A Case For Calvinism

By Christian Anarchist

So many times I have heard from

many people that the doctrines of
Calvinism is either harmful or is a lie
from the pits of Hell. I will disagree
with the skeptics on this and simply
address Calvinism in a way that
people are able to look at the case
that is presented to them. I am going
to try not to rely as much on
commentaries and early church
fathers (since the Early Church Fathers
have their own section in this essay)
concerning the biblical passages. I will
do my best to expound upon the

topics of the five points of Calvinism

(TULIP), predestination, free will and
original sin with mainly going to the
scriptures instead of extra-biblical
information alone. I will also be
quoting from the King James Version
of The Bible since not only is it my
preferred translation to read, but that
it was because of the King James
Version of The Bible that lead me to
the doctrines of Calvinism. So until
then, I hope you enjoy this read and
that it edifies you as well as informs
you about the doctrines of Calvinism
within its particular teachings
concerning the important question:
What does the Bible say?

1. Total Depravity

(Jeremiah 17:9, Psalms 51:5, Romans 3:10-12,

Romans 3:19, Romans 3:23, Romans 6:20,
Romans 6:23, Psalms 58:3, Isaiah 64:6,
Jeremiah 13:23, Ephesians 2:1-3, 1 John 1:8)

Total Depravity is simply the

doctrine that all of mankind is sinful
since birth. This doctrine is definitely
able to be seen in not just the epistle
to the Romans, but in several
passages of the Old Testament, mainly
in Jeremiah and the Pslams. The
concept of Total Depravity is
somewhat connected to the doctrine
of Original Sin, but we will focus more
on that later. Total Depravity will
instead focus on at least the human
nature of man, which in its definition
by the bible, all are sinners who are
born with a sinful nature. In the
Second London Baptist Confession of

Faith, Paragraph Three of Chapter Six,

we read the following: They being
the root, and by God's appointment,
standing in the room and stead of all
mankind, the guilt of the sin was
imputed, and corrupted nature
conveyed, to all their posterity
descending from them by ordinary
generation, being now conceived in
sin, and by nature children of wrath,
the servants of sin, the subjects of
death, and all other miseries, spiritual,
temporal, and eternal, unless the Lord
Jesus set them free. By this
understanding, we see that as it is
stated in Job 14:1, it is written: Man
that is born of a woman is of few
days and full of trouble. The
Hebrew word for trouble is rogez,
which according to the Brown-DriverBriggs Lexicon means: rage, wrath,

turmoil. Its also interesting to note

how else this passage has been
translated throughout the history of
the English Bible. Not only do the
Wycliffe and Coverdale bible share
this similarity, but even the Greek
Septuagint of the Old Testament read
perfectly well with these verses. I will
leave a graphic for this, but I will have
to say that when you examine how
these are worded, they dont
necessarily agree with what some
view it as to mean (that is, the idea
that simply children are a handful
during their first few years):

Another passage is Jeremiah 17:9,

which says: The heart is deceitful
above all things, and desperately
wicked: who can know it? This is
rather interesting since we are now
touching about the heart, which the
bible says that the Lord looks into
what the heart says, rather than what
man says. In fact, in the book of
wisdom known as Proverbs, we read
the following: Every way of a man

[is] right in his own eyes: but the

LORD pondereth the hearts. In the
observation of Proverbs 21:2 itself, we
observe that while our own eyes see
ourselves as righteous, it is the lord
who observes our hearts. Our hearts,
unfortunately, have already been
deemed as wicked. As a result, we sin
in our hearts. This however is no
simple cop out since Jesus plays upon
this idea. Matthew 5:27-28 says: Ye
have heard that it was said by them
of old time, Thou shalt not commit
adultery: But I say unto you, that
whosoever looketh on a woman to lust
after her hath committed adultery
with her already in his heart. Even 1
John 3:15 states: Whosoever hateth
his brother is a murderer: and ye
know that no murderer hath eternal
life abiding in him. So it is no secret

in The Bible that the concept of the

sinful condition of man rests in the
heart.
However, the solution to this has
been stated in the bible when it
comes to what is stated in Ezekiel
36:24-27 when telling of a prophecy to
the House of Israel: For I will take
you from among the heathen, and
gather you out of all countries, and
will bring you into your own land.
Then will I sprinkle clean water upon
you, and ye shall be clean: from all
your filthiness, and from all your idols,
will I cleanse you. A new heart also
will I give you, and a new spirit will I
put within you: and I will take away
the stony heart out of your flesh,
and I will give you a heart of
flesh. And I will put my spirit within
you, and cause you to walk in my

statutes, and ye shall keep my

judgments, and do them. It is here
that the concept of one who is
depraved and is a sinner can be
redeemed only by the grace of God
alone. Ephesians 2:8-9 says it all: For
by grace are ye saved through faith;
and that not of yourselves: it is the
gift of God: Not of works, lest any man
should boast.

2. Unconditional Election
(Ephesians 1:4-6, John 1:12-14, John
15:16, Ephesians 2:8-9, Romans 8:28-30, 2
Peter 1:10, Romans 8:15, Romans 9:11,
Romans 9:15-16, Romans 11:26-36, Matthew
11:27, Galatians 4:4-5, 2 Thessalonians 2:13.)

Speaking of Ephesians 2:8-9, we

now reach Unconditional Election,
which is a doctrine that focuses on
Gods choosing of who is saved. Now
whenever I, as well as others, use the
term of Unconditional Election, we
mean simply Gods Sovereign
Election. It doesnt mean God
chooses people based on rather they
come to the faith or not, though belief
is a condition of justification. Simply
put, it means that there is no merit
that we do to earn Gods grace, but
rather Gods choosing of the
deliverance of grace depends on
nobody but God alone. After all, if it
was out of something we did, then this
would show favoritism, which the Lord
is against (Romans 2:11, Acts 10:34
and James 2:1-4). The Baptist Faith
and Message defines Election in

Chapter Five as such: Election is the

gracious purpose of God, according to
which He regenerates, justifies,
sanctifies, and glorifies sinners. It is
consistent with the free agency of
man, and comprehends all the means
in connection with the end. It is the
glorious display of God's sovereign
goodness, and is infinitely wise, holy,
and unchangeable. It excludes
boasting and promotes humility. The
Canons of Dort that settled the
controversy of Election in the
Reformed Church defined Election as
such in Section Seven of their First
Main Point of Doctrine: Election [or
choosing] is God's unchangeable
purpose by which he did the following:
Before the foundation of the world, by
sheer grace, according to the free
good pleasure of his will, he chose in

Christ to salvation a definite number

of particular people out of the entire
human race, which had fallen by its
own fault from its original innocence
into sin and ruin. Those chosen were
neither better nor more deserving
than the others, but lay with them in
the common misery. He did this in
Christ, whom he also appointed from
eternity to be the mediator, the head
of all those chosen, and the
foundation of their salvation. And so
he decided to give the chosen ones to
Christ to be saved, and to call and
draw them effectively into Christ's
fellowship through his Word and
Spirit. In other words, he decided to
grant them true faith in Christ, to
justify them, to sanctify them, and
finally, after powerfully preserving
them in the fellowship of his Son, to

glorify them. With both of these

particular definitions, I would certainly
agree with the concept. What does
the word, election, mean anyways?
Let us examine the word in Greek. The
Greek word used is elektos
(), which simply means,
according to Thayers Greek Lexicon:
chosen. Everybody can come to an
agreement on that, but the main
controversy lies on how God does this.
Before I quote the scriptures, I would
like to quote the great founder of the
Protestant Reformation, Martin Luther:
This, therefore, is also essentially
necessary and wholesome for
Christians to know: That God
foreknows nothing by contingency,
but that He foresees, purposes
and does all things according to
His immutable, eternal, and

infallible will (1). God is sovereign

in his view of election as a result.
The first verse we will go over in
this case will be 2 Timothy 1:8-9 which
reads as such: Be not thou therefore
ashamed of the testimony of our Lord,
nor of me his prisoner: but be thou
partaker of the afflictions of the
gospel according to the power of God;
Who hath saved us, and called us with
an holy calling, not according to our
works, but according to his own
purpose and grace, which was
given us in Christ Jesus before the
world began. It is here that we see
that our works do not merit our own
deeds. Some might object to this and
will try to use 1 Peter 1:2 to suggest
that there is a condition: Elect
according to the foreknowledge
of God the Father, through

sanctification of the Spirit, unto

obedience and sprinkling of the blood
of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and
peace, be multiplied. Now the word
for foreknowledge is the same exact
one that is used in Acts 2:22-23 here:
Ye men of Israel, hear these words;
Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of
God among you by miracles and
wonders and signs, which God did by
him in the midst of you, as ye
yourselves also know: Him, being
delivered by the determinate
counsel and foreknowledge of God,
ye have taken, and by wicked hands
have crucified and slain. This
passage explains that Jesus
crucifixion was determined to happen
by the counsel and foreknowledge of
God, which the foreknowledge of God
is determined by the counsel of God.

In other words, the only reason that

God has foreknowledge of this event
is BECAUSE of his counsel and
planning of the event. This would
make sense not only in light of the
context the word is used to describe
Gods hand in the determining of
Jesus crucifixion, but also in the same
case for those who are Elect.
Another interesting and clear cut
verse to go over is 2 Thessalonians
2:13, which states: But we are bound
to give thanks always to God for you,
brethren beloved of the Lord, because
God hath from the beginning chosen
you to salvation through sanctification
of the Spirit and belief of the truth. In
this epistle that was written to the
Christians in Thessalonica, we see this
particular passage being addressed to
them. This helps us see clearly, even

in context, that God has chosen the

followers of Christ in Thessalonica
(Christians), to salvation since the
beginning. In the next verse, it
mentions how they received the
means of salvation: Whereunto he
called you by our gospel, to the
obtaining of the glory of our Lord
Jesus Christ. The reason why this is
important is because remember what
Jesus said in Matthew 22:1-14 where
we have the Parable of the Great
Banquet. It starts with Jesus saying
the kingdom of Heaven is like a
certain king, who made a marriage
feast for his son. Throughout the
story, we then see after several
guests are brought in, one of them
doesnt have a wedding garment. The
king then tells the servants to bind
him and cast him into outer darkness.

His last words for the parable and its

conclusion/meaning is this: For many
are called, but few are chosen. In
other words, this parable points the
servants out as people who are called
by God to evangelize the gospel
message. Matthew Henry best sums
this up in his commentary on the
parable as such: The provision made
for perishing souls in the gospel, is
represented by a royal feast made by
a king, with eastern liberality, on the
marriage of his son. Our merciful God
has not only provided food, but a
royal feast, for the perishing souls of
his rebellious creatures. The guests
first invited were the Jews. When the
prophets of the Old Testament
prevailed not, nor John the Baptist,
nor Christ himself, who told them the
kingdom of God was at hand, the

apostles and ministers of the gospel

were sent, after Christ's resurrection,
to tell them it was come, and to
persuade them to accept the offer.
The reason why sinners come not to
Christ and salvation by him, is, not
because they cannot, but because
they will not. Making light of Christ,
and of the great salvation wrought out
by him, is the damning sin of the
world. They were careless. Multitudes
perish for ever through mere
carelessness, who show no direct
aversion, but are careless as to their
souls. The offer of Christ and
salvation to the Gentiles was not
expected; it was such a surprise as it
would be to wayfaring men, to be
invited to a royal wedding-feast. The
design of the gospel is to gather souls
to Christ; all the children of God

scattered abroad, Joh 10:16; 11:52.

The case of hypocrites is represented
by the guest that had not on a
wedding-garment. It concerns all to
prepare for the scrutiny; and those,
and those only, who put on the Lord
Jesus, who have a Christian temper of
mind, who live by faith in Christ, and
to whom he is all in all, have the
wedding-garment. The imputed
righteousness of Christ, and the
sanctification of the Spirit, are both
alike necessary (2). So while we
preach, we are giving out the calling
of the Gospel message. However, it is
the Elect who receive the effectual
calling when they are chosen to
receive what the Gospel message has
in its full effect.
The final Unconditional Election
verse will be from John Calvins

favorite book of the bible, Ephesians.

In Ephesians 1:4-5, we receive the
following words: According as he
hath chosen us in him before the
foundation of the world, that we
should be holy and without blame
before him in love: Having
predestinated us unto the
adoption of children by Jesus
Christ to himself, according to the
good pleasure of his will. We must
examine the context here to help
further emphasize the point. After Paul
greets the Christians at Ephesus in
verses 1-2, he says the following:
Blessed be the God and Father of our
Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed
us with all spiritual blessings in
heavenly places in Christ. So this
is where the context helps. Whenever
verse 4 says According as, we see

that the blessing of all spiritual

blessings from God play a role here for
verses 4-5. Now since I mentioned this
was Calvins favorite book of The
Bible, it would only be fitting that I
would add his commentary here
concerning what this passage says:
The foundation and first cause, both
of our calling and of all the benefits
which we receive from God, is here
declared to be his eternal
election. If the reason is asked, why
God has called us to enjoy the gospel,
why he daily bestows upon us so
many blessings, why he opens to us
the gate of heaven, -- the answer will
be constantly found in this principle,
that he hath chosen us before the
foundation of the world. The
reason why Paul inculcated so
earnestly on the Ephesians the

doctrines of free adoption through

Christ, and of the eternal election
which preceded it, has been already
considered. But as the mercy of God
is nowhere acknowledged in more
elevated language, this passage will
deserve our careful attention. Three
causes of our salvation are here
mentioned, and a fourth is shortly
afterwards added. The efficient
cause is the good pleasure of the
will of God, the material cause is,
Jesus Christ, and the final cause
is, the praise of the glory of his
grace (3). Hopefully, this helped
explain more on the doctrine of
Election.

3. Limited Atonement

(John 3:16-19, John 10:11-16, John 10:2628, John 17:9, Acts 13:48, Acts 20:28,
Matthew 20:28, Matthew 25:31-33, Matthew
26:28, Isaiah 53:11-12, Hebrews 9:28, Mark
10:45, Titus 2:14, Colossians 2:14, 2 Peter
3:9, 2 Corinthians 5:14)

We now reach the most

controversial of the five points of
TULIP: Limited Atonement. There is
really no original or official definition
that was really given back then,
except the concept that will be
explained in this essay. However, if
Limited Atonement, as it is to be
understood properly, were to have a
good definition, it would simply be
that this in my own words: Christs
atonement was effective to those who
were chosen unto salvation by God.
Like myself, not many Calvinists or
theologians prefer the term Limited

Atonement. In Wayne Grudems

Systematic Theology, he explains it
perfectly well: The term that is
usually preferred is particular
redemption, since this view holds
that Christ died for particular
people (specifically those who would
be saved and whom he came to
redeem), that he foreknew each one
of them individually (cf. Eph. 1:3-5)
and had them individually in mind
in his atoning work (4). It is here
where we get to the crux of the issue,
which is this: for whom did Christ die?
The argument for limited atonement is
that Christ only died for the Elect in
Christ. We will now examine the
scriptures to see if this is the case.
Before we get into some of the
texts in detail, let us take a look into
the several verses that point out that

Jesus died for many. If you look at Acts

13:48, it states that many were
ordained to believe as it mentioned
the Gentiles hearing Paul preaching
earlier. Matthew 20:28 reads as such:
Even as the Son of man came not to
be ministered unto, but to minister,
and to give his life a ransom for
many. We see this key word of
many being viewed here
concerning Jesus and his ransom.
Isaiah even makes note of this in
Isaiah 53:11-12 concerning the
prophecy of the atonement: He shall
see of the travail of his soul, and shall
be satisfied: by his knowledge shall
my righteous servant justify
many; for he shall bear their
iniquities. Therefore will I divide him
a portion with the great, and he shall
divide the spoil with the strong;

because he hath poured out his soul

unto death: and he was numbered
with the transgressors; and he bare
the sin of many, and made
intercession for the transgressors. So
we see that Old Testament is not
foreign than this. Also, remember
what Jesus said when he speaks about
his blood and the wine during the Last
Supper: For this is my blood of the
new testament, which is shed for
many for the remission of sins. What
was shed for the remission of sins of
many (not all)? It was the blood of
Jesus Christ. Hebrews 9:28 also
mentions the many: So Christ was
once offered to bear the sins of
many; and unto them that look for
him shall he appear the second time
without sin unto salvation. There are
other verses I could point out, but I

will leave it at here for now. You see

my point, I hope, that shows the
bearing of sins and the shedding of
blood was effective for the many,
meaning the many of the human race
who were elected.
The first set of verses we will
examine now are John 10:11-16, but
we start with verses 11-15: I am the
good shepherd: the good shepherd
giveth his life for the sheep. But he
that is an hireling, and not the
shepherd, whose own the sheep are
not, seeth the wolf coming, and
leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the
wolf catcheth them, and scattereth
the sheep. The hireling fleeth,
because he is an hireling, and careth
not for the sheep. I am the good
shepherd, and know my sheep, and
am known of mine. As the Father

knoweth me, even so know I the

Father: and I lay down my life for
the sheep. Now we can look at this
verse and see that Christ identifies
himself as the good Shepard, which is
important to the relevance of why he
then says he dies for the sheep. One
of the common objections to suggest
this isnt a limitation alone is that
Jesus is referring to Jews when he
mentions sheep. This objection is half
right and half false. Not only is it true
that Jesus talking to Jews here (John
9:40-41), but that in several instances
in the bible, Jews are referred to as the
lost sheep of the House of Israel
(Matthew 10:6, Matthew 15:24,
Jeremiah 50:6). However, it is why
context is always key to
understanding that those arent the
only sheep that Jesus came for. Keep

in mind that Jesus mentions that the

Son was sent for the world (meaning
gentiles included) in John 3:16 as well
as Paul saying that the Greek or
Gentile would receive salvation and/or
was included into the plan of salvation
(Romans 1:16, Romans 11:24-25,
Ephesians 3:6). Even the Old
Testament mentions this in Isaiah 42:6
which says: I the Lord have called
thee in righteousness, and will hold
thine hand, and will keep thee, and
give thee for a covenant of the
people, for a light of the Gentiles. I
mention this because it is important to
point out that in verse 16 of John 10, it
says the following: And other sheep I
have, which are not of this fold: them
also I must bring, and they shall hear
my voice; and there shall be one fold,
and one shepherd. Who are these

other sheep? Well if we are to be

consistent, Jesus is referring to the
Gentiles. It is those who arent Jews
and instead are considered Non-Jews.
So not only does this mean there is a
group of sheep who are Jews, but
there is a group of sheep who are
gentiles. The best news of this, is that
Jesus said he will die for them.
John 3:16 is surprisingly one of the
several great verses that helps
support Limited Atonement. Let us
read what it says and examine the
verse in full context: For God so
loved the world, that he gave his only
begotten Son, that whosoever
believeth in him should not
perish, but have everlasting life.
Now looking at it, you might be asking
yourself, how could this possibly
support the idea that Christ died for

the elect only? It says the world!

When we look at this passage, we see
the phrase of whosever believeth is
used here in the King James Version. If
you read in any interlinear bible, the
phrase for pas ho pisteuon (the
phrase for whosever believeth) is
usually literally translated as
everyone believing. In other circles,
I have heard it is literally translated to
mean the believing ones as well by
people who actually studied some
Greek. It is also important to note that
it also provides a limitation of the
ones who will not parish. Nowhere in
this verse, do we see any suggestion
of the concept of the will or the ability
to make decisions being made here.
What we see is that the ones who
believe in Jesus as the Son of God will
not perish, but rather they will inherit

eternal life as promised in the

scriptures (John 3:36, John 6:40). As a
matter of fact, if you read Johns
gospel message (especially John 6),
you will get reformed theology from
trying to read and understand Johns
way of preaching. However, before we
get into that for another section, let us
stick to John 3:16 and its context. So I
will quote verses 17-21: For God sent
not his Son into the world to condemn
the world; but that the world
through him might be saved. He
that believeth on him is not
condemned: but he that believeth
not is condemned already, because
he hath not believed in the name of
the only begotten Son of God. And
this is the condemnation, that
light is come into the world, and
men loved darkness rather than

light, because their deeds were

evil. For every one that doeth evil
hateth the light, neither cometh to
the light, lest his deeds should be
reproved. But he that doeth truth
cometh to the light, that his
deeds may be made manifest,
that they are wrought in God. I
will let you take the highlights in the
passage to examine for yourself by
means of inductive bible study.
However, I will go over the word
world that is used and why this
doesnt mean everybody in the world.
Note that John in his gospel and
epistles, he uses the Greek word for
world more than any of the New
Testament authors. The Greek word is
kosmos, which can mean several
things involving people and the
universe. However, it must be noted

that we need to be careful with how

we examine and use it in
translation/application to our theology
and lives. Concerning the word, Arthur
W. Pink wrote about this in his book
The Sovereignty of God. In the book,
he says the following: Many people
suppose they already know the simple
meaning of John 3:16, and therefore
they conclude that no diligent study is
required of them to discover the
precise teaching of this verse.
Needless to say, such an attitude
shuts out any further light which they
otherwise might obtain on the
passage. Yet, if anyone will take a
Concordance and read carefully the
various passages in which the term
"world" (as a translation of "kosmos")
occurs, he will quickly perceive that to
ascertain the precise meaning of, the

word "world" in any given passage is

not nearly so easy as is popularly
supposed (5). While we have this, he
explains seven different uses of it in
context while referring to the verses in
which you can look them up. John 3:16
is said to be of believers only (John
1:29, John 1:17, John 6:33, John 12:47,
1 Corinthians 4:9, and 2 Corinthians
5:19 are verses that are stated to
show the same meaning) when it uses
the word kosmos. To comment further,
Pink says the following: The principal
subject of John 3:16 is Christ as the
Gift of God. The first clause tells us
what moved God to give His only
begotten Son, and that was His great
love; the second clause informs us
for whom God gave His Son, and
that is for, whosoever (or, better,
every one) believeth; while the last

clause makes known why God gave

His Son (His purpose), and that is,
that everyone that believeth should
not perish but have everlasting life.
That the world in John 3:16 refers to
the world of believers (Gods elect), in
contradistinction from the world of
the ungodly (2 Pet. 2:5), is
established, unequivocally
established, by a comparison of the
other passages which speak of Gods
love. God commendeth His love
toward USthe saints, Romans 5:8.
Whom the Lord loveth He
chastenethevery son, Hebrews
12:6. We love Him, because He first
loved USbelievers, 1 John 4:19. The
wicked God pities (see Matt. 18:33).
Unto the unthankful and evil God is
kind (see Luke 6:35). The vessels of
wrath He endures with much long-

suffering (see Rom. 9:22). But His

own God loves (6)!!
The last verse of Limited
Atonement that we will go over is 2
Peter 3:9, which again is a verse not
too many see as a support of such a
doctrine. However, the context that
surrounds this verse can prove it to be
the case by the simplest example of
exegesis. 2 Peter 3:9 reads as so:
The Lord is not slack concerning his
promise, as some men count
slackness; but is longsuffering to usward, not willing that any should
perish, but that all should come to
repentance. However, we need to
remember that every epistle has a
general audience unto whom it was
written to. This is able to be
determined by the language in which
the audience of this epistle is to be

guided to and how we are to find

relation to the scriptures. So we will
start with verse 8 being examined:
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this
one thing, that one day is with the
Lord as a thousand years, and a
thousand years as one day. We see
right here that beloved is the one
whom Peter is addressing here. Who is
the beloved? Are they the ones Peter
is addressing? Well lets go to the very
first verse in the chapter: This
second epistle, beloved, I now write
unto you; in both which I stir up your
pure minds by way of remembrance.
So far, we see that they are the ones
being addressed in the chapter.
However, who is the beloved? That is
the question we have yet to answer.
Let us examine the scriptures by
going to the very first chapter and

reading the very first verse: Simon

Peter, a servant and an apostle of
Jesus Christ, to them that have
obtained like precious faith with
us through the righteousness of
God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.
Concerning the phrase that is
highlighted in bold, a bible scholar and
theologian named John Gill takes a
clear note of this in his Exposition of
the Old and New Testament: They
were believers in Christ, who had a
faith of the right kind; not a faith of
doing miracles, which was not
common to all, nor was it saving; nor
an historical faith, or a mere assent to
truths, nor a temporary one, or a bare
profession of faith; but that faith
which is the faith of God's elect,
the gift of his grace, and the operation
of his power; which sees the Son,

goes to him, ventures on him, trusts

in him, lives upon him, and works by
love to him (7). It is here that we see
Gods elect is being noted by people
who studied the bible and read the
passage. In fact, Matthew Henry even
comments on this in his Whole
Commentary of the Bible: We have
an account of the people to whom the
epistle is written. They are described
in the former epistle as elect
according to the foreknowledge of
God the Father, and here as having
obtained precious faith in our Lord
Jesus Christ; for the faith here
mentioned is vastly different from the
false faith of the heretic, and the
feigned faith of the hypocrite, and the
fruitless faith of the formal professor,
how orthodox soever he is. It is the
faith of God's elect (Tit. i. 1), wrought

by the Spirit of God in effectual calling

(8). While noting what is said of 1
Peter 1:1, lets observe what 2 Peter
3:9 means by the use of the inductive
method of its text. The word used for
some in the English translation, it is
the Greek word tis, which means
some or certain ones based on
several Greek lexicons. It is not a word
that can mean universal of an entire
group. This same Greek word is used
for the word for any in the text. So it
can be reasonable that 2 Peter 3:9 can
read: The Lord is not slack
concerning his promise, as some
(CERTAIN) men count slackness; but
is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing
that CERTAIN MEN should perish, but
that all should come to repentance.
So then what about the all? If you
havent caught on, then the all should

be obvious as to who the all is. The all

is all of the elect.
I just want to write one final thing
on Limited Atonement here since this
is one of the most controversial
doctrines for a Christian. Limited
Atonement is not something I expect
Christians to follow or agree on. It is
not an essential set of doctrine to
believe on. As long as you affirm that
the atonement of Christ in general
happened, the rest is irrelevant. The
only objection that should be made is
when somebody says Christs
atonement saved everybody and
everybody will go to heaven. This
would be universalism and every
Christian who is actually in biblically
orthodox doctrine would dismiss this
without a doubt.

4. Irresistible Grace
(Ezekiel 11:19-20, Ezekiel 36:26-27,
Philippians 2:13, John 1:12-13, John 6:37-39,
John 6:44-45, John 6:65, Romans 8:28-30,
Ephesians 1:13, Ephesians 1:19-20, Ephesians
2:8-10, Acts 16:13-14, 2 Timothy 2:24-25,
James 1:18, 1 Peter 1:3)

This is a doctrine that gets

misunderstood by its name as well
since people think this means we
cant resist Gods grace at all.
However, Calvinists affirm that we do
resist Gods grace all the time. In fact,
we do according to scripture. So what
do we mean by this term? The better
term that is used is Effectual Grace or
Effectual Calling, that whenever God
wants to, he will bestow his saving
grace that has a powerful effect on

those whom he wishes to bestow his

saving grace on. Meaning that the act
of regeneration (which means the
person is born again in Christ) will
occur in the individual whenever God
desires this. However, this will also
dabble in the question of regeneration
in this form: Does regeneration come
before or after faith? This question
shall be explored as we go through
the passages.
I have made it clear that the
doctrine of Total Depravity is proven
within scripture and that it teaches we
are wretched sinners who desire
nothing more than to sin and rebel
against God. I also mentioned a
particular passage concerning the
grace of God that truly changes us.
Twice in the book of Ezekiel, we see
the condition of the heart being

changed of Ezekiel and his people

receiving grace towards Israel. In
Ezekiel 11:17-20 is the first set of
verses that explain this. While I wont
quote this particular passage of
scripture (hopefully you have a bible
on you or some way to read the
scriptures), I will quote verse 21,
which reads as this: But as for them
whose heart walketh after the heart of
their detestable things and their
abominations, I will recompense their
way upon their own heads, saith the
Lord GOD. So in the last verse, the
ones with a new spirit and a heart of
flesh are considered to be the
following in verse 20: That they may
walk in my statutes, and keep
mine ordinances, and do them:
and they shall be my people, and
I will be their God. It is at this

point, the people with said new hearts

and spirits will be Gods chosen
people that does what he demands
and he will be the God they worship.
However, verse 21 indicates that God
will judge those who still cling to the
desires of their own heart. The point
being that also expressed in Ezekiel
36:25-27, is that it is God who will
give you the ability to being born
again by taking out your heart of
stone and giving you the heart of flesh
with a new spirit in the same way that
Israel did. This is emphasized in Jesus
teaching in John 3 about being born
again. Speaking of the Gospel of John.
In John 6 37-65 (or John 6 as a
whole), you will see probably the best
point of Jesus preaching that is a
clear example of the doctrines of
Calvinism in such a few set of verses.

Obviously, I am not going to quote all

of these verses, but I will go over the
important parts and examine them.
Although, John 6:40 will be for the
next paragraph. John 6:44-45 states
the following: No man can come to
me, except the Father which hath
sent me draw him: and I will raise
him up at the last day. It is written in
the prophets, And they shall be all
taught of God. Every man therefore
that hath heard, and hath learned
of the Father, cometh unto me. It is
here that we deal with Gods divine
and sovereign grace concerning the
ability of man in coming to God of his
own will. Remember what Romans
3:11 says: There is none that
understandeth, there is none that
seeketh after God. With that being
in mind, let us understand why that is

the case based on John 6:44. While

the English is pretty much common
sense in my opinion, the Greek phrase
used for no man can come is the
Greek phrase: oudeis dynatai. This
phrase in the interlinear bibles mean
simply that no man is able or no
man has the ability. In other words,
this phrase in John 6:44 can be best
translated as this: No man has the
ability to come to me, unless the
Father who sent me draws him. Also,
read what John 6:65 says: And he
said, Therefore said I unto you, that
no man can come unto me, except
it were given unto him of my
Father. This point is driven home
again. Why does God say this again?
Jesus spoke what is written in John
6:63-65 to his disciples after they
murmured. This is what Jesus said

before verse 65: It is the spirit

that quickeneth; the flesh
profiteth nothing: the words that I
speak unto you, they are spirit, and
they are life. But there are some of
you that believe not. For Jesus
knew from the beginning who they
were that believed not, and who
should betray him. Jesus has
emphasized that it is by being born
again in the Holy Spirit that one has
the ability to believe in him. Thus, this
should (at least for those who are able
to be convinced thus far) put a nail in
the coffin on the debate of the
regeneration preceding faith debate.
Since we say that faith, believe and
desire for God is out of the question
for the natural man and therefore it is
up to God alone to grant man the
ability.

Philippians 2:13 says the following:

For it is God which worketh in you
both to will and to do of his good
pleasure. In this passage, we see that
it is God who works in us to will and to
do His good pleasure. This is
emphasized in Ephesians 2:10 and
John 6:40. In Ephesians 2:10, we read:
For we are his workmanship,
created in Christ Jesus unto good
works, which God hath before
ordained that we should walk in
them. It is here that we see we are
created in Christ Jesus, which means
we are born again as a new creation.
John 6:40 says the following: And this
is the will of him that sent me, that
every one which seeth the Son,
and believeth on him, may have
everlasting life: and I will raise
him up at the last day. This is

important to note that those who

believe in Jesus will have everlasting
life. In fact, this is the will of God,
which is said to be the work of God in
Philippians 2:13. It doesnt just end
there, but even in John 6:29, we are
told that faith itself is a work of God:
Jesus answered and said unto them,
This is the work of God, that ye
believe on him whom he hath
sent. Isnt this just glorious that we
see that the faith we have is beng
granted to us by the one and only
wonderful God that we worship.
Acts 16:14-15 displays a perfect
example of this effectual calling of
Irresistible Grace in practice. Acts
16:14-15 tells the short story of a
woman named Lydia who converted to
the faith upon hearing Pauls
preaching: And a certain woman

named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the

city of Thyatira, which worshipped
God, heard us: whose heart the
Lord opened, that she attended
unto the things which were
spoken of Paul. And when she was
baptized, and her household, she
besought us, saying, If ye have judged
me to be faithful to the Lord, come
into my house, and abide there. And
she constrained us. One of the
common objections to this passage by
some is that in the verse before, it
supposedly implied that the women
freely came to listen to them and that
is all the verse in context is about:
And on the sabbath we went out of
the city by a river side, where prayer
was wont to be made; and we sat
down, and spake unto the women
which resorted thither. However,

Calvinism does not deny the choice of

men to come and listen, but it is
another thing for one to have faith in
what they are told. Which in verse 14,
Lydia is said to have had her heart
opened in order that she may attend
to the words that Paul spoke. The
English and Greek context of the word
being used in this sentence doesnt
mean the simple act of listening, but
rather it implies that this act of
listening is with purpose,
consideration and care. In other
words, Lydia is not just listening, but
she is paying close attention to what
Paul is saying. That is the difference
between the non-elect and the elect in
this instance. One simply listens, but
the other takes heed to what is being
said.

1 Peter 1:3 is the last verse we will

cover and it says the following:
Blessed be the God and Father of our
Lord Jesus Christ, which according
to his abundant mercy hath
begotten us again unto a lively
hope by the resurrection of Jesus
Christ from the dead. It is here
that we see that is according to his
mercy and grace that we are born
again through Jesus Christ due to his
resurrection. There is again, the clear
distinction between regular graces we
resist. However, when we observe
certain texts carefully, we see that the
grace of God that truly saves, is the
only kind of grace that God offers that
we cannot resist.

5. Perseverance of the
Saints
(Jeremiah 32:40, Ephesians 4:30,
Ephesians 6:18, 1 John 2:19, Philippians 1:6, 1
Corinthians 15:1-2, Hebrews 3:6-14, 1 Peter
1:3-5, 2 Peter 1:10, John 10:27-30,
Revelations 14:12, Jude 1:24, Romans 8:29,
Romans 11:29, Colossians 1:22-23, Matthew
10:22, Matthew 24:12-13, Galatians 6:9,
James 2:14-26, James 5:19-20)

Perseverance of the Saints (also

known as preservation of the saints) is
the last letter in the acronym of TULIP
and it teaches one of the most wellknown truths of Christian doctrine that
has been around for years. This
doctrine is the idea of Eternal
Security, meaning that we cannot lose
our salvation in Jesus Christ.
Perseverance of the Saints is better

known as Eternal Security or Once

Saved, Always Saved since it teaches
the biblical doctrine of grace alone
through faith alone in Christ maintains
our salvation and that it is not by any
works that we do. However, works are
still involved with this doctrine in a
way. In fact, what it means is that not
only will those who are truly born
again will persevere in faith, but they
will persevere as well in works by
producing good fruit. We will examine
the doctrine by exploring what role
works play. If you wish to study on this
even further, I would recommend
looking up chapter seventeen of the
Second London Baptist Confession of
Faith where Perseverance of the Saints
has an entire chapter with scriptural
prooftexts.

To start us off of on our journey into

explaining the fifth point of TULIP, we
will examine Ephesians 4:30 which
says: And grieve not the Holy Spirit
of God, whereby ye are sealed
unto the day of redemption. The
biblical passage clearly says it right
here that we are sealed unto the day
of redemption. In other words, our
salvation is settled if we are in the
body of Christ. Ephesians 1:13 also
tells us about this eternal promise to
secure us in our salvation: In whom
ye also trusted, after that ye heard
the word of truth, the gospel of your
salvation: in whom also after that ye
believed, ye were sealed with that
Holy Spirit of promise. It is here
that we see that after we have heard
the Gospel and believed in the
message it presents, then we are

sealed with the Holy Spirit and our

Gods promise. However, does this
then mean we can do whatever we
want and practice the doctrine of
Antinomianism (the belief that one
can practice sin and expect to be in
heaven without repenting of sin)? It is
here that we explore deeper into what
Perseverance of the Saints means
concerning how we know we are truly
born again.
In order to know we are truly born
again and sealed with the Holy Spirit,
we need to show the fruits of our
salvation (John 15:4-5 and Galatians
5:16-23). We are told in the bible that
when we are born again in Christ, that
we are a new creation as stated in 2
Corinthians 5:17 which reads:
Therefore if any man be in
Christ, he is a new creature: old

things are passed away; behold, all

things are become new. It is quite
clear that we are to be changed. So
the main verse we will go over to
proof this clearly in the scriptures is
the last verse of the famous Sola Fide
(Faith Alone) passage. There was a
reason I preferred citing Ephesians
2:8-10 even though its usually
Ephesians 2:8-9 by some. In the tenth
verse, we read the following: For we
are his workmanship, created in Christ
Jesus unto good works, which God
hath before ordained that we
should walk in them. It is here that
we see that we are ordained to walk
unto the good works in Christ. The
Greek word for proetoimaz, which
means prepared beforehand. This
helps prove the point that our works
or deeds unto the Lord are not our

own, but rather that they were

prepared for us to do before we were
born again. We walk in them because
of God as stated in Philippians 1:6.
This passage reads as such: Being
confident of this very thing, that he
which hath begun a good work in
you will perform it until the day of
Jesus Christ. The Antinomian here
cannot refute this and other passages
which indicate that our works do have
purposes. So while we are justified by
faith alone, what role does works have
to do with faith? We will examine one
of the famous verses that legalists
(one who believes you need to keep
doing works in order to be saved),
sinless perfectionists (name should
give it away) and Roman Catholics use
to say it is works that also plays a role
in the doctrine of Justification,

implying that one is deemed righteous

because one believes and continues
to do good works.
James 2:26 says the following: For
as the body without the spirit is dead,
so faith without works is dead
also. Some will say this is proof that
people need to do works in order to be
justified along with the James 2:24
which reads: Ye see then how that
by works a man is justified, and
not by faith only. However, context is
always the key when looking at a
passage and that we shouldnt just
cherry pick certain passages without
understanding its surrounding context.
In James 2:14-16 (or before these
passage entirely in the epistle of
James), we are reading James dealing
with Christian Jews who are becoming
hypocrites as they do not tend to take

care of the poor and continue to

worship in synagogues with others
Jews and that they were more selfish
than others. James even addresses
that this the sign of false religion in
James 1:26-27 when he also describes
true religion: If any man among you
seem to be religious, and bridleth not
his tongue, but deceiveth his own
heart, this man's religion is vain.
Pure religion and undefiled
before God and the Father is this,
To visit the fatherless and widows
in their affliction, and to keep
himself unspotted from the
world. It is here that we see that
James emphasizes the fruits of the
spirit in the same way Paul did to the
Galatian Christians in Galatians 5:2223. So while James says that faith is
not enough, it doesnt mean it justifies

one, but rather that it sanctifies one in

Christ. In James 2:17-18, we see that
while people can claim to have faith,
ones works prove whose faith is
stronger in the Lord and if their faith is
actually in God or not. The Romanist
(Catholic) can be tested by the same
standard where a biblically devout
Protestant will show to have true faith
by his works as where the Romanists
faith will be proven weak, if not false,
due to their reliance being mostly on
their own deeds and not depending
upon God entirely. James 2:19-20
show that while belief is good, it
states even the devils believe and
they are afraid. So it further proves
that works in ones faith as a born
again Christian is important. James
2:21-24 proves a point by going to the
Old Testament scriptures to prove we

are justified by faith alone. Even

though he offered Issac up on the
altar, this set of passages quotes from
Genesis 15:6 which reads the
following concerning Abraham: And
he believed in the Lord; and he
counted it to him for
righteousness. He was declared
righteous and therefore justified
because he believed in God. So as to
conclude what is said in the last
couple verses of James 2, it is obvious:
if you claim to believe, but do not
demonstrate you are a new creation in
Christ, than you show a lack of faith or
you never had true saving faith in the
one true God.
To focus more that enduring and
persevering is in the bible, let us look
at a few verses that clearly say so.
Matthew 10:22 says: And ye shall be

hated of all men for my name's sake:

but he that endureth to the end
shall be saved. Those who endure
to the end, meaning til they die, shall
be saved. We read that these men will
be hated for Christs own name sake.
He says this because some will
disobey him and disown him. Imagine
a scenario where mass persecution is
occurring for Christians who profess
their faith openly. One person who
claims to believe however, decides to
denounce his faith openly to people
while claiming in his own mind that he
still believes. This however wont
stand with God since Jesus in Luke
9:26 says the following: For
whosoever shall be ashamed of
me and of my words, of him shall
the Son of man be ashamed, when
he shall come in his own glory, and in

his Father's, and of the holy angels.

You forsake him, he will forsake you.
Read Matthew 24:12-13 which says:
And because iniquity shall abound,
the love of many shall wax cold. But
he that shall endure unto the
end, the same shall be saved.
Dont forget to check out 2 Peter 1:10
as it says: Wherefore the rather,
brethren, give diligence to make your
calling and election sure: for if ye do
these things, ye shall never fall. I
can quote several passages, but I left
these proof texts for a reason. I hope
you check them out for yourselves so
you can come to the conclusions for
your own self. Perseverance of the
Saints is biblical without a doubt.
The classical passage of 1 John
2:18-19 says the following in regards
to those who left the faith due to the

proto-Gnostic heresy: Little children,

it is the last time: and as ye have
heard that antichrist shall come, even
now are there many antichrists;
whereby we know that it is the last
time. They went out from us, but
they were not of us; for if they
had been of us, they would no
doubt have continued with us:
but they went out, that they
might be made manifest that they
were not all of us. It is here that we
see these people did not persevere to
the end with their faith. Rather, what
they simply did was prove that the
Holy Spirits saving grace did not
move in them and convert them to
truly be born again. 1 John 2:21-27
shows what John is trying to point out
concerning his reason for writing to
these Christians: I have not written

unto you because ye know not the

truth, but because ye know it, and
that no lie is of the truth. Who is a liar
but he that denieth that Jesus is the
Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth
the Father and the Son. Whosoever
denieth the Son, the same hath not
the Father: (but) he that
acknowledgeth the Son hath the
Father also. Let that therefore abide
in you, which ye have heard from the
beginning. If that which ye have heard
from the beginning shall remain in
you, ye also shall continue in the Son,
and in the Father. And this is the
promise that he hath promised us,
even eternal life. These things have I
written unto you concerning them
that seduce you. But the anointing
which ye have received of him
abideth in you, and ye need not that

any man teach you: but as the same

anointing teacheth you of all things,
and is truth, and is no lie, and even as
it hath taught you, ye shall abide in
him.
So we have covered a good portion
of scriptural verses supporting to the
TULIP of Calvinism. We will now go
over two more concepts that are
popular with Calvinism as well as save
the early church fathers for last. If you
are still reading thus far, I am glad you
have practiced the patience of a saint
to bear with me thus far.

6. Predestination
(Lamentations 3:37-38, Isaiah 46:10, 1
Chronicles 29:12, 2 Chronicles 20:6, Proverbs
16:9, Proverbs 16:33, Proverbs 20:24,
Proverbs 21:1, Psalms 33:13-17, Acts 17:26,
Deuteronomy 32:39, Exodus 4:11, Joshua

11:20, Ephesians 1:11, Genesis 20:6, Genesis

50:20, Acts 4:27, Jeremiah 10:23)

Have you ever heard the famous

sayings like this is all part of Gods
plan or its all in His hands. These
quotes deal directly with out next
subject which is known as the doctrine
of Predestination. Predestination is
something that everyone believes in
since it is in the bible. No doubt about
that. It simply means that God has
ordained whatever is to come to pass.
Rather it be salvation or the things
that occur on the planet we are on
that God created. There are usually
different views concerning this idea.
We will go over the first four views
that arent Calvinistic and I will point
out why I think there are some flaws

with these views. Then we will

examine the Calvinistic view.
Pelagianism is the first view of
predestination that comes into play
when we examine the doctrine on our
list. This doctrine was taught by a
British Monk during the late 4th
century by the name of Pelagius.
Pelagianism is a heresy that was
preached during the early church
years that taught that humans were
basically good people and that they
were not affected by Adam and Eves
sin. It also emphasized the libertarian
free will aspect to the point that it
taught men was able to make the first
decision to come to God because they
were righteous and not corrupt in
human nature. This view was
condemned as a heresy at the Council
of Carthage in 418 AD. This view is

definitely considered unscriptural if

youre familiar with the view of Total
Depravity and Unconditional Election
as we discussed with some of the
proof texts. It is clear to see why this
particular doctrine was condemned as
a heresy. In fact, it also is very close to
the doctrine of Open Theism. This
doctrine proposes that God doesnt
really know much of what will happen
in the future and that it ultimately
teaches God does this to allow
absolute human free will. Both views
here deny predestination in any
biblical sense. I do not need to quote
any scripture here to point out that it
is heretical compared to the verses we
have seen thus far.
Up next is the view known as SemiPelagianism, which is basically just a
watered down version of Pelagianism.

John Cassian was a Christian monk

and theologian who was a well-known
proponent of this idea as well as its
possible inventor. This theological
view states that while Original Sin
affects human beings, it still affirms
that human beings and God must
cooperate in salvation. While this in
itself isnt heretical, this heresy
affirms that it is man who makes the
first step and not God. In other words,
Gods grace is dependent upon man
and not the other way around. This is
false teachings that came from man
instead and is refuted by the bible.
The bible clearly states in Romans
3:11 that nobody seeks after God. This
is either happening every single time
or it is referring to the natural state of
man without Gods sovereign
intervention. If the Semi-Pelagian view

is correct, then Romans 3:11 is false.

It is by grace through faith alone that
we are saved. Fortunately, this
heretical teaching was condemned at
the Council of Orange in 529 AD.
However, while some people dont
identify as such today, the teachings
of Semi-Pelagianism still exist in
churches today.
Arminianism is the most popular
form of predestination that is in
opposition to the Calvinist view. Its
theological view was proposed by
Dutch theologian Jacob Arminius as a
response to Calvinism. This view
differs from the previous two in the
sense that it does affirm Original Sin
has affected our human nature and
that the first step of grace depends on
God to make. However, the main
problem still exists concerning why

somebody is saved. According to the

Arminian view, God sends his saving
grace unto people that he knew would
choose him. In other words, he looked
down the corridor of time and he saw
that some would choose him while
others rejected him. He then gives his
saving grace to those who would
eventually believe on him. This brings
Ephesians 2:8-9 into question when it
is not of anything we do that saves us,
but its faith alone. The bible also
states in John 6:29 that believing or
having faith in Christ is a work of God.
If salvation depends on us, which is
synergism, then we have a right to
brag and boast about our deeds or
ability to believe before people. This
however is refuted by Ephesians 2:89. Arminanism is not a heresy
however as it was not condemned at

the Synod of Dort where it was

reviewed. It was simply disagreed
upon others who were Reformed at
the time. One can be an Arminian and
be saved, but one cannot expect
salvation under the other two
doctrines that fit the dangerous
teachings of Pelagius.
Molinism is a pretty popular view
that has sprung up in todays time
thanks to the likes of people like
William Lane Craig, one of
Christianitys leading defenders of the
faith. It is most likely a view that
originated from Luis de Molina, who
was a Jesuit theologian in the Roman
Catholic Church. It pretty much
emphasizes that God has what is
known as a Middle Knowledge of
things that occur in his creation. Along
with that, there is Natural Knowledge

(knowledge about logical possibilities

and outcomes of events) and Free
Knowledge (knowledge of decisions
that are dependent upon the Lord).
Middle knowledge in predestination
basically equates to God knowing
what humans would do in whatever
situation he puts them in, while still
giving them the ability to have a free
will. This would equate to the concept
of salvation as well concerning who
would choose and save God. While it
is similar to Arminianism, there is no
council which has really condemned it
and it is quite a complicated yet
interesting view point. My only
disagreement is the same for the
Arminian view: the idea that Gods
knowledge of what we would do is
what causes him to save us. This is

exactly what Molinism teaches and it

is why I disagree with it.
Calvinisms view is sometimes
referred to as the Augustinian view
since St. Augustine helped to make
this particular view popular in some of
his writings. This view of
predestination is biblically consistent
in my opinion since it gives God
complete sovereign control and that it
emphasizes the idea that we are
saved solely by the act of grace alone.
This view of predestination in
Calvinism holds to the view that God
ordains the tiniest of things to happen
on Earth. He ordained everything from
the rulers who would govern us to the
smallest particles of dust and their
destinations. God ordains even the
ends as well as the means. Not only
did he ordain that a nail would be in a

plank of wood, but he also ordained

the lifting of a hammer and its
striking down upon the nail to put it
into place. So how do we approach
this situation in regards to free will?
We still make choices, if that is what
you mean by free will. However, in
regards to the question of asking if our
will is free or limited, I would say our
nature has limited our will. Though we
will cover Original Sin next, I will say
that regardless of us being born again
or not, we will continue to sin. Sin is
part of us and the main difference
between the believer and non-believer
in what he does is that the believer in
Christ repents while the non-believer
doesnt.
To focus more on predestination
concerning salvation, I would of
course say check out the section

again on Unconditional Election.

However, if we read some of the
passages in Ephesians 1, we will see
that God chooses people unto
salvation as a no brainer. Romans 9
actually mentions this when you start
reading at verse 18. Romans 9 is a
section that displays that God is able
to predestine who he wants unto
salvation and that he is just in doing
so. The common misconception about
the Calvinist view of predestination
goes to the idea of double
predestination. Normally, people
think this means God chooses some
for heaven while choosing some for
hell. This is a false look at things since
the actual view is that God only
chooses those who are elect unto
salvation, while he doesnt even have
to touch the ones who were already

going to hell as a result of their sin

(Romans 3:23 and Romans 6:23). It is
just the natural actions of human
beings alone that condemns them to
hell due to his love and desire to do
what is wicked against the Lord (John
3:18-20). Which leads to a final
question: why preach if God
predestined everything? My first
response is that because youre
commanded to in Matthew 28:18-20.
Second, if you are filled with the Holy
Spirit and have understood the good
news, you are going to want to share
the good news regardless of the other
options that are out there. That is the
simple answer. Predestination is quite
the topic to cover, but now that we
got that over with, let us move on to
the next one: Original Sin!

7. Original Sin
(Refer back to Total Depravity)

Now we cover the topic of the

Doctrine of Original Sin. Original Sin is
simply the doctrine that teaches that
when Adam and Eve ate from the
forbidden fruit tree in the Garden of
Eden, they committed a great sin that
cursed themselves and their offspring
with the effects of sin which result in
spiritual death (Romans 3:23 and
Romans 6:23). We will examine the
story of the Fall of Adam and Eve as
well as what happens afterwards as a
result.
Whenever Adam was brought
about in the Garden, he was given
instructions concerning what they

were allowed to eat. In Genesis 2:1617, we read the following concerning

that: And the LORD God commanded
the man, saying, Of every tree of the
garden thou mayest freely eat: But of
the tree of the knowledge of good and
evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in
the day that thou eatest thereof
thou shalt surely die. So we have
a command given here to Adam that if
he eats from the tree of the
knowledge of good and evil, then he
will die. However, doesnt this just
simply mean the physical death and
not the spiritual death of Romans
6:23? When we examine the Hebrew
word muwth in how it has been
defined, it can mean spiritual death.
After all, even the great bible teacher
John Calvin knew this when he writes
the following in his commentary on

Genesis: But it is asked, what kind of

death God means in this place? It
appears to me, that the definition of
this death is to be sought from its
opposite; we must, I say, remember
from what kind of life man fell. He
was, in every respect, happy; his life,
therefore, had alike respect to his
body and his soul, since in his soul a
right judgment and a proper
government of the affections
prevailed, there also life reigned; in
his body there was no defect,
wherefore he was wholly free from
death. His earthly life truly would
have been temporal; yet he would
have passed into heaven without
death, and without injury. We must
also see what is the cause of death,
namely alienation from God. Thence it
follows, that under the name of death

is comprehended all those miseries in

which Adam involved himself by his
defection; for as soon as he revolted
from God, the fountain of life, he was
cast down from his former state, in
order that he might perceive the life
of man without God to be wretched
and lost, and therefore differing
nothing from death. Hence the
condition of man after his sin is not
improperly called both the privation of
life, and death (9). So right here, we
see that even Calvin understood that
what we are looking at when God
speaks of death to Adam, it is in
reference to an alienation/separation
from God. So contrary to what the
atheists will claim about God
supposedly lying here, what we are
seeing instead is that the word is
being used to apply to a spiritual

death. In fact, 1 Corinthians 15:22

states the continuation of Adams
curse being the result of spiritual
death: For as in Adam all die, even
so in Christ shall all be made alive.
Some people will say that Original
Sin is unbiblical and that this doctrine
was invented by a Roman Catholic
named St. Augustine in the 4th
century, who developed the doctrine
from his influence in the early Gnostic
cults. Several problems strike in this
statement alone. St. Augustine was
not a Roman Catholic since that did
not exist at the time. He was simply a
Christian bishop who converted to
Christianity after being involved with a
Gnostic cult. The cult had no influence
whatsoever with his writings since it
would also have problems with the
nature of God as well, yet he affirmed

the Trinity and other essentials like

every other Christian. Finally, St.
Augustine also affirmed that he was
not getting his ideas from the bible
alone, but that the earlier Christians
before the Nicene period of church
history affirmed the doctrine of
Original Sin. I said Id mention the
quotes of the church fathers, but not
for this topic. Instead, I would
recommend you read his Against
Julian letter where we see this same
controversy. Julian was a Pelagian who
accused Augustine to have developed
the doctrine from Gnosticism and that
it was not only anti-biblical, but not
historical Christian doctrine. However,
in the letter, not only does he go to
the bible, but he also quotes early
church fathers to defend his view.
People who attack the doctrine of

Original Sin not only lack proper

understanding of the bible they read,
but they even lack any good
arguments to bring up from church
history.
If you need more biblical evidence
for the case of Original Sin, go back to
the reason as to why The Noahic Flood
happened. In the Genesis account of
The Flood of Noah, we read in Genesis
6:5 that God had the following reason
for eventually creating a flood to
destroy mankind: And GOD saw that
the wickedness of man was great in
the earth, and that every imagination
of the thoughts of his heart was only
evil continually. In other words, after
Adam and Eve sinned, this continued
and this is the result of what
happened. It lead to their offspring
and the offspring of their offspring to

produce children with a sinful nature.

When these children grew up, they
would eventually act upon that nature
and commit sin, which is rebellion
against God.
One thing that is be to made quite
distinct, even among the differences
of the Calvinists, is that there is such a
difference as to the nature and the
act. I firmly believe it is possible that
one can have this simple nature and
they can go to heaven, but only if they
are elect. Among these numbers are
infants (especially those who die from
abortions) and those incapable of
mental comprehension. These are
people who dont reach what we call
the age (or level) of accountability.
Romans 5:14 seems to address that
such a category exists when we see
the following read: Nevertheless

death reigned from Adam to Moses,

even over them that had not
sinned after the similitude of
Adam's transgression, who is the
figure of him that was to come. While
we see that death (spiritual) is
certainly in them, they havent sinned.
So they have only the sinful nature
and not the actually death penalty
wages of sin that is expressed in
Romans 6:23. So unless one actually
commits the acts and is aware of it,
then that is when we reach that they
can be held fully accountable for their
actions when they meet God.

8. The Early Church

If anything is to come from this

particular chapter as I have planned
for it, which I guarantee is not going
to put in too much information, is that
it is going to cause you to think and
want to explore this topic concerning
what the Early Church believed on
this. Some of you who might be
reading this section would probably
identify as a Roman Catholic, Eastern
Orthodox, Anglican or any other type
of Christian that uses the Early Church
to justify that any doctrine that
Calvinism espouses is not historical.
While the doctrine name wasnt
around, the concept was still there. I
will not be able to quote as much
people as I would want to quote, but I
will recommend some reading sources
while I can. One primary reading
source I would suggest is John Gills

book entitled The Cause of God and

Truth in which he has sections
dealing with the doctrines of
Calvinism and he quotes early church
fathers in their English and Greek
writings. The translation might differ
with the more popular ones and he
doesnt provide the citations for the
church fathers he quotes, but when a
friend and I tried to double check
them, we found these quotes of his to
be legit when we knew where to look.
Another great source to check out is
A Dictionary of Early Christian
Beliefs by David Bercot. Also, Original
Sin itself wont be covered, but you
may feel free to check out St.
Augustines writings to view this topic
(or Calvinism in general) into further
detail. I will also say this as to further
prove my point. My main goal in this

chapter is not to prove that the Early

Church was fully Protestant and
Calvinistic in their theology. However,
some of them carried onto most if not
all of the ideas and concepts to
Calvinism while not being deemed as
heretics or unbiblical teachers.
One of the figures mentioned in the
New Testament is a person named
Barnabas, who traveled with Paul
during his ministry. Barnabas wrote an
epistle in which he addresses the
Judaizer Christians who wished to
maintain the law of Judaism with
Christianity. In his refutation of these
particular Jews, he writes the following
in Chapter 9 of his epistle: Learn,
then, how it shall be built in the name
of the Lord. Before we believed in
God, the habitation of our heart
was corrupt and weak, as being

indeed like a temple made with

hands. For it was full of idolatry, and
was a habitation of demons, through
our doing such things as were
opposed to [the will of] God (10). It is
right here that we see Barnabas
establishing what we call Total
Depravity. Before our belief in the one
true God, Barnabas makes it clear that
our heart was corrupt and weak.
This would conform to scripture easily
whenever we look at Jeremiah 17:9,
Genesis 8:21 and Ecclesiastes 9:3.
Barnabas is one of several people in
the early church of course who would
affirm this particular doctrine.
Tertullian also comments on the
depravity of the human nature by
default in Chapter 40 of A Treatise on
the Soul. In this chapter, he
comments on the nature of the flesh

that the human has: Every soul, then,

by reason of its birth, has its nature in
Adam until it is born again in Christ;
moreover, it is unclean all the while
that it remains without this
regeneration; and because unclean, it
is actively sinful, and suffuses even
the flesh (by reason of their
conjunction) with its own shame (11).
Justin Martyr was an early Christian
apologist and philosopher who was
very well trained in the world of
apologetics by means of philosophy
and the bible. Justin wrote an
interesting literary work entitled
Dialogue with Trypho in which Justin
Martyr is engaging with a person who
is a non-believer named Trypho. While
scholars debate on who exactly
Trypho is, there is one thing we can all
agree on: Trypho is a skeptic of the

Christian faith in this dialogue. In

chapter 130, we see a concept of
Unconditional Election being
mentioned as Justin responds to
Trypho while pointing out that the
conversion of the Gentiles was
foretold in the Old Testament
scriptures: But in addition to these, I
wish, sirs, to add some other
passages from the very words of
Moses, from which you may
understand that God has from of old
dispersed all men according to their
kindreds and tongues; and out of all
kindreds has taken to Himself your
kindred, a useless, disobedient, and
faithless generation; and has shown
that those who were selected out
of every nation have obeyed His
will through Christ,whom He calls
also Jacob, and names Israeland

these, then, as I mentioned fully

previously, must be Jacob and Israel.
For when He says, 'Rejoice, O you
nations, with His people,' He
allots the same inheritance to
them, and does not call them by
the same name; but when He says
that they as Gentiles rejoice with
His people, He calls them Gentiles
to reproach you. For even as you
provoked Him to anger by your
idolatry, so also He has deemed those
who were idolaters worthy of knowing
His will, and of inheriting His
inheritance (12). God has chosen a
select some out of every nation and
that those who were selected were
the ones who obeyed Christ, which
sounds similar to Jesus preaching in
the synagogue of Capernaum in John
6. While Justin Martyr was also a bit of

a libertarian free will individual due to

his mix of pagan philosophy with
biblical theology, Martyr still held to
the essentials and even still affirmed a
concept in Calvinism known towards
the doctrine of Election.
Clement of Rome has been said to
have been an early bishop (or one of
the multiple early bishops) of Rome.
However, I am under the conclusion
that he was a secretary of the Roman
church who wrote on behalf of the
bishops there. For more on this, read
the Shepard of Hermas (Vision 2,
Chapter 4.) So in Clements epistle to
the Corinthians, he writes the
following in chapter 7: Let us look
steadfastly to the blood of Christ, and
see how precious that blood is to God,
which, having been shed for our
salvation, has set the grace of

repentance before the whole world

(13). This language is used by the
likes of others in the early church
where the phrase of being shed or
having died is applied to an us.
The us in question is in regards to
the church. After all, who is Clement
writing to? He is writing to the
Christians who reside in the church at
Corinth. Why would he be including
non-believers in this phrase like some
try to make it out to be? Were nonbelievers members of the body of
Christ? Surely not since that would not
make any sense in regards to what
the bible says. I would like to dare
anybody to show me at any point in
the biblical narrative where the
concept of a non-believer in the body
of Christ is found. You cannot find
one instance in the scriptures of the

New Testament. So what is the point

of this particular paragraph? It is
simply to point out that even Clement
of Rome affirmed in what we would
call Limited Atonement. This is an
affirmation of early Christian beliefs
about Christ dying only for the church.
Even Irenaeus in Book II, Chapter 22
of Against Heresies, we see Irenaeus
explain in Section 4 the following
concerning who Christ came to save:
For He came to save all through
means of Himself all, I say, who
through Him are born again to
God infants, and children, and
boys, and youths, and old men (14).
Irenaeus makes a distinction of what
he means by all, which is the fact
that the only all who are saved are
the all in Christ. This includes infants

and children as well as young and old

adults.
Concerning Irresistible Grace,
Cyprian of Carthage makes the
following statement in his epistle to
Donatus (also known as Epistle 1):
These were my frequent thoughts.
For as I myself was held in bonds by
the innumerable errors of my previous
life, from which I did not believe
that I could by possibility be
delivered, so I was disposed to
acquiesce in my clinging vices; and
because I despaired of better things, I
used to indulge my sins as if they
were actually parts of me, and
indigenous to me. But after that, by
the help of the water of new
birth, the stain of former years
had been washed away, and a
light from above, serene and

pure, had been infused into my

reconciled heartafter that, by the
agency of the Spirit breathed from
heaven, a second birth had
restored me to a new manthen,
in a wondrous manner, doubtful things
at once began to assure themselves
to me, hidden things to be revealed,
dark things to be enlightened, what
before had seemed difficult began to
suggest a means of accomplishment,
what had been thought impossible, to
be capable of being achieved; so that
I was enabled to acknowledge that
what previously, being born of the
flesh, had been living in the practice
of sins, was of the earth earthly, but
had now begun to be of God, and was
animated by the Spirit of holiness
(15). Also earlier in the epistle, he
states describes the mercy that

revealed his salvation was divine. To

quote the great church writer known
as Origen, he wrote another thing to
compliment the saving grace of God
that is absolutely irresistible in
Chapter 95 of Against Celsus, Book
4: But we pray that the light of the
knowledge of the glory of God may
shine in our hearts, and that the Spirit
of God may dwell in our imaginations,
and lead them to contemplate the
things of God (16). Here we see that
the gift of God is being prayed for that
they may think profoundly about the
things of God. In other words, the gift
to understand Gods word and the
things of God, which 1 Corinthians
2:14 says the natural man is unable to
do both.
Perseverance of the Saints is easily
taught by the early church, but for

now, we will examine the quotes of

John Chrysostom and Eusebius.
Regarding this subject matter,
Chrysostom writes this in his
commentary on 1 Timothy 6:20:
There are therefore oppositions to
which we ought not to vouchsafe an
answer, because they turn men from
faith, and do not suffer one to be
firmly established or fixed in it. Let us
not then pursue this science, but
adhere to faith, that unshaken
rock. For neither floods nor winds
assailing will be able to harm us,
since we stand on the rock
immovable (17). Here, we have John
stating that nothing will be able to
harm the Christians faith because
they stand on the immovable rock,
which is referring to their faith in
Christ. This in itself affirms that if we

hold to the true faith, which is an

immovable rock, we will not be moved
by what tries to tempt us or shake us.
In Eusebius Demonstratio
Evangelica we read the following
concerning the followers of Christ in
Chapter 2: For they were glorified
when their voice went into all the
earth, and their words to the end of
the world. It is clear what a great
flock of spiritual human sheep has
been won for the Lord throughout the
whole world by the apostles: and this
flock the Lord Himself is said
personally to look after and feed
with His strength, being both
Shepherd and Lord of the flock,
so that the sheep are protected
by the strong hand and mighty
arm of their Master and
Shepherd, from danger of attack

from wild and savage beasts

(18). Based on what Eusebius is
writing here, what we see is that the
flock, referring to us believers in
Christ, is not only fed by Jesus, but
that he protects us from danger. This
danger includes that which would lead
us away from the faith from those who
are false prophets that are wolves in
sheeps clothing.
Concerning the doctrine of
Predestination, this is what we have to
observe about what the early church
has to say about it. Ignatius of Antioch
once wrote the following to the
Ephesian Church: Ignatius, who is
also called Theophorus, to the Church
which is at Ephesus, in Asia,
deservedly most happy, being blessed
in the greatness and fullness of God
the Father, and predestinated

before the beginning of time, that

it should be always for an enduring
and unchangeable glory, being united
and elected through the true passion
by the will of the Father, and Jesus
Christ, our God: Abundant happiness
through Jesus Christ, and His
undefiled grace (19). He addressed
that the Ephesian church members
were predestinated before the
beginning of time (sounds like the
start) to be elected unto salvation.
Time to focus back on Clement of
Rome again as he states the following
in Chapter 38 of his epistle to the
Corinthian church: Let us consider,
then, brethren, of what matter we
were madewho and what manner of
beings we came into the world, as it
were out of a sepulchre, and from
utter darkness. He who made us and

fashioned us, having prepared His

bountiful gifts for us before we
were born, introduced us into His
world (20). Before the elect is even
brought into this world, we see that
they have been prepared with gifts,
including saving grace, from God.
Clement is probably one of my
favorite early church authors so far
based on how he speaks of the
doctrine of Election and
predestination.
These are only a few handfuls of
what I was able to offer out of the
many other quotes and many other
writings from the early church that I
could provide on this subject. John
Gills book that I mentioned in the first
paragraph of this section quotes these
church fathers to narrate his point in
Part 4 of his book. I even made sure to

double check and that is at least

where I got seventy-five percent of
these quotes from. John Gill, just like
me, is a Calvinist who does his best to
back up what he believes.

Conclusion
So after all of this has been
presented to you, what should be the
logical conclusion to draw? Am I trying
to say that Calvinism is the one true
view or denomination within
Christianity? By no means would I
assert such non-sense. I am a
Southern Baptist and I fellowship with
fellow Baptists that might differ on
this topic. Some might hold to these
views that I just went over, but others

might also deny them (or some

aspects of them) and hold more to the
Baptist theology that affirms more of a
Free Will theology in regards to the
humans capacity to decision making.
So with that in mind, let us examine
some essential truths that I believe all
Bible believing Christians can agree
upon. Many, if not all, will agree with
me that the essentials are as follows:
(God as the creator (Genesis 1:1), the
doctrine of the Trinity (Matthew
28:19), Jesus divinity as God (John
8:58), Original Sin (Romans 5:12),
Scriptures authority and inerrancy (2
Timothy 3:16-17), Jesus death and
resurrection, Heaven/Hell exists and
that Jesus is coming back (Revelation
22:12).) These are the core essential
doctrines in any Christians walk of
life. Whether youre a Calvinist, an

Arminian, a Baptist, a Methodist, a

Presbyterian, Assembly of God or even
a non-denominational, these are still
essential truths that all these
denominations and others can agree
on. Any denomination or branch that
denies these will deny the plain truth
of Scripture that is fully laid out. We
can agree on these essential truths in
order to preach the gospel to all
creation like we are commanded to do
in Matthew 28:18-20. If this expository
works as intended, not only will some
consider the teachings, but there will
be an understanding that we do have
a biblical foundation and basis for
what we believe in. Calvinists are
Christians who affirm the essentials,
while holding to a doctrine that we
believe affirms Gods sovereignty. This

is my case for Calvinism and its

doctrines. Amen.

Sources/Citations
1.) Luther, Martin. The Bondage of
the Will (Section IX). Trans. Adolph
Spaeth. N.p.: First Rate, n.d. Print.
2.) Henry, Matthew. Matthew
Henry's Concise Commentary on
the Whole Bible. Nashville: Thomas
Nelson, 1997. Print.

3.) Calvin, Jean. Commentaries on

the Epistles of Paul to the Galatians
and Ephesians. Trans. William
Pringle. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1948. Print.
4.) Grudem, Wayne A. Systematic
Theology: An Introduction to
Biblical Doctrine. Leicester,
England: Inter-Varsity, 1994. Print.
5.) Pink, Arthur Walkington. The
Sovereignty of God. Grand Rapids:
Baker Book House, 1965. Print.
6.) Ibid.

7.) Gill, John. Exposition of the Old

and New Testament. Streamwood,
IL: Primitive Baptist Library, 1976.
Print.
8.) Henry, Matthew. Matthew
Henry's Commentary on the Whole
Bible. Peabody, Massachusetts:
Hendrickson, 2008. Print.
9.) Calvin, Jean. Commentaries on
the First Book of Moses, Called
Genesis. Trans. John King. Grand
Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans Pub.,
1948. Print.
10.) Barnabas, Epistle of Barnabas,
Chapter 9.

11.) Tertullian, A Treatise of the

Human Soul, Chapter 40.
12.) Justin Martyr, Dialogue with
Trypho, Chapter 130.
13.) Clement of Rome, First
Clement, Chapter 7.
14.) Irenaeus, Against Heresies,
Book 2, Chapter 22.
15.) Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle to
Donatus

16.) Origen, Against Celsus, Book

4, Chapter 95.
17.) John Chrysostom, Homily 18
on First Timothy.
18.) Eusebius, Demonstratio
Evangelica, Chapter 2.
19.) Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to
the Ephesians, Chapter 1.
20.) Clement of Rome, First
Clement, Chapter 38.