Why I Disagree With Calvinism

Disclaimer: This is another religious post. This time I'll be writing about doctrine and theology. The views expressed in this blog post are my own. I do intend offense or disrespect toward anyone. I will be writing about a rather popular theological system that I find to be quite disgusting and wrong, given the scriptures. I hope you enjoy.

Calvinism. Some call it Reformed Christianity, or Reformed Theology. I call it something else. See, I disagree with it. But what is it?

The overly generalized form of John Calvin's theological system is contained within the acronym TULIP, which breaks down as follows:

T - Total Depravity / Total Inability
U - Unconditional Election
L - Limited Atonement
I - Irresistible Grace
P - Perseverance of the Saints

Believing each of these points renders one a "5-Point Calvinist." Some people only hold to a few of the points. Some hold to even stricter definitions. John Piper, a Baptist minister from Minneapolis, Minnesota, is sometimes jokingly referred to as a 19-Point Calvinist looking for 6 more points. In honesty, Piper's notion of the 5 points is different from historic Calvinism, but depending on your outlook, his idea could be much worse than historic Calvinism.

We're only focused on the main five, though. Let's go over each one.

Total Depravity / Total Inability - 
This first point of Calvinism states that mankind is utterly depraved and is utterly unable to come to God of his own free will. In some definitions of Total Depravity/Inability, it is defined as man lacking the ability to come to God and trust in Him, unless God has foreordained him to salvation.

But this is not true according to scripture. The Calvinist relies on Irresistible Grace (point #4) for man to be saved. They say that for a man to be saved, God must have already ordained him to salvation, and God must draw him irresistibly into salvation. Yet every invitation in the scripture reveals a different nature of God. The final invitation written in the Bible, Revelation 22:17, reads "And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely." It's not difficult to read that scripture and see that any who seeks God can come to Him. It says "him that is athirst," not "him that God has irresistibly made thirsty."

John 5:40 reads "And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life."

 Total Depravity insists that all men are born into the sin of Adam. I agree. All men are born in sin. But the Calvinist position is that, since babies are born in sin, if they die in infancy, unless God had already chosen them as one of the Elect, that baby burns in Hell, having committed no worse sin than being born, and having no knowledge of sin. Romans 5:13 says sin is not imputed where there is no law. Therefore a baby, who has no knowledge of the law and its effectiveness as a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ, cannot be held accountable for sin. I believe God reveals His own stance on this, by speaking of babies as having no knowledge of good or evil, and calling the children of non-Jews "innocent." That's a strong stance against the idea that babies go to Hell if they aren't Elect.

Unconditional Election - 
Before the dawn of time, before God even created the world, He had already decided who would be saved and who would not. He "elected" those who would be saved in a manner in which they cannot help but be saved.

This interminable doctrine establishes as a foundation of Calvinism the belief that God "elected" some to salvation and He "elected" the remainder to damnation. Seeing as the Elect cannot possibly lose their election, this point of Calvinism completely negates the need for evangelism. Why Calvinists bother preaching is beyond me. Paul wrote in Romans 10:9-15 saying "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!" According to the doctrine of Election, the Elect cannot possibly lose their Election, and the damned cannot possibly gain Election, so Paul's expressed necessity that the gospel be preached is obviously in error. What else misses the boat? Oh yeah, the Great Commission.

The Great Commission, found in Matthew 28:16-20... "Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted. And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen."...is rendered pointless, as God has already selected the saved and the damned. Man does not have the free will to accept God, and therefore cannot possibly respond to the gospel, and God has already determined the saved and the damned and no act of man will change that determination. Therefore, no gospel is required under Calvinism. We can all just sit back and relax.

I know this sounds flippant, and I hope no one takes offense, but it is true that Calvinism's doctrine of Unconditional Election, when coupled with Limited Atonement and Irresistible Grace, renders the necessity of gospel preaching moot.

In fact, we see in some places in the Bible where God implores man to repent. He calls on all men to repent (Acts 17:30). Why would God call on all men to repent if He never intended to honor the repentance of all men in the first place?

This is, along with the next point of the acronym, the most disgusting and disturbing of Calvinism's points. It completely flies in the face of the many invitations listed in the scripture. It takes scripture that is plain and clear, and spits in its face. The idea that God has already decided the fate of everyone, choosing to save only a few and to utterly damn the rest for eternity, is so unscriptural as to be sickening. This does not mean that God does not know who will and who won't accept Him. No Christian would argue that, as it would mean God is not omniscient, which we hold that He is. No, God knows who will accept Him, but we do not believe, and scripture does not back up, that God has forced each person into their fate.

Instead, this point of doctrine demands that we accept the fact that God does not love everyone. In fact, by "electing" so many to utter damnation, we can only accept that God must indeed hate many, many people. By electing so many to Hell, we are taught that God never intended to save them. But that flies in the face of clear scripture. 2 Peter 3:9 is quite clear, "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that anyshould perish, but that all should come to repentance."

1 Timothy 2:3-4 also clearly states God's desire, "For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth." It is the desire of God to see everyone saved, yet He does not force salvation upon anyone...unless you believe in Calvinist doctrine.

Limited Atonement - 
When Christ came to Earth, went through His earthly ministry, and was falsely condemned by the Sanhedrin, taken before Pilate, and eventually crucified, He provided atonement for sins. According to Limited Atonement, Christ only died for those God elected. He did not die for all mankind. Those who are not the Elect were not included in the number that Christ atoned for.

As I stated earlier, this point of the acronym is one I find utterly reprehensible. What boggles the mind is how many people believe this point, while seemingly ignoring the amount of clear scripture that negates it.

Here are just a few verses that cut the foundation out from under Limited Atonement...

Isaiah 53:6 "All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all." This Old Testament verse quite clearly sums up the actions of Jesus Christ related to the entirety of humanity. All of us, the whole of mankind, had gone astray from God, and while we could atone through sacrifices that were not permanent, God in His Grace, offered up Himself, Christ the Son, to take our place, taking on Himself the iniquity of everyone.

Hebrews 2:9 "But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man." Again, we are clearly shown that Jesus Christ died for all mankind. The Calvinist will argue that these scriptures apply only to the Elect. That is the sad state of their doctrine, that they must take clear and understandable scripture and twist it into a complicated doctrine.

1 John 2:1-2 "My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." John is writing this epistle to fellow believers, but he explicitly states that Christ died not only for them, but for the whole world.

2 Peter 2:1 "But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction." Peter is writing to believers, but he clearly writes that even those opposed to God, and who have denied God, are doing nothing more than denying the God that had bought them through the sacrifice.

The atonement cannot possibly be limited. If it is, then the atonement of God is no greater than sin, seeing as scripture tells us more are going into destruction and damnation than into righteousness and glory (Matthew 7:13-14). Yet scripture also tells us that "...where sin abounded, grace did much more abound (Romans 5:20)." If grace abounded much more than sin, then the atonement must be universal, as sin is already universal.

Irresistible Grace - 
When God calls one of His Elect unto salvation, they have no option but to be saved. According to this point, mankind has absolutely no control over anything. This point of Calvinism is the one they use to deny the free will of mankind. They'll throw around terms like "man is bound by his sin nature, so man has a free will, but it is only to sin." Some go so far as to say everything man does prior to salvation is sin. You know that old lady you helped across the street? Yep, you were sinning the whole time.

No scripture talks about God irresistibly compelling anyone to do anything, much less be saved. No, scripture is clear. God calls, and man must answer. Man can answer by either accepting God on the terms of the gospel, or he can deny and reject God, turning unto his own sin.

Jesus, looking over Jerusalem, stated in Matthew 23:37 "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!" If God truly desired these people to come to Him, and He possesses irresistible grace to force them to do so, then why did Jesus lament the rejection He felt from Jerusalem? Why not just force them to turn to Him?

Because God does not work that way. We're told not to quench the Spirit, which is a clear indicator to us that God can be resisted. God said in Genesis that His Spirit will not always strive with man. A person can spurn God enough times that God, even with His great love, will withdraw from them, turning them over to a reprobate mind.

Titus 2:11 states "For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men." We already know that God desires everyone to be saved. However, God created us as free moral agents, able to act in a way that, when He calls us, we can either answer Him, or reject Him. Consider the woman caught in adultery. When brought before Christ, He drove away her accusers and turned to her, telling her to "Go, and sin no more." The impetus was on her to no longer sin. Christ didn't force her to not sin. He instructed her not to.

Perseverance of the Saints - 
What this means is that a child of God, once saved, can never stray from the path of righteousness. I disagree.

Now, I do not doubt the eternal security of the believer. I hold to "once saved, always saved," even though some discredit that phrase and cast doubt on those who hold to it. I believe that I am saved to the uttermost, and sealed unto the day of redemption. I believe that, as it is written in John 10:28, "And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand." If Christ granted me "eternal life" and I can somehow lose it, then that doesn't make it very eternal, does it?

I don't believe I am sealed because I persevere, although there is much to the positive to be said about a Christian persevering. No, I am sealed and granted eternal life because Christ has "preserved" me. I believe in the way in which Jude opened his letter, "them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ."

Conclusion -
In short, I cannot stand the doctrine of Calvinism. The only doctrine I despise even more is the prosperity gospel. But do not take this writing to mean that I am an Arminian. One of the worst things to happen in modern society is the desire to set up a dichotomy on every issue. If you aren't a Democrat then you must be a Republican. If you aren't pro-life then you must be pro-choice. If you aren't Calvinist then you must be Arminian.

No. The Arminian doctrine is equally horrific. Neither Arminianism or Calvinism holds true to scripture.

Truth be told, from my perspective, Calvinism assigns a nearly-monstrous nature to God that, in order for Scripture to be held true, must invariably reveal a God willing to conceal His motivations and actions through duplicitous statements and outright lies to certain people. Yet the Bible clearly tells us that God cannot lie.

I'll take scripture, divinely inspired and protected by God for thousands of years, over the doctrines of a theologian who lived 1400 years after the last piece of scripture was written.

Remembering Jules Bianchi

The worst weekend in Formula 1 history will always be the weekend of the Grand Prix at Imola in 1994. The weekend nearly saw the end of Rubens Barrichello's career after a terribly accident. The circuit did claim the lives of Roland Ratzenberger during qualifying and Ayrton Senna during the race. For 21 years, that would stand as the last Formula 1 fatality relate to a racing accident.


On October 5, 2014, as the rains began to pour down during the Japanese Grand Prix at Suzuka, Sauber driver Adrian Sutil crashed out around the Dunlop Curve (Turn 7). The race marshals issued double yellow flags for that portion of the track as workers moved out a heavy crane to lift Sutil's broken car.

As the track workers lifted Sutil's car from the run-off area, Jules Bianchi lost control of his Marussia car and speared directly into the back of the crane. His car essentially sideswiped the crane with enough force to lift the heavy machine off the ground, causing Sutil's car to drop back to the ground. The entire left side of Bianchi's car was demolished, including the roll bar. Bianchi's helmet struck the crane with great force.

He was reported unresponsive by both the team over radio and by track medical workers. Bianchi was treated and ruched to the on-site medical center before being driven to the Mie Prefecture General Medical Center, the nearest hospital to the Suzuka Circuit, which was nearly ten miles away. The rains from Typhoon Phanfone were making it impossible for helicopters to make the trip much faster. Bianchi's condition after the accident was not positive. He was comatose, suffering a diffuse axonal injury.

Bianchi remained in the hospital in Yokkaido for several weeks before being transferred to a hospital closer to his family in Nice, France. Bianchi remained in a coma from October 2014 until July 2015. His father revealed only days before that the family was "less optimistic" about Bianchi's chances for recovery. Only a few days later, after a nearly ten month long fight, Bianchi succumbed to his injuries. He was 25 years old.

Bianchi is the first Formula 1 driver to die of injuries sustained during an in-race accident since Ayrton Senna's death in 1994. Senna's death sparked a revolution in safety measures within the series. Bianchi's injuries have already brought about positive changes in Formula 1. Race times have been pushed forward to avoid dim-light situations like we saw at Suzuka. F1 also instituted the "virtual safety car," allowing the race director to essentially "freeze" the race field in order to account for driver safety during any situation that could potentially prove dangerous for drivers.

 Bianchi started 34 Formula 1 Grands Prix. He drove solely for the Marussia F1 team, though he was a test driver for both Scuderia Ferrari and Sahara Force India. At the Mocao Grand Prix in 2014, Bianchi scored the only points Marussia has scored in Formula 1. While he never got the opportunity to rack up impressive stats in F1, Bianchi showed huge promise. He was a driver on the rise, pegged by many to be a potential future title contender.

Formula 1 has lost one of its best up-and-coming drivers. Bianchi will be remembered by those who got to see him race. He was always in an inferior car, but he wrung every bit of performance he could out of it.

Forza Jules!

2015 Right Wing College Football Preview Edition

Around this time every year, I offer up some preseason thoughts on college football. 

Last year we saw the first ever College Football Playoff. Ohio State came basically out of nowhere to win the National Championship. The Buckeyes took down Alabama and Oregon to win the title. This year, we get to experience the Playoff's second chance. The bowls looked different last year, with the playoff forcing some match-ups we hadn't seen in a while. This year should be even more interesting. So what are we picking this year? Let's find out.

Conference Previews:

Preview: The American Athletic Conference in 2015 is splitting into two divisions, bringing about a championship game. The East (Cincinnati, Connecticut, East Carolina, South Florida, Temple, UCF) winner will face the winner of the West (Houston, Memphis, Navy, SMU, Tulane, Tulsa) on December 5. Navy is new to the party, but this alignment may give the AAC some sense of stability. I still would not be surprised if someone eventually tries to poach Cincinnati (lookin' at you, Big XII).

Champion (winner in BOLD): East Carolina vs Memphis (this line ↓ still will not go away)

Atlantic Coast Conference:

Preview: This is the year that Florida State takes a step back. They'll be competitive, no doubt, but the conference as a whole is catching up. An early November trip to Clemson will seal the deal for the Noles not winning their division this year. Clemson will take it instead. I look for the Tigers to face off with Georgia Tech, who return a solid team that can seemingly run the ball on anyone. Clemson is just a little more talented, though. Then again, I've predicted this before and Clemson somehow seems to Clemson in the most Clemson way possible...

Championship Game (winner in BOLD): Clemson vs Georgia Tech

Big 12

Preview: Last year the conference that crowns "one true champion" declared itself to have co-champions in a bid to get two teams into the College Football Playoff. That bid failed spectacularly, and the Big XII was left out of the playoff altogether. This year, the conference will not try the co-champions road again, and I think it will pay off for them. Baylor and TCU seem once more to be the class of the conference, and a Thanksgiving weekend match-up should prove the winner of the conference. TCU has the better QB, but Baylor has the better team. Oklahoma remains in the slow climb back to powerhouse status, as does Texas. I'm still looking for the Big XII to rope in a couple of new teams in the next few years in order to re-establish the conference title game they lost when Nebraska, Colorado, Missouri, and Texas A&M fled for friendlier confines.

Champion: Baylor

Big Ten

Preview: The Big Ten claimed the first ever College Football Playoff National Championship. The BCS is forever dead and gone. Once again, Ohio State looks to be the class of the conference. The Buckeyes have three legitimate starting QBs and a RB who came on strong at the end of the season. Their most likely opponent in the Big Ten title game is old foe Wisconsin. Once the Buckeyes dispatch the Badgers, they should lock up a spot in the playoffs once again.

Championship Game (winner in BOLD): Ohio State vs Wisconsin

PAC-12

Preview: The PAC-12 is probably the top overall conference, outside the SEC. Oregon remains a title threat, though USC and UCLA are both on the rise. Arizona and Arizona State are both poised to make some noise this year, as well. USC, I think, will fight their way out of a crowded South division while Oregon should make easy work of the North. I'm actually thinking that USC will earn a spot in the playoff this year. The committee would absolutely love that.

Championship Game (winner in BOLD): Oregon vs USC

Southeastern Conference

Preview: For two years the SEC has failed to win the national championship. That wouldn't be a big deal for most conferences, but the SEC got accustomed to the crystal football living in the southeast. For some reason, everyone seems to be buying the hype on Auburn this year. I'm not...at least, not yet. I still think Alabama is the class of the SEC West. Missouri will not win the East again. That crown will pass to Georgia. The Dawgs simply have too powerful a running game and their defense under Jeremy Pruitt will be top five in the nation, not just the conference.

Championship Game (winner in BOLD): Alabama vs Georgia

The Other Conferences:

Conference USA: Marshall vs Louisiana Tech
Honestly, the way Marshall's schedule is set, they could very well go undefeated.

MAC: Toledo vs Bowling Green
Why Toledo? Why not Toledo?

Mountain West: Boise State vs Fresno State
Boise State should win the Mountain West this year.

Sun Belt: Georgia Southern
Georgia Southern should be up to winning the conference this year.

(Absurdly Early and Sure to be Wrong) Bowl Game Predictions:

College Football Playoff (Orange Bowl): Alabama vs Baylor

College Football Playoff (Cotton Bowl): Ohio State vs USC

College Football Playoff (Championship): Ohio State vs Alabama

Fiesta Bowl: Boise State vs Oregon

Sugar Bowl: TCU vs Georgia

Citrus Bowl: Notre Dame vs Auburn

Rose Bowl: Arizona State vs Michigan State

Outback Bowl: LSU vs Nebraska

Peach Bowl: Clemson vs Wisconsin

(Off-The-Wall Sure To Be Wrong) Season Predictions and Statements:

The Heisman Race Will be Between...: Georgia RB Nick Chubb and TCU QB Trevone Boykin. Chubb has one of the best offensive lines in college football paving the way for him. Boykin will put up crazy numbers in an insane TCU offensive gameplan. History favors the QB, but do not count out Nick Chubb.

Head Coaching changes...: At least one Power Five team will change head coaching this year due to disappointment. Someone who should do well this year will flounder and struggle to finish .500 or better.

The Five Best Non-Conference Games will be...: 

September 5 - Alabama vs Wisconsin

September 5 - Auburn vs Louisville (Chick-Fil-A Kickoff Classic)

September 12 - Oregon at Michigan State
October 3 - Notre Dame at Clemson
November 28 - Georgia at Georgia Tech

Random Statements: 
1. No major records will fall this season, unlike last year.
2. Rumors will swirl that at least one team will change conference after the season.