What About Calvinism (TULIP)?

Back in September of 2005 I started an article about Calvinism and it’s five points, called TULIP. My desire was to immediately follow that article with several articles walking through each point. I became so taken in the study that it is just now being completed and I am now ready to share that research with you.

Calvinism is rampant in Southern Baptist circles today. It is getting to be where we can not draw a line of differentiation between the Baptist, Reformed, or the Presbyterian beliefs. Many Baptists are taking a stand on the issue of Calvinism. Many churches have split over the issue. It is nearly the single greatest issue facing the Southern Baptist today. It strikes at the very roots of who we are and why we do (or do not do) various activities. What is Calvinism; and is it Biblical?

Calvinism is often divided into types like: Hyper-Calvinism, Pseudo-Calvinism, and Neo-Calvinism. These terms are often used to try and divide out “radical” Calvinists from those who are less inclined. There are people who call themselves a Calvinist, but who deny the very essence of what the Calvinists believe. These prefer to use the label of Calvinist and yet do not embrace Calvinism. Those who do embrace true Calvinism are labeled a Hyper-Calvinist.

Calvinism has been around for a long time. In fact, much of what is called Calvinism was not invented by, nor embraced by John Calvin. Proponents of Calvinism support The Westminster Confession of Faith as their doctrine – even when it stands, at times, in opposition to well established biblical doctrine.

We are going to investigate the claims of the Calvinist – not Hyper, Pseudo, or Neo, but Calvinist. If you understand Calvinism in the light of their understanding – you either take the five points of Calvinism as a whole, or you do not. There is no “Four Point,” “Three Point,” or even “Two Point” Calvinist. To accept any of the five points of Calvinism, in the way Calvinist believe, mandates agreement with the remaining points. It is like pregnancy either you are, or you are not, there is no middle ground. Either you are a Calvinist, and you hold to all five pedals of the TULIP or you do not.

Personally, I stand squarely outside of the Calvinist camp. I am neither a Calvinist, nor an Armenian. I find error in both belief systems. I am a Biblicist. I am a Baptist who does his best to understand what the Bible says without forcing it to fit in a pre-determined mold. I recognize I am far below the academic level of many who would oppose me. That only forces me to make my arguments and defenses that much more sure. Many Calvinist would also claim to be a Biblicist, but when you examine their teachings, it doesn’t fit the Bible. You must deny, or redefine, clear scriptural teachings to embrace either Calvinism or Armenian doctrine.

The Calvinist information below is quoted from the classical Calvinist website: www.apuritansmind.com. I have tried to select a font that will distinguish their quotes from my comments and still be clear to read. Please remember, this is not what I am saying about Calvinism. This is what Calvinists say they believe. I have only edited out some of the verse references due to space limitations. You are welcome to study their site and see if I am incorrect in quoting their information or leaving out important information. I am quoting now from their website:

“Total depravity is the extensive ruin of man's nature. Man is made up of two parts primarily: the material (body) and the immaterial (soul). Both the body and soul are corrupted because of the fall. This does not mean that people are as a bad as they can be, but rather, that the effects of the Fall have completely ruined the total being of man. It is not just that man's mind is ruined, or that just his body is ruined, or that just his soul ruined. It means the whole man is corrupted with sin. This would mean that man cannot fundamentally do anything to please God. This depravity begins at conception. Depravity of the heart is completely extensive so that the creature (us), cannot will to do any good. All we do is evil. All we love is ourselves. We suppress God, and exalt ourselves.”

If you compare this definition with scripture, you find several problems. Their first two sentences (“Total Depravity is the extensive ruin of man’s nature. Man is made up of two parts primarily: the material (body) and the immaterial (soul).”) shows their ignorance of creation, and the first three chapters of Genesis. They then contradict themselves in the fifth sentence by mentioning the three parts of man.

Go back to Genesis and study man. Man has three parts, not just two as they teach. Man is a triune being made by the Triune God. He has a body (flesh), a mind (spirit, emotions, cognition), and a soul (eternal spiritual self). When the fruit was eaten God said they would die that same day. What died? The body did not die, Adam lived 930 years. The mind did not die, he could still recognize God and the Woman. He could still recognize people, remember things, and receive instruction.

When Man and Woman died that same day, it was the soul that died. Instantly upon eating the fruit, their soul was dead (cut off from the fellowship and presence of God). Was man’s complete being, all three parts, dead on the day he ate? No. Was man’s mind corrupted with sin? Yes. Was his soul killed by sin? Yes. Was man so totally depraved by sin that he could not do any good thing? No. It was God’s gift of the soul that died that day. Man’s nature was unrestrained and became the focus of the mind.

The Calvinist says, before we come to Christ we cannot will to do any good and all we do is evil. To give their argument substance they misuse: “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?” Jeremiah 17:9. It is interesting they miss the verses above and below this verse which stand against Calvinist theology. In Jeremiah 17:7, the person who trusts the Lord is blessed, not the person that is arbitrarily selected. Also in Jeremiah 17:11, man is rewarded according to his ways and not some arbitrary sovereignty. We will cover the content of Romans 3 in the future.

Back to the issue: Is man totally depraved prior to salvation? Was it true of the first man? Study the time immediately after he sinned, and before God judged him. What happened? Man knew he had done wrong before being approached by God. Was the recognition of sin an evil thing? No. Since he could recognize his state of guilt, was he totally depraved? No. Man then made leaves to cover himself because he saw he was naked. Was covering his nakedness, an evil thing? If it was, what do you call it when God covered him? Logic would say that if man’s actions were evil, then God’s actions would have to be considered evil too. OOPS! God and man did the exact same thing – they used different materials, they had different motives, but they did the same thing, a good thing.

Can an unsaved man do anything to please God? Yes. Remember, man ate of the tree of knowledge – the knowledge of good and evil. Man can know good and evil as a result of the tree’s fruit. Paul said:

“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.” Romans 1:18-21

Does this sound like man is totally depraved to the point of not recognizing good and evil? Does this sound like, as the Calvinists say, man can not will to do any good? It is true, we all have sinned. We are sinners. We also have been created in the image of God. That image is not destroyed by sin.

Adam, after sinning, could recognize the voice of God. That was good. Adam hid because he was ashamed of his sin. That was good. Adam tried to cover himself after his sin. That was good. Was Adam covering himself to do evil, or hiding because his act of hiding was evil? No, of course not. He hid because he was ashamed of his sin, that’s a good thing. Total Depravity is wrong.

I pause here to remind you. Each of the five points of Calvinism is linked to the next. They do not stand independent of each other. If you accept Total Depravity, then man has no hope unless there is Unconditional Election. If man is Totally Depraved and is Unconditionally Elected, there must be Limited Atonement. These five points stand as a whole. They are indivisible.

Now we will take a look at Unconditional Election. The Calvinist information quoted below is from the classical Calvinist website www.apuritansmind.com.

“Unconditional Election is defined this way through the catechisms and confessions: God did, by His most wise and holy counsel, of His own, freely and unchangeably ordain some men to heaven and some men to hell by the nature of His good pleasure. In eternity, God has predetermined the course of everything and everyone. He had foreordained the eternal destiny of everyone whether to heaven or to hell for His glory. Men are unconditionally elected by God for His purposes without any prior works (good or evil) by which God would judge them good or evil. The election of men rests solely on the counsel and purposes of God. God has not decreed anything which he foresaw in the future, for that would place His decree upon foreseeing something in the creature.”

I want to thank the writer for his honesty in the first sentence. Notice what he says, “Unconditional Election is defined this way through the catechisms and confessions:” That statement is exactly correct. It is not only true of Unconditional Election but of the whole of Calvinism. It comes from catechisms and confessions and not from the Word of God alone.

The Calvinists claim “Sola Scriptura” (Only Scripture) but when closely examined there are claims and doctrines that come from catechisms and confessions alone. Their favorite source is The "Larger Westminster Catechism" (1688)—adopted by the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church. That is where you find not only the roots of TULIP, but also infant baptism, and unelect infants that die in infancy burning in hell. These catechisms and confessions of man are not “Sola Scriptura.” They were the attempts of the theologians, under the influence of a Roman Catholic background, to reform Roman Catholic Doctrine.

Roman Catholic Doctrine is what they Reformed. Theologians of that time Reformed Roman Catholic thinking to better match the Scriptures. Most of the reformation theologians were born, baptized, confirmed, and raised as Roman Catholics in the Roman Church. Many had received “Holy Orders” prior to changing their stand. The reformation was not a truly “Sola Scriptura” stance, but it was closer to standing on the Scriptures alone than what the Roman Catholic Church teaches.

Now, back to Unconditional Election. The quoted paragraph gives some light into the Calvinist understanding of the Sovereignty of God. To the Calvinist, God’s Sovereign means there is only one “will of God”. There can be no other will, or violation of God’s Will, because it would mean God is not in total control. Calvinists define God’s Sovereignty as an authoritative dictatorship.

In Unconditional Election there can be no resistance to the Will of God, because EVERYTHING happens by God’s design and influence to make it happen in a particular way. Verses where Jesus, or God, wanted one thing to happen and another thing happened, does not fit in their view of the Sovereignty of God. When a verse does not fit their theology, it must be ignored, discarded, or redefined.

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Matthew 23:37

How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge? Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you. Because I have called, and ye refused; I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded; But ye have set at nought all my counsel, and would none of my reproof: Proverbs 1:22-25

According to Calvinists, man’s sin is a result of God’s will, not man’s choices in violation of God’s will. In Unconditional Election, everlasting fire is a part of God’s plan for some men although it contradicts Scripture. Matthew 25:40-41 says it was prepared for the devil and his angels and 2Peter 3:9 says the Lord is not willing that ANY perish.

And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: Matthew 25:40-41

The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. 2Peter 3:9

Any time you use man’s catechisms and confessions as the basis of doctrine, instead of Scripture, you will err. In the first sentence the writer claims it is the good pleasure of God to send some people to hell. Where do the Scriptures say that? God enjoys sending people to hell? “Sola Scriptura”? Are we to believe since God is Sovereign and since everything that happens is His plan then God is never grieved? What about Mark 3:5 that says Jesus was grieved because of the hardness of their hearts? What about the passages like Psalms 78:40 that says God was grieved for 40 years by the children of Israel while they were in the desert? Even Genesis 6:6 says the wickedness of man grieved Him at His heart.

And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts, he saith unto the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it out: and his hand was restored whole as the other. Mark 3:5

But he, being full of compassion, forgave their iniquity, and destroyed them not: yea, many a time turned he his anger away, and did not stir up all his wrath. For he remembered that they were but flesh; a wind that passeth away, and cometh not again. How oft did they provoke him in the wilderness, and grieve him in the desert! Yea, they turned back and tempted God, and limited the Holy One of Israel. Psalms 78:38-41

1Chronicles 29:17 says God has pleasure in uprightness. Psalm 5:4-6 says God does NOT have pleasure in wickedness but hates all workers of iniquity. Are we to rewrite this passage to say God enjoys the destruction of the workers of iniquity? That is not what it says. It grieves God to have to destroy people because of their wickedness.

I know also, my God, that thou triest the heart, and hast pleasure in uprightness. As for me, in the uprightness of mine heart I have willingly offered all these things: and now have I seen with joy thy people, which are present here, to offer willingly unto thee. 1Chronicles 29:17

For thou art not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness: neither shall evil dwell with thee. The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity. Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing: the LORD will abhor the bloody and deceitful man. Psa 5:4-6

The God of Scriptures is not one who enjoys the destruction of the wicked but the redemption of the wicked. Look at what Ezekiel says:

But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die. All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live. Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways, and live? Eze 18:21-23

Study the Scriptures and give me one reference, Old or New Testament, that says (in proper context) that God is pleased to send man to hell. There isn’t one. Unconditional Election is a fabrication based upon catechisms and confessions.

The second sentence said, “In eternity, God has predetermined the course of everything and everyone.” This is what I call Doris Day Theology. “Que Sera Sera what ever will be will be” It is the theology of Christian Fatalism. It involves the Islamic concept of fate but they attempt to dress it in Christian regalia.

This theology is destructive in that it leads the person to believe they have no choice about their condition. According to Calvinism, if a Christian does not have a close relationship with Christ it is because your relationship was predetermined to not be close. If you are a Calvinist and you are reading this article, God has determined before the world began that I show you the errors of Calvinism.

In the fourth sentence of their creed they again contradict their own theology. They said, “Men are unconditionally elected by God for His purposes without any prior works (good or evil) by which God would judge them good or evil.” In the Calvinistic definition of Total Depravity, man can not have any good works prior to salvation. According to their own explanation, “Depravity of the heart is completely extensive so that the creature (us), cannot will to do any good. All we do is evil.” Their fourth sentence should read, “…without any prior bad works by which God would judge them evil.”

Now we arrive at the single point where most non-Calvinists have their problem. Many non-Calvinists believe you can embrace the other points of Calvinism and leave this one out. I have even interviewed Calvinists who have a hard time with this doctrine and would rather call it “Special Atonement”. It still has the same meaning and theology, they just don’t like the harshness of the title “Limited”. Whatever you call it, Limited Atonement is a indivisible link in this chain of Calvinism.

Here’s what they say from www.apuritansmind.com.

Limited Atonement
Limited atonement is that fundamental Christian doctrine which states that Jesus Christ came and died for a limited number of people. He did not die, or redeem, every individual for all of time, but for some individuals, i.e. His sheep. He died for some people, and secured the salvation of those people through his death which took away their sin and imputed His own righteousness to them. It is true, as the Scriptures state, that he died for "all men" (defined) and that God loves "the whole world" (defined). In these cases "all men" does not mean every individual inclusively. Nor does it necessarily follow that Christ died for the whole world because God loves the whole world inclusively. Jesus secured the salvation of those for whom He gave his life, and for those God imputes His righteousness upon them. Jesus does not infallibly secure the salvation of all men, for thence, all men would be saved.

The error, again, is found in their opening salvo, calling Limited Atonement “that fundamental Christian doctrine”. This doctrine is definitely not fundamental to Christianity. This concoction can only be found in the warped imagination of a person following man’s creeds, instead of the Bible. Jesus only dying for the chosen is nowhere supported in scripture. The only reason for this doctrine of Limited Atonement is to mold God’s grace and love, so it fits within the confines of Unconditional Election.

Jesus did not, “die for all men (defined),” He died for ALL men (and women). God does not, “love the whole world (defined),” He loves the WHOLE WORLD. In violation of Proverbs 30:6, they place qualifiers where the scriptures are silent. In fact, that whole sentence is contradictory.

In the beginning they say, “It is true, as the Scriptures state,” and then they say, ““all men” (defined)” and ““the whole world” (defined)”. Apparently, it is not “as the Scriptures state,” because the scriptures do not have the hidden meaning they impose. They try to have it both ways. They want the scriptures to be true, and they want Limited Atonement to be true, this cannot be.

Just because Jesus offers salvation to all, does not mean all have accepted His offer. Their last sentence says, “Jesus does not infallibly secure the salvation of all men, for thence, all men would be saved.” This sentence should read, “Jesus does infallibly secure the salvation of all men, therefore, all men could be saved.”

In Luke 5:32, Jesus clearly refutes this Calvinist theology when He said, “I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” If they were chosen from the foundation of the world, they would be the righteous. Jesus came to call (not force), sinners (not just chosen sinners), to repentance (something they do to become saved). What more proof do you need than the words of the Saviour Himself?

Another point to ponder along this same line is found in John 1. We are told Jesus made all things and that if He didn’t make it, it doesn’t exist. Did Jesus make all things or only a select few things? I understand the Greek word “pas” can be used in more than one way, but even with that understanding look at these same uses of the same Greek word.

References
John 1:7 that all men through him might believe
John 1:9 which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
John 1:16 of his fullness have all we received (“all” here is tempered by “we” to make it limited)
John 2:24 Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men,
John 3:8 so is everyone that is born of the Spirit. (again “all” is understood in light of the rest of the sentence.)
John 3:15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish (Are we to understand that “whosoever” means a limited, chosen few? – Hogwash.)
John 3:16 so loved the world (cosmos), that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, (a limited chosen few?)
John 3:20 for everyone that doeth evil hateth the light
John 3:31 He that cometh from above is above all: …he that cometh from heaven is above all.

How can anyone, especially a learned theologian, look through the book of John and come to the conclusion that atonement is limited to a select few?

Books could be written on this subject, but it is enough to say, Limited Atonement is a man made invention. An Unlimited God has no Limited Atonement.

Look at 1 John 2:1-2, “My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.”

He is the continual payment for our sins (saved people): and not for ours (saved people) only, but also for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD (not saved people too) (holos kosmos). A pardon isn’t an executed pardon, until it is accepted by the guilty party.

The next heresy in this chain of Calvinism is called Irresistible Grace. They say:

Irresistible Grace
Since grace is undeserved by any person, Irresistible Grace teaches that when the Spirit of God is sent to change a person's heart, that person cannot resist the change. This is when the Spirit of God applies the work of Christ to the soul. This does not mean that the person is unwilling to be changed because the Spirit of God is "fighting against them", rather the Spirit changes the heart of stone to beat as a heart of flesh. The change opens the eyes of the spiritually blind to the work of Christ. It is that which the Spirit of God does on his own, previous to any act of man. The Spirit of God will accomplish what He is sent out to do and will not be frustrated in His work of changing the sinner's heart.

Well they got the first phrase right, but after that first comma, it goes down-hill fast. God’s grace is undeserved by anyone, but is it irresistible? Notice again, from the first sentence they use man made doctrine to do the teaching, and not the God-breathed scriptures.

Let me clarify a few issues. This statement says that man has no choice. Man does not choose Christ, Christ chooses man. Man is saved even before he realizes he is lost. Notice how they say it, “It is that which the Spirit of God does on his own, previous to any act of man.” There is no repentance, no conversion, no calling on the Lord for salvation. The Holy Spirit, according to Irresistible Grace, is the one sent to save the chosen, and they will be saved, even if they do not yet realize it.

Here again let us bring up a previously quoted event from scripture: In Matthew 23:37, or Luke 13:34, Jesus said, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!” Does this sound like the absence of grace, or the resistance of God’s grace? Resistance, of course.

How about 2Peter 3:9, “The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.” Does this qualify for Irresistible Grace? No way. How about, Immutable Grace, a grace that is patiently calling and waiting for all to come and repent. Will all come? No, and this in no way infringes upon the sovereignty of God. God desires, but does not force, man’s repentance. God sovereignly created man with the ability to freely choose. Man’s exercise of his God given ability does not reduce God’s power.

We are empowered to choose, right or wrong, and to bear the consequences of our choice. To make God’s grace irresistible we reduce salvation to nothing more than automation. It is Lotto Theology and salvation is the big prize for which we hope we are chosen. Scripturally speaking, Lotto Theology doesn’t have a chance of standing in light of Scripture.

The final point of Calvinism as listed on www.apuritansmind.com is Perseverance of the Saints. They say:

Perseverance of the Saints
Perseverance of the Saints does not mean "once saved always saved". This corruption of the doctrine has been popular in recent years, but has never been a true representation of the doctrine. "Once saved always saved" is more keenly given the name "Perseverance of the sinner" instead of "the saint". For it teaches that man can be saved by Christ and then sin habitually, do whatever he wants, and then still "persevere to the end". Perseverance of the saints does not teach this. Perseverance of the saints teaches that once God has renewed the heart of a sinner through the application of the redemption wrought by Christ upon the cross, he will continue to be saved and show forth the fruits of that salvation. The sinner perseveres because of Christ, but he continually shows himself as one who has been changed by Christ. God has saved the individual and will sanctify him until the end when he is ultimately glorified, and in heaven. It does not mean man has a license to sin. Those who think they have a license to sin are not changed and saved by grace. They are still in sin. Those who are saved by grace and changed, desire to show forth the fruits of that salvation. God motions the heart to good work, and continues that good work to the end.

I can find common ground only on the first sentence. “Perseverance of the Saints does not mean "once saved always saved".” This is true. Remember, each of the points of Calvinism do not stand alone. Each one leads to the next, and together, they make a whole that is indivisible. People who are not Calvinists usually start here to find some common ground. There isn’t any.

If you read what they are saying, you persevere because of Unconditional Election and Irresistible Grace, not because of the blood of Christ being paid once for all. Whoever wrote this must be confused. I can not believe that any true, non-Calvinist student of the scriptures would believe we are given a license to sin. We have the ability to sin, and we do sin, but we have no license to sin. If anyone would feel a “license to sin” it would be someone who feels chosen. Just see what immunity from prosecution will do for someone. It always leads to criminal actions. People driving on the roads often feel the license to break the traffic laws when they do not see a policeman present.

We do have a license, but it is a license to not sin. 1Corinthians 10:13 says, “There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.”

That verse gives us the ability to say no to sin. It must also be understood that, “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.” 1John 1:8-10

We continue in righteousness, not to be saved, but because we are saved. The saints do persevere, but there are saints that don’t persevere too. Paul writes to warn them:

“If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire. Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.” 1 Corinthians 3:14-17

It is possible to be a saved person, and have no rewards. Apparently there are some people that persevere better than others. But what happens if the person refuses to persevere? Ezekiel gives us that answer:

“Again, When a righteous man doth turn from his righteousness, and commit iniquity, and I lay a stumblingblock before him, he shall die: because thou hast not given him warning, he shall die in his sin, and his righteousness which he hath done shall not be remembered; but his blood will I require at thine hand. Nevertheless if thou warn the righteous man, that the righteous sin not, and he doth not sin, he shall surely live, because he is warned; also thou hast delivered thy soul.” Ezekiel 3:20-21

Notice, when a righteous man uses a “license to sin”, God will not only take him out of the world, but that person will loose his reward as well. What’s that you say? This does not apply because it is in the Old Testament? Look at what Paul told the Ephesian elders:

“Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men. For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.” Acts 20:26-27

Paul here uses the same blood illustration and places himself under this Old Testament passage. Just so no one is left out, the passage also includes the unrighteous man too. (Ezekiel 3:18-19)

The TULIP of Calvinism is a deadly flower. It can rob you of rewards, it can divide friendships, and it can even split churches. It’s seed is being spread by some of the most unlikely places and we need to lay hold firmly to Biblical Doctrine and not give heed to seducing spirits that call us to another gospel.

We need to heed the admonition found in Galatians: “I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” Galatians 1:6-9

If you are a Calvinist or if you are considering the claims of Calvinists, Puritans, or Reformed Theology, here are a few questions:

Why do we have a Bible? What would be the purpose in telling everyone the plan of Salvation and how to live? Since according to your theology it is not a book for Salvation, is it only to be considered a history book or a book of poetry?

Are you chosen? How do you KNOW? What if you only think you are? How can you tell the difference? Is it just because you do good? What about Matthew 7:22-23, “Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.”

If you give an invitation to salvation, why do you? In an invitation, aren’t you just taunting the un-chosen with the salvation he can never get?

Why are we called to evangelize? Why taunt the unsaved with that which they can never have, even if they want it?

Was David lying or guessing when he said, “But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.” 2Samuel 12:23? Do you really believe there are infants burning in hell?

I stand with our Calvinist brothers when it comes to the Diety of Christ, or the Trinity. But when we start talking about the availability of salvation and the meaning of sin ~ the Calvinists are way outside the camp.