Five Reasons Calvinism is a False Doctrine

This guy s entire "ministry" seems to consist of this and one other blog article, so it's hard to glean where he's coming from. I guess he's a Wesleyan or some other consistent Arminian. Unlike your more run-of-the-mill evangelical Arminian, he recognizes that he's undermined the theological rationale for eternal security, or perseverence of the saints, or whatever you prefer to call it, and he's just abandoned that, too.

It is the concept of being saved forever once you are saved and that you cannot lose your salvation. While it is true that believers have grace and that true believers will walk in humility because they are still not perfect people, the way someone can still lose their salvation is by walking away from the faith (1 Timothy 1:18–20).​

Actually, 1 Tim. 1:18-20 doesn't say anyone walked away from the faith. It says they made a shipwreck of their faith. Paul had personal experience with shipwrecks. In the one instance we know about (Acts 27:27-44), the ship was destroyed, but no life was lost. By analogy, we can make a wreck of our faith without losing our eternal life. Paul doesn't say Hymenaeus and Alexander had abandoned the faith; he says they were being taught not to blaspheme. The purpose of church discipline isn't to eject people from the faith, but to bring them to repentance and restore them to fellowship. We don't know that Hymenaeus's and Alexander's apostasy was permanent. Maybe it was, maybe not. Beside the point.

Jesus said,

"My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.” (John 10:27-30)​

No one can snatch one of God's children out of his hand, but this Keith Rivas thinks he's strong enough, by his own will, to pry God's fingers apart and just walk out of them. What arrogance.
 
Rivas starts by trying to take on total depravity:

By definition, the concept of total depravity is that we are completely unable and unwilling to recognize the truth without God drawing us. This conclusion, from the Calvinist perspective, is derived from reading John 6:44.​

Well... that's one place, yes. I would say a more significant place is the epistle to the Romans, specifically the first three chapters, which culminates in this catena of citations from the Old Testament:

“None is righteous, no, not one;
no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good,
not even one.”
“Their throat is an open grave;
they use their tongues to deceive.”
The venom of asps is under their lips.”
“Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.”
“Their feet are swift to shed blood;
in their paths are ruin and misery,
and the way of peace they have not known.”
“There is no fear of God before their eyes.” (Rom. 3:11-18)​

I've remarked before how so many Arminians posit a position of moral neutrality in the natural man toward God: he's sitting on the fence between salvation and condemnation, with the unbeliever able to choose which side to climb down to. Some are operational Pelagians and deny original sin; others believe in an assumed "prevenient grace" granted to all men to raise them to this place of neutrality.

But there is no neutral position. No one does good. You can't read that litany in Romans 3 and come away thinking it's not all that bad. No one seeks God; indeed, in the natural state, no one wants to. "The mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot" (Rom. 8:7). The natural man isn't neutral towards God. He's God's enemy. He's staked his claim firmly on Satan's side of the fence and is jeering at God over it. Jesus says nothing different in John 6:44; no one can come to him, because they are hostile to God. Only if the Father draws him can he come

Rivas tries to draw an equivalence between John 6:44 and 12:32. This isn't an uncommon claim. The problem with it is that the word "draw" in these verses is assumed to mean something like "attract," when that isn't its definition.

In 6:44, ἕλκω means to draw in the sense of dragging; it's the word used of pulling a net full of fish into a boat (John 21:11), or of Paul and Silas being dragged into the marketplace by a mob (Acts 16:19). Are these subjects that went of their own free will?

John 12:32 uses the same word, but we also need to note the context. The time is just after the Triumphal Entry, before the Passover. "Among those who went up to worship at the feast were some Greeks. So these came to Philip, who was from Bethsaida in Galilee, and asked him, 'Sir, we wish to see Jesus'" (12:20-21). Until this time, Jesus has been ministering almost exclusively to the Jews; when he helps a Gentile like the Syrophoenician woman, it's made clear this is an exception to his general practice. But Jesus realizes, now, that these Gentiles are a portent of something significant: "The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified" (23); and, "Now is the judgment of this world; now will the ruler of this world be cast out. And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself" (31-32). Here, it seems, there's a change: the visiting Greeks portend a change to Jesus's ministry. Whereas his ministry before was to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, in his death and resurrection its scope changes. "All people"--all kinds of people, from all over the world--will be drawn to him. The New Covenant isn't just for Jews, but Jew and Gentile alike. None of this argues in favour of being "drawn" as an act of free will.

Rivas makes a leap to "all men are now drawn with the ability to choose to follow or choose to rebel." But he doesn't explain how he gets there. So total depravity is left unrefuted. Rivas still needs to deal, not only with John 6:44, but Romans 3:11-18, Rom. 8:7, and 1 Cor. 2:14, just to start.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top