If God really just wanted to save everyone, couldn't He do that?

Sure, he could. He could do like he did with Thomas and physically reveal himself to every doubter, or blind every anti-Christian on a road, or have every rebellious believer swallowed by a fish, or do whatever outward sign that would remove all doubt from every unbeliever. But clearly God is pleased by faith and has chosen that to be the means through which salvation is applied. "Blessed are they who don't see and still believe."

Even those of us who affirm Libertarian Freewill acknowledge that God has in the past and may in the future intervene with circumstances (signs and wonders or whatever) to ensure a specific outcome...(i.e. inspiration of scripture, crucifixion, etc)...but to suggest that EVERY circumstance, outcome, thought, evil intent, heinous crime and sinful act is likewise determined by God only serves to (1) undermine the unique and divine attributes of those acts which SHOULD be attributed to God and (2) impugns God's Holy and sinless nature by making him appear culpable for originating sin.

Why are Calvinists so Negative?

Why are Calvinists so negative?

"I love the doctrines of grace with all my heart, and I think they are pride-shattering, humbling, and love-producing doctrines. But I think there is an attractiveness about them to some people, in large matter, because of their intellectual rigor. They are powerfully coherent doctrines, and certain kinds of minds are drawn to that. And those kinds of minds tend to be argumentative.

So the intellectual appeal of the system of Calvinism draws a certain kind of intellectual person, and that type of person doesn't tend to be the most warm, fuzzy, and tender. Therefore this type of person has a greater danger of being hostile, gruff, abrupt, insensitive or intellectualistic.

I'll just confess that. It's a sad and terrible thing that that's the case. Some of this type aren't even Christians, I think. You can embrace a system of theology and not even be born again."

- John Piper

 Scripture clearly teaches that "you will know them (believers) by their fruit," and that, "those who claim to love God but do not love their brothers are liars."  Now, I will be the first to admit this is a two way street.  There are a bunch of crabby non-Calvinists out there too.  However, as Piper acknowledges, there is a noticeable "superiority" complex with those who hold to these "Reformed" doctrines.   And I would like to further explore the reason why.

Give me your thoughts and I'll pick up here at a later time....

What is God waiting on?

Why does the Bible talk about God's patience and longsuffering in regard to salvation? Within the Calvinistic system, what is God waiting on? If he is the one who effectually calls isn't He just waiting on Himself to do the work?

How do you reconcile that with His being patient and longsuffering with us? If salvation is truly "all of God" what exactly is he waiting on?


Patience, in our language as well as in the original, denotes a willingness on God's part to withhold his wrath in order to wait on something. What is that something?


Let's look at some scripture:

2Pe 3:9 -
The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

Rom. 10:21 -
But concerning Israel he says, "All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and obstinate people."

Mt 23:37 - "O Jerusalem! Jerusalem that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, yet you were not willing! 

Each of these verse express God patience for men to do something. What is that?  REPENT!

Now, if God is the sole cause of repentance in men through the work of regeneration then He is not waiting on anything outside of himself.  Is he only waiting on his plan, or more specifically, on Himself to effectually call (regenerate) the sinner so that he will repent?  This understanding renders such passages meaningless and void of any real understanding of what the word patience denotes in these contexts.

T - Total Depravity

Total Depravity (Other Names: Total Inability)

Because of the fall, man is unable of himself to savingly believe the gospel. The sinner is dead, blind, and deaf to the things of God; his heart is deceitful and desperately corrupt. His will is not free, it is in bondage to his evil nature, therefore, he will not - indeed he cannot - choose good over evil in the spiritual realm. Consequently, it takes much more than the Spirit's assistance to bring a sinner to Christ - it takes regeneration by which the Spirit makes the sinner alive and gives him a new nature. Faith is not something man contributes to salvation but is itself a part of God's gift of salvation - it is God's gift to the sinner, not the sinner's gift to God.

When I was a Calvinist I believed that all men were born in a condition where they are "ever seeing but not perceiving." As seen above, this is what the doctrine of Totally Depravity taught. Men are born totally unable to willingly believe the gospel...they are blind, deaf, and spiritually dead.  I believed, as most Calvinists, that the gospel (apart from prior regeneration) is like water off a duck back...it goes in one ear and out the other...it can have absolutely NO positive effect upon a totally dead and depraved man. 

Now, however, I don't believe this to be the case. Don't get me wrong, I do still believe the condition described above is a real condition, but it is not a natural (from birth) condition of man. It is condition of a "hardened" man. One who has clearly seen and clearly heard and clearly perceived for a period of time, but who has also continually refused to accept the truth (example: the pagans described in Romans 1 who are "without excuse" because they did clearly see and understand the divine nature of God but refused to acknowledge him as such).

Hardened men have "grown calloused" over time, but they were not born that way. This is why scripture warns that we should not allow our hearts to grow hard. (Heb. 3)

Calvinists and I both agree that just because the truth can be clearly seen doesn't mean that it can be clearly perceived. The difference is that Calvinists believe this to be true of all mankind from birth, I do not.  Let me explain why:

Pharaoh eyes had seen all that the Lord did in Egypt, but as the verse goes on to say he did not have eyes to really see it. In other words, he was "ever seeing but not perceiving," right?  Why, you ask?

Was it because he was just born an idiot who couldn't see something so obvious as those plagues? Or could it be that the truth was being hidden/obscured from him so that he would continue in unbelief (as in the "cookie jar illustration" from my last post described)?  The word "blinded" is often used synomously with hardening....which is why I refer to it as "the truth being hidden." 

I'm not trying to say the truth was not being revealed, quite the opposite. The truth is always being revealed, but it just isn't understood/perceived by those who have been hardened or blinded to it.

As I have continually shown, self hardening is a process by which otherwise perceptive men become blinded to clearly revealed truth. When someone is being judicially hardened the truth is being hidden or obsured so that it is not understood, seen, or heard lest it be accepted. God does this to seal men in their already rebellous state. To the unhardened people (like the Gentiles of Christ's day) it is perfectly perceivable, but to one who has grown calloused (like the Jews of Christ's day) it is not.

(NOTE: I understand that my cookie jar analogy did not perfectly capture the aspect of hiding something that is clearly perceivable, but that wasn't the point I was attempting to make with that particular analogy. I was simply attempting to show that when truth is not revealed [in a way that it IS percieved] that a person [like my cookie hunting daughter] will continue in their plot to steal. Likewise, Pharoah, who we both agree was seeing but not perceiving the truth, continued in his unbelief. Had he not been judicially blinded, he might have seen the truth after just a plague or two and let the Israelites go prior to God's design. God wanted to show is power so he hid the truth from Pharoah to keep him in unbelief and rebellion. In doing so God brought about the passover...a foreshadowing of what was to come as he also hardened Israel to bring about the true Passover of the Lamb.)

Now, back to your original question of this post:  Is "Total Depravity," the condition of being "ever seeing but not perceiving," the natural (in born) condition of all men due to the Fall?

Hopefully my explaination above helps you to see why I would not agree with this finding. The natural reading of the text explicitly shows that hardening is a PROCESS by which men GROW or BECOME calloused/blinded/hardened over a period of time as they continually rebell. The act of judicial hardening (as seen in the case of Pharaoh) is an active and deliberate action taken by God on one particular individual or group for a period of time and for a greater redemptive purpose. I see nothing in scripture supporting the notion that all men are born in this hardened/blinded condition.

Nothing reveals this more clearly than the passage we looked at earlier. Let's read it again:
Acts 28:26 "'Go to this people and say, "You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving." 27 For this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.' 28 "Therefore I want you to know that God's salvation has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will listen!"

Paul is clearly address Israel as being men who have "become calloused." And the prophecy clearly indicates what might have been had they not grown calloused. And it goes even further to illustate the differences between the hardened nation of Israel and Gentiles.

Now, if all men where born totally deaf, totally blind and totally hardened as the doctrine of Total Depravity implies, then (1) how did these men "become/grow" deaf, blind and hardened; (2) why does it claim that they are ones closing their eyes as apposed to them being born closed; (3) why does it indicate what Israel might have done "otherwise" (if they had not grown hardened); and (4) why does it set the Gentiles a part as ones who "will listen"...after all aren't we all just as equally blind, deaf and dumb from birth in the Calvinistic system?

U - Unconditional Election

Unconditional Election

God's choice of certain individuals unto salvation before the foundation of the world rested solely in His own sovereign will. His choice of particular sinners was not based on any foreseen response of obedience on their part, such as faith, repentance, etc. On the contrary, God gives faith and repentance to each individual whom He selected. These acts are the result, not the cause of God's choice. Election therefore was not determined by or conditioned upon any virtuous quality or act foreseen in man. Those whom God sovereignly elected He brings through the power of the Spirit to a willing acceptance of Christ. Thus God's choice of the sinner, not the sinner's choice of Christ, is the ultimate cause of salvation.

L - Limited Atonement

Limited Atonement (Other names: Particular Redemption)

Christ's redeeming work was intended to save the elect only and actually secured salvation for them. His death was substitutionary endurance of the penalty of sin in the place of certain specified sinners. In addition to putting away the sins of His people, Christ's redemption secured everything necessary for their salvation, including faith which unites them to Him. The gift of faith is infallibly applied by the Spirit to all for whom Christ died, therefore guaranteeing their salvation.

I - Irresistible Grace

Irresistible Grace (Other names: Effectual Calling; Regeneration; New Birth)

In addition to the outward general call to salvation which is made to everyone who hears the gospel, the Holy Spirit extends to the elect a special inward call that inevitably brings them to salvation. The internal call (which is made only to the elect) cannot be rejected; it always results in conversion. By means of this special call the Spirit irresistibly draws sinners to Christ. He is not limited in His work of applying salvation by man's will, nor is He dependent upon man's cooperation for success. The Spirit graciously causes the elect sinner to cooperate, to believe, to repent, to come freely and willingly to Christ. God's grace, therefore, is invincible; it never fails to result in the salvation of those to whom it is extended.

Jesus calls his words "spirit and life" yet Calvinists maintain that men cannot accept them unless they have first been made alive (regenerated).

Scripture also teaches that "the truth will set you free," but Calvinists maintain that men cannot accept the truth unless they first have been made free (regenerated).

Scripture teaches that the gospel is a message of reconciliation for the world, but Calvinists teach that men cannot accept this message because they are enemies of God and thus must first be reconciled (regenerated).

Paul teaches that the gospel is the "power of God unto salvation" yet Calvinists insist that the power is in the secret "effectual call" (regeneration).

It seems to me that Calvinists have negated the power and the purpose of the means God has clearly chosen to bring life, freedom and reconciliation. How? By insisting that the WORD is not powerful in and of itself, but that it needs another means to accompany it...the inward "effectual calling."
We can find hundreds of passages that talk about the means of the gospel being preached, but since that really has no power (according to Calvinism) surely the bible must talk a lot about this so-called effectual calling. Certainly the ONLY powerful means that God uses to bring men to salvation is clearly depicted and expounded upon throughout scripture. Where?

Calvinists: The scripture clearly teaches that we are "spiritually dead!"  When did Lazarus respond to Jesus. After he had been made alive or before? 

I think you make the mistake of equating physical death with the analogy of spiritual death Paul employs. After all, Paul also teaches that believers are dead to sin, but does that mean we cannot sin? Of course not, being dead to something means that we are separated from it. We are in need of being reconciled to God because of our sin, thus we are dead to him, but that has nothing to do with the ability to respond to his message of reconciliation. 

Additionally, most Calvinists have no problem with the fact the lost have the ability to resist, rebel and fight against God's truth.  Can a dead man do this?   See, the analogy falls short on both counts if you take it too literally.


We've all heard the phrase, "You are dead to me?" This is something a father might say to a rebellious son, right?  I believe this analogy of death is very similar.  It's expressing a need to be reconciled. If it was dead, like a literal corpse then you wouldn't even have the ability to rebel. You would just be neutral doing nothing good or evil.


Additionally, you also must consider certain passages that speak of "death" as something that takes root, or is birthed within us over time.  For example, James 1 states: 

"14 But each person is tempted when he is drawn away and enticed by his own evil desires. 15 Then after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin, and when sin is fully grown, it gives birth to death."

And Paul says in Romans 7:

"8 And sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind. For apart from the law sin is dead. 9 Once I was alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life 10 and I died. The commandment that was meant for life resulted in death for me. 11 For sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me, and through it killed me."

So, is scripture consistent in use of the analogy of "death" with regard to the nature of man from birth? And even if we could be certain that death is the condition from birth, what scripture explicitly teaches us that the "message of reconciliation," the "power of God unto Salvation," the "sword of the Spirit, the "life giving message of the Gospel," is somehow insufficient to give a "dead" man what is needed to be made alive?

P - Perseverance of the Saints

Perseverance of the Saints:

All who are chosen by God, redeemed by Christ, and given faith by the Spirit are eternally saved. They are kept in faith by the power of Almighty God and thus persevere to the end.

Salvation is much like the attribute of "love."  If it is true love it will not fail.  If it is true salvation it will persevere.  "Those who have gone away from us, were never really of us," the apostle says.  This however, should not be used to dismiss the clear warnings of scripture to not allow our hearts to grow hardened (Heb 3); to not become arrogant, lest we like Israel, are cut off (Rm 11); and to always forgive others so that God will forgive us (Lk 7).  Our doctrinal systems should never undermine the clear intent of God's warnings in scripture.  We should never take our forgiveness for granted under the banner of "ONCE SAVED ALWAYS SAVED," as if these clear warnings against falling away could never really happen.  If the scripture warns believers to not allow their hearts to grow hardened, then there must be a distinct possibility for that to occur.  If the scripture warns believers to forgive others lest the Father not forgive them, there is no reason to dismiss the possiblity of that warning.

Which is really more SOVEREIGN?

Calvinists think they are defending the Lord's sovereignty by trying to insist that men don't have "free will" and has decreed all things that come to pass, but really when you think about it which is more impressive with regard to "sovereignty:"

God decreeing/ordaining all things before they occur so as to accomplish his purpose.

OR

God accomplishing his ultimate purposes in, through and despite all sinful and unholy things?

I think the latter is much more impressive and a much greater display of His Sovereign abilities. Plus, you don't have to deal with the whole culpability of God issues and the tedious explanations of 2nd causes... 

Are you Pelagian since you deny Total Depravity?

Most people confuse Pelagianism with Arminianism. Arminianism affirms total depravity but alleges an overcoming prevenient grace. Pelagianism is what denies total depravity. Are you Pelagian?

Actually it depends upon how far you take "Total Depravity." For example, I could live with this Calvinistic defination of TD:

Article 3: Total Inability

Therefore, all people are conceived in sin and are born children of wrath, unfit for any saving good, inclined to evil, dead in their sins, and slaves to sin; without the grace of the regenerating Holy Spirit they are neither willing nor able to return to God, to reform their distorted nature, or even to dispose themselves to such reform.  -Synod of Dort

I know that the authors of this article intended this to mean that the Holy Spirit must irresistably and inwardly regenerate the man before he can "return to God." But they don't say that. Arminians agree that it takes the grace of the Holy Spirit for regeneration to occur. 

I agree with this statement from the Synod of Dort in the since that the Holy Spirit must work to bring regeneration, which I believe He does through the means of the gospel, not the means of some secret irresistable calling. So I guess someone might say my real problem would be with irresistable grace.

Yes, I do have a problem with Irresistable Grace but that is not the extent of the problem. The part of TD that I have a problem with is the part that there is ANOTHER means, a secret inward means of grace necessary to work in the heart of man to give him the ability to respond to the means of the gospel. That is NO WHERE to be found in the text of scripture. The ONLY means of grace the Holy Spirit uses is the WORD! If you can show me where another means is taught in the text I'd be glad to look at it, but I haven't seen it yet.