1)      James tells us the demons believe and thus places a condition of the quality of belief (Jas 2:19)

2)      Romans 10:9 tells us that this belief must be from the heart, not the head, and thus places a condition of the quality of belief

3)      Romans 10:13 tells us that the sinner must “call upon the name of the Lord”, thus placing a condition of supplication along with the belief

4)      All through the book of Acts, the disciples preached that genuine repentance, or a desire to turn from sin and live for God, must accompany the belief (Acts 3:19, 17:20), thus placing a condition of repentance with the belief

This small list reduces the solution space of those to whom God will grant eternal life – and most Calvinists would agree with this hermeneutical concept.  However, most Calvinists will not apply the same principle to eternal security. Instead, they try to come up will various fanciful explanations of very clear conditional security passages, such as Hebrews 6, to defend their “unconditional” passages.  This is backwards.  We must always reduce the solution space with conditional passages and then interpret passages in light of that reduction.  Following are various examples of how to do this correctly:

1)      The Abrahamic promise

Unconditional Statement:

Gen 12:2  And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: 3  And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.

Solution Space Reduction:

Gen 22:16  And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the LORD, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son:17  That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; 18  And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.

Abraham’s promise was conditioned on His obedience to sacrifice Isaac, even though that was not stated in the original promise! Had we only considered the Genesis 12 passage, we would have assumed this was an unconditional promise. But now we know that it was conditional, but God was emphasizing His part of the covenant.  The Lord often speaks what He will do from the standpoint of His end of the covenant, assuming the other party would hold to their end of the covenant.

2)      Moses’ entrance into the promised land

Unconditional Statement:

Le 20:24  But I have said unto you, Ye shall inherit their land, and I will give it unto you to possess it, a land that floweth with milk and honey: I am the LORD your God, which have separated you from other people.

Solution Space Reduction:

Num 20:11  And Moses lifted up his hand, and with his rod he smote the rock twice: and the water came out abundantly, and the congregation drank, and their beasts also. 12  And the LORD spake unto Moses and Aaron, Because ye believed me not, to sanctify me in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore ye shall not bring this congregation into the land which I have given them.

God originally spoke a seemingly unconditional promise to Moses – that he would inherit and possess the promised land.  Yet Moses never entered in due to disbelief and disobedience.  Therefore, the original promise was conditioned on faith and obedience. God was merely speaking His end of the bargain.

3)      God’s presence with Joshua

Unconditional Statement:

Josh 1:9  Have not I commanded thee? Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the LORD thy God is with thee whithersoever thou goest.

Solution Space Reduction:

Josh 7:11  Israel hath sinned, and they have also transgressed my covenant which I commanded them: for they have even taken of the accursed thing, and have also stolen, and dissembled also, and they have put it even among their own stuff. 12  Therefore the children of Israel could not stand before their enemies, but turned their backs before their enemies, because they were accursed: neither will I be with you any more, except ye destroy the accursed from among you.

Clearly, the original “unconditional” statement was conditioned on Israel’s obedience.  When Achan sinned and took spoils when expressly commanded not to, God was not with them in battle, and Israel lost the battle at Ai.  God then specifically told them, “neither will I be with you anymore, except ye destroy the accursed from among you.” 

4)      Hezekiah’s death sentence

Unconditional Statement:

Isa 38:1  In those days was Hezekiah sick unto death. And Isaiah the prophet the son of Amoz came unto him, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Set thine house in order: for thou shalt die, and not live.

Solution Space Reduction:

Isa 38:5  Go, and say to Hezekiah, Thus saith the LORD, the God of David thy father, I have heard thy prayer, I have seen thy tears: behold, I will add unto thy days fifteen years.

Hezekiah’s death sentence was stated unconditionally.  However, verse 5 indicates that the promise was actually conditioned on whether Hezekiah would turn to God in fervent supplication.

There are many other examples of seemingly unconditional prophetic warnings of destruction which never occur (and thus were conditional).  God announced to Nineveh that its doom was immanent, but it turned out not to be (Jonah). God made an unconditional promise to Eli that his sons would be priests forever in Israel, but God subsequently destroyed them (1 Sam 2:30). Ezekiel made inviolable predictions regarding what Nebuchadnezzar would do to Tyre and Egypt, but Nebuchadnezzar did not do them (Ezekiel 26-29).

Why should we not interpret Calvinistic pet verses in a similar manner?  Hebrews 6:4-6, 10:29, and 2 Peter 2:20 (qualified by 2 Peter 1:3-4) clearly teach that a mature, sanctified Christian can willingly sin and fall away.  With this understanding let’s go back and apply the proper understanding to a pet Calvinist verse:

Rom 8:30  Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

Calvinists claim that if someone is justified then they already are glorified, in the sense that they will never fall away.  Let’s apply the reduction in solution space and interpret this properly.  Assuming that “glorified” means "resurrected" (which is even debatable – see Adam Clarke’s comments on this verse), we should interpret each verb in the solution space at hand.  God has complete foreknowledge of the future.  He already knows those who are glorified (I intentionally stated as present tense because He sees that future as a "present", yet we consider it as a "will be").  From this future perspective, God looks back and states (in past tense notice) that these foreknown ones were predestined to be conformed to Christ's image (i.e. to be glorified, see also Eph 1:3-6). To actualize this pretermined destiny, God calls people through the Gospel (2 Th 2:14), but they must not reject that calling (Isa 45:4, 65:2, 66:4, Gal 1:6).  God justifies those who exhibit saving faith (Rom 5:1), but they must not forfeit justification (Ezek 18:24).  God will glorify those who endure to the end and don’t fall away (Heb 6:4-6).  Romans 8:30 is stating God’s end of the deal, looking backwards from the end, as opposed to unconditionally forward from the beginning.  Wesley (in his NT notes) states:

"St. Paul does not affirm, either here or in any other part of his writings. that precisely the same number of men are called, justified, and glorified. He does not deny that a believer may fall away and be cut off between his special calling and his glorification, Rom_11:22. Neither does he deny that many are called who never are justified. He only affirms that this is the method whereby God leads us step by step toward heaven. He glorified - He speaks as one looking back from the goal, upon the race of faith. Indeed grace, as it is glory begun, is both an earnest and a foretaste of eternal glory."

What he says makes complete sense, especially in light of how the Greek word proginosko ("know before") is used in Acts 26:5 ("foreknowing me . . . that I lived according to the strictest sect of our religion, a Pharisee."), and 2 Pet 3:17 ("Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before"), which both actually point to knowledge at a current point in time about something in the past.  So, in God's perpective, it could just as easily be understood as God looking back from a future perspective to the ones who made it through the whole chain, viewing how He worked with them (the ones who are glorified) to achieve each step along the way (predestined/purposed to be conformed, called, justified, etc.) unto ultimate "good" (Rom 8:28).  This is why the the past (aorist) tense is used -- He's in a sense looking backward from the end (since He sees the end from the beginning). 

So Romans 8:29-30 is not an unconditional string of events, but rather an idiomatic statement that God had done His part in the lives of these future glorified ones. Of course, the whole moral economy of salvation was designed by God (and thus we can say that He saved us).  Yet, there are too many other scriptures plainly showing man's cooperation with that economy.  Romans 8:29-30 does not speak to the means, neither to the agents involved in those means.  Other scriptures clearly state the means.  For example, we "are kept by the power of God through faith..." (1 Pet 1:5).  Faith is the means, and there is no verse anywhere that states saving faith as originating solely with God.

Ignoring Contextual Word Usage

Calvinists often ignore how words are used within the context they are immersed.  The most obvious is the word "world" (Gr. kosmos) in 1 John 2:2:

1Jo 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

Clearly, this verse teaches that the atonement is universal.  Christ died for every human being in the whole world.  Most Calvinists twist this verse by claiming that "world" is referring to Christians in other parts of the physical world (i.e. Earth).  A quick word search in 1 John shows this to be false. 

As you inspect these verses, you quickly find that the word "world" is not primarily used by John to refer to the physical earth. He is referring to the world in its negative sense.  With this regard, there are two definitions that are fitting:

1)  "the ungodly multitude; the whole mass of men alienated from God, and therefore hostile to the cause of Christ" (Strong's Concordance, #2889). 

 

2)  "world affairs, the aggregate of things earthly", and more specifically "the whole circle of earthly goods, endowments riches, advantages, pleasures, etc, which although hollow and frail and fleeting, stir desire, seduce from God and are obstacles to the cause of Christ" (Strong's Concordance, #2889)

Since Christ died for the "world", we must assume definition #1, since Christ died for people, not for "affaird" or "goods".  This proves that, according to 1 John 2:2, Christ died for the whole "ungodly multitude".  In addition, Jesus' intention was to come to the earth to save the whole "ungodly multitude".  "For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved." (John 3:17).  There is no contextual or lexical evidence that the world means "the elect of the world".

The "All Things" hermeneutic 
 

The Bible says that “all things” work together for good (Rom 8:28), and that God works “all things” after the counsel of His own will (Eph 1:11). Calvinists often fail to put contextual limitations on the phrase "all things" in places where the limitation is required.  Instead they put an artificial limitation in places that don't warrant such a limitation (1 Tim 2:4, 2 Pet 3:9, Tit 2:11, Rom 5:18, 1 Jn 2:2, Jn 3:16-17, etc.).

The Bible also says that:

“… with God all things are possible.” (Mt 19:26)

“… all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.” (Mt 21:22)

“he expounded all things to his disciples.” (Mk 4:34)

“If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth” (Mk 9:23)

“… all things are clean unto you.” (Lu 11:41)

“Come, see a man, which told me all things that ever I did: is not this the Christ?” (Jn 4:29)

“And all that believed were together, and had all things common” (Ac 2:44)

“I have shewed you all things…” (Ac 20:35)

“… how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?” (Ro 8:32)

“All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence.” (Rom 14:20)

“All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient” (1Co 6:12)

“I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.” (1 Cor 9:22)

“But we do all things, dearly beloved, for your edifying.” (1 Cor 12:19)

“But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things” (1 Jn 2:20)

“Beloved, I wish above all things that thou mayest prosper and be in health, even as thy soul prospereth” (3Jo 1:2)

“He that overcometh shall inherit all things…” (Rev 21:7)

Now re-read the aforementioned verses with the understanding that “all things” is unlimited, meaning “all things in the universe”.  It’s not appropriate, because the context of each passage must drive the meaning.  For example, does Mt 21:22 say that I can ask for a prostitute and receive one?  Does Mk 4:34 say that Jesus expounded every piece of information of the universe to his disciples?  Does Acts 2:44 teach that all believers even had the same wives? Does Romans 8:32 guarantee we get a brand new Mercedes?  Does 1 Jn 2:20 teach that we know every piece of knowable information?  I would say the answers to these questions is “No”. 

Another interesting verse is Romans 5:18, which states, "Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life."  We must be honest with the grammatical layout of the verse.  Surely the “all” in the first clause is the same “all” as the second clause.  So, in the same way every human was offered condemnation in Adam, so also every human is offered righteousness in Christ. This verse also screams potentiality of salvation for every human that has entered spiritual death.

Augmented word meanings

"Choose"

Context is king, and words can take different meanings in varying contexts. For example, John 6:70 is speaking perhaps of ministerial choice, while John 15:16 is speaking of either ministerial and/or salvific choice. It's hard to be dogmatic either way.  In either case, the word "choose" should not have information added to it that is augmenting its intended meanings. Regardless of the context, the word "choose" itself wouldn't take on a different meaning.  In either case it means "to choose".  The word "choose" does not in and of itself contain an idea of unconditionality.  I "choose" things all the time, but not always unconditionally (I chose to vote for a specific president, for example).  The Calvinists wrongly assume that the word "choose" means "unconditionally choose" when God is the subject.  There is no proof that God didn't select His disciples based on some moral qualities they possessed.   

"Grace"

Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace" (Rom 4:16).  Faith is the means that makes salvation by grace.  Hence, Paul contrasts grace with works is some places and faith with works in others.  Calvinism wrongly takes it up a level, as if grace implies some in abstracto unconditional election prior to faith.  So, in Romans 11:5, we see that election is according to grace BECAUSE ELECTION IS OFFERED BY FAITH. 

The "Persuaded/Confident" hermeneutic
 

I ask any honest Calvinist to re-analyze his supposed "eternal security" proof texts and notice that many of them are stated in the following format:  "I am persuaded (confident) that........" (Rom 8:38, Heb 6:9, Php 1:6, 2 Th 3:4, 2 Tim 1:12).  A statement of confidence on Paul's part should never be considered an unconditional promise, nor should this type of statement be considered hermeneutically stronger than categorical affirmations of the possibility of apostasy (e.g. Heb 6:4ff).    
 

UnBiblical Assumptions

1)  Philosophical errors

It is purely a philosophical argument to claim that faith is a work.  Paul clearly contrasts faith with works all through the book of Romans (especially Romans 3 -4).  Any attempt to call faith a work, is a non-Biblical assumption.  Faith is not in contrast to grace, but rather is the basis for grace (See Romans 4:16). In fact, Romans 11:6 intimates:  "And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work."  This further proves that Paul is asserting "grace through faith" sometimes by referring to "faith" in contrast to works (Rom 4:5), sometimes by referring to "grace" in contrast to works (Rom 11:6), and sometimes by referring to "grace ... through faith" , in contrast to works (Eph 2:8-9). Nowhere does Paul teach that faith (no matter what it's origin is -- God or man or a combination) is a work.

Another philosophical error is the confusion of external circumstances with the will.  Calvinists often quote Romans 8:38-39 as positing "once saved, always saved".  There are a host of problems with this interpretation.  First, it assumes that Paul's persuasion dictates God's irresistible decree (See "Persuaded/Confident" hermeneutic above).  Second, it uses unconditional phrase extraction (see section on "Unconditional Phrase Extraction" above) by ignoring explicit conditions of remaining in God's love stated elsewhere in scripture, such as:

Jud 1:21 keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ that leads to eternal life.

 

Joh 14:21 Whoever has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me. And he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him...15:4 Abide in me, and I in you...10 If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love.

 

1 Jn 3:23 And this is his commandment, that we believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another, just as he has commanded us. 24 Whoever keeps his commandments abides in God...

Surely, such conditions of abiding in Christ qualify Paul's phrase "the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord."  God's salvific love for us is Christ-centric.  As we abide in Christ by faith, we are guaranteed the safe haven of God's loving economy of salvation.  The third and most subtle error in this example is the confusion of external circumstances with the will.  Paul asserts that "neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord" (ESV).  Notice that all of the circumstances mentioned are external.  There is no mention of the person's own will, intentions, or desires.  Paul is asserting that, as we trust Christ (and are thereby in Him), no external circumstance can remove of us (i.e. those who align themselves with Christ) from the love of God.  God is determined to bring the church into a state of conformity to His Son (i.e. glorification -- the context of Romans 8).  John 10:28-29 should be interpreted accordingly (See my Q&A entitled "Do John 6, 10, and 17 teach unconditional election when they refer to those 'given' to the Son by the Father" for more understanding on this passage).

2)  The "Assumed Irresistibility" hermeneutic

Calvinists will often use a plethora of examples where God supposedly "irresistibly" changed someones will.  Consider, for example, Saul of Tarsus.  Must we assume that he was FORCED to believe?  There is no contextual merit for that assertion.  In fact, there is evidence in Romans 7 that Saul, as an unsaved Pharisee (v14), was desiring to fulfill the Law (v22), yet realized he was unable to because of his sin nature.  He desired a release from this spiritual bondage (v24).  This very response to prevenient grace may have been the open door for God to let the light of the Gospel shine through.  Of course God could have foreseen such a response even before Saul's birth, which would explain Paul's sentiments in Galatians 1:15).  Even if Galatians 1:15 is a statement of decree rather than foreknowledge, does this necessitate an irresistible calling?  No it does not.  God has called many who have resisted his calling and/or drawing (Jer 7:13, 31:3, Hos 11:4, Prov 1:24, Isa 50:2).  In addition, the Galatian church, who was "called", was in the process of being "removed from him that CALLED [them]" (Gal 1:6).

Failure to Understand Words Based on Their Lexical Usage

Let us examine a simple word -- proginosko. So many Chrisitans have wrongfully assumed that this word should be understood as "forelove", "before choose in love", or "predetermine".  I believe Calvinists and Arminians alike (e.g. My Life in the Spirit Study Bible treats it as "forelove" also) make two fundamental linguistic fallacies:
 
First, they violate D.A. Carson's root fallacy.  In his book, Exegetical Fallacies, Carson states,

“I am simply saying that the meaning of a word cannot be reliably determined by etymology or that a root, once discovered, always projects a certain semantic load onto any word that incorporates that root.”

Calvinists are committing this fallacy by assuming that we define proginosko based on the lexical usage of its root words (namely ginosko in Greek, or even Yada in Hebrew).  They then pick the meaning "love" or "have intimacy", among many (of course they don't pick "sexual union" [Gen 4:1, 17, 25], lest they end up with some twisted theology like the Mormons).  With such a process, we could allow proginosko to take on ANY one of Ginosko's (or Yada's) dozens of meanings.  It could be a free for all (especially when the context of Rom 8:29-30 could allow for many of them).  But the appropriate lexical process is to look up the uses of proginosko (not its root words) and determine its use in Rom 8:29 based on its lexical meaning and its use else where.  It's lexical meaning is simply "to know beforehand, that is, foresee" (Strong's).  None of the verses containing proginosko necessitate a context of "forelove" or "predetermine".  In fact, Acts 2:23 shows that predeterminism and foreknowledge are distinct entities, and not one in the same.  The concepts of forelove/foreordain are not lexically determined, but rather based on presuppositions (eisegesis).  They are read into the word proginosko without lexical basis.

Second, they violate the simple linguistic rule that a verb does not fundamentally change meaning based on its subject.  Thomas Edgar writes:

It is exegetically incorrect to consider only those passages where God is the subject. Still, this approach is common. The assumption involved in so restricting the study is that the meaning is different, and not merely modified, when God is the subject. Several reasons show this approach to be incorrect: (1) The meaning of a verb is not dependent on, nor does it vary with the subject of the verb. (2) Other words do not have a different meaning when used of God. How do interpreters know that this one does? (3) God has given Scripture to communicate to humans.²⁰ He uses human language with its normal meanings. If words have different meanings when God is the subject, the interpreter cannot know what they are, nor if our concepts about God are accurate. (4) Why would God deliberately make the communication difficult? Why would He use words with different meanings than normal when He could use readily available words that clearly communicate? If this term normally means "foreknowledge," but when used of God, it means "electing love, intimate knowledge, or determining choice," why use it here? Why not say, "electing love." Such an approach is illogical. (5) If words do not have their normal meaning when used to describe God, there can be no objective control on interpretation, leaving each interpreter to read in his theological opinions. Thus, to study only those uses of proginwskw where God is the subject is defective hermeneutically and logically. (Edgar, The Meaning Of ΠΡΟΓΙΝΩΣΚΩ)

Taken to its logical end, a violation of this rule invalidates human language.  Any verb can mean any different thing depending on who the subject is.  I could start saying that any verb with God as the subect means something else.  I disagree with this approach.  God spoke to us in human language so that we could relate to Him via the same words we use with each other.  We should a approach the verb the same way with the subject being God, as we should with the subject being man.  And since the unambiguous verses are used of simple foreknowledge (Acts 26:5, 2 Pet 3:17), then the verbs with God as the subject (Rom 8:29, 1 Pet 1:20, Rom 11:20) should be used in a similar way unless the CONTEXT (not the subject) necessitates.  Without such evidence, it is only responsible to stick with the lexical meaning because it works for ALL of them, while the artificial "foreloved" could only possibly apply to 3 of the 5.