SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : a question for a Calvinist

Print Thread (PDF)


Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 a question for a Calvinist

This post was recently posted on my own website discussion forum but i thought it might serve a wider audience. I would genuinely like to hear a Calvinist response to this challenge.

[color=0033FF]There are, when taken in isolation, a number of scriptures that seem very strongly Calvinistic. By Calvinism I mean '5 point - TULIP' Calvinism. The 5 points are all fully dependent on each other as asserted by Beza, Edwards, Whitefield, Spurgeon, Pink et al. So called 4 or 3 point Calvinism is illogical nonsense for the reasons given by the aforementioned in many of their discourses. It follows that to show that any one of the five points of TULIP cannot stand is to remove the entire foundation of Calvinism.

The basis of this post's assertion that Calvinism is unbiblical relates to the 'L' and the 'P' of TULIP - Limited atonement and Preservation/Perseverance of the saints.

Dos the Bible teach that a saved person can lose his / her salvation? Yes it does. We need not look at each and every candidate scripture to prove this though. One set of scriptures will suffice, namely: 2 Peter Ch2 (NKJV used at all times).

Verse 1 ends "...even denying the Lord who bought them" - can this verse mean anything other than Jesus died for the false prophets in question? If Limited atonement is correct then these false prophets are Elect according to Calvinism.

But, Verse 3 with reference to these false prophets ends "..... and their destruction doesn't slumber". And Verse 15 says "They have foresaken the right way and gone astray ....". And Verse 17 ends ".... for whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever". And Verse 20 states "for if they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the latter end is worse for them than the beginning". What can these four verses mean other than loss of salvation for those Elect to whom verse 1 applies?

For Calvinism to be true, Verse 1 above cannot mean that the Lord died for the false prophets, i.e. they were not Elect as understood by Calvinists OR all the other verses mentioned do not say that these people who were bought by Jesus lost their salvation.

It would be straining the interpretation of scripture to the extreme to say that the Lord 'bought' someone but then say that they are not Elect according to Calvinism and what could those latter 4 verses quoted mean but that those false prophets lost their salvation? So either Limited atonement is wrong or Preservation/Perseverance of the saints is wrong - either way Calvinism falls.[/color]

That argument seems pretty watertight from where I am sitting.

Ron Bailey

 2008/12/10 4:57Profile

Joined: 2007/1/30
Posts: 926

 Re: a question for a Calvinist

Good question. I have a response to this, but have to leave for work right now. Maybe tonight, but have you checked Gill's "Cause of God and Truth"?

 2008/12/10 7:22Profile

Joined: 2006/6/19
Posts: 927


I can provide a response too if Michael doesn't get time, but I will defer to him for the time being.

Taylor Otwell

 2008/12/10 7:52Profile

Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK


I can hardly wait... ;-)

Ron Bailey

 2008/12/10 8:11Profile

Joined: 2005/10/28
Posts: 246
Logan City, Queensland, Australia

 Re: a question for a Calvinist

Let's look at 2 Peter 2 as a whole to see it is talking to:


Now let's look at the book of Jude (v4-19):
Jud 1:19 These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit. [/i]

2 Peter and Jude have an almost identitical description of apostates, though take note of how Jude describes the cause of their nature:
[i]Jud 1:4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, [u]who were before of old ordained to this condemnation[/u], ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. [/i]
The word "ordained" in the greek, [i]προγράφω
prographō[/i], is defined by Strongs' as "to write previously; figuratively to announce, prescribe: - before ordain, evidently set forth, write (afore, aforetime)." If 2 Peter 2 and Jude are indeed describing the same kind of person - and I honestly think they are - then based on your interpretation of 2 Peter 2:1-3, you've run into a fork in the road when you look at what other scriptures have to say i.e., while 2 Peter 2:1-3 may seem to be a very apt prooftext for those inclined towards arminian theology, a calvinist can rightly counter with Jude 1:4.
Rom 9:24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? [/i]

I would like to offer this hypothesis as a means of resolution: among apostates, there are both predestined reprobates, [i]as well as God's predestined elect[/i]. What I mean is that with the latter, they are within Christ's Limited Atonment (2 Peter 2:1), but the problem is not that they lost their salvation, but that they weren't even saved to begin with.

Consider the tests for Assurance of Salvation given in [b]1 John[/b]
1. The test of correct doctrine (1 John 1:1-4)
- Correct view of sin (1 John 1:5-2:2)

2. The test of morality
- Correct view of obedience 1 John 2:3-6
- Correct view of love 1 John 2:7-17

3. The test of antichristian influence
- Departure from fellowship 1 John 2:18-21
- Denial of the Christian faith 1 John 2:22-25
- Deception of the faithful 1 John 2:26-27

4. The test of relationship between Christ and the world
- Expectation of christs return 1 John 2:28-3:3
- A lifestyle incompatable with the ways of the world 1 John 3:4-24

5. The testing of the Spirit
- The criteria for demonic influences 1 John 4:1-6
- Demonstrating the character of God through love 1 John 4:7-21

6. The test of fellowship
- Victory in Christ 1 John 5:1-5
- Certainty in Christ 1 John 5:6-12

The book of 1 John was intentionally written to give young believers assurance of their salvation. Contained within the verses are a holistic  as opposed to departmentalized  view of Christian living wherein each part connects inseparably to the other. A person who is [i]truly saved, having a new regenerated nature[/i], will definitely have these things stated in 1 John. However in contemporary Christendom, assurance is usually taken to mean a vocal congratulatory gesture on the part of the evangelist and/or disciple-maker pending a decision for Christ rather than an actual realization of the new nature (regardless of whether the new convert bears any sign of it at all).
In essence, if a person is a false convert, he checks 1 John and sees himself as a false convert and then turns to Christ. If a person is a true convert, he checks 1 John and is comforted in the security of his soul and takes joy in God, and in so doing, glorifies God. This assurance however, can only be possible if one first understands salvation from a biblical, God-centred viewpoint wherein the Holy spirit is the initiator and finisher of a believers regeneration and sanctification as opposed to a man-centred view that makes the believer and/or his peers responsible.
Alternatively, if one holds to a view of easy believism that allows for the existence of carnal Christians on the basis that regeneration, repentance and surrender to Christs lordship are supposedly optional and unnecessary, the whole doctrine of assurance is lost, and the main purpose of a whole book of the new testament (1 John) becomes useless.

Ergo, when we look at 2 Peter 2 and Jude in light of 1 John, those described fail the test miserably, and thus we can conclude that they cannot be talking about genuine born-again christians at all.

So in conclusion, when we look at 2 Peter 2:1-3 and apply it to the TULIP model, we can conclude that while the "U" and the "L" MAY be in effect, the vital "I" - Irresitable grace, that is regeneration preceding faith as per the formed view - has not (yet) taken place, hence they cannot appropriate Justification by Faith and hence receive the promise of Perseverence ("P"). As a result, they're still stuck in "T" - Total Depravity, which is why they're inclined to false teaching, because unless regenerated, they're never going to grasp the Truth of God's revelation.

[b]Practical application:[/b] Given the possibility that despite these apostates being so deep in deception, we should not lose faith that God is indeed sovereign and as such can overcome any blindness holding back the elect. Despite such a harsh indictment of apostates, Jude still gives the reader the encouragement:

When it comes to those who would claim to have "been there, done that" - though in truth their fruit says that they never knew God for who is at all - we may have to go the extra mile and show a bit of "tough love."

How fewer false converts would we have in our local churches if pastors were to take 1 John at face value! The question that needs to be asked from the pulpits today is not "Once Saved, Always Saved?" or "Can salvation be lost?", but rather "What does it actually mean to be truly saved and is it true of you?"

Benjamin Valentine

 2008/12/10 8:41Profile

Joined: 2006/6/19
Posts: 927


I'm fixing to start work for the day, but if you would like to read an article that deals with several interpretations and the Greek of the text, you can check out:


Taylor Otwell

 2008/12/10 8:55Profile

Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK


Is this addressing 2 Pet 2:1?

[color=0066FF]denying the Lord who bought them[/color]

Did the Lord 'buy' these false prophets who brought in destructive heresies?

I would like to offer this hypothesis as a means of resolution: among apostates, there are both predestined reprobates, as well as God's predestined elect. What I mean is that with the latter, they are within Christ's Limited Atonment (2 Peter 2:1), but the problem is not that they lost their salvation, but that they weren't even saved to begin with.

So you are saying that 'among reprobates there are elect reprobates'. So some are 'predestined to hell reprobates' and some 'predestined to salvation' reprobates? What is going to happen to the 'elect reprobates'? 2Pet 2:speaks very plainly of the future destruction of these false teachers. Were they 'elect' or not? and if not how can they be among the 'bought'?

Ron Bailey

 2008/12/10 9:10Profile

Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 9192
Santa Clara, CA


Comment from the peanut gallery ...

[i]My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: and I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand.[/i] Joh 10:27-28

I do not know that this implies that one cannot simply up and walk away, forfeit, 'fall' away. All this trigonometry and reverse explanation seems like overdose to me. To many warnings throughout scripture to the contrary. If there isn't some sort of mutual co-operation, some desire to be 'kept' ...

Being snatched implies stealing, [i]against[/i] ones own will -

"Keep" is a very biblical word and it seems to me that it has a great deal of responsibility attached to it, on our side of the equation.

Mike Balog

 2008/12/10 9:23Profile

Joined: 2007/4/3
Posts: 293



below is Piper's response. Don't mean to suggest this is the end all answer. Maybe his input will provoke further inquiry and discussion.

p2 Peter 2:1













the following is a reply from John Piper to the question. Not submitting this is the end all but it may provoke further inquiry or discussion.

 2008/12/10 9:30Profile

Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK


Thanks Taylor
I read the article. A comment of Luther about Jerome came to mind... he laboureth abundantly but leaveth it unexplained. ;-)

To summarize, please correct me if I am wrong, his suggestion is that the 'bought them' phrase is relating to Israel as the Covenant people of God rather than to the 'false teachers among you'. I can follow his reasoning but I am completely unconvinced by it. It seems to me that the target is clearly the 'false teachers among you'.

The attaching of this phrase to Christ the Sovereign Lord rather than Christ the Mediator really seems to smack of the worst tweaking that I usually expect to find among the dispensationalists. I think this is a plain candidate for Occam's Razor and I doubt that Peter's readers would have had the sophistication to split hairs in this fashion.

The article seemed to be aimed at refuting the 'modified Calvinisits' rather than those like myself who take a position slightly to the left of Arminius. ;-) Where would you stand with this? Are you a Universal Redemptionist or a Particular Redemptionist?

Ron Bailey

 2008/12/10 9:50Profile

©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Privacy Policy