The Fallacy of Unfalsifiability Calvinists protect their system from being tested against the plain reading of Scripture by inventing double meanings for the very words the Bible uses. Once those double meanings are in place, almost any verse that looks like it contradicts their system can be reclassified so it no longer counts against it. Take “grace.” Scripture speaks of God’s grace, favor, and kindness being shown to people. When a verse says God is gracious or offers grace in a way that does not fit limited effectual grace, it gets labeled “common grace.” Common grace is said to be real but non-saving, so it does not touch the doctrine of irresistible saving grace given only to the elect. The same word is doing two different jobs, and the distinction is not clearly marked in the text itself. Nothing in the passage has to change; the category does the work for them. The same move happens with “love.” When Scripture says God loves the world, or loves those who reject him, or desires their salvation, that love is redefined as a general, non-electing love that does not actually intend to save. The special, electing love is reserved for the elect alone. John 3:16 can stay in the Bible without requiring that God genuinely loves every person in the same saving sense. The word “love” has been split so the universal statements no longer falsify the particularist claim. God’s “will” gets the same treatment. The decretive will is what God secretly determines will happen. The preceptive will is what he commands and invites. When the Bible says God wills that all be saved, or that he takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, that is assigned to the preceptive will, which is not the will that actually decides outcomes. The decretive will remains absolute and limited. Apparent contradictions disappear in their mind because the two wills are not the same will. The system cannot be shown false by the plain sense of the command or the invitation. “Calling” works the same way. There is a general, external call that goes out to everyone through the gospel, and an effectual, internal call that only the elect ever receive and that always succeeds. When Jesus or Paul says “come,” “believe,” or “whoever,” that is the general call. It can be resisted, so it does not threaten irresistible grace. The effectual call is the one that actually saves, and it is not given to those who refuse. The same language of calling now covers both a resistible invitation and an irresistible summons, and the distinction keeps the system intact. Drawing, world, all, desire, and other terms receive parallel treatments. Each time a verse appears to teach a genuine, universal provision or a real condition of faith, a special sense is introduced that limits the force of the verse to the elect alone. The result is that the system becomes consistent with nearly any reading of the text. Counterexamples are not allowed to count as counterexamples because they have already been redefined into a category that does not threaten the core claims of the Calvinist. That is how the system stays unfalsifiable. The ordinary words of Scripture are given technical double meanings that are not required by the passages themselves, and those meanings absorb the evidence that would otherwise challenge the doctrine. In their minds, the text can say what it says, and the system remains untouched.

Nope You’re taking the whoever comes language and applying it to being a prophet or an apostle to make it sound ridiculous. Those weren’t open invitations though. God didn’t put out a general call saying whoever wants to be a prophet or in the Messiah’s line just show up and I’ll elect you. Those were specific appointments for particular people and purposes. The banquet in Matthew 22 is different. It’s a general invitation, and the ones who come in response to it, clothed in faith, are the ones elected to enter. The others were called but not elect because they didn’t come. That’s the distinction the passage is making. The sons of Levi were chosen to be Priests, right? Does that mean all of sons and grandsons of Levi did become priests? No. Why? Because some didn’t meet the conditions for becoming a priest even though they were set aside by God for that purpose. Being chosen for a purpose by God doesn’t mean it’s inevitable.

Those Calvinists who maintain that God loves the non-elect, but not with a “particular, electing, effectual love,” are trying to reconcile Calvinistic theology with Scripture’s clear teaching on God’s love for all. I’m grateful they want to stay true to God’s word and not abandon the obvious teaching that God loves all people, as A.W. Pink and many “high/hyper” Calvinists have done. Yet while they try to keep some semblance of divine love for those unconditionally rejected by God in eternity past, they appeal to common provisions such as rain and sunshine. Can such provisions be deemed genuinely loving given Scripture’s own definition of love in 1 Corinthians 13? Paul, under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, explains what love is not: “If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing.” (1 Cor. 13:1-3) So love is not: • Having the power and ability to do all things (v. 1) • Having knowledge of all things (v. 2) • Giving gifts and showing kindness to the weak and poor (v. 3) Omnipotence without love is impotent. Omniscience apart from love is worthless. Even benevolent gifts like rain and sunlight, apart from love, are nothing. God is omnipotent, omniscient, and graciously benevolent to all humanity, but these characteristics do not necessarily reflect the true nature of love. God, through his servant, tells us what true love is: “Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails.” (1 Cor. 13:4-8) No Bible-believing Christian questions that “God is love” (1 Jn. 4:8). “The Lord is gracious and merciful; Slow to anger and great in lovingkindness. The Lord is good to all, And His mercies are over all His works.” (Ps. 145:9). This truth is undeniable, which is why many Calvinists offer such rebuttals to defend God’s love for all from their Calvinistic worldview. But can one objectively conclude that God’s treatment of the reprobate in the Calvinistic system is truly “loving” according to God’s own definition? More here: soteriology101.com/2018/02/1…