I have addressed Reformed theology many times on this blog, including the following lengthy article:
I am obviously not a fan with Reformed theology and find it to be both anti-biblical as well as blasphemous (and I say this as having read a lot of Reformed theologians, such as Calvin, Charles Hodge, Archibald A. Hodge, Francis Turretin, R.C. Sproul, Joel Beeke, etc).
The following are excerpts are from a rather interesting volume critiquing Reformed theology, originally published in 1710, by Daniel Whitby (1638-1726), a member of the Church of England who advocated Arminianism:
Daniel Whitby, A discourse concerning I. the true import of the words election and reprobation : and the things signified by them in the Holy Scripture. II. The Extent of Christ's Redemption. III. The Grace of God ; where it is enquired, Whether it be vouchsafed sufficiently to those who improve it not, and irresistibly to those who do improve it ; and whether Men be wholly passive in the Work of their Regeneration? IV. The Liberty of the Will in a State of Trial and Probation. V. the perseverance or defectibility of the saints ; with some Reflections on the State of Heathens, the Providence and Prescience of God (4th ed.; London: F.C. and J. Rivington, 1817)
Against the Calvinist Evasion of the “Equal Ultimacy” of the Decrees of Election and Reprobation
Let it be observed from Bishop Davenant, that “no medium can be assigned, either on God’s part, betwixt the decrees of predestinating some men, and not predestinating some others; or on men’s part, betwixt men absolutely predestinated to the attainment of life eternal, and absolutely pretermitted, and left infallibly to fail of the obtainment of eternal life; which we call Absolute Reprobation. As for example: Let us suppose the number of mankind to be two millions of men; if out of these, one million only, by the decree of election, be infallibly appointed to eternal life, and these certainly and absolutely distinguished from others, not only as to their number, but their persons also; who can deny but that one million also, and those certain as to their persons, are as absolutely comprised under the decree of non-election or reprobation, as the others were under the decree of election or predestination?”—So that there is no possibility of asserting one of these decrees without owning the other also; and so whatsoever argument holds good against an absolute decree of Reprobation, must certainly destroy the opposite decree of Absolute Election. (p. 25)
On Rom 5 and the Reformed View that Adam’s Sin is Imputed to Us
It cannot truly be affirmed that “we all sinned in Adam and were made sinners; because his sin and disobedience was, by God’s arbitrary will, imputed to us:” For (i.) the scripture no where maketh mention of any thing of another’s imputed to any man for reward or guilt, but only of some personal thing or action of his own . . .(ii.) Either this imputation makes the sin of Adam truly ours, or it doth not. If it doth not, how can we be made sinners by it? If it doth, then death came upon us for OUR sin, and so not for the sin of ONE, but for the sin of ALL: which is the thing disproved already.—(iii.) I ask, whether this imputation made the posterity of Adam sinners; Or, whether it found them so before.—If it found them so before, it was plainly needless, for they might have been condemned to death without it. If it made them so, then since this imputation is the act of God, and not of man, it plainly follows that God must be the author of this sin; because this imputation flows immediately from him, without the intervention of any action of any of those men to whom it is imputed. Moreover, then the imputation must be false, as charging them with sin whom he did not find sinners, but only by his arbitrary decree and imputation made them so. Now far be it from any Christian to assert that God can falsely impute sin to any man! In a word, λογιζεσθαι, and imputare, is “to reckon, or to account a thing to any man, or to charge him with it, or lay the charge of it upon him.” This action, therefore, on God’s part, must suppose, in the very nature of it, some action done by the posterity of Adam which is blameworthy, and may be justly charged upon them, before there can be any ground for imputation of it; and this shews that it is impossible that the imputation should be the very thing that renders them blameworthy, or persons worthy to be charged with guilt. And yet, if the sin of Adam becomes our only by imputation, it must be ours only because it is by God imputed to us, and not imputed because it is ours; that is, God by this imputation must make us sinners, and not find us such: For this imputation is the action of the judge, and not of the supposed criminal; remove, or take away, this action, and no crime can be charged upon him. In fine, if the sin of Adam becomes ours only by imputation, it deserves condemnation only by the same imputation, that is, by the action of God: That therefore we deserve condemnation for it, is to be ascribed directly to the action of God, and only by accident to the action of Adam. Whence then, according to this opinion, is our destruction, but of that God who makes us worthy of condemnation, by imputing to us that sin which by his imputation only we stand guilty of? (pp. 89-90)
The Intention of the Atonement and Jesus’ High Priestly Prayer
OBJECTION. “But doth not Christ say, ‘I pray not for the world, but for them that thou hast given me out of the world,’ (John xvii.9) and would he die for them for whom he would not pray?
ANSWER. This objection is contrary both to reason; for can it rationally be imagined, that he who was perfect in charity, should be wanting in this highest act of charity? That the beloved Son of God should charge this on us, as our duty, to pray for our enemies, that we may be the ‘sons of our Heavenly Father,’ and he himself neglect to do it? Moreover, how often doth he says of the Jews, ‘Ye are of the world,’ and of his apostles chosen out of them, that they were chosen ‘out of the world?’ And yet he saith to them, ει εγνως, ‘How do I wish that thou hadst KNOWN, in this thy day, the things which do belong to thy peace!’ (Luke xix.42) And, hanging on the cross, he said, ‘Father, forgive them, they know not what they do.’ (Luke xxiii.34) Thus ‘did he make intercession for the transgressors.’ (Isa. Liii.12.) Now this prayer and intercession for them implies the possibility of their receiving forgiveness; and such a possibility doth presuppose in God a disposition to grant it, and consequently a satisfaction provided, such as God will accept, and such as will avail to their benefit, provided they do their parts towards the obtainment of it.
(2.) Our Lord says not this absolutely, but only in respect to that very prayer he was then offering up for his apostles, verse 12, in which he was asking those thing which could agree to them alone, or to those who were given him out of the world, viz. that they might be consecrated to their apostolical function by that Spirit which the world could not receive, that their joy from his presence with them might be full; nor is there any thing in this whole prayer which is not proper to believers only, that is, to persons called out of the world. And,
(3.) This very prayer for them and other apostolical preachers of the word, was made for the sake of the world, and with respect to their saving faith, that is, that ‘the world might believe and know that the Father had sent him.’ (verse 23.) So that Christ prayed for his apostles for this very end, that the world by their means might believe, and believing might have life through his name. It is therefore plain he made this very prayer, in which he saith, ‘I pray not for the world,’ out of that affection to the world, and with design that the preaching of the apostles to them might be more effectual for their conversion and salvation. (pp. 125-26)
On 2 Cor 5:21
Moreover, when the apostle saith, “God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing to them their sins” (2 Cor. v.19), the import of these words is plainly this, He was offering through Christ a reconciliation to the world, and promising to them who would believe in him an absolution from their past offences. This is evident, (i.) because he was doing this not by himself immediately, but only by the ministry of his apostles; for so the words run, “He hath given us the ministry of reconciliation viz. that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, not imputed to them their trespasses, και θεμενος εν ημιν AND PLACING IN (or committing to) US the word of reconciliation.” Now did they make a declaration to the impenitent, unbelieving world, that God was actually reconciled to them, and had forgiven their iniquities? No, they exhorted them “to repent and be baptized, in the name of the Lord Jesus, for the remission of sins; (Acts ii.38) to repent and be converted that their sins might be blotted out; (Acts iii.19) to believe in Christ that they might be justified, (Acts xiii. 38, 39) that is, absolved from the guilt of sin; to repent and turn to the Lord that they might receive remission of sins.” (Acts xxi. 18, 20)—(ii.) Because they, in pursuance of this commission, intreated all to whom they preached to be reconciled to God; which being only to be done through saith in Christ, they must intreat them to believe in him that they might be justified, that is, obtain reconciliation through his blood shed for the remission of sins; and this the apostle’s reason shews viz. “We pray you be you reconciled to God, υπερ Χριστου BY Christ; for he hath made him (a sacrifice for) son for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God (that is, might by God be accounted righteous through faith) in him.” This being so, they who were sent to “preach the gospel to every human creature,” (Mark xvi. 15) and in pursuance of this commission “warned every man, and taught every man, in all wisdom, that they might present every man perfect in Christ Jesus,” (Col. i.28) praying all men to be reconciled to God through Christ, because he had made Christ a sacrifice for their sins, &c. they, I say, who preached thus, and yet did not exceed their commission, must believe that God was ready to be reconciled to every man through Christ; and therefore that his sacrifice was offered to procure reconciliation for all mankind. As therefore Christ is styled ‘The Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world,’ and said to be ‘the Propitiation for the sins of the whole world,’ not by actually removing the guilt of all men, or rendering God actually reconciled to them, but by dying to procure these blessings for all that would believe in him; so God is said to be ‘in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, &c.’ not because he actually did so, but because by these ambassadors he offered reconciliation and remission of sins through faith in Christ to all that would believe in him. (pp. 131-32)
Irresistible Grace and Regeneration
OBJECTION THIRD. “Regeneration is styled a NEW BIRTH; as therefore we are passive in our generation, so must we be also in our regeneration.”
ANSWER. The false hood of this argument is evident from this consideration,--that this new birth is ascribed to the word of God, which only works upon us by moral suasion; as when the scripture saith, “faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God; (Romans x, 17) that we are begotten by the word of the living God;” (1 Peter I, 23) yea, that God himself hath “begotten us by the word of truth.” (James i, 18) (ii.) It is also ascribed to the ministers of God, as when St. Paul tells the Corinthians he had “begotten them by the gospel.” (1 Corinthians iv, 15) If then this new birth, when it is ascribed to God’s word or ministers, cannot import that they produce it by an irresistible action, in which we are purely passive, it will not follow that God, or his Good Spirit, doth so convert men, because they are said to be born of God, or of the spirit.
Secondly. This regeneration being the phrase used by the Jews concerning their Proselytes, they being said to be then recens nati, ‘new-born babes,’ and born in holiness. Παρα τοις βαρζαροις φιλοσοφοις τα κατηχησαι τε και φωτισαι αναγεννησαι λεγεται. (Strom. I.5. p. 552.) Our Lord translates the metaphor from them to his disciples renewed after the image of God in true holiness, and sanctified throughout in all their whole man. Now there is such an intrinsic change in “the whole spirit, soul, and body,” and the whole tenour of this man’s life for the better, that he may well be said to be ‘born again,’ who is thus changed into another man; for if when the Spirit of prophecy came upon Saul he was ‘turned into another man;’ (1 Samuel x, 6)) much more may he be said to be so who has the Spirit of sanctification dwelling in him. And seeing it is by the operation of the Holy Spirit that this change is wrought within us, it fitly is expressed by being “born of the Spirit.” Seeing, lastly, we are thus born ‘not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, that is the word of the living God, who of his own will hath begotten us again by the word of truth,’ therefore we are as fitly said to be ‘born of God.’ (pp. 237-38)
Does 1 Cor 2:14 teach Total Depravity and the Need for Irresistible Grace?
OBJECTION FIFTH. It is still more impertinent to argue this from the words of the apostle, ‘the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; neither can he known them because they are spiritually discerned.’ (1 Corinthians ii, 14) For
First. The natural man here is not barely the unregenerate man, but the wise man and disputer of the world, who will admit of nothing but what he can see proved by reason, and so receives not things revealed by the Spirit, because he doth not see them proved by philosophical deductions from reason; but deems them foolishness, for want of that which only is, in his esteem, true wisdom; as hath been fully proved in the note upon that place.
Secondly. When the apostle saith that this man cannot know the revelations of the Spirit, he speaks not of the inability of a Heathen to understand the meaning of any revelation discovered to him; for how then is it discovered to him? nor doth he say that when they are declared to him, he wanteth further means to attain to the true sense of them; but only that he cannot know them by that human wisdom by which alone he will be guided: for being mysteries and sacred counsels of God’s will, they are not knowable by human reason, till God is pleased to reveal them; whence the apostle demonstrates the necessity of a supernatural revelation, that the hidden wisdom of God may be made known unto the world. (pp. 239-40)
Does John 6:44 teach Irresistible Grace?
OBJECTION EIGHT. “’No man can come to Christ except the Father draw him.’ (John vi. 44). Now he that is drawn, is passive.”
ANSWER. To this I answer, (First,) that to be drawn of God, cannot import our being moved by any inward and irresistible impressions to believe in Christ; for then no man could come to Christ without this irresistible impression, and then no other person could be blame-worthy for not believing on him, because they could not do it without that powerful attraction which God was not pleased to afford them; nor could it be praise-worthy to believe in him, because they only did so when they could not chose but do it, as being moved in so doing by a force they were not able to resist; and therefore to be drawn of God can only signify.
First. To be persuaded and prevailed upon to come to Christ, by the consideration of the mighty works which God had done to justify that Christ was the true Messiah, or that prophet which he had sent into the world. To these Christ still appeals as divine testimonies concerning him, by saying, ‘the works that my Father hath given me to do, bear witness of me; (John x. 25) and hence he represents the unbelieving Jews as inexcusable, that he had done ‘those works among them which never man did.’ (Chapter xv, 22, 24). See the note there.
Or, Secondly, It is to be moved by the great promise of eternal life, confirmed by these miracles, to do it; for where there is a firm belief and lively sense of that inestimable blessing, it strongly must engage us to use the means by which we may obtain it, and so to come to Christ, when from him only this blessing is to be expected; and this is a familiar sense of the word ‘draw,’ both in the scripture and in other writings. Thus God is said to ‘draw them to himself by the cords of love,’ (Hosea xi. 4,) who yet were ‘bent to backsliding from him,’ (verse 7;) and men are said to be ‘drawn aside by their own lusts;’ (James i. 14) for trahit sua quemque voluptas, ‘every man’s pleasure draws him to a compliance with it:’ See the note there. And that we are only said to be drawn thus by the Father to Christ, (viz. by his miracles and divine instructions,) is evident from the words following; as a proof of this, ‘it is written they shall all be taught of God, he therefore hath hath heard (these things from) the Father (there is God’s teaching) and learned, that is perceived that it is even he that speaks and does these mighty things by me, (there is man’s duty and his action) he cometh to me.’ Without this drawing, none can come to Christ, for God alone can give this promise of eternal life to encourage us to do so, and no power but that of God could work those miracles which confirmed this promise and the commission of our Lord. (pp. 241-42)
Perseverance of the Saints taught in John 10:28?
ARGUMENT THIRD. “If Christ hath assured his sheep that “they shall never perish, and that none shall snatch them out of his hands,” then hath he assured them that they shall never fall away finally, seeing they who so fall away will perish; and also that no tempter or temptation shall effectually seduce them from the way of piety, since then they would snatch them from Christ’s hands.”
ANSWER FIRST. The frequent cautions and exhortations directed in the scripture to Christ’s sheep not to fall from grace, but continue stedfast in the faith, (John x. 28) are certain demonstrations that they may do so; for if the sheep of Christ can no more cease to be so, than a man, whilst he lives, can cease to be a man, these exhortations to take care they fall not off from being so, must be as vain as a caution to a man would be not to outlive his manhood. To answer therefore directly the text, I add,
Secondly. That Christ here only promises his sheep should never perish through any defect on his part, or by the force of any plucking them by violence out of his hands, so the particle και, which is here illative, shews, viz. they therefore shall not perish, “FOR none shall pull them out of my hand.” And this is still more evident from the reason following, ‘my Father is greater’ than all their adversaries; so that none can pull or force them out of his hands, now his power and mine is one and the same. Well therefore said Isidore Pelusiota, “no man can snatch them away by force and tyranny; for then they must perish without and against their wills. But this may be done by deceit and allurements, ‘through the negligence of men who have the freedom of their wills;’ for such men, who by the allurements of the world, the flesh, and the devil, thus cease to obey Christ’s laws, are not snatched out of hands, but chose to go from him.”
Thirdly. This text seems only to speak of such sheep who have already persevered so as to receive the reward of their obedience, eternal life, assuring them that their felicity shall be incapable of interruption; for so the whole verse runs, “I give to them eternal life, and they shall never perish.” And this seems fairly gathered from the former verse, where he describes his sheep as such who “hear his voice and follow him:” and then he adds, to them who do so, “I give eternal life.” He therefore cannot reasonably be supposed to promise that which he here affirms they did, that they should hear his voice, and follow him, still unto the end; but rather that which is the sure reward of them who do so. (pp. 386-87)