2 Peter 3:9: Does it defeat Calvinism?

Dr. Jerry Falwell has now declared that the Reformed doctrine of the Atonement is heretical. As my pastor has pointed out on the Reformed Mafia blog, Falwell must then include Baptists such as Spurgeon, Gill, Fuller, Carey, Dagg, and Boyce as heretics as well.

One of the main proof texts people like to use to attack the doctrine of Particular Redemption is 2 Peter 3:9 which states "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 text overthrow Calvinism? Or could this passage -when take in context- actually be further proof that the Reformed view is actually the true teaching of Scripture? Please watch the YouTube video below for an eye opening exegesis of the passage.





Somebody forward this to Dr. Falwell! Please!

Huh???

"The Bible does speak about the elect of God or God's elect. It is important to note that when the phrase is used it is not a mere statement of fact or even of purpose, but like the scriptural expression "first born", it is a title of dignity and that title is only applied to those who are believers. It is a descriptive term and is used to refer to rank and privilege, not deliverance from damnation or eternal torment." (emphasis added)

-Quote from the book Trouble With The TULIP, written by Dr. Frank Page, President of the Southern Baptist Convention.

10 Objections to Calvinism...

(That lets a Calvinist know you don't have a clue what you're talking about!)

1. "I was elected because I selected." -Ergun Caner
2. "Calvinism kills evangelism"
3. "God didn't choose anyone, He just foresaw what they would do"
4. "God is sovereign, therefore He leaves His plan of redemption to chance and man's freewill"
5. "God so loved the world, not the elect"
6. "God gives His grace to all who deserve it"
7. "That's not what mamma and daddy taught me"
8. "Charles Spurgeon was not a 5 point Calvinist"
9. "Romans 9 is about God choosing nations, not individuals"
10. "We are only predestined for works, not salvation"

(Thanks for the suggestions Josh!)

Limiting the Atonement

I have been told that my Calvinistic view of the Atonement "disgraces the cross" and that it "slaps Christ in the face". Some Arminians get very angry when they are exposed to the idea of "Limited Atonement". When I was an Arminian I did too. It sounded like heresy to me also. This was actually the last of the so-called "5 points of Calvinism" for me to grasp.

The Reformed doctrine of the Atonement went against all I had ever heard preached, or that I had preached myself. It seemed to contradict John 3:16, and Romans 10:13, that says "whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved". Today I want to let an Arminian theologian weight in on the topic and see if only we Calvinists are guilty of teaching a "limited Atonement"!

Concerning the Atonement, Arminian Theologian Dr. J. Kenneth Grider (pictured above), has written:

"A spillover from Calvinism into Arminianism has occurred in recent decades. Thus many Arminians whose theology is not very precise say that Christ paid the penalty for our sins. Yet such a view is foreign to Arminianism, which teaches instead that Christ suffered for us. Arminians teach what Christ did he did for every person; therefore what he did could not have been to pay the penalty, since no one would then ever go into eternal perdition." -Evangelical Dictionary of Theology p.80 (emphasis mine)

Please note what Dr. Grider has said:

1. When modern Arminians speak of Christ "paying the penalty" for sins, it is a spill over from CALVINISM and their form of Arminian theology is "not precise".
2. True Arminianism teaches that Jesus only "suffered" for sins.
3. The idea that Christ paid for anyone's sin is FOREIGN to Arminianism.
4. Had Jesus actually "paid the penalty" for sins, Grider would have to conclude that not one person who has ever lived would be cast into Hell! (Universalism)

(I want to point out that Universalists are simply taking modern Arminianism --that Jesus died for every person who ever lived AND that it was an actual payment for their sins-- to its logical conclusion. The conclusion of Dr. Grider's statement shows that he would probably agree. Thankfully, no Arminian that I know would ever teach Universalism.)

To my knowledge, neither Arminians, nor Calvinists, teach that the Atonement had any redemptive power for the sins of fallen angels. Neither side teaches that people can be saved without repentance and faith and in Jesus. Therefore, we see at least in these respects, both sides limit the Atonement in some ways.

Calvinists contend that Jesus died to pay the penalty for the sins of the Elect: thus limiting for whom Jesus' blood was intended to save. Grider's form of Arminianism teaches that Jesus "suffered" for the sins of every human who ever lived, but that his blood actually made no payment for the sins of anyone: thus limiting it's power to atone for, or take away, the sins of anyone! Either way you slice it, whether Calvinist or Arminian, you teach a "limited Atonement".

I believe that the idea of a "general atonement" is actually foreign to Scripture. When one looks at the Old Testament sacrificial system, there were always specific sacrifices, for the specific sins of specific people! Even the national "Yom Kippur" sacrifice (Leviticus 16) was specific (or limited) in that was only for Israel: God's chosen people! None of the other nations had any part in it!

Revelation 5:9 says that Jesus "purchased for God with [His] blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation (NASB)". Notice it says, Jesus purchased "men from" every tribe, tongue, people, and nation: not that He purchased "every man from" every tribe, tongue, people, and nation! This verse alone shows very clearly that Jesus' blood did not, and will not, actually purchase redemption for every single person without exception.

Let me be clear, Calvinists affirm that Jesus' blood was sufficient to pay for all the sins of every human who has ever lived. We believe that -had God decreed it- Jesus' blood could have redeemed all of humanity without exception. I believe true Calvinists would defend that idea to the last man. There's no disputing Jesus' death was of infinite value and power.

Charles Spurgeon sums up the Calvinist position quite well:

"We hold most firmly the doctrine of particular redemption, that Christ loved his Church, and gave himself for it; but we do not hold the doctrine of the limited value of his precious blood. There can be no limit to Deity, there must be infinite value in the atonement which was offered by him who is divine. The only limit of the atonement is in its design, and that design was that Christ should give eternal life to as many as the Father has given him; but in itself the atonement is sufficient for the salvation of the whole world, and if the entire race of mankind could be brought to believe in Jesus, there is enough efficacy in his precious blood to cleanse everyone born of woman from every sin that all of them have ever committed."

Please understand, my desire is not to close up the doors of Heaven to anyone. I do not want to limit the Atonement where God has not limited it Himself. I hope that I have shown that no matter what theological position you subscribe to -outside of Universalism- you limit the Atonement in some way whether you realize it or not!

None of us know whom God has chosen for Salvation. However, we are commanded to share the Gospel and make it known that whoever repents and believes in Jesus will be saved. We can do this boldly knowing that Jesus has laid His life down for the sheep, and that His sheep will hear His voice when He calls them.

Soli Deo Gloria!

1 Point Calvinists...?

You may have heard the phrase "Five Points of Calvinism". These five points make up an acrostic known as T.U.L.I.P. Standing for: Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, and Perseverance of the Saints. The phrase "Five Points of Calvinism" is a bit misleading (and I agree with R.C. Sproul when he says some of the terms themselves could be worded better, but would destroy the TULIP acrostic). The fact is, John Calvin did not write down his system of theology in five points. What is commonly known as the Five Points of Calvinism was in reality the response of the Synod of Dort to the theological protests brought forth in the year 1618 by the followers of theologian Jacobus Arminius.

The Arminian party presented their arguments against the established Calvinistic teachings of the Dutch Reformed Church in five points, therefore the Synod of Dort replied to the Arminian Remonstrance in five points. The Synod's reply stood in direct contradistinction of what the Arminians proposed. After much debate and study, the Synod of Dort condemned the Arminian teachings as heresy. John Calvin himself had absolutely nothing to do with the formulation of the 5 point response to the Arminians, or the Synod of Dort, because he had been dead over 50 years prior to the whole affair!

The reason I am writing this is because I think there is a bit of confusion on the part of a few Baptist preachers about whether or not they are actually Calvinists or Arminians. Example: A friend of mine has a pastor who claims to be a "moderate Calvinist". However, during a recent Bible study, the pastor revealed that he only believes in two of the five points of Calvinism! He proudly proclaimed that he has no problem with Total Depravity or Perseverance of the Saints, but the other 3 points of Calvinism were damnable heresy! Upon learning what this preacher teaches about the doctrine of Total Depravity, I would say he does not hold Calvinistic view of it either, therefore he is actually- at best- a "1 point Calvinist". He even goes as far as to label regular 5 point Calvinists as "Hyper-Calvinists".


No doubt both my Calvinist and Arminian friends will read this article. While I consider myself a solid 5 Point Calvinist, I do have brothers and sisters on both sides of this issue whom I love and respect. The scope of this is not to debate which theological system is correct. This article isn't even to determine if using these labels is in the best interest of Christian unity. I'll let someone else deal with those issues for now. Here's the problem for me...

I believe the root of the issue for some of these "1 point Calvinists" is this: They want to side with the Arminian party when it comes to Election, the Atonement, Free Will, and Effectual Calling (a better term for Irresistible Grace), but when it comes to the Doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints, they want to side with the Calvinists. As the old saying goes "they want to have their cake and eat it too". Theologically speaking they side with the Arminians on most of the points, but for some reason they just will not let go of the doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints. All the while they do not realize that by denying the other 4 "points of Calvinism", they end up committing theological suicide. The 4 points they toss out are linked to (and I believe are in fact) the theological foundation for the doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints. In other words, by throwing out the points they do not like, they make Perseverance of the Saints sound absurd.


What I'm trying to say is that "1 Point Calvinists" are actually "4 Point Arminians". They may not like to admit this, but if you examine the doctrinal convictions of these preachers and compare them to the positions of both Calvinism and Arminianism, what you conclude is that they are more Arminian than Calvinist. Furthermore, for these preachers to stand behind pulpits and claim to be "Moderate Calvinists", sounds ridiculous to people who actually know what Calvinism teaches. It sounds even worse when they stand up in front of the church claiming to have been to Seminary and studied these things, thus implying they are an authority on such topics!


Let me ask you this: If you are a farmer and you plant 900 acres of cotton and you also plant 100 acres of corn, would you then go around trying to deny being a cotton farmer? Would you claim to be primarily a corn farmer? No. Of course not! It would be silly to do such! You may - at best -be a cotton farmer that dabbles in growing a little bit of corn, but you are by no means primarily a corn farmer. Now taking this analogy to the topic at hand: Can you affirm all but 1 point of Arminianism and still properly claim the title of Calvinist? Again I say No! If you apply our previous conclusion to this situation, you will also have to conclude that what we have here is not a Calvinist at all, but an Arminian that likes to dabble in a little bit of Calvinism!


My conclusion is this: If we choose to use label of Calvinist, Arminian, or Hyper-Calvinist at all, we need to be sure we understand what the label stands for and how to properly apply it to ourselves or others. Above all, do your homework so you don't look foolish to those who know the difference! The "1 Point Calvinist" who I am referring to in this article is making a fool out of himself in front of those in his congregation who know the differences between Calvinists and Arminians. Let us not make same mistake...