Calvinism seems to cause controversy, and while it is clear enough to me now, it was not always so. Therefore, I thought I would write some notes about how I arrived at it.
The reality is it took a long time for me to become a Calvinist. I studied the history of Christian thought, and the development of it, and found the roots of Calvinism everywhere, in short, as Charles Spurgeon said, Calvinism is simply the Gospel itself, we use the word Calvinism because it is convenient, just like we use the word trinity to describe God.
But in our natural state, we are all non-Calvinistic in our thinking, it takes some scripture to renew our minds and point us in the true direction. I was no different, I initially recoiled from the doctrines of Calvinism, after all they don't exactly feed the flesh. But as I read more and more about theology, I discovered people who gently and carefully showed from scripture the truth of Calvinism, and those who opposed it resorted to arguments that seemed almost desperate in their methods. For me it was like dominoes, one point of TULIP after another came into clear scriptural focus, until one day (June 6, 2005), the final point (the limited atonement) became clear to me.
I read the arguments for and against each point until each became clear to me. It took a lot of time because I resolved to ignore arguments that were logic based or merely derived (by clever arguments) from scripture. I wanted clear scriptures themselves that stated the doctrines one way or another. Eventually, for every point of Calvinism, such scriptures were presented to me. So I resolved to present a nutshell version of it here. I also learned Calvinism in context, to avoid the pitfalls of Arminianism on one side, and Hyper-Calvinism on the other. So I will talk about each of them briefly as well.
The Main Points of Calvinism
Calvinism, at the highest level, is simply the doctrine of predestination combined with the doctrine of grace alone (one of the five solas). It emphasizes the sovereignty of God, who elects (chooses) who gets saved from the foundation of the world, and gives them saving faith as a gift. No one comes to Christ unless God gives them saving faith first which is a result of regeneration:
eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves:
it is the gift of God:
eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
By contrast Arminians generally assert that we work up the faith on our own and regeneration comes after. This is the key difference, in Calvinism, regeneration preceeds faith and faith is a consequence of regeneration (as shown in the above scripture). In Arminianism, faith comes from us rather than God and precedes regeneration. Both are orthodox in that they agree justification is by faith alone, the disagreement is how that faith gets there in the first place.
Calvinism emphasizes that God is sovereign, He is not dependent upon any agency of man to save someone. Man cannot save himself by any efforts, nor does man choose through his own will who gets saved and who doesn't.
The five points of Calvinism are called the doctrines of grace. They detail God's grace and sovereignty in salvation and are commonly referred to with the mnemonic TULIP, one letter for each of the five points of Calvinism:
A necessary consequence of these doctrines is that salvation is of God from start to finish, as saving faith begins and ends with God, not us. There are scriptures that assert this position outright:
heb 12:2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; ...
Some terminology comes along with the Calvinism debate as well:
Calvinism teaches both monergism and predestination, neither of which is intuitively obvious and is even offensive (as it was to me) to those who haven't been taught.
The doctrines of grace pretty much stand or fall together, lose one, and you pretty much lose them all, as they are a cohesive system.
When I embarked on my study of Calvinism, I swore I would not accept any of the five points that were not explicitly stated in scripture, and they are, so I give some of scriptures to you here.
The Perseverance of the Saints
Stated simply, this doctrine says that those are are truly saved will persevere to the end. They (the saints) will endure trials, tribulations, tempations, and persecution, but will not fall away. In short, true salvation is permanent, you cannot lose it because God guarantees it.
My earliest confrontation with Calvinism (although I didn't know it by name at the time) was an internet ministry on Bible prophecy, (www.omegaletter.com). The guy briefly digressed from his usual prophetic topics and wrote a defense of grace and the once-saved-always-saved position. It wasn't very good, at least it didn't convince me at all.
I resolved to post a definitive rebuttal of the "ridiculous" in my mind once-saved-always-saved doctrine in his comment section. After carefully going through the Bible, I realized I couldn't do it. I spent several days on it too, trying to defend my position, and I just could not come up with a definitive Biblical argument that totally trashed the viewpoint. I didn't convince myself that it was true, but neither could I disprove it as the ridiculous doctrine I previously held it to be.
I ended up posting nothing at all, but I saved my bible study on the subject and reflected upon it from time to time. One conclusion I drew quite early was that the once-saved-always-saved position forced the conclusion that it is a lot more difficult to be truly saved than is generally thought; an idea I was already sympathetic to. The circles I travelled in taught that a simple prayer was enough and ignored scriptures on wheat vs. tares, obedience, etc. I had slowly been becoming aware that ignoring those scriptures was wrong. Thus, my journey towards Calvinism began, it was over a year before it completed.
For me, the scripture that was the final nail in the coffin of the idea that people could lose their salvation was John 6:37-40.
joh 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh
to me I will in no wise cast out.
joh 6:38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will
of him that sent me.
joh 6:39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which
he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the
last day.
joh 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth
the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise
him up at the last day.
It was pointed out to me that Jesus says it twice in these verses, he won't lose a single one, and that He would be in violation of the Father's will if He did. He even states that the Father's will is that He should not lose even one. And it was also pointed out to me that it is impossible for Jesus to fail to follow the Father's will.
A classic verse used to defend the idea that you can lose your salvation is this one:
heb 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have
tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
heb 6:5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to
come,
heb 6:6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing
they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open
shame.
Notice the "if", it can be argued that this is a rhetorical question, the point is that it is not possible, not that it is, thus we turn the verse on its head when we try to use it to defend that one can fall away. Just a few verses later we find the following:
heb 6:9 But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak.
Thus, Paul confirms the idea that what he is really arguing for is that one cannot fall away.
Another argument against falling away is Jesus' parable of the sower, where Jesus divides people into four groups and describes some who fall away:
The parable of the sower occurs twice in the New Testament:
mat 13:18 Hear ye therefore the parable of the sower.
mat 13:19 When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it
not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his
heart. This is he which received seed by the way side.
mat 13:20 But he that received the seed into stony places, the same is he that
heareth the word, and anon with joy receiveth it;
mat 13:21 Yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while: for when
tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is
offended.
mat 13:22 He also that received seed among the thorns is he that heareth the
word; and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the
word, and he becometh unfruitful.
mat 13:23 But he that received seed into the good ground is he that heareth
the word, and understandeth it; which also beareth fruit, and bringeth forth,
some an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.
mar 4:14 The sower soweth the word.
mar 4:15 And these are they by the way side, where the word is sown; but when
they have heard, Satan cometh immediately, and taketh away the word that was
sown in their hearts.
mar 4:16 And these are they likewise which are sown on stony ground; who,
when they have heard the word, immediately receive it with gladness;
mar 4:17 And have no root in themselves, and so endure but for a time:
afterward, when affliction or persecution ariseth for the word's sake,
immediately they are offended.
mar 4:18 And these are they which are sown among thorns; such as hear the
word,
mar 4:19 And the cares of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and
the lusts of other things entering in, choke the word, and it becometh
unfruitful.
mar 4:20 And these are they which are sown on good ground; such as hear the
word, and receive it, and bring forth fruit, some thirtyfold, some sixty, and
some an hundred.
Of note is what separates the final group from the other three. In both cases the focus is on the fruits, the true believers will bear fruit. Mathew adds that they understood the word, implying that proper understanding of the Word is necessary to bear fruit.
The Calvinistic view of the parable of the sower is that the second and third groups were never true believers, or as the scripture says, they had no root, and so either trial or temptation easily led them away from their false conversion experience.
John repeats this idea here:
jo1 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.
Note the ideas clearly expressed there, the truly saved would have persevered, but the not truly saved left after a while to reveal they had never been truly saved at all.
Bible prophecy in fact chronicles the fate of three classifications of people:
Once you understand the trifold classification system the Bible uses then things will become a lot more clear. Many scriptures (but not all) use this classification system and delineate between the three groups. Let us examine the parable of the wheat and the tares:
mat 13:24 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of
heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:
mat 13:25 But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat,
and went his way.
mat 13:26 But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then
appeared the tares also.
mat 13:27 So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir,
didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?
mat 13:28 He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto
him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?
mat 13:29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also
the wheat with them.
mat 13:30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest
I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them
in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.
Notice carefully that the tares are sown among the wheat. We have learned from the previous parable that the seed is the word of God, and the wheat are the believers. In this parable the tares are the professing Christians who do not truly believe the word, they have no root of faith in themselves, they may have religion, zeal, self-righteousness, and all manner of false affectations that make them nearly indistinguishable from the real thing, but they are not in the kingdom at all.
Jesus also delineates His classification of people in several other verses:
In the parable of the ten virgins Jesus says to the five foolish virgins:
mat 25:11 Afterward came also the other virgins, saying, Lord, Lord, open to
us.
mat 25:12 But he answered and said, Verily I say unto you, I know you not.
Again, the symbolism (oil in lamps) for lack of the Holy Spirit inside them is evident. Notice he says He doesn't know them at all, not that He once did and they fell away. He echoes this in another verse and stresses He never knew them:
mat 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied
in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many
wonderful works?
mat 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me,
ye that work iniquity.
Much of the evangelistic efforts of Calvinists in the past has focused around awakening those who are tares to a realization of their awful state of existence, those who are comfortable living for self in His name, those who serve their flesh, but name Jesus, those who when push comes to shove, will deny Him if it is convenient for them, and those who are hyper-religious, but have no root of submission to Christ or a realization of their awful sinfulness inside themselves.
Jonathan Edwards (in one of the most famous works ever written on the subject) compared the false and the true signs of a believer in his "Treatise Concerning Religious Affections." George Whitefield called them the "almost Christian" and devoted much of his preaching to the subject. Spurgeon called them tares just as the Bible does.
In the end on judgement day however, only a two-fold classification system is used, the sheep and the goats, and the tares are included among the goats.
If I haven't convinced you by now then I leave it to others to do a better job, the other four points add weight to this argument so please read on.
Total Depravity
The total depravity of man is clearly spelled out in the Bible.
There are several points to it, we are totally sinful, we have no desire to come to God, and we have no ability to do so even if we did have the desire. Often this touches on the free-will argument, Calvinism asserts that we have limited free-will, we have no desire for God on our own, we are not capable of our own free-wills of living a sinless life or earning our righteousness before God even if we did want to.
Total sinfulness is pretty clear, if we weren't totally sinful, we wouldn't need a savior, and we could just obey God's law and be done with it. Paul covers all of this pretty clearly in His epistles:
rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Total sinfulness doesn't mean we can't do some good things, but that we are all stained and blackened by sin to the point none of us can actually do anything about it.
Lack of desire to come to God is spelled out here:
rom 3:11 There is none who understands, There is none who seeks for God;
Lack of ability to come to God (live a sinless life out of our own efforts) is also easy to prove and is closely related:
rom 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
Scripture asserts that if we even attempt to be justified by works that we are actually falling from grace (and aren't true Christians):
gal 5:4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.
So as we have seen, total depravity is clearly called out in scripture.
Unconditional Election
The doctrine of election is simply that God chooses who gets saved and not us, and He made the choice from the beginning:
joh 15:16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, ...
Arthur Pink points out this is the most hated doctrine of Christianity. He means the most hated doctrine among professing Christians. He calls it a humbling and flesh-withering doctrine.
Simply put, God decides in advance (from the foundation of the world) who is going to be saved. The words chosen, predestined, elect, foreknew, and appointed occur throughout the New Testament.
Mark Webb points out why such a negative reaction to such a comforting doctrine occurs. Election attacks the very foundation of those who are trusting in works to save them. It pulls the rug out from under them. This is why Arthur Pink describes this doctrine as separating the sheep from the goats (saved vs. unsaved) like no other.
We are responsible to believe in Christ and repent to be saved, yes. But God gives us the ability to do so. I say this because there are some who twist this doctrine and say God's election is independent of whether you profess Christ (this is one of the views labelled as Hyper-Calvinism and is to be avoided). If true it would mean that we have no way to determine if we are saved or not, since our actions and beliefs are meaningless. This carries the idea of predestination way beyond its Biblical meaning.
The truth is that God does all, and we do all also. It is not half and half, or all God and none of us. God gives us a will to follow Him, and true Christians will use it gladly.
Mr. Webb also points out that only by humbling ourselves before Christ and asking Him to save us can we truly be saved. The doctrine of election is the most humbling of all doctrines, as it tells us there is no good in us at all. Many professing Christians resist this doctrine, and they resist it violently, even claiming that only an evil God would deliberately save some and not others, despite the clear scriptures supporting this doctrine.
If you search the New Testament for the words chosen, elect, predestined, foreknew, and appointed, most of the scriptures surrounding election will come up (and there are a lot of them surprisingly, given how much disagreement there is with this doctrine). so here are some more scriptures supporting election:
act 2:47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.
act 13:48 When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed.
pe1 2:8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which
stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
pe1 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation,
a peculiar people; that ye should show forth the praises of him who hath
called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:
th1 1:4 Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God.
eph 1:11 In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, (NAS)
rom 8:29 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image
of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren;
rom 8:30 and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called,
He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.
The doctrine of election is also present in the Old Testament, as God chose Israel not of it's own merits, but of His good pleasure:
deu 7:7 The LORD did not set his affection on you and choose you because you were more numerous than other peoples, for you were the fewest of all peoples.
rom 11:4 But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.
Note that every single scripture above has God making the choice of who will serve him and who will not. The number of scriptures supporting election is huge.
The doctrine of election is the part of the doctrine of grace that gives us our greatest joy, security, and peace. God chose us, we did not choose Him. The evidence He chose us is our very faith itself, the gift of God, for Christ promises to cast out none who come to Him:
joh 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
Limited Atonement
This was the last of the doctrines of Calvinism I was convinced of. Arthur Pink takes credit for the final straw. He so clearly lists the scriptures that support this viewpoint.
I want to say a few words about the atonement itself before I discuss its scope. There are many interpretations of the atonement, but the one orthodox Christians use is the penal substitutionary atonement: that Jesus died in your place for your sins and paid the full price for them on the cross. In this view (and only this view as far as I know) Jesus' death on the cross was absolutely necessary, nothing less would have satisfied God's perfect justice that demands every sin be paid for.
A proper view of God emphasizes both His love and His holiness. God is both simultaneously and never changes. Hell is eternal punishment for sins (not eternal seperation from God as is popularly said today). Salvation by grace is God's mercy and lovingkindness to spare some of His children what they rightly deserve, eternity in Hell. As you can see, this too is a flesh withering doctrine which is why people try to squirm out of it in their theology.
John Murray, in Arminianism and the Atonement. shows us that the limited (partial or particular) atonement idea is simply that Christ died for His people only, and that His death secured infallibly their salvation. Arminianism states the reverse, the atonement was for all but secured nothing.
It must be said that the merciful offer of salvation is made to all and there is God's love being expressed fully. But (in support of the total depravity doctrine) only the elect will ever receive it, since only by God's grace do we have any ability or desire to know God.
The actual reformation quote is: "The atonement is sufficient for all, but efficient only for the elect".
Spurgeon in arguing for the partial atonement points out that if Jesus paid the price for the sins of all, then why do some still go to Hell? If He made such a sacrifice, was not His sacrifice partially in vain? Did not God somehow fail in His purpose? These things are of course impossible; God cannot fail in His purposes (or He would not be omnipotent or even God at all) any more than He can lie or deny Himself.
John Reisinger points out that those who believe in universal atonement actually believe in no atonement on the cross. No sins were actually paid for on the cross, but rather only the potential of later forgiveness was created on the cross. This is similar to the governmental atonement theory, which is popular among Arminians. Honest Arminians are sooner or later forced to admit that they don't really believe in the penal substitutionary atonement at all. The biblical atonement, in the sense that Spurgeon wrote about it, is that Jesus actually paid for the sins of the elect on the cross. Please understand that election and salvation (the moment of the new birth) are seperate events.
Spurgeon's argument alone didn't do it for me however, as I wanted more than an argument, I wanted scriptures that proved the point. Arthur Pink finished the job for me and gave me those very scriptures. Here are some of the scriptures in support of the partial atonement that Arthur Pink points out:
isa 53:8 ... for the transgression of my people was he stricken.
mat 1:21 ... for he shall save his people from their sins.
joh 10:11 ... the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.
joh 10:15 ... and I lay down my life for the sheep.
Notice He dies for His people, He saves His people from their sins, and He dies for the sheep only (not the goats). Those were the scriptures that clinched it for me along with the understanding that salvation is offered to all. Those fine distinctions had to be made in order for it to fit properly with scripture. There are too many 'all' and 'whosoever' phrases attached to the proclamation of the Gospel for it to be otherwise. The fact that nobody comes to God without saving grace is simply proof of our total depravity, and of God's mercy and lovingkindness.
Irresistible Grace
Saving grace is given by God to some unwilling sinners so that they embrace Him. They neither asked for it or sought it while in their unsaved state. And when saving grace is given, it never fails. We call this irresistable grace.
So, when the convicting power of God's Holy Spirit hits someone, He will always accomplish His purpose. Meaning that nobody can say no when the Holy Spirit means to convict them and bring them to salvation.
A proper understanding of it is that He secures the cooperation of our wills. In the vernacular, we say that only God can change a heart. Theologians call it the effectual calling, which distinguishes it from the general call to salvation that is given to all.
Those who deny irresistible grace are effectively denying that God is sovereign, by placing the decision as to who is saved is placed into the hands of man. I need to point out that Arminians see a different use of grace, that grace is given to us to enable our free choice. So, they affirm irresistible grace and deny it at the same time. Scripture however is clear however that true freedom of the will is to choose Christ, and to reject Him is bondage to sin.
Libertarian free-will (as it is called), the so-called ability to choose good or evil, was presented as a desirable thing by the serpent in the Garden. But all it brought however was bondage to sin. True freedom is to be set free by grace into freedom in Christ.
The doctrines of grace stand or fall together as a whole. Irresistable grace has no meaning without election for example. The scriptures earlier that support election also effectively support irresistable grace. God chooses who He wants to, and saves them, and always accomplishes His purposes.
There are scriptures that directly address irresistable grace, and also affirm that without it nobody chooses Christ, note they also effectively affirm total depravity at the same time, that nobody chooses God unless God chooses them first:
joh 6:44 " No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.
co1 12:3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.
Note that unless they receive grace from the Father they cannot come to Christ. And unless regenerated by the Holy Spirit, they cannot have saving faith. That's about as clear as you can get.
Salvation is routinely expressed as a gift. People twist this around and say that we must receive it for it to be effective, but this idea is foreign to scripture. When God wants to give a gift, He gives it, plain and simple. In more detail however, He first changes our wills by the act of regeneration, and then we willingly receive Christ.
The scriptural case here really is iron-clad, you simply just have to be willing to submit your mind to scripture.
Observations.
When I came to a full understanding of the doctrines of grace my level of peace was greatly increased. I found freedom from fear and striving, freedom to glorify God, and freedom from judging others (because they somehow failed to make the right decision for God), and freedom from pride in believing I had done the right thing when others had not. I also found myself free to present the Gospel in a scriptural way, no longer struggling with seeker-friendly concepts.
My joy increased too, because I understood that our place in Christ is assured by Him and not us, and that He has our back, and promises to keep us through anything and everything that comes our way.
Liberation from works thinking allows me to say "abba" Father without reservation or fear that somehow I am not all He wants me to be. I know my justification is not of me at all, it is a free gift from Him and He intends us to rejoice in it. Hallelujah and God be praised!
Is Arminianism Heresy? Are Arminians saved?
This is a question I struggled with, and I am of the opinion that popular Arminianism as it exists today is not necessarily a soul-killer, but I am also of the opinion that many Arminians (who are generally ignorant of the meaning of that label) are in fact unsaved, I am referring to word-of-faithers mostly, who have piled a lot of other false doctrines on top of their Arminianism.
However, a school of thought broadly known as Hyper-Calvinism, takes a different view, that only Calvinists are saved. The thrust of their argument is that claiming you made the decision for Christ is a form of works righteousness. The Synod of Dort that originally condemned Arminianism as heresy had the same viewpoint too.
The rest of us maintain that since Arminians themselves do not claim any merit from the deed, there is no real works-rightouesness there, so they are not attemptimg salvation by works in any meaningful sense.
Scripturally, the Bible does not call out a proper understanding of Grace Alone as a requirement for salvation either.
I admit I struggled for a long time with Spurgeon's assertion that Arminians could be saved. Hyper-Calvinism was a temptation to me for a while. I learned that Augustine also faced a theology that could be branded as Arminianism, and he took the same position.
Augustine was the chief defender of the faith against the Pelagian heresy, which was genuinely salvation-by-works, and was scathing in his attacks of Pelagius and his doctrines. But when later faced with an early form of Arminianism he treated it quite differently, he wrote to them as brothers in Christ who were in error. I found John Calvin essentially in agreement with Augustine on those points, and R.C. Sproul of today.
R.C. Sproul points out that Arminianism affirms sola fide (faith alone), but denies sola gratia (grace alone), as it teaches synergism.
As Spurgeon said, Arminianism is a slippery slope, swallow a few more false doctrines and your ship sinks. And in our modern period where doctrine is frequently abandoned in favor of feelings, the possibility that an Arminian can be saved is remote in some corners of the Church, but that isn't due to the Arminianism itself.
Final Thoughts
I hope you enjoyed our little tour through the doctrines of grace.
The doctrines of grace are deceptively simple, but they profoundly color our thinking about many things including the Christian life, evangelism, and the meaning of God's glory.
The doctrines of grace enrich our understanding of God's sovereignty, that He is in full control, everything has a purpose, foreordained from the beginning of time, and is being used for good purposes to glorify our loving God.
The doctrines of grace give us comfort, in that we know God is carrying us to a sure salvation and a sure destiny in Heaven.
May God richly bless you, my friends.
For further reading.
I also recommend you read about Calvinism from the great Calvinists themselves, such as Calvin, Edwards, Whitefield, and Spurgeon. Or any of the more modern Calvinists too. See my historical links page on my website.