ISS:Hyper-Calvinism  by Peter Ruckman

   Hyper-Calvinism is an overemphasis on the doctrines taught by John
Calvin, the Swiss Protestant reformer. The main points of Calvinism are
usually designated by the word TULIP. Of these five doctrines, four of
them are unscriptural and, therefore, classify "Calvinism" as a heresy.

   Now, let us make ourselves clear at the beginning. We believe that
John Calvin was a Christian. When we talk about John Calvin we are
talking about a Protestant reformer who at least had enough sense and
enough faith in the word of God to see that a man, when he is born
again, could not be unborn again. We will talk about this more when we
get to the fifth point of Calvinism called "perseverance of the
saints," or sometimes called "predestination." In either case, Calvin
was smart enough to see that man was not saved by works or kept saved
by works. We'll grant him this much and beyond this we will grant him
very, very little indeed. A man who would burn a man at the stake for
disagreeing with him doctrinally is not a man to be emulated or
followed or admired. We may admire John Calvin for certain things, but
we certainly cannot admire him for his attitude toward what the Bible
says about these matters. Any man who would set up a theocracy in
Geneva and try to put upon the body of Christ the Old Testament laws
found in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy, while talking
about being "saved by grace," is not a man to be followed anywhere by
anybody who knows the word of God.

   Now, we will grant you that coming out of the Dark Ages before the
Peace of Westphalia in 1648, there was a great deal that was
commendable in the Reformers because, after all, they were coming out
of a very dark period and a very long period of Bible ignorance. This
is not an alibi for the ignorance to continue. The atrocious emphasis
placed upon Calvinism by many of the Puritans led them to burn people
at the stake and today has led such people as Mauro and Ross and Arthur
W. Pink and Berkhof and Dabney and Kuiper and Hodge and the systematic
theologians of reformed theology, namely Machen and Warfield, to teach
that God is all through with the Jews, which He is not; that there will
be no Rapture before the Tribulation, which there will be; that no
personal Antichrist will reign on this earth three and one-half years,
which he will; and that there will be no millennial reign of Christ on
this earth before the White Throne Judgment, which there will. In
plainer words, when we talk about the five points of Calvinism, we
should always make it very clear to the student that, although John
Calvin did teach these things, he taught a great deal more besides this
that also was false. For example, a man says, "Are you a Calvinist?" I
answer, "Not if I can help it." I mean anybody who knew John Calvin and
what he taught would certainly never talk about being a "Calvinist."

   We can talk about being a Calvinist on one point out of five. That
is, we can go along with John Calvin on twenty percent of what he
believed. I would not say that following a man for twenty percent of
what he believed would make him a "Calvinist." That is a little
overstatement. We call it an "oversimplification." These people that
divide people off into Arminians and Calvinists forget that the
argument between Jacob Arminius and John Calvin had to do with the
operation of free will in getting saved and the main disagreement was
after they were saved could the man "unbelieve" and be lost again. Now,
Calvin had this point right, but just because Calvin happened to hit it
right one time out of five would certainly make him no example for a
Bible believer to follow. When I got my Master's Degree they asked me
at the inquest, "Are you an Arminian or a Calvinist?" I answered, "I am
an Arminian until I get to Calvary and after that I am a Calvinist."
They didn't like that too well.

   We would also like to make clear that we are not saying that God
didn't use Charles Haddon Spurgeon. Spurgeon was a very excellent
preacher and soul winner, but the souls he won to Christ were not won
through the five points of Calvinism. We're not saying that Charles
Haddon Spurgeon was a heretic because he believed these things. Many
people who believe the doctrines of Calvinism only have a head belief
in these things. The doctrines of Calvinism were accepted by the French
Huguenots with good effect on their personal lives. The doctrines of
Calvinism were accepted by the Puritans with some good and some bad
effects, and the doctrines were accepted by the Scotch Presbyterians
with some good and some bad effects.

   We are talking here about the false teaching of John Calvin on total
depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement and the so-called
"irresistible grace." Where a preacher or teacher puts an emphasis on
these points, we call this "hyper-Calvinism." Somebody said, "Well,
it's just Calvinism." No, this depends upon the emphasis. George
Whitefield was a moderate Calvinist and George Whitefield said moderate
Calvinism is the best teaching for evangelism. Charles Haddon Spurgeon
was a very moderate Calvinist, and if you will read The Metropolitan
Pulpit (the sermons he preached through the years), you will find that
less than one out of twenty deals with the doctrine of election or the
doctrine of predestination. In plainer words, when we say "hyper-
Calvinism," we are talking about an overemphasis on something that
Calvin taught; exactly as when we say "hyper- Dispensationalist" we
mean an overemphasis on dispensations. We are not saying that
everything a Dispensationalist says is false. Anybody knows there are
several dispensations in the word of God and this is apparent to the
most naive of Bible students. For example, any unsaved man recognizes
an Old Testament and a New Testament. So, when we talk about
"hyper-Calvinism" we are not talking about the extending of Calvin's
doctrines to a place beyond which he taught, but we are merely talking
about an overemphasis on what he taught. In this case, four of the
things he taught were simply not so. Four of the five points of
Calvinism are unscriptural, non-Biblical, philosophical nonsense. And
we will talk about these in this lesson.

   Let me again make myself very clear. It is true that many people
believed this and taught this who were saved, in spite of their lack of
common sense and in spite of their lack of serious Bible studies. But,
when we talk about these matters, we are talking about the damage done
to the body of Christ by such writings as The Sovereignty of God by
Arthur W. Pink (the expression is not found anywhere in the word of
God), such writings as Systematic Theology by Machen, Warfield and
Berkhof, such works as The Institutes of Calvin that deal with total
depravity, and such works as the nonsense propagated in the 1940s and
1950s by Rolffe Barnard and L. R. Shelton out of New Orleans which
polluted a whole stream of Christians for two, three and four decades.

   I. Total Depravity

   The first of these is called total depravity. The doctrine of total
depravity is based on the idea that since the unsaved man is "deadin
trespasses and sins," he can do nothing to receive Christ. Now, let me
make myself clear. I have dealt with scores and scores of Calvinists
and hyper-Calvinists in every kind of situation, and nowhere in this
file are we going to misrepresent their position. All these people have
persecution compolexes. When you begin to talk about these matters they
say, "Oh, no, we don't believe that. We really believe this." And,
after you talk to them thirty minutes you find that they believe
exactly what you said they believed to start with. For example, any
born- again, Bible-believing Christian knows that the unsaved man can
do nothing spiritually good that God will accept for salvation. Now,
anybody knows this. But, to say that because of this the unsaved man
cannot do what God told him to do to obtain salvation is a horse of
another color.

   It's a pale horse, and death and hell follow it.

   The teaching of total depravity is what we call non- Biblical,
unscriptural heresy. When a man says "total depravity," he is trying to
tell you that depravity extends to acts of the will. Furthermore, he is
trying to tell you that since the sinner is dead in trespasses and sins
(which he is, Eph. 2:1-4) that he cannot receive Jesus Christ even
though God commands him to receive Jesus Christ. In one of John's
epistles he said the commandment was that we "believe on His son, Jesus
Christ." Now, this at the very outset puts Calvin and the Calvinistic
system in rough shape. Here God has commanded men to do something that
they are unable to do, according to Calvin, and the question arises,
"Would God do this?" The standard alibi offered by Berkhof, Gill,
Dabney, Hodge and the Puritans is, "Well, God commanded men to keep the
commandments and they couldn't keep the commandments." Yes, but then
you were told that the commandments were a schoolmaster to lead you to
Christ. What these men are trying to tell us (regardless of what they
say they're trying to tell us) is that God gave the commandments,
knowingt that we could not keep them, so that they could lead us to the
realization that we were dead in trespasses and sins and depraved and
without hope and could not keep the law (because the carnal mind is
enmity against God, neither can he keep the commandments). This would
show us our need of Christ, and so when we saw our need of Christ we
still couldn't receive Him, even though God commanded us to do it. Of
course, the Calvinist will stumble all over himself and say, "No, that
isn't what we teach," and then run off to some verse we haven't
discussed yet. But since we are going to discuss all the verses in this
file, there isn't much point in getting in a hurry, is there?

   Now, the hyper-Calvinist, like the hyper-Dispensationalist and the
Jehovah's Witness and the Church of Christ, have what we call a
circular pattern of reasoning; it means the inability to face a text
and stay with it. For example, the verse used to prove total depravity
is Ephesians 2:1-4 and in particular verse 1, "And you hath he
quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins." There is no doubt
about what they are trying to say. They are trying to say that since
the man is dead spiritually, he cannot receive Jesus Christ of his own
free act of will or choice. This is not misrepresenting the position.
Anybody who has studied Calvinistic theology knows perfectly well that
the format (the order of salvation) is, first of all, God quickens the
sinner regardless of his will and then implants the new seed of the new
birth within him; secondly, the man gets under conviction and repents
and "believes on Christ." Somebody said, "Oh, we don't believe that."
Well, you're just dishonest or stupid or both. If you are a
hyper-Calvinist that is exactly what you believe. And if you don't
believe that, you don't know what a hyper-Calvinist believes and you
haven't studied John Calvin. That is what Calvin and Berkhof and Dabney
and Gill and Hodge and Pink taught.

   Now, the teaching that depravity extends to the will and, therefore,
is "total" is what we call a Bible-rejecting, unscriptural, Satanic
heresy. The term "freewill" is a Bible term. The expression
"sovereignty of God" is not a Bible term. The word "freewill" is found
in Ezra 7:13. The expression "the sovereignty of God" and "irresistible
grace" will be found nowhere in the word of God. The expression
"freewill" is found in Ezra 7:16. The Bible knows nothing about
sovereign grace at all. The expression occurs nowhere. We find
offerings "willingly offered" and offered "freely" in Exodus 35:5,
Exodus 35:21 and Exodus 35:29. Now, do you know what is so shocking
about the passages I just cited from the Old Testament? None of the
people in them were born again. And none of the people we "in Christ"
or "chosen in Christ," and not a single one of them was quickened by
the Holy Spirit. This is why we say total depravity is a non- Biblical
heresy.

   John Calvin was a good Bible student for the day and age in which he
lived, but he certainly was not a deep student of the scripture or a
believing student of all the scripture, as you will quickly gather if
you study his work. Any man who would burn a man at the stake for
disagreeing with him about the Trinity could hardly be classified as a
serious Bible student. John Calvin had Servetus burned at the stake for
disagreeing with him about the doctrine of the Trinity. This is not the
mark of a mature Christian or a Bible-believing Christian. I never met
a Christian in my life who believed all the Bible that would think of
doing such a thing. But John Calvin would and did.

   Now, here is the thing: A man who tells you that a person has to be
"quickened" by the Holy Spirit before he can willingly do something of
his own free will to please God is lying. Nobody in the Old Testament
until the time of Christ had been born again. They were all "deal in
trespasses and sins." They were all joined to the flesh; none of them
had received spiritual circumcision (Col. 2). Their soul was stuck to
the body and spoken of as the same, as you know from studying Jehovah's
Witness literature. Yet they all were responsible for pleasing God and
acting of their own free will, and they had a free will with which they
acted and it is said to be a free will. Therefore, the doctrine of
total depravity is not to be countenanced by the serious student of the
word of God. We may grant that man's nature is depraved. We may grant
that there is nothing good in man. We may grant that. We may grant that
a man is dead spiritually and that apart from the new birth he cannot
be born again, regenerated and placed in the body of Christ and that
God has to do the action of the new birth. But to say that because this
is true that man has no free will is nonscriptural blasphemy contrary
to the word of God, no matter who professes to believe it. After all,
some of the greatest Christians who ever lived were so screwed up in
their doctrine that you couldn't get them unplugged with a corkscrew.

   Ephesians 2:1-4 is talking about an operation that didn't take place
until after the resurrection, and it only had to do with born again
believers in this day and age. And before any of these people could be
"quickened," as the scriptures say, they had to do something. Did you
notice that? John 1:12-13, "But as many as received him, to them gave
he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his
name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor
of the will of man, but of God." The new birth is conditioned upon you
receiving Jesus Christ. There is not a case in the history of the
universe where any man was ever "born again" until he received Jesus
Christ, and to say that total depravity extends to acts of the will is
nonsense.

   The Bible says in John 3:36 about these matters, "He that believeth
on the Son has everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son
shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth (present tense) on
him." Now, my good friend, if you were one of the elect and
predestinated to be saved, how do you account for the fact that the
wrath of God abode upon you constantly before you believed? Is that any
way to treat "the elect"? And let me ask you this. What is the wrath of
God doing abiding on you when you can't do anything about it? Does that
sound like the Lord? Do you think the Lord would pour out His wrath on
an unsaved man when the unsaved man could do nothing about his
condition? That is what Calvin thought and taught and believed. And
that is what Barnard and L. R. Shelton thought and believed and that is
what you will find in that hardshell Baptist paper put out in Ashland,
Kentucky, called The Baptist Examiner. That is the teaching.

   Continuing on total depravity, in Isaiah 45:19 this matter is
debunked: "I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the earth: I
said not unto the seed of Jacob, Seek ye me in vain: I the Lord speak
righteousness, I declare things that are right." In Luke 17:1 you are
told that even though offences have to come (there is your sovereignty
and predestination!), "woe unto him, through whom they come," putting
the responsibility clearly in your lap. The question that Calvin could
never face and discuss and the question which no hyper-Calvinist can
ever face and discuss is how an unsaved man can be responsible for
something that he is unable to do and be held accountable for something
he could not have done if he had tried. The god of Calvin is an unjust
god in this respect. When I say that, of course, I mean the theological
god of Calvin. I would say that Calvin was saved, but his theological
god wasn't playing with a full deck.

   You read in Acts 2:23, "Him," (Christ) "being delivered by the
determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by
wicked hands have crucified and slain." He puts the responsibility
right on them. In Acts 4 He is very clear about it. He says in Acts
4:10, "Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that
by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom YE crucified...." Acts
3:14-15, "But ye...killed the Prince of life...." Stephen, in Acts
7:52, called these people murderers. They are responsible. Now, the
question comes up that if the man is dead in trespasses and sins and is
not responsible for receiving Christ, how can he be responsible for
rejecting Christ? The answer is pure, unadulterated "baloney." Not once
in their lifetime did Calvin or any of the Purtians ever figure it out.
Shall not the judge of all the earth do right? Is there unrighteousness
with God? God forbid. God will not lay upon a man more than is right
for him. Didn't you read in Romans where he is talking about rewarding
Gentiles for seeking the Lord even though they were dead in trespasses
and sin? Did you notice that thing in Romans 1 and 2? Did you notice
that? Did you notice in Romans 2:7-10 that there is no mention of the
elect at all and that the entire passage had to do with unsaved Jews
and Gentiles who were either seeking God or else doing wrong? There
wasn't anybody "elect" in the whole chapter. Read it--Romans 2. And
they are responsible for their deeds and their motives as unsaved
sinners dead in trespasses and sins, Jew or Gentile. Total depravity is
a nonscriptural heresy.

   II. Unconditional Election

   The next non-scriptural heresy taught by John Calvin is called
"unconditional election." This is based on Ephesians 1:4, and, as we
said before, even though the Puritans were good, godly, dedicated,
consecrated, separated men, they were not very profound Bible students
and they couldn't handle the verse. When we say this we want to make
ourselves clear. Many people can be godly, dedicated, separated,
doubly-sanctified, double-separated people like the Pharisees and yet
know nothing about the word of God. In Ephesians 1:4 Calvin read,
"According as he (God) hath chosen us in him (Christ) before the
foundation of the world..." Verse 5, "Having predestinated us unto the
adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good
pleasure of his will." Now, this was supposed to be unconditional
election, the idea that it was according to the arbitrary good will of
God which He purposed in Himself in Ephesians 1:9. But as we said
before, unconditional election is rather stupid and rather wicked in
view of the fact that 1 Peter 1:1 and 2 says that your election is
conditioned. Why contradict the scripture and make a liar out of God
when God has clearly spoken about these matters? Election is
conditioned on foreknowledge by the clear statement of 1 Peter 1:2,
"Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father," and this
election has nothing to do with eternity. This election was "through
sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the
blood of Jesus Christ." As predestination is conditioned on
foreknowledge (Rom. 8:29), so is election conditioned on foreknowledge.

   The trouble Calvin had was with the word "chosen" and the peculiar
way that Ephesians 1:4 is worked. And, of course, Gilpin and Ross and
the rest of them never did get the thing straight. When these
Bible-rejecting Christians read Ephesians 1:4, they read "according as
God chose us when we were in Christ before the foundation of the
world." That is not what the verse says. The verse says, "According as
he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world..." God did
His electing or choosing before the foundation of the world, but notice
where His choice was. It was "in Christ."

   Calvin had this remarkable boo-boo in his theology which he never
got completely straightened out. He actually thought that before
Genesis 1:1 you were in Christ. Then when Adam showed up you fell out
of Christ and got back in Christ when you were "quickened" (Eph.
2:1-4). Why he figured that you couldn't then fall back out of Christ
again is beyond finding out. But he did have one point of Calvinism
right, the perseverance of the saints--predestination to be conformed
to God's image. He had that part right, but certainly not unconditional
election. There is not a case in the Bible where God elected anybody
until they did something He told them to do. Not a case. Somebody said,
"Well, those things were back there in eternity." No, they were not.
God made His choice in ternity, but His choice was placed in time. You
see, you weren't "in Christ" until you trusted Christ. And when God
chose He chose for election the people in Christ. You were not in
Christ before Genesis 1:1.

   Somebody said, "What about that thing over in Romans 9:11 where he
says, "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"?" You had better look at
that context again. That context wasn't Genesis 1:1. That was at the
time Rebecca conceived (Rom. 9:10) and it was based on foreknowledge
(Rom. 9:12). When Calvin was faced with these matters he hit upon a
capital way to get out of the mess, but then he got into another mess
that he never could explain. He figured that if Esau and Jacob were
subjects and objects of election before they were born and since the
saved were elected because they were chosen in Christ before the
foundation of the world that before a baby is born the baby is elect or
non-elect. This led to a very embarrassing question asked of him by
Jacob Arminius. The question was, "Since only God knows who the elect
are, what are you going to do about all the babies that die? Are they
all elect babies?" And the very embarrassing answer given by Calvin and
his followers was, "Well, we can hope for the best." But this didn't
solve any problem because if adoption and election are sure, as Berkhof
says, then the decree for reprobation is as eternal as the decree for
salvation. Some babies go to hell in Calvin's system. You say, "We
don't believe that." Then you don't believe in the five points of
Calvinism. In the five points of Calvinism a man is elected before he
is born, according to Romans 9:11; the election is unconditional. It is
true that Calvin was not a very conscientious student of scripture. If
he had been he would have noticed in the passages in Romans 5:13 and
Romans 4:15 that any child, before he is old enough to know good and
evil (Deut. 1:39), is "elect" as far as salvation is concerned and his
sins are not charged to him. But, as we said before, Calvin was a very
shallow student of the word of God. He was a very deep philosophical
student and a very deep theological student, but to say that simply
because a man has had twenty-two years of education and has mastered
Hebrew and Greek and theology that he is an intelligent Bible student
is to misread the problem and give a false answer. Some of the biggest
blockheads, Biblically, who ever ived in this world are theological and
philosophical students.

   "Unconditional election" was supposed to be a matter that was based
on nothing and yet you are told that it is conditioned on
foreknowledge. Some of you say, "What about that 'chosen' there?" Well,
that thing won't work in the passage because you certainly were not in
Christ before the foundation of the world. You were only in Christ when
you received Jesus Christ as your Saviour and that is the time that you
were chosen to be adopted. You see, Calvin never could get the
difference between Old Testament salvation and New Testament salvation.
He always had enough Roman Catholic in him to be a Judaizer and he
never could get it through his head that when the Bible talked about
"predestinated to be conformed to the image" that that w3as not just
salvation. Predestinated to be conformed to God's image is a privilege
that only saints in this age have. Moses and Elijah still have their
own images. That is why we say that Calvin was not a very deep student
of the Bible. Neither was Charles Haddon Spurgeon. We're not going to
deny that when Charles Haddon Spurgeon preached salvation through the
shed blood of Jesus Christ that he got souls saved, but then so did
John Wesley. Wesley got more of them saved than Spurgeon did. And
Wesley wasn't even sound on the perseverance of the saints. So, let's
keep our discussion on a Biblical basis.

   Speaking of unconditional election, these people have forgotten (if
they ever knew) that the choosing of God not only took place in
termnity, but the choosing was based on foreknowledge and the object
chosen had to be in Christ. You were not in Christ until you received
Him as your Saviour. And when you received Him as your Saviour, the
Holy Spirit put you in Christ and put Christ in you. When you received
Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit predestinated you (1) to the adoption of
sons, (2) to be conformed to Christ's image, (3) according to God's
good pleasure and that had nothing to do with your salvation at all.
Your salvation had to do with you receiving Jesus Christ. When Noah
believed God, he was not "predestinated to be conformed" to God's image
or Christ's image. He was not put "into Christ." And he was not adopted
as a son of God. So, Calvin, as we said, was a very shallow Bible
student. He had this wild idea that since he found one truth in the New
Testament that it applied everywhere indiscriminately to everybody he
wished to put it down upon; and, of course, it doesn't. The second
teaching of John Calvin, "unconditional election," is nonscriptural
nonsense.

   III. Limited Atonement

   The third point of TULIP is called limited atonement and is based on
John 10:11, "I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life
for the sheep," and on the fact that in Ephesians 5:25 we read that
Christ loved the church and gave Himself for it. Of all the blasphemous
things taught by John Calvin, this was perhaps the worst. This was the
obscene blasphemy that Jesus Christ only died for the elect and that no
blood was shed for anybody else except the people whom God had
chosen--the elect. Strangely enough, Calvin would allow that Abraham,
Isaac, Jacob, David and Moses were saved by the shed blood of Christ,
and yet, it never occurred to Calvin that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David
and Moses were never in Christ and were not elected in Christ and were
not chosen in Christ and were not "predestinated to be conformed to His
image." Calvin had his Bible kind of screwed up. Limited atonement was
the teaching that Christ died only for the elect. And, of course, if
there is anything the Bible makes clear it makes clear that this is
just nonscriptural foolishness. In the first place, Calvin taught that
only the elect could repent. Yet, low and behold, we are told in the
gospels that Tyre and Sidon would have repented if they had had the
opportunity that Capernaum had. If they could have repented then they
were elect because only the elect can repent. But Sodom and Gomorrah
and Tyre and Sidon are said to be cast down to hell. If they are in
hell they couldn't have repented according to limited atonement and
irresistible grace. But Christ said they would have. So we see how this
nonsense proceeds.

   The limited atonement that was taken out of John 10:11 was done by
the combobling or misappropriation of verses where the heretic
interprets a complete verse or statement in the light of an incomplete
verse or statement, which, of course, is irrational. A complete
statement is never to be interpreted in the light of an incomplete
statement anywhere in or out of court, in or out of the Bible, or in or
out of common sense. The complete statement is found in 1 Timothy 2:6,
"Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time." You
cannot interpret 1 Timothy 2:6 by John 10:11. First Timothy 2:6 says
that Christ "gave himself a ranson for all, to be testified in due
time." When a heretic like Roth Barnard or L. R. Shelton or Arthur W.
Pink is confronted with this verse, he will tell you that the "all" in
the passage means all of the elect. (For this reason Lorenzo Dowell
often referred to the Calvinists as "whole part men." That is, where
the scriptures said "all" or "whole," they said "part.") You will
notice the context of 1 Timothy 2 has nothing to do with the elect.
Verse 2, "...For all that are in authority"--not the elect. Verse 4,
"Who will have all men to be saved"--not the elect. Verse 6, "Who gave
himself a ransom for all"--not the elect--"to be testified in due time."

   So, Calvinists, as hyper-Dispensationalists and Church of Christ
elders, seem to have a terrible time with what we call "context." They
seem to be Roman Catholic in their misuse of texts to prove things that
are not so. Notice in 1 Timothy 2:4 that it says, "Who will have all
men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth." There
was not one word there at all about all the elect. By the same token in
John 3:16 it says, "the world." Now, in dealing with these, Calvin, as
most heretics, would say "the world" there meant "the elect of the
Gentiles" and then he would run to 1 John for a while to try to prove
something or other. But it won't come through. Christ said in John 17
that He prayed not for the world. Well, He's praying for the elect,
isn't He? Don't you read that Jesus Christ ever liveth to make
intercession for those that come unto God by Him? Well, He's not
praying for the world in John 17. How say ye then that the "world" in
John 17 are the Gentile elect? This shows the stupid exegesis that
blundering fools get into sometimes in an effort to avoid the will of
God. Those of us who have had many, many years dealing with the
Calvinists and hyper-Calvinists know that many of these men, instead of
going out after souls, and being about the Father's business, spent
their time locked up in rooms reading books and trying to get an alibi
not to do what God told them to do; or instead of being patient and
plowing and planting and sowing, they wanted to reap so badly that when
they couldn't reap they suddenly decided that all their members were
lost and spent the rest of the time trying to resave their members.
This is the characteristic of the hyper-Calvinist and we will talk
about this more later when we talk about the practical manifestation of
this heresy. Nothing can kill a church any quicker or any deader than
the five points of Calvinism. It will kill your church deader than a
hammer.

   Limited atonement is an ancient blasphemy. in 1 Peter 2:1 we are
told that Christ shed His blood for unsaved false teachers and false
prophets. To teach, therefore, that Christ shed His blood only for the
elect is to make a liar out of God and to insult the Holy Spirit who
wrote the word of God. Second Peter 2:1 says that Christ's blood bought
unsaved false teachers and false prophets--hardly the elect. "Limited
atonement," therefore, is what Charles Wesley called it, "Oh, horrible
decree, worthy of the place from whence it came. Forgive their hellish
blasphemy that charge it to the Lamb." In Hebrews 10:29 we are told
that a man can go to hell after being sanctified by the blood of the
covenant. If you think that refers to a Christian who is elect and then
loses it, you are not a Calvinist and, therefore, it has to be a man
who is not saved and yet he is sanctified by the blood. Explain how an
unsaved man can be sanctified by the blood when the blood was only shed
for the limited elect. Calvin, Berkhof, Dabney, Hodge, and Gill and the
rest of them never could explain it any more than a Campbellite could
explain you receiving the blood of Christ through the city water system.

   First Timothy 2:4, "Who will have all men to be saved, and to come
unto the knowledge of the truth," teaches unlimited atonement. Second
Peter 3:9, "...Not willing that any should perish, but that all should
come to repentance," teaches unlimited atonement. And when the
hyper-Calvinists are faced with these clear verses they say, "Well, the
Lord is longsuffering to usward, meaning the elect, not willing that
any would perish but that all should come to repentance," which is the
height of absurdity and the depth of nonsense. Whoever heard of God
being longsuffering to the elect, not willing that any of the elect
should perish? Why, if they were elect in Calvin's sense they couldn't
perish. Limited atonement is nonsense. In 2 Peter 3:9, "The Lord is not
slack concerning his promise, as some men could slackness; but is
longsuffering to usward...." Who? Men. Look at the context. Verse 9,
"...as some men count slackness...." Why, both the saved and unsaved
are found in the passage. Look at the unsaved in verse 3 and verse 5.
Look at the saved people in verse 11 and look at verse 17 at the saved
and lost people. "...Not willing that any should perish...." Any of the
elect? The elect couldn't perish if they tried in Calvin's system.
We're dealing with nonsense. Depraved nonsense.

   IV. Irresistable Grace

   The fourth part of Calvin's system is called irresistable grace, the
fourth letter of the word TULIP. This is supposedly taught by Acts
13:48, "...And as many as were ordained to eternal life believed," and
other passages where the Holy Spirit comes upon a man and overthrows
him against his will and grants him the new birth without his
participating in yielding or being in subjection or being responsive to
the Holy Spirit. Now, those of us who are saved are not dumb enough to
think the Holy Spirit doesn't have to deal with a man in this age. We
know that. We know the Holy Spirit has to convict a man. We know the
Holy Spirit is the instrument of the new birth, but to say that the man
is an irresponsible agent who cannot act is nonscriptural foolishness
and not to be counted by the serious student of scripture regardless of
his educational or spiritual qualifications. Now, the verse that John
Calvin and The Baptist Examiner pulled out to prove this goofball
belief was Acts 13:48, and when these silly people found the verse they
read, "And when the Gentiles heart this, they were glad, and glorified
the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life
believed." Strangely enough, when Calvin got hold of this verse (the
Trinitarian Bible Society also made the same error) he got some
peculiar idea that all the people who were saved in this age were
ordained to eternal life before the foundation of the world and then in
due time they believed. This was done by taking this verse and running
it back to Ephesians 1:4. You will notice that when you deal with a
hyper-Calvinist his mind runs in this circular pattern: Ephesians
2:1-4, Ephesians 1:4, John 10:11, Acts 13:48, Ephesians 1:5, Ephesians
5, Ephesians 2, Ephesians 1, John 10, Acts 13. As I said before, John
Calvin, although he was a precious shining light for his day, was not a
very advanced student of the word of God nor a particularly intelligent
man where it came to the word of God. He was a philosophical theologian
and a political administrator, or, as one man said, "The Protestant
pope of a pope-hating people." You see, John Calvin never compared
scripture with scripture once he tried to prove his point. He would go
to philosophy and theology to prove his point. How he never discovered
that these Gentiles in Acts 13:48 are mentioned in Romans 2:8-10 is
past finding out.

   If John Calvin had studied his Bible, and, of course, he didn't any
more than Arthur W. Pink or Tolley or Toss, he would have known that
every Gentile who by "patient continuance in well doing" sought for
"glory and honour and immortality" (Rom. 2:7) God ordained to eternal
life (Rom. 2:7). And when Paul begins his ministry here to the
Gentiles, he is dealing with people, many of whom have been seeking for
glory, honor and immortality. Those are the ones whom God "ordained" to
eternal life, and the only way they can get it is to believe. So, the
ones whom God has dordained to eternal life according to their works
(Rom. 2:7) believe on Christ and are saved by grace through faith.

   This, of course, runs entirely contrary to Calvin's system. Calvin
thought that since there were no works and since the "arbitrary good
pleasure of God" chose the elect without any works that he simply could
ignore Romans 2:7. But you cannot ignore Romans 2:7, for the matchmate
to Romans 2:7 is Acts 13:48, and those who were "ordained to eternal
life" are ordained to eternal life on the basis of works following
their conscience, exactly as you find Cornelius in Acts 10. Acts 10 was
a passage that Calvin never could figure out. In Acts 10 there was a
man who was trying to get to heaven by works. He was not born again or
unconditionally elected by irresistible grace or anything. The man was
seeking glory and immortality like in Romans 2, following his
conscience, and his prayers came up as a memorial before God (Acts
10:4); and on the basis of his sincere desire to please God, he was
given a chance to receive Christ and he believed on Jesus Christ in
Acts 10:43 and 44. Somebody said, "Well, he was chosen in Christ before
the foundation of the world." Why, he was not in Christ until he
received Christ. Do you know what the condition of a so-called "elect"
in Calvin's system was before they got in Christ, before they received
Christ? Did you ever read the rest of Ephesians? Ephesians 2:12? The
unsaved Gentile was not one of the elect and he wasn't in Christ. He
was dead. He was in trespasses and sin. He was alone in the world,
without hope and without God, and God didn't even know him (Gal. 4:9),
"But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God...."
You were a blank before you received Jesus Christ.

   "Irresistable grace" is the simple teaching that God overpowers the
sinner and saves him against his will. If you have read Acts 7 you know
that is nonsense. Stephen said, "Ye do always resist the Holy Ghost."
The Christian who is saved can grieve the Spirit, quench the Spirit and
lie to the Spirit. Why would anybody think that an unsaved man didn't
have the power to resist the Spirit of God when even a saved man
resists the Spirit of God when the Holy Spirit dwells in him? When we
speak of "irresistible grace" we are speaking about irreligious
claptrap. There is not a case in the Bible where anybody was saved
irresistibly against their will. When Eliezer, a type of the Holy
Spirit, went to see Rebecca, a type of the Bride of Christ, they said,
"Wilt thou go with this man?" And she said, "I will go." Nobody knocked
her down and dragged her out there against her will.

   In Matthew 23:37 Jesus said, "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that
killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how
often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen
gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!" There is the
intention. Do you know what happened to Jerusalem? The miracles, acts,
signs and wonders of the apostles ceased in it and there wasn't another
miracle done in it after Acts 7 and the people down there were starving
in a famine in Acts 11 and had to have relief sent to them. The city is
torn down in 70 A.D. and 500 Jews were crucified outside the city.
Somebody said, "Well, this sovereign grace of God, the sovereign will
of God, God's sovereign...." Ah, baloney! Christ said, "...How often
would I have gathered...and ye would not!" The sovereign will of God in
Matthew 23:37 was not for Jerusalem to reject Christ. It was for
Jerusalem to receive Christ and they overthrow the sovereign will of
God. How was that? "...How often would I have gathered...." That is the
Lord Jesus Christ speaking, brother! You watch out for your
blasphemous, smart aleck mouth! That is the Lord Jesus Christ who said,
"...How often would I have gathered...and ye would not!" Do you think
He is lying?

   So, when we talk about the "sovereign will" and the "sovereign
grace" of God in Calvinistic literature, many times we are talking
about horseradish. The Lord was willing to save them. They were not
willing to be saved, according to Him; not according to what you think
or what Calvin thought or some theological scheme that you cooked up
over 1 Corinthians 1 and John 10 to explain something you couldn't
understand.

   Tell me something. How come the people in the Old Testament got
saved when none of them were regenerated by irresistible grace?
Somebody said, "Well, the Holy Spirit comes upon a fellow and
overpowers him and quickens him." He didn't come to Noah. Was Noah
saved? He didn't come to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Enoch, Joseph, Moses
and David. Were they saved? He didn't come to Hezekiah or Asa. Were
they saved? What do you mean "irresistible grace"? There was no
irresistible grace that overthrew Noah or Moses or David or Isaac or
Jacob. They were not in Christ, were not chosen in Christ, were not
regenerated, were not spiritually circumcised, were not born again,
were not conformed to the image of Christ and were not adopted as sons.
They were saved by an act of their own free will while they were dead
in trespasses and sin. Do you realize that God Almighty held David
accountable for his sins although he was "dead in trespasses and sins"
all of his life? God held Saul accountable and Abimelech accountable
and Asa and Hezekiah and Manasseh and Jeroboam and Rehoboam and Ahab
and Jezebel and Elijah and Elisha accountable when they were not born
again and never experienced the new birth a day in their life.

   You see, Calvin was not a deep Bible student. He was what you call a
"biblical heretic." Now, it is true that he believed in the
fundamentals like every pope. It is true that he believed in eternal
security like any Baptist. But when we talk about the five points of
Calvinism we are talking about nonsense in four out of the five.
Irresistible grace is an unknown teaching in the word of God. It is
grace that can teach a man's heart to fear and grace his fears relieve.
It is the grace of God that allows a man to receive Christ. We'll grant
that. But, it is also the grace of God that lets a man go on and live
like the devil for years without getting right. We talk about
grace--anybody experiences "grace." The devil has had 7,000 years or
more of grace, but he is not one of the elect. And he resisted what
grace he had. So, when we talk about irresistible grace we are talking
about nothing. There isn't any such thing. The term "irresistible
grace" is a nonscriptural, theological term and the term "sovereign
grace" is a lie agaainst God. The term "sovereign grace" is the cliche
used by these dead orthodox philosophers to hint at the fact that God
will give saving grace to some that He doesn't give to others. This is
sometimes called common grace and special grace.

   Now, about this irresistible grace, do you know what Paul said? Paul
said, "I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save
some," 1 Corinthians 9:22. Now, no matter what you believe about the
Holy Spirit, you have to admit that is very strange language for
somebody who believes that the Holy Spirit is the only person at work
convicting sinners and getting them saved. If that is true, like Calvin
said, then Paul took the glory from God and the Lord should have
dropped him on the spot. After all, He said, "My glory will I not give
to another" (Isa. 42:8). Paul said, "I am made all things to all men,
that I might by all means save some." And they were saved against their
will and born again without their permission? You say, "We don't really
teach that." Of course you do. You just haven't understood or applied
the full ramifications of Calvinism. Calvinism teaches irresistible
grace; the grace of God calls out the elect for whom the blood
atonement was made and doesn't call out anybody else, and if He did
call anybody else out it would be a terrible and tragic mistake because
there wasn't enough blood shed to take care of the nonelect. (That is
the third point in Calvinism called limited atonement, which we have
discussed.)

   Paul also claimed that he gave people the new birth through the
gospel. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 4:15 (there's nothing like a little
Bible study to clear up the mistakes of John Calvin), "For though ye
have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers:
for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you...," not God or the Holy
Spirit, "through the gospel." Now, aren't these strange things for a
man to say who believed the work was all of God and who believed in
"sovereign grace" and all this stuff Paul was supposed to believe in
that he didn't believe in? Isn't this strange? And what is James saying
when he says in James 5:20, "Let him know, that he which converteth the
sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death...." He
"shall save a soul from death." Now, what do you make of these things?
A Calvinist says, "Well, what about that passage over there...." Yeah,
but you see, a Calvinist can never face scripture. Calvinists, like
Campbellites and Church of Christ people and hyper-Dispensationalists,
have what we call the hop- skip-and-jump-merry-go-round type of mind
that keeps hopping from one verse to another without clearly facing a
verse.

   For example, when you begin to talk about these matters and about
Paul being the instrument, the average hyper-Calvinist will turn you
immediately to 2 Timothy 2:10 and will read as follows: "Therefore I
endure all things for the elect's sake that they may also obtain
salvation...." Now, isn't that rather stupid to take it like John
Calvin took it? I didn't read what the verse said. I just read it the
way every hardshell Baptist in this country has been teaching it for
two hundred years. That isn't what the verse said, and if the verse
said that, wouldn't it be a rather stupid verse? Imagine Paul going
through all this suffering, enduring all these things so the elect
could get saved. Listen, child, in Calvin's system all the elect are
going to be saved whether anybody endures anything or not. Wouldn't you
say it was rather stupid to go through that much suffering to no point?
Now, this is the problem the Calvinist has in facing a verse and
reading a verse and, as we said before, the Campbellites, Calvinists
and hyper-Dispensationalists all have the circular type of reasoning.
They can't pinpoint a truth and deal with it. Their theology may be
properly called a "jackrabbit theology" or "hop, skip and jump." Now,
the verse said this: "Therefore I endure all things for the elect's
sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus
with eternal glory." The context goes further and says, "If we suffer,
we shall also reign with him...." And there is a warning in the passage
to "study to shew thyself approved unto God" right in the passage. And
right in this passage about the "elect's sake" not merely getting saved
but having eternal glory there is a warning about the Presbyterian
Reform and hardshell Baptist preacher teaching Amillennialism--verses
17 and 18. In verses 17 and 18 two fellows were turned over to the
devil for teaching that the first resurrection was past because there
is only a spiritual resurrection (Eph. 2:1-4). That is what John Calvin
believed. John Calvin was not a Premillennialist. He was an
Amillennialist as was J. Gresham Machen and Benjamin Warfield and as
was Charles Haddon Spurgeon and Jonathan Edwards. Do you know what
happened to Hymenaeus and Philetus for teaching the first resurrection
was over because it was spiritual? At least one of them was turned over
to Satan for the destruction of the flesh. You say, "Where did you get
that from? We got that from 1 Timothy 1:20, Hymenaeus. So, as we said
before, Calvin was not a very careful student of the word of God.

   The classic passage for irresistible grace and unconditional
election is Romans 9; so, we will take a few minutes to briefly discuss
this chapter, but only a very few minutes because, after all, those who
know the word of God know that the calling and election does not take
place until the person has received Jesus Christ. Sam Jones said, "A
man can't get elected until he has got his hat in the ring. He has got
to be nominated before he can be elected," which is a rather crude way
of saying a great truth that Calvin couldn't understand. When you
really give an oversimplification of a great truth such as Sam Jones
gave, then all these fellows holler and roar and spin their wheels and
have a fit, and yet their own statements are extremely oversimplified.
I mean, the idea of bringing down the truth of the Bible to five
points. Brother, you talk about an oversimplification.

   We are reading this passage in the light of the so-called
"unconditional election" and the so-called "irresistible grace." Romans
9:9-13, "For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and
Sarah shall have a son." (That took place in time in Genesis.) "And not
only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our
father Isaac;" (that took place in time after Gen. 15) ("For the
children being not yet born," [that took place in Genesis after she
conceived, not before Genesis 1] "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.") It was already said, "It was said
unto her...." That is, the prophecy was made ahead of time by the
foreknowledge of God showing you clearly that, knowing what the boys
would do, God elected one. Notice how the election was based on
foreknowledge. "It was said unto her, The elder" (that's a prophecy)
"shall serve the younger." That's a prophecy and it is a prophecy based
on foreknowledge. Do you know why God chose Jacob? Verse 13, "As it is
written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated." Did God love Jacob
and hate Esau before they were born? Nonsense. You never read one word
about God loving Jacob and hating Esau until years and years and years
after Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Moses were dead. Why did the Lord love
Jacob? Because he had a regard for spiritual things. Why did He hate
Esau? Because he sold his spiritual birthright. Did the Lord know they
were going to do this? Of course He knew. Knowing it, what did He do?
He prophesied to Rebecca and said, "The elder shall serve the younger."
This is a clear case of election based on foreknowledge and has nothing
to do with the good pleasure and arbitrary pleasure of God at all. So,
Calvin is off again.

   Continuing Romans 9:14, "What shall we say then? Is there
unrighteousness with God? God forbid." Why shouldn't God elect a fellow
who is going to do right? Why not elect the man who receives Christ?
You say, "That election doesn't refer to a man receiving Christ.
Election refers to getting saved." You're crazy. Nobody in the Old
Testament received Jesus Christ. Were they elected? Do you see the mess
folks get into? Did you know that the Jews in the Tribulation are
referred to as the "elect of God" in Matthew 24? And Calvin was such a
Bible blockhead he thought that Matthew 24 was a reference to the body
of Christ. Did you know that? Did you know that in Matthew 24:22 and 24
it says, "...for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened," and
"...deceive the very elect"? And you have people right now today who
have been fooling around with the philosophical, theological system of
Calvin for so long they are now teaching that Christians go through the
Tribulation. Do you know what those dumb thumps thought? They thought
that every time you saw the word "elect" it had to refer to the body of
Christ. Now, isn't that strange in view of the scripture? Isn't that a
strange business? Did you ever stop to think about that word "elect,"
how it first referred to people who are not in Christ and will never be
in Christ? Did you notice in Romans 11:5 and 7 when the Bible is
speaking about the Old Testament Israelites it says, "Even so then at
this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of
grace," and "What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh
for," (talking about Old Testament unsaved Israel up to the time of
Christ) "but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded."
Why, the term "elect" originally in your Bible is a reference to the
Old Testament saints. It is not a reference to the body of Christ.
Neither Jacob nor Esau were in the body of Christ. Neither one was in
Christ, neither one was circumcised, neither one was regenerated, and
God did not "grant either one repentance."

   Calvin was a little bit addled when it came to studying the word of
God. Now, we may say this about John Calvin. He was a great
administrator and a great political theologian and a great
philosophical exegete, but when we talk about believing the word of God
and being true to the word of God we will say that he was right twenty
percent of the time. We may follow him twenty percent of the time. We
thank God that occasionally a good man like Jonathan Edwards or Charles
Haddon Spurgeon had enough sense to confine his Calvinistic preaching
to twenty percent of his sermons. If he hadmade it any more than that
he would have made a terrible mistake and the Lord wouldn't have used
him. He would have been a hyper-Calvinist. A hyper-Calvinist emphasizes
all five points constantly.

   Continuing Romans 9:15, "For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on
whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have
compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that
runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy."

   This is probably the biggest stumbling block in the entire
Calvinistic system. When John Calvin read this passage, being rather
shallow in Bible study and being rather corrupted by his theological
and philosophical studies, he read it this way: "For he saith to Moses,
I will save whom I will save, and I will regenerate whom I will
regenerate. So then it is not of a man that wills to receive Jesus
Christ, nor of him that runs around in circles, but of God that saves a
man by irresistible grace." Of course the verse had nothing to do with
that.

   Looking at the verse very carefully, a great deal more carefully
than Berkhof or Machen or Warfield or any other Bible- rejecting
Fundamentalist ever looked at it, we learn first of all that the
reference was to Moses, who was not in the body of Christ, who was not
regenerated, and who was not conformed to His image and who was not
"chosen in Christ."

   Next we notice the reference to Pharaoh (v. 17) where the Lord is
talking about the judgments upon Pharaoh in Egypt in Exodus, the Old
Testament. Isn't this some place for a fellow to start talking about a
New Testament sinner receiving Jesus Christ? Doesn't it strike you as
rather weird that a man would start in this place? What would you make
of a man who got up and began to talk about the doctrines of salvation
and how a man is saved and then pulled out as a prime proof text Moses
dealing with Pharaoh? Doesn't it strike you as rather odd in view of
the fact that when Moses dealt with Pharaoh, Genesis had not been
written nor had 1 and 2 Samuel and Proverbs and Psalms; Christ had not
come and had not died; and He had not been buried and had not risen
from the dead; and there was no New Testament written? Doesn't it
strike you as rather strange that when a man goes to his proof text as
a foundation text for his system, he goes to Moses dealing with Pharaoh
in Exodus? Rather hard to believe, isn't it? But that is where John
started. As a matter of fact, Romans 9:16 and Romans 9:21-23 are the
bedrock of the entire Calvinistic system.

   As I said before, we are going to be much more careful in reading
the Bible than the expositors such as Arthur W. Pink and Berkhof and
Dabney and Kuiper and Hodge and Gill and the Puritan Press and the
Pilgrim Press. Verse 15, "For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on
whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have
compassion." This led Calvin to think that it was arbitrary free will
without reference to anything, which, of course, we have already seen
is a lie. In 1 Peter 1:2 and in Romans 8:29 predestination and election
are both conditioned on foreknowledge, and right in the verse above is
election conditioned on foreknowledge.

   Romans 9:16, "So then it is not of him that willeth...." Willeth
what? This is the kind of bog and mire that the Bible- rejecting
Fundamentalist gets messed up in when he tries to make the Bible
conform to what he has learned in theology and philosophy. There wasn't
anything said there about Pharaoh not having free will. There was
nothing said there about somebody willing to receive Jesus Christ.
There was nothing in the passage about God willing salvation for the
sinner. Do you know what you can find? You can find tracts up and down
this country on TULIP published by these heretics that have actually
taken this verse and tied it to Philippians and, by doing this, they
have erected the monstrous non-Biblical structure that God wills
salvation for the sinner because he can't will it himself. You would
never believe the verse that is quoted to prove this blasphemous
nonsense. The verse quoted is Philippians 2:13, "For it is God which
worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure."

   You wouldn't believe it unless you read it, but by coupling Romans
9:16 with Philippians 2:13 these depraved, Bible-rejecting
Fundamentalists and Conservatives and Calvinists have said that God
works in the unsaved man to will for him because "it is not of him that
willeth."

   This amazing scripture abortion ranks with the theology of the
Campbgellite elders, the Roman Catholic priests and the followers of
Cornelius Stamm (who make the body of Christ begin with Paul when the
one man and the one new body and the middle wall of partition was
broken down at Calvary), and it is done by the mangling and
manipulation of scripture for privat einterpretation. Notice in
Philippians 2:13, "For it is God which worketh in you..." And who is
the you? It is an unsaved man who can't receive Jesus Christ? My, my,
my, look at verses 12 and 13, "Wherefore, my beloved...work out your
own salvation with fear and trembling. For it is God which worketh in
you" (the beloved who are saved) "both to will and to do of his good
pleasure." These fellows are trying to tell us that after a man is
regenerated he still has no free will. This is the monstrous mess that
the Calvinist gets into. Now, it is true that if you read the nonsense
put out by Jonathan Edwards and Machen and Warfield and Berkhof and
Dabney and Kuiper and Hodge and L. R. Shelton and Barnard and Gilpin
and Ross that you won't see these glaring deficiencies in their system,
but that is because they never stay with a verse long enough to deal
with it.

   For example, if you went to Philippians 2:12-13 there isn't a
Calvinist I'm talking to who would discuss that verse ten minutes with
you, and it ought to be discussed at least thirty minutes. I mean,
after all, is there anybody dumb enough to think that God has always
had His will in your life? Is it really God that "worketh in you both
to will and to do of His good pleasure"? Then why is there so much in
your life even after you're regenerated that is not according to His
good pleasure? You say, "Well, that's the...." Yeah, but don't run from
the verse. The verse was used to prove that God in an unsaved man
willed because the unsaved fellow couldn't will or receive Christ so
God willed for him, but the verse had to do with God working in the
life of a Christian. And, even if you apply it to a Christian it can't
be an infallible doctrinal statement because God doesn't always have
His will in your life and doesn't always have His good pleasure from
us. You know it and I know it, and if you want to lie about it I'll
talk to your wife or your children or, better still, your mother. Now,
is anybody so fullof nonsense as to think that God has always done His
"good pleasure" in the life of a believer?

   The Calvinistic system eventually is designed to justify sin in the
life of a believer, especially a lazy believer who will not do what God
told him to do or who, having done what God told him to do and not
having gotten visible results, insists there must be some mistake and
alters the theological system so he can justify his lack of results.
Hardshell Baptist churches, as anyone knows, are made up of this kind
of people. Some Primitive Baptists and hyper-Calvinists are
Premillennial and only take part of Calvin while professing to be
Calvinists. After all, John Calvin sprinkled babies. What could be any
funnier than the Baptist Examiner or the Christian Baptist talking
about being Calvinist when they don't believe in sprinkling babies or
burning people at the stake, and they are Premillennial? Rather a weird
follower of Calvin, wouldn't you say? Why these people think they are
"Calvinists" because they overemphasize five doctrines, and four of
them aren't even Bible doctrines.

   Coming back to Romans 9:16, "So then it is not of him that
willeth...." That willeth to do what? Calvin never found what the what
was. When a man is looking for a proof text to justify a lie he can
never find the context. Did you ever notice that? Did you ever check
these fellows writing these books on "verbal inspiration"? They never
can quote the verse that precedes their text. Did you know that when
they start quoting 2 Timothy 3:16, you can't find one book on the
market that ever quoted 2 Timothy 3:15? Do you know why? Because every
man who set out to write on verbal inspiration tried to go to 2 Timothy
3:16 to prove that the King James Bible was not inspired. So, he
couldn't find the verse before it. Now, had Calvin had glasses he would
have read Romans 9:16, "For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy...I
will have compassion..." The context of verse 16 had nothing to do with
an unsaved sinner receiving Jesus Christ by an act of free will. As we
mentioned before, "free will" is a Bible statement and a Bible doctrine
and a Bible truth (Ezra 7:13; 7:15; 7:16, Exod. 35:21; 35:5; and
35:29). You say, "Why did you use the Old Testament?" Because in the
Old Testament none of them were born again and they were all dead in
trespasses and sins and still had a free will. Why did you think we
used it?

   Romans 9:16, "So then it is not of him that willeth...." That
willeth what? Verse 15--a man cannot by act of will make God have mercy
on him or make God have compassion on him. If you want mercy from God
and compassion from God you are going to have to come His way, not your
way. What could be clearer than that in the text, if a man could read?
You can't make up your mind on how to be saved. "All right, I am
determined. I've decided by an act of will that God is going to have
mercy and compassion upon me." You can't do it. It is of God. It is,
verse 16, "...of God that sheweth mercy." With such a clear thing, how
do you suppose Calvin could become so boggled down? How in the world
could anybody get that screwed up in the word of God with a context of
"have mercy" in verse 15 and with verse 16 closing with "mercy"? How
could that man have ever thought that the verse denied the free will of
man receiving Jesus Christ when the problem was not even under
discussion? You say, "Well, at Calvary the Lord has mercy on a man and
a man receives compassion at Calvary." Sure, that is the whole point.
The point is, if you want God to have mercy and compassion upon you,
you can't will it; you have to obey God's will. And God has determined
He will have mercy and compassion on no man but a man who receives His
Son as his Saviour. What could be any clearer than that, unless you are
going to the Bible to look for proof texts to prove something that is
not so?

   Romans 9:17-18, "For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this
same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee,
and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. Therefore
hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he
hardeneth." Did you ever actually read Exodus to see what that was
about? John Calvin didn't. He just took for granted that God hardened
the nonelect and saved the elect and that was the end of it. A rather
stupid way to do exegesis. Did you ever go back there in Exodus and
notice in chapter 3, before God ever sent Moses down there, that He
exhibited His foreknowledge by saying, "And I am sure that the king of
Egypt will not let you go...."

   There is not a case in the Bible where election was based on
anything but foreknowledge.

   There isn't a case of arbitrary election anywhere in the Book from
cover to cover. That is not all. Did you notice that before God
hardened Pharaoh's heart that Pharaoh hardened his own heart? Did you
notice that? Why don't you go back and study the passages? "Thou wilt
say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his
will?" Now, when you apply that to the matter of salvation you get a
first-rate mess. Any man has resisted the will of God who rejects Jesus
Christ. "The Lord is...not willing that any should perish, but that all
should come to repentance," 2 Peter 3:9. John says in 1 John 3:23, "And
this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son
Jesus Christ...." A man says, "Who hath resisted his will?" Why, when
you apply that to salvation, it is perfectly apparent. Any man who has
rejected Christ has rejected or resisted the will of God. The only way
Calvin could get around that was to say that the blood was shed only
for the elect; therefore, it was the "will of God" that the nonelect
reject Christ. Therefore, the nonelect sinner who had no blood
atonement rejected Christ and that was "the will of God." I don't care
how you cook Calvin, it comes out tripe no matter what you do with it.
You can say, "Oh, we don't really...." I know what you mean, you old
liar. You mean that by a lot of baloney on special and convenient grace
and common grace and superlapsarianism and intralapsarianism you have
erected a fog, a web of words where it looks like you believe something
you don't believe. We read you. What you mean is that if you discuss
the junk you read in those books it would sound pretty high-class,
wouldn't it?

   You know, some of you people deeply resent me boiling everything
down to simple language, don't you? Well, listen; One day Truth and
Error went swimming together, and while they were down there in the old
swimming hole Error stole Truth's clothes and ever since then Error has
been parading around as Truth, while the Truth has been the naked
Truth. Anything that is as hard to explain as the Calvinistic system
would have to be a lie. Things that are true and honest and aboveboard
are not that hard to explain. When you try to make a man obey the will
of God by rejecting Jesus Christ, you are accusing God of sin.

   Romans 9:20, "Nay but O man, who art thou that repliest against
God?" Right. You have no business to say that. You know what His will
is. "The Lord is...not willing that any should perish, but that all
should come to repentance." Continuing with verse 20, "Shall the thing
formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou make me thus?" The
thing formed? Why, that had nothing to do with before Genesis 1. There
wasn't any clay around to form things out of until after Genesis 1:1-4.
There is no discussion here about the eternal decrees of God in
eternity. It says, "Shall the thing formed...." you see the final mess
that Calvin got into. He suddenly had all the nonelect formed before
Genesis 1:1, and then he made anything that had to do with birth or
life an eternal thing before Genesis 1:1 on the flimsy basis that
foreknowledge meant predestination. In the Bible, predestination is
conditioned on foreknowledge.

   Verse 21, "Hath not the potter power over the clay...." There is no
clay before Genesis 1:1. There is no potter shaping clay in Genesis
1:1. There is no potter forming and shaping clay in eternity. There is
no clay around to form until Genesis 1:2. "Hath not the potter power
over the clay; of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and
another unto dishonour?" What is the context? Verse 17, Pharaoh. The
vessel is already there. The vessel was raised up for a purpose.

   Twenty-two, "What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his
power known, endured with much long-suffering the vessels of warth
fitted to destruction." Fitted to destruction? Make known his power and
longsuffering, the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction? What fitted
them to destruction? Make known his power and longsuffering, the
Testament sense, what fitted a vessel to destruction or for wrath? John
3:36, "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that
believeth not the Son shall not see lie; but the WRATH of God abideth
on him." Is that clear? Romans 9:22, "What if God, willing to shew his
wrath...the vessels of wrath...." What are the vessels of wrath? The
ones that do not believe on Jesus Christ, John 3:36.

   This brings us right back where we started. This brings us back to
the godless, helling blasphemy taught by John Calvin that the
unbeliever cannot believe because God made it impossible for him to
believe because God fitted him for destruction before Genesis 1:1. The
"decree of reprobation" is eternal according to all systematic
theologians, whether you know that or not; and, therefore, the unsaved
man cannot believe; therefore, the wrath of God abides on him for
something for which he is unaccountable and irresponsible. I don't care
where you stop with John Calvin you are going to wind up in the same
place. You can justify it and say, "Ruckman's got a straw dummy. We
don't really believe that. We don't really teach that," until you are
red, white, black and blue. But the fact remains, in Calvin's system
the ones who are elected to damnation couldn't be saved if they
believed because there was no blood shed for them and they can't
believe because God has to believe for them and God only believes or
wills for the "elect."

   That is the nonsense about the "sovereignty of God" and "sovereign
grace," that is the irreverant, blasphemous tomfoolery taught by John
Calvin and the Calvinists. We discount everything about them so far and
put it in the wastebasket without a second thought. We have covered the
first four points of TULIP. There is not a single one of them that is
scriptural.

   V. Perseverance of the Saints

   We now come to the last point, the "perseverance of the saints," or
some give it as "predestination." This time Calvin hit it right. The
word predestination is a Bible term and, even though he got it wrong
both times it occurred, at least he recognized that the truth was
there. For example, the word "predestination" only occurs two times in
your Bible and neither time is it a reference to an unsaved man. The
word "predestination" occurs two times in your Bible and neither time
is it a reference to a man getting saved. (One more time!) The word
"predestination" occurs two times in your Bible and not a single time
does it ever refer to the destination of an unsaved man before
receiving Christ or the time of conversion of a saved man when he
received Jesus Christ. That is, the term "predestination," as Calvin
found it, he could not apply to the truth, so we may take the fifth
point and throw it out also on the grounds that Calvin didn't know what
he was talking about. The term "predestination" occurs one time in your
Bible in Romans 8:29. Read it. It occurs the next time in Ephesians
1:5. Read it. Ephesians 1:5 and Romans 8:29. Notice in neither context
is anybody talking about anybody getting saved. The verses where they
occur in both contexts have no reference to an unsaved man receiving
Christ, an unsaved man going to hell or the time of conversion of a
saved man, one of the elect. Calvin simply didn't know what he was
talking about.

   We may say that back in the days of Martin Luther and Zwingli and
Bucer, Calvin was a "precious shining light in his day" and gave a lot
of light where it was needed and, thank God, he was anti-Catholic in
some of his beliefs. That was his redeeming feature. He was
anti-Catholic in some of what he believed. As far as his treatment of
heretics was concerned and as far as his prophetical teachings were
concerned, he was a Roman Catholic from the bottom of his feet to the
top of his head. The term "predestination" only occurs in regard to a
man who was already saved (Eph. 1:5), where when a man received Jesus
Christ, his destination is to be adopted as a child of God (which Old
Testament saints were not), and when he receives Jesus Chist he is
predestinated to be conformed to the image of Christ (which the Old
Testament saints were not).

   Conclusion

   This completes our brief study of hyper-Calvinism. The
hyper-Calvinist is a heretic, like the hyper-Dispensationalist or the
Campbellite elder or the Roman Catholic priest or the Mormon or the
Seventh-day Adventist. The fact that he has a little more scripture to
quote and a little more biblical "proof" than some of these heretics
means absolutely nothing in the light of the truth. In the light of the
truth, the five points of Calvinism are a blank. Of the final point one
can say that it is true. Predestination is a doctrine. It is true that
the saints will "persevere" by virtue of the fact that they are in
Christ and Christ makes intercession for them. They are "bone of his
bone and flesh of his flesh." But certainly predestination has nothing
to do with the Calvinistic doctrines of that subject as John Calvin
taught them. As John Calvin taught the doctrine of predestination, he
taught a lie. Predestination has nothing to do with when the unsaved
man got saved or whether or not the unsaved man went to hell. It had to
do with what happens to the born again believer after he has received
Jesus Christ. Then his destination is fixed.

   We appreciate the Huguenots who were a soul-winning, martyred people
who believed the word of God and assimilated some of Calvin's teaching.
We appreciate the great Scotch Presbyterians who preached the truth and
loved the word of God and did a great work for God and assimilated much
of Calvin's teaching. We appreciate the Puritans' standard of living
and their love of discipline and separation and law and order, even
though they assimilated some of Calvin's teaching. We appreciate
Charles Haddon Spurgeon, a great preacher and a great soul winner whom
God mightily used when he was not preaching Calvinistic doctrines.
Anybody who has read the Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit realizes that
Charles Haddon Spurgeon didn't waste one Sunday out of twenty preaching
the five points of Calvinism. He professed to be a Calvinist and may
have been a Calvinist, but he certainly had better sense than to preach
it rom the pulpit when he wanted results. If you take the sermons of
Charles Haddon Spurgeon and lay them out and go through them and mark
the ones that deal with the five points of Calvinism or even the
sermons devoted entirely to one of the five points there will be less
than one out of twenty. Charles Haddon Spurgeon had better sense than
to follow John Calvin more than five percent of the time. And those of
us who believe the word and preach the word have better sense than to
follow him one percent of the time.

   This study has been on TULIP. 1. Total depravity, supposedly
justified by Ephesians 2:1-4, which has nothing to do with the will,
mentioned in Ezra 7:13; 7:15; 7:16, Exodus 35:5; 35:21; 35:29. And
since total depravity does not affect responsibility (John 3:36, Isa.
45:19, Luke 17:1), we take TULIP and put it in the wastebasket as
unscriptural, non-Biblical nonsense. Depravity may extend to every part
of a man's nature, but a man's will is not a part of his nature, as you
would think anybody would know after a while.

   2. Unconditional election, supposedly justified by Ephesians 1:4 and
Romans 9; disproved by 1 Peter 1:2 where it is plainly said to be
conditioned on foreknowledge, as it is also mentioned in Romans 8:29.

   3. Limited atonement, supposedly justified by John 10:11, Ephesians
5, and Christ giving his life as a ransom for many. This is clearly
abrogated by the statement that He gave His lie as a ransom for all, 1
Timothy 2:6; that God wants all men saved, 1 Timothy 2:4; that all
should repent, 2 Peter 3:9, and mainly by the fact that the atonement
was for unsaved, hell-bound, Christ- rejecting false prophets and
teachers, 2 Peter 2:1, and for Christ-rejecting, nonelect Jews, Hebrews
10.

   4. Irresistible grace, supposedly bolstered up by Acts 13:48 and
Ephesians 2:1-4; clearly shown to be a boo-boo by Acts 7, Matthew 32,
Matthew 12, Genesis 6 and Romans 9.

   5. Predestination or perseverance (Eph. 1:5), clearly shown to be
applicable only to a man who has already received the Lord Jesus Christ.

   Nobody in the Old Testament was regenerated. Nobody in the Old
Testament was "granted repentance." Nobody in the Old Testament was
"chosen in Christ." Nobody in the Old Testament believed the New
Testament gospel. Yet there are scores and scores of saved people
throughout the Old Testament who by a free act of free will obtained
salvation by obeying God. Therefore, the statement that a man has no
free will because he has never been regenerated is just unutterable,
inexpressible trash and should not be taught or mentioned in the same
breath with the holy scriptures written and preserved by a holy God.
Calvinism was an interesting doctrine in its day for philosophical
speculators and theological exegetes, and it has a certain amount of
interest today that, when applied, makes interesting discussion and
subject matter for bull sessions among educated people. The high
Calvinistic doctrine of TULIP, which was never assimilated by the
practical soul winners who were Calvinists, furnished an interesting
example of deep theological speculation for people who had nothing to
do but sit around and talk and "hear or tell something new"; however,
the soul winners who followed John Calvin never wasted a great deal of
time with it.

   We adopt the position of George Whitefield, who said, "A moderate
Calvinism was and is and will always be the best doctrine for
evangelism." A moderate Calvinism. What do we mean by moderate? We mean
total depravity, with the exception that the will is a free agent. We
mean unconditional election, with the qualification that it is
conditioned on foreknowledge. We mean Calvinism, with the exception
that limited atonement is a bunch of godless, lying trash and shouldn't
ever be preached or taught anywhere. And irresistible grace is a
horselaugh, with the exception that God must be gracious toward man and
deal with him. Finally, perseverance of the saints; we grant this is so
after the man has been born again. That is what is called a moderate
Calvinism.

   We do not subscribe to the complete teaching of Calvin's total
depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement or irresistible
grace. We have nothing to do with his doctrine of baby sprinkling. We
have nothing to do with his doctrine of Amillennialism. And we
absolutely abhor and despise and hold as an abomination the teaching of
John Calvin and the Puritans that the body of Christ was to set up a
political theocracy to be run as a state government. On those lines we
completely disagree with Calvin, as did all the Baptists and
Anabaptists of his day. We take our side with the Baptists of Calvin's
day who were persecuted by Calvin and Zwingli for not subscribing to a
church- state, baby-sprinkling religion.

   In short, we are not "Calvinists." We are proud not to be
Calvinists. And God forbid we should ever be called "Calvinists." We
are Bible-believing Christians, or, if you please, Bible- believing
Baptists if you want to know what kind of Christian. And if you want to
know what kind of Baptists, we are not Southern Baptists or Northern
Baptists. We are Bible-believing Baptists. We are what the Baptist
Examiner professes to be. We are what the hardshells profess to be and
are not. In short, we are people who believe the Book from cover to
cover. And where the teaching of Machen, Dabney, Kuiper, Gill, Tolley,
the Puritans, Warfield, Berkhof and Arthur W. Pink contradict the word
of God, we dispose of them immediately, cheerfully, with love and best
wishes. And this is the position that any Bible- believer should take.
Let God be true, but every man a liar. And where the man crosses the
scripture, cross him. Or, to quote a great soul-winning evangelist who
didn't preach any of TULIP, "Where the scholars say one thing and the
Bible says another, the scholars can go plumb to the devil." The man
who made that statement led more than a million people to Jesus Christ.
He was Billy Sunday, and alongside him we don't figure John Calvin to
be in the running.

   May the Lord bless you and we hope this file has been edifying and
we hope it will exhort and rebuke the brethren as well as educate and
edify and inspire; we trust that those who read it will understand that
all scripture is profitable, not only for doctrine but for reproof,
correction and instruction in righteousness. May the Lord bless you and
good day.
