Why I am no Longer a Calvinist

[ALoveDivine]

As a lot of you know I had basically adhered to reformed soteriology for a long time. I've followed Paul Washer, John MacArthur, John Piper and others quite a bit and found their biblical arguments quite compelling. However, there just seems to be too much in the bible that refutes some of the points of Calvinist theology.

First I must say that I do firmly believe two of the points are biblically accurate. Man is totally depraved, this is clear throughout scripture. However, I can find no solid biblical evidence of the idea of total inability. No one seeks God, no one does good, there is none righteous, etc. All true. But no where does the word of God say that, when the Gospel is brought to a man, that that man is unable to respond to it. The way I now see it is that God's word is so powerful, that when the Gospel is presented to a man it basically breaks the chains of depraved ignorance, and that person can at that point repent and believe upon Christ for salvation.

Scripture is clear that God desires all men to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4, 2 Peter 3:9, Matthew 11:28, etc.). If he chose only certain people to be saved, and not others, purely out of his own sovereign will rather than a foreknowledge of whether the person would respond when presented with the gospel, than how can it be true that he desires all men to be saved? God's desire to see all saved cannot logically coexist with the idea of total inability. If the gospel is not powerful enough to enable a man to be saved, and therefore many are totally unable to be saved, then God obviously does not desire all to be saved. Salvation is a free gift, and God desires all to be saved, it is only a willful rejection that prevents this. That is the only logical conclusion to make if you take God's stated desire to see all saved seriously.

I am not a Calvinist any longer but I'm not an Arminian either. I think both perspectives are extreme in opposite ways. For example, I definitely hold to the wonderful biblical truth of the preservation of the saints. No one who is truly saved is ever lost because we are kept by the power of God. I agree with the Calvinists here. And again, I agree that man is totally depraved, but not that he suffers from some total inability even when the Gospel is presented to him because he wasn't sovereignly elected.

Naturally I have a big problem with the doctrine of limited atonement, as the bible says over and over again that Christ died for the sins of the whole world.

"And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world."
- 1 John 2:2

I mean really, how could God's word be any more clear? This single verse destroys the idea of limited atonement. Christ died for the sins of ALL but each person is responsible to accept the reconciliation that God offers in Christ, through faith. God is sovereign, but this does not mean that man is not responsible or is unable to make choices.

To sum up, I think Calvinism and Arminianism are both basically man-made attempts to synthesize God's word into a systematic philosophy. The problem is, neither one of them seems to be honestly true to the bible. Rather than the Tulip, this sums up who I now see the plain teaching of scripture.

T - Total Depravity - Man is totally wicked, but does not suffer from some inability to respond to the Gospel.
C - Conditional Election - the power of God in the Gospel, the responsibility of man to respond, election according to the foreknowledge of God regarding such response.
U - Universal Atonement - Christ died for all, but salvation by his propitiatory substitutionary work must be received by faith.
R - Resistable Grace - The Gospel itself, and Gods word in general, in the power of the Holy Spirit, can and do open a sinner's heart and soul to God's grace, but it can be turned down by an act of will.
P - Preservation of the Saints - All those who are truly saved are eternally secure and are kept by the power of God through faith, and will never totally or completely fall away.

Any thoughts?

 

[Radagast]

T - Total Depravity - Man is totally wicked, but does not suffer from some inability to respond to the Gospel.
C - Conditional Election - the power of God in the Gospel, the responsibility of man to respond, election according to the foreknowledge of God regarding such response.
U - Universal Atonement - Christ died for all, but salvation by his propitiatory substitutionary work must be received by faith.
R - Resistable Grace - The Gospel itself, and Gods word in general, in the power of the Holy Spirit, can and do open a sinner's heart and soul to God's grace, but it can be turned down by an act of will.
P - Preservation of the Saints - All those who are truly saved are eternally secure and are kept by the power of God through faith, and will never totally or completely fall away.

Sounds to me like you're pretty much an Arminian. Your T is not the Calvinist T, and your C, U, and R are Arminian.

I'm not sure that P is consistent with C, U, and R, though. If the deciding factor in salvation is our own response, that could waver at any time.

 

[gord44]

..

 

[Keachian]

The addition of the P is a rather Wesleyan flair from what I understand

 

[Elderone]

No one seeks God, no one does good, there is none righteous, etc. All true. But no where does the word of God say that,

Just a point or three.

No one seeks God and where does it say that. Rom 3:11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. The wording of this passage couldn't be clearer.

There is none righteous: Ecc 7:20 For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.

No one does good. Psa 14:1 To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David. The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Psa 14:2 The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.
Psa 14:3 They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

We here will help with any questions you have.

 

[ALoveDivine]

If the deciding factor in salvation is our own response, that could waver at any time.

Salvation is a free gift , the gift of eternal life, and yes, we must receive it. However once we receive it it can never be forfeited. He who believes on the Son has eternal life (John 3:36). If salvation could be lost then it would not be eternal life, eternal life by definition never ends. Plus scripture is clear that we are held in the hands of both the Father and the Son, and that the sheep will never perish (John 10:27-28). We don't keep ourselves, God keeps us. That is as clear as can be, and Arminians are dead wrong is asserting that salvation can be lost.

Again, I have two huge problems with Reformed soteriology. First, God's plainly stated desire is that all be saved. Obviously all won't be saved, universalism is false. So as I see it the only way God could truthfully desire that all be saved, and yet not all will be saved, is if the free gift of salvation must be received by a soul and can in fact be turned down. Am I missing something here? How do you all reconcile God's desire to see all saved with the idea of unconditional election?

Second, limited atonement. Scripture declares over and over again that Christ died for all, for the sins of the whole world, not just for believers but for the whole world, etc. How can reformed theology possibly interpret this to mean anything other that what it plainly says? I honestly can't find a biblical basis for the idea of limited atonement. Obviously the atonement is only applied unto salvation to those who believe, but scripture plainly says that Christ died for all. Again, the only way I can see to reconcile these two truths is if salvation, as a free gift, must be received and can in fact be turned down.

Now let me be clear on one thing. I do not believe man saves himself. Man in and of himself cannot be saved because he does not seek God, he hates God, and he is totally depraved. However, when the Gospel comes to a man, it is the power of God, and man can only then accept the free gift of salvation. So God still gets all the glory, man has no room for boasting. If you are drowning in the sea and someone on a boat reaches down to grab you, and you take their hand, do you have any room to boast in yourself? No, all praise goes to the one who saved you, not to yourself simply because you grabbed the hand.

So my primary problems are with the U and the L. If the U and the L are right, irresistible grace is also right. If the U and the L are wrong, saving grace is not irresistible. If you all can show me from scripture how I am wrong in my assertions I would love to see that. I am always open to revision of my views, to be in line with God's word. I seek the truth here above anything else. It just seems that scripture does not teach unconditional election or limited atonement, for the reasons I listed above.

 

[DiligentlySeekingGod]

Sounds to me like you're pretty much an Arminian. Your T is not the Calvinist T, and your C, U, and R are Arminian.

I'm not sure that P is consistent with C, U, and R, though. If the deciding factor in salvation is our own response, that could waver at any time.

 

[oworm]

Double post

 

[oworm]

Just a point or three.

No one seeks God and where does it say that.

Always important to take note of punctuation and context.
Note bold emphasis for clarification

No one seeks God, no one does good, there is none righteous, etc. <--All true. But no where does the word of God say that, -->when the Gospel is brought to a man, that that man is unable to respond to it.

I nearly made the same mistake until I read it again and took note of punctuation.

 

[JM]

To sum up, I think Calvinism and Arminianism are both basically man-made...

You need this my friend.

Monergism and Synergism - YouTube

 

[twin1954]

Salvation by the sovereign grace of God in Christ Jesus the Lord is recieved as a glass recieves water, passively. If we have recieved the grace of God first as a glass then we will recieve it as a man who takes that glass and drinks.

 

[Elderone]

Always important to take note of punctuation and context.
Note bold emphasis for clarification

I nearly made the same mistake until I read it again and took note of punctuation.

Thanks for the catch, oworm.

 

[cygnusx1]

Sounds to me like you're pretty much an Arminian. Your T is not the Calvinist T, and your C, U, and R are Arminian.

I'm not sure that P is consistent with C, U, and R, though. If the deciding factor in salvation is our own response, that could waver at any time.

Good observation , you know some people who deny they are Arminian write as though they have been a Calvinist and now wish to argue that they found it untenable , some even have dozens of accounts even on this forum and spend hours logging in and out with different account names just to try and win something ......


What gives. Things away is a pattern and OSAS dogma imagining it is somehow The same as Perseverance of the saints ..

 

[bsd058]

Here's what I believe and why (in a simplified version):

T - Man is totally depraved and is incapable of pleasing God.

Accepting the word of God in the proper manner (as there are some who accept his word in an improper sense and fall away, are snatched away, or are choked by the cares of the world - parable of the sower) is pleasing to God. Therefore, if one is able to accept the word of God, they are contradicting what the apostles and prophets say in regard to man's inability to do anything that pleases God (all of our righteousness is filthy rags/There are none who do good/none who are righteous/etc.).

It's only by God overpowering our total depravity with his grace that we are finally given the ability to do good. Hence grace would then have to be irresistible (I), otherwise we would choose sin over God since our own propensity is to do only evil (the thoughts of men are ONLY evil from their youth).

U - Unconditional election must follow since everything we do is evil, and if we were to merit anything at all, it would be death. Therefore, our salvation cannot be based on anything we do, since we only merit the wrath of God in and of ourselves.

L - Limited Atonement because Christ's merit is imputed to our account and our sins are imputed to him. If his righteousness was imputed to everyone's account, everyone would go to heaven. If he were to carry the sins of everyone, then everyone would have their sins imputed to him, by definition, and the penalty for their sins would have been paid, hence justifying everyone. But this is universalism.

P - Perseverence of the Saints because the same grace which was not of ourselves is what keeps us until the day of our Lord appears. Rom 8:29-30 - The foreknown in this verse are predestined, called, justified, and glorified. Therefore, if you would be justified, you would also of necessity be glorified.

If one of these points falls, the whole Arminian doctrine is correct. But it ain't.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

If one of these points falls, the whole Arminian doctrine is correct. But it ain't.

I see it a bit differently, or I guess what I mean is, I wouldn't give arminian doctrine that much credit.

Only one point of Calvinism need be true for the rest to fall into place. What I mean is, ULIP follows from the T. The Scriptural evidence and support for T is overwhelming, and many of the peeps in denial are biblical errantists and or deny Sola Scriptura. Though others could do a better job of demonstrating, I will attempt to bring attention to some of the connections between all of the five points.

U - necessary because of T. Election cannot depend on man, it must depend on God because man left to wallow in his nature, wills to sin in every choice.

L - necessary because of T. Because nobody is worthy, neither can anyone make their self worthy, salvation requires the sovereign grace of God, His merciful unconditional loving choice of particular individuals for His purpose, pleasure, and glory.

I - necessary because of T. On our own, without the unconditional particular monergistic regeneration graciously lavished on us, we could do nothing but resist the grace of God. As it is written, "for without me you can do nothing".

P - necessary because of T (an extension of U, the logical conclusion of L, an extension of I). Left to our depravity, to our devices, we would all fail to persevere, if perseverance were conditionally dependent upon our choices, for in every Saint, there is still a sinner. If God has chosen out of mercy to save us, to give us a new heart and mind, then if follows that He will also give perseverance to His elect, His chosen ones, to those particular individuals whom can say "Christ died for me", as opposed to the impersonal generic claim and notion of "Christ died for sin". Christ died for me and it was necessary, because I was dead in sins, unworthy and unwilling. His precious blood paid for all of my sins because each one carries the same guilt and wage. Personally, I find no sense or support for the notion that God would choose to save, knowing we could and would "unsave" ourselves, that God would allow His choice to be trumped by the fickle choices of His creatures. He that began a good work will complete it, and that by unconditional love and grace.

Thank you for inspiring and opportunity to think these things through once again, as I am always in need of constant reminding and refreshing.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

T - Total Depravity - Man is totally wicked, but does not suffer from some inability to respond to the Gospel.

Any thoughts?

Sorry but you contradict yourself here. How can a totally wicked man be ABLE to ascend to spiritual good? He can't, his faith is wicked and dead in self. A totally wicked man, dead in sins, is dead to God.

 

[bsd058]

I see it a bit differently, or I guess what I mean is, I wouldn't give arminian doctrine that much credit.

Only one point of Calvinism need be true for the rest to fall into place. What I mean is, ULIP follows from the T. The Scriptural evidence and support for T is overwhelming, and many of the peeps in denial are biblical errantists and or deny Sola Scriptura. Though others could do a better job of demonstrating, I will attempt to bring attention to some of the connections between all of the five points.

U - necessary because of T. Election cannot depend on man, it must depend on God because man left to wallow in his nature, wills to sin in every choice.

L - necessary because of T. Because nobody is worthy, neither can anyone make their self worthy, salvation requires the sovereign grace of God, His merciful unconditional loving choice of particular individuals for His purpose, pleasure, and glory.

I - necessary because of T. On our own, without the unconditional particular monergistic regeneration graciously lavished on us, we could do nothing but resist the grace of God. As it is written, "for without me you can do nothing".

P - necessary because of T (an extension of U, the logical conclusion of L, an extension of I). Left to our depravity, to our devices, we would all fail to persevere, if perseverance were conditionally dependent upon our choices, for in every Saint, there is still a sinner. If God has chosen out of mercy to save us, to give us a new heart and mind, then if follows that He will also give perseverance to His elect, His chosen ones, to those particular individuals whom can say "Christ died for me", as opposed to the impersonal generic claim and notion of "Christ died for sin". Christ died for me and it was necessary, because I was dead in sins, unworthy and unwilling. His precious blood paid for all of my sins because each one carries the same guilt and wage. Personally, I find no sense or support for the notion that God would choose to save, knowing we could and would "unsave" ourselves, that God would allow His choice to be trumped by the fickle choices of His creatures. He that began a good work will complete it, and that by unconditional love and grace.

Thank you for inspiring and opportunity to think these things through once again, as I am always in need of constant reminding and refreshing.

I hear you, and thank you for that insight. I actually like how you worded it.

However, if we say "ULIP follows from the T," as you assert, and as I agree, then we can also state this formally as:

1) T -> U; and,
2) T -> L; and,
3) T -> I; and,
4) T -> P.

Assume ~U, then ~T by modus tollens; or,
Assume ~L, then ~T by modus tollens; or,
Assume ~I, then ~T by modus tollens; or,
Assume ~P, then ~T by modus tollens; or,

Assume ~T. Then the Arminian doctrines would flow from this.

Therefore, if any point in Calvinism fails, Arminianism is wholly true.

But T is true beyond a shadow of a doubt. I completely agree with you.

 

[JM]

I see it a bit differently, or I guess what I mean is, I wouldn't give arminian doctrine that much credit.

Only one point of Calvinism need be true for the rest to fall into place. What I mean is, ULIP follows from the T. The Scriptural evidence and support for T is overwhelming, and many of the peeps in denial are biblical errantists and or deny Sola Scriptura. Though others could do a better job of demonstrating, I will attempt to bring attention to some of the connections between all of the five points.

U - necessary because of T. Election cannot depend on man, it must depend on God because man left to wallow in his nature, wills to sin in every choice.

L - necessary because of T. Because nobody is worthy, neither can anyone make their self worthy, salvation requires the sovereign grace of God, His merciful unconditional loving choice of particular individuals for His purpose, pleasure, and glory.

I - necessary because of T. On our own, without the unconditional particular monergistic regeneration graciously lavished on us, we could do nothing but resist the grace of God. As it is written, "for without me you can do nothing".

P - necessary because of T (an extension of U, the logical conclusion of L, an extension of I). Left to our depravity, to our devices, we would all fail to persevere, if perseverance were conditionally dependent upon our choices, for in every Saint, there is still a sinner. If God has chosen out of mercy to save us, to give us a new heart and mind, then if follows that He will also give perseverance to His elect, His chosen ones, to those particular individuals whom can say "Christ died for me", as opposed to the impersonal generic claim and notion of "Christ died for sin". Christ died for me and it was necessary, because I was dead in sins, unworthy and unwilling. His precious blood paid for all of my sins because each one carries the same guilt and wage. Personally, I find no sense or support for the notion that God would choose to save, knowing we could and would "unsave" ourselves, that God would allow His choice to be trumped by the fickle choices of His creatures. He that began a good work will complete it, and that by unconditional love and grace.

Thank you for inspiring and opportunity to think these things through once again, as I am always in need of constant reminding and refreshing.

I think I'll blog that one.

 

[GrinningDwarf]

Any thoughts?

I'm sorry, but I would have to say that I doubt you understood Calvinism as well as you thought you did.

T - Total Depravity - Man is totally wicked, but does not suffer from some inability to respond to the Gospel.

Then it's not really total, is it? Man is not dead in sin, just mostly dead. And I think this is the bottom line for difficulties people have with 'Calvinism'. Their 'total depravity' isn't total, and it skews everything else.

Scripture is clear that God desires all men to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4, 2 Peter 3:9, Matthew 11:28, etc.).

The only thing clear to me here is that you don't understand these verses. 2 Peter 3:9 is clearly talking about the elect. When Paul says 'all men' in 1 Timothy 2:4, he means it in the same sense that John does when he talks about 'the world' in John 3:16.

So...according to your theology, the only thing standing between God and His desire to see every individual in the world to be saved is...you? Me? My will is stronger than God's will?

If God really desires for every individual to be saved, then why have the vast majority of humanity gone to the grave without ever once hearing the Gospel? Can they really be saved apart from The Gospel?

Sorry, but the Reformed view is the most consistent with the entire counsel of God's Word.

 

[oworm]

Then it's not really total, is it? Man is not dead in sin, just mostly dead.

Which is...................... semi pelagian