What I Wish My IFB Brothers Knew About the Calvinism/Arminianism Debate (Part 3)

 

    Admittedly, I am way behind on this third installment of the blog series (you can read part 1 here and part 2 here). On top of my normal schedule, I've had to write two seminary papers, and to be honest, the Charlie Kirk thing shook me up. Not only did the shooting take place less than 100 miles away, but the shooter was a student at Utah State, which is less than 3 miles from my house. 

    However, the response to the Charlie Kirk tragedy from within the world of Independent Fundamental Baptists provides a perfect example of why I’m writing this blog series. The response to Charlie Kirk's life and ministry from IFB pastors and churches has been overwhelmingly positive (as it should be). This is particularly ironic, considering that 99% of IFB churches would not have allowed Kirk to speak in their pulpits due to disagreements on secondary issues (most likely, they wouldn’t have even called on him to pray during the services). 

    So, here’s my question: why is it that many of the same IFBs who publicly praise Charlie Kirk online also publicly bash Calvinists online on a regular basis? I couldn’t help but notice that the IFB world has been mostly silent concerning the death of Voddie Baucham yesterday. I also found it interesting that I woke up today to a fresh batch of anti-Calvinists posts from the IFB haters. 

    I want to remind the readers that this blog series was sparked in response to rabid anti-Calvinist/Arminian posts online from IFB pastors (one post in particular) that used horrific argumentation to slander good brothers in Christ. I also want to reiterate that I am an Independent Baptist pastor writing this series, not as a defense of Calvinism or Arminianism, but as a rebuke to the terrible arguments that attempt to condemn these positions. Many times, there is grace in at least understanding the other side. With this in mind, it’s time to deal with popular strawman #3.  

Strawman #3: All Calvinism is the same, and it’s all evil. 

     I firmly believe this will be the most important blog in the series simply because the subject matter is the most misunderstood. For this reason, the blog will be longer than the others (please bear with me). As usual, I will be dealing much more with Calvinism than Arminianism, simply because Calvinism gets most of the heat from the rabid anti’s, but I want to point out that not all Arminianism can be lumped into one category either (see next paragraph). 

    My opening premise is that there are three main types of Calvinism: Hyper-Calvinism, High-Calvinism, and Strict Calvinism (the word “strict” can be misleading because it’s a much more moderate version of Calvinism than the other two). Although there are other nuances and categories that could be discussed, I will limit the discussion to these three, as they are by far the most consistent and historically popular categories. (See Jeffrey Johnson, He Died For Me: Limited Atonement & the Universal Gospel, [Free Grace Press, 2018] 27.)

    No matter what “ism” a person’s beliefs fall into (and they do fall into a historical category, see part one of this series), every position is trying to answer the following question: If God is truly all-loving, all-powerful, and all-knowing, then why aren't all saved? Hyper-Calvinism attempts to answer this question by saying that God is all-loving towards His elect, but He doesn’t love the non-elect; therefore, the non-elect aren’t saved. It’s logical, but it’s not Biblical. One must disregard certain texts in the Bible to reach this conclusion. They sacrifice God's love on the altar of His sovereignty. 

    On the other hand, Arminianism attempts to answer this question by saying that God is equally loving towards everyone, and in an attempt to keep things “fair,” God has left the final decision of salvation and the ultimate success of the cross solely in the hands of sinful people. This is logical, but it’s not Biblical. One has to explain away certain texts in the Bible to come to such a conclusion. They sacrifice God's sovereignty on the altar of His love. 

    Both Hyper-Calvinism and Arminianism are logical attempts to answer this all-important question. Dr. Sam Waldron writes, 

“The ultimate origin of both Arminianism and Hyper-Calvinism is the refusal to recognize that in this matter we are confronted with divine mystery. Both Arminianism and Hyper-Calvinism are rationalistic. Both want a tidy system and are willing to suppress some part of the Word of God to obtain it.” (The Crux of the Free Offer: A Biblical, Confessional, and Theological Explanation and Defense of the Well-Meant Offer of the Gospel [Free Grace Press, 2019])

    As John Duncan put it, “Hyper-Calvinism is all house and no door; Arminianism is all door and no house.” (David Brown, The Life of John Duncan [Edinburgh, 1872] 404.) Though these positions are logical, they aren’t Biblical. Before we dive deeper, let’s take a brief look at these positions from 30,000 feet. 

Hyper-Calvinism 

* Well-known hyper-Calvinists in history include John Gill (1697-1771), John Ryland (1753-1825), and A.W. Pink (1886-1952)

* God does not love the non-elect. (Pink recanted this point later in life.)

* Many HCs believe in what is known as equal-ultimacy, the idea that God actively hardens the hearts of the non-elect in the same way that he actively regenerates the hearts of the elect. 

* Many HCs also believe in double-predestination, that God chooses people for damnation in the same way that he chooses people for salvation.

* Although HCs believe in preaching the gospel (the death and resurrection of Christ), they do not believe in offering or encouraging sinners to come unto Christ. A great example of this thinking can be found in these words from John Gill, 

“How irrational it is, for ministers to stand offering Christ, and salvation by him to man, when, on the one hand, they have neither power nor right to give; and on the other hand, the person they offer to, have neither power nor will to receive it … It is not consistent with our ideas of God, that he should send ministers to offer salvation to man, to whom he never intended to give it.” (John Gill, Collections of Sermons and Tracts: In Two Volumes (London, 1773) 146.

    There are very few purist Hyper-Calvinists in our day. The only ones that I have personally met were Primitive Baptists. The PBs I met told me that one of their mottos is “Whatever will be, will be,” which is a classic example of fatalism. 

High-Calvinism

* Famous High-Calvinists in history include John Owen (1616-1683) and B.B. Warfield (1851-1921).

* High-Calvinists agree with Hyper-Calvinists in pretty much every way, with the exception that they do believe in calling sinners unto repentance. However, because High-Calvinists distinguish between the outward call of the preacher and the inward call of the Holy Spirit, the outward call to the non-elect isn’t actually a sincere offer from God because he does not love the non-elect. (Jeffrey Johnson, He Died For Me: Limited Atonement & the Universal Gospel, [Free Grace Press, 2018] 87.) 

* It’s important to note that fewer High-Calvinists believe in equal-ultimacy and double predestination than Hyper-Calvinists. 

* An example of a modern-day High-Calvinist would be Dr. James White. Although he is very active in preaching the gospel and calling sinners to repentance, he has always steered away from the idea that God loves all in a salvific way. 

Strict-Calvinism

* Famous Strict-Calvinists in history include Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758), Shubal Stearns (1706-1771), Andrew Fuller (1754-1815), William Carey (1761-1834), Charles Spurgeon (1834-1892), and John MacArthur (1939-2025). 

* Unlike the other positions we have examined, Strict Calvinism recognizes a Biblical (and illogical) paradox between the Sovereignty of God and the agency of man in salvation. 

* Strict-Calvinists believe that God genuinely loves all, that He is sovereign enough to save all, and yet all are not saved, leaving this mystery up to God. 

* Strict-Calvinists believe in the genuine and free offer of the gospel to all. Thus, the SCs believe in a “whosoever will” gospel and that God will save anyone who genuinely wants to be saved. 

* On the other hand, SCs also believe that men and women in their sinfulness will choose their sin over Christ 100% of the time. However, God in His grace has gone above and beyond to elect and save a countless multitude anyway. If true, this would make God infinitely more gracious, not less gracious. 

* Strict-Calvinism teaches this salvific paradox: from man’s perspective, salvation is a free gift and an open invitation to all. From God’s perspective, salvation is a foolproof plan in which, in eternity past, God the Father chose a bride for His Son; the Son came to earth to slay the dragon and redeem His bride; and in time, the Holy Spirit woos that bride through the preaching of the gospel. This makes man completely responsible for rejecting the gospel, and only God gets the glory for the salvation of sinners. 

* Modern Strict-Calvinists include (probably) those pastors that you continue to slander online because you didn’t take the time to find out what they actually believe. 

Some Insights from Spurgeon

    For the remainder of this blog, I would like to briefly highlight some aspects of Charles Spurgeon's life and beliefs that are particularly relevant to this discussion. I do this because so many people in our day greatly revere Spurgeon. Even the most rabid anti-Calvies are hiding Spurgeon commentaries under their mattress (let’s be honest, if we were to remove every book from our libraries that was written by Calvinists, our Bible-reference section would almost completely disappear). 

    In the early years of Spurgeon’s ministry, the Baptist churches in London were saturated with Hyper-Calvinism. Some of Spurgeon’s hardest battles in those early years were against the Hyper-Calvinist pastors who used their weekly columns in the newspaper to destroy Spurgeon and his character. They accused him of the “duty-faith error” and the “Fullerism heresy” simply because he invited sinners to come unto Christ. (Iain Murray, Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism: The Battle for Gospel Preaching [Banner of Truth, 1995] 41.) Ironically, later in his life, the pendulum would swing so far the other way that Spurgeon would have to battle the tsunami of Arminianism. (See Iain Murray, The Forgotten Spurgeon [Banner of Truth, 1966]).

    Spurgeon found himself taking shots from both of these camps precisely because he recognized the Biblical paradox between the sovereignty of God and the agency of man in salvation. In reference to this paradox, Spurgeon stated, 

“The system of truth is not one straight line, but two. No man will ever get a right view of the gospel until he knows how to look at the two lines at once...Now, if I were to declare that man was so free to act, that there is no precedence of God over his actions, I should be driven very near to atheism; and if, on the other hand, I declare that God so overrules all things, as that man is not free to be responsible, I am driven at once to Antinomianism or fatalism. That God predestines, and that man is responsible, are two things that few can see. They are believed to be inconsistent and contradictory; but they are not. It is just the fault of our weak judgment. Two truths cannot be contradictory to each other. If, then, I find taught in one place that everything is fore-ordained, that is true; and if I find in another place that man is responsible for all his actions, that is true; and it is my folly that leads me to imagine that two truths can ever contradict each other. These two truths, I do not believe, can ever be welded into one upon any human anvil, but one they shall be in eternity: they are two lines that are so nearly parallel, that the mind that shall pursue them farthest, will never discover that they converge; but they do converge, and they will meet somewhere in eternity, close to the throne of God, whence all truth doth spring.” (New Park Street Pulpit, 4:337). 

“I believe in predestination, yea, even in its very jots and tittles. I believe that the path of a single grain of dust in the March wind is ordained and settled by a decree which cannot be violated; that every word and thought of man, every fluttering of a sparrow’s wing, every flight of a fly...that everything, in fact is foreknown and foreordained. But I do equally believe in the free agency of man, that man acts as he wills, especially in moral operations — choosing the evil with a will that is unbiased by anything that comes from God, biased only by his own depravity of heart and the perverseness of his habits; choosing the right too, with perfect freedom, though sacredly guided and led by the Holy Spirit...I believe that man is as accountable as if there were no destiny whatever...Where these two truths meet I do not know, nor do I want to know. They do not puzzle me, since I have given up my mind to believing them both.” (Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, 15:458). 

    Typical of Strict-Calvinism, Spurgeon believed that men and women have free agency, that is, that people do what they want to do, but what they want to do is sin. 

“Oh,” says the Arminian, “men may be saved if they will.” We reply, “My dear sir, we all believe that. But it is just the if they will that is the difficulty. We assert that no man will come to Christ unless he is drawn. No, we do not assert it, but Christ Himself declares it—‘You will not come unto Me that you might have life.’ And as long as that ‘you will not come,’ stands on record in Holy Scripture, Christ shall not be brought to believe in any doctrine of the freedom of the human will.” It is strange how people, when talking about free will, talk of things which they do not at all understand. “Now” says one, “I believe men can be saved if they will.” My dear sir, that is not the question at all. The question is, are men ever found naturally willing to submit to the humbling terms of the gospel of Christ? We declare, upon Scriptural authority, that the human will is so desperately set on mischief, so depraved and so inclined to everything that is evil—so disinclined to everything that is good—that without the powerful, supernatural, irresistible influence of the Holy Spirit, no human will will ever be constrained towards Christ!” (New Park Street Pulpit 4:182). 

    Typical of Strict-Calvinism, Spurgeon believed that God elected a multitude of sinners who never would have elected Him. Spurgeon said,  

“I believe the doctrine of election, because I am quite sure that if God had not chosen me I should never have chosen him; and I am sure he chose me before I was born, or else he never would have chosen me afterwards; and he must have elected me for reasons unknown to me, for I never could find any reason in myself why he should have looked upon me with special love.” (Charles H. Spurgeon, Lectures to My Students [Zondervan] p.277). 

    Typical of Strict-Calvinism, Spurgeon believed that the blood of Christ is sufficient to save all, and yet there was a divine intention in that Christ died in such a way as to actually redeem His elect. He stated, 

“And after all, though men call this a Limited atonement, it is as effectual as their own fallacious and rotten redemptions can pretend to be! But do you know the limit of it? Christ has bought a “multitude that no man can number.” The limit of it is just this—He has died for sinners. Whoever in this congregation inwardly and sorrowfully knows himself to be a sinner, Christ died for him! Whoever seeks Christ shall know Christ died for him! Our sense of need of Christ and our seeking after Christ are infallible proofs that Christ died for us! And mark, here is something substantial—the Arminian says Christ died for him. And then, poor man, he has but small consolation, for he says, “Ah, Christ died for me—that does not prove much. It only proves I may be saved if I mind what I am after. I may, perhaps, forget myself. I may run into sin and I may perish. Christ has done a good deal for me—but not quite enough—unless I do something.” (New Park Street Pulpit, #173, The Death of Christ, 1-24-1858).

    He also said, 

“I know there are some who think it necessary to their system of theology to limit the merit of the blood of Jesus: if my theological system needed such limitation, I would cast it to the winds. I cannot, I dare not, allow the thought to find lodging in my mind, it seems so near akin to blasphemy. In Christ’s finished work I see an ocean of merit; my plummet finds no bottom, my eye discerns no shore. There must be sufficient efficacy in the blood of Christ, if God had so willed it to have saved not only all in this world, but all in ten thousand worlds….Having a divine Person for an offering, it is not consistent to conceive of limited value; bound and measure are terms inapplicable to the divine sacrifice. The intent of the divine purpose fixes the application of the infinite offering, but does not change it into a finite work.” (Spurgeon’s Sermons, Vols 1 and 2, “The Peculiar Sleep of the Beloved” [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999], 48.) 

    Typical of Strict-Calvinism, Spurgeon didn’t believe that God forces unwilling people to believe the gospel but graciously changes their will and draws them to Christ. Spurgeon said, 

“A man is not saved against his will, but he is made willing by the operation of the Holy Ghost. A mighty grace which he does not wish to resist enters into the man, disarms him, makes a new creature of him, and he is saved.” (Spurgeon at His Best: Over 2200 Striking Quotations from the World's Most Exhaustive and Widely-read Sermon Series, Baker Publishing Group).

    Typical of Strict-Calvinism, Spurgeon didn’t believe that Christians keep themselves saved through their works, but that they were kept by the power of God. Spurgeon stated, 

“I could never either believe or preach a gospel which saves me today and rejects me tomorrow,-a gospel which puts me in Christ’s family one hour, and makes me a child of the devil the next,-a gospel which first justified and then condemns me,-a gospel which pardons me, and afterwards casts me down to hell. Such a gospel is abhorrent to reason itself, much more is it contrary to the mind of the God whom we delight to serve.” (Searchlight on Spurgeon: Spurgeon Speaks for Himself, 81.)

    Typical of Strict-Calvinism, Spurgeon believed that the sovereignty of God is a good and comforting thing. Spurgeon said, 

“There is no attribute of God more comforting to his children than the doctrine of Divine Sovereignty. Under the most adverse circumstances, in the most severe troubles, they believe that Sovereignty hath ordained their afflictions, that Sovereignty overrules them, and that Sovereignty will sanctify them all. There is nothing for which the children of God ought more earnestly to contend than the dominion of their Master over all creation—the kingship of God over all the works of his own hands—the throne of God, and his right to sit upon that throne. On the other hand, there is no doctrine more hated by worldlings, no truth of which they have made such a foot-ball, as the great, stupendous, but yet most certain doctrine of the Sovereignty of the infinite Jehovah. Men will allow God to be everywhere except on his throne.” (New Park Street Pulpit Volume 2, sermon 77). 

    Typical of Strict-Calvinism, Spurgeon absolutely believed in evangelism, understanding that God has ordained both the ends and the means of salvation. To this point, Spurgeon said, 

“Oh, my brothers and sisters in Christ, if sinners will be damned, at least let them leap to hell over our bodies; and if they will perish, let them perish with our arms about their knees, imploring them to stay, and not madly to destroy themselves. If hell must be filled, at least let it be filled in the teeth of our exertions, and let not one go there unwarned and unprayed for.” (“The Wailing of Risca,” Sermon No. 349; Delivered on Sabbath Morning, December 9th, 1860, at Exeter Hall, Strand).

Conclusion

    I don’t know about you, but none of this seems to be heretical or damnable to me. Maybe this is why I’ve actually heard IFB preachers condemn Calvinism and praise Spurgeon in the same sermon. They don’t know the difference between the categories of “Calvinism.” At least they can respect dead Calvinists like Spurgeon. Unfortunately, many of those same IFB pastors will disfellowship and cut down living men who believe like Spurgeon. I have often pondered this phenomenon, but I think the reason is that IFB pastors don’t have to worry about dead Calvinists supporting their meetings. But oh man, they would really be in a panic if a living Calvinist walked in the door and risked the brethren thinking that the pastor was friends with such a blood thirsty heretic. Such interactions prove that these men are governed more by a fear of the brethren more than they are the truth. 

    This nonsense has got to stop. The online bashings have to stop. The division and character assault have to stop. When IFB pastors and members accuse all Calvinists of believing that God is the author of sin, that there is no need to evangelize, that God doesn’t love everyone, that God forces people to believe against their will, that they don’t believe in “whosoever will,” that they preach a false gospel, or that they are blind followers of John Calvin, they are either uninformed (I’m being nice) or lying. Bro. Sammy Allen once said, “You do not become a Calvinist by reading the Bible; you become a Calvinist by reading other books.” While the premise is debatable, I would like to point out that the inverse is certainly true. The only way that people come to despise their Calvinist brothers is if they have never read a book at all (outside of their echo chamber). 

(Part 4 to be released next week, if I complete my papers on time :) 

What I Wish My IFB Brothers Knew About the Calvinism/Arminianism Debate (Part II)

 

    This article is part II of a blog series (you can read part I here) in which I am confronting the egregious arguments and slander made online by some of my IFB brothers against Calvinism and Calvinists (Arminianism as well). I want to reiterate that the thrust of this blog series isn’t a defense of Calvinism or Arminianism, but to expose the terrible arguments, false caricatures, and subsequent slander against our brothers in Christ from IFB pastors. Although I am responding to a specific Facebook post, this post accurately represents the army of strawmen that I have heard in my circles for years. I speak much more about Calvinism than Arminianism simply because that’s 99% of what the post was attacking (it always is), but everything I say about Calvin and Calvinism can also be applied to Arminius and Arminianism. As promised, I will try to write multiple blogs in an effort to keep them short. With that in mind, it’s time to deal with strawman #2.  

Strawman #2: John Calvin invented the Doctrines of Grace, Better Known as Calvinism. 

    I bring up this point because, without a doubt, the most frequently used argument against Calvinism among my IFB brothers is that the doctrines of grace originated with John Calvin, who they claim was an evil person. In the Facebook post I am responding to (mostly in the comments), it was frequently echoed that John Calvin was a murderer (Servetus!), a Jew hater, a baby dunker, and that he had no clear testimony of salvation. I was also publicly challenged in the comment section to defend a statement that Calvin made in which he said the non-elect are “doomed from the womb.” I promised to address this in my blog, so here is my response: it’s completely irrelevant to whether or not the doctrines of grace can be found in the Bible. 

    This is the classic Genetic Fallacy (also known as the Origin Fallacy). The weakness of the Genetic fallacy is that it focuses on the supposed source of a truth claim, instead of the merits of a truth claim. The deductive form of this argument against the doctrines of grace goes like this: 

Premise 1: John Calvin taught that the doctrines of grace are Biblically true.  

Premise 2: John Calvin was a bad person. 

Conclusion: Therefore, the doctrines of grace cannot be Biblically true.

    Let’s give another example of the Genetic Fallacy to show how weak this argument is. 

Premise 1: Adolf Hitler said that the sky is blue. 

Premise 2: Adolf Hitler was evil. 

Conclusion: Therefore, the sky can’t be blue. 

    Can you see the faulty logic here? I hope that we can all agree that, regardless of the doctrine or position we are trying to defend, we ought to have no room for bad arguments (perhaps I am asking too much). Good positions don’t need to be defended by bad arguments. Using weak arguments to defend what might otherwise be a strong position is a poor strategy. 

    Although I think the accusations against Calvin are often overblown, there are plenty of things that John Calvin said or did that I would never try to defend. However, that has nothing to do with whether or not the doctrines of grace are found in the Bible. I want to repeat, John Calvin could have been a murdering, anti-Semitic, baby-dunking, tofu-eating, croc-wearing, Taylor Swift-loving, Auburn fan, and it still has no bearing at all on whether or not the doctrines of grace can be found within the pages of Holy Scripture (ok, I can’t lie, I love to wear my Wal-Mart crocs when I’m working outside, but that has no bearing on whether or not the claims in this blog are true).

(As an aside, neither Calvin nor Arminius systematized their systems. "Calvinism" was systematized over 50 years after Calvin's death at the Synod of Dort. You can read the Canons of Dort here. Likewise, Arminianism was also systematized after the death of Arminius. You can read the Articles of Remonstrants here. I think both men would be horrified to know that these systems of Biblical interpretation were named after them.)

IFB Pastors Ought to Have Zero Tolerance for Intellectual Dishonesty, Even Against Those with Whom You Disagree. 

    The reason this argument is so intellectually dishonest is that there isn’t a Calvinist alive who would try to prove the truthfulness of the doctrines of grace by taking people to Calvin’s Institutes, as if they were theopneustos. A Calvinist is going to take you to texts like Romans 3 and John 6 to try to prove Total Depravity, Romans 8 and Ephesians 1 for Unconditional Election, Matthew 1:21 and John 10 for Definite Atonement, John 6 and Ephesians 2 for Irresistible Grace, Philippians 1:21 and Romans 8 for Perseverance of the Saints, etc.

    John Calvin didn’t write John 6, 10, 17, Ephesians 1-2, Romans 8-9, etc., etc. Charles Spurgeon said,

“I believe nothing because Calvin taught it, but because I have found his teaching in the Word of God … We hold and assert again and again that the truth which Calvin preached was the very truth which the apostle Paul had long before written in his inspired epistles, and which is most clearly revealed in the discourses of our blessed Lord Himself.”

    Just this week, Calvinist preacher, Dustin Benge, tweeted (I know it’s X, but I’m old school), 

“Erase John Calvin from church history and delete the word ‘Calvinism,’ and I still believe in the absolute helpless depravity of man, the unconditional election of God, the definition atonement of Christ, the efficacious grace of God, and the perseverance of all God’s children.” 

    To my IFB brothers, please hear this: even if you disagree with the “Calvinistic” interpretation of Scripture, the honest thing to do is to engage the Calvinists on the battlefield of Scripture. If the goal is to effect real change, if you really want to get the attention of the Tulip sniffers, I triple dog dare you to go on an online forum (YouTube, podcast, blog, etc.) and walk through these texts to give your “correct” Biblical interpretation. For example, walk through Romans 8-9 verse by verse to try and prove the “Nations” argument (oh please do it!). I know you won’t, but sometimes it’s fun to dream. Sadly, you will probably remain content with “amens” from your echo chamber on Facebook.   

We Have Biblical Precedent to Intellectually Engage with People on Their Turf 

    When Jesus was dealing with the Sadducees (who did not believe in the resurrection from the dead), “Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. And when the multitude heard this, they were astonished at his doctrine.” (Matthew 22:29-33). 

    Not only did the Sadducees not believe in a bodily resurrection, but they also believed that only the five books of Moses were authoritative. They did not consider any other OT book or prophet as being inspired Scripture. Notice that Jesus cites from Exodus 3 to prove the point that there will be a resurrection. Jesus could have quoted from pretty much any OT prophet He wanted to, but He purposely chose to cite Moses because He knew that his writings were the Sadducees' authority. He used their standard to get to His point. 

    When the Apostle Paul was preaching to the Greeks at Mars Hill, he quoted from one of their own poets (Aratus), “For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.” He then used this as a springboard to teach them Scriptural truth about God. Like Jesus, Paul used a standard they respected to get to His point. 

    I’m far from a Paul or a Jesus (not even close), but I recently had the opportunity to do something similar with a Jehovah’s Witness. JWs believe that Christ was a created being and that His Father, Jehovah, is the only true God. The JW’s have written their own corrupt version of the Bible (The New World Translation) for the purpose of cutting out the parts that point to Jesus being God. I happened upon a young man at the coffee shop who was reading the NWT. After a brief conversation, I asked him to turn to Isaiah 6 and begin reading aloud. Over and over, his NWT said that Isaiah saw the glory of Jehovah high and lifted up, with his train filling the temple. I then asked him to turn to John 12:41, where it says that Isaiah saw the glory of Jesus. I then said to the young man, “Even your own Bible says that Jesus is Jehovah God, what are you going to do about that?” 

    The point I’m making is that it’s just reasonable, honest, and Biblical to engage with people from where they are, not from where they aren’t. When I see someone get online and act as if they have somehow destroyed the teachings of “Calvinism” by “destroying” the character of John Calvin, I think to myself, “either they don’t know the difference between John Calvin and John Deere, or they are being deliberately dishonest.” 

    Since both Calvinists and Arminians derive their beliefs from their interpretation of Scripture, the honest thing to do is to engage their interpretation of Scripture. If you’re not willing to do that, you’re not even in the game; you’re just playing with caterpillars in deep right field. It's just poor form to dictate to a person what they believe and proceed to attack what they don't believe. We can do better. (Read part 3 here.) 

  

What I Wish My IFB Brothers Knew About the Calvinism/Arminian Debate

 

    Once upon a time, orthodox Christians wore historical labels (such as Calvinism/Arminianism) so they could quickly identify their specific beliefs in a particular area of Biblical theology. And while the debate between Arminianism and Calvinism has always been passionate, it’s only been a fairly recent phenomenon that someone is viewed as a bloodthirsty heretic for disagreement in this area. Take, for example, this excerpt from the journal of Charles Simeon (A Calvinist) writing about his correspondence with John Wesley (an Arminian). The following excerpt is dated December 10th, 1784.   

"Sir, I understand that you are called an Arminian; and I have been sometimes called a Calvinist; and therefore I suppose we are to draw daggers. But before I consent to begin the combat, with your permission I will ask you a few questions.... Pray, Sir, do you feel yourself a depraved creature, so depraved that you would never have thought of turning to God, if God had not first put it into your heart?" "Yes," says the veteran, "I do indeed." `And do you utterly despair of recommending yourself to God by anything you can do; and look for salvation solely through the blood and righteousness of Christ?" "Yes, solely through Christ." "But, Sir, supposing you were at first saved by Christ, are you not somehow or other to save yourself afterwards by your own works?" "No, I must be saved by Christ from first to last." "Allowing, then, that you were first turned by the grace of God, are you not in some way or other to keep yourself by your own power?" "No." "What, then, are you to be upheld every hour and every moment by God, as much as an infant in its mother's arms?" "Yes, altogether." 'And is all your hope in the grace and mercy of God to preserve you unto his heavenly kingdom?" "Yes, I have no hope but in him." "Then, Sir, with your leave I will put up my dagger again; for this is all my Calvinism; this is my election, my justification by faith, my final perseverance: it is in substance all that I hold, and as I hold it; and therefore, if you please, instead of searching out terms and phrases to be a ground of contention between us, we will cordially unite in those things wherein we agree."

    Sadly, the days of Christian unity and brotherly love in this arena are over, at least in large swaths of Independent Baptist churches, of which I am a part. These historical labels are now used to identify and hunt down brothers and sisters in Christ. In fact, what sparked this blog (and the coming blog series) was a rabidly anti-Calvinist Facebook rant (it was more like a small novel) from a fellow IFB pastor. There were so many strawmen, red herrings, oversimplifications, and patently false statements that I lost count of them all. However, the final straw for me was the slander and character assassination of our brothers in Christ. The Facebook rant opens by saying, 

“My assessment is that Calvinism is rooted in pride. Let the reader beware of feeling as if you are of the elite elect while the rest are destined for hell. Below I believe you will find a compelling scriptural and logical argument against Reformed Theology and the view in which it paints God.” 

    In the second paragraph, he goes on to call Calvinists “dishonest” and “crooked as a dog’s hind leg” (more on this later). So right out of the gate, this brother (who I believe to be a good brother) calls all Calvinists everywhere “proud,” “dishonest,” and “crooked.” Broadbrushing aside, this language should be reserved for the worst kind of heretics, not our brothers in Christ. 

    God hates “a false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.” (Proverbs 6:19). We ought to hate this kind of thing as well. We ought to love our brothers in Christ more than our hobby horses, or likes and amens on a Facebook rant. 

    For this reason, over the next several weeks, I plan to write a blog series where I walk through this brother’s Facebook post and expose the errors therein (yes, I did reach out to him and let him know beforehand). I’m not picking on this brother in particular. To be fair to him, these errors are far too prevalent in the IFB. I’m just tired of it. I’m tired of good brothers getting slandered. On a personal level, I’m also tired of being falsely labeled and criticized for things that I don’t even believe. I’ve been asked numerous times if I am a Calvinist (that’s if they have the decency to ask me instead of slandering me behind my back). 100% of the time, this is how the conversation has gone. “Pastor Vaughan, I have heard some disturbing things, and I want to ask, are you a Calvinist?” “Let’s be really careful to define that term. Tell me what a Calvinist believes and I will tell you whether or not I’m a Calvinist.” The person then goes on to define Calvinism, to which I always reply, “If that is what Calvinism teaches, then I am definitely not a Calvinist and would strongly oppose it.” 

    Weaponized ignorance always hurts people, even if done with good intentions (I’ve been guilty of it more times than I care to admit, and for that I am ashamed.) Even if we are truly combating heretics, we should at least have the decency and work ethic to find out and combat what they actually believe. I am a pastor in the Mormon Mecca of Northern Utah. I try my best to conduct thorough research to understand what the LDS actually believe, rather than pursuing the low-hanging fruit and straw men. Shouldn’t we extend the same courtesy to our brothers and sisters in Christ?  

    The goal of this blog series is to try to educate and unify the body of Christ in this area of soteriology (feeble as my efforts may be). To be clear, my purpose is not to defend Calvinism (or Arminianism for that matter) but to at least make people aware of where both sides are coming from. My desire is not to champion historical labels (although I want to be intellectually honest about where my beliefs land). When I die, I hope to be remembered as a Christian.

     Each week, I will expose a different straw man in an effort to keep the blog relatively short (this week's entry will be longer due to the introduction). It would be impossible to critique the entire Facebook post, but I will highlight the key points. All I ask is for honest reflection on the facts presented, and a resistance to the urge to react emotionally. I will do my best to be respectful and reasonable. With that said, let’s dive into strawman #1. 

Strawman #1: “I’m not a Calvinist or an Arminian, I just believe the Bible.” The strawman being the supposed false dichotomy 

    The second paragraph of the Facebook post reads, 

“First of all, the Calvinists are dishonest and crooked as a dog’s hind leg to give the false dichotomy that there are only two options: Calvinism and Arminianism. There is a third category. Christians. True Bible believers.”

    If I had a nickel for every time I have heard this in the IFB (or how many times I've said it in the past), I would be a rich man. It sounds great on paper, but a little digging will reveal this to be a false statement and a cop-out. The problem is that the term “biblicist” on its face is a meaningless term. Calvinists, Arminians, and so-called middle grounders all claim to be biblicists, but all of these beliefs must be examined by what the Bible actually says. Therefore, the term “biblicist” must be immediately defined and defended, which will reveal historical leanings.

    It is true that someone doesn’t have to be a five-point Calvinist or a five-point Arminian. However, it is also true that whatever we believe biblically about these individual points concerning salvation will fit into a historical camp somewhere. It’s unavoidable. Listen to these words from Arminian author, Dr. Roger Olson (for whom I have great respect). 

“The plain fact of the matter is that on certain points classical Calvinism and classical Arminianism simply disagree, and no bridge uniting them can be found; no hybrid of the two can be created. Calvinism can be seen as the middle ground between fatalism and synergism; Arminianism can be seen as the middle ground between semi-Pelagianism and Calvinism. But between Calvinism and Arminianism there is no mutual compatibility. Logic will always force a person to go one way or the other. Of course, if we do not care about logic, then we inhabit an artificially constructed Calminian house built on sand. But it will be ravaged by the harsh questions of logic and common sense. Is election of individuals to salvation conditional or unconditional? If we answer “I don’t know,” no Calminian hybrid exists. But if we respond “Both,” where is the middle ground? How do we logically combine conditional and unconditional? The same questions could be posed to the Calminian view of atonement and grace. Does God intend Christ’s atoning death to save everyone or only some? If we answer that God intends to save all but knows only some will be saved, we are Arminians! If we answer that God intends to save only some even though it is sufficient to save all, we are Calvinists! Almost all the clever responses of Calminianism to such questions end up being Calvinistic or Arminian. Is saving grace resistible or irresistible? Is it always effectual, or can it be rejected? Where is the middle ground? Once the Calminian begins clarifying and qualifying, he or she inevitably reveals either Calvinist or Arminian colors.” (Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities by Roger E. Olson, p. 68).

    Let’s hash out Olson’s claim by lining up the infamous 5 points of Calvinism with the lesser-known 5 points of Arminianism (also known as the 5 points of Remonstrants). 

Calvinism                                                                   

1. Total Depravity (While the opportunity for salvation is available to all who hear the gospel, because of man’s sinful state, he would never desire God apart from grace, thus he is unable within himself to respond positively to the gospel message). 

2. Unconditional Election (God, in His grace, chose a multitude of unworthy sinners before the foundation of the world to be a bride for His Son, salvation in other words). 

3. Limited Atonement (while there is debate on this point among Calvinists [to be hashed out in a later blog], the historic moderate Calvinist interpretation is that while the blood of Christ is sufficient to save all, the inent of the cross is that Christ died to redeem His bride who was given to Him by the Father, the effect being that His death actually redeemed the elect). 

4. Irresistible Grace (If God calls a sinner by His Grace, they will respond positively to the gospel) 

5. Perserverance of the Saints (Through the grace of God, Christians will remain faithful to God [not flawlessly] and never ultimately fall away) 

Arminianism 

1. Total Depravity (Which is overcome by prevenient grace available to all, which = free will). 

2. Conditional election (God looked down the corridors of time to see who would choose Him, and chose them as a result. This is known as the prescient view). 

3. Unlimited atonement (Christ died equally for all, and therefore, all have equal opportunity to be saved). 

4. Resistible Grace (God’s grace can be resisted)

5. Conditional Preservation (Although a Christian can’t lose their salvation, like one loses their car keys, they can ultimately turn away from God if they choose, losing their salvation in the process). 

    Here is the point Olson is driving at, and this is the Achilles' heel for someone who wants to boast about being just a “biblicist.” They are going to have to answer the following questions, Biblically speaking:

1. What is the middle ground between total depravity and free will?

2. What is the middle ground between Unconditional and Conditional Election?

3. What is the middle ground between limited and unlimited atonement? 

4. What is the middle ground between irresistible and resistible grace? 

5. What is the middle ground between eternal security and the possibility of being able to lose one’s salvation? 

    Once someone puts down their cop-out cliches and “begins clarifying and qualifying, he or she inevitably reveals either Calvinist or Arminian colors.” This is a great time to point out that I have NEVER seen or heard of an IFB pastor go on a witch hunt concerning Arminianism. This is because most of the rabid anti-Calvies are 4-point Arminians and don’t even know it (the exception being #5). Our dear brother, even in his FB post, admitted as much:

1. “God did not decree for the majority of the world to be unable to believe. God never created a man to be human fire kindling. Calvinism states that man is so totally depraved that he will not and can not accept Christ. Because of the sin of Adam God decreed that man could only hate and despise God and his pleas/ appeals to come to Him. Therefore people end up in hell by reasons beyond their control. Calvin said they are destined for destruction. They are doomed from the womb. Does that really sound like a message of hope? Is that the good news, how that God created the majority of mankind without any possible solution or responsibility to trust Him and deemed them for eternal fire? If you believe that garbage, then you believe God is responsible for man’s unbelief. You can not say man is responsible and at the same time claim total depravity as to how God created man. Did the God who created man in His own image create them to be destroyed?” In other words, man has free will to choose Christ (Arminianism)

2. “The message of Calvinism is not hope. Its message is only hope for the elite, the pre chosen, the pre determined, the elect. Before you get on your high horse, you need to understand something about the elect. The elect and chosen one is The Lord Jesus Christ. You are elect when you are in Christ. Jesus is the way to election. Those who are saved by Grace through faith are elect.” In other words, God chose you because you chose Christ (Arminianism). 

3. “The cross demonstrated His great love for humanity.” In other words, Christ died equally for all (Arminianism). 

4. “Bible believers, though, see it as the Bible does. Man has a responsibility to accept or reject the Lord Jesus Christ. What you do with the Elect One will determine what God does with you! The choice is yours. You have that responsibility. You have the ability to confess your need as a sinner and put your faith in Christ Jesus.” In other words, God’s saving grace can be accepted or rejected (Arminianism). 

5. “Bible believers are not Arminian. We do not believe salvation can be lost. We are kept by His power. We are saved by Him and eternally secure by Him.” (Calvinism)

    I recognize that in the end, the only thing that matters is that we are correct Biblically. But tell me again how your Biblical beliefs somehow completely avoid historical Arminianism and Calvinism? This raises another question that needs to be addressed. What is the historical label for someone who believes in a middle ground position between Arminianism and Calvinism? It doesn’t exist. By claiming to be a “biblicist,” you are saying that what you believe is original, like this subject was never carefully thought out in the past by great theological minds. As if men like Jonathan Edwards and John Wesley were too stupid to figure out that heralded middle ground. If only some of our IFB brethren could travel back in time and inform those poor, ignorant souls, perhaps all of this could be sorted out by now.

    This article has already gotten longer than I intended. I would just like to request a substantive argument in response to the facts and questions I have presented. If you can’t answer these questions, then perhaps you should reconsider claiming to be a biblicist. It’s claiming a position without claiming a position. I know who I am and where I stand, and if asked, I will gladly own my historical leanings for each individual point. What about you?  

    The truth is that while the gospel message is so simple that a child can understand, the subject of how God’s sovereignty and the free agency of man work together is a deep thing. We are much more likely to oversimplify the issue than we are to overcomplicate it. This is why we must approach this topic with caution and extend grace to our brothers and sisters in Christ who may not share our exact perspective. (You can read part II here).

 

The Spurgeon of Our Generation: A Tribute to John MacArthur

 A Moment in Time That Would Change the World 

Chances are, you’ve never heard of the small town of Eutaw, Alabama, located in the swamps of Greene County. But Eutaw is a very special place. On a personal note, Eutaw is only 40 minutes from where I was raised. Some of my fondest memories from my youth were spent hunting and fishing with friends in the woods and rivers on the outskirts of Eutaw. 

Eutaw is a special place for another reason. It’s where an 18-year-old John MacArthur surrendered his life to the ministry over 65 years ago. He was on a road trip with friends, travelling down Interstate 20/59, when suddenly the driver rolled their car at 75 mph. MacArthur was thrown out of the passenger seat, onto the road. He skidded across the asphalt for nearly 125 yards, tearing the flesh from his hands, back, and legs. Miraculously, not a bone was broken. 

Although MacArthur had felt the calling of God on his life, he wasn’t sold on the idea. He had aspirations of being a collegiate and possibly a professional athlete. However, this moment in time changed all of that, as the injured MacArthur stood up on the side of the interstate in Eutaw, Alabama, and said, “Lord, whatever you want me to do, I’ll do it…I’ll serve you any way you want me to. If it’s a small ministry, give me the grace to do it and be satisfied. If it’s a larger ministry, give me the humility to do it.” (Link). The skies didn’t open. There was no choir of angels. There was no theophany. But MacArthur could never have imagined how the Lord would honor and answer that prayer. 

MacArthur’s Ministry At A Glance

MacArthur became the Pastor of Grace Community Church in Sun Valley, California, in 1969 and served there for over 56 years, until his death on July 14, 2025. Though a relatively small church in 1969, the church now reports over 3,000 in attendance each week. 

In 1977, MacArthur and GCC launched the “Grace to You” radio broadcast, which currently airs over 1,000 times a day worldwide. The Spanish version is available in 23 countries in Europe and Latin America (Link). Thousands of these sermons have now been archived on the Grace to You app. 

MacArthur became president of The Master’s College, formerly Los Angeles Baptist College, in 1985. A year later, he founded The Master’s Seminary, a graduate school designed to train men for ministry and missionary service. (IBID). 

MacArthur has authored over 400 books and study guides, including The MacArthur Study Bible, which is available in nine languages and has sold over 1 million copies. (IBID). 

During the Covid outbreak (2020-21), MacArthur and GCC defied both local and state authorities under threat of heavy fines and possible arrests in order to continue meeting for worship. Eventually, the church won an $800,000 lawsuit against said authorities due to their unconstitutional mandates. MacArthur accomplished all of this while being out of his beloved Fresca, due to supply shortages.

MacArthur was also a devoted husband to Patricia for over 60 years. They have four children, fifteen grandchildren, and nine great-grandchildren.   

The Spurgeon of Our Generation

I firmly believe that in a hundred years, people will talk about MacArthur with the same reverence that we have for Spurgeon today. I certainly didn’t invent the Spurgeon-Macarthur comparison, but I think it deserves some attention. I’m sure that if we all got together and brainstormed, we could come up with several comparisons between these giants of the faith, but for the sake of brevity, I will discuss only two reasons why the comparison should hold weight. 

First, MacArthur and Spurgeon are the most published preachers of the last 350 years, and it’s not even close (here’s looking at you, John Owen). We mentioned MacArthur's publishing prowess in the previous section. In the same vein, “Spurgeon's sermons sold 25,000 copies every week. They were translated into more than 20 languages.” There are more than 3,600 of Spurgeon’s sermons in print. “The New Park Street Pulpit and The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit—the collected sermons of Spurgeon during his ministry with that congregation—fill 63 volumes. The sermons' 20-25 million words are equivalent to the 27 volumes of the ninth edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica. The series stands as the largest set of books by a single author in the history of Christianity. At least 3 of Spurgeon's works (including the multi-volume Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit series) have sold more than 1,000,000 copies. One of these, All of Grace, was the first book ever published by Moody Press (formerly the Bible Institute Colportage Association) and is still its all-time bestseller.” (Link).   

Spurgeon is quoted every week in pulpits all across the world. The main reason for this (other than the fact that the guy was a quote factory) is that we have so much material to quote from. The same can certainly be said of MacArthur, which brings me to my next point. 

The second reason for the validity of the MacArthur-Spurgeon comparison is somewhat complex. Let me just say that time has a way of elevating a man’s character and minimizing his controversy. I'm sure that the reader is familiar with the term, "the good ole days." The ironic thing about the good ole days is that nobody ever recognizes them in the present. They are always a thing of the past. I think the reason for this is that we are always aware of the struggles of the present, but God and time have a way of filtering the struggles of the past, leaving us with fond memories of the good times. I think this principle applies to good men as well as good days.

It’s hard to find anyone in our day who doesn’t respect Spurgeon. I’ve even heard preachers bash Calvinism in a sermon, and in that same sermon quote Spurgeon in a reverent way (oh the irony). Almost everyone loves Charles Spurgeon. However, such was not the case during his lifetime. 

In his early days of ministry, Spurgeon was battling against the Hyper-Calvinists, who used their large platforms to accuse him of preaching a false “duty-faith” by inviting sinners to come to Christ (Link). In the latter days of his ministry, Spurgeon was fighting against Arminianism and a tsunami of easy-believism (Link). Spurgeon separated himself from the Baptist Union due to their theological liberalism and ecumenism (Link). Spurgeon even took shots from his own for defending men like D.L. Moody and Ira Sankey and their controversial methods of evangelism (Link). Many times during his life, Spurgeon was like a man with no country. However, his controversy has faded, and his character has been immortalized.   

MacArthur was also no stranger to controversy. He was too Calvinistic for the Aminians, not Calvinistic enough for the Hyper-Calvinists, too dispy for the reformed, too reformed for the dispys, too conservative for the “young, restless and reformed” movement, too liberal for the fringe fundamentalists, too complementarian for the egalitarians, too cessationist for the charismatics, too credo for the Presbys, too anti-government for the Romans 13 crowd, too Romans 13 for the rabidly pro-America crowd, too Lordship for the cheap gracers, too anti-vaxxer for the Branch Covidians, and let’s not forget about those who want to hang thief beef by ignoring over 60 years of sermons and books and use a 30 second clip out of context to claim that MacArthur didn’t believe in the necessity of the blood of Christ for salvation. You get the idea.

Time wouldn’t allow us to examine his numerous controversial interviews on national news outlets, such as Larry King Live, concerning hot-button social issues, which, in a world full of Joel Osteens, was a breath of fresh air (Please do yourself a favor and watch this short clip).  Love him or hate him, John MacArthur was nobody's lap dog. He was a man of principle, and men of principle live long after the voices of their detractors are faded and forgotten.

MacArthur’s Impact On My Life

Due to this stigma of controversy, I was warned to safeguard myself from John MacArthur and his teachings by some of my mentors. However, about 10 years ago, I was going through a really difficult personal trial that was beginning to affect my ministry. In God’s providence, I stumbled across a sermon series from MacArthur that dealt with exactly what I was going through. 

The Lord used MacArthur’s teaching not only to help me go another mile but to change my life and ministry. MacArthur had a significant impact on my love and practice of expositional preaching and teaching. He also taught me that the power in preaching is found in the God-breathed Scriptures, not the rhetoric and charisma of the preacher. This has been one of my greatest anchors since the Lord called my family and me to reach the Latter-Day Saints in Utah in 2020. 

He has also greatly helped me in the study of the Scriptures. For many years, there has rarely been a week that went by when I don’t read after MacArthur as part of my sermon prep. When young preachers ask me about the most crucial books for them to have in their library, my immediate answer is that John MacArthur’s commentary on the New Testament should be at the top of the list. The reason for this is that I know of no other contemporary author/pastor who can so clearly and directly just tell you what the Bible says. 

I never had the privilege of meeting John MacArthur, but in 2019, I was able to attend his church while on a medical trip for my wife (Cedars-Sinai). To my disappointment, MacArthur was on a sabbatical. However, one of the security team members was kind enough to take me to see MacArthur’s office after the service. This man also told me that MacArthur had reserved one of his bookshelves to stock copies of his various books for visitors like me who attend when he isn’t there. I was able to select a book from that shelf as a gift. So I now have a copy of The Gospel According to God from the office of John MacArthur. For these reasons (and so many others), I will forever be grateful for the ministry and example of John MacArthur. What a vessel of the Lord in this generation. He brought such stability and light that will be greatly missed.

Conclusion

It’s been nearly 70 years since the Lord called John MacArthur to the ministry on the shoulder of that Alabama Interstate. I doubt that in his injured state, MacArthur paid too much attention to his surroundings. But had he looked to the trees, there is no way that he could have known that decades later, a young man would be hunting in those very woods, who not only knew his name, but had been significantly impacted by his sermons and books, and that this young man would be only one of millions worldwide.   

I think this story is indicative of the kind of reach and influence that MacArthur had. And if in the coming decades the Spurgeon comparison becomes a reality, and MacArthur is quoted so reverently and universally, separated from his controversy, then I would like to start the trend by leaving the reader with one of my favorite JMac quotes. “If the truth offends, then let it offend. People have been living their whole lives in offense to God; let them be offended for a while.”

"His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.” Matthew 25:23

Why Would a Loving God Send Anyone To Hell?

 I get this question a lot from my LDS friends. The implication, and in many cases the direct statement, is that the God of Mormonism is somehow more loving than the God of the Bible. Nothing could be further from the truth. When we understand who and what we really are and who God is, the question that we should all be asking is, “Why doesn’t God send everyone to Hell?” 

Let’s start with an illustration. Imagine for a moment that somebody brutally murders one of your loved ones. The man is arrested, and the case goes to trial. There is a mountain of evidence to prove this man’s guilt, so much so that it erases all doubt. He’s a cold-blooded killer. As you sit in the packed courtroom surrounded by family and friends, the verdict is read, “We find the defendant guilty of murder in the 1st degree.” An audible sigh of relief can be heard throughout the courtroom. Justice is about to be served. 

When the time comes for sentencing, the judge says to the defendant, “The state has proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that you committed this heinous murder. Throughout this entire trial you have shown zero remorse, and I believe that given the opportunity, you would kill again. I could sentence you to death. However, I want you to know that I am so loving that I am acquitting you of all charges. You may leave this courtroom as a free man.” With that, the judge slams his gavel and retires to his chambers. 

This leads me to ask the million-dollar question: was this a loving thing to do? Of course not! This decision not only jeopardizes the public's safety, but everyone can clearly see the injustice in this situation, and it’s never loving to be unjust. This was an unrighteous judge, completely derelict of his duty to punish criminals, protect the public, and get justice for the victim. 

God is all-loving, so much so that He is incapable of doing anything unloving. This means that He could never be like this wicked judge. When we understand how the concepts of love and justice fit together hand in hand, it begins to make sense why a loving God would punish sinners. Asking why a loving God would send anyone to Hell is like asking why a loving judge would send a murderer to death row. 

The reader might be saying. “Well, I’m not that bad, I haven’t killed anybody.” Not bad by what standard? Your own? The criminal always finds a way to justify his crimes. This leads us to ground zero regarding our problem as human beings. We don’t see ourselves as criminals before a Holy and Righteous God. This is certainly true of the LDS. I was speaking with an LDS friend the other day who told me that Heavenly Father can love us more deeply because, in LDS theology, we are all his children. Whereas, in Christian theology, we are merely His creatures. Let’s take a moment to analyze this statement. 

The Bible makes it crystal clear that we had no pre-existence. Adam was the first man. God took the dirt that He made out of nothing, formed Adam, and breathed life into his nostrils, making him a living soul (Genesis 2:7). Adam, acting as our federal representative (Romans 5:12), rebelled against God (ironically, like Satan, wanting to become his own god). As a result of the fall, we are all born with a sinful, rebellious heart. We have all sinned and fallen short of God’s glory and standard (Romans 3:10, 23). We are all born with the desire to be our own god. We want autonomy from our Creator. 

Because of sin, we are the enemies of God, not the children of God. This is why we must be adopted into God's family through faith in Christ (Galatians 4:4-6). Let me ask a question: Isn’t it more loving for God to send His only begotten Son to die for His enemies than what LDS theology teaches? “But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. 10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.” (Romans 5:8-10) What a thought: the God of all creation became a man and died for mankind! It doesn’t get any more loving than that. 

We would all be guilty even by God’s minimum standard of human behavior, the Ten Commandments. We have all lied (that makes us liars). We have all used God’s name in vain in some type of way (that makes us blasphemers). We have all lusted in our hearts (that makes us adulterers). We have all put our selfish ambitions before God (that makes us idolaters). Sadly, people are mistaken if they think they will stand before God and have Him pat them on the back. This is why we need salvation in Christ. Jesus didn’t die on the cross and rise again just so that we could have a resurrection body. He came that we might have our sins forgiven! “In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace.” (Ephesians 1:7). 

In reference to our inability to recognize our own sinfulness, Calvin gave an illustration of staring at earthly things as opposed to trying to stare at the Sun. Our eyes do just fine when we look at earthly things, such as trees, rocks, flowers, etc. But if we tried to look directly at the Sun we would be blinded in just a short time. It’s the same when we compare ourselves to others, as opposed to seeing ourselves in the light of a Holy God. 

“For as long as our views are bounded by the earth, perfectly content with our own righteousness, wisdom, and strength, we fondly flatter ourselves, and fancy we are little less than demigods. But, if we once elevate our thoughts to God, and consider his nature, and the consummate perfection of his righteousness, wisdom, and strength, to which we ought to be conformed,—what before charmed us in ourselves under the false pretext of righteousness, will soon be loathed as the greatest iniquity; what strangely deceived us under the title of wisdom, will be despised as extreme folly; and what wore the appearance of strength, will be proved to be most wretched impotence.”

Why Eternal Punishment?

The reader might think, "Okay, I get the whole justice thing, but for all eternity, come on. How is that fair?” Growing up, I heard a preacher say that if we could open the portals of hell and give those sinners one last chance to repent and make Christ their Lord and Savior, they would jump at the opportunity. I don’t believe that. While nobody wants to suffer in hell, merely giving them another chance doesn’t make them love God. Let me illustrate.

In college, I had to write a paper on the notorious serial killer John Wayne Gacy (yes, I took some of my core classes at a secular college). That was one scary guy. During the day, he would dress up like a clown and volunteer at the local children’s hospital. At night, he would kidnap young men, torture them, kill them, and bury them in the crawlspace of his house. When Gacy was finally arrested, the authorities found 29 bodies on his property, most of them under his house. Apparently, he had run out of room and started throwing bodies in the river. 

In a CBS interview 2 years before his execution in 1994, Gacy minimized or flat-out denied what he did. He actually painted himself as the innocent victim in all of this. Somehow, he managed to justify everything in his mind. Even on the day of his execution, he never showed an ounce of remorse. 

I bring up this situation with Gacy to point out two things. First, the average person is repulsed by the sins of someone like Gacy. If we’re not careful, it can fill us with a sense of self-righteous pride: "We’re not like that guy.” We might be tempted to feel like there is a significant moral gap between us and someone like Gacy. Let’s pretend for the sake of argument that this is true. If there is a large gap between us and someone like Gacy, how much of a gap do you think exists between us and the Thrice Holy God of the universe? However repulsed we are by the sins of Gacy, Hitler, Mao, Manson, etc., God is infinitely more repulsed by our sins. Isaiah makes what God thinks about our righteousness clear. “But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.” (Isaiah 64:6). This wasn’t just true of Israel, it’s true of all of us. 

The second reason I bring Gacy up is to show why hell is eternal. Let’s pretend that instead of getting the death penalty, that Gacy was sentenced to life in prison. Let’s also pretend that Gacy would be alive for another thousand years. Do you think there would ever come a time when Gacy could be paroled and let out on the street? Absolutely not. Because being in prison did not and could not change who he was in his heart, a killer. It’s the same way with people in hell. If God were to let people out of hell, He would just be raising another rebellion against Himself and have to throw them right back in. It would be a pointless endeavor. “But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.” (Revelation 21:8) 

We all have a sense of justice and recognize injustice as unloving. The problem is that our sinful nature has clouded our understanding of justice. Like Gacy, we try to give ourselves a pass and minimize our actions. But God, as the righteous judge, isn’t going to do that. Ultimately, we will either judge God by our standard or judge ourselves by God’s standard. If we go with the latter, we will throw ourselves desperately upon the mercy of Christ, which is the only way to be saved from our sins. If we go with the former, how can we expect God to turn a blind eye? “How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him.” (Hebrews 2:3)