Calvinists are Not Christians?

The Charge That a Calvinist Is Not a Christian

I get some interesting emails, and the ministry today received an email from a fellow by the name of Troy Brooks. Now, Mr. Brooks originally wrote to berate me in regards to Dave Hunt's refutation of me in What Love Is This?

Now, originally this gentleman was under the impression that What Love Is This? was actually a response to debating Calvinism, the debate book that Dave Hunt and I did in 2004. He was unaware that, in fact, I had done a radio interview with Dave Hunt in August of 2000 that actually triggered the writing of What Love Is This?

It had come out before, obviously, debating Calvinism did. And, in fact, debating Calvinism came about as a result of the fact that I wrote an open letter that was distributed to thousands of people demonstrating many errors in Dave Hunt's book.

And that's what led to debating Calvinism. And that Dave Hunt has used the fact that we've done a written debate to avoid my repeated challenges to do a live debate that would allow us to fully discuss the issues in a meaningful fashion, even though he continues to debate other individuals, but not me.

So, anyway, Mr. Brooks has now informed me that I am not a Christian, that I am an unbeliever because I am one of the dreaded Calvinists. And I have informed him that, thankfully, not even Dave Hunt or Norman Geisler has gone that far.

And yet he has, which is a sad thing, obviously. I do not rejoice in someone denying my Christian faith based upon their own human traditions. But that, of course, is what is going on here. He calls himself an OSAS Arminian.

And, of course, I'm sure that the OSAS is a non-lordship view of salvation as well that is thoroughly unbiblical and heretical itself. But, be that as it may, I have, of course, invited him to contact the dividing line.

But since he's in Canada, he's insisted that we need to contact him to put him on the dividing line. Even though he's the one accusing me of being an unbeliever, we somehow need to contact him to have him on.

I've suggested that if he really does want to be on, he should let us know when. And we'll arrange for him to be on via Skype, so it doesn't cost him anything and doesn't cost us anything either because I don't know that I want to spend the ministry's money to put this fellow on the air.

Anyways, he has sent me six questions. And, actually, I think he sent more than that. But in one of these emails, there was six questions. He won't read my books. I asked him if he'd read The Potter's Freedom or The Sovereign Grace of God or Drawn by the Father or anything like that.

As he says, I don't have time to read every Calvinist book. So, while we will read carefully and respond to works by Dave Hunt and Norm Geisler, documenting everything carefully, taking everything in context, the other side doesn't really even need to read what we have to say.

How many times have we seen that attitude in a wide range of critics? But he did send six questions. And, of course, all these questions are thoroughly responded to in our written materials. But since people just keep bringing them up, I thought I would just share them and respond to them and hopefully help others in the process.

Whether God Owes Everyone an Opportunity for Salvation

The first question that he asks is, What love is this not to provide opportunity for salvation for some, sending them to hell without recourse, making the god, small g, of Calvinism the author of evil rather than using evil for good?

The number of falsehoods, false assumptions, and simple ignorance in the question is, the number of elements of that is astounding. What love is this not to provide salvation for some? Of course, this assumes that God is under some obligation to do this, that somehow the love of God requires that he, quote-unquote, provide opportunity for salvation.

Unbiblical terminology, by the way. Opportunity for salvation should be to save. Salvation is of the Lord, is it not? Is that not something God does? But, of course, in this man's theology, salvation is sort of like an Amway plant.

No offense to any Amway dealers. It is something that you work to get. You do something. You have faith. But it's up to you. It's not up to God. It's a plan that he's made available. This is one of the fundamental differences, and it's one of the fundamental areas where Arminianism is so separate from biblical Christianity, where justification, glorification, these are all divine acts, things God does, not simply makes available, and then we enable God to do these things.

The fact of the matter is that God would be perfectly just, perfectly holy, and perfectly loving, if he did not save any rebel sinner, because the love of God is not constrained against his holiness. The fact of the matter is that God has chosen to save an innumerable number of people as the sand of the sea.

Great is the number of the elect that will stand before the throne of God and experience the grace of God and salvation in its fullness. And if he had chosen to save one, it would be love beyond degree.

But once again we are faced with this amazing idea that the love of God has to be less than human love. It cannot have the same kind of differentiation that human love has. God's love has to be sub-human.

And as I explained in debating Calvinism, I reject this. The Bible knows nothing of this. This is not the presentation of the God of the Bible. When it says that sending them to hell without recourse, he sends only guilty sinners to hell, Mr. Brooks.

The fact of the matter is that a person who is saved is a person who is saved because God's holiness has been fulfilled in a substitute in his place. Every person in hell will be justly condemned for his or her sins.

There is no injustice. There is grace and mercy, but there is no injustice. None of those who go to hell wanted anything other than to be separated from the Holy God. Either they engaged in all forms of idolatry or they suppressed the knowledge of God, as all unbelievers do.

It would be frightening to find out, though not surprising, that Mr. Brooks holds an almost Pelagian view of the sinfulness of man, but that wouldn't be uncommon for this particular group. Making the God of Calvinism the author of evil rather than using evil for good.

Well, I sort of wonder how Mr. Brooks can even talk about God using evil for good. Certainly, I believe that God uses evil for good, but he does so because it is a part of his creative decree. Genesis chapter 50, verse 20, Isaiah chapter 10, Acts chapter 4, verses 27 through 28 all make it very, very clear that God uses evil to his own glory.

It is under his control. He does not force anyone to commit evil. In fact, the vast majority of the time, his spirit is restraining the evil of men. But that evil which he permits to come into existence has a purpose.

I would challenge Mr. Brooks. Did your God create this universe knowing that evil would exist? Are you an open theist? If you're not an open theist, then your God created this universe knowing that evil would exist.

Now, does he have a purpose for every bit of that evil? Yes or no? If there's a purpose for it, then he's in control of it. It's a part of his creative decree. If he does not have control over it, then there's no purpose for it, and that means God created a universe where evil would exist, but he has no purpose for it.

Which is it? Mr. Brooks, we'd like to know. Well, that's just the first question, and there's five more to go. I'll try to pick up the pace just a little bit at this point. Number two. What love is this to save someone against their will like robots and without requiring from them an ability to repent first?

There is no genuine repentance, therefore, in Calvinism, which then would be unsalvation, a salvation without repentance. Well, of course, Mr. Brooks, again, is ignorant of the beliefs that he is attempting to criticize.

Very, very common in this kind of rhetoric. First of all, against their will. Their will is changed. They are dead in their trespasses and sins. They are raised to spiritual life. They are made new creatures, so that their will is freed from the slavery to sin.

Remember, Mr. Brooks, that the one who commits sin is the slave of sin, and that's Jesus' teaching in John 8. And as Paul explained in Romans 8, those who are occurring in the flesh cannot even submit themselves to the will of God.

They cannot do what is good in his sight. And so when we recognize man's slavery to sin, what God does is he frees us from that slavery to sin. He gives to us spiritual life, and he grants to us the gifts of repentance and faith.

And so the Reformed Gospel has always been one of repentance and faith. I'm sorry that you're ignorant of that. I'm sorry that you have been misinformed. I hope that by correcting your misinformation, that maybe you will see that the traditions of men that you have been following are not biblical in their origination.

Also, by the way, the idea of alike robots. Christ didn't die for robots. And while that's a nice rhetorical flourish, it's also absurd. And it has no place amongst those who would take the Bible seriously and recognize the Bible's own serious discussion of the nature of he who is created in the image of God and yet becomes the slave of sin.

To do that is sort of like what Norman Geisler does when he talks about man needs to be rewired so he can believe or something like that. And using dismissive tones, I think, is something I would not want to have to answer before God for.

That's for certain. Number three. Why confuse all the scriptures creating a false legalism that refer to propensity to sin as total inability and total depravity for we can still choose the good and are still made in God's image?

What David called perfect, sinless, of course not. I'm not really sure exactly what that last line meant. Well, because the Bible teaches total depravity. It tells us that all of man has been influenced by sin and that man is incapable of doing what is good before God.

As Jesus himself taught in John 6 .44, no man even has the capacity to come to him unless the Father who sent Jesus enables him, draws him. And, of course, we know who he draws. He draws those that he's given to the Son, the elect, John 6 .37.

It is not merely a propensity to sin, though it includes propensity to sin. It also includes the inability I referred to earlier from Romans 8. Jeremiah speaks in glowing terms of the depravity of the human heart, the sinfulness of the human heart, etc., etc.

Man's inability is clearly documented in scripture and I've documented that very clearly in the books that Mr. Brooks doesn't want to read. So, I'm not sure what this false legalism is. I can't even begin to understand.

Obviously, Mr. Brooks is very confused about these issues. And if I was primarily reading Dave Hunt, I would be very confused about these issues as well because Mr. Hunt is confused about these issues.

But that confusion is nevertheless quite clear. Number four, why plead for everyone's salvation if Jesus only died for some? That is mocking and berating. I tell you that you are a fool for not walking to the store when you have no legs, no opportunity.

Of course, this ignores many things. First of all, the command to come to Christ is one that is to be extended to all people. We do not know who the elect are. Secondly, when he uses this kind of language, he seemingly is blaming God for man's condition.

And many people do this. That's why many of these people don't even believe in original sin. They reject Romans 5 and its discussion of Adam's headship. Of course, they then logically have to likewise reject Christ's headship and the imputation of his righteousness, but they generally don't go there.

But be that as it may, it is man who loves his sin. It is man that God has to restrain from even the commission of more of his sin. There is not a single person who wants to be saved who will not be saved.

The problem is there is none who want to be saved until God, by his Spirit, grants spiritual life. And so we, as regenerate sinners, cry out with passion to the unregenerate, not knowing who the elect are, but knowing what our estate was, we then, with passion, can call out to our fellow sinners that they need to turn to Christ.

I do not, by so doing, have to place upon them some capacity the Bible denies to them. I do not have to grant to them the ability to turn the triune God into an utter failure. Say it, the Father may decree their salvation, the Son die to obtain it, the Spirit come to apply it, but the triune God will fail in light of the all-powerful will of the mighty creature man.

I do not have to do that. Instead, I do not have to fall into the traps that people have fallen into of turning Jesus into a weak and beggarly miser who is just trying to get someone to make him a savior.

The weak person knocking upon the noblest door. I do not have to fall into that. I can present a powerful savior. King of kings and Lord of lords. One who commands repentance and faith. Not one who just hopes that someone will take him up on his offer.

Limited Atonement, Two Wills, and the Freedom of God

Number five, why do some Calvinists teach unlimited atonement and at the same time teach limited atonement? It seems like a blatant contradiction or embarrassment concealed by this double tongue, so the two-will contradiction is used to rationalize it.

I have no idea what that question is. I have no idea, and since he won't even bother to read my books to see the biblical presentation I make, I have no way of responding to it. There are people, Amaraldians and others, who teach unlimited atonement.

I think they're extremely inconsistent, and we've discussed that of late on these YouTube videos in regards to John 3 .16 conference and things like that. He does seem to have a real hard time with this idea that there are two wills.

That is, that God has a prescriptive will found in his law, and that God has a decretive will found in his decree. I don't know how he avoids it. There's no way for me to even begin to understand how he can avoid a recognition that God's law gives us prescriptively what God commands and desires in that sense, but that his decree differs from that because his decree includes the existence of sin.

I don't find these particular types of folks to be overly concerned about consistency in regards to specifically the nature of God. Generally, they are not presenting Christianity to non-Christians in the sense of Muslims or others in that kind of apologetic context.

And so, whether their view of theodicy, whether their view of the decrees of God or the nature of God is consistent generally isn't something that's overly important for them, unfortunately. So I don't know how to answer number five because I don't even understand what it's asking.

Why God Saves Some and Not All

Finally, the sixth question. If the God, small g, of Calvinism, small c, could save all, why doesn't he? What love is this? In O .S .A .S. Arminianism, God doesn't save all because some refuse the cross as salvation.

If the God of Calvinism can save all, why doesn't he? Because he chose not to. He chose to demonstrate the full range of his attributes. And so, while in the salvation of the elect, he shows the incredible grace and mercy and love that is shed abroad in their hearts, at the same time, in the just condemnation of the non-elect, he shows his holiness and his justice.

The idea, basically, was explained to me many years ago in Bible college by Dr. D .C. Martin. Dr. Martin wrote up on the board the three options for God. Either he can save no one, he can save some, or he can save all.

In which of these three does God have any freedom at all? He certainly has no freedom if he can't save anyone. And he has no freedom if he saves everyone. Only in saving the elect, those he chooses to save, those that he freely chooses to extend his mercy and grace to, is there any freedom left to God?

I realize that Arminians are far more interested in the freedom of the creature than they are in the freedom of God. That is one of the fundamental differences between us, is that one system, I truly believe, is very much man-centered.

It's very much focused upon the abilities of man and the power of man. That's Arminianism. The other, I believe, is very much theocentric, focused upon God and the concern for God's freedom, God's holiness, the demonstration of God's glory in its fullest manifestation.

And so at this point in time, I do not know if Mr. Brooks is going to be on the dividing line, but I wanted to address these particular issues. Because, unfortunately, they are common questions, at least some of them are, the ones we can understand, and they always come up.

And a lot of those who raise these questions really are not willing to hear the answers. But over the years, I've seen so many people who have come from this perspective, and yet, under the patient leading of the Holy Spirit of God, they have seen these texts of scriptures that just don't seem to fit.

And over time, even though it's often a struggle, they have come to see the glory of God in the doctrines of grace. And so that's one of the reasons I would even invite someone who actually says, I'm not even a Christian, to be on the program to explain his reasons.

Because when people get to see that, remember the George Bison debate? When people get to see the two sides side by side, which one is biblical? Which one is consistent? Which one is God-centered? It becomes very, very clear.

And so we'll see what happens there, but I hope these brief comments have been of use to you on this very important subject. Thanks for watching.