My Calvinist Conversion

About a year and a half ago I discovered, 'Calvinism,' or, 'Reformed Theology.' However, I was not exposed to its teaching through a sermon by John MacArthur, John Piper, or anyone else, nor any books written on the topic. I had never heard of anything like it before. That is until, one day, as I sat unawares in my living room, reading my Bible to myself, it caught me with a blow to the gut, knocking my spiritual self half unconscious. And all I did was read Romans 8 and 9. Those two chapters, back to back, were suddenly glaringly contradictory to my entire belief system as an Arminian. I had read that whole book many times before, but something in my brain just snapped for some reason. I had read the words, and this time I could see. I understood, but, I didn't want to understand. After that, I was plunged into a frenzy, searching for answers to my questions. I looked in the Bible, I listened to sermons, and I even started reading books (I wasn't much of a reader). The whole of my spiritual framework was crumbling to the ground and being rebuilt simultaneously.

I must submit that up until then, I had never given any thought whatsoever to the concept of God's sovereign predestinating work relating to individual salvation, much less relating to all things whatsoever come to pass! I was blissfully ignorant, even though the truth was sitting on my lap and in my face the entire time. Now, try to understand that when I started my research, I was completely new to terms like, 'systematic theology.' That being said, my mindset was being reformed in beautiful and miraculous ways. And no, it wasn't being reformed by John Calvin's power, but rather, by Almighty God's power. I had already been born again before that, but God had evidently decided to deal with my self-taught, free-will-founded theology. Of course, I could go on and on about my transition from ignorant Arminianism to gung-ho Calvinism, however, this article shall have gotten away from me by then.

What is Calvinism?

Since God's working out His predetermined ordination that I would become a gung-ho Calvinist, I've learned about the origins of the term, 'Calvinist.' I've read some of the earlier Reformed heroes, such as Jonathan Edwards and Martin Luther, as well as many modern-day Reformed folks, like R.C. Sproul, John Piper, and so on. But with all of that material to take in, there comes the responsibility of accurately portraying the true meaning of the terms, ideas, and beliefs of the self-acclaimed Calvinists. That is what I hope to do in this article.

In brief, the term, 'Calvinist,' has its origin in the form of a French theologian by the name of John Calvin (1509-1564). This man, John Calvin, is notorious for a number of reasons, one of which is that he was a theologian who vehemently resisted the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. Not only this, but he is notorious for writing and publishing the Institutes of the Christian Religion (4 volumes long) when he was a ripe age of 26. However, although the Reformed tradition has adopted his name as its banner to fly, the five points and the acrostic, 'TULIP,' were not put into systematic form until the 1610s, long after Calvin's death. Not to mention, the five points were formed out of the scriptures, and in response to Jacob Arminias' followers' points against Reformed Theology. I point this out to all the people who accuse Calvinists of putting their religion or their points before the teachings of the Bible. The Reformed point of view started all the way back in the early Church, leading it through history in the form of people like Saint Augustine, Martin Luther, and many others. Calvin was simply better known than these others in the time that he lived.

However, regardless of that, I would just like to point out that I, as a Calvinist, do not worship John Calvin. Nor do any true Calvinists. We do emphasize the points, and the former teachers of said doctrines, but most Calvinists often have deep ministries stemming from the Scriptures and the person of Jesus Christ. I've encountered some people who have seen a video or two railing against Calvinism, claiming that it follows John Calvin more than the Bible. I've heard people argue, "the Bible mentions the word, free-will." Yes, that is true, but whenever the Old Testament mentions the free-will offering, it simply refers to a type of offering that people could make to God freely, without obligation if they felt the need or if they simply wanted to. My point is, that Calvinism can often be greatly misrepresented, and I feel that it is an injustice when someone puts up a strawman that completely misses the truth about the matter, intentionally ignoring specific passages in the Bible which, at the very least, seem on the outset to be incongruent with their interpretation. But, if you don't believe me, I suggest that you watch a video on YouTube that is anti-Calvinist, and then compare it to one of R.C. Sprouls lectures, or one of Doug Wilsons' sermons. Sure, there are a few honest Evangelicals out there who are fair to the Reformed perspective (Mike Winger), but the vast majority, I believe, show a vehement disregard for the teaching of sovereign, electing grace. These misconstrusions of the Reformed beliefs are, it would seem, a display of a disdain for, or an ignorance of the vast array of subject matter that lies within the tradition of Reformed Theology. In this next section of the article, I will attempt to contrast the true teaching of Reformed Theology in regards to the Famous Five Points, with what a lot, if not most, people believe about the teachings of Calvinism. Stay tuned, folks, this might take a minute.

The Famous Five Points

Point 1: Total Depravity

This first point of Calvinism is quite often the one point that most Evangelicals claim to agree upon. They say they believe that we are totally and utterly sinful to the depths of our very nature; which is true; but do they truly believe that? Many will say that, and then turn right back around and say that, if you don't choose Jesus, then He won't be able to save you. I think that what's happening in such cases, is that these people don't fully understand what the Calvinist means by Total Depravity. To be totally depraved basically means to be utterly destitute of any goodness in and of yourself. If this is true, I would argue that it must follow, that a man who has totally loved his sin because of his sinful nature as a result of Adam's sin, does not have the capacity of, 'choosing God.' In the words of the late R.C. Sproul, in his book, Chosen by God, "there is no part of me that has not been affected in some way by the fall. Sin affects my will, my heart, my mind and my body." In other words, I was a slave to my sin, and dead in my trespasses and sins. (Eph. 2:5) Other noteworthy passages can be found in Genesis 6:5, before God sends the flood to wipe out almost all humanity, Romans 3:10-12, where Paul says that no one seeketh after God, and Jeremiah 17:9, in which Jeremiah claims that the heart is, "desperately wicked," and, "deceitful above all things."

Point 2: Unconditional Election

It is at this point that most people run their nearly Calvinistic vessels aground, and lodge themselves between the rocks of unconditional election and limited atonement. Both of these points are controversial, the latter probably more so, but both are taught explicitly in the Holy pages of Scripture. Unconditional election, what does it mean? Well, it simply means that God, from all eternity, elected to Himself a peculiar people to be His own, according only to His mercy and grace. Many would affirm predestination and election, mainly because it's just so blatant within the Bible, but they will often interpret the terms in a different way than Calvinists would, or apply them to nations and groups rather than individuals. Another common refute against Calvinists is, if God determines who will go to Hell and who will go to Heaven, what does that do to our free will? Or, does that make God unjust? Paul answers both of these questions quite effectively in Romans 9. I would encourage you to go and read the entirety of Romans in its full context and try to wrestle, especially with chapters 8 and 9.

"For whom He did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of His Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover, whom He did predestinate, them He also called: and whom He called, them He also justified: and whom He justified, them He also glorified." (Romans 8:29-30) Now the obvious claim in regards to this passage would be to point out that it says God predestines those whom He foreknows, not foreordains. To that, I would simply point out that God's foreknowledge is not simply Him taking in passive information, and reacting to that information in real time. But rather, the fact that God perfectly foreknows whom He will predestinate, infers that those whom He predestinates must of necessity come to Him, thereby nullifying their, "free will." God foreknows His elect in the same manner, that He foreknew His Son's death from before the foundations of the world.

"Him being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken and by wicked hands have crucified and slain" (Acts 2:23). I ask you this, how did God foreknow Jesus' death? Was He surprised to find out that it would occur? Did He look into His crystal ball and see that this person, who so happened to be perfect, would willingly die on the cross for the sins of the world, and claim that it was God who sent Him to do so, and then at some point decide that He would choose that perfect man to solve the problem of sin? I say, no! In no way can God's foreknowledge work in that way, for, how could God see an event in the future, before He created anything, if He hadn't decided in a future that would be, since He is the creator of all things, not excluding time itself? This is truly a hard topic, and confusing for our pea-brains to be sure, but there is such a thing as logic, and logic is a thing that we must use. Let's look at this practically. We know that God has a perfect, and exhaustive foreknowledge of all events and actions in time, including the salvation of each individual. So, if it be, that we indeed have free will the way that Arminians describe it, and God chooses us based on our choice of Him, before the foundations of the world, could we possibly not choose Him? Think about that, if God perfectly knows that I will choose Him, is there any way that I could surprise Him by not choosing Him? Why, that would be a contradiction in terms. If any person can surprise God, or go beyond His perfect foreknowledge, then it must follow that God does not, in fact, have any such perfect foreknowledge. Johnathan Edwards says it well in his book The Freedom of the Will, "God's absolute promise makes the things promised necessary, and their failing to take place absolutely impossible." If that is not enough, I believe that the immediate context of Romans 8 (Romans 9) will clear the matter up perfectly.

"(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of Him that calleth;)" (Romans 9:11). Here we have a clear indication that, God, speaking about the choice of who would be the heir to the Nation of Israel, Jacob or Esau, made His decision based only upon His gift of mercy. Though some may say that this passage has nothing to do at all with individual salvation, I would argue that Paul is only bringing this up in chapter 9 as a result of his claims in chapter 8. Remember, there were no chapter divisions when the letter was originally written. At any rate, it is clear that Esau did not receive the inheritance, which, I would argue, is the reason for Him not being saved. Humanly speaking, the inheritance should have been Esau's and not Jacob's, seeing as how he was the eldest. "But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty." (1 Corinthians 1:27) God always chooses the people who seem, to us, like the lesser, or the less qualified or deserving, and that much is true in regards to Jacob and Esau. And no, the text does not explicitly say anything about Jacob and Esau's salvation, it seems as if Paul used this illustration in order to explain to his audience why it was that not all Jews would be saved. The answer is, that God did not choose to save all of the Jews. "For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel." (Romans 9:6b)

I could go on and on about unconditional election, but alas, I must complete this article. But I will certainly cover the doctrine much more in-depth in another article, especially in Romans 9. However, we must go on to the next great point of Calvinism.

Point 3: Limited Atonement

If unconditional election is controversial, the limited atonement is much more so. I submit that this is the point where my Calvinistic conversion took a halt, and I had to do some serious studying and praying before I finally accepted it. At the outset, it certainly seems to be contrary to the words of Scripture. Verses like John 3:16, 1 John 2:2 or 2 Peter 3:9 swiftly come to mind and are often hard to refute as Arminian proof texts. But, I have come to understand that limited atonement and these verses are in complete harmony. As for my interpretations of said verses, stay tuned for the solitary article on limited atonement that I'll be publishing soon.

Now before you decide that this is the end of your tolerance, and you can read no more of my extreme nonsense, please, allow me to explain. Limited atonement must be understood within the context of God's sovereign election of individuals to Himself. Since God elects a specific amount of people, it would make no sense for Him to waste His Son's blood on people whom He never intended to save. Think about it, if Christ's blood was shed, in a salvific sense, for every individual to ever exist, then what happens to the people that He died for who go to Hell? We know that sin was defeated ultimately at the cross, and Jesus' blood covers all the sins of the people He died for because God the Father punished our sins in Christ. So does that mean that Christ suffered in vain for millions of people who would perish? Was His blood sprinkled on people who would never receive the full cleansing of their sins? If Christ's death covers their sins, why do they still need to be punished again in Hell, if they were already paid for in full? This doctrine rests on the power of the Cross, and Christ's blood. What did Christ accomplish on the Cross? Did He merely secure the possibility of salvation to everyone? If so, and if salvation rests on our free choice, then it could be possible that no one would ever be saved. Furthermore, if total depravity is true, then truly nobody would ever choose to follow Christ, it's illogical to the flesh! "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (1 Corinthians 2:14)

I believe that Jesus Christ's death on the Cross accomplished and secured a spot in Heaven for whoever would come to Him. yes, I believe John 3:16 wholeheartedly. But who will come to Him? Those whom He draws to Himself and calls effectually. So, His death was not wasted in any way, neither was His blood spilled needlessly, but rather, on all of God's elect. The Father elects, the Son dies and covers all of their sins for all eternity, and the Holy Spirit calls and creates a new heart within them. I would add that, when the Bible talks of, "all," and, "the whole World," that does not automatically mean that it's speaking about every single individual that would ever exist in all time. But I would submit to you that you must interpret those words within their context. Again, I must save the rest of this talk for a later article, but I'll leave you with some verses.

"And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call His name Jesus: for He shall save His people from their sins." (Matthew 1:21)

"I am the good Shepherd: the good Shepherd giveth His life for the sheep." (John 10:11)

"As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down My life for the sheep." (John 10:15)

"Even as the Son of Man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give His life a ransom for many." (Matthew 20:28)

Point 4: Irresistible Grace

As we come to the fourth point in the TULIP, I should like to note that this point, irresistible grace, is perhaps the most broadly misunderstood doctrine. This doctrine, however, needs to be properly defined in most conversations about it. Whenever I bring this point up, the most common argument I hear is often something like, "God doesn't drag people kicking and screaming against their wills into Heaven, and also let people who earnestly want to go to Heaven go to Hell instead." Whenever someone argues in this way against me, I immediately understand that my opponent has a fundamental misunderstanding of all five points, especially this one. Irresistible grace is a bit of a misleading name, and I agree with R.C. Sproul when he says that the name, "effectual grace," is more proper. Why is that? Well, when you hear the word irresistible, you think that it means God can not be resisted. But that is not true. God's will can be disobeyed, and is every single day, being resisted by us sinners. But the idea of the term irresistible grace is not that, but rather that when God so chooses to save a soul, to birth someone to new spiritual life, to raise a spiritually dead person from their depravity, he cannot be resisted in that instance.

This is the action of being born again, as Jesus describes in John 3, and Paul in Ephesians 2. I do not believe that God drags people in against their wills, but rather that God changes the affections of their wills by taking out their hearts of stone and replacing them with hearts of flesh. Remember, we were DEAD in our trespasses and sins. Not half dead, not mostly dead, but lifeless, breathless, corpses lying in the mire of our decaying, sinful flesh. It is a graphic image. It's dramatic. Jesus said, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." (John 3:6) The Spirit is the only one who can produce spiritual thoughts and emotions in the hearts of wicked men, as Paul also states multiple times in his epistles. "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (1 Corinthians 2:14) And again, "for they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh, but they that are after the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God." (Romans 8:5-8) So we see, in the Scriptures, that the natural inclination of the heart is always toward sin; because of our inherited sinful nature; therefore, we would never choose to follow after Christ, unless the Holy Spirit first quickens us to new life, and raises us from the dead. Again, I say, we must first understand what it means to be totally depraved to understand why it is that only an irresistible grace can save dead sinners.

This truth is reinforced, yet again, by the very words of our Lord, "No man can come to me, except the Father who sent me draw him: and I will raise him up on the last day." (John 6:44) We see here a contingent, that coming to Jesus is contingent upon God the Father doing something first, before the coming. That something is referred to as, "drawing." Many will use this verse against Calvinists, claiming that the word, "draw," simply means that God entices, or woos an individual into choosing Christ. Still, that individual can choose not to follow after His drawing. The problem with that, however, is that Jesus explicitly says that He will raise them up on the last day! Well, who's the them? It's everyone whom the Father draws! So that, whoever God draws, will be saved on the last day. So does God draw everybody? If so, does that mean everyone will be raised up on the last day? Any honest reading of this text makes it clear that the drawing work of God is not a simple, enticing, but rather, an effectual drawing that is certain to produce the desired results. If God chooses to draw someone, He will not stop halfway and leave them simply if they resist Him, but He will complete the work since He has elected that person from before the foundations of the world. In the same chapter, Jesus reiterates His statement in slightly different terms, saying, "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. And He said, 'therefore I said unto you, that no man can come unto Me, except it were given unto him of My Father." (John 6:64-65) So then, why is it that the people didn't believe? It seems to me that Jesus is saying that it is because they were not drawn by God.

We must change our worldly understanding of the radical fallenness of man, and submit ourselves to the way God defines us in our sin. He says that we were dead in sins, slaves to sin, enemies of God, naturally unable to submit to His will. What then must we do to be saved? We must repent and believe in Him. But we cannot do that unless the Spirit first causes us to be born again. Let me put it this way, as the great Dr. Voddie Baucham would say, "you can no more cause yourself to be born again anymore than you could have birthed yourselves the first time."

Point 5: Perseverance of the Saints

We come, at last, to the final point in the TULIP acrostic, named, I think, properly. Who do we mean by, "the Saints?" Everyone who was or ever will be born again, and what will we persevere to? To eternity in Christ's presence. This doctrine says that no one truly born again will ever lose their salvation. And, though, the majority of Christians throughout history may have been able to come to some agreement in this area, it seems that people are changing their minds and taking a massive dive into the depths of non-logic. We sacrifice historical and Biblical theology on the altar of free will. Once you, "choose," to be born again, you have to be able to, "choose," to be somehow un-born again. Have we any idea just how silly that sounds?

There are a few key passages that are usually brought up against this doctrine, notably Hebrews 6 and 10, among some others. However, I would like to devote an entire article to the interpretation of those passages, so for the length of the article, I won't be dealing with it right now.

However, I would like to point out passages like John 6: 39: "And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which He hath given Me I shall lose nothing, but raise it up again at the last day." Or John 10:27-28: "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, neither shall any man pluck them out of My hand." This same Shepherd is the one in Matthew 19, who leaves the ninety-nine to go after the one sheep who went astray and brings him back to the flock. This is the same One who will finish the good work that he began in us. "For it is God which worketh in You both to will and to do for His good pleasure." (Philippians 2:13) This is the One who confirms us to the end: "Who shall also confirm you unto the end, that ye may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ." (1 Corinthians 1:8)

I will now submit to you that, if you believe that salvation is a work wholly and only of God in the creation of new life in a dead soul, you must believe in the ultimate perseverance of the Saints to be consistent in your view of salvation as a whole. This doctrine is grounded in the truth that salvation is 100% God's work and absolutely 0% man's. I contribute nothing to my salvation except my sin. Therefore, if God is the one who saves, will He willingly let His children apostatize? I think not. It would bring His character into question, for His promise then would be made void, "whoever comes to me, I will in no wise cast out." (John 6:37) It is illogical to suggest that God would foreknow everyone who would ever be saved, and then to say that those predestined could still possibly fall away if they chose to.

The truth is, that God has so created, in His elect, a new heart of flesh, that can love Him and please Him, that we would never, in our right minds, turn away from Him for any reason, because He is the one who keeps us. He saves us, and He also keeps us saved. I think John MacArthur got it right when he said, "if I could lose my salvation, I would." I agree with that sentiment. There is no good thing that dwells in me, to convince God that I'm worth keeping. if it were not for the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ, His Son, onto me, I would in no wise be able to stand before the just judge of the universe.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Five Points of Calvinism are, in my opinion, beautiful, and wonderfully represent the key truths of salvation as taught by Jesus and His disciples, and by Scripture altogether. Many tend to brush Calvinism off as instant heresy before even listening to their arguments and contentions, which often leads to heated exchanges led by overly emotional attacks. I have sat idle for too long. I am tired of people misrepresenting the doctrines of grace, so much so that they would even consider it equal to cults like Mormonism or Jehovah's Witness. We don't worship John Calvin. we don't believe that God is the author of sin, and we do not believe that anyone is good in the eyes of the Lord, including ourselves. I have come to understand that it is the most biblical view of salvation, as well as the most God-honoring. Thank you for reading this article, and I look forward to writing more on the key doctrines, and in much more depth. Ciao!

"There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." (Romans 8:1)