What Does TULIP in Calvinism Mean? - by Wyatt Graham

Found here. Our comments in bold.

---------------------

The author undertakes to correct errors related to perceptions of Calvinism, but we have to read nearly to the end before we find a Scripture quote. It continually mystifies us as to how someone can teach the Bible while barely quoting it.

Ultimately, the author doesn't explain TULIP. Nor does he tell us why it's important. Really, why is TULIP so critical? None of it comes to bear on living a more holy life, being more obedient, a better worshiper, or a better servant. 

The whole thing is nothing more than a fruitless intellectual exercise.)

------------------------

John Calvin and the Doctrine of Irresistible Grace - by Keith Mathison

Found here. Our comments in bold.
----------------------

With a zealotry bordering on obsession Calvinists teach Calvinism. They will never teach the Bible unless they can teach Calvinism. Calvinism is their faith, not the Bible. What the Bible can be made to say about Calvinism is the goal.

Such is the case with today's article. We are yet again visiting Calvinism, reluctantly. We apologize. However, it is necessary because of the grievous errors committed by the author. He is here to tell us about one of Calvin's doctrines, Irresistible Grace, part of the Acronym TULIP:

Total Depravity

Unconditional Election

Limited Atonement

Irresistible Grace

Perseverance of the Saints

These largely useless doctrines are continually pushed by Calvinists, along with incessant fawning praise of Calvin himself. We say "useless" because no matter which side you take in the doctrinal debate it makes absolutely no difference to any privilege or obligation we possess as Christians. No matter your preference, we are still called to faith, obedience, worship, holiness, and generosity. 

TULIP doesn't change any of this.

This author has been examined several times in our blog, and invariably explains Calvinism and Reformed Doctrine. In the space of a few paragraphs he will touch on every single petal of TULIP, couched with innocuous language which would cause the casual reader to think good doctrine is being explained.

Total words: 1493

Number of words from the Bible quoted: 14

Number of words from theologians: 786

We must consider this Bad Bible Teaching.

----------------------

We do not believe in order to be born again; we are born again in order that we may believe - R.C. Sproul

Found here. Our comments in bold.

The five points of Calvinism, TULIP, are as follows:

• Total depravity
• Unconditional election
• Limited atonement
• Irresistible grace
• Perseverance of the saints

Calvinists are so committed to John Calvin's doctrine that they very nearly place it on the level of the Scriptures themselves. Which means to diverge from it even slightly is rank heresy. 

They are particularly proud of the sovereignty of God, that is, that God chose the elect, and those people are pre-ordained to be saved. Because we are depraved, there is nothing at all that would allow us to participate in our salvation. We do not yield to God and agree with Him that We need salvation. No, our salvation is already chosen for us. God is sovereign and unconditionally elected us, so we don't have a choice because of irresistible grace.  Only the elect are saved, because the atonement only covers the elect. We can't fall away if we're among the elect, because once we are saved we are always saved.

What strikes us about Calvinism is how much it doesn't matter. Yes, Calvinism doesn't matter. Practically speaking, none of the points have any bearing on our day-to-day faith. 

Why? Imagine that TULIP had never proposed as a doctrine. Nothing of them were ever offered to you for consideration. You were unaware of these principles. So, would TULIP change the fact that you need salvation? Would it change your standing before God? If you are saved, would it change the way you lead your life? No. Would you still share your faith, pray for the sick, and be generous with your time and your money? Yes.

None of these principles, even if true, would matter in the least. You would still be lost and in need of a Savior, you would still be called to lead a holy life, you would still be obligated to help the widow and the orphan, you would still be required to study the Word and live a life pleasing to God. TULIP is nothing more than arcane doctrinal hairsplitting, an intellectual exercise used to determine Us vs. Them.

Five Points in My Pain How God’s Sovereignty Comforts Me - by Joni Eareckson Tada

Found here. Our comments in bold.

-----------------------------

We suspect we might get accused of beating up on a helpless disabled person. We will take that risk, because it's not about Ms. Tada's disability, it's about her doctrine. She has presented her doctrine publicly in the below article, and as such has invited scrutiny.

Ms. Tada writes about her theology, a very specific kind of theology known as Calvinism. As a Calvinist Ms. Tada does what every Calvinist does: Teach Calvinism. Calvinists will never teach the Bible unless they can teach Calvinism. 

Their theology revolves around the "doctrines of grace," also known as TULIP. Ms. Tada appeals to TULIP as a comfort to her in her disability. We are happy for her, but we require Ms. Tada to explain how TULIP specifically and uniquely provides this comfort.

We believe that TULIP is irrelevant to the daily Christian walk. By virtue of our salvation, Total Depravity no longer matters. Unconditional Election no longer matters. Limited Atonement no longer matters. Irresistible Grace no longer matters. Perseverance of the Saints no longer matters.

These all reflect on our past, not our current situation. Not our future. None of them come to bear as a benefit to our holiness, generosity, worship, or evangelism.

TULIP doesn't matter.

-----------------------

7 Signs That You’re a Cage-Stage Calvinist - by Jeff Medders

Found here.
---------------------

This is another article on the so called "discernment ministries," We call them Doctrinal Police. The Doctrinal Police take the noble task of defending the truth of the Scriptures to the nth degree, mocking and impugning those with whom they disagree.

It is heartening to me that there are more and more in the reformed church who are aghast at the techniques and methods of these discernment ministries.
------------------

What Is the Perseverance of the Saints? - by Danny Myers

Found here. Our comments in bold.

-------------------

The author of this article wastes our time by mentioning many things but explaining few if any of them. We had hoped for an explanation of his doctrine, but he doesn't bother. It's a truly strange and unenlightening presentation.

-----------------------

The doctrine of the perseverance of the saints, sometimes referred to as “eternal security,” speaks to questions such as “Can I lose my salvation?” or “How do I know that I will remain a Christian to the end?” Isn’t that what Jesus says in Matthew 24:13—“The one who perseveres to the end will be saved” (BSB)? (The author never explains this Scripture.)

These are real questions that pose real challenges to many people.

When studying salvation, it is always helpful to consider the context. The doctrines summarized in the acrostic TULIP outline the condition of man, and God’s loving work and answer to man’s greatest problems. (The author mentions TULIP as if we should know what it is. He doesn't explain it or discuss it, nor does he tell us its source. Strange.

TULIP is a rough summation of certain doctrines of Calvinism:

• Total depravity
• Unconditional election
• Limited atonement
• Irresistible grace
• Perseverance of the saints

It is the last one the author intends to explain. Let's see how he does.)

The story of redemption shows that man’s condition is that he is totally sinful (Total depravity. No Scriptures cited, however.)

—yet God intervened. It is important to stop and emphasize for a moment that the rest of the story of redemption unfolds from the foundation of “yet God.” In other words, we are the object of salvation, not the subject. (What does this mean? Why is this important?)

Salvation was accomplished and applied by God. What this tells us is that when we ask the questions: “Can I lose my salvation?” or, “How do I know whether or not I will remain a Christian?”, we cannot forget who the object of salvation is (man) and who the subject of salvation is (Jesus Christ). (He repeats the equation, adds to it the parties involved, but still doesn't explain.)

The word perseverance might be somewhat confusing because it could seem to communicate that God has started something, and now it is your turn: you must persevere. The biblical teaching, however, is that God has done something; God is doing something; and God will do something. The God who starts is the God who finishes. (The author offers an explanation that does not address the question. How is it that we do nothing in perseverance?)

That is what Paul says in Philippians 1:6: “He who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.” (The good work to which Paul refers is the Philippian church's partnership in the Gospel from the first day until now... [vs. 5].)

The historic Westminster Confession of Faith reminds us of this doctrinal truth when it says, “They, whom God has accepted in his Beloved [Jesus Christ, His only Son], 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” (17.1). (A statement of faith is not the biblical case.)

Notice the repeated pronoun “His,” for it tells us who is the subject of salvation (This is the third time this has been mentioned, but still no explanation regarding what it means.)

is and how certain the results are. The reason that this doctrine at times creates tension and opposition is that the Bible reveals that not everyone who claims to be a Christian is in fact a Christian (Matt. 7:22). (This is the only reason for tension and opposition? What about the tension and opposition of other Scriptures that seems to say the opposite?

Why is it relevant that some people who claim to be Christian are not? Will the author explain anything?)

As difficult as that is to hear, is it not also a greater comfort to those who are in fact, followers of Christ?

As He is circled by enemies, Jesus reminds us in John 10 of the confidence and comfort we have in being united to Him in salvation. John records for us that Jesus is the Good Shepherd and that He knows His sheep, and they know and follow Him (John 10:1–16). Jesus provides a striking and clear statement on our security in salvation. Jesus says, “I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand” (John 10:28). (Oh, my. The author rips this passage from its context. Jesus was actually speaking judgment against the Pharisees [Jn. 9:4-41, 10:31-34] by way of explaining His sheep.

The Pharisees had just finished their hostile interrogation of the man who Jesus healed of blindness, and he worshiped Jesus [9:38]. Jesus responded to this with a statement about those who see will become blind [vs. 39], and the Pharisees understood Jesus was speaking about them. "Are we blind too?" [vs. 40].

This is the basis for Jesus explaining the sheep. The Pharisees are blind and do not recognize the voice of the Shepherd. In fact, they did not even understand the parable [10:6], so He even explained it again [vs. 7]. But Jesus knows his sheep, and they know Him [vs. 14]. 

Jesus was speaking against the Pharisees, who cannot hear Him and refuse to be His sheep. Jesus was speaking to Jews about Jews. Therefore, the sheep are the saved Jews. How do we know this? Because Jesus said,

Jn. 10:16 I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.

These are the gentiles who will come to believe later. Salvation is for the Jews first, and then the gentiles [Ro. 1:16]. 

The author is misinformed.)

This is a claim worthy of consideration because Jesus is making a promise of eternal life, not simply temporal life. What hope is there apart from the promise Jesus makes? If Jesus doesn’t give eternal life, then the best perseverance we can have is a present effort in this present life. (Why? Why is this present life the only possibility we have in perseverance? Again, the author explains nothing.)

The teaching of Jesus is further explained by the Apostle Paul. The comfort that we derive from reading Romans 8 would be ruined apart from the promise of eternal perseverance. If there is a chance that Christians might not totally and finally (WCF 17.1) be saved, then we would need an adjustment to such claims. As one author suggests, Jesus would have to say: “No one will snatch them out of my hand . . . although they might snatch themselves by a failure to persevere” (see John 10:28). Or imagine Paul saying, “Nothing in all creation will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord . . . except for our own weakness”1 (see Rom. 8:38–39). (The author might wish to explore who is "us" in this passage. We think Paul is pretty clearly talking about "us" as being himself and his fellow Jews who believe. We know that Paul was writing to Jewish Christians in Rome [Ro. 2:17], and explaining in great detail the nature of the Jew and the law as compared to the gentile and grace. 

We must be careful to read in context, and not put ourselves into the narrative when we should not.)

The promise of perseverance, if not eternal, would provide a cruel and false hope of an impossible reality. (Why?)

The truth of the matter would be that we are sovereign rather than God. (Why? Why doesn't the author explain these things?)

Yet, the song that Scripture sings is that Jesus paid it all and upholds it all by the word of His power. Peter’s life gives us an example of this hope. Having put his trust in Christ, we see it waver over and over throughout the earthly ministry of Jesus. Yet in the end, we learn that Peter doesn’t persevere because he tried harder or had more passion, but rather, because he was always held tightly by His King. The one who was saved by Jesus shows that in the end, he is sustained and secured by Jesus. The one who was sifted by Satan, yet secured by his Savior, says, “Grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” because “the God of all grace, who has called you to his eternal glory in Christ, will himself restore, confirm, strengthen, and establish you” (2 Peter 3:18; 1 Peter 5:10). To Him be the dominion forever and ever, amen. (Sigh. There are so many missed opportunities to explain. The author could have spent some time explaining certain Scriptures that might be contrary to his doctrine [He. 6:4-6, Ph. 2:12, 1Jn. 5:16, etc.]. He could have explained any of the several points he raised, using Scripture and a logical procession of ideas. He could have even explained his theological base of understanding, i.e., Calvinism, and how it comes to bear on his thought process.

Nope.)

1 Paul D. Wolfe, “Perseverance: The Hope-Full Gospel that Encourages Abiding Faith” in Theology for Ministry: How Doctrine Affects Pastoral Life and Practice, ed.s William R. Edwards, John C.A. Ferguson, and Chad Van Dixhoorn. (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2022), 307.

Repent or Perish - by Mike Ratliff

Found here. Our comments in bold.

-------------------

This is a perfect example of the confused thinking required to embrace Calvinism. We have discussed many aspects of Calvinism in our blog, and find the doctrines of Calvin to be false and even pernicious, because they misrepresent God, misrepresent the gospel, and ultimately, make no difference in our obligations or privileges as Christians.

Calvinism forces people into false binary choices (predestined vs. freewill, eternal security vs. losing one's salvation, etc.). However, God is not a binary being. He is sovereign, but that does not mean he must control everything. He is grace-filled, but that does not mean He must dole out grace according to a formula. He saves us by His grace, but that does not mean grace is limited to the saved.

What if God is indeed totally sovereign, and yet in His sovereignty He simply chooses not to always intervene in His creation? Doesn't God get to decide His own sovereignty?

This is the problem endemic to Calvinists specifically, and theology generally: The need to figure out everything and systematize it according to logic and reason. But God is far beyond our logic. We should resist the idea that rational thought is the methodology we should use to figure Him out: 

1Co. 2:14 The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

----------------------------------

What Is Calvinism? - by Herman Selderhuis

Found here. Our comments in bold.
--------------------

This is astounding. Completely astounding. This "explanation" of Calvinism doesn't quote or even mention the Bible. Not once, though the author does use the word "Bible" twice. 

But not only does he not tell us anything about the bible, he tells us virtually nothing about the doctrines of Calvinism, seeming to go out of his way to be bland and featureless. 

This is truly, truly, Bad Bible Teaching.

----------------------

The God Who Keeps His People; Assurance, Perseverance, and the Comfort of the Gospel - by Alistair Chalmers

Found here. Our comments in bold.
--------------------

The author will refer to the doctrine of perseverance. This is one of the petals of  Calvinistic TULIP, though the author will never mention Calvin. TULIP is 

• Total Depravity
• Unconditional Election
• Limited Atonement
• Irresistible Grace
• Perseverance of the Saints

The last one is the one he intends to explain. However, he doesn't explain, he simply asserts his doctrine without explanation. The verses he appeals to are the ones theologians have debated for centuries, and could go either way.

But the biggest problem with perseverance is that is impossible to know if one is saved and therefore will persevere. After all, false converts believe they're saved. False converts study the Bible, try to live holy lives, and yet fall away. In fact, false converts can be false yet live their entire lives thinking their Christians.

Therefore, perseverance is fruitless theological debate. There is no way to know who is a false convert and who isn't.

Lastly, the author will never quote a single Bible verse about perseverance. Astonishing. We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

------------------------------

What Is Unconditional Election? - by Nicholas Batzig

Found here. Our comments in bold. 

-------------------

Since we just recently commented on Ro. 9:22-25 in the context of predestination, we viewed today's article as an opportunity to build our understanding of Paul's thrust through this portion of Romans. Unfortunately, the author doesn't help.

He has an opportunity to explain the Calvinistic doctrine of Unconditional Election, but doesn't use the Bible to do so. In fact, he will not quote a single Scripture that demonstrates this doctrine. 

This is the sad state of Bible teaching in our day.

---------------------

Can You Lose Your Salvation? What the Bible Says About Eternal Security: Justification - by Virgil Walker

Found here. Our comments in bold.

---------------------------

This author attempts to explain the fifth petal of the Calvinistic TULIP:

(T) otal Depravity

(U) nconditional Election

(L) imited Atonement

(I) rresistible Grace

(P) erseverance of the Saints

The perseverance of the saints (eternal security) is based upon the assumptions of these five interrelated doctrines. The author believes a Christian cannot lose his salvation, and this is because of the unstated belief that God chooses those who will be saved (the U in TULIP).

The author makes a big noise for his doctrine, but it's really an exercise in futility. First because there is no such thing as being absolutely certain of one's salvation, and second because the doctrine makes no difference in any privilege or obligation of our faith.

And the author never deals with the other side of the issue, a Christian deciding to forfeit his salvation. This is not losing one's salvation, this would be rejecting it.

------------------

Frustrations Of A Christian Female Blogger (Probably Not The Frustrations You’d Expect) - by DEBBIELYNNE KESPERT

Found here. Our comments in bold.
-------------------

The author pushes her misunderstanding of doctrine to the point of ridiculousness.
--------------------------

Normally, professing Christian women chafe at the idea of limiting their teaching ministry to other women and small children. (This is normal among "professing Christian women?")

They follow the world in insisting that we have a contribution to make to the whole church, and that our female perspective must be heard. As they see it, the Word of God cannot be fully represented without the female voice.

Huh?

Where does Scripture ever say such a bizarre thing? If the Word of God is breathed out by the Holy Spirit (2 Timothy 3:16), why would a female perspective be necessary? (We don't know what a "female perspective" would be, but we would want to know what basis there is to silence a female speaking the truth of God. The author herself has written extensively, with the desire to target women exclusively. Why does she write her blog? Why doesn't she simply refer her readers to male teachers? What specific role does she think she is fulfilling that men aren't doing?)

The Basics -- Election - The Riddleblog

Found here. Our comments in bold.

--------------------

The author is supposed to supply us with the basics. But he does not do so. It's all rather esoteric regarding a doctrine that's of little practical use. It teaches us nothing about how to live a holy life, how to be a better worshiper, or how to serve more effectively.

As such, there is nothing basic about the doctrine of election. 

Beyond this, the author expends about 1000 words attempting to explain election. But Ephesians chapter one is poorly chosen. He misses the nuances of these verses, which ends up negating his premise.

And as is typical with these so-called "Bible teachers," the author barely manages to quote Scripture.

We commented on the article on his website, and a perfunctory conversation ensued. We  provide that at the end, with an additional note that the author's replies are confusing and entirely unsatisfying.

This man is not a Bible teacher.

State of theology survey - by Ligonier.org

State of theology survey. Our comments in bold.

-------------------------

Ligonier is a Calvinistic website, and their survey unfortunately reflects this bias. Although most questions are about generic theology, some of them are actually testing peoples' attitudes about Calvinism.

We are a little surprised that these largely unimportant doctrines would be a matter worthy of including in a theology survey.

In our blog we have discussed Calvinism at length.

Here are  those questions.

-------------------------------

Meme: Open your Bibles with me to Romans 9 (predestination)

We found this supposedly fun meme here. Protestia is a reformationist "discernment" website. 

It seems like Protestia thinks that Romans 9 is problematic for non-Calvinists. But we are not troubled by the contents of any Bible verse. Calvinism doesn't burn against us, but it does rub us the wrong way.

Since it's a meme, we don't know any details why they might think it's problematic for non-Calvinists, but we suppose it has to do with predestination. Predestination is one of the central principles of Calvinism, roughly represented as an acronym TULIP. TULIP stands for:

• Total depravity
• Unconditional election
• Limited atonement
• Irresistible grace
• Perseverance of the saints

Two of these, unconditional election and irresistible grace, combine to form the idea that God chose who would be saved, and there is nothing anyone can do to thwart God's sovereign choice to save some and not save others. Predestination, then, is God choosing in advance to save certain people, the "elect."

We don't believe the Bible teaches this, and in our view Romans chapter 9 doesn't present a problem. 

Context

Let's take some time to examine what Paul wrote in chapter 9. But first, we need to note that Paul is writing to Jewish Christians in Rome (Ro. 2:17). The audience is important, as we will note later. 

Paul's whole thrust is to make the case that being Jewish is not enough to be saved (Ro. 2:28). Observing the law isn't sufficient (Ro. 3:20). Every man must be justified via faith, whether Jew or gentile (Ro. 3:28). Even Abraham was justified by faith (Ro. 4:22), and that same justification by faith is available to us (Ro. 4:24). That faith frees us from the condemnation of the law (Ro. 8:1-2).

Justification by faith means we have Christ in us (Ro. 8:10) and the Spirit living in us (Ro. 8:11). And His Spirit living in us makes us sons (Ro. 8:15) and heirs (Ro. 8:17).

Now we have arrived at chapter 9. Paul opens with a statement about his countryman: 

Ro. 9:3-4 For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, 4 the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises.

Israel is special. They enjoy all the blessings, promises, and glory. Jesus descended from the Jews. Paul's passion is for his own people to be saved. Israel's status is the premise used to set up the idea that they have always been God's people, but now a righteousness by faith has been revealed (Ro. 10:6). His whole thrust is to compare what God intends for the Jews as contrasted with gentiles. 

This argument continues all the way through to chapter 11. 

Children of Promise

Paul writes:

Ro. 9:6, 8 ...For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel... 8 it is not the natural children who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring.

Paul notes that the "children of promise." excludes some of Israel. Only Isaac's sons are the "children of promise." The Jews regard Abraham as their father (Jn. 8:39). But their lineage as descendants goes specifically from Abraham to Isaac to Jacob. These are the "children of promise (Ro. 9:8)." Therefore, the "children of promise" were Jews who were sovereignly chosen by God through the lineage of Abraham's seed. That's why Jews call him "father Abraham. Those who trace their lineage back to Abraham are the children of promise, the elect.

Eventually, Paul concludes his argument with a plain statement:

Ro. 11:2 God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew.

God's people are the Jews. They are those whom he foreknew, and came through a particular lineage.  

The Objects

So, we have contextualized Paul's argument, which is, God's purpose is for the Jews and then for the Church. So when we get to Ro. 9:22-25, we are in the middle of his argument:

22 What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath — prepared for destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory — 24 even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? 25 As he says in Hosea: “I will call them `my people’ who are not my people; and I will call her `my loved one’ who is not my loved one,” [Hosea 2:23]

Notice there are two categories of people found here:

• objects of his wrath (vs. 22) - these were prepared for destruction, but received great patience

• objects of his mercy (vs. 23) - these were prepared for mercy, intended for glory

These two categories are identified in verse 24, gentiles and Jews. Gentiles were prepared for destruction, and Jews were intended for glory (They are the elect, Ro. 11:28).

The word "objects" is not actually plural in the Greek. The word is skeuos, a vessel or container. The gentiles are a vessel (singular), the object (singular) of His wrath. His wrath is prepared for the gentiles as a whole, while His blessing is for Israel as a whole.

"Prepared" is katartizó, which is

b. to fit out, equip, put in order, arrange, adjust 

So the gentiles are fitted or arranged as a container for the wrath of God (vs. 22), while the Jews are fitted or arranged as a container for the mercy of God (vs.23). One is His people, the other is not.

Paul's meaning now starts to emerge. First, the gentiles, the object (singular) of His wrath, are recipients of His great patience, specifically to show the riches of his glory to the object (singular) of his mercy, the Jews. God is merciful to the gentiles as a demonstration to His chosen people, the Jews.

Second, notice that the category of people who are the vessel of wrath are subject to His "great patience." A critical point: If indeed the vessel fitted for destruction is predestined for that fate, why would God be patient with them unless their fate is not actually predestined?

Third, Paul discusses Jews and gentiles, with the distinction being that one was elect and blessed while the other was excluded and doomed. Paul uses the vessel idea to convey that the gentiles, who previously did not have access to the Promise, became the object of His mercy. Or we could say, they were grafted in to the root (Ro. 11:17). These branches are either connected or broken off according to faith, not by birthright (Ro. 11:20).

This passage is clearly not referring to individual predestination.

Who is "Us?"

Note the way Paul uses “we” and “us.” Paul refers to those whom he prepared in advance for glory — even us, whom he also called… (vs. 24). Once again we need to consider, who is this "us?" Paul writes that they are the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory. Israel. Paul is writing to the Jewish Christians in Rome. "Us" is his audience (Jews), and Paul. This means "us" is not "you and me." "Us" is particular to his subject of his discussion.

Paul’s point is that this mercy is no longer just for the Jews. That blessing is now for those who are also from the Gentiles… (vs. 24)

Then Paul cements his point by quoting Hosea:

I will call them `my people’ who are not my people; and I will call her `my loved one’ who is not my loved one… (vs. 25)

This is “us.” A few verse later, Paul notes that those who previously were the object of His wrath have obtained righteousness by faith:

Ro. 9:30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith…

However, regarding the Jews, Paul writes

Ro. 9:31 but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it.

We gentiles have been grafted into the promise (Ro. 11:17), and some Jews have been broken off, which made a place for us (Ro. 11:19). Formerly we were the object of God's wrath, but because of the unbelief of Israel (Ro. 11:20), and because of a righteousness that comes by faith (Ro. 9:30), we are now partakers of the Promise (Ro. 9:8).

Paul even tells us directly who God foreknew: 

Ro. 11:1-2 I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew.

Those He foreknew is the remnant of Israel. They are The Elect.

Conclusion

So, to put it all together, God's purpose was to display His glory to the Jews by showing His great patience to save the gentiles. The gentiles by faith obtain the promise and are no longer subject to God's wrath. In fact, this display of His glory is intended to provoke the Jews to jealously (Ro. 11:14).

The Jews are the people of God, but not all Israel are Israel. But they enjoyed the blessings while the gentiles were excluded and doomed. Paul uses the vessel idea to convey that the gentiles, who previously did not have access to the Promise, became an object of His mercy, and have been grafted into the promise (Ro. 11:17)

It is on this basis that we conclude that predestination referred specifically to the earliest Jewish believers, the firstfruits and the first gentile believers [Ac. 13:48] while the rest of us enter by faith (Ep. 1:13). Which means that we are not predestined in the sense that the firstfruits were.

We do not intend to suggest that these very precious Scriptures do not apply to us 2000 years later. We certainly can gain information from them and apply them appropriately to our lives. We'll leave it to the reader to determine what that application might be.

The Five Points of Calvinism -The Doctrines of Grace, Defined and Defended from Scripture

Found here. Our comments in bold.

-----------------------------------

We have been devoting a lot of blog space to Calvinism, since it seems to us that its most vociferous defenders are getting increasingly loud. So once again we find ourselves examining another defense of Calvinism.

At almost 5000 words (including footnotes but not including charts), this is perhaps the most extensive defense of Calvinism we have seen on the internet. However, extensive does not mean thorough. Or Biblical. 

The author examines only a single, though significant, hostile source, The Five Articles of the Remonstrance. We are gratified that the author actually quotes from it, pretty unusual for a Calvinist. But there are also many thoughtful critiques of Calvinism subsequent to this 500 year old document.

In addition, the author quotes various sympathetic sources to explain his doctrines, but when it comes to the Bible he tends to quote it without commentary. The problem is, many of those Scriptures do not speak to Calvinism, while others are misinterpreted or taken out of context.

But the bottom line is, the author, like most Calvinists, devotes a lot of energy explaining and defending his Calvinism. In fact, Calvinists will never talk about Scripture unless they can insert their Calvinism. Their entire world revolves around the continual reinforcement of these doctrines.

This is very nearly cultic behavior.

Lastly, it continually strikes us that the "Doctrines of Grace" actually don't matter.  Everything about these doctrines is from the "now" looking back. Everything Calvinists are arguing about is a matter of the past for Christians. How we were included, who is included, and our prior status as lost men, all of that is past and makes no difference at all to those who are already saved. Therefore, Calvinism is moot to the saved, and irrelevant to the lost. 

Much of what the author offers has been answered elsewhere in our blog, but we will nevertheless attempt to offer succinct commentary.

----------------------------

Predestination and irresistible grace

Calvinists seem to pretty militant lately on Facebook. It's definitely an us-vs.-them scenario, where those who deviate from their preferred doctrinal stance are deceived or maybe not even saved. Typical memes include:

One of the tenets of TULIP is Irresistible Grace, which basically means that God has already picked those who will be saved. Some ancillary principles that descend from this include

1. God chose us, we did not choose Him. 
2. We don't participate in any way in our salvation. 
3. We don't make a decision to believe the Gospel. God has already arranged it, and at the exact time of His choosing, we came to Christ.

Of course there is plenty in Scripture that suggests this:

Mk. 13:20 If the Lord had not cut short those days, no-one would survive. But for the sake of the elect, whom he has chosen, he has shortened them.

Jn. 15:16 You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit — fruit that will last. Then the Father will give you whatever you ask in my name.

Ro. 8:33 Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies.

Ep. 1:4-5 For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love 5 he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ,

2Th. 2:13 But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God chose you to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth.

Jn. 15:16 You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit — fruit that will last. Then the Father will give you whatever you ask in my name.

1Pe. 1:1-2 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To God’s elect, strangers in the world, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, 2 who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood: Grace and peace be yours in abundance.

1Pe. 2:9 But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.

By the same token, there are Scriptures that indicate the opposite, that we have the ability to choose to come to Christ:

The Divine Blueprint: Exploring the Five Points of Calvinism - By Anthony

Found here. Our comments in bold.

-----------------------

This author does his best to explain the unexplainable, the Calvinistic TULIP. Calvinists love to explain Calvinism. It's what they do. They rarely explain the Bible except when there's Calvinism to be found. This of course means that Calvinists never explain the Bible, they only want to explain Calvinism. 

This is what the author does. He quotes Calvin, Calvinistic theologians, and a Calvinistic statement of faith. There are seven of these instances. But in the course of his explanation the author is only able to quote a single Bible passage and two or three verse snippets. That's it.

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

---------------------------------

How to become a Calvinist in 5 easy steps - by Jesse Johnson

Found here. Our comments in bold.

------------------

There is a air of smug condescension in this article unbefitting a minister of the Gospel. We have numbered each instance. 

And we would ask, why would we need to become Calvinists? The author presents this as if he is seeking converts. But he never says why it's important or even relevant. This is important. What is the practical use of Calvinism? It changes no obligation to lead a holy life, to be a light, to serve one another, to be generous, to worship, or to grow in maturity of faith. None of these things are impacted by Calvinism. 

Further, the author doesn't quote a single Scripture. Not even a syllable.

Worst of all, the author doesn't do what the title promises. He doesn't actually explain how to become a Calvinist, let alone why one should want to.

---------------------

Irresistible Grace - by Joel E. Smit

Found here. Our comments in bold.

------------------------

This is the second appearance of this author in our blog. His previous article did not fare well under analysis, so we have hope that he will acquit himself better today.

Unlike the previous article, today the author barely quotes Scripture, which means most all of his assertions are undocumented. We want to know where in the Bible these ideas are found. However, the author has no intention of teaching the Bible, he's teaching Calvinism. 

In particular, "irresistible grace." That is the topic of the article, yet the author cannot bring himself to quote a single verse that contains the concept. If the Bible teaches it, we want to know where.

Oh, but he can quote a Statement of Faith as well as a couple of theologians. And a hymn. Just not the Bible.

-------------------------