Tulip

A Response to TULIP Or Five-Point Calvinism
On Just a Few Points

Duane Edward Spencer wrote a brief book called TULIP: The Five Points of Calvinism in the Light of Scripture. He explains these points in it and how opposed they are to the five points of Arminianism. His book is clearly written. This is a response to just a few of his points and to Five-Point Calvinism, if his book truly represents this view.

He starts by showing the error of Arminianism. It is indeed a wrong view of God and His character, if his description is correct. I have not seen or heard good theology in Arminianism, and I desire you to know this at the outset. I will be questioning Five-Point Calvinism while affirming that Arminianism is wrong.

Mr. Spencer stated on page 24, “Total Depravity means that man in his natural state is incapable of doing anything or desiring anything pleasing to God.” If this is true, I should not be able to find any unbeliever in the Bible who desired anything that would please God if fulfilled. I will present the following case:

2 Kings 5:1 Now Naaman, captain of the host of the king of Syria, was a great and honourable man with his master, because Yehovah had given deliverance unto Syria by him. He was also a mighty man in valour, but he was a leper. ²And the Syrians went out by companies. And they brought a little maid away captive out of the land of Israel. And she waited on Naaman’s wife. ³And she said unto her mistress, “Would God my lord were with the prophet that is in Samaria! For he would recover him of his leprosy!” ⁴And one went in. And he told his lord saying the maid that is of the land of Israel said thus and thus. ⁵And the king of Syria said, “Go! Go, and I will send a letter unto the king of Israel!” And he departed. And he took ten talents of silver and six thousand pieces of gold and ten changes of raiment with him. ⁶And he brought the letter to the king of Israel, saying, “Now when this letter is come unto thee, behold, I have therewith sent Naaman my servant to thee that thou mayest recover him of his leprosy.”

I first established that Naaman is an unbeliever, an attacker of Israel. He desired to go to the prophet in Samaria to be cured, and Yehovah desired that too. It therefore pleased God for him to come. Mr. Spencer’s point is in error. An unbeliever can desire something pleasing to God. His generalization is without warrant.

On page 25, Mr. Spencer purports: “In the sight of God the ‘best hearted man’ holds only evil thoughts because they are oriented to doing human good for the glory of himself or Satan, but never for the glory of the Creator.” He justifies this notion with Genesis 6:5, “every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” Mr. Spencer’s view is that the evilness of one’s thoughts is due to his motives, not its content. This would not hold up in any secular court, and it is not described in any Biblical judgment, since each will be judged according to his works (not his motives):

1 Peter 1:17 And if ye call on the Father Who judges without respect of persons according to every man’s work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear.

Revelation 20:12 And I saw the small and great dead stand before God. And the books were opened. And another book that is the book of life was opened. And the dead were judged according to their works out of those things that were written in the books.

Revelation 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead who were in it. And Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged every man according to their works.

Genesis 6:5 described a time so bad that Yehovah destroyed man from the face of the earth with the exceptions of Noah and his immediate family. Stating that man is always in this state of evil and violence is the same as declaring that no place has any righteous persons except one. For only one was righteous in Noah’s day when Yehovah spoke of the flood. The Bible shows something quite the opposite: that men who are not born of God can do things that are good in the sight of Yehovah. The following text is literally translated from the Hebrew:

Genesis 20:5 “Is it not he said to me, ‘My sister is he!’ And she said—also he—she said, ‘He is my brother!’ I did this in the perfection of my heart and in the innocence of my hands!” ⁶And the Elohim said unto him in a dream, “Indeed I, I knew that thou didst this in the perfection of thine heart. And I—indeed I restrained thee from sinning to me! Therefore I did not give thee to touch unto her!”

Abimelech, a violent, ungodly leader of a violent, ungodly people declared that he did an act in the perfection of his heart, and Yehovah fully agreed. This text overthrows Mr. Spencer’s teaching that “In the sight of God the ‘best hearted man’ holds only evil thoughts.”

Mr. Spencer states on page 25, “When man insists that he still has a spark of divine good resident in his heart, and that he is seeking after God, the Word of God answers:

‘There is none righteous, no not one! There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God’ (Rom. 3:10-11).”

Many use texts to prove their points. I do not doubt that Mr. Spencer was not the first to use this text without understanding what it communicates. This Romans text is a quotation from Psalm 14. The first four verses literally rendered may give you a clue regarding its context:

Psalm 14:1 To the Overcomer, to David. Fool said in his heart, “There are no gods.” They have slaughtered! They have abominated an act! There is no doer of good. ²Yehovah from the heavens peered upon the children of adam to see: “Is there a prudent [one] researching gods?” ³ “Has everyone turned? They have soured together! There is not a doer of good! There is not even one! ⁴ Haven’t all the workers of iniquity, eaters of My People, known? They have eaten the bread of Yehovah! They have not called the Name!”

The none righteous refers to folks among the fools, workers of iniquity who are attacking the People of Israel.

Righteous folks exist in every generation, but not among certain groups. If no righteous person exists among today’s Christians, Christianity is a most hopeless religion, certainly without the power to save anyone. But what about non-Christians?

The Bible describes acts that certain unbelievers will do during the Tribulation. After the Saints have been gathered, after the Tribulation has ended and before the Millennial reign of Messiah Yeshua has begun, the Saints will go over the entire planet to arrest and avenge all who have not been gathered. Some (those with the seal of the Antichrist) will be slaughtered on the spot. The rest will be brought back for judgment, as Matthew 25 records:

Matthew 25:31 When the Son of man shall come in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then shall He sit upon the throne of His glory. ³²And all nations shall be gathered before Him. And He shall separate them one from another as a shepherd divideth sheep from the goats. ³³And He shall set the sheep on His right hand and the goats on the left. ³⁴Then the King shall say unto them on His right hand, “Come, ye blessed of my Father! Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world! ³⁵For I was hungry, and ye gave me food. I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink. I was a stranger, and ye took me in!— ³⁶naked, and ye clothed me. I was sick, and ye visited me. I was in prison, and ye came unto me!” ³⁷Then the righteous shall answer Him, saying, “Sir, when did we see thee hungry, and we fed, or thirsty, and we gave drink? ³⁸When did we see thee a stranger, and we took in, or naked, and we clothed? ³⁹Or when did we see thee sick or in prison, and we came unto thee?” ⁴⁰And the King shall answer and say unto them, “Faith! I say unto you, inasmuch as ye have done unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done unto me!” ⁴¹Then shall He say also unto them on the left hand, “Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and His angels! ⁴²For I was hungry, and ye gave me no food! I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink! ⁴³I was a stranger, and ye didn’t take me in— naked, and ye didn’t clothe me— sick and in prison, and ye didn’t visit me!” ⁴⁴Then they also shall answer Him, saying, “Sir! When did we see thee hungry or athirst or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and didn’t minister unto thee?” ⁴⁵Then He shall answer them saying, “Faith! I say unto you, inasmuch as ye didn’t to one of the least of these, ye didn’t to me!” ⁴⁶And these shall go away into everlasting punishment, and the righteous into everlasting life.

Verse 37 states, “Then the righteous shall answer Him.” Yet they didn’t even know Who Yeshua was, nor that they were doing anything toward Him by helping His brethren (the Israelis)! Yehovah in His sovereignty has called them righteous based on what they did, and has determined to give them Salvation. Even a five-point Calvinist cannot argue against the counsels and the sovereignty of God, or against the standard He uses to call a man righteous!

Properly using a text makes a great difference. Anyone attempting to prove points in the Bible while misusing texts is doing evil no matter how ‘right’ his points may be.

On page 26, Mr. Spencer states, “Total Depravity means that the natural man is completely incapable of discerning Truth.” He thus removes all responsibility from ‘natural man’. Is he right? He quotes 1 Corinthians 2:14:

1 Corinthians 2:14 “The natural (i.e., soulish) man receives not the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him. Neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”

Mr. Spencer made no distinction between discerning Truth and receiving and knowing the things of the Spirit of God. Natural man can and does know certain truth, as Paul avers by the Spirit of God:

Romans 1:19 That which may be known of God is manifest in them [Greeks, Barbarians, men], for God has showed it unto them. ²⁰For the invisible things of Him are clearly seen from the creation of the world, being understood by the things that are made—even His eternal power and Godhead—so that they are without excuse. ²¹For when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful. But they became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. ²²Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools ²³and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man and to birds and four footed beasts and creeping things.

God showed Truth to them, and they knew God (Who is Truth). They refused both, and made their own gods. They are responsible with full knowledge. They would not have been guilty had they not been able to discern truth any more than a horse is guilty for not understanding proper moral conduct.

Mr. Spencer quotes John 3:3, “Unless a man is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God” as if ‘see’ meant ‘understand’. It literally means to obtain a view with the eyes and does not refer to understanding. Does he make the kingdom of God non-literal?

Mr. Spencer states on page 27, “Faith follows the giving of Life.” This is a very important point of his five-point Calvinism. He states, “They are totally depraved, wholly incapable of thinking, perceiving, or doing anything pleasing to God, until God sees fit to give them Life and understanding.” He backs up his point by observing the order in the next text:

“God, who is rich in mercy, for His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in sins, hath made us alive together with Christ (by grace are ye saved)” (Eph. 2:4-5).

He thus has a man ‘saved’ before the man has faith. The Bible also has things to say about this:

John 3:15 That whosoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

John 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one who sees the Son and believeth on Him may have everlasting life. And I will raise him up at the last day.

John 20:31 But these are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing, ye might have life through His Name.

1 Timothy 1:16 Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might show forth all longsuffering for a pattern to them who should hereafter believe on Him to life everlasting.

I italicized each word or phrase showing that the order is first to believe, then to obtain life. I did not find this order reversed. Mr. Spencer did not understand the text he quoted. If it were placed in better order for English speakers, it would say,

“God Who is rich in mercy hath made us alive together with Christ even when we were dead in sins, for His great love with which He loved us (by grace are ye saved).”

This text does not show that faith follows the giving of life; it does not even mention faith. Mr. Spencer did not carefully identify the pronouns (us, we, ye). Had he done so, he might have realized that us and we refer to the Israelis, while ye refers to the Ephesian Saints.

Mr. Spencer thinks so (page 27), as do nearly all modern theologians. They do not know that this word is often found in the Hebrew, and sometimes points to a radically different definition. ‘Unmerited favor’ defines mercy, not grace. Grace is a fervent, burning zeal by which one is actuated. Put another way, it is a very, very strong zeal for anything or anyone that moves a person to action. The action might be for, or it might be against. A mother’s grace toward her child will move her to act against an attacker while moving her to protect her child.

Mr. Spencer is sometimes right. He states that Salvation is the Gift of God, and not the work of man. This is true.

He also states that faith is a gift. I see where Grace is a gift; I have looked to see if faith is a gift, and I haven’t found it.

Mr. Spencer is attempting to prove that God’s foreknowledge is elective—that is, that He determines that something will be, then ‘foreknows’ it into reality (making foreknowledge causative). On page 30, he says that foreknowledge must be founded upon the purpose of God. He then quotes Romans 9:11 in the following way:

“For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God might stand according to election, not of works, but of him that calleth … it is written, ‘Jacob have I loved, and Esau have I hated’ ” (Romans 9:11).

This makes God’s purpose and calling to be loving Jacob and hating Esau. Now, consider the same text without the ellipsis (the ‘…’):

“For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God might stand according to election, not of works, but of him that calleth, It was said unto her, ‘The elder shall serve the younger,’ as it is written, ‘Jacob have I loved, and Esau have I hated’ ” (Romans 9:11).

This properly makes God’s purpose and calling for Esau to serve Jacob instead of loving Jacob and hating Esau.

Mr. Spencer cannot show that Yehovah’s loving Jacob and hating Esau was due to Yehovah purpose (that is, that He determined to hate Esau from before the foundation of the world, and therefore designed him to be despicable). When folks use ellipses (…) to blank out what they feel in not pertinent, they often blank out the Truth.

Mr. Spencer states that Paul reaffirms unconditional election when he writes:

“God hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began…” (2 Tim. 1:9)

He does not realize that us refers to the Israelis, and that all the Israelis together have one calling. The Bible has unconditionally guaranteed that all Israel will be saved in the latter part of the Tribulation (after evil, unbelieving Israelis are removed from the rest). This is unconditional election!

Most texts Calvinists use to prove five-point Calvinistic doctrines are actually about Israel! Using them as if they apply to all humans twists the teachings of Scripture into lies.

He claims that the calling and election of saints are “not conditioned by something that man does for God (such as exercising positive volition), but ‘according to His own purpose’.” Most of the following texts seem to affirm this:

Acts 9:15 But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen <1589> vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel.

Romans 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election <1589> might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth)

Romans 11:5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election <1589> of grace.

Romans 11:7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election <1589> hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.

Romans 11:28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes. But as touching the election <1589>, they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes.

1 Thessalonians 1:4 Knowing, brethren beloved, your election <1589> of God.

2 Peter 1:10 Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election <1589> sure. For if ye do these things, ye shall never fall.

The last text states that the brethren must give diligence to make their calling and election sure. What does this mean? Mr. Spencer would have man not responsible for any act he does, and would make God fully responsible by willing that man did it exactly as man will do. If he is right, wouldn’t 2 Peter 1:10 be worded like this: “Wherefore the rather, brethren, God will give diligence to make your calling and election sure. For if He does these things, ye shall never fall.” But the Word of God is worded right. If the argument would be, “But that is the point! God will cause them to make their calling and election sure, and it will all be of God!” it still shows their making their own calling and election sure, even with the force of God behind them. This is not five-point Calvinism, and it also isn’t Arminianism.

Acts 9:15 above does show that Yehovah has a purpose, but that doesn’t eliminate ‘positive volition’ on the part of Saul.

I already considered Romans 9:11, and its true focus on the elder serving the younger.

Romans 11:5 declares Yehovah’s purpose in the preservation of a remnant of Israel. That doesn’t eliminate ‘positive volition’.

Romans 11:7 declares that the remnant of Israel did obtain what Israel sought. The text doesn’t eliminate ‘positive volition’.

Romans 11:28 speaks of the Israelis who are not in faith. They are enemies “for your sakes” and they are beloved “for the fathers’ sakes”. This holds no evidence either way regarding the elimination of ‘positive volition’.

1 Thessalonians 1:4 shows Yehovah’s ‘positive volition’: God has elected the non-Jewish Thessalonian brethren. That doesn’t eliminate ‘positive volition’ on their parts.

Mr. Spencer takes great pains to show that everlasting life is all of God and nothing of man. He is right, in that man cannot save himself. I noticed, however, that he did not discuss the following text:

Matthew 19:16 And behold, one came. And he said unto Him, “Good Master, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?” ¹⁷And He said unto him, “Why callest thou me good? There is none good but One—that is, God. But if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.” ¹⁸He saith unto Him, “Which?” Jesus said, “Thou shalt do no murder. Thou shalt not commit adultery. Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not bear false witness. ¹⁹Honour thy father and thy mother. And, thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” ²⁰The young man saith unto Him, “I have kept all these things from my youth up. What do I yet lack?” ²¹Jesus said unto him, “If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell what thou hast, and give to the poor. And thou shalt have treasure in heaven. And come and follow me.” ²²But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful. For he had great possessions.

I find Yeshua’s answer most curious; it consists only of works. Why would Messiah Yeshua Who is very God give an answer of all works when He, of all beings, should know that everlasting life is only acquired by faith?

I cannot assume what Mr. Spencer would answer, but perhaps I can guess. He might note that Jesus said, “If thou wilt be perfect” rather than “If thou wilt have eternal life” as if to infer that being perfect is a matter of works while obtaining eternal life is of God. If I am at all close to being right about Mr. Spencer’s views, this would mean that Yeshua entirely ignored the vital question, “What good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?” while telling him that he will have treasure in heaven (implying a guaranteed everlasting life) by doing certain works. That isn’t the faith of Calvinism. It also isn’t Arminianism.

What if one were to argue that this ruler who came to Messiah, then sorrowfully departed, shows that one cannot achieve everlasting life by works? This would show that Messiah Yeshua misled him in His answer, rather than telling him about the need of faith. A similar text states that Yeshua loved him:

Mark 10:17 And when He was gone forth into the way, there came one running. And he kneeled to Him. And he asked him, “Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?” ¹⁸And Jesus said unto him, “Why callest thou me good? There is none good but One—that is, God. ¹⁹Thou knowest the commandments: Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother.” ²⁰And he answered and said unto Him, “Master, I have observed all these from my youth.” ²¹Then Jesus beholding him loved him. And He said unto him, “Thou lackest one thing. Go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor. And thou shalt have treasure in heaven. And come, take up the cross and follow me.” ²²And he was sad at that saying. And he went away grieved, for he had great possessions.

(What does Yeshua’s loving him tell about his later salvational status, if anything?)

Why didn’t Yeshua state that he lacked one thing: faith? He told him that he lacked one thing: being rid of his possessions and coming to follow Yeshua. Both are works. Didn’t Yeshua give him a straight answer?

Mr. Spencer speaks for both the Arminians and the five-point Calvinists in his book, and I suspect he is not being completely correct in what they would say. He casts Arminianism in a very bad light. I don’t think he needs to do so; it speaks badly for itself. Either he doesn’t do justice to the Calvinist position, or he exposes it to have the same degree of excess that the Arminians have. He discusses John 3:16 on pages 36-38, focusing on the meaning of world. He concludes that both an Arminian and a Calvinist are agreed that world, “in terms of those for whom Christ died, i.e., Believers, means ‘men out of every tribe and nation, but not all tribes and nations as a whole’”. Neither position considers the timing:

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life. ¹⁷For God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. ¹⁸He that believeth on Him is not condemned, but He that believeth not is condemned already because He hath not believed in the Name of the only begotten Son of God. ¹⁹And this is the condemnation: that light is come into the world; and men loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil.

This text must be considered with the following text:

1 John 2:15 Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. ¹⁶For all that is in the world—the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the pride of life—is not of the Father, but is of the world. ¹⁷And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof. But he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.

John 3:16 states in the Greek grammar that God, so loving the world, did what He did. The grammar does not permit the reader to assume a timing. Most readers think that it reads, “For God so loves the world” as if He still does. Yet 1 John 2:15 commands against loving the world. God obviously does not love the world in John 2:15, but He did when He purposed to give His Son. God has not changed. The world changed, and the timing changed. The world God loved existed before the fall, and Yehovah preveniently provided Salvation through Yeshua (the name Yeshua meaning Salvation in Hebrew) before Adam. He loved the world at the time of Creation, knowing the sacrifice He would have to make to provide Salvation. Had He not created it, He would not have to send Yeshua, the sacrifice for sin. Once sin came into the world, the world represented sin, and was permanently polluted by it. Yehovah purposed to destroy the world and to make new heavens and a new earth. Mr. Spencer does not point this out in his argument. He only manages to show that both Calvinists and Arminians are ignorant of timings.

On page 38, Mr. Spencer states that some will quote 2 Peter 3:9 this way:

“The Lord is … not willing that any should perish!” (II Peter 3:9).

The actual quote is as follows:

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

He states that to “be fair with the basic rules of English grammar and interpretation”, one must “begin by answering the question, ‘To whom is his second epistle, in which this statement is found, addressed?’” He continues by quoting the apostle:

“Simon Peter … to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour, Jesus Christ” (II Peter 1:1).

He states, “He is writing to Believers, to the elect, to those whose faith rests upon the righteousness of God, and not on some condition of righteousness in and of themselves!” His answer is far from complete. Peter was an apostle to the Jews, as Paul was to the Gentiles:

1 Peter 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, ²elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father through sanctification of the Spirit unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace be multiplied.

Though this text is in 1 Peter and the other is in 2 Peter, Peter is still an apostle to the Jews. Is he also writing to non-Jews?

Mr. Spencer’s next paragraphs are designed to identify us in 2 Peter 1:1. He concludes that “Peter is speaking of Believers only when he says ‘us’.” But he is not completely correct; Jewish folks are ‘us’, as further reading in 2 Peter 1 will show to the careful reader.

2 Peter 1:1 Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ. ²Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord ³according as His divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness through the knowledge of Him Who hath called us to glory and virtue ⁴whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises, that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

I will give the same text again, this time putting comments and questions in square brackets:

2 Peter 1:1 Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us [who?] through the righteousness of God and our [why not your?] Saviour Jesus Christ. ²Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our [why not your?] Lord ³according as His divine power hath given unto us [why not you?] all things that pertain unto life and godliness through the knowledge of Him Who hath called us [why not you?] to glory and virtue ⁴whereby are given unto us [why not you?] exceeding great and precious promises, that by these ye [why ye and not we?] might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

Pronoun changes show distinctions between the groups.

The Israelis have been given the following:

1. All things that pertain unto life and godliness
2. The group calling that is to glory and virtue
3. Exceeding great and precious promises

Mr. Spencer states that “Peter is speaking of Believers only when he says ‘us’,” but he is incorrect. Yehovah gave to the Israelis as a group the above three things while they were in unbelief. He gave them the Word of God! The above text shows that the reason He gave those three was so that Jewish unbelievers (and others who read and believe the Word of God) could be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

He then restates 2 Peter 3:9 in the following manner:

“not willing that any of (US) should perish, but that all of (US) should come to repentance” (II Peter 3:9).

(He does not realize that this would make this verse only for the Israelis. I agree that Yehovah is not willing that any Israelis should perish. What about the Gentiles?) Mr. Spencer believes that God is willing that many others not included in us should perish. He has perverted the text.

The great error in Five-Point Calvinism is its failure to recognize the Jews and Israel’s position in the plan of God, the same error that predominates in Arminianism. While these two camps fight each other, they both have flavored ‘Christian’ theology throughout the centuries, making it mainly non-Israeli in its content. While friends of literal Israel exist in both the Arminian and Calvinist camps, the doctrines of both are antagonistic to the centrality of Israel in the plan of God. They were both arch Replacement Theologians (replacing Israel with some type of Gentile Church).

On page 40, Romans 8:31-33 is quoted in this way:

“If God be for us, who can be against us? He who spared not his Son, but delivered him up for all of us, how shall he not freely give us all things? Who shall lay anything to the charge of God’s elect?” (Rom. 8:31-33).

The center and largest part of Romans is speaking about Jewish folk, however. Us, we and our are not the same as ye, you and your. Look at the entire text section that Mr. Spencer misquoted (by deleting important parts):

Romans 8:31 What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us? ³²He that spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things? ³³Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth. ³⁴Who is he who condemneth? It is Christ Who died—yea rather, Who is risen again, Who is even at the right hand of God, Who also maketh intercession for us. ³⁵Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation or distress or persecution or famine or nakedness or peril or sword? ³⁶As it is written, “For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.” ³⁷Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him Who loved us. ³⁸For I am persuaded that neither death nor life nor angels nor principalities nor powers nor things present nor things to come ³⁹nor height nor depth nor any other creature shall be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord. ¹I say the truth in Christ—I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost—²that I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. ³For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh ⁴who are Israelites, to whom pertaineth the adoption and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the law and the service of God and the promises, ⁵whose are the fathers and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, Who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

The context is a discussion about Israel and Israelis, not about Christians. The psalm quoted in verse 36 is about the Israelis during the Tribulation. Who are the elect in this text?

Mr. Spencer continued to quote on the same page (40),

“Christ loved the church, and gave Himself for it [the church]” (Eph. 5:25). He continued, “The ‘all’ for whom the Saviour died are the elect whom the Father chose to give Him as a Bride ‘holy and without blemish’.” Consider the text more fully:

Ephesians 5:25 Husbands, love your wives even as Christ also loved the Church and gave Himself for her ²⁶that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, ²⁷that He might present her to Himself a glorious Church—not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish. ²⁸So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. ²⁹For no man ever yet hated his own flesh, but nourisheth and cherisheth it even as the Lord the Church. ³⁰For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones.

This Church is unsanctified, unclean and unpresented to Yehovah; it has spots, wrinkles and other such things. Who will argue, saying that the Church is presently sanctified (holy), clean, presented to Yehovah, spotless, wrinkle-free, and perfect? Yet if this is the congregation of ‘Christians’, this defies sense. Is the ‘Christian’ Church unholy? But if this refers to the congregation of Israel, the Church in the wilderness, she is still divorced from Yehovah the Father, but will be presented back to Him once she has been prepared.

Mr. Spencer states,

Take a very clear example of the fact that the Bible teaches limited atonement. In the tenth chapter of the Gospel of John our dear Lord identifies Himself as Jehovah, the “Good Shepherd” of Psalm 23. When He speaks of His “Sheep” it is obvious that He is referring to those elect ones whom the father gave Him for His Own. He says:

“I am the Good Shepherd, and know My sheep, and am known of Mine” (John 10:14).

Who are His sheep who know Him and whom He knows? There can be no argument with the answer, ‘His sheep are the Believers, the elect ones’.

While Mr. Spencer thinks there can be no argument, he has totally misunderstood the text. Look at it more fully:

John 10:1 “Verily, verily I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way—the same is a thief and a robber. ²But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. ³The porter openeth to him, and the sheep hear his voice. And he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out. ⁴And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them. And the sheep follow him, for they know his voice. ⁵And they will not follow a stranger, but will flee from him, for they know not the voice of strangers.” ⁶Jesus spoke this parable unto them, but they understood not what things they were which He spake unto them. ⁷Then Jesus said unto them again, “Verily, verily I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep. ⁸All who ever came before me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not hear them. ⁹I am the door. If any man enter in by me, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out and find pasture. ¹⁰The thief cometh not except in order to steal and to kill and to destroy. I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly. ¹¹I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd giveth His life for the sheep. ¹²But he who is an hireling and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth. And the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep. ¹³The hireling fleeth because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep. ¹⁴I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known by mine. ¹⁵As the Father knoweth me, even so I know the Father. And I lay down my life for the sheep. ¹⁶And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also. And they shall hear my voice. And there shall be one fold and one shepherd.”

The last verse states that Messiah has other sheep that are not of this fold. If this fold consists of all the Believers, are the folks in the other fold extraterrestrials? This only makes sense if Messiah is referring to the Israelis who are in the one fold, with the Israeli Saints being the sheep who hear His voice, and the other folds being from among the other races. Mr. Spencer thought he had a good argument for ‘limited atonement’, but he only proved that Messiah died for the Israelis.

Mr. Spencer stated on page 42,

The Scriptures do not teach that Christ died to save everyone from his sins. We are told clearly that His death of deaths was designed for the salvation of His people, whom the Father chose in eternity past.

“Ye are a chosen generation, …a people of His own…” (I Peter 2:9).

What does a larger portion of 1 Peter 2 say?

1 Peter 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people, that ye should show forth the praises of Him Who hath called you out of darkness into His marvellous light—¹⁰which in time past were not a people, but are now the People of God; which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy. ¹¹Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts that war against the soul, ¹²having your conversation honest among the Gentiles so that, whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may glorify God in the day of visitation by your good works that they shall behold.

Verse 10 refers to Hosea, and verse 12 commands that they have an honest ‘conversation’ among the Gentiles. Mr. Spencer is right when he states that Messiah’s ‘death of deaths’ was designed for the salvation of His people; he just didn’t know who His people are!

Mr. Spencer does not believe that all in the following text includes everyone, but only the elect:

2 Corinthians 5:14 For the love of Christ constrains us. For we thus judge that if One died for all, then all were dead, ¹⁵and that He died for all so that they who live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto Him which died for them and rose again.

If us refers only to believers, why wasn’t the text written like the following?

2 Corinthians 5:14 (changed to correspond to erroneous Calvinism) For the love of Christ constrains us. For we thus judge that if One died for us all, then we all were dead, ¹⁵and that He died for us all so that we all who live should not henceforth live unto ourselves, but unto Him which died for us all and rose again.

This is not what the text stated. It used three sets of pronouns: us/we, all and they/themselves.

Changing texts to mean what they don’t is heresy.

Mr. Spencer (along with other Five-Point Calvinists) thinks that God’s sovereignty limits Him to always determining the outcome of everything, including the propagation of sin! He states (page 48), “Even the Arminian must realize that when he claims that the grace of the God who wills that all men shall be saved can be resisted and rejected, he is stating that Jehovah is not omnipotent.” Mr. Spencer makes no distinction between willing something and causing it. To him, if Jehovah wills, He must cause it to occur. Then he offers another possibility: “Or is it that the heavenly Father is ‘permissive,’ and wills to allow the objects of His great love to go to hell if they so desire?” Mr. Spencer would rather forward the theology that ‘the heavenly Father’ just damns the majority to hell because he wills it to be that way, to keep them objects of his great wrath against sin because he has no will to save them. He offers a third possibility: “Or is it that finite man can resist the First Rate Power of Jehovah (the Omnipotent Creator) because he, the third rate power, is greater than God? Unbelievable!” Mr. Spencer is unaware that if a creature such as a man is capable of willing something while refusing to make it happen, a God who is far more powerful than a man can do the same thing. These Calvinists limit their god, making him less powerful than a man! Five-Point Calvinism is guilty of limiting its god more often than erroneous Arminianism!

While Arminianism is a great error, Five-Point Calvinism is at least as erroneous. Both limit their gods to justify their misunderstandings of the Biblical God’s character and His choosing Israel.

All ‘Christian’ denominations tend toward one or the other view, and usually take pieces of both. A typical Southern Baptist church, for example, is Calvinistic in theology (“Salvation is by grace and not by works;” “The Christian has eternal security”) and Arminian in practice (“The Saviour is waiting to enter your heart, why don’t you let him come in?” And the typical altar call is strictly Arminian). Neither represents a proper assessment of the character of the Biblical God, and both use texts illegitimately to prove points, showing no fear of the Writer.

These errors are not small. They address the character of the gods they define, and they malign the God of Israel. Leaders in both camps don’t know how to read.

HOME | CONTACT

_______________________________________________