Arguments that Invalidate Calvinism.

The following arguments invalidate one of John Calvin's central doctrines of penal substitution.

1 – If Christ is our substitute and we are imputed a legal righteousness, even though the Father knows we are sinners, this means Jesus has deceived the father and therefore the Father and Jesus are not God because God cannot be deceived, or sin.

2 – If Christ is our substitute and we are imputed a legal righteousness, even though the Father knows we are sinners, this means the Father sent the son to do a sinful act to deceive the father into believing we are righteous even though we are not.

3 – If Christ is our substitute and we are imputed a legal righteousness, even though the Father knows we are sinners, this means there is no need for faith, because a substitute is a substitute for all our sins. Yet the scriptures say we need faith to be justified.

4 – If Christ is our substitute and we are imputed a legal righteousness, even though the Father knows we are sinners, this means nobody can go to hell, because Jesus has already taken the punishment for sin as a substitute.

5 – If Christ is our substitute and we are imputed a legal righteousness, even though the Father knows we are sinners, this means the scriptures are wrong because nowhere does the scriptures say Jesus was a substitute for our sins.

6 – If Christ is our substitute and we are imputed a legal righteousness, even though the Father knows we are sinners, this means the Holy Spirit is sent by the Father and the Son, after the Son has deceived the Father into thinking we are righteous, even though we are sinners. Therefore the Holy Spirit has been sent on a mission by a deceiver and the deceived, to guide the church into the truth of forensic imputation of righteousness, which is itself a deception. Evidently the Holy Spirit is also a deceiver and has been deceived.

7 – If Christ is our substitute and we are imputed a legal righteousness, even though the Father knows we are sinners, this means there is no precedent in the OT for a substitute atoning for a sinner and the sinner having the substitutes righteousness imputed to the sinner, therefore if penal substitution is correct, it is not base upon the OT, so Jesus cannot be the Messiah, because he didn’t fulfill the OT.

8 – If Christ is our substitute and we are imputed a legal righteousness, even though the Father knows we are sinners, this means there is no need for repentance because the substitute has been made and the Father sees all men as righteous.

9 – According to Calvinism, the substitute only has limited value because it’s not applied to all men, even though it’s a perfect substitute. Somehow the father is deceived into thinking the substitute is only satisfactory for some men and not others, even though the Son was a perfect substitute. So the Father has been deceived in sending the Son as a substitute because the substitute didn’t work for some men even though Jesus was the perfect substitute. What’s a God got to do to be a substitute and perfect savior when not even an imputed exchange that is external to the sinner cannot cover all men’s sins?

10 – The scriptures have deceived us into thinking we need to do something to be justified and pleasing to God, even though according to Calvinism, man is depraved and cannot do a good act in the eyes of God. Therefore we are told on one had to have faith and this is enough to be justified by a legal process, yet we are also told men cannot do an act pleasing to God, so God justifies man, even though He is not pleased with men’s acts. What’s a man to do to be justified after all? Does he have to do an act pleasing to God and if so, is this is a meritorious act? (Yep!) If not, then why does man have to do any act at all to receive justification, when the perfect sacrificial substitute has already been made?

11 – If God sends anyone to hell then He is being unjust, because Jesus has already taken the punishment for sin.

12 – There is nothing intrinsic to the substitute of Jesus sacrificial act that makes the value limited to only some men, simply because according to Calvinism no man can do any act that pleases God. As no man can do an act that pleases God, then all men must be saved, yet according to scripture, not all men will be saved.

13 – Nowhere do the scriptures teach that the non legal act of faith in an act of another man in the OT or of the God man Jesus Christ in the NT causes a legal imputation of Christ’s righteousness to the sinners account.

14 - If the non legal act of faith can have Christ’s righteousness imputed to the sinners account then there must be something legal about the act of faith. Therefore according to the substitute theory, a non legal act that does not have legal righteousness, has a legal righteousness through imputation. But this infers a contradiction regarding the value of a non legal act that is then said to have a legal value.

15 - The nature of God is truth itself and when God says something about a thing, it comes into being what God says it to be. When God declares a man to be righteous, his declaration makes the man intrinsically righteous by His grace. However the substitute theory of imputed righteousness says man does not become righteous, but remains a sinner, even though God declares the man righteous. Therefore the theory of penal substitution and imputed righteousness by faith alone is unscriptural according to Gods infinite power to bring about what he truthfully declares to be real.

16 – If Christ’s righteousness is imputed to the sinners account, then the sinner is not righteous, but only his account is righteous, therefore only the account gets to heaven and never the sinner.

17 - The scriptures teach that those in heaven are without sin, but this is not the same as a sinner having a righteousness imputed to his account, therefore the penal substitution theory is not scriptural.

18 – The scriptures teach God is a supernatural being with an intimate life of the Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. As God is supernatural the just in heaven can only see God by having there minds supernaturalised by the light of glory as an effect of grace. As the human mind must be supernaturally elevated, and divinized to see God face to face in heaven, then justification cannot be an imputation of Christ’s righteousness to the sinner, but an infusion of the divine life of the supernatural God into the soul of the just man. Therefore penal substitution and faith alone theology is a false doctrine of man.

19- Saints in heave are justified, yet there is no faith in heaven. Therefore the saints in heave are not justified by faith alone. Therefore penal substitution and faith alone theology is a false doctrine of man.

20 – St Paul tells us that love is the greatest virtue. If we are justified by faith, then we are also justified by love, for love is greater than faith. Therefore penal substitution and faith alone theology is a false doctrine of man.

21 – Hebrews 5:9 says Christ is a source of eternal life for all who obey him. As obedience is to follow a law, which is the law of Christ, then obedience is distinct and no the same as faith. Therefore those who are justified are justified by obedience and not by faith alone. Therefore penal substitution and faith alone theology is a false doctrine of man.

22 – James 2 says man is justified by works and not by faith alone. However the penal substitution theory of imputed righteousness by faith alone says man is not justified by works. Therefore the penal substitution theory is not scriptural.

23 – Christ is the perfect substitute for our sins, so logically all man can continue in their sins without repentance. But the scriptures say man must repent, therefore Christ was not the perfect substitute.

24 – Imputed righteousness means Christ’s righteousness is credited to the sinners account. In this way the Father sees the sinner as righteous even though he is a sinner. If this is so, then there is no need to repent, because the Father always sees the sinner as righteous. Yet the scriptures teach men must repent, believe and keep the commandments and as Jesus says the woman caught committing adultery, go and sin no more. Evidently the logical conclusions of penal substitution and imputed righteousness contradict the scriptures.

25 - Imputed righteousness means Christ’s righteousness is credited to the sinners account. In this way the Father sees the sinner as righteous even though he is a sinner. Therefore according to this theory the Father either has a limited power so he cannot really make a sinner righteous, which is not scriptural, or he has chosen not to make the sinner really righteous, even though he could by his power. If the later, then the Father has chosen an imperfect means by which men are justified, when he could have chosen a perfect means. As an imperfect means is not compatible with the perfection of God, the theory of imputed righteousness is against the perfection of God and is therefore unbiblical.

26 - Imputed righteousness means Christ’s righteousness is credited to the sinners account. In this way the Father sees the sinner as righteous even though he is a sinner. According to this theory there is no way the sinner can suffer the loss of his salvation, because salvation is only a work of God by his grace of Imputed righteousness, which is external to the sinner. As the imputed righteousness, is external to the sinner (probably in the heavenly court), then the sinner cannot change Gods decree in the sinners account. But scripture says men can and do lose their salvation (see Galatians warning of a false gospel and Hebrew warnings of falling away), therefore men can change their imputed righteousness status by their sins. However according to the imputed righteousness theory, the imputed righteousness was originally given precisely because men are sinners and Christ is there substitute. So sinners are justified by an imputed righteousness, whilst remaining sinners, yet scripture says men are not righteous if they remain or return to their sins. Therefore the theory of Imputed righteousness is both unbiblical and illogical.

27 – Scriptures refers to justification as a process by numerous references to a man having been saved, is being saved and will be saved. These verses indicate a past action that continues and will continue into the future based upon human actions through gods grace. However, the theory of penal substitution and imputed righteousness requires a once for all time event that occurred in the past for the sinner, who was saved and can never lose his salvation in the future. Therefore the theory of imputed righteousness is unscriptural.

28 – The greatest commandment is to love God above all things and your neighbor as yourself. However according to the imputed righteousness theory, love of God and neighbor does not cause one to have Christ’s righteousness imputed to the sinner, because the action of imputing Christ’s righteousness is completed by faith alone. Therefore the greatest commandment has nothing to do with justification, which means God commands men to do acts, when he knows those commandments have nothing to do with making men right with God. Therefore, according to the imputation theory, God commands men to do futile acts. However, according to the scriptures, God cannot command men to do futile acts, because God is perfect, and to command a futile act is to be imperfect. Therefore the theory of Imputed righteousness is both unbiblical and against the nature of God.

29 – According to Acts 2 that says “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. Then you will receive the Holy Spirit as a gift”, forgiveness of sins is obtained by repentance and baptism and not by faith alone. As the scripture require repentance and baptism for forgiveness and forgiveness is required to be justified, then a man cannot be justified by faith alone. Therefore the theory of Imputed righteousness is unbiblical.

30 – Jesus was killed as a sacrifice to appease the wrath of the Father (Eph 2:5). But a sacrifice is not a substitute, for a substitute is to stand in the place of another, whereas a sacrifice is to destroy something of value to obtain favor from the person to whom the act is offered. As scripture says Jesus’ offering on the cross was a sacrifice and it never states Jesus was a substitute, the theory of penal substitution and imputed righteousness is unbiblical.

31 – According to Calvin, the theory of Imputed righteousness required that Jesus entered into Hell during his time in the tomb and only then did he satisfy divine justice. Yet scripture never states Jesus entered into hell to satisfy divine justice as a substitute for sinners. Therefore the theory of Imputed righteousness is unbiblical.

32 - According to Calvin, the theory of Imputed righteousness required that Jesus entered into Hell during his time in the tomb and only then did he satisfy divine justice. This means that nobody can go to hell because Jesus has already done it for us and for another man to enter into hell would be an act of injustice. As we are told by St Paul that men do go to hell, then the theory of penal substitution and imputed righteousness is unbiblical.

33 – According to Calvin, the theory of Imputed righteousness required that Jesus entered into Hell during his time in the tomb and only then did he satisfy divine justice for the elect. However there is nothing intrinsically different from the elect and non elect as regards the act of Jesus entering into hell, because the act of Jesus and the acceptance of the act by the Father is extrinsic to the sinner. As this act by Jesus and the Father is perfect, then it must be good enough to justify all men. Yet the acts of the Father and Jesus are said by Calvinists to be only for the elect and not all men, so Jesus’ substitutary action is imperfect and the Fathers acceptance of Jesus act is also imperfect. Therefore the work of Jesus is imperfect as a savior. But Jesus work as a savior must be perfect, because He is God. Therefore the theory of penal substitution and imputed righteousness is both unbiblical and against the nature of God.

34- According to scripture keeping the commandments is easy (1 John 5:3) and we are not to sin (Matthew 18:8, Mark 10:19) to enter into eternal life –

1 John 5:3 - This is love for God: to obey his commands. And his commands are not burdensome

Matthew 18:8

If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire.

Mark 10:17 As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. "Good teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?" 18"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone. 19You know the commandments: 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother.”

But Calvinism says all man need do to enter into eternal life is to believe and Christ’s righteousness imputed to his account. Therefore Calvinism is inconsistent with scripture.

35- God never asks man to do something he cannot do without Gods help. But God commands that men keep the commandments to enter into eternal life. Yet Calvinism teaches man cannot keep the commandments to enter into eternal life, therefore according to Calvinism, God is unjust and doesn’t give enough help for men to keep the commandments. But according to scripture keeping the commandments is easy (1 John 5:3), therefore Calvinism is inconsistent with scripture.

36- Calvinism says men are sinners until they enter into eternal life in heaven. And according to Calvinism and scripture, heaven has no sin, but according to Calvinism there must be something done to the sinner between death and heaven to be transformed from a sinner into a saint who keeps the commandments perfectly. But Calvinism denies and intermediate state between this life and heaven. Therefore Calvinism is inconsistent with itself and scripture.

37- Calvinism teaches the merit of Christ’s atonement is imputed to the sinner when the sinner has faith. Therefore according to Calvinism, Christ’s atonement only has a value whereby Gods righteousness is imputed. But to impute is to merely state or declare something to be, without the righteousness actually existing in the justified sinner. Therefore, as the imputation of Christ’s righteousness has the same value as Christ’s intrinsic righteousness, as he is God, then Jesus must only be declared to be righteous by the Father, because the equivalent value is the same for both Christ and the justified sinner. Therefore Christ is not intrinsically righteous, therefore he did not keep the commandments and therefore he was not God.

38- Calvinism teaches the merit of Christ’s atonement is imputed to the sinner when the sinner has faith. Therefore according to Calvinism, Christ’s atonement only has a value whereby Gods righteousness is imputed. But to impute is to merely state or declare something to be, without the righteousness actually existing in the justified sinner. Therefore, as the imputation of Christ’s righteousness has the same value as Christ’s intrinsic righteousness, as he is God, then the sinner cannot only be declared to be God, but is God, just as Jesus is God. But sinners are not God, but are creatures. Therefore Calvinism is inconsistent with itself concerning the nature of justification and Christ’s righteousness.

39- The righteousness of God is the divine essence itself, for the divine nature is the eternal law and therefore the divine nature always acts perfectly in accordance with the law, as it is the eternal law. But Calvinism teaches the merit of Christ’s atonement is imputed to the sinner when the sinner has faith. Therefore according to Calvinism, Christ’s atonement only has a value whereby Gods righteousness is imputed. But to impute Gods righteousness to another, is against the nature of God, for God does not impute His own righteousness to himself, but is righteousness itself as the eternal law. Therefore Calvinism is inconsistent with the nature of righteousness of God and its application to a sinner as an imputed righteousness.

40- The righteousness of God is the nature of God as He is supernatural. The saints see Gods righteousness and participate in His righteousness in heaven. Therefore the saints in heaven must participate in the nature of God as He is supernatural for them to see him face to face as children of God. As this vision of God is the final stage of justification, as glorification, then justification must of itself be an infusion of Gods righteousness into the soul of the saint on earth for the saint to see God in heaven. But Calvinism teaches justification is not the infusion of the divine life into the soul of the saint, but only an imputation of Christ’s righteousness. Therefore Calvinism is inconsistent with the scriptural truth of saints in heaven seeing God face to face as a supernatural vision of the Trinity.

41- Calvinism teaches faith is an instrument of mans justification whereby the righteousness of Christ is imputed to the sinners account. However faith is a git of God as an effect of the atonement along with other virtues such as hope, love, patient, humility, chastity and so on. Therefore there is nothing unique about the origin of faith as a gift from God. But Calvinism teaches faith is unique as it alone is required to be justified with God. However as there are many other virtues that are given by God, there is no intrinsic reason why the other virtues cannot please god and justify the sinner. Therefore Calvinism is arbitrary in its appointing faith alone as an instrument for mans justification and is therefore invalidated.

42- Calvinism does not define grace as a thing, but only a favour. Yet Calvinism teaches it is by grace that the will of the sinner is brought from loving a creature to loving the Father above all things. But for grace to act in the will, grace must be more than mere favour, but a physical reality acting inside the powers of the human soul to transform the sinner into a saint. Therefore Calvinism is invalidate according to its internal inconsistency by referring to grace as a mere favour and then as more than a mere favour, as a thing acting in the will.

43- Calvinism makes an arbitrary distinction between justification and sanctification. Justification is the imputation Christ’s righteousness to his account and sanctification is the life lived after justification to merit a greater reward in heaven. Yet the life lived after justification is not the life of a man who can keep the commandments, so sanctification is a mere fiction, following upon an imputed justification. Therefore Calvinism is inconsistent in its understanding of the value of moral acts after justification.

44- Calvinism makes an arbitrary distinction between justification and sanctification not found in scripture, therefore Calvinism is unscriptural.

45- Calvinism ignores the testimony of the church fathers, who did not teach a man is justified by faith alone, but by faith and works. Therefore Calvinism is inconsistent with the voice of the Holy Spirit teaching within the church and is therefore inconsistent with church tradition.

46 – Calvinism bases its doctrine on the premise that scripture is the Word of God. However the texts said to be written by God, never define the meaning of the term inspiration, other than in 2 Timothy 3:16 - All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness. . .

But as “God breathed” is only a metaphor, then all Calvin’s doctrines are based upon a text having the quality of a metaphor. But a metaphor does not inform us directly of the nature of the thing being spoken about. Therefore Calvin’s doctrines are based upon a text, which we don’t know the intrinsic value of regarding Gods authorship, and as we don’t know, then we don’t know if Calvin’s doctrines are from God or not. Therefore as Calvinism is based upon a negative premise (we don’t know the value of the text), and as nothing positive comes from a negative, then any positive conclusion in Calvinism is illogical, which invalidates Calvinism.

47- Calvinism says there is nothing a man can do to be justified. "In thy sight shall no flesh be justified."

But Calvinism also teaches faith is required to be justified.

But faith is an act done by man.

Therefore there is an act man can do to be justified, contrary to Calvinism.

Therefore Calvinism teaches man cannot do an act to be justified, but must do an act to be justified.

Therefore Calvinism is self contradictory and accordingly invalidated.

48- Scripture says God calls the elect by His grace to enter into eternal life. But Calvinism says the elect are so because Gods grace is irresistible and once received, cannot be lost. Yet scripture says the elect can and do resist grace and turn to another gospel in Gal 1:6 "I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel".

Notice the reference to calling, the explicit reference to the grace of Christ and the turning to a different Gospel in Gal 1:6, meaning a loss of grace for those who were called. Therefore according to the scriptures, the grace of God for the elect is not irresistible, which contradicts what is taught by Calvinism. Therefore Calvinism is a false doctrine not based upon scripture.