Calvinists understand ‘vessels of mercy’ to refer to those whom God has unconditionally elected to salvation. According to this view, God, by His sovereign decree, has chosen specific individuals to be recipients of His mercy, and others are ‘vessels of wrath’ prepared for destruction. The purpose of both is to display God’s glory in this way. We see His justice toward the reprobate and His mercy toward the elect, according to Calvinism. What they fail to mention and many fail to recall is that God is the sole cause of a person being reprobate.

John Calvin comments: ‘God designed, by the reprobation of some, and the election of others, to make known the riches of his grace and the greatness of his wrath.’ (Commentary on Romans 9).

According to Calvin, God designed by the reprobation or damnation of some and the election of others, to make known the riches of his grace and the greatness of his wrath. God makes known the greatness of his wrath toward the reprobate, but God decreed that they would be reprobate. Is God angry at them for being what He created them to be? That is the nonsense we are asked to believe.

And pray tell, what mercy is there in God electing some to everlasting life when they were born elect? The Calvinist must see Original Sin and our inherited guilt in this, or it makes no sense at all. The mercy is God forgiving us for Adam’s sin. What blindness they teach.

Arminians interpret this passage as referring to corporate election, that is, God’s purpose to save all who are united to Christ by repentance and faith. ‘Vessels of mercy’ are believers who respond in faith to God’s call, while ‘vessels of wrath’ are those who persist in unbelief and impenitence. Election is therefore conditional, based on repentance and faith rather than an arbitrary decree. Tell me which view glorifies God more?

John Wesley explained that God’s purpose was ‘to show mercy on those who believe, both Jews and Gentiles, and to endure with patience those who resist His grace.’ (Notes on the New Testament, Romans 9)

The Eastern Orthodox Church rejects the doctrine of double predestination and emphasizes synergy and the cooperation between divine grace and human freedom. God prepares ‘vessels of mercy’ through His grace, but human beings must respond to that grace freely. The passage is read as describing God’s freedom to extend His mercy to the Gentiles as well as the Jews, not as a decree of individual destinies.

St. John Chrysostom wrote: ‘He does not say, vessels of well-doing, but vessels of mercy, to show that the whole is of God. Yet they also have contributed a little themselves.’ (Homily on Romans 9)

Before Augustine, most early church fathers interpreted Romans 9 in moral and corporate, not fatalistic or deterministic (Calvinist) terms. God’s mercy is revealed to those who repent and believe, while His wrath is endured by those who harden themselves. Makes perfect sense.

• Ambrosiaster: ‘I will have mercy on the one whom I know in advance will be converted and remain with me.’ (Commentary on Romans 9:15)
• Pelagius: ‘They were worthy of mercy, because they had committed lesser sins and had been severely oppressed.’ (Commentary on Romans 9:23)
• Theodoret of Cyrus: Interprets ‘vessels of mercy’ as believers who respond to God’s promise by faith, not as an arbitrary division of humanity (elect and non-elect).

Gnostic, Manichaean, and Stoic Parallels

Some philosophical and heretical systems before Augustine contained deterministic elements that later critics have seen echoed in Calvinism, though Calvin explicitly rejected such associations. But the similarities are impossible to deny.

• Stoicism taught an impersonal, inescapable fate (fatum), but Calvin rejected this, insisting predestination concerns a personal and wise God, not blind necessity. (Institutes I.xvi.8). What then is the difference between blind necessity/determinism and God fated everything? It is a distinction without substance.
• Manichaeism promoted a cosmic dualism of light and darkness, often linked with determinism. Augustine, a former Manichaean, later rejected this worldview, although his strong emphasis on irresistible grace and predestination influenced his later theology and that of the Christian Church.
• Gnostics divided humanity into ‘spiritual’ and ‘material’ classes, often with fixed destinies. Early Church Fathers consistently opposed this fatalism, asserting free will and moral responsibility. But Augustinian Calvinism did not reject these ideas as did the early church fathers before Augustine.

Summary

Calvinists view Romans 9:23-24 as teaching unconditional, individual election and irresistible grace, but Arminians interpret this passage as describing conditional, corporate election. Eastern Orthodox and the early Fathers interpret this passage as emphasizing God’s mercy and human cooperation. And heretical systems like Gnosticism and Manichaeism are fatalistic or deterministic, a view rejected by historic Christianity but embraced by Augustinian Calvinism.

Additional Proof References (Not Quoted)

John 10:27–28; 1 Peter 2:9; Romans 11:29; James 1:18; Revelation 3:20; Psalm 110:3.

Westminster Confession of Faith. Perseverance of the Saints. The P in TULIP.

WCF Location: Chapter XVII (Of the Perseverance of the Saints), especially §§1–2

Key Confession Excerpts

XVII.1 – They, whom God hath accepted in His Beloved, effectually called, and sanctified by His Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace, but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved.

XVII.2 – This perseverance of the saints depends not upon their own free will, but upon the immutability of the decree of election, flowing from the free and unchangeable love of God the Father; upon the efficacy of the merit and intercession of Jesus Christ; the abiding of the Spirit, and of the seed of God within them; and the nature of the covenant of grace; from all which ariseth also the certainty and infallibility thereof.

 

Representative KJV Proof Texts by WCF

John 10:28-29. None Shall Pluck Them Out of My Hand
“And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand”.

This is what I wrote earlier regarding this verse. In my book ‘When Lies Become Truth’, Chapter 6 on Eternal Security, I address this passage, which is considered one of the strongest proof texts for the eternal security of the Christian, a tenet of Calvinism (Perseverance or Preservation).

You will notice that the Apostle John lists the conditions of salvation in the body of the text, which Calvinists and those who espouse carnal Christianity often overlook, failing to recognize and acknowledge the conditions Jesus laid out. Jesus said My sheep hear my voice and they follow me. Anyone who meets these conditions (is his sheep) will be saved, and no one can pluck them out of the hand of the Father. But this promise of salvation is conditional on hearing and obeying. Moreover, it clearly contradicts Calvinism’s doctrine of monergism and its concept of unconditional election. It also contradicts their doctrine of the perseverance of the saints, also known as eternal security.

Philippians 1:6. He Which Hath Begun a Good Work in You
“Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:”

There is not one word in this passage about unconditional perseverance, no matter what the Christian does, as Calvinism teaches. This verse reminds us that Christ is faithful and will begin and complete the work of redemption in us, as long as we meet the conditions or cooperate by hearing and obeying God’s commands.

Romans 8:29-30. Whom He Justified, Them He Also Glorified
“For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among 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.”

We have already covered this verse in the Unconditional Election segment. Please refer to my earlier comments.

Romans 8:38-39. Nothing Shall Separate Us from the Love of God.
“For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord”.

From my book ‘When Lies Become Truth, chapter 6 on Eternal Security, I wrote the following regarding this verse.

“Can anything separate us from the love of God?

               Charles Stanley believes Christians may fall from grace, but they will never fall from salvation.  How does he know? He argues that Paul, in one place, warned them about falling from grace, but in Romans 8, he assures his readers that they might fall from grace, yet that doesn’t mean they will lose their salvation. The author quotes Romans 8:38-39 as proof, “For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angles nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, not height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.”[1] He believes Paul didn’t leave anything out. Therefore, nothing can separate us from the love of God. Is Stanley correct that nothing can separate us from the love of God? Please note that this section of the book of Romans does not declare “nothing can or will separate us from the love of God.” Please reread it. Does it imply that?

               Please recall our earlier discussion of God’s love. The love of God that pertains to salvation is conditional, while the benevolent love of God toward all humanity, both good and bad, is unconditional. The love of God is both conditional and unconditional, depending on the context. The general benevolent love of God is unconditional, but the salvific or complacent love of God is conditional. God cannot and will not continue to love those who refuse to repent of their sins with His complacent or salvific love. That love is reserved for the truly repentant and holy.

Were Adam and Eve separated from the love of God?

               The passage in Romans 8 proclaims that not even Angels can separate us from the love of God. But what does that mean? Did Satan, an angel type if not an actual angel, separate Adam and Eve from the love of God when he convinced them to sin? If you answer “Yes,” then the statement in Romans 8:37-39 is a lie, or it’s a conditional statement, for an angel can separate us from the love of God if he convinces us to sin. Furthermore, if you answer “Yes” to the question, this passage must then only apply to those who are actually in Christ by meeting the conditions, such as not sinning. For these truly holy persons, nothing and no one, including Satan himself, can separate them from the love of God. I agree.

               If you answer the question “No,” then Adam and Eve were not separated from the love of God when they sinned. But not even Stanley would suggest they remained saved. Where does that leave us? It leaves us with the notion that not even Satan could separate Adam and Eve from the love of God by encouraging them to sin. Yet Adam and Eve died eternally or spiritually as a result of their sin, did they not? If they died in their sin, then how much sense does it make to believe that God continued to unconditionally love them while he condemned them at the same time? Now, tell me this is proof that children of God are eternally secure, and I will lovingly question your thinking.

“If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love; just as I have kept My Father’s commandments, and abide in His love” John 15:10.

 Many passages can be quoted that teach essentially the same truth. Will we abide in His love if we don’t keep His commandments? If we abide in His love, whether or not we keep His commandments, then this verse is meaningless. Jesus says that failing to keep His commandments will separate us from the love of God. Jesus declared that we must do something to abide in His love. It isn’t automatic. Some conditions must be met.

Will sin separate Christians from the love of God?

               In Romans 8, Paul did not say, “Sin will not separate us from the love of God,” but rather that “any other created thing” will not separate us from the love of God. Jesus clearly said we must keep His commandments to abide in His love. Moreover, Paul was addressing those who have been set free from the law of sin and death (Romans 8:1). For these truly holy persons, no created thing can separate them from the love of God. But sin will separate us from the salvific love of God, or at the very least, God’s benevolent love, which will not prevent us from being condemned, as in the case of Adam, Eve, Satan, and other fallen angels.

               Paul writes that no created thing can separate us from the love of God. Is sin a created thing? No, it isn’t. Sin does separate us from the love of God, for in Romans Paul declares, “For the wages of sin are death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Romans 6:23).

The apostle Paul also says, “For if you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by the Spirit of God, you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live. For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God” Romans 8:13-14.

Let me use a tactic of the author and say, “the same man who warned one group against falling from grace” told the same group the wages of sin are eternal death. The same author said that if Christians are living in sin, they will die, but if they are “putting to death the deeds of the body,” they will live. However, Stanley believes that the Spirit of God may not lead Christians, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t children of God. Paul states that only those whom the Spirit of God leads are sons of God. Who are you going to believe?

“For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.” Romans 8:3-5 emphasis added.

How does it get any clearer? Believers walk according to the Spirit and fulfill the law in practice and in truth. (End of excerpt.)

1 Peter 1:5.  Kept by the Power of God Through Faith.
“Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation, ready to be revealed in the last time”.

Here we have another excellent example of Calvinism’s exceptional eisegesis. They read their presuppositions into this text so that it agrees with their foundational principle of Original Sin and a sinful nature.

The verse says, ‘we are kept by the power of God through faith’. It doesn’t say that this is an unconditional keeping as Calvinism demands.

1 John 3:9. His Seed Remaineth in Him.
“Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God”.

            My good fortune is yet again making a way for me to refute the sandy foundation of Calvinism. Here, they falsely claim the doctrine of the preservation of the saints while they teach in direct opposition to this verse and the entire book of 1 John.

            The book of 1 John is about the sin-purging effect of being born again; however, Calvinists teach that Christians sin in thought, word, and deed daily, directly contradicting this verse and the entire book of 1 John. 1 John tells us that no one born of God sins. And it also states that those who sin are born of the devil.

            Does that sound like unconditional salvation and eternal security? If you honestly read the book of 1 John, you will notice that born-again Christians have victory over sin, the flesh, and the devil, and that it is our faith by which we have victory. Calvinism and most of the evangelical church teach the exact opposite of what this book of the Bible proclaims.

Jeremiah 32:40. I Will Not Turn Away from Them.
“And I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; but I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me”.

            To use this book and this passage to support the Calvinistic doctrine of the perseverance of the saints is almost laughable. Jeremiah was preaching to an apostate Israel under the condemnation and judgment of God. He was holding out the promise that if they repented of their many sins, God would make with them an everlasting covenant.

            They did not repent and were either killed or sent into exile in Babylon. Jerusalem was destroyed in 586 BC. Is that really a picture of eternal security, no matter how a child of God lives? Jeremiah was trying to wake up a backslidden people before it was too late. Will Christians today wake up?

Luke 22:31-32. I Have Prayed for Thee.
“And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren”.

            Why would Jesus need to pray that Peter’s faith not fail if God decreed whatsoever comes to pass? If Peter was one of the elect, there was no danger in Peter failing if Calvinism is true, which it is not.

            And let us read this in context. Jesus was talking to Peter, not to everyone else. He assured Peter that he would be converted. Is that foreknowledge or election? Obviously, the Calvinist sees in this election and eternal security, but that is nothing but eisegesis, in my opinion.

John 17:11-12, 24. Keep Them Through Thine Own Name.

John 17:11 — “And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.” KJV.

John 17:12 — “While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.”

John 17:24. “Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.”

Let us use the format that was used in many of these explanations thus far. I have edited ChatGPT’s responses.

1) Calvinist Interpretation (Unconditional Perseverance)

Core claim: These verses express Christ’s effective preservation of all whom the Father has given Him (the elect). Judas (“the son of perdition”) is excluded as never truly among the elect; therefore, the passage supports the doctrine that the elect will infallibly persevere. But who says Judas was never a genuine believer? That is just their necessary assumption, I think, because he was a genuine follower at one time. And what does it prove? If others and I are correct, then the preservation of the saints is false.

John Calvin on v.12: Christ has faithfully kept those given Him, and now “it belongs to [the Father] to see that it continues to be safe and sound.”

_Calvin, Commentary on John 17:12 & 24; StudyLight (public domain)._

On v.24, Calvin reads “behold my glory” as the consummation of salvation in heaven, implying that Christ’s intercession ensures the final glorification of those given to Him.

2) Arminian (Conditional Perseverance) Interpretation

Core claim: Christ truly keeps His own, yet the New Testament repeatedly conditions final salvation on continuing, persevering faith. These verses describe Jesus’ pastoral care for believers, not an unbreakable decree that makes apostasy impossible, as Calvinism teaches.

John Wesley on v.12: “So one even of them whom God had given him is lost… So far was even that decree from being unchangeable!”

_Wesley’s Explanatory Notes on John 17:12._

Wesley glosses “those thou hast given” as believers (v. two context). Adam Clarke cites Augustine that Judas “might have returned… and found mercy,” highlighting that loss is tied to one’s response. But in Calvinism, our response is predetermined by God alone.

_Adam Clarke, Commentary on John 17:12; Wesley’s Notes on John 17:2, 12; Society of Evangelical Arminians (conditional perseverance)._

3) Early Church Fathers

Core thrust: The Fathers emphasize Christ’s guardianship, our unity, and the goal of beholding His glory; they do not frame the issue as a post‑Reformation ‘once‑saved‑always‑saved’ debate. Perseverance is treated within themes of faithfulness, holiness, and participation in Christ. All of which are directly opposed to the unconditional election taught by Calvinism and by some pagans.

St. John Chrysostom on v.24: “Father, I will that they… be with Me where I am… Do you see that He says all in the way of condescension?”

_Chrysostom, Homily 82 on John 17:24 (NPNF / New Advent)._

Cyril of Alexandria underscores Christ’s mediating role for the salvation of all and the disciples’ need for His ongoing intercession.

_Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on John (LFC), on John 17._

4) Eastern Orthodox Perspective

Core claim: Salvation is synergy, an ongoing life of union (theosis) with Christ by grace, in which God truly keeps us while we must continue to abide. Orthodoxy rejects ‘once saved, always saved’ as a later Western construct; perseverance is real, but not automatic and not unconditional as Calvinism believes.

Orthodox catechetical reflection: The modern ‘eternal security’ idea is ‘not from the Bible, but from Calvin,’ and Orthodox teaching emphasizes cooperation with grace rather than Calvin’s monergistic inevitability.

_Fr. Lawrence Farley, “Eternal Security,” Orthodox Church in America (OCA)._

Applied to John 17:11-12, 24: Christ prays that the Father keep believers and bring them to behold His glory; we participate through faithful abiding, repentance, and sacramental life. These verses comfort the faithful but do not negate human freedom or the possibility of falling away.

5) Synthesis: Do These Verses Prove ‘Perseverance of the Saints’ (in the Calvinist sense)?

• Calvinist: Yes, none of the elect are lost; Judas proves he was never elect (says the Calvinist). Christ’s keeping and intercession ensure the final salvation of those given Him.
• Arminian: Not necessarily, the keeping is real, but final salvation is conditional on persevering faith; Judas warns against presumption.
• Fathers / Orthodox: Emphasize keeping, unity, and ultimate glory in categories of communion and fidelity; they don’t articulate a monergistic guarantee seen in Calvinism.

Select Online References

• Calvin, Commentary on John 17 (StudyLight).

• Wesley’s Explanatory Notes on John 17 (BibleHub / Christianity.com).

• Adam Clarke, Commentary on John 17 (StudyLight / BiblePortal).

• St. John Chrysostom, Homily 82 on John 17:24 (New Advent).

• Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on John (tertullian.org).

• OCA, Fr. Lawrence Farley, “Eternal Security.”

Refer to Appendix 15 for more information regarding John 17:11-12, 24.

Hebrews 7:25. He Ever Liveth to Make Intercession.
“Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them”.

This verse claims nothing about the guarantee of final salvation as the Calvinist proclaims. Instead, it refers to the work of Christ in keeping us in the faith and in abiding in Him as we meet the conditions.

2 Timothy 4:18. The Lord Shall Deliver Me.
“And the Lord shall deliver me from every evil work, and will preserve me unto his heavenly kingdom: to whom be glory for ever and ever”.

Again, there is nothing in this about unconditional salvation as Calvinism claims. And notice this one thing. Calvinism and most of evangelical Christianity today do not believe “The Lord shall deliver me from every evil work.” They teach that all Christians continue to sin, to varying degrees, throughout their lives.

They do believe that Christ delivers them from the guilt and condemnation of their evil, but not from their evil practices. They teach and believe that Christ saves them in their sins and not from their sins, Matthew 1:21. That truth refutes the doctrine of eternal security and perseverance of the saints.

Psalm 37:28. The Lord Forsaketh Not His Saints
“For the Lord loveth judgment, and forsaketh not his saints; they are preserved for ever: but the seed of the wicked shall be cut off”.

Did God divorce Israel? Yes, He did, and their final perseverance was not guaranteed to them. The covenant and its blessings were conditional. God preserves those who walk in righteousness, but those nominal believers who continue to walk in wickedness shall be cut off. Why don’t Calvinists see the blatant contradiction inherent in this passage? Did God decree that they would believe these lies, or did they blind their own eyes from the truth?

Additional Proof References (Not Quoted)

Romans 14:4; 2 Corinthians 1:21–22; Ephesians 1:13–14; Jude 24; Revelation 3:5; 1 Thessalonians 5:23–24.

Final Comments regarding Augustinian Calvinism as expressed by WCF

It is essential to note that this article does not provide voluminous scriptural support for refuting the false teachings of Calvinism. I have used the proof texts the WCF uses to justify its doctrines, which it does not. The foundation of Calvinism is the false doctrine of Original Sin, as taught by Augustine. The T in TULIP is total depravity and total inability. This is a false doctrine of paganism imported into Christianity by Augustine. This doctrine and its entailments are false and unbiblical. It is a foundation of sand and not the rock of truth. All of the rest of their doctrines likewise collapse.

Do we understand Calvinism? We may not understand someone’s personal preferences regarding Calvinism, but what many teach and believe is clearly evident from the WCF. The false and ruinous theological system of Calvinism and modern evangelicalism (partial Calvinism) tells Christian’s that:

• The moral law of God has been abrogated and done away with, and,

• They are born sinners, with a sinful nature that can’t be mostly subdued or eradicated in this life, even with the grace of God and the Holy Ghost indwelling them, and,

• That it is heresy and fanaticism to actually think that Christian’s can live without sinning all the time, and,

• Christians are eternally secure in their unrepentant ongoing sins.

• That God is the source of all the good and evil in the universe, yet we are morally responsible for sinning when God determined and decreed each of our besetting sins.

And what do you think the outcome will be from all this false teaching? We see the fruit of this tree all around us. Churches are filled with unsaved, deluded “Christians” who have never been born again to begin with, and other Christians who are horribly backslidden as a result of believing these lies.

Jesus said You will know the tree by what it produces, its fruit. If only Christians would believe what Jesus said. A good tree can’t produce evil fruit, according to Jesus. But according to Calvinism (the WCF kind), good trees (Christians) will sin every day until they die (evil fruit) and go to heaven.

Calvinism throws aside the principle of sowing and reaping (along with almost all other Christian principles) taught throughout the Bible. It teaches that Christians sow sin every day and reap everlasting life as a consequence. Calvinism teaches that you do not reap what you sow!

Calvinism echoes what the serpent said to Eve in the garden, “You surely shall not die” when you sin against God, who loves you unconditionally.

 

---