The Six Points of Calvinism: A Response to Objections (Part 2)

Happy Reformation Day!

Today I’m continuing our Reformation weekend response to objections I received from a commenter on one of my “Six Points of Calvinism” posts. Here’s a quick link to yesterday’s post if you missed it: The Six Points of Calvinism: A Response to Objections (Part 1)

I was going to ask you, don’t you think its very ‘peculiar’ to say the least, that everyone becomes a “believer” through what Reformed doctrine says is “WORKS SALVATION” because they thought they ACCEPTED Christ of their own libertine Free-Will? I have NEVER met anyone Reformed/Tulip/etc who did not BECOME Reformed “AFTER” they professed faith, and they weren’t so when they accepted Christ and became born-again and in-dwelt with the Holy Spirit. Did you ever wonder about that? Why MUST everyone be saved by a supposed “FALSE” doctrine? Believing they made a choice to believe?

As I said yesterday, not all of these objections pertain directly to the Six Points of Calvinism post. Some, like this one, are more focused on Reformed Theology generally. Our objector appears to be asking why it is that if the Reformed understanding of salvation is true, most people seem to be saved through a non-Reformed, and hence incorrect, presentation of the gospel. If Reformed Theology is true, then wouldn’t a person only be saved by a Reformed presentation of the gospel?

There are a couple of responses to this. The first goes back to a point I made yesterday: God can draw a straight line with a crooked stick. Some of the most abysmal presentations of the gospel have been used by God to lead people into a true and lasting faith in Christ. This is because God is the one who saves. He is the one who awakens the heart. That means all you have to do is be faithful in your proclamation of God’s truth as best you understand it. Your desire to be faithful should lead you to study to make sure you communicate the truths of God accurately. But no one’s salvation depends upon you getting all the words correct, or even nailing the theology down perfectly. It depends solely upon God’s electing grace and His Spirit regenerating the heart of an unbeliever at a particular point in time.

Scripture does tell us that those who teach receive a stricter judgment (James 3:1). While this applies mainly to those with teaching ministry within the church, it does emphasize the importance for everyone to strive for accuracy when presenting biblical truth, whether it’s sharing the gospel with someone or leading a Bible study. So it does matter whether our presentation of the gospel is accurate.

It is also true that an inaccurate presentation of the gospel could lead someone astray and have them wandering around in a wilderness of error for years. Even though this would be within God’s providence, you don’t want to be answerable to God for that. As I said in the previous post, the believer’s priority is to honor God in all things. God’s plan and purpose for the person to whom we’re witnessing is God’s concern. Our duty is to preach the gospel faithfully.

Before leaving this question, I want to address something that seems to be assumed by the objector. While it is not uncommon to encounter non-Reformed Christians who consider Reformed Theology to be rank heresy, this doesn’t often go the other way. We often thank God for the blessed inconsistency of our non-Reformed brethren who hold to God’s sovereignty and His ability to change hearts and affect lives while at the same time clinging tenaciously to the sovereign will of man and his ability to act contrary to God’s will. A gospel that recognizes man’s sinful condition and need for a savior, proclaims Jesus as the only savior of souls, and calls upon everyone to repent and believe is a true gospel. I believe that both Reformed and non-Reformed Christians preach this same gospel. It’s when we dig into the details that the differences transpire. Those details are not unimportant, but we all agree on the basic Christian gospel truths. I don’t consider the non-Reformed gospel to be a wholly false gospel. I think it is incomplete, or erroneous at important points (e.g., in telling unbelievers that Jesus’s death paid for their sin if they would only accept that gift of salvation), but it is not wholesale false.

So, why does it matter whether you give a Reformed or non-Reformed presentation of the gospel? A couple of reasons: First, you want to honor God by being faithful to His Word in what you say. If, as I am convinced, the Reformed perspective is the most faithful to God’s Word, then why would you want to deviate from this? Second, as I noted above, you don’t want to be the reason why someone believes an incomplete or erroneous view of salvation. Getting the gospel right from the beginning can save a lot of heartache and problems later on.

Let’s move on to another question.

If REFORMED DOCTRINE/Calvinism were actually true, then if someone PREACHED to a CROWD of people among which there were any NON-ELECT, and preached that GOD LOVED them and sent his SON Jesus Christ to DIE on the CROSS for THEM, to save them, that message would be a LIE to the NON-ELECT! (In context of Reformed Doctrine)

If at the same time the DEVIL was telling that Non-Elect person, that the preacher is LYING, God does NOT love you, God did NOT send his son to Die “FOR YOU” to save you! God doesn’t want you, God never wanted you! In this Reformed/Calvinist context, the DEVIL WOULD be telling the TRUTH and the preacher would be the one LYING to that “NON-ELECT”!

Did you ever think about that?

Did I ever think about that? Frankly, no. I believe the Reformed view because it is the closest to Scripture, not because it fits a hypothetical scenario. But let’s humor our objector and break this down.

For a start, I have heard Reformed preachers proclaim to crowds of people that Jesus died for them. Is that a lie? If the preacher knew for a fact who in that crowd was elect and who was not, then yes, you could potentially accuse that preacher of knowingly lying to some of his audience. However, given we don’t know who is and who isn’t elect, we preach the gospel to whoever will hear us. Depending on the size of the crowd, there’s a good chance that some or many there are not elect. I wouldn’t hold the preacher responsible for lying to those people because, for all he knows, they are all elect. While I wouldn’t accuse the preacher of lying, I do think it is unwise to make such sweeping, presumptuous statements.

That said, some of the elect within that crowd may respond to his gospel proclamation. Others may not because, in the Lord’s timing, that day was not the day of salvation for them. He may use some other person, or some other circumstance to draw those people to Himself. As Jesus said, “My sheep hear my voice and I know them and they follow me” (John 10:27).

The second part of this hypothetical scenario convinces me this person has not spent much time trying to understand the Reformed perspective. Our objector is not alone in his characterization of Reformed thinking as “God loves His elect and hates everyone else.” This idea that God “never wanted” the non-elect misses the point. The fact is, the non-elect never wanted God! Remember Romans 8:7-8? “For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.” Note, cannot, not will not. That heart needs to be changed by an act of God’s Spirit to be able to please God, and please Him primarily by responding in faith to the gospel.

Biblically speaking, you cannot draw a simple love-hate dichotomy like this. Yes, God hates sin and wickedness. Psalm 5:5 even states that God hates the evildoer. In Romans 9:13, referencing Malachi 1:2, Paul says that God loved Jacob but hated Esau.

When we see the word “hate,” our frame of reference is our own experience of hate, and how we see hate expressed in the world. We see hate in the context of sinful, fallen people. It’s irrational hate, petty hate, prejudiced hate. And we then transpose that to God, thinking that God hates the same way we do. But, as we noted last time, God’s emotions are pure, unsullied, and holy. God’s hatred is just, rational and righteous. It is based on His flawless moral character. It is totally unlike our hatred. From this perspective, it shouldn’t shock us to think that God would hate the evildoer.

But it is equally true to say that God loves His creation. John 3:16 begins “In this way, God loved the world…” While God may have a specific hatred for sinners based on their rebellion and hatred of Him, He also loves the world, humanity as a whole, such that He would send Jesus to bring salvation, not to all, but to “whoever believes in him” (i.e., those who hear Jesus’s voice and follow him). Consider that. God actually intended to save some of these God-haters who are under God’s wrath and worthy of hell. I say “some”–according to Revelation 7:9, it’s actually an innumerable quantity of people! But how else does God love those whom He also hates? He gives them the breath of life, gives them friends and family, perhaps even gives them material prosperity and many years to enjoy it. He could have planned to wipe us all out and start over (as He did with the Flood), but He chose a different plan, one that would enable even those who hate Him to enjoy the life He gives them and the world he created for them.

To return to the hypothetical scenario, if the devil were to whisper in the ear of the unelect, “God doesn’t love you, God didn’t send His son to die for you to save you, God doesn’t want you and never wanted you,” the unelect would simply shrug and say, “Fine, I never wanted Him anyway.” How many sleepless nights do you think Pharaoh spent wondering if Yahweh truly loved him? I’m certain that Pharaoh never cared.

Does 1 John 5:10-11 refute all Calvinism?

The objector didn’t exactly ask this, but he did present 1 John 5:10-11 as a passage that he believes “refutes all Calvinism.” Here’s the passage:

“Whoever believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself. Whoever does not believe God has made him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has borne concerning his Son. And this is the testimony, that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.”

The objector believes this passage shows that God provides salvation to all on the basis of their acceptance of the gospel, denying the Reformed idea of “Limited Atonement” (i.e., that Christ died only for the elect, and hence only the elect will believe). To quote the objector:

So God here is DENYING “UNCONDITOINAL ELECTION” and Limited Atonement, unbelievers denying God provided to SAVE them, make God out to be a “LIAR”. Its a powerful passage against the Reformed doctrine.

It’s interesting that 1 John 5 begins: “Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, and everyone who loves the Father loves whoever has been born of him.” Note the verb tenses. John is saying that everyone who believes (Greek present tense) has been born (Greek perfect passive) of God. The perfect tense in Greek refers to a past action that is still effective in the present. Their being born of God was something that happened in the past and is still relevant now, and their believing is a current state based upon that prior event.

When John says in verse 10 that those who believe have the testimony in themselves, he isn’t saying that the testimony comes to them because of their belief. Rather, their belief is a manifestation of the testimony. Our objector makes much of the unbeliever making God to be a liar supposedly because they deny that God “provided to SAVE them.” Where does the text say that God provided to save them? It says that those who believe have the testimony that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. Therefore, those who don’t believe don’t have that testimony. Why don’t they have that testimony? Isn’t it because God didn’t give it to them (1 John 5:1)?

At this point, I can hear our objector say, “AHA! But look! It says ‘God gave US eternal life! See! UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION!” Who is “us” in this context? Is it the whole world? Is that the natural meaning of the text? Who is John writing to? Is this a letter for everyone in every country throughout the world? No. He’s clearly addressing the church. His assumed audience is believers. (1 John 2:18-27 makes this explicit.) Rather than denying unconditional election, this passage seems to support it.

I hope this has been helpful. Please feel free to ask questions in the comments if there’s something you would like me to explain better, or a related topic you would like me to address. Please note, I’m more likely to respond to questions asked in good faith. If you just want to preach or pick a fight, this is not the place to do that. Try a Reddit forum instead. 😀

If you’re currently working through these issues or trying to understand the Reformed position, here are some books I suggest you read. These will hopefully help you avoid common misunderstandings and provide a foundation from which you can dig deeper and ask meaningful questions:

• CHOSEN BY GOD by R. C. Sproul
• THE POTTER’S FREEDOM by James R. White
• EASY CHAIRS, HARD WORDS by Douglas Wilson
• THE FIVE POINTS OF CALVINISM by Edwin H. Palmer
• DEFINITE ATONEMENT by Gary D. Long
• THE REFORMED DOCTRINE OF PREDESTINATION by Loraine Boettner

This is just a brief selection out of the many good books on Reformed Theology available. What books have helped you better understand Reformed Theology? Let us know in the comments!