Double Your Predestination, Double Your Fun!

Whenever Calvinists talk about God’s Sovereign Election of sinners to salvation, non-Calvinists always object to the implication of “double predestination.” [Insert ominous music here] “Double predestination,” simply put, is the belief that God has predestination all those going to heaven as well as all those going to hell.

Just this past weekend, I came across this clear rejection of God’s sovereign election and the basis of the rejection is clearly “double predestination”:

What I know about calvinists – pretty basic concept – only the “elect” get to heaven, and you can’t choose to be the “elect” – you are pre-chosen for heaven, and pre-chosen for hell. Um – no.

“Double predestination” is largely a derogatory term, and it leads to misconceptions of the Calvinist position. The term is usually meant to imply some sort of “equal ultimacy”; the idea God is as active in the reprobation of those people on their way to hell, as He is active in the sanctification of those people on their way to heaven.

Except for Open Theists, (An Open Theist is someone who would deny God’s sovereignty and do not accept that God can know the future with any absolute certainty.) all Christians accept that God knows perfectly and precisely all future events, including who exactly is destined for both Heaven and Hell.

This is one of those things they can keep you awake nights and/or give you headaches. If God knows perfectly the future, for instance what I’m going to have for lunch today, am I a free to eat something else? If God’s perfect knowledge of the future is that today I will eat a ham and cheese sandwich for lunch, can I have a chicken salad sandwich instead? Just how free am I? Unless you embrace Open Theism you will have to say that I’m not free, but that I am predestination to eat that ham and cheese sandwich.

Now here is where the question gets really sticky, just how does God know that I will eat that ham and cheese sandwich for lunch? Given that God knows the future perfectly, there are only two options as to how He knows the future: 1) He knows the future because He has the ability to look across time and see what is going to occur in the future; or 2) He has decreed all things that will occur by His sovereign will and all things will occur as He has decreed.

In the first option, God is a passive observer, who sees what is coming, but has very little control over it. God has little or nothing to do with whether or not I choose ham and cheese over chicken salad. But in the second option, God is the sovereign ruler over His creation and He is an absolute control of every detail, including my choice of ham and cheese over chicken salad. Furthermore, God has a purpose in decreeing that I choose ham and cheese over chicken salad. Which of these options best represents the God of the Bible?

I would contend that the Bible plainly teaches that God is sovereign. Isaiah 46:8-10 says, "Remember this, and be assured; Recall it to mind, you transgressors. Remember the former things long past, For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me, Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things which have not been done, Saying, 'My purpose will be established, And I will accomplish all My good pleasure'.” If that is not a clear declaration of the sovereignty of God, then what is it?

And Isaiah 46:8-10 does not stand alone, there are other scriptures that trumpet God’s sovereignty; He is sovereign over the governments of men (Daniel 4:17, 35; Proverbs 21:1.) He is sovereign over the destinies of both birds and men (Matthew 10:29-31.) And He is sovereign over salvation (Acts 13:48; Romans 9:11; Ephesians 1:11.)

John MacArthur has said, regarding any discussion of the ramifications that flow from the Doctrine of God’s Sovereign Election, “Before you start debating all of the fall-out, you need to affirm that the Bible teaches election and predestination… Because before we start, ‘Well, what about this? What about this? What about this?’ I think people are into the ‘What about this?’ before they've ever established the doctrine… Then on the other side, you have to also establish that the Scripture holds the sinner completely accountable and culpable for his sin. That's clear, too. I think before you start messing around in the middle, you need to establish those two things very, very clearly.”

Do the scriptures teach election?

just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, (Ephesians 1:4-5)

[See also 1 Peter 1:1-5; Romans 9:10-13; and 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14]

Since the Bible clearly teaches that God elects and predestines some for salvation, it is equally clear that he passes over others. The destiny of those not elected by God is determined just as much as the destiny of those who are elect (cf. 1 Peter 2:8; Jude 4; Romans 9:22.) But, remember, the Bible teaches that everyone has a sinner, and that we are all responsible for our own sin. It's our own fault that we face God’s judgment. Romans 3:23 says, “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,” and therefore, everyone is under the just condemnation of God’s judgment; Romans 1:18-20, “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.”

“Without excuse.” As Paul, in Romans 2, tells us, we know that everybody knows that lying is wrong, because everybody gets mad if somebody lies to them. We know that everybody knows that stealing is wrong, because everybody gets mad if someone steals from them. And so on and so forth. Romans 1 covers the first 4 commandments, and Romans 2 covers the rest. No one, faced with their own works on judgment day, will be able to say that they did these things unknowingly. Romans 2:1-3 “Therefore you have no excuse, everyone of you who passes judgment, for in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things. And we know that the judgment of God rightly falls upon those who practice such things. But do you suppose this, O man, when you pass judgment on those who practice such things and do the same yourself, that you will escape the judgment of God?”

We shouldn’t think of God picking through a box of neutral people while saying, “Heaven; Hell; Hell; Hell; Heaven; Heaven: Hell…” and so on. People are not neutral; we are all in sin and rebellion and are judged already. John 3:18-20 – “He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.”

Instead of starting with a neutral pool of people and saying “This one goes to hell, this one goes to heaven” God is looking at a waterfall of people plummeting full speed towards hell, and He saves some, for His glory & His purposes, & not because those saved merit salvation in any way. Unless God saves us, there is no salvation for us!

Basically, the Calvinist position is this:

1. All mankind are sinners are in rebellion against God and justly bound for hell (Romans 3:23)


2. God in His grace & mercy has elected to save some (Ephesians 1:3-12; 1 Peter 1:1-5)


3. God’s elect will come to Jesus Christ by faith and be saved (John 6:37)


4. The rest (i.e. those “passed over” by God) continue on their way to the just punishment for their sin and rebellion.

I must say that it seems to me that all of the objections I have seen and heard to the Doctrine of God’s Sovereign Election have been based in emotionalism, sentimentality, and human pride and not on sound exegesis of the scriptures.

The Calvinist Menace In Our Midst

It seems that, like mice in the kitchen, the Calvinist vermin are infesting Southern Baptist churches in Tennessee. What is to be done about this plague? Earlier this month, Tom Ascol blogged on a memo that was being circulated amongst Southern Baptist Churches in Tennessee advising on how to discover, and get rid of, Calvinists in the pulpit.

While many of the “Red Flags” outlined in the memo are absolute distortions of the Calvinist position, some are quite laughable.

Such as: “Use of the ESV Study Bible.” (Whew! I use an NASB MacArthur Study Bible!) -Or- “Look for the men they quote in their sermons: do they mainly quote Calvinists such as John Piper, R. C. Sproul, James White, Jonathon Edwards and others.” (Can I still quote Calvinists such as C. H. Spurgeon, J. P. Boyce, Alistair Begg, or John MacArthur?) –Or- “Tendency toward a highly logical systematic theology…” (As opposed to a highly illogical systematic theology?)

Others are self-contradictory, like: “Moving the church to become under Elder Rule.” -And- “Tendency to use their pastoral authority against any member that questions their reform theology or their direction.” Well, which is it? Are they looking to share power with other God-gifted men, or are they pushing to be dictators?

Some are just plain silly, like: “Adding other belief statements or confessions to what their church believes, such as: 1st London Baptist Confession (1689), 2nd London Baptist Confession (1644), New Hampshire Confession, and Abstract Principles.” (Yes, I noticed the dates, too…) Oh, please! The Abstract of Principles was the first statement of faith adopted by Southern Baptists in 1858! Are we never to look at what Southern Baptists believed in the past? Are we to ignore all history? There seems to be an ongoing effort to deny any and all traces of Southern Baptists’ Calvinist heritage, and this is wrong.

All of this is troubling, but, what troubles me the most is the assertion that Calvinist pastoral candidates will have a “Tendency to be evasive about their theology during the pastor search process. They will say things like: ‘I believe and preach the historic doctrines of Southern Baptists just like many of the great Baptist preachers of the past.’ Many laymen will be satisfied in hearing the statement, ‘I believe and preach the Bible.’ Without more intense questioning, the committee will not be fulfilling the sacred duty their church entrusted to them.”

The memo was even accompanied by a “Belief Statement and Pastor’s Pledge” to be signed by the pastor, the chair of the pastor search committee & the chairman of the Deacons:

“I, (pastor), state that my theological beliefs and practices are in accord with _____ Baptist Church. I wish to state that I do not hold to a reformed or Calvinist doctrine and the Pastor Search Committee has questioned me comprehensively in this area of concern.

“With integrity of heart, I have heard the statements of the Pastor Search Committee and can say with certainty that if my theology ever changes to a Calvinist doctrine, I will share with the Deacons my new beliefs and work with them and the personel (sic) committee in transitioning me and my family to a new place of ministry that is more in line with my new theological stance.”

I could never sign such a document, as I would never hide from any search committee any of my theological positions & I agree wholeheartedly that every pastor search committee should thoroughly question every candidate, especially those under serious consideration. No pastoral candidate should ever be anything less than totally up front about any doctrinal position which he holds. Of course, I have no way of knowing how pervasive this “evasion” of search committee questions really is. And, as delusional as the rest of this “red flag” list is, this “evasion” may just be another delusion. However, the point remains that every man of God should be of sound and open doctrine.

With that in mind, I have decided to include a Statement of Faith here at A Squirrel in Babylon. I will be building up this Statement of Faith over the course of several, if not many, weeks in a series of blog posts. That way, I can expand upon each doctrinal statement, providing both my reasoning as well as scriptural proofs. I have no intention of writing a full blown systematic theology, but I never want to leave anyone in any doubt as to exactly what I believe, or why I believe it!

Stay tuned…

The Will, Free or Enslaved?

In the discussion in the comments section last week, the question of man’s free will came up. Does the Bible teach that man has a free will? And, if man’s will is not free, are we therefore just robots? I want to briefly address this before moving on to God’s unconditional election, as it is really part of the argument for the Total Depravity of Man.

First, we need to define what we mean by “free will.” Here’s one definition: free will noun 1: voluntary choice or decision “I do this of my own free will” 2: freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention ("free will." Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2009. Merriam-Webster Online. 3 August 2009 ) I would contend that the Bible teaches that, by the first definition, man does have free will, but man does not have free will by the second.

It is clear from the Bible that we all make the choices we make of our own volition, but it is also clear that our very nature makes it impossible for us to make choices other than the ones we make. Our sin nature would be classified as a “prior cause” under this definition. The Bible teaches that we have a will, but it is a will enslaved to sin, and this concept is found clearly in Romans 6.

But thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were committed, and having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness. I am speaking in human terms because of the weakness of your flesh. For just as you presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness, resulting in further lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness, resulting in sanctification. For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness. Therefore what benefit were you then deriving from the things of which you are now ashamed? For the outcome of those things is death. But now having been freed from sin and enslaved to God, you derive your benefit, resulting in sanctification, and the outcome, eternal life. (Romans 6:17-22)

In this passage, Paul, clearly identifies the unregenerate (and the regenerate prior salvation) as being in a condition of enslavement to sin. What does it mean to be enslaved to sin? In his commentary on Romans, John MacArthur puts it this way:

“(T)he unregenerate person is under the continual, unbroken slavery of sin. That is the universal position of the natural man, with no exceptions. No matter how outwardly moral, upright, or benevolent an unsaved person’s life may be, all that he thinks, says, and does emanates from a proud, sinful, ungodly heart. Quoting from Psalm 14, Paul had already made that truth clear. ‘As it is written, “there is none righteous, not even one; there is none who understands, there is none who seeks for god; all have turned aside, together they have become useless; there is none who does good there is not even one”’ (Romans 3:10-12)” (MacArthur, John. Romans [volume 1]. Chicago: Moody Press, 1991. Page 346)

So the unregenerate will is unable to do good, nor is it able to change itself from bad to good. As it says in Jeremiah 13:23, "Can the Ethiopian change his skin Or the leopard his spots? Then you also can do good Who are accustomed to doing evil.” That seems to be a pretty clear declaration that we are unable to change ourselves. Do you see how clearly this fits with the Ephesians 2 concept of being “dead in our trespasses and sins”?

Unfortunately, while grappling with this issue, many people erroneously reach the conclusion that Biblical predestination is deterministic fatalism. However, this is not the case. You see, the Scriptures make two things very clear; 1) God is a personal God, and not an impersonal force. He takes a personal interest in guiding and watching over each and every one of us. And 2) man is never portrayed as a robot, but as a being freely choosing his actions, and fully deserving the consequences of his actions. The invitation of the gospel is truly offered to all men. The problem is that all men, each and every one of us, would, if left on our own, freely reject that offer.

Fatalism also carries with it the idea that, no matter what we do, our actions cannot affect the predetermined outcome. But on the contrary, the Bible teaches that we are real people making real choices that do indeed affect the outcome. Our choices have consequences.

The Bible teaches that man has a will; it just is not a free will. In fact, you might say that man’s willfulness is a big part of man’s sinfulness. We are willfully disobedient to God. So where did this idea of a free will come from? The answer seems to lie more in philosophy than in Scripture. The idea goes something like this, “God gives a command | God holds man responsible for obeying the command | Therefore man must have the ability to obey the command in order to be held responsible for it.” Neat idea, but it isn’t found in the Bible.

The problem with this argument is that man is capable of understanding God’s commands; he simply chooses not to obey. This can be easily demonstrated by taking any group of people through a detailed study of the 10 Commandments. Everybody in the group, Baring severe physiological mental incapacity, will understand that stealing is wrong, yet all in the group will have willfully taken something at some time that they knew was not theirs. And, truthfully, the same can be demonstrated for the other nine commandments as well.

John Macarthur puts it this way, “the unsaved person is not free to do good or evil as he chooses. He is bound and enslave to sin, and the only thing he can do is to sin. His only choices have to do with when, how, why, and to what degree he will sin.” (MacArthur. Romans. Page 344)

Let’s be honest, the truth is that without God’s gracious restraint imposed upon us, we would all be much, much worse than we are.

So, in a nutshell, what the Bible says is this: that man is sinful, lost, and hell bound, and there is nothing he can do about it. This is the bad news that makes the Gospel truly the “good news” that it really is! And until and unless we can truly convey this lostness to the people we are evangelizing, they will not accept just how in need of help they really are.

Who Controls Salvation?

I've been doing a lot of reading, listening and watching as I research and prepare my series defending Calvinism. As I said, I'm no high-powered scholar, so I like to get all my ducks in a row. I probably take more time then I really need too, but I like to be well prepared.

Anyway, one thing I've been doing is listening to a lot of debates on the subject of Calvinism, including a debate between James White and George Bryson. I was particularly struck by Dr. White's closing statement, and I thought you might find it edifying as well.



Meanwhile, my post on Unconditional Election should be up first thing in the morning in the near future.

Defending Dordt

Part II

[Programing note: There will be no The Squirrel Can Cook this week, as it is just too hot to cook. Deo Valenti, The Squirrel Can Cook will return next Friday]

Returning to our examination of the doctrines of Calvinism, I would like now to turn to the doctrines themselves. It is difficult to deal with each doctrine separately, as they are all intimately woven together, so there will be some crossover with the other doctrines as we deal with each.

I have come to the conclusion that people who reject the Doctrines of Grace usually do so for a combination of two reasons: 1) an inflated view of man and 2) an insufficient view of God. They fail to grasp just how totally sinful man is and just how absolutely sovereign God is.

The TULIP begins where we must begin, with the Total Depravity of Man. While most people who reject Calvinism point at the doctrine of limited atonement as the point they disagree with most, a little digging shows that it is an inadequate understanding of man’s total depravity that is really the issue. Because if our starting point is a failure to recognize just all sinful man is, and how debilitating to man that sin is, we will fail to understand how difficult saving man really is.

Totally Depraved | Humans are corrupt throughout | Not "bad as can be" – TurretinFan

Most people misunderstand what is meant by that term “total depravity.” And, truthfully, depravity is not the clearest word that could be used. John Macarthur refers instead to man’s total inability; because the Bible tells us that man, in his natural state, is unable to seek God, obey God, or to please God in any way. “Depravity” is not the best choice of words, because when we hear the word “depraved” we think of the worst of offenders; mass murderers, child molesters, concentration camp guards, telemarketers, and the like. We don’t think of ourselves as “depraved.” And, in a sense we are correct (I hope none of my readers are a Hitler, a Stalin, or a Pol Pot.) But, in the theological sense, we are all depraved. Total Depravity does not say that men are as bad as they could be. What it does say is that every part of man is tainted and corrupted by sin.

Cloud defines total depravity this way: “Man is totally corrupt and dead in his sin so that he cannot even respond to the gospel unless God sovereignly enables him, which only happens if he is one of the elect. God not only must enable the dead sinner, but must sovereignly regenerate him and give him the gift of faith.” This is a fairly concise definition, as far as it goes. Mr. Cloud does not address the Calvinist position that man is responsible for his own sin.

The Westminster Confession of Faith puts it this way: “By this sin they fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, and so became dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the parts and faculties of soul and body… From this original corruption, hereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions.”

So what is the scriptural support for this doctrine? While there are many passages that allude to the doctrine of total depravity, Romans 3: 10-18 is surely high on the list.

“…as it is written, "THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE; THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS, THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD; ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS; THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD, THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE." "THEIR THROAT IS AN OPEN GRAVE, WITH THEIR TONGUES THEY KEEP DECEIVING," "THE POISON OF ASPS IS UNDER THEIR LIPS"; "WHOSE MOUTH IS FULL OF CURSING AND BITTERNESS"; "THEIR FEET ARE SWIFT TO SHED BLOOD, DESTRUCTION AND MISERY ARE IN THEIR PATHS, AND THE PATH OF PEACE THEY HAVE NOT KNOWN." "THERE IS NO FEAR OF GOD BEFORE THEIR EYES." (Romans 3:10-18 NASB)

In these eight verses, Paul quotes from Isaiah, Jeremiah, and the Psalms to show that all mankind is sinful without exception. He sums it up quite clearly in Romans 3:23 when he writes, “for all have sinned, and fall short of the Glory of God.” Note that Paul, and conversely the Old Testament prophets, say that there is no one who does good and there is no one who seeks after God. Humanity is so unable to please God that the Bible calls mankind “spiritually dead.”

“And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience.” (Ephesians 2:1-2 NASB)

I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but dead people very rarely do anything for themselves. Like, NEVER! A funeral home attendant, while preparing to a body for burial, does not set a pile of clothes down and ask the corpse to get dressed. Just as those who are physically dead are physically helpless, the spiritually dead are spiritually helpless. As Paul says, in Romans 8:6-7, “For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so,” we are, by nature, hostile towards God.

This is not to say that man does not have choices, just that man’s choices are not free. We will not, on our own, choose to do good, or to follow God any more than a lion would choose a pile of bananas over a steaming pile of fresh meat. It is not in his nature.

I hear the questions, because I’ve heard them before, “What do you mean, ‘none who does good?’ Lots of people do good! Feeding the poor; helping little old ladies across the street; supporting the symphony, are these things not good?” I’ll let Isaiah answer that one…

“…all our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment…” – Isaiah 64:6 (NASB)

The literal translation of “filthy garment” (“filthy rags” in the KJV) is “used menstrual cloth,” an undeniably disgusting image. And Isaiah says that that is the value of our righteous deeds! How much more ugly are our unrighteous deeds? But we can see that what we see as good the Bible describes as truly worthless and disgusting in God’s sight. In even the best things that we do there is an element of pride and self-righteousness. Every thought that we have, and every action that we take, is not free from the taint of sin.

It is reported that John Bunyan said that there was enough sin in the best prayer that he ever prayed to damn the whole world. That is the essence of Total Depravity.

Defending Dordt

Part I

Late last week, I received an e-mail containing a link to an article “refuting” Calvinism by King James Only advocate David Cloud. The person who sent me the link, not a Calvinist herself, knows that I am a Calvinist, and wanted my opinion on the article. While I had heard the name in regards to King James Onlyism, I had never read any of Mr. Cloud’s writings before. I was most pleased to see that Mr. Cloud’s writings were, in contrast to the abundant vitriol of many in the King James Only camp, reasonable in tone & less of an “attack piece” then I had expected.

Unfortunately for Mr. Cloud, poor arguments and incorrect conclusions, however well written they are, are still poor arguments and incorrect conclusions.

I’ve given a lot of thought to how best to respond to Mr. Cloud’s position. I could go through Cloud’s arguments, and answer each in turn, but that has already been done, and done well, here. My apologetic methodology has always been to basically just tell people what I believe, and why I believe it, and let them do with that information what they will. So I’ve decided, instead, to present a positive defense of what is known as the 5 Points of Calvinism. For, if I can show that the doctrines that we collectively know as Calvinism are Biblical, then Mr. Cloud will stand refuted.

But, throughout my positive defense of Calvinism, I will address certain of Mr. Clouds errors along the way.

Before we begin: some preliminaries. I am a Calvinist. What does that mean? When I say that I am a Calvinist, I mean that I hold to the 5 Solas of the reformation (Sola Fide - by faith alone; Sola Scriptura - by Scripture alone; Solus Christus - by Christ alone; Sola gratia - by grace alone; Soli Deo gloria - glory to God alone,) and to the 5 points as codified at the Synod of Dordt in 1618-1619, and that is all I mean. I’m not an expert on Calvin, his life or his theology. I know that my theology differs from his on a few points, including baptism and eschatology. While I do own a copy of his Institutes of the Christian Religion, I have not read it cover-to-cover, nor studied it in depth. (I do intend to at some point. I even downloaded a lecture series on Calvin’s Institutes from Covenant Theological Seminary, but I haven’t listened to it yet.)

Also, I am not an expert on Church History. In fact, I’m not an accomplished scholar in any field. I’m just a humble country preacher who’s trying to do the best that he can. So, if you’re expecting some doctrinal dissertation, you’re in the wrong place. Just so you know.

It is my intention to break this into several parts. We’ll just stick with the TULIP order, for convenience and familiarity, if for no other reason. Today, I’ll introduce our subject.

Introduction: Why 5 points?

John Calvin never reduced his theology to five points, and the 5 points do not encapsulated Calvin’s entire theology, but deal only with the questions of “Who does God save?” and “How does God save them?” Calvin died in 1564, but the “5 points” didn’t come to be until 1618-19, during the Synod of Dordt, which was held in Dordrecht, Holland, in response to the teachings of Jacob Arminius and his followers, who published the 5 Articles of Remonstrance (re•mon•strance noun 1: an earnest presentation of reasons for opposition or grievance [Webster’s]) in 1610, the year after Arminius died.

It was 8 years later, during the winter of 1618-1619, that the Synod of Dordt met to address the Remonstrants’ articles. They met in session 154 times, from November 13th, 1618 to May 9th, 1619. The results of their deliberations were published as The Decision of the Synod of Dort on the Five Main Points of Doctrine in Dispute in the Netherlands, commonly known as the Canons of Dordt. The Canons were never intended to be a comprehensive or exhaustive treatment of Calvinist theology, but were narrowly focused on the issues brought up by the Remonstrants. The point being that it was the Arminian Remonstrants, not the Calvinists, who first developed 5 points, which are the polar opposites of the Calvinist’s TULIP.

Total Depravity
Unconditional Election
Limited Atonement
Irresistible Grace
Perseverance of the Saints

Cloud is correct when he says that the TULIP acronym did not appear until the 1700's, and was developed as a memory aid. A brief web search does not reveal exactly when, where, or by whom the TULIP was planted.

Mr. Cloud made a point of saying that, while he is certainly not a Calvinist, he is also not an Arminian. And I understand that. There are people who sit somewhere between 5-point Calvinists and 5-point Arminians, so that is not really an issue. But Cloud takes issue with Calvinists’ “black and white thinking.” Well, the real heart of the issue is Monergism vs. Synergism, and that is a black or white issue.

Monergism (“mono” - one + “erg” - work - the work of one, or working alone) is the doctrine that salvation is entirely God’s work from start to finish. He begins it and He accomplishes it. Man adds nothing to his salvation, and can take absolutely no credit for any part of it. It is all God’s doing, and to Him belongs all the glory.

Synergism (“syn” - together or with + “erg” - work - to work together, cooperate) is the doctrine that salvation is a cooperative effort between God and man. In order for a person to be saved, God has done His part, but the individual must do his. Synergism says that the human will and the divine Spirit work together in the act of regeneration.

That is the heart of the issue; Those are the two sides of this debate. I hope, by the time we’re done, that you will have gotten a good understanding of both sides.