03 A Comprehensive System

A Comprehensive System

We must give Calvin his due. He produced a system which, from that day until this, has been the wonder of the religious world. But, as profound an impact as Calvinism has had on religious thought, few people seem to have any idea of the comprehensive and far reaching system it is.

Loraine Boettner was probably the best known Calvinistic writer of the twentieth century. In 1932 he wrote a book entitled The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination. It became a standard reference among students of Calvinism. His presentations are clear, comprehensive and to the point. He and D. Martin Lloyd-Jones probably gained more converts to Calvinism than any other writers during their lifetime.

Boettner writes, “In the minds of most people the doctrine of Predestination and Calvinism are practically synonymous terms. This, however, should not be the case, and the too close identification of the two has doubtless done much to prejudice many people against the Calvinistic system. The same is true in regard to a too close identification of Calvinism and the Five Points, as will be shown later. While Predestination and the Five Points are all essential elements of Calvinism, they by no means constitute its whole” (The Reformed Doctrine...., pg 7).

Boettner was right. Predestination and the Five Points are essential elements of the system, but if that is all anyone knows about the subject, he has very little idea of what Calvinism is all about.

It is our purpose in this short study to look, not just at predestination and the Five Points, but also at the various other principles which make the system what it is. It is our intention to look at how the system started, how it evolved, and how it was later arrested and radically changed. It will become readily apparent that the Calvinism we know today, even the Calvinism taught by its staunchest advocates, is a far cry from the Calvinism of Augustine and Calvin.

We will notice that, not only are predestination and the Five Points not the sum and substance of Calvinism, the Five points have never been the real driving force behind Calvinism. There are other principles that have had far more effect in spreading its power and influence than predestination and the Five Points ever had.

If we would study Calvinism, we must first define our terms. Since we are looking at Calvinism-the doctrine of John Calvin-we will allow his writings to control the question. We will look at the great Calvinistic confessions, the Westminster, Savoy, Belgic confessions, etc., but in the end we will allow Calvin to define his own system.

There are about as many notions of Calvinism as there are brands of automobiles. What one identifies as Calvinism, another insists is not Calvinism at all. In my old copy of Frank Mead’s Handbook of Denominations, he refers to Southern Baptists as being moderately Calvinistic. In my new copy of Mead’s work the reference to Calvinism is omitted. Since I am writing primarily for the Primitive Baptists, I believe it is proper to point out that most Primitive Baptists would say the Southern Baptists are thoroughly Arminian. Most of them believe in the preservation of the saints; they call it eternal security, and a few of them believe (at least to some small extent) in total depravity. But, it is a rare Southern Baptist who would agree with the other three points: unconditional election, limited atonement, and irresistible grace.

There is very little agreement about what Calvinism is; everybody has his own formula. In order to discuss the question, we must have some bench mark, some way of identifying our subject. So for our purposes we will assume that Calvinism is whatever John Calvin says it is. As a general rule the professional theologians provide two neat little boxes, and they insist that, doctrinally, all Christians must fit into one or the other of those two boxes. If you are not an Arminian, you must be a Calvinist; those are the only choices-or so we are told. That is a great marketing ploy. We are told, “If you do not want to be one of them, you have to be one of us. If you are not an Arminian, you have to be a Calvinist; those are the only two choices.” But those are not the only two choices.

Primitive Baptists have not generally allowed themselves to be packaged by the professional theologians. We insist we are different. We are neither Arminians nor Calvinists. We subscribe to a different system, which, for want of a better term, we call Bible doctrine.

Most people insist that if you believe God is sovereign, you are a Calvinist. And if you believe man is in charge, you are an Arminian. But it is not that simple. There are other systems which differ radically from either doctrine. Not many people would recognize the term Pelagianism if they heard it, but it is a system totally different from Arminianism or Calvinism. And it is just as fundamental and fully as widespread. Pelagianism teaches that man is not really depraved. Adam did not stand as our federal head. His sin only affected himself. Man is fully able to save himself. He does not need a Redeemer, and he does not need a revelation from God. Or so they say. There is no way you can make the Pelagian fit into either the Arminian or the Calvinist box. If you would judge what people believe by listening to what they say, you would think there may very well be as many Pelagians as there are Arminians or Calvinists.

Then there is Semi-Pelagianism. Again, most people never heard the term, but its adherents are different from the Calvinists, Arminians or Pelagians. The Arminian acknowledges that man is by nature totally depraved, but he still believes the sinner has sufficient ability to choose between heaven and hell. That is different from either Pelagianism or Semi-Pelagianism. The Pelagian denies that man is depraved. The Semi-Pelagian acknowledges that man is depraved-but not totally. The expression a little good in every man is classic Semi-Pelagianism, and that expression typifies much of today’s religious thought. Semi-Pelagianism resembles Arminianism, but by its firm denial of total depravity, it sets itself apart from that doctrine. There are probably about as many Semi-Pelagians are there are Arminians. And then there is Sacerdotalism. That is the doctrine that salvation comes by observing the sacraments of the church. That is the doctrine of the Roman Catholic church, the Greek Orthodox Church, and the various other liturgical churches. It is a system of doctrine distinct to itself, and it will not fit into any of the other four boxes. It resembles Pelagianism, as Semi-Pelagianism resembles Arminianism, but they are all separate and distinct systems.

It has been pointed out many times that, over the years, some of our best informed, and most highly respected ministers have referred to Primitive Baptists as Calvinists.

They were doing what we all do. They were using language people understand. They were referring to those who believe God is sovereign as Calvinists, and those who believe man is in charge as Arminians. People are used to dividing professing Christians into one of two groups- Arminians and Calvinists-and they did the same.

Those same writers often referred to every form of conditional salvation as Arminianism. They sometimes used the term Arminianism, when, to be precise, the doctrine was Pelagianism (works salvation), or Semi-Pelagianism. They could have been more precise, referring to Pelagians, Semi-Pelagians, and Sacerdotalists, etc., and they would have been more exact, but it is unlikely some of their readers would have understood them. So they used the language their readers used. In all honesty we must acknowledge that some of them actually were Calvinists, but generally when one of those writers used the word, it did not mean he subscribed to the doctrines of John Calvin. In this work, in order to establish what we mean by the term Calvinist, we allow Calvin himself to define the term. When we refer to Calvinism we are referring to that system as it was set forth by John Calvin, and his closest colleagues, and as it is set forth in the great Calvinistic confessions of faith: the Westminster, Belgic, and Savoy Confessions, the Canons of Dort, and the Longer and Shorter Westminster, and Heidelberg Catechism, etc. Not even the men who drew up those confessions of faith would accept some things Calvin taught, but when we come to those points, we will point out the difference. So, if we might repeat ourselves, for the purposes of this study we will assume that Calvinism is whatever John Calvin says itIsaiah 4:1-6The Five Points The Five Points

We have quoted our Calvinist theologian, Lorraine Boettner to the effect that the Five Points are not the entirety of Calvinism, but when anybody mentions Calvinism, that is the first thing that generally comes to mind. So we need to take a good look at the Five Points, and especially, we need to compare the Five Points of Calvinism with those five doctrines the Bible teaches regarding the grace of God. They are not the same. The Bible doctrine of salvation by grace can be easily broken down into five basic points:Total depravity, Unconditional Election,Limited atonement,Irresistible grace, and thePreservation of the saints: the so-called

T-U-L-I-Pdoctrine. The Bible teaches all five of those doctrines, and they summarize the doctrine of the Primitive Baptists with regard to the salvation of sinners. Much of our preaching is devoted to demonstrating those great truths.

Calvinism has its own five doctrines corresponding to those points, and it has become customary to refer to those points as The Five Points of Calvinism. When studying the Five Points, we need to keep two things in mind. First, John Calvin did not himself make any reference to the Five Points. For the most part, he did preach those doctrines, and much of the necessary material was drawn from his writings, but it was the Synod of Dort (1619) which, many years after Calvin died, arranged them into the Five Points formula.

Second, we need to know that, while on the one hand, those five points, as they were taught by Calvin and his followers, contain much that is scriptural and true, they also contain much that is totally unscriptural, totally untrue, and shock-ing to any heaven born soul. No system was ever more at war with itself than the Calvinism of John Calvin and the various Calvinistic confessions of faith. At one moment they can be as scriptural, and as comprehensive in their presentation, as it is possible for mortal men to be. They can take you to the very gate of heaven itself. We marvel at their insight, their scholarship, their devotion to the scriptures. The next moment they can take you to the very depths of despair. At one moment they exhaust the language extolling the praise of God. The next moment they make claims so scandalous to the name of God, that you wonder how any person born of the Spirit would dare say such a thing.

We will show that, even though the five points do contain much that is clearly true, and even though much of the material was drawn from the writings of John Calvin, there is not so much as one of those points-as John Calvin taught them-that squares with the Bible. We will show that John Calvin would start with statements so clearly true, that no honest Bible student could deny them, and from that beginning, he would draw conclusions exactly opposite to the clear teaching of the Bible. The Bible teaches those five points in connection with the doctrine of salvation by grace, butJohn Calvin emphat-ically denied the doctrine of the Bible on every one of the Five Points.The doctrine of John Calvin is almost a mockery of the five points as they are taught in the Bible. The Five Points formula came about as the result of conflict between the followers of John Calvin and James Arminius in the Netherlands in the early 1600’s. James (Jacobus) Arminius was a professor at the Leyden University. He was the source of the doctrine we call Arminianism. After Calvin and Arminius had both died, the followers of Arminius drew up a Remonstrance in which they petitioned the States General of the Netherlands to incorporate his doctrine into the system of the Reformed Church in the Netherlands. The States General called a synod (the Synod of Dort) to consider the matter. The synod rejected the request of the Remonstrants, and instead drew up the Five Points using Calvin’s writings as their source. The Canons of Dort (1619) are the record of that decision. It settled the question of Calvinism versus Arminianism for the Dutch people, but it almost resulted in a civil war. The Canons of Dort limited itself to those Five Points, but in 1647, the English Parliament under the leadership of the Presbyterians adopted the Westminster Confession. It provided a more comprehensive statement of Calvinistic doctrine. Those documents continue to be the standards of the Presbyterian Church. In his Westminster Confession of Faith Study Book (2005) Joseph Pipa says, “All Presbyterian and Reformed churches have a secondary authority based on the scriptures. Presbyterian Churches have The Westminster Confession of Faith, the Larger and Shorter Catechisms ....all officers must take an oath that they believe that the things taught in these documents are scriptural and that they believe them”

(pg. 13). Our Calvinist friends make much of their sola scriptura (scripture only) slogan, but it appears they do not mean a word of it. What they give with one hand they take back with the other. They have their list of secondary author-ities, and they require their ministers to swear by those secondary authorities. On the dust cover of The Westminster Confession of Faith, published by Free Presbyterian Publications of Glasgow, Scotland, we are told, “The Church of Christ cannot be creedless and live.” The Bible is not enough; they must have their creeds, their confessions and catechisms to prop it up. The Presbyterians have the Westminster Confession and the Larger and Shorter Catechisms. The Dutch and German Calvinists have what they call the Three Forms of Unity: the Belgic Confession, The Heidelberg Catechism, and the Canons of Dort. Then there are the Savoy and Augsburg Confessions. They all have their supplements to the Bible. That is one of the many ways in which our Primitive Baptists differ from the Calvinists. We believe, “The scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the Word of God and the only rule of faith and practice.” We have no secondary authorities. We admit to no other rule, no other standard, than the Bible. From time to time persecution and false accusations have made it necessary for Baptists to adopt confessions of faith-as explanations of their doctrine and practice. But Baptists have never adopted any confession of faith in the sense the Protestants have.

Those confessions were for the purpose of explanation only. They were meant as a defensive measure against the accusations of the Protestants. Protestants and Catholics consistently made the most ridiculous and shameful accusations against Baptist doctrine and practice, and they had no alternative but to put their principles on paper and have their leading ministers sign their names. But they have never adopted those confessions as secondary authorities. They have never considered that the Bible needed any supplement. In some ways those Five Points, as they have been taught by John Calvin and his followers, closely approximate the doctrine of the Bible, and a casual reading would convince the unwary they are the very truth of the gospel. But in other fundamental ways, those doctrines -as Calvin taught them-are not only different from the doctrine of the Bible; they are the exact opposite of Bible doctrine.

Total Depravity: To give a brief rundown of some points on which Calvin’s Calvinism differs from the Bible, the Westminster Confession states in Chapter Six, “1. Our first parents, being seduced by the subtlety and temptation of Satan, sinned in eating the forbidden fruit. This their sin, God was pleased, according to his wise and holy counsel, to permit, having purposed to order it to his own glory. 2. By this sin they fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, and so became dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the parts and faculties of soul and body. 3. They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed, and the same death in sin, and corrupted nature, conveyed to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation. 4. From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions.” That is what the Bible teaches. God did permit (suffer) Adam to sin-he could have stopped him. Adam became corrupt and dead in sin, and he passed that corruption down to all his offspring. And we fully agree that “from this original corruption....do proceed all actual transgressions.” It would be hard to find a Primitive Baptist who would argue with the Confession on those points. But that is not what John Calvin taught. Calvin taught that man is by nature depraved; but he did not teach that depravity was the source of his sinful deeds. He did not trace man’s sinful conduct to his own depravity so much as he did to the will and decrees of God. He was sure that man did whatever he did-whether good or evil- because God predestinated him to do it. The Westminster Divines were followers of John Calvin; but they would not exactly go with him on those points. They taught the same doctrine, but they would not say it so bluntly as he did. John Calvin had been dead almost eighty years when the Westminster Assembly met. With all that time to think about it, the Calvinists had plenty of time to consider Calvin’s doctrine, and reword it in a manner they thought was more acceptable. The Westminster Confession states that God permitted Adam to sin. But Calvin expressed his harshest contempt for those who claim that God only permits sin.

He taught that God controls every action man performs. He taught that if a man does any good thing, God causes him to do it, and if he does any wicked thing, God causes him to do that as well. In other words, if a man sins, he sins because God forces him to sin. Most Calvinists bristle at the charge their doctrine makes God the author of sin, but Calvin repeatedly said it in so many words. He gloried in the thought that God is the author of sin. Listen to these direct quotes.

“I have already shown clearly enough that God is the author [his word] of all those things which, according to these objectors, happen only by his inactive permission. He testifies that he creates light and darkness, forms good and evil (Isaiah 45:7); that no evil happens which he hath not done” (Institutes, Book I, Chap. 18, Sec. 3). You cannot charge Calvin with beating around the bush. Language could not be plainer. He is sure God is the author of every act-whether good or evil. If there is evil in the world, he is sure God did it. But Calvin is very careful to misquote the text. It does not say what he pretends it says. The text actually reads, “I form the light and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil; I the Lord do all these things.” The text is simple enough, if you just let it say what it says. The two clauses are parallel; they explain each other. How does God create darkness-by withholding the light. Darkness is simply the absence of light. As darkness is the absence of light, the evil under consideration is the absence of peace. God creates darkness by withholding the light; he creates this kind of evil by withholding peace. The text does teach that God “makes peace and creates evil,” but it is not moral evil that he creates. Peace is the gift of God. He makes peace, and he withholds peace. We will never enjoy peace unless he, in his mercy grants peace, and his withholding that peace is the evil under consider-ation. It is not the evil of sin and wickedness. It is the evil of the pain and suffering God sends as judgment on our sinful ways. The text is perfectly balanced, perfectly true, and so simple a little third grader can understand it-if you just let it say what it says. But John Calvin had no trouble insisting that if there is the evil of sin, wickedness, and degradation in the land, God is the cause of it. That is not a God honoring doctrine, to say the least.

Later in the same section he says, “The sum of the whole is this,-since the will of God is said to be the cause of all things, all the counsels and actions of men must be held to be governed by his providence; so that he not only exerts his power in the elect, who are guided by the Holy Spirit, but also forces [his word] the reprobate to do him service.”

He does not blush to teach that God “forces the reprobate to do him service.” Calvin would have us believe that if some reprobate abducts a little girl, if he tortures and rapes her, and buries her still alive behind his home, it is because (to use his language) “God forces the reprobate to do him service.” He would have us believe the miscreant would never have done any such thing if God had not forced him to do it. The Westminster Confession traces such conduct to the depravity of the man; Calvin traces it to the decrees of God. But there is more. “From the first chapter of Job, we learn that Satan appears in the presence of God to receive his orders, just as do the angels who obey spontaneously” (Institutes, Book I, Chap. 18, Sec. 1). He has no trouble in claiming Satan is as much a soldier in the Lord’s service as the angels are, and that he shows up at the throne of God to receive his orders for the day. He does make the distinction that the angels serve God spontaneously, but Satan must have his orders.

He goes on, “The manner and the end are different, but still the fact is, that he [Satan] cannot attempt anything without the will of God....We infer that God was the author [his word] of that trial of which Satan and wicked robbers were merely the instruments.” He leaves not the least room to doubt that he is convinced God is the author of every act that is performed, and Satan and wicked robbers are only the instruments by which God does his work.

Again, in Section 2, “If to harden means only bare permission, the contumacy will not properly belong to Pharaoh.... not that he intends to teach wicked and obstinate man to obey spontaneously, but because he bends them [his exact words] to execute his judgments just as if they carried their orders engraven on their minds. And hence it appears that they are impelled by the sure appointment of God” (Institutes, Book 1, Chap. 18, Sec. 2).

He overloads the language to show that men sin because God causes them to sin. He refuses to allow that man sins by bare permission, or that he acts spontaneously, but he will have us believe they sin because they “have their orders engraven on their minds.” According to him, Satan must appear before God to receive his daily marching orders but the wicked have “their orders engraven on their minds.” As if that was not enough, he insists that God “bends them to execute his judgments,” and “they are impelled by the sure appointment of God.”

Finally, “Hence recourse is had to the evasion that this is done only by the permission, and not also by the will of God. He himself, however, openly declaring that he does this, repudiates the evasion. That men do nothing save at the secret instigation of God, and do not discuss and delib-erate on anything but what he has previously decreed with himself, and brings to pass by his secret direction, is proved by numberless clear passages of Scripture” (Institutes, Book I, Chap. 18, Sec. 1). The 1948 Warfield Edition of the Institutes reads, “They therefore evade the difficulty, by alleging that it happens only by the permission, and not by the will of God; but God himself by the most unequivocal declarations, rejects this subterfuge. That men, however can effect nothing but what he has previously decreed, and determines by his secret direction, is proved by express and innumerable testimonies. What we have before cited from the Psalmist, that ‘God hath done whatsoever he hath pleased,’ undoubtedly pertains to all the actions of men.”

He bristles at the thought that men sin when God permits them to do so. He would have us believe that, whatever men do, they do “at the secret instigation of God,” that they sin, because God instigates them, prompts them, to do so.

He would have us believe that every wicked, lascivious, and brutal act that has ever been committed was done because God instigated the sin, bent the will of the perpetrator, and forced him to do it. The Westminster Confession is the most respected of all Calvinistic confessions, but not even the Westminster Assembly would follow Calvin that far. In Chapter 3, section 1, they say, “God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.” The bottom line is still the same. The Westminster Divines still trace whatsoever comes to pass to the will of God. They still place all man’s good and all his wickedness at the feet of God. They do their little song and dance to clear God of the charge they have themselves just made. In the second half of the section those same Westminster divines do their best to take the edge off the clear statement they have made in the first half. Their dodge does not change anything, but at least, they refuse to go with Calvin in his blunt claim that God forces the reprobate to do all they do. The Canons of Dort are, perhaps, a little less offensive than the Westminster Confession. In their first head, article 15, they say, “And this is the decision of reprobation, which does not at all make God the author of sin (a blasphemous thought!) But rather its fearful, irreproachable, just judge and avenger.” They do not mention that Calvin taught the very doctrine they were repudiating, and it is obvious they did not have him in mind. How could they; he was their greatest source.

Blasphemy is a serious charge, and it is not a word I use lightly. I do not think I have ever before put the word on paper. But that is what the Canons of Dort call Calvin’s doctrine, and since they are all in the same Calvinistic camp, it seems reasonable that we should take them at their word. As little satisfaction as I get from the word, I must confess that if the accusations Calvin makes against God are not blasphemy, I have no idea how a person would go about blaspheming. Someone will object that Calvin was not making accusations, and I am sure Calvin would agree. But his comments sound, for all the world, like accusations to me.

It would be easy for someone to conclude that if the god John Calvin has just described is the god he worshiped, he could not possibly have been a Christian, and Calvinism is no part of the Christian religion. It is certain the god he has just described is not the God of the Bible. The God we serve does not force men to abduct, rape and mutilate little girls. He does not bend their wills to fly airplanes into huge buildings full of innocent people. He does not instigate sin and wickedness. On some points Calvin, and Augustine before him, were as accurate and as scriptural as it is possible to be. On those subjects we must acknowledge they spent thousands of hours with their Bibles, and they reached logical and scriptural conclusions. Some of their arguments and conclusions have stood for ages.

But, while they borrowed much from the Christian religion, they also borrowed much from the pagan religions. When they talked about God being the cause of all the sin and wickedness in the world, both Calvin and Augustine were thoroughly pagan. Paganism is the worship of any God other than the God of the Bible, and the god Calvin described in the passages we have just quoted is not the God of the Bible. As we shall see in the pages to come, Calvinism is as indebted to pagan philosophy-and the Jewish Talmud- as it is to the Bible. It is a collection of much that is undenia-bly Christian, along with much that is pagan, and a hearty dose of Pharisaism/Judaism/Talmudism. Calvin does not quote the Talmud and pagan philosophers the way he does the Bible, but nobody who is acquainted with those three systems can fail to see that those sources shaped his thinking as much as the Bible did.

Unconditional Election:In Chapter 3, Section 3, the Westminster Confession reads, “By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death.” The Westminster divines were sure God created the elect for the purpose of saving them, and having them live with him in all eternity. Our Primitive Baptists have no quarrel with that. But when they go on to argue that God created the non-elect for the purpose of sending them to hell, we must part company. Notice they claim some are foreordained to everlasting death. They call that doctrine Double Predestination. On this point Calvin and the Westminster scholars were perfectly agreed. He was not satisfied with teaching that God elected his people, and determined to do all things necessary to bring them safe home to glory; he goes on to say that he also predestinated the non-elect to eternal damnation, that he created them for the express purpose of sending them to hell.

He says, “All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death” (Institutes, Book 3, Chap. 21, Sec. 5).

Again, “We say, then, that Scripture clearly proves this much, that God by his eternal and immutable counsel determined once for all those whom it was his pleasure one day to admit to salvation, and those whom, on the other hand, it was his pleasure to doom to destruction” (Inst. Book 3, Chap. 21, Sec. 7).

I must confess that it sends a chill over me to hear anyone claim God created the non-elect for the sheer pleasure [his word] of seeing them burn in all eternity.

Lorraine Boettner agrees with Calvin, “The Reformed Faith has held to the existence of an eternal, divine decree which, antecedently to any difference or desert in men themselves, separated the human race into two portions and ordains one to everlasting life and the other to everlasting death” (The Reformed Doctrine...., Chap. 11, Sect. 1).

He laments the fact that Calvinism has been so largely rejected, and yet he admits the system teaches that “antecedently to any....desert in men themselves” God ordained a portion of the race to everlasting death.

It is true that he goes on to say, “The non-elect are simply left in their previous state of ruin, and are condemned for their sins,” but it is difficult to see how that makes any difference, when he teaches that every sin finds its cause in the same decree that ordains them to everlasting death.

Calvin teaches that God “forces the reprobate to do him service,” bends them and impels them to commit all the wicked things they do, then it is “his pleasure to doom [them] to destruction” for doing the very things he forced them to do in the first place. I confess if that describes the God of the Bible, I have been grossly mistaken. But you can be sure it does not describe the God of the Bible. Our God is known for his love, mercy, and grace. He lives in the heart of every heaven born soul and he prompts them to be like him.

Mister Boettner should not be surprised that so many people have abandoned a system which teaches God created some men for the pleasure of sending them to eternal damnation.

Limited Atonement:The Westminster Confession reads, “Wherefore they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ, are effectually called unto faith in Christ by His Spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by his power through faith unto salvation. Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only” (Chap. 3, Sec. 7)

Again, this is not what John Calvin preached. Inconsistent though it was, Calvin preached Universal Atonement. It is hard to imagine how a person so logical, and methodical as he was could join Universal Atonement with his other doctrines, but that is exactly what he did.

I have searched in vain for any comment by Calvin on Limited Atonement. I have failed to find it. What I have found is an abundance of comments supporting Universal Atonement. In his Commentary, he writes onColossians 1:14, “He says that this redemption was procured through the blood of Christ, for by the sacrifice of his death all the sins of the world have been expiated.”

OnGalatians 5:12, he writes, “It is the will of God that we should seek the salvation of all men without exception, as Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world.” And finally onJohn 1:29, “He uses the word sin in the singular number, for any kind of iniquity; as if he had said, that every kind of unrighteousness which alienates men from God is taken away by Christ. And when he says, the sin of the world, he extends this favor indiscriminately to the whole human race.”

There is no way to make Universal Atonement agree with the other four points; but then, Calvin did not put the five points together in the first place. More than that, consistency was never one of Calvin’s strong points.

Irresistible Grace: The Bible teaches that those whom the Father chose, and the Son redeemed, the Holy Spirit will call in God’s own good time. “And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father” (Galatians 4:6). The Westminster Confession teaches the Irresistible Grace of God, but in a very different way than the Bible teaches it. It reads, “All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, He is pleased in His appointed and accepted time effectually to call, by His Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death, in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ, enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God, etc.” (Chap. 10, Sect. 1).

Granted, this language is open to interpretation. Some of those who defend the Westminster Confession tell us, that Word means the living Word, and enlightening their minds has reference to the enlightening which is the immediate work of the Spirit, and the preached gospel is not necessarily under consideration. Such an interpretation stretches the language, but in spite of the strain it puts on the language, we might admit the interpretation. But those who take that position seem never to have read the entire passage.

Three sentences later we read, “Others, not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word, and may have some common operations of the Spirit, yet they never truly come unto Christ, and therefore cannot be saved; much less can men, not professing the Christian religion, be saved in any other way whatsoever, be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature, and the law of that religion they do profess. And, to assert and maintain that they may, is very pernicious, and to be detested” (Sec. 4). In this section they insist that those “not professing the Christian religion” cannot be saved. They are sure that if one does not profess the Christian religion he is going to burn. They go on to insist that, using such light as they do have, they may be never so diligent to live virtuous lives. Still, according to the Westminster Confession, they are going to burn if they have never professed the Christian religion.

Imagine some poor man with such bad judgment as to be born in a region the gospel has never reached. He is as kindhearted as any person you will ever meet. He loves his wife; he loves his children; he loves his neighbors. If he sees you in need, he would give you the very shirt off his back. His entire life is marked by love and compassion for his fellow man, but he lives and dies without hearing the gospel message, without hearing the name of Christ. This is the man our Calvinist friends describe as being diligent to frame his life according to the light he does have. According to the Westminster Confession, he is going to burn-because he never professed a religion he knew nothing about. The Westminster divines were not only willing to teach that God created the non-elect for the pleasure he receives in sending them to hell; they seem to take delight in twisting the blade in those they consider not to have been elected. If you do not accept their religion-if you do not agree with them-you are going to burn.

I would be glad for that good man to hear the gospel and delight in it; but I confess that I am not uneasy about his eternal destiny. If the man has genuine love for his fellow man, it is because God’s Spirit lives in his heart. God has done his work in the heart of his child, without the help, or the interference of the preacher. The Bible teaches clearly enough that “Every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God” (1 John 4:7). But our Calvinist friends will have none of it. They assure us that no one can be “saved in any other way whatsoever” than in “professing the Christian religion.” As for those the preacher never bothers to reach, “be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature, and that religion they do profess” they are still going to burn. A more hard-hearted, cold-blooded religion has never been known. That is just one of the many notions the Calvinists borrowed from Judaism. The Lord challenged those unbelievers in John, chapter five. He told them, “Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life; and they are they that testify of me” (John 5:39). The Jews had the Bible; they had the oracles of God (Romans 3:1), and they thought that is where they got eternal life. They were sure if anybody did not have the Bible-if he did not know and believe what they did-he was going to burn. The Lord told them the scriptures were not the source of eternal life; it is the place of the Bible to testify of him. That is the doctrine of the Primitive Baptists to this day. Our Calvinist friends choose to differ with the Lord on that point. But what does it mean to profess the Christian religion? Is professing the Christian religion the same as believing the gospel? How much of the gospel must one believe in order to be a believer?

Must he believe all the gospel-most of the gospel-or only some principle contained in the gospel?

If he must believe all the gospel, who is there who knows and understands all the gospel? Is it not true that we continue to learn all our lives? What if he dies before he fully masters the gospel message? Or must he simply believe most of the gospel? Is that not another way of saying there is some part of the gospel it is not important that we believe? Which part of the gospel must we believe in order to profess the Christian religion, and which parts are not necessary to be believed? On many religious questions there are honest and sincere people on both sides of the issue. What about eternal security? Is the doctrine of eternal security part of the gospel? Must we believe that doctrine in order to profess the Christian religion?

If professing the Christian religion includes believing in eternal security, does it not leave out all those good and godly Methodists and Pentecostals who are vigorously opposed to the doctrine. Are we to believe all the Methodists and Pentecostals are going to burn, because they cannot get it straight about eternal security? Or is it, perhaps, not really important whether he believes that doctrine?

If eternal security is so unimportant, should we not, perhaps, quit talking about it, and limit our preaching to those points which absolutely must be believed in order to reach heaven?

What about the Five Points of Calvinism? Are they part of the gospel? Must a person believe the Five Points in order to profess the Christian religion? Most any Calvinist will acknowledge that the majority of professing Christians reject the Five Points, either in whole, or in part. If a person must believe the Five Points in order to profess the Christian religion, does that not mean that virtually all those who profess to be Christians are not really so, and they will burn.

Again, if a person may profess the Christian religion without believing the Five Points, not in their entirety anyway, would it not, perhaps, be best to quit talking about them, and only talk about the very least a person has to believe in order to reach heaven.

If a person can refuse that part of the gospel, what other parts of the gospel may a person reject and still profess the Christian religion?

If we reduce the subject to its lowest common denominator, and say professing the Christian religion means believing that part on which we can all agree, that presents a problem at the other end of the scale. Is believing Jesus is the Son of God sufficient to profess the Christian religion? We are told the devils also believe and tremble. Are we willing to reduce the formula to such a level we must strike hands with devils and recognize them as true believers?

If a person was baptized as an infant, does that constitute professing the Christian religion.” What if his later life does not reflect that profession? How closely must his life correspond to the Christian religion before you can say he has made a proper profession? Are we to believe that one person whose life barely reflects the Christian religion is elect, because he was baptized in infancy, and another person, who lives the most exemplary life is non-elect, because he has never heard the gospel message?

We have already talked about the man born in a land where the gospel is never preached. He is the kindest, most loving person you would ever care to meet. He loves his wife, and children. He rises early and works late to provide for them. He would share his last crust of bread with someone in need. Are we to believe that, because he never made that public profession, he is going to burn, but another selfish, self-centered, person is elect and will live in heaven, because he was baptized in infancy, and his life loosely reflects the Christian religion. And still our friend Boettner is bewildered why “it is only rarely that we now come across those who can be called ‘Calvinists without reserve.’” You would think anybody as bright as he was would have figured that out. This is another of those places where the Calvinists have never gotten it right.

Perseverance of the Saints:The Bible teaches that every heaven born soul is safe in the hands of his Maker. “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. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my father’s hand,” (John 10:27-29).

Again, the Westminster Confession has a chapter which seems to teach the same thing, but it actually leaves us in doubt as to what it does teach. “They, whom God hath accepted in His Beloved, effectually called, and sanctified by His Spirit, can neither totally, nor finally, fall away from the state of grace: but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved” (Chap. 17, Sec. 1).

If they had left it there, the statement would have been easier to understand. Notice they say the elect will “persevere” and never “totally, nor finally, fall away from the state of grace.” If they were talking about persevering in a state of grace, we would not take the least exception. The Bible teaches that in the clearest terms.

But, they do not leave it there. In Sec. 3, they say, “Nevertheless, they may, through the temptations of Satan and of the world, the prevalency of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of the means of their preservation, fall into grievous sins; and for a time, continue therein....” (Sec. 3). They make it clear enough they are not talking about persevering in a state of grace; they are talking about persevering in a life of holiness. That is an entirely different matter.

Nobody can deny that, for a time, God’s truly born again people do fall away from a life of holiness. The Bible teaches it, and our own experience teaches it. But the language they have now introduced raises the question: if a person departs from the proper path more than for a time, does that not indicate that he was probably never a child of God in the first place. That raises all sorts of other questions. How closely must a person follow the Lord to still be in the right way? Is absolute perfection required, or do those in the right way err from time to time, even when they are doing their best? If this language is correct, every person stands always in doubt of his salvation. Every time he errs, he must wonder if he is really a child of God, or is he only a nominal professor. The adversary could never have imagined a doctrine more calculated to destroy all the joy, and every sense of security, from even the most devout child of God. He must spend his life forever terrified that he is only a nominal professor. His previous experience means next to nothing. Every time he stumbles, he is terrified he is one of those nominal professors. He is left in suspense, hanging over the abyss. To him the house of God ceases to be the place of joy and rejoicing it once was. Rather than encourage him to spend his life on his knees, humbly serving his Maker, and praying for grace to do better, the preacher waves his shortcomings before him, and questions his hope of heaven. Does he measure up, or is he only an imposter? The assembly of the saints loses its joy. The preacher drags him down from Mount Zion, and leaves him at the foot of Sinai. He feels the earth shaking under his feet; the lightning flashes, the thunder roars, the black smoke of Sinai boils toward heaven, and he can feel the flames of hell nipping at his heels. The preacher warns him that if he does not persevere in holiness, he is not one of the elect. He is doing the best he can. He reads his Bible, he prays, he goes to church. Still, his life does not measure up. The very best he can do, it is not enough. He is forever in doubt. The more closely he follows the Lord, the more he realizes he is still falling far short. The assembly of the saints becomes a misery. The church becomes an icehouse. Preaching becomes a terror. The Bible becomes a sealed book.

One of two things happens. Either he spends his life in misery and terror, or else he escapes by becoming proud and arrogant.

He can convince himself he really does measure up after all. He is everything he should be. In fact, if everybody was as good as he is, the world would be a better place. He begins to look down on everybody around him. The Lord drew his picture in Luke, chapter eighteen.

“And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others: Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess” (Luke 18:9-12). This man had no trouble with his assurance. He was sure he was not like other people; he was better than they were. He spent lots of time examining himself, and he was proud of what he saw. His only concern was that God did not realize what a fine person he was. So he spent his prayer time, pointing out what he was concerned God might not have noticed.

“And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted” (Luke 12:13-14). This man was aware of his shortcomings, and he begged for mercy. But, even though he was fully aware of his shortcomings, he yet believed there was mercy available for him. He saw himself for the sinner he was, and the Lord for the merciful Savior he is. He was penitent, but he was not destitute. He yet believed God loved him and would forgive him. The Pharisee did not see himself as a sinner; he was proud of himself. And he did not see the Lord as a merciful Savior. He did not feel his need of a Savior. He just wanted the Lord to notice what a fine person he was. The penitent publican is the end result of the gospel, bearing witness in the heart of a born again child of God. The arrogant, self-righteous Pharisee is the end product of John Calvin and his doctrine.