Conversations In Calvinism

Follow-up to a Previous Post

2007-09-06T07:51:00.000-05:00

Back in May, I posted on this blog regarding the importance of understanding our place in the world as American Calvinists:

http://conversationsincalvinism.blogspot.com/2007/05/its-helpful-to-understand-our-place-in.html

Yesterday, Richard Land penned a succinct article outlining the titanic demographic and geographic shift in Christ's Church that is happening right before our eyes. It warrants a read:

http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070905/29184_Growth_in_Orthodox_Christian_Faith_has_Roots_in_'Global_South'.htm

A few things of note:

1) It has become commonplace in the cultural discourse to hear the refrain that Islam is the world's fastest growing religion. Not true. It MAY have been true 20-30 years ago, but no longer. Christianity has reassumed its place as the fastest growing religion in the world. Moreover, along with pentecostal leanings leading the Protestant charge, Reformed leanings are also enjoying something of a comeback. As mentioned previously, South Korea is a phenomenal Reformed success story, but as Land points out, places like Ghana have also become very receptive to Reformed theology and presbyterianism in particular, while much of orthodox African Anglicanism is also fairly Reformed.

2) There is no longer any serious doubt that the power base of the global church is no longer in the West, but in the Global South. It is in the Global South that Christianity is literally spreading like wildfire and where revival is literally happening right now. It is the Global South that is evangelizing the West rather than the other way around. It is the Global South that is providing safe harbor for conservative congregations in the West who feel exiled by the liberal drift of the Western mainline. While Western mainline and even evangelical traditions are busy trying to accommodate Christianity to an increasingly secular culture, missionaries from the Global South are transforming culture as Scripture commands. Land's comments about the state of the church in Denmark are very revealing about the difference between us and our brothers in the Global South.

3) The vitality, conviction, passion, and loyalty to God and to the purity of his bride that are the hallmarks of the Global South are cause for great hope. While no movement is perfect, I for one am glad that the forseeable future of the church will be led by them, not us.

I think Land's article, without directly saying it, supports the notion that American Christians need to seriously start getting used to being in the bullpen rather than being the starting pitcher. The Global South is in charge. The big money might still be in the West, but money doesn't last, and it won't stop the church from sinking. The American church needs two things more than anything else at the moment: A spirit of repentance, and non-Western missionaries who prophetically call us back to the passionate childlike faith we long ago sacrificed on the altar of cultural and academic sophistication.

Hospitality Article Published by ThirdMill

2007-08-16T11:01:00.000-05:00

While continuing to labour away on a hospitality article I hope to submit to the Westminster Theological Journal for publication, I decided back in June to submit a somewhat less technical article to ThirdMill for publication in their online magazine. Unlike the article I'm preparing for the WTJ which focuses on the seemingly diverging hospitality instructions given by the Elder in 2 and 3 John, the ThirdMill article discusses hospitality from a somewhat different vantage point. Here, I attempt to compare the Johannine corpus as a whole to the very provocative hospitality views of Jacques Derrida. This article has now been published by ThirdMill's Reformed Perspectives Magazine and is now available on their site (http://www.thirdmill.org) for perusal. I invite all interested parties to take a look. Anyone who wants to access the article directly can either go to my own blog (http://jasonffoster.blogspot.com) and follow the 'My Published Papers So Far' link, or they can go here:

http://thirdmill.org/newfiles/jas_foster/jas_foster.hospitality.pdf

Even though many people are not aware of it, the subject of hospitality is a very live issue in the current cultural, political, and ecclesiastical petri dishes. As one example, Derrida in particular has been extremely influential at the intersection of hospitality and immigration.

Enjoy.

The Passing of Joe Brown

2007-07-16T12:12:00.000-05:00

As an RTS alum, I am saddened at the news of Dr Harold O.J. Brown's passing. Joe Brown was a pivotal figure in the resurrection of the respectability of evangelical thought and influence in our culture and even in the Academy. His multiple degrees from Harvard gave him a unique platform to speak as an evangelical to non-evangelical circles and be taken seriously.

Joe Brown taught for many many years at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. His passion for the dignity of all human life led not only to him founding the Christian Action Council (currently Care Net), which advocated on behalf of the unborn and eventually was critical in the mainstreaming of the crisis pregnancy care movement. Brown's interest in bioethics went beyond the abortion question, and touched on a wide array of issues where human dignity, science, and ethics intersected. It was largely through Brown's prominent influence that Trinity today offers a Masters in Bioethics as part of their suite of graduate-level degrees.

In his later years, Brown also taught at RTS, mainly at the Charlotte campus. Every summer, Joe Brown would take a group of interested students to Wittenberg to study church history for academic credit, another passion of his.

Joe Brown's compassionate advocacy for the cause of the unborn was very heavy lifting that was rarely easy. Yet, when I knew him in his late years stricken with cancer, he was a man who always had a smile on his face and was proactive in talking with people like me. Another seminary professor of mine once said that the Academy, even the evangelical Academy, was full of cynics. He told me that I would be wise to seek out those increasingly few professors who have truly seen it all in the church - the good, the bad, the ugly, and the very ugly - and yet, still walk around with smiles on their faces and authentic joy in their hearts. Harold Joe Brown was one of those people. When told that his cancer was terminal and that he only had weeks to live, it is reported that Joe said, "My short-term prognosis is unknown, but my long-term prognosis is good!"

Here's hoping my generation will learn from Joe Brown's advocacy for justice and compassion, combined with an abiding love for Christ and the certainty of the eternal life he promises for those who are his. May we be like Joe Brown in not merely shaking our heads at injustice and whining about how we don't have a voice in the culture, but proactively stepping out in tangible faith, seeking to change the culture even when things seem dark, trusting that God will multiply our meager loaves and fishes.

Perfect Timing

2007-07-09T10:00:00.000-05:00

On the very day I post my recent discussion on original sin (see previous post), Gene Bridges of Triablogue posted a link to an article discussing evidence of an infant's ability to lie. Folks who take the time to read my previous entry will notice that my exchange on original sin touched on the specific subject matter of Gene's post and the article he links to. Tip 'o the hat to Gene for the link!

Recent Discussion On Original Sin

2007-07-08T11:28:00.000-05:00

The following is taken from a recent exchange I had on this blog with an Eastern Orthodox adherent which touched on several different topics. For the full unedited discussion, see here.

----------

...man's foundational problem is not guilt, but death.

I disagree. Death is the result of sin and guilt. This means that sin and guilt are more foundational than death itself.

You, however, inherited not guilt, but death, and because of that you sin (precisely opposite of Adam).

Again, I disagree. If we were all counted as sinners from Adam onward as Romans 5:19 explicitly states, then the problem for us is the same as Adam and not the opposite. If we were counted as sinners, then we were indeed counted guilty.

Your view of the atonement only addresses the symptoms (sin and guilt) and not the problem (death).

But since we do in fact inherit sin and guilt then these are indeed the problems and death is the symptom.

Go up 7 verses to 5:12. I sin because I have death in me, separation from God, which makes me fill the emptiness in my imago Dei with the emptiness of sin and can then be labelled a sinner.

I did. I find no support for your contentions there because of how Romans 5:12 reads. The latter half of the verse explicitly states that "death spread to all men, because all sinned". Death due to sin. Thus, as I have stated previously, death is the result of sin and guilt and not vice-versa.

Human nature is good, because God created it so,...

It was "good" only when God first created it. But as far as all men go, I have seen no scriptural warrant to suppose that human nature is good especially when explicit statements within holy writ state otherwise (Romans 3:10-12).

What sin has a dead baby committed?

Don, your question does not address the actual wording of Romans 5:12. Thus, a better question would be, "how is eastern orthodoxy's view of man's nature compatible with the actual wording of Romans 5:12?" Indeed, how is your contention that sin and guilt are not passed to all men thru Adam compatible with Psalm 51:5 where David says that he was a sinner from birth? How about Psalm 58:3 where it states that the wicked go astray from birth and that they speak lies from the womb?

Human nature is GOOD because Christ assumed it in the incarnation.

Again, there is no reason to accept this line of reasoning especially when verses that have been brought forward here testify against your notion of human nature being basically good.

...otherwise He could not destroy death for us, which is the root of sin.

Again, there is no reason to believe that death is the root of sin when you have not dealt with the actual wording of certain texts of scripture that contradict your assertions.

You start with the conception that we have something, some substance called sin and guilt that we are born with.

No Don, I am merely taking Romans 5:12 for what it explicitly states. The only presupposition I am bringing to the text is that the scriptures are the highest authority for determining tradition and doctrine.

I contend that in Romans 5:12 it is expressed that we lack something, an emptiness of something that should be there (death), and that is what causes us to sin and thereby become guilty.

But again Don, your contention is just a restatement of what you think the text means. But there is an obvious disconnect between the wording of the text and what you keep insisting it means. And until you overcome this disconnect, you will not be successful in your stated goal of showing me the fallacy of sola scriptura.

I'll repeat: Is a dead baby guilty? A dead fetus?

You already know the answer to this question Don. Yes, infants are guilty by way of Adam's sin. There is nothing in the texts that we have looked at thus far that suggests otherwise.

Hyperbole. Even you'll admit that a fetus doesn't speak lies in the womb. Do you think David committed sin as a newborn infant?

Let's grant for the sake of argument that you are right. Psalm 51:5 and 58:3 are hyperbole. Now, a hyperbole is a "A figure of speech in which exaggeration is used for emphasis or effect, as in I could sleep for a year or This book weighs a ton" (per the American Heritage Dictionary). Given the examples in the provided definition the statements made by David still support my position. David's point in saying that he is a sinner from birth is communicating the fact that he is counted guilty as a sinner because of Adam. This is more clearly expressed in David's statement about telling lies in the womb. A baby isn't literally speaking lies inside the womb but is in fact a liar because of his sin nature. It is it's nature to speak lies. Indeed, I had always heard it said that children are not taught to lie. They simply do it as soon as they learn to speak. Since becoming a parent myself I have personally found this to be true. Hyperbole only exagerates a point being made and that point being, namely, we are counted as sinners from Adam onward and are thus guilty as Adam was guilty. Nowhere do these verses even hint at your stated views here. So in light of all this, I conclude that positing hyperbole for these verses is no help to you.

The problem comes from variant translations of Romans 5:12...and so death passed upon all men, because of which all have sinned. The West has always translated "eph'ho pantes hemarton" as "in whom all sinned". The East has always seen the preceeding word thanatos (death) as modifying "eph 'ho, so the East translates the phrase as "because of which (death) all have sinned." The West and the East both have legitimate translations, but with drastically different outcomes soteriologically. So when the East reads this verse they read:

"...and so death passed upon all men, because of which all have sinned."

Which varient translations are you referring to? I personally own about six different translations and they all read the same. I also checked several other translations online and found more of the same. Also, your statement about the east and west having legitimate tranlations is a bit odd. That is, both cannot be right since they lend to two opposing viewpoints. Either one translation is right or, neither is right. And it seems to me that the only reason that you would raise a translational issue here is so that you can ease the tension between your view and the actual wording of the text. Also, the "western translation" of Romans 5:12 agrees in wording with Romans 5:19. I find this to be highly significant in determining which interpretation to apply to v.12

"and so death passed upon all men,"

Notice, death passed to all men.

Yes, death passed to all men. It was never my argument that it didn't. Death is a necessary consequence of sin per God's decree. So I do not see how this particuliar clause in 5:12 can be a problem for my view.

"for that all have sinned:"

Which comes after you have recieved death from Adam. You recieved death, THEN you sinned as a consequence of death, just like the passage says.

Well, since you didn't state which translation you are referencing here, I'll go ahead and assume that this is the KJV since the wording is identical. Now, this clause is the focal point of our dispute in regards to Romans 5:12 and I can see why you would reference the KJV here. The wording can lend itself to your view. The problem I see with the KJV's rendering however is that the clause could go both ways. That is, the KJV is ambiguous. Indeed, you seem to have alluded to this when you stated that the east and west have legitimate translations. At any rate, I have in front of me several other translations that are not ambiguous in how they read at v.12 For instance:

"...because all sinned..." -NASB

"...because all sinned..." -NIV

"...because all sinned..." -ESV

"...because all sinned..." -NKJV

"...because all have sinned... -NRSV

These examples provide clear, unambiguous attestation to my viewpoint, namely, that death spread to all men *because* all sinned in Adam. This is further strengthened by 5:19 that states the many were made sinners by the one man's disobedience. And at this point, I would also submit Romans 6:23 where it is stated that "...the wages of sin is death...". A clear causal relationship is presented by Paul in 6:23 just as he did in the previous verses we just looked at. Thus, when all these scriptures are considered (including those from the Psalms), I am forced to conclude that my viewpoint is, by far, the strongest viewpoint scripturally speaking.

Where is the mention of guilt in the entire chapter of Romans 5?

Guilt does not need to be specifically referenced in Romans 5. It is implicit in Paul's statements about sin. That is, if I am a sinner, then I am guilty. Likewise, if I am guilty, then I am a sinner. There is no such thing as a guiltless sinner.

Materializing sin into sperm is nowhere to be found in scripture.

And it isn't necessarily my argument that sin is materialized in this way. You seem to be asking me to substantiate a naturalistic mechanism for the transference of sin but I don't even see this as a reasonable request. What if I asked you to substantiate the infusion of the soul to the human body by way of naturalistic mechanism? Would you consider that a reasonable request? Can you explain the incarnation itself by way of a naturalistic mechanism? How about the resurrection? As it is, I have no problem with appealing to mystery here. I simply do not know how sin and guilt is transfered.

You assume there is a thing, a substance, an "object" that is sin that makes it into humans and makes them bad.

What sin is or isn't, is a secondary issue to the primary point of dispute, namely, the correct interpretation of Romans 5:12. In other words, if Romans 5 is in fact teaching that all men are counted as sinners through Adam, then this is what we should believe. Only then do we try to discern just what sin is and how it is transferred.

You should embrace the idea of God fully venting His unquenchable wrath on a deceased infant if you are to be consistent.

Why should I? There is no consensus in Reformed theology that I'm aware of on the question of what happens to those who die in infancy nor do I personally take a dogmatic stance on this issue. I simply trust in my God that He will work all things for the benefit of His people.

Fin

An Object Lesson in Human Merit and Arrogance

2007-06-25T08:49:00.000-05:00

Early yesterday morning, I was conducting final preparations for facilitating an adult Sunday school lesson leading a college-aged group through Piper's Don't Waste your Life. I was substituting for the regular teacher that day, who was off at General Assembly. In the particular lesson I was facilitating yesterday, Piper focused on Philippians 3.7-8, which is a segment out of one of my favorite passages in Scripture. So yesterday morning before the class, I put something together that I thought was pretty cool. I discovered, however, that while my analysis of the passage may have been educational, my own attitudes were quite an object lesson. Stay tuned.

In order to get a better appreciation for Php 3.7-8, one really has to look at the larger context which arguably starts at v4 and goes through v9. Here, we find an incredible statement by Paul in building a doctrine of human merit based on his own experience. For the class, I attempted to show the flow of the passage visually. In verses 4-6, Paul is giving us his resume and qualifications for boasting in the flesh. Paul is describing his pre-conversion state here, and there is a clear intensification of his credentials in these 3 verses. Paul was circumcised on the 8th day, but that's not all. He is among the people of Israel, but that's not all. He is from the tribe of Benjamin, but that's not all. He was a Hebrew of Hebrews, but that's not all. In regards to the law, he was a Pharisee, but it gets even better than that. By the time we get to v6, Paul proclaims that in regards to legalistic righteousness, he was faultless. This is the pinnacle of human merit; it doesn't get any better than this. Paul is presenting his case to his audience that if anyone has a right to boast in the flesh, it is him. If that's the game we're playing, everyone else is playing minor league ball.

But then something incredible happens. Beginning in v7, Paul takes this unparalleled resume of human righteousness and systematically treats it with greater and greater contempt. In his post-conversion understanding that begins in v7, he tells us that he now considers all of the stuff of vv4-6 as loss for the sake of Christ. But that's not all. In v8, he tells that he considers everything as loss compared to knowing Christ. And then he tells us that he's not just treating his once magnificent credentials as loss, he actually considers them to be sewage (most modern translations translate the Greek word skubala as 'rubbish' or 'garbage', but that is a VERY sanitized translation. In Paul's day, skubala was often used to describe excrement. This is one of those cases where the King James actually gets it right in translating skubala as 'dung'.). You can just feel the amplification of abhorrence in the flow of Paul's thought. Finally in v9, Paul makes his ultimate point in this passage - it's not about his righteousness, it's about Christ's righteousness, and thank God this is so.

The way I presented this visually to the class was to draw a mountain, with vv4-6 showing the uphill progression of pre-conversion human merit on the left side of the mountain, and then vv7-9s downward progression of post-conversion human merit on the right side of the mountain.

When I had finished drawing this out in my prep work before the class, I looked at it and thought, "Ya know, this is pretty good stuff." I hadn't copied this out of any commentary; it was something I came up with totally on my own. I was feeling pretty good about myself.

And then it hit me. Here I was, in the basement of my house two hours before the class, boasting in myself and in my efforts in analyzing the very passage that condemns boasting in myself and in my efforts! Immediately, Calvin's words about this passage became front and center - where pride and arrogance are, there, we can be assured, Christ is not known.

Philippians 3 teaches us many things. One thing it teaches us is that boasting in human merit and ability comes with the extremely likely danger that we will puff ourselves up, become prideful, and be known by our arrogance. I am living proof that Reformed folks are just as susceptible to this as anyone. What makes us unique as Reformed people is that we are doctrinally unapologetic in confessing without caveat that if it's all ultimately about human merit, there is no one who stands a chance of being right with God. It is utter folly to think otherwise, unless someone really thinks their resume of human merit is far superior to Paul's in Philippians 3, in which case, they've just demonstrated their own arrogance rather than any righteousness.

Our daily challenge as Reformed folks is to live out our own theology with care, and to be constantly aware of how our sinful tendencies pervert our own walk. As I learned yesterday, it's not enough to understand the Scriptures and be able to communicate its truths well. We have to be on guard for how we ourselves are often first in line to fail our own litmus tests. This requires a degree of honesty and self-examination that few are willing to engage in. But it's what we're called to, and we'll be better off for it, even if it means going in front of a classroom full of people as I did yesterday, and holding myself up as an object lesson for how not to be.

The Man In The Mirror

2007-06-12T12:10:00.000-05:00

The Reformation's gospel of salvation by grace through faith in Christ alone has been betrayed and wed to Roman Catholic works and rituals by Lutherans, Calvinists, and others who practice infant baptism for salvation and boast of the "real presence" of Christ in the bread and wine of remembrance.

So says Dave Hunt in his June 2007 newsletter.

I must say that I find the above accusation to be very ironic in view of the fact that Dave Hunt agrees with Rome over and against the Reformers on the issue that Martin Luther himself called "the hinge upon which the whole turned". The hinge that Luther is refering to of course is the bondage of man's will. So right off the bat, we see that Hunt is making a hypocritical claim at best.

And yet, what of the claim itself? Have Calvinists indeed betrayed the reformational principles of sola gratia and sola fide by wedding their views of infant baptism to Rome's? According to Hunt, we have. But is this actually the case? Not in the least. See folks, what ol' Dave fails to mention here is that many Calvinsts such as John Piper, Wayne Grudem, and James White are Baptists who do not practice infant baptism at all. Furthermore, those Calvinsts who do practice infant baptism do not believe that regeneration occurs during the baptismal ceremony. It is simply a dedication that is meant to express the child's entrance into the visible church. Yet, these distinctions are not so much as even alluded to by Hunt thus giving his readers the impression that Calvinists in general believe in some form of baptismal regeneration.

So if many Calvinists do not even practice infant baptism, and those who do practice it do not believe in baptismal regeneration, what then of Hunt's claim? I submit that it is nothing more than the usual rank misrepresntation that we are used to seeing from the pen of Dave Hunt. Thus, if Hunt wants to point a finger at someone for betraying the Reformation, he need only look for the nearest mirror.

Blast From The Past

2007-06-05T17:48:00.000-05:00

I just recently found this comment which was posted to this blog way back in October. For whatever reason, I didn't get the usual email notification for newly posted comments which is why I'm just now responding.

Bryan Brammer said:

I must say that for this debate on Calvinism it is oging to be interesting. If James White is representing the Calvinistic side of things, then you are in trouble.

What Bryan is referring to here is the now defunct planned debate between James White and Tom Ascol versus Ergun and Emir Caner. Apparantly, Bryan thinks that James White would have been unable to provide an adequate case for Calvinism. Speaking for myself however, I firmly believe that James would have wiped the floor with both Caner brothers with or without Tom Ascol's help. I also believe that the Caners themselves believed the same thing which is why they made it so difficult to set up the debate to begin with and is also the reason why the Caners (along with their moderator) torpedoed the debate in the end.

I have read his books and the reasoning and Biblical application is so false I wonder what Bible he is reading.

Of course, Bryan doesn't provide us with James' supposed false reasoning and application so there is no reason to accept his pronouncements on James White's work.

Second, It is unfair to mention that just because someone is not a Calvinist does not automatically make him an Arminian. Take about jumping the gun.

But I did not state, nor is it my opinion that all non-Calvinists are Arminians. However, Jerry Falwell's soteriology was more in line with Arminianism than anything else thus, Falwell can be referred to as an Arminian in light of soteriological considerations. Also, consider the words of Arminian scholar Jack Cottrell:

Arminianism as such, in its broadest sense, is simply non-Augustinianism or non-Calvinism. It has many variations, "from the evangelical views of Arminius himself to left-wing liberalism." What holds them all together is the rejection of the Augustinian concept of true total depravity (bondage of the will), and a belief in significant free will, at least in relation to the ability to accept or reject the gospel offer of salvation. Perspectives On Election Five Views, pg. 70

So much for the charge that I was being unfair to Falwell.

The entire theme of the Bible is Christ's redemptive work for mankind not particular individuals. Take that context and apply the verses.

What Bryan is basically saying here is that I should adopt the Arminian presupposition of general atonement and undiscriminate love and interpret the text of scripture thru that grid. But why should I (or anyone for that matter) do any such thing? To adopt someone else's presuppositions is to abandon your own. Is Bryan himself willing to do this? Is he for instance willing to presuppose God's limited but actual atonement and discriminating love for mankind and thereby interpret holy writ accordingly? If not, why not?

If a calvinist were to live consistenly with his philosophy then there would be no need for witnessing. (since we can niether add or take away from God those he has taken by our works)

But a Calvinist does in fact live consistently with his doctrines whenever he witnesses to the lost seeing as how God has ordained the ends along with the means to those ends. In other words, evangelism is God's ordained means by which He brings His people unto Himself. Bryan's statement about consistency is based either on a misunderstanding of the Reformed view or an intentional misrepresentation.

How can those that believe in this system of thought (which is unbibilical) ever be assured of their own salvation. You may have security but no assurrance for you will not know if you are truly elect until you are judged at the end of your life.

Given libertarian free-will, how can Bryan ever have assurance of his salvation? If libertarianism is true, then Bryan can choose at anytime before his death to reject Christ and be lost forever no matter how strong his inclination to saving faith is. Indeed, how can anyone ever have assurance when they could just wake up one day and decide that they want nothing else to do with Christ?

What a futile system to put your faith in. All Calvinists (as well as srtong Arminians) need to get off their intellectual soap boxes and see the hurting needs of the people. Love the sinner as Christ did, not the mind.

I know of no Calvinist who professes love for the mind. Rather, we profess our love for truth. And it is this love for truth that we thereby show our love to the sinner. The system that has no love for truth is the system that has no love for the sinner.

Calvin on Hospitality

2007-06-01T07:46:00.000-05:00

I have presented an 11 week course outline proposal to my local church regarding the radical nature of Christian hospitality. I don't yet know whether the Discipleship Committee will approve the course (though the early indications seem positive), but in the course of my research, I have discovered that Calvin had quite a bit to say about hospitality, much of which is very relevant to us today. A sampling of Calvin's thoughts:

"No duty can be more pleasing or acceptable to God" than hospitality to religious refugees. Such a practice is a "sacred" form of hospitality. Commentary on the Prophet Isaiah, Vol. 1, 484.

Calvin laments the deterioration of authentic Christian hospitality even in his day:

[Hospitality] has nearly ceased to be properly observed among men; for the ancient hospitality celebrated in histories, is unknown to us, and inns now supply the place of accommodation for strangers. Commentaries on the Epistle to the Hebrews, 340.

Calvin saw hospitality within a solidly moral and theological prism:

Therefore, whatever man you meet who needs your aid, you have no reason to refuse to help him. Say, "He is a stranger"; but the Lord has given him a mark that ought to be familiar to you, by virtue of the fact that he forbids you to despise your own flesh (Is. 58.7). Say, "He is contemptible and worthless"; but the Lord shows him to be one to whom he has deigned to give the beauty of his image. Say that you owe nothing for any service of his; but God, as it were, has put him in his own place in order that you may recognize toward him the many and great benefits with which God has bound you to himself. Say that he does not deserve even the least effort for his sake; but the image of God, which recommends him to you, is worthy of your giving yourself and all your possessions. Institutes, 3.7.6

[God] has impressed his image in us and has given us a common nature, which should incite us to providing one for the other. The man who wishes to exempt himself from providing for his neighbors should deface himself and declare that he no longer wishes to be a man, for as long as we are human creatures we must contemplate as in a mirror our face in those who are poor, despised, exhausted, who groan under their burdens...If there come some Moor or barbarian, since he is a man, he brings a mirror in which we are able to contemplate that he is our neighbor. Corpus Reformatorum: Joannis Calvini Opera Quae Supersunt Omnia, vol. 51, col. 105

Regarding the poor person, Calvin said that in viewing such a man,

we should think "now I have been in that condition and certainly wanted to be helped; indeed it seemed to me that people ought to have pitied me in order to help me"; But what [is the the usual case]? When we are comfortable, it is not a matter of our remembering our human poverty, rather we imagine that we are exempt from that and that we are no longer part of the common class. And that is the reason why we forget, and no longer have any compassion for our neighbors or for all that they endure. Calvin's Sermons on the 10 Commandments, 127.

Calvin is clearly developing a doctrine of hospitality not only from the Scriptures, but from the theology of shared human experience and the Imago Dei. In particular, Calvin is quite distinct from other theologians in emphasizing social disconnections in his appeals for hospitality, believing that great harm comes to humanity from the absence of relationships. As in our day, social crises of suffering, isolation, loneliness and hopelessness were prominent in Calvin's day as well. By advancing Christian hospitality as a major remedy to these maladies, Calvin was well ahead of his time in establishing a broad basis for mutual human respect and care that provide a strong precursor foundation for modern recognition of human rights.

But Calvin goes on. In answering the perennial question 'Who is my neighbor?', Calvin says:

Christ has shown us in the parable of the Samaritan that the term 'neighbor' includes even the most remote person (Luke 10.36), [and therefore] we are not expected to limit the precept of love to those in close relationships. Institutes, 2.8.54

Getting to the heart of the matter, Calvin offers this penetrating and challenging statement:

Let us beware that we seek not cover for our stinginess under the shadow of prudence. Sermons from Job, 202

Calvin offers this statement in a discussion about appropriate levels of scrutiny and inquiry regarding our generosity to strangers. While Calvin was concerned about hospitable people being taken advantage of, he insisted that inquiry should never be "too exacting". Instead, inquiry should be conducted with a "humane heart, inclined to pity and compassion."

In all of the above quotes, we get a glimpse of Calvin the theologian, and especially Calvin the pastor. The image of Calvin as a stodgy, cold-blooded, harsh theologian is a caricature that is terribly uninformed and unresearched. Calvin offers a very relevant word to us today regarding the moral and theological dimensions of hospitality, and urges us to reclaim our own heritage radically and comprehensively.

Chuck Hill on the Resurrection

2007-05-24T15:06:00.000-05:00

I know that Easter 2007 is behind us, along with the fairly brief tempest surrounding James Camerson's 'documentary' about the alleged Jesus family tomb. But a month or so ago, Chuck Hill wrote an article assessing these matters that's simply too good not to disseminate. The first 8 pages (out of 11) of the article are a concise rehash of the issues involved, along with snippets from a wide swath of scholarship regarding the Jesus family tomb. Given that Cameron's 'documentary' was almost universally panned by biblical and archaelogical scholars of every stripe, Hill's treatment simply puts the controversy to bed (since in much of the academic world, there is no controversy - from the standpoint of scholarship, Cameron's efforts clearly come from the low-rent district). However, because several million people watched the documentary, the myths contained therein are still circulating to some degree in the cultural petri dish, so this article will be valuable in the inoculation process.

Perhaps more importantly, the last 2-3 pages of Hill's article hit on themes that have perennial value. While related to the tomb stuff, Hill's focus switches more to the resurrection. And here, Hill's observations are extremely helpful and worth cataloguing in our apologetic encyclopedia:

http://www.rts.edu/Site/Staff/chill/Why_Do_You_Seek_the_Living_Among_the_Dead.pdf

For those who don't know, Chuck Hill is a first rate NT scholar who was the closest thing to a professorial mentor I had during my time at RTS. He has provided assistance to me on multiple occasions, including giving me some good thoughts on an article I am submitting to the Westminster Theological Journal in the hopes that they might publish it (though they probably won't). He has done very little in the way of popular-level writing and publishing, opting instead to produce academic articles in biblical and theological journals, as well as producing some outstanding academic books that have been very well received in the Academy. I commend this article to you wholeheartedly.

Brief Response To Roy Ingle's Comments on Calvinism

2007-05-21T18:08:00.000-05:00

Roy Ingle said:

From the Calvinist viewpoint, God chose His elect before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:3-14). God elected to save people by His grace alone and by His sovereign choice in His Son (John 1:12-13). Therefore, we did not chose to become disciples of Christ but He chose us (John 15:16)

These comments are taken from Roy Ingle's recent blog article on the question of who chooses who in salvation. Roy's article is basically concerned with contrasting his views as an Arminian with those of the Calvinist in order to demonstrate that the Arminian position is preferable in regards to the question being addressed. My drawing attention to his comments here will not be an attempt to counter Roy's arguments but rather to point out some problems with the way in which Roy represents the Calvinist position. For instance, the last sentence from the above excerpt is not an accurate statement of the Calvinist position. Roy's statement would give the uninformed the impression that Calvinsts do not believe that men choose to become disciples of Christ. This common error in representing the Calvinist position on the reality of choice is regrettably repeated in Roy's post as we are about to see.

Calvinist strongly oppose free will in man...

Here again, Roy makes a mistake in how he represents the Calvinist position on the reality of choice. Calvinists are not opposed to free-will per se. It is the libertarian notion of free-will that a Calvinist strongly opposes. In other words, the issue is not over whether there is such a thing as free-will, rather, the issue is over how free-will is to be defined.

...because of their teaching that God directly controls all things including the very decisions of men.

The accuracy of this statement depends upon what Roy means by the phrase "God directly controls". That is, Calvinists believe and teach a distinction in how God causes things to come about. This distinction is usually stated as primary causation versus secondary causation. An example of primary causation would be the incarnation of Christ. God the Holy Spirit directly acted upon Mary's person and caused her to conceive a child. An example of secondary causation would be Adam and Eve's first child. The child came about by way of natural procreation without divine intervention and yet, the text of holy writ nontheless attributes to God a role in bringing about this event (see also Gen. 4:25). Such distinctions in Reformed theology should be acknowledged by anyone performing even a cursory critique of Calvinism. Otherwise, the danger of misrepresentation becomes unavoidable.

Arminianism, however, believes that God does not directly determine man's decisions but He does directly control man's decisions. In other words, God is in control but He does not violate man's free will.

Here, Roy states that in Arminianism God does not violate man's will which is all well and good. However, a problem arises when one remembers that Roy is contrasting Arminianism with Calvinism. Thus, the implication is that in Calvinism God does in fact violate man's will. But the Calvinist is left wondering how such an assertion can be made in light of the fact that the Calvinist position on man's will has not been shown to lead to such a conclusion. Indeed, the Calvinist position has yet to be mentioned!

So the Arminian understanding of the question of who chose whom would be that God did in fact chose us by His grace alone but He did not force us to chose Him.

And it is also the Calvinist understanding of the question at hand that God does not force men to choose the things that he does. No Calvinist with whom I am familiar believes or teaches that men are forced to do anything. Now, Roy may well believe that this is what the Calvinist position boils down to but he does not present an argument for consideration thus, there is no reason why anybody reading Roy's article should accept his charicature of the Calvinist position.

He does draw us unto Himself through His Son (John 3:16-17) but He allows the human being the freedom to chose to love Him and obey Him (John 3:36; 14:15; 1 John 2:3-6).

Again, Roy's statements carry with them the necessary implication that it is the Calvinist position that men do not have the freedom to choose to love and obey God. But this is patently false. Calvinists do in fact believe and teach that men have the freedom to choose whatever they want. If a man chooses to love and obey God, he will. If a man chooses to hate and reject God, he will. Thus, if a man can choose according to what he desires, how is this not freedom?

At any rate, while I found Roy's article to be interesting, I don't think he properly represented the issues surrounding this ancient debate. There was very little if anything that a Calvinist could have agreed with in regards to how their view was presented and this in itself should be enough to give the cautious reader pause.

An Unpopular Opinion

2007-05-17T15:19:00.000-05:00

In the wake of Jerry Falwell's death, I happened to catch an interview on MSNBC with a Jewish rabbi (can't remember his name unfortunately) who had interacted with and debated Falwell on a number of occasions. In contrasting himself with Falwell, he said something very interesting, and, no doubt, very popular - "I believe religion should bring us all together, rather than divide us." It's a common sentiment that is used in secular discourse about the preferred role of religion in society, not to mention what religion's highest goal should be. But as much as I'd like to agree wholeheartedly with this sentiment, I'm not really sure I can in the end, and I have no doubt that this conclusion is a very unpopular one.

In thinking about the rabbi's statement, the first thing that pops into my mind is one major historical message behind all 3 major monotheistic religions and even Hinduism. That message being that we as human beings are under the authority of a higher being and/or a higher law. Discarding for the moment the significant differences between each religion regarding the nature of this higher being(s) and the tenets of the higher law(s), the idea that we are accountable to some higher authority is hardly the basis for human unity and togetherness, especially in America. Americans have a proud tradition of embracing self-determination, rebelling against authority, paving our own road, making our own luck, and refusing to be boxed in by rules or authorities. Put simply, we like to make our own rules, and consider this to be a basic right and a basic litmus test of 'authentic' freedom. In America, the idea that we are beholden to a higher authority is immediately construed as a move to limit individual freedom, liberty, and autonomy. Put simply, it is not a belief that conjures up joyous unity in its truth, but angry disunity in its implications.

And let's be clear - this isn't just a dynamic that exists between theists and nontheists. While not every difference between religions can be explained by this, the fact is that many differences between religions, and within religions, are greatly impacted by how people come down on the question of (to put it crudely) what degree we are our own kingmakers. This greatly impacts our understanding of God's sovereignty, and perhaps more relevantly, his providence.

In America, where the cultural tide clearly embraces self-determination and autonomy, it is foolish to think that this doesn't have a significant impact on the theological orientation we bring to the Scriptures, or that it isn't a severely complicating factor in the ability of religion to 'bring us all together'. I agree that religion has the ability to move us closer to unity. But it also has the ability to move us toward division. Scripture speaks very frankly about both dynamics and that both unity and disunity can be both righteous and sinful under different circumstances.

If the Genesis account of the Fall describes the human race plunging into sin as a result of wanting to be like God, the America I know is very consistent in indulging this urge today. A well respected Jewish author (who's name I again cannot remember) once remarked that it's no accident that Mormonism is America's unique contribution to world spirituality. Why? Because Mormonism in its pure form promises that we will be 'little Gods' reigning over our own worlds. This author rightly remarked that there is nothing more American than that. In order for 'religion to bring us all together', this mentality, a mentality that has existed since the Fall of man, will have to be undone, since it is radically autonomous, individualistic, and therefore resistant to a higher unifying law and Being to which we are wholly accountable. To say that the totality of our being is completely and absolutely beholden to the lordship of Christ is anathema to the mentality of self-determination, and stands opposed to it. In this respect, 'religion' will not bring people together, because it proposes an outlook and vantage point that is deeply offensive to most reigning notions of human autonomy that have a spurning of authority as their default setting.

The solution to this impasse is usually to accommodate religion to the culture and make it more palatable on this question. But as unpopular as it is, I just don't think that's the answer. That doesn't mean we become harshly divisive separatists who are uniformly derisive of those who don't see the world the way we do. But it does mean that there are times when we must charitably but unapologetically part company with the wisdom of the world on a number of very basic things, realizing that Kingdom eschatology is not just a neat theological prism, but a street-level reality.

Shout-Out To An Arminian Brother

2007-05-05T18:36:00.000-05:00

I would like to give a shout-out to Roy Ingle for the kind email he sent my way:

Hey brother! I just wanted to say that I enjoy your blog. Despite the fact that I am not a Calvinist, I enjoy your site and have pointed others to it.

Your Brother in Christ,

Roy Ingle
The Seeking Disciple
www.arminiantoday.blogspot.com

I cannot overstate my appreciation for Roy's comments. It's very edifying to know that someone sitting on the other side of the soteriological fence would enjoy this blog. I think that it says much about the fact that while we disagree, we can do so with the knowledge that we are brothers in the faith after all is said and done. And because Roy was kind enough to recommend this blog to others, I'll link to his blog under the heading of "Arminian blogs of interest".

The Diversity of the Reformed Tradition

2007-05-05T09:16:00.000-05:00

While exhibiting considerable consistency in doctrinal belief, many might be surprised that the Reformed tradition, almost from the get-go, has exhibited stimulating diversity in how it thinks about theology. By understanding the methodological diversity of our own tradition, we as Reformed people can gain a fresh appreciation for the depth of our tradition and be better able to adopt a stance of semper reformanda in our own appropriation of theology.

Reformed Theology has a reputation for taking an 'above to below' approach to theology. By this, we mean that Reformed Theology stresses the sovereignty and majesty of God and the centrality of the divinely inspired Scriptures as a starting point for theology. Put simply, we have a long tradition of emphasizing the celestial in theology as a basis for grappling with the terrestial or the 'mundane' in theology.

When one looks at how Calvin's Institutes are organized, one can clearly see the 'from above' approach to theological systematics. It is no accident that Book 1 stresses knowledge of God as Creator, which includes Calvin's treatment of Scriptural revelation (chs. 6-13), and that Book 2 stresses the knowledge of God as Redeemer. It isn't until Book 4 that Calvin focuses on the earthly matters of the Church, the sacraments, and the civil government. The organizational whole of the Institutes clearly exhibits a 'from above' orientation to doing theology. This strategy is also clear when one looks at both the Belgic and Westminster Confessions. Again, it is no accident that both Confessions start with God and Scripture, and end with ecclesiology, the sacraments, and the last judgment.

So I think it's fair to say that the 'from above' theological strategy has been the dominant way in which the Reformed tradition has done theology. But it is essential to realize that this approach hasn't been the only strategy employed. The Reformed tradition has also exhibited a more latent yet clearly visible strategy of doing theology 'from below' as well.

On the first two pages of the Institutes, Calvin provides us with his epistemology in succinct terms, and in it, he reveals a twofold strategic concern. It is here where Calvin presents knowledge as a spiral in which knowledge of God is thoroughly linked with knowledge of self. That's right. Calvin, as his lead-off volley, is not bashful in saying that we can't understand God without understanding ourselves, and that we can't understand ourselves without understanding God. What's more, Calvin was non-committal on where someone ought to start on this loop. In discussing this relationship, Calvin allows room for mystery, "But, while joined by many bonds, which one precedes [and] brings forth the other is not easy to discern..." Calvin is saying that there is a reciprocal relationship when it comes to understanding God and ourselves. This is not a 'from above' approach, but links the 'above' to the 'below' inextricably.

In addition, the Reformed catechisms also present a more 'from below' approach to theology. Question 1 of the Westminster Shorter Catechism famously asks, "What is the chief end of man?" The answer reveals a twofold concern - the glory of God, and the enjoyment of humanity through God. Again, this is not really a strict 'from above' approach to theology, but links the above and below together from the very beginning. Lastly, the Heidelberg Catechism, contra the Westminster and Belgic Confessions, is a far more personal and arguably comforting statement of Reformed belief. The Heidelberg Catechism is the clearest example of a 'from below' approach to theology. It's starting point? The hope and comfort of the believer. (As an aside, it's very interesting to compare the Heidelberg Catechism and the Westminster Confession in their treatment of the Law. WCF addresses the 10 Commandments under the rubric of duty, while Heidelberg addresses them under the rubric of thankfulness).

Why is this significant? Reformed people can be susceptible to doing theology purely from a 'from above' perspective. While the 'from above' approach is clearly prominent in the Reformed tradition, it is not the exclusive strategy for doing theology. Our tradition is more diverse than that. But in solely relying on a 'from above' approach, we become vulnerable to neglecting portions of our own tradition, as well as developing an imbalanced theology. Calvin's view on knowledge makes it clear that theocentrism without anthropocentrism is no theocentrism at all, but blasphemy since the denigration of man in theology is really a denigration of the image of God and hopelessly impairs our ability to have a right understanding of God. In our rightful desire to curb man-centered approaches to theology by rightly arguing against the inviolability of human self-determination through a 'from above' approach to theology, we can fall prey to scuttling the Imago Dei emphasis in Reformed Theology that provides an important basis for according to human life the dignity that follows from it. Our tradition allows considerable flexibility in how we apply Reformed thought to daily living and how we present our system of beliefs to a skeptical yet curious world. Our 'founding fathers' understood this, and so should we.

It's Helpful to Understand our Place in the World

2007-05-03T13:02:00.000-05:00

A few years ago, the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association held one of its super-big missions conferences in Europe. Normally, these big missions events were populated primarily with Western luminaries possessing high profiles and the stature to back it up. But this particular time, BGEA did something different. They decided to invite global leaders who proportionately represented the global church. A fairly prominent American presbyterian I know was one of the people invited, and what he saw at this conference hit him like a ton of bricks. When everyone was assembled, the speaker encouraged everyone in the auditorium to get up and look around at each other, because 'this is the global Body of Christ today'. When my presbyterian friend joined everyone in gazing around the auditorium, he discovered that he and those similar to him were a very small minority.

Many white American Christians don't realize just how small their numbers are when compared to the makeup of the global church. What this conference demonstrated is that the global Body of Christ is mostly non-Caucasian, poor, and increasingly charismatic. The explosive growth of the Christian church worldwide is mostly unknown in the pews here. Whereas in America, we have arguably too many preachers and teachers and not enough converts, the problem in the global south and China is exactly the opposite - nowhere near enough preachers and teachers to keep up with all the conversions. One might say (and it has indeed been said more than once in the last few years) that in many ways, the future of the Christian church is not in the West. As increasing numbers of Africans and Asians view America as a missions field and coming here with the express purpose of evangelizing us, the global shift in power becomes more real at street level. I would be shocked if this century passes without having an African as the Roman Catholic pope, and when this happens, the shift that many of us have seen for some time will become obvious to everyone else too.

The presbyterian and Reformed community has much to be proud of here. The incredible phenomenon of the Korean presbyterian movement is one of the great success stories of all time. In far east Asia, the Koreans have been by far the most receptive to the gospel and comprise a very bright light in a region that for whatever reason has been acutely resistant to the gospel until very recently. It is the Koreans who come to America to pursue divinity studies who comprise most of the evangelical voice at liberal seminaries. They are the missionaries, and we are the mission field. Similarly, the increasing prevalence of African Anglicans providing refuge for evangelicals in America is a movement that is gaining strength and would have been unheard of just 20 years ago. What's more, much of the bishopric leadership in African Anglicanism today is Reformed in much of its theology. At RTS-Orlando, presbyterians comprised the majority of the student body, but Anglicans were not too far behind, including many African Anglicans who came to America to study.

But with all that said, the Reformed community still has work to do. Coming to grips with our place in the global church can help us realize how quickly we can become irrelevant if we do not aggressively partner with and be players in the global church. Reformed people need a strong evangelical theology of poverty in order to effectively understand and partner with the global church's most vital growth centers. Reformed people must be willing to charitably engage the global charismatic movement in dialogue, because that's where the global church is headed in many ways. Reformed folks of recent times have not been particularly strong on either front, and we continue this trend to our peril. I'm not talking about giving up our theology for the sake of relevance, or 'going liberal'. Instead, I'm talking about a willingness to thoughtfully and charitably dialogue with our global brothers and sisters (who are often more evangelical than we are) as equal partners whom we must learn from if we desire to be more faithful to Christ. Such humility will carry us a very long way.

Howdy!

2007-05-03T10:53:00.000-05:00

My name is Jason Foster, and I'm very pleased to be a 'contributor' to this blog (I put 'contributor' in quotes because the degree to which I contribute anything useful might prove debatable). As you'll discover, I can be aggravatingly long-winded at times because I try to exercise care in what I say and how I say it. But I'm gonna try and be relatively succinct in introducing myself to you and giving you a working knowledge of the perspective I bring to this blog:

1) I received an MDiv degree from RTS-Orlando in May 2006. I say this not to brag, but in fact, to do the opposite. My years at seminary really impressed upon me the truth that the more I know, the more I come to realize how much I don't know. This is both the joy and frustration of being a finite and sinful human being pursuing greater understanding of our infinite and sinless God. This means that I don't believe my seminary degree makes me anything special, nor do I think my seminary degree should be used as a weapon of smug superiority. My practical adherence to this concept is imperfect, but it is an idea I try to operate with at all times.

2) I have been married for over 10 years now, and my wife and I are currently pursuing an international adoption. For those who have been through this process, you know how torturous it can be to try and adopt internationally. Right or wrong, now is not a good time to be adopting internationally as an American. We are learning this the hard way, and the pain it creates never really goes away. So any and all prayers would be appreciated.

The above are some things I am. Let me also briefly tell what I am not (this is where I start getting unpopular):

1) I'm not a hack for Calvinism. RTS-Orlando prides itself on being 'Reformed, but not angry', and I share this view. This means I don't want my posts to be angry rants, nor do I want to engage in the kind of visceral back-and-forth that too often accompanies theological discussions. This doesn't mean there isn't a place for heated debate on theological matters. It just means that there's more to theology than argumentation. I subscribe fully to Reformed Theology, which is way more than TULIP and election. If John Frame is right that theology is nothing more than the application of Scripture to life, all of us (Reformed and otherwise) need to be mindful of how we engage the topic of theology and what this engagement says about our own application of Scripture to life. Reformed people, above all people, should be very aware of the human element in theology and be prepared to constantly look in the mirror and reform our engagement with theology as necessary. This is what I try to do, and I think I've seen real growth in my walk with Christ as a result. I came into seminary as a harsh debater and a partisan. I left seminary with a much better awareness of the sinful tendencies I bring to my study of theology and the need to be constantly open to the idea that theology should be shaping me, rather than the other way around.

2) Because of the above, I do not exempt other Reformed writers/scholars from (hopefully) respectful critique. It's not just non-Reformed folks who sometimes misunderstand Reformed Theology. Self-described Reformed people do as well, and I don't exempt myself from this. So while I adore people like Calvin, Machen, Murray, Van Til, Vos, Ridderbos, Kline, Carson, Piper and Frame, I don't worship any of them and don't consider them above critique. Because of the Reformed bent I operate with, the places where I part company with these folks are infrequent and often on the margins. But nonetheless, Semper Reformanda applies to them too.

3) Lastly, I don't hate Arminians or their theology. Obviously, I dissent from Arminian theology and believe a Reformed understanding of theology is more Biblically sound. However, I have joined hands with Arminians in ministry, have prayed with them, and have been edified by the perspective they bring to the faith, even when I disagree. My 34 year old brother just recently became a Christian after years of not only being distant from God but self-consciously spurning God. If his theology can be classified as anything, it is more Arminian than anything else. Do I wish it was different? Yes. But I can tell you that compared to the way things were, I'm thrilled he's where he's at. Having a friendly conversation with my Arminian brother about the freedom of the human will is a great problem to have compared with where things were 2 years ago. It puts things in perspective.

So there you have it. I adhere to Reformed Theology but try not to be overbearing about it. I am grateful for the Reformed tradition and rely on it heavily, but I'm not a strictly party-line guy. I am seminary educated, but know that there's tons I don't know. I leave it to interested readers here whether my addition to this blog is a good thing or not, and whether anything I might say here will provide value. I'm glad to be here.

C.I.C. Is Going Group!

2007-05-02T18:46:00.000-05:00

I am very pleased and excited to announce that C.I.C. will no longer be a personal, one-man blog but will, from this day forward, be a group blog with multiple contributors. My primary reason for making this switch is that I have been blessed with a steady stream of visitors and commenters here (for which I am exceedingly thankful) and I have felt for some time now that my meager 1-3 posts a month were not enough to accomodate the readers of this blog. So to help remedy this problem I have asked Jason Foster of Reformed Musings to contribute here at C.I.C. Jason is, in my opinion, a very talented Reformed blogger and his contributions should be very edifying to the readers here. Along with blogging, Jason has written a number of book reviews at Amazon.com that I personally have found very useful. Jason will be posting an introduction for himself within the next day or so and I would encourage all those who read and enjoy this blog to welcome him.

All Too Typical Exchange

2007-04-27T15:00:00.000-05:00

The following is an exchange I had several months ago with a long-time poster over at Zola Levitt's message boards. This exchange began due to some rather interesting statements made by an individual who calls herself "Littlesooz" (the very same Littlesooz that made this insightful statement). The exchange starts out well enough but as the reader will notice, Littlesooz becomes more and more defensive until she finally just shuts down. To me, this exchange highlights the problem that far too many professing Christians are not willing to honestly and accurately interact with opposing viewpoints and when called on it, will resort to personal attack. This brief exchange begins here and can be viewed by simply scrolling down thru the various posts.

------

Littlesooz,

I wish to address some of the things that you have stated in this thread and in another over in the debates section. You are a long-time member here and people seem to like and respect you. This means that things you say could carry weight with others here and some of the things you are saying in regards to Calvinism are simply not accurate. So, my interest here is to curtail any misconceptions of what I believe from spreading. For instance, this statement...

I totally reject the Calvinistic view of Limited Atonement and so cannot go along with Mog's view that certain babies are chosen to die in their sin and go to Hell.

...does not represent Calvinism en toto, nor does it represent moG's views or mine. The doctrine of Limited Atonement does not necessitate that all babies automatically go to hell. Many Calvinists hold the view that those who die in infancy have Christ's atonement applied to them. Moreover, this issue has more to do with the doctrine of Original Sin than it does with the purpose and extent of the atonement. Thus, you are attacking the wrong doctrine.

And this statement:

Tron, it speaks of nonsense to me. Any teaching where one needs a degree in theology to understand is a nonsense also.

I personally have no degree in theology but I understand Calvinism just fine. All one has to do in order to understand Calvinism is to read what Calvinists say about what they believe. One does not do what you have done here, namely, getting their definitions of what Calvinists believe from people who are strongly opposed to Calvinism such as D.A. Waite. For example, if someone were to criticize your belief in the Trinity, and used a non-trinitarian's arguments and definitions to prove their points, you would vigorously object, would you not? But this is precisely what you have done. Waite gives two mischaracterized definitions of Limited Atonement and proceeds to criticize the doctrine. The problem is that the one that's labeled "mixed-up", is the view that most Calvinists with whom I am familiar believe in, including myself. Calvinists believe that since Christ is deity, His sacrifice has unlimited value. If God had so chosen, He could have redeemed the whole of mankind 100 times over. The issue is over the *intent* and *purpose* of Christ's atonement. Waite is merely muddying the waters with his presentation. Also, this goes into your statements in the debates section that were indirctly pointed to me. That is, you seem to be basing your knowledge and opinions of Calvinism on the writings of men such as Dave Hunt and D.A. Waite. This is fundamentally no different than a juror rendering a guilty verdict based solely on the prosecutor's presentation. Surely, you see the inconsistency in this.

Also, in regards to your request for a definition of double predestination, when non-Calvinists go to critique "double predestination", they are actually referring to a notion called "active reprobation". Active reprobation is the belief that God *actively* reprobates men, meaning that God is directly causing men to sin for the purpose of damning them. This view is held by some *hyper-Calvinists*, but not main-line Calvinists.

Having said all this, I sincerely hope that you will follow Jan's example and try your best to understand what Calvinists believe and why, so that, if you continue to disagree with them, you can at least accurately represent their views. Moreover, I wish to apologize here and now if my post seems a bit pointed. It is not my intention to disparage you personally. And I would be more than happy to answer any questions you might have in regards to Calvinistic doctrine.

I think it is unwise to compare me to Jan.

It wasn't a comparison really, rather, a recommendation. Jan knows what Calvinists believe and she does her best to accurately represent those beliefs when discussing them. She has went as far as to defend those beliefs (that she doesn't agree with) from misrepresentation which is comendable and, I think, the Christian thing to do.

If you read the short testimony I gave then you might (if you try) to see my heart on the subject of Calvinism.

If you are referring to your loss, then yes, I have read it and I offer my condolences. But I must point out that scriptural truth cannot be judged in this way. I say this because your testimony suggests that you are rejecting Calvinistic theology because of this episode in your life. Moreover, you were proceeding on the false assumption that Calvinists all taught and believed the same thing in regards to infants. As moG and myself have pointed out, we do not. And as you yourself said, there is not much to go by in scripture to say dogmatically what happens to those who die in infancy. One can only speculate on the available data.

I am not totally ignorant on the subject...

Nor did I mean to imply that you were. You obviously have read something on the subject. My concern is that you may have not read enough or, you may have been reading the wrong stuff. If all you have read is Hunt's book and articles by D.A. Waite, then my example of a juror hearing only one side of the case is accurate.

The fact that I had to ask Tron for a definition of "double predestination" shows that Calvinism itself is a multiplicity of beliefs within the system.

All theological systems have a "multiplicity of beliefs". No theological subject is as simple as it first seems. Take Christ's deity for example. If you examine the controversy at Nicea, you will find that the discussions got long and deep into many questions and these questions have not been completely resovled to this day. To criticize Calvinism on the basis that it can be "deep", is overly simplistic and inconsistent when the whole of Christian theology is considered.

I have often quoted something that Calvinists believe, "Limited Atonement" for example and someone will say "oh but we don't hold to that view" we believe something else. You have just done it.

If you have always used D.A. Waite's presentation, I can see why. But this does not accurately represent my objection to your use of Waite's material. You seem to be suggesting that Calvinists are "shifty" on their views. Is this what you are suggesting? If so, I would of course object on the basis of your choice of sources for what we believe. If you are getting bad information of what we believe, then you will certainly get the response you have mentioned.

My walk with Jesus is simple and I believe that it is my duty to point out to others that they needn't feel pushed into a belief system that has no relevance to their faith.

I see no one here pushing anyone into believing the doctrines of grace. In fact, I have never seen a Calvinist "pushing" their doctrine on anyone. Further, if Calvinism is true, then it does indeed have relevance to one's faith.

I see it as an elitist doctrine.

And did you get this opinion from Dave Hunt?

I respect the way you guys debate it and I admire your understanding of it and your knowledge of church history.

If so, then did you accept my explanations in my previous post? Your comments above in regards to Limited Atonement along with your post to Stronghold would seem to suggest that you didn't.

For myself, I believe I am qualified to speak into it.

I suppose that would depend on what you mean by "qualified". Everyone has a right to their own private opinion of course. But if you are claiming this based on reading Dave Hunt, then I respectfully disagree.

Not because I understand the letter of it but because I have studied it enough to know I reject it as part of my life in Christ.

Okay, so who have you studied? Piper, Sproul, White? I ask because to claim to be studied on Calvinism requires that you read those who espouse it. For instance, one does not become studied in history by reading books on physics.

I have quoted two men on the subject whose knowledge you have rejected.

And I have stated just *why* I reject those two men's explanations of my beliefs.

I have read other books on the subject and I'm sure you didn't come to your own views through reading the Scriptures alone.

And were these books pro or con? I can't emphasize enough that one must listen to both sides of a debate in order to make an informed decision on the truthfulness of any given topic.

My post stands as it is. It speaks for me and my beliefs.

As does mine.

That is all that is required and I do not have to answer to you.

Forgive me, but, this is a cop-out. I do not believe that you must "answer to me". What I do believe is that folks should accurately represent my beliefs before they critique and/or rake them over the coals as you have done here on this thread. This statement to Stronghold...

Watch this! They will deny it is like I am saying and come up with something that says, "oh it is not like that, only some Calvinists believe that or the hypers or the partials or the Lutherans or the others believe something else.

...is a canard. What you are doing is intimating that Calvinists are deceptive in their beliefs and when called on it, you fall back to saying that you don't have to answer for the things you put in print.

Your reply concerning my testimony reveals to me that you do not have the faintest idea of what I am talking about.

If I am as off as you claim here, then by all means demonstrate it. As it is, I do not know what it is like to lose a sibling, true. But I do know that you do not use this to brow-beat other's viewpoints, especially without the benefit of accurate supporting argumentation.

We might as well come from different planets.

In regards to how we go about critiquing the viewpoints of others, then yes, we do.

You would recommend that I become like Jan. I would recommend that you receive the heart from the Lord that is in Dave Hunt.

If Dave Hunt were a better man than I, then I would welcome it. But you don't know him or me, so you have no real basis to make such a statement. Sure, you've met him, but does that mean you know him personally? Do you visit him often? Perhaps have dinner with him and his family on occasion? Moreover, my differences with Hunt are not about Hunt's personality; they are about his argumentation.

I am not intimating that Calvinists are deceptive. I am saying that there are aberrations to the Calvinistic doctrine.

Of course there are aberrations in Calvinism. But this is true of any and every Christian doctrine. Thus, for you to argue successfully against Calvinism, you would need to demonstrate that I, or moG, or whoever, is engaged in aberration by using source material from Calvinistic writers. This would take us back to my points in regards to your sources for what you believe about Calvinism.

I can only argue from the points of Calvinism of which I have read.

Okay, so again, who have you read besides Dave Hunt and articles by D.A. Waite?

If you choose to distort the meaning of Calvinism itself, then there is no discussion.

In order to suggest this, you would have to have knowledge of Calvinism from Calvinistic sources so that you could distinguish between what I say, and what Calvinism says. Thus far, I see only your suggestion that I'm distorting Calvinism based on your reading of Dave Hunt and D.A. Waite. I will continue to belabor the point that what you are doing is no different than, say, an atheist attacking christianity based on nothing more than the writings of other atheists.

You tell me to demonstrate where you are "off".

Yes I do. It is easy to make an assertion. It's altogether a different story when one has to substantiate that assertion when challenged.

All I can say is that you debate from the letter, I discuss from my heart.

And this is a fine example of an assertion that you will not, and cannot, substantiate. You have no idea if I discuss these issues "from my heart" or, if I'm here to debate for the thrill of it. As it is, I am here to defend the truth of the doctrines of grace against those who would attack and misrepresent them.

I discuss this because I believe Calvinism as it is generally understood to be an erroneous teaching not for one upmanship as a debater. I would lose in that field every time.

Generally understood by whom? Dave Hunt? Again, where does your knowledge of Calvinism come from? You have been challenged on your statements in regards to Calvinism by four different people on this thread and two of them are not even Calvinists themselves. Yet you continue to suggest, without benefit of argument or documentation from Calvinistic sources, that we are wrong and you are right in our understanding of the issues. Further, you continue to suggest that I'm not sincere about the truth but are only interested in winning an argument. But again, you cannot substantiate this since you don't know me from Adam's house-cat.

Your post demonstrates nothing that warrants a reply from me.

Fin

Fare Thee Well Manuel Culwell

2007-04-17T18:06:00.000-05:00

Readers of this blog are no doubt aware by now that I have decided to ban Manuel Culwell from posting to my blog. My reasons for this are many and I cannot think of a single reason why I shouldn't have. Manuel's first post here was exceedingly bad and each successive one had steadily gotten worse. It appeared that this spiral of spam would not stop unless I stopped it. In fact, Manuel himself stated that he would not leave unless I made him. That statement was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back since I had already come to suspect that Manuel was the type to keep going after somebody with an almost stalker-like fervor. This suspicion first came about when Manuel stated that Eddie Dalcour would not have anything else to do with him. Here is what Manuel said regarding Dalcour:

I tried very hard to get him to have a discussion but he kept insisting I made no attempt at exegesis so that he would not debate me,...

Now, this sounds to me like Eddie Dalcour was having the same problem with Manuel that I've been having. That is, Manuel doesn't do exegesis. Rather, he prooftexts, makes a statement that doesn't contradict the opposing viewpoint, and concludes that the opposing view is wrong. This flawed methodology is what Manuel consistently employs. For instance:

Every man that hears and learns of the father (Through the preaching of the word Romans 10:14-15) that is the drawing and the way mankind comes to God. The Calvinist view is completely unwarranted. I don’t care if you go back even further it still does not prove your point.

This statement comes on the heels of Manuel quoting John 6:35-45. Notice that the statement only alludes to v.44 and 45 only. This is prooftexting. Next, Manuel states every man who hears and learns from the Father is drawn to the Son by the preaching of the word. This is what I meant by Manuel making statements that don't conflict with the opposing viewpoint. That is, Reformed theology teaches that those who come to Christ were drawn to Him by the Father. This drawing is ordinarily done by way of the preached word. So where is the contradiction between what Calvinists believe and what Manuel has stated? There is none. Lastly, Manuel leaps to the conclusion that the Calvinist view is unwarranted. But in point of fact, it is Manuel's own conclusion that is not warranted. One cannot draw conclusions based on absentee argumentation. I believe that this faulty methodology is what Eddie Dalcour was referring to and that this is why he chose not to go any further with Manuel.

Now, after reading what Manuel had to say about Eddie Dalcour not having anything else to do with him I wondered if there were others who have had similiar experiences in dealing with Manuel. So I googled the name "Manuel Culwell" and a thread from none other than Alan Kurschner's Calvinist Gadfly popped up. This particuliar thread had devolved into a discussion on man's will and had a virtual who's who of Reformed bloggers commenting on it. So what insights did Manuel bring to the insuing discussion? See for yourself...

What’s sickening is your calvinst God ! (John Calvin Himself ) Man is a mindless robot and your doctrine of orginal sin (CATHOLIC ACTUALY BEFORE CALVIN) BUT HEY, YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO BE REFORMED… I THINK YOU FORGOT TO REFORM ON THAT ONE, INSTEAD YOU CONFORMED WITH YOUR THREE HEADED TRINTY AND YOUR ORIGINAL SIN DOCTRINE, BOTH FAIL SCRIPTURE ESPECIALLY YOUR THREE PERSONS! ALL FIVE OF THE FALSE TULIP DOCTRINES FALL….

Readers of this blog who have kept up with my exchange with Manuel will immediatly recognize that this is the same kind of near incoherent tripe that he opened with here. Same screed, different day. And it only took about six more of these before Kurschner gave Manuel the boot. And in so doing, Kurschner was on target when he said:

You cannot be reasoned with. And the “your doctrine is trash!” comment is the last straw. Cease commenting here.

Manuel cannot be reasoned with. He is, himself, unreasonable. Kurschner knew it, ditto with Dalcour. If anyone thinks this assessment is too harsh, I simply invite them to read thru the entirety of what Manuel has written here (and at the Gadfly) and simply ask themselves how they would deal with him. As for myself, I will give one last response to what Manuel has written in the comments section of my previous entry concerning him. After that, I'll wash my hands of him.

Go Figure

2007-04-07T06:55:00.000-05:00

Earlier this week, James White blogged about his surreal experience with some KJV-only fundamentalists in Mesa, Arizona. And when I say surreal, I mean it. Reading James' entries (he has added a couple more entries about this episode including a video) could cause a person to experience a wide range of emotions such as laughter, anger, sadness, and even being flat-out sick to their stomach, all in one reading. Through all the documented stupidity however, James did make mention of something that, for me at least, really stood out. While witnessing to some Mormons, one of the KJV-only folks shouted this out to James:

Don't give that one a tract, James, he's not elect!

Now, for the Calvinists out there, doesn't this just make you want to bang your head against a wall? I mean, Calvinists get criticized for (supposedly) not believing, and not engaging in, evangelistic efforts. But when we prove them wrong by going out and doing evangelism, we get mocked for it! Go figure.

One Year Anniversary!

2007-03-28T17:16:00.000-05:00

Today is C.I.C's one year anniversary and I would like to thank everyone who has taken the time to stop by my blog to read what I post here! I'd especially like to thank Bob Ladwig, David McCrory, and Thomas W. S. for making frequent visits and encouragements. I've enjoyed defending the doctrines of grace this past year and, God willing, hope to continue on for several more!

General Response To Manuel Culwell

2007-03-25T20:01:00.000-05:00

Manuel Culwell said:

I think you know exactly what was being said Mr. Cleary in the way of “vacuum isolation”

Since I have never seen nor heard this expression used, then no, I don't know what it means. Nor do I care to speculate on it's meaning since it is unwise to assume definitions of unfamiliar terminology especially when it appears to be made up.

This is the consistent way Calvinists interpret the scriptures, they take one sometimes two passages to showcase a ceratin hard passage in isolation and then psychoanalyze words and phrases of said passages excluding many others that deal with the same doctrine, allow me to give an example of another Calvinist. Edward Dalcour writes...

Here, Manuel proceeds to make an assertion regarding the Calvinist methodology of interpreting scripture. He then cites a snippet from Eddie Dalcour to prove his point. The problem with Manuel's quoting of Dalcour is that Manuel provides no citation or link to Dalcour's full argument which makes it impossible to assess what Dalcour's methodology was. All we see is Dalcour performing a word study on a particuliar greek term. Thus, in order for Manuel to substantiate his assertion, he will need to provide specific citations that can be cross checked. Otherwise, there is no reason to accept Manuel's charicature of Calvinistic methodology. Furthermore, Manuel's complaint about "psychoanalyzing" is quite interesting. I can only assume that Manuel is complaining that Calvinists perform word studies in order to derive meaning from a given text which, by the way, is what Dalcour was doing in the quotation that Manuel provided (the reader should notice that Manuel does not bother to interact with Dalcour's argument). If this is the case, how else is exegesis to be performed? I mean, if one is to draw out the meaning of any given text, are we not to be sure that the words within that text mean what we think they mean?

There is a little more that Manuel says about Dalcour's word study but I'll hold commenting on it for the time being. I will be posting a second response to Manuel in the near future that deals more with exegetical issues surrounding certain verses that Manuel constantly refers to.

...I posted my response to you for a reason and that was to get you to deal with certain arguments so I could deal with your own arguments.

Manuel here states that the reason he posted on my blog was so that he could deal with my arguments on certain issues. The problem is that Manuel did not present specific arguments or issues. He merely posted a very generalized and broad ranging screed against Calvinism to which I responded appropriately. If Manuel wants to deal with specific points of dispute, then he needs to submit specific arguments.

Mr. Cleary I already explained that these good folks on this your blog responded to your “vacuum trap”(I did not.) It could be seen from a mile away. You only submitted two passages to isolate your “sugar stick” that being John 6:44 you set up your trap to the exclusion of other passages yes you submitted (John 12:32) But I saw what you were trying to do, all I needed was one or more passages that you not so much even eluded to that being (James 4:8, and John 6:45)

So besides "vacuum isolation", we now have something called a "vacuum trap". Again, I have never seen this phrase used before so I won't speculate on what Manuel means by it. However, he does appear to be referring to the previous post I did on John 12:32. But yet again, Manuel fails to actually deal with what was written there. Instead, he chooses to dismiss my arguments by throwing out made up terminology along with some nonsense about sugar sticks. Furthermore, if my posts on this blog are as obviously defective as Manuel asserts, then it should be an easy matter for him to refute them. But, it appears that no such refutation is forthcoming.

Yep! No problem…God predestined the salvation of an elect group (the church) to which all maybe added conditioned upon their faith in obedience to the Gospel.

Here, Manuel is responding to my mention of Ephesians 1:5. But the reader should note that nowhere in Ephesians chapter 1 does it state anything about predestination being conditioned on faith. Moreover, what Manuel is alluding to here is the concept of "class election". Yet, the mere mention of this concept is not an argument and arguments are what we are here to consider. Thus, if Manuel wants to argue for the concept of class election, then he is free to do so if and when he responds.

Mr. Cleary thinks individuals are p-r-e-d-e-s-t-I-n-e-d. Find me the passage please that says so?

Well, that would be the aforementioned Ephesians 1:5. Y'know, the verse that states "He predestined us..."?

Now, it's at about this point in Manuel's post that he attempts to answer my mention of Acts 13:48. Sadly however, Manuel's response doesn't interact with the actual wording of that text. In fact, it's not even mentioned at all! Instead, Manuel chooses to go off to the book of Romans where he makes a number of assertions. Needless to say, this leaves Acts 13:48 untouched and the Calvinistic interpretation unrefuted. On top of this, Manuel's assertions in regards to Romans are not really argued. He seems content to sprinkle those assertions with citations and leaving it at that.

the elect are not simply individuals chosen by God while other are simply rejected but the elect refers to those individuals colectively that make the Body of Christ while we are in him which took place through the preaching of the gospel, the drawing of God. We are chosen in him from the foundation of the world as the elect body, the church .

This is Manuel's response to my mention of 2Thessolonians 2:13. Let the reader again notice that Manuel does not interact with the actual wording of that text. He is again content with making an unsupported assertion in lieu of an argument. As it is, I can just as easily assert that the elect are indeed individuals chosen by God unto salvation as stated in 2Thessolonians. Consequently, the rest of mankind is passed over and left to the sin that they love since it is a fact that not all will be saved. Further, the idea that the church as a corporate entity is what is predestined to salvation instead of the individual is fallacious on the grounds that groups consist of individuals and that there is no exegetical reason that can be gleaned from any given text to support the notion of corporate election.

You completely ignored my post and simply added your snide comments and remarks while ignoring the passages I submitted.

To say that I "completely ignored" Manuel's post is beyond inaccurate; it's dishonest. Further, if Manuel wants to complain about the tone of my responses, then perhaps he should not have set that tone to begin with. That is, since I believe in answering folks on their own grounds, then Manuel should be focusing on the tone of his own posts.

Also, I am not obligated to respond to prooftexting. It is enough to point it out for what it is and leave it at that. When Manuel provides exegetical demonstrations for his submitted passages and why they contradict Calvinism, he'll then get a response.

Here in is the problem. You care to much what Calvin had to say, I am not talking to Calvin, I am talking to you,...

Here, Manuel completely dodges a previous challenge to one of his comments. If the reader will remember, Manuel stated that men were robots according to Calvin. I then challenged Manuel to direct us to where Calvin ever said such a thing. Instead of backing up his claim, Manuel chooses to employ a smoke and mirrors tactic of redirecting the reader's attention to me supposedly caring too much about what Calvin had to say. So let the reader be aware that Manuel cannot show where Calvin ever said what Manuel claims. Furthermore, I will now challenge Manuel to substantiate his assertion that I care too much about what Calvin had say. If Manuel's accusation has an ounce of merit, then it should be an easy matter for him to expose my reliance on the words of Calvin. However, I have a sneaking suspicion that Manuel will dodge this challenge as well. This is because a brief scan thru the entries on this blog would reveal that Manuel's accusation is completely baseless. Off the top of my head, I know of only one blog entry in which I even mentioned Calvin. Furthermore, I own only one of Calvin's works (and it isn't his Institutes.) These are odd facts indeed for someone who supposedly cares too much about what Calvin had to say!

...I neither care what Calvin, Arminus, Tertullian, the pope, Arius, or anyone else had to say in so called church history or otherwise unless it was the Lord Jesus Christ or the Apostles and brethren from scripture...I really don’t care what Arminius or Calvin had to say about anything, they have no hold or claim on scripture what so ever.

Well, if it's true that Manuel doesn't care about what anybody says other than what's written in God's word, then how can he possibly care about what I say? What's he doing here arguing against my beliefs if he does not in fact care about what I say or write? Further, no Calvinist or Arminian with whom I am familiar has ever made the claim that John Calvin or Jacob Arminius had some sort of "hold or claim on scripture" so I have no idea what Manuel is going on about.

Do you , or do you not believe you are made a believer beyond your will?

That depends on what Manuel means by "beyond your will". If he means that God forces men to believe against their sinful and fallen natures, then no. If he means that God changes the very nature of man by granting him spritual rebirth so that he can now choose according to his new nature, then yes.

Please be a little more forth coming with what you believe so that everyone can distinguish the two doctrines?

This is the first in a series of accusations that I'm trying to hide what I believe as a Calvinist. I'll address most of these accusations below but there are a few points I would like to make here and now:

1) I am not obligated to list and elaborate on the five points of Calvinism in each and every blog entry I write.

2) Just who is it that I'm supposedly hiding my doctrine from? For the non-Calvinist, it should be quite easy to deduce what my doctrine is from the very title of my blog. But, most of the folks who comment on this blog are, themselves, Calvinsts. Is Manuel suggesting that I'm hiding my doctrine from them?

3) If Manuel is asserting that I'm hiding my doctrine from himself, then I will again point out that Manuel's first post here was not an attempt to discern definitional standards. There were no questions asked in regards to what I believe. Rather, it was an all-out attack on my faith.

4) And just for the sake of putting this nonsense to rest, I will briefly lay out my cards for all to see. I am a five point Calvinist with Supralapsarian leanings. My Eschatological preference is Amillinialism with historic pre-mil sympathies. I reject Dispensationalism in favor of Covenant theology. And last (but certainly not least), I am a Trinitarian. Now, if anyone out there doesn't know what any of these positions are then I would be happy to direct them to the appropriate resources or I'll do my best to answer any honest and direct questions.

There is nothing stated in scripture anywhere of “compatibilistic free will.”

The fact that the word 'compatiblism' is not found in scripture is not evidence against it. If it were, then such evidence would prove too much. That is, the term 'libertarianism' is likewise not found in the bible. Thus, Manuel's argument, if true, would disprove his own position on man's will. Indeed, since 'oneness pentacostal' is not found in the bible, Manuel's entire belief system would likewise be falsified if this horribly flawed reasoning were accepted.

Not even one example, it is based on bad interpretation of scripture...

On the contrary, there are many examples of compatiblism within holy writ. For instance, Genesis 50:20 states that both God and Joseph's brothers sent Joseph into slavery. Then there is Ezra 1:1 where God causes Cyrus to issue the proclamation. And who can forget Acts 4:27,28 where God predestined the actions of all those who participated in Christ's crucifixion? Others could be cited but these should suffice. The reader should note that in each instance, both man and God willed the exact same thing but with differing purpose. Man does what he wants to do but simultaneously fulfills God's will. This is the essence of compatiblism.

...you do believe in “inherited sin.”

Actually, I believe in the doctrine of 'original sin'. I make this distinction because there is no way to know what Manuel means when he uses the term "inherited sin" since he does not elaborate on it.

...all five points rest upon each other...

True.

...you seem to be hiding what it is you believe.

Since I affirm the doctrine of original sin along with the fact that the five points of Calvinism flow logically from one point to the next, what can I possibly hiding?

You believe mankind is born dead from Adam onward and so some are chosen to salvation while others are doomed to hell not because of being drawn of God by the gospel being preached .

Yes, I believe that man is dead in sin. This belief is based on Paul's teachings in Romans 5 and Ephesians 2. It is also based on Jesus' own teaching about spiritual rebirth in John 3. Further, if men are in fact "doomed to hell", then they are doomed because of their love for sin.

It can be seen from Mr. Cleary’s response that he is trying very hard to hide what it is he actually believes...Is it,or is it not your belief God supernaturally turns “individuals” He has predestined to salvation?

Manuel makes this statement in response to my comments on Matthew 13. Yet, nowhere does Manuel demonstrate a contradiction between my comments and the text itself. Neither does he elaborate on how Calvinism in general contradicts the aforementioned text. Manuel is simply content to continue with his accusations that I'm hiding something. And as for the "God supernatually turns individuals" comment, it depends on what he means. If Manuel is asserting that God forces men against their will to come to Christ, then no, this is not what I believe. To elaborate on what I have stated previously, I believe God grants spiritual life to whom He will. This results in an acceptance of Christ as savior whereas before, there was no spiritual life in the individual making it impossible to accept the things of God.

Only because Mr. Cleary is hiding what it is he actually believes, he is trying to make it as simplistic as possible without revealing his true colors which will be exposed soon enough.

So Manuel is going to expose me, eh? And just what is it that he's going to reveal I wonder? Is he going to reveal the carefully guarded secret that I'm a Calvinist who has a blog that defends Calvinism!? Really folks, if ever there was a time for one of those "LOLS" that Manuel uses to mock the beliefs of others, this would be it.

Why not, if in fact you believe these things, come out and just tell us what they are?

Why didn't Manuel just ask in the first place? Why did he not inquire as to what my particuliar views as a Calvinist were before attacking them?

all you have to do is just tell us

And all Manuel had to do was ask.

The elect were once sinners (Ephesians 2:3), but God regenerates themIn response to the gospel being preached(1 Peter 1:18-25), which is for all people everywhere. It is not how the Calvinist at all explains.

Yes, it is true that the elect were once sinners and that God regenerates them when they hear the gospel being preached. Also, I would agree that the gospel is indeed for all people. But where I differ with Manuel is that the gospel serves a dual purpose. That is, it brings in God's elect while simultaneously confirms and hardens the reprobate.

Not much said here by Mr. Cleary because he is not being very forth coming with what he really believes.

This was because Manuel did not elaborate on why the phrase, "the gospel is for all mankind" contradicts my beliefs. As I pointed out above, I can agree with that statement as written. Thus, Manuel's continued charges of me hiding my doctrine continue to have no merit whatsoever.

Is it because God predestinates individuals to be saved?

Yes, God predestines individuals to salvation.

That is what he really believes.

Yep, ol' Manuel is right on top of things!

God to the Calvinist is a partial unloving God dooming some to hell and some to eternal life...

If, by this Manuel means that Calvinists reject the notion of 'omnibenevolence' as defined by such men as Ergun Caner, then this is true. A Calvinist cannot accept the idea that God loves all men equally and without exception when scripture explicitly states that God does indeed hate men. The Calvinist finds support from such scriptures as Psalm 5:5, 11:5, and Romans 9:13. In each of these, it is stated that God hates either particuliar individuals or sinners in general.

...it is of men’s choices that doom them,...

As written, I can agree with this. Calvinism teaches that men choose to sin and that this is why they are damned.

salvation however is available to all men, it is not God’s will that any should perish(2nd. Peter 3:8)

Manuel is here proceeding on an assumed meaning of 2Peter 3:9 (not 3:8). And since there is no exegetical demonstration (again) of Manuel's assertions in regards to this verse, there is nothing for me to respond to.

Do you believe he is the Lord over all without exception?

Yes, I believe that Jesus is Lord over all. God does not need the consent of His creatures for the establishment of His authority. Calvinists believe in the sovereignty of God, and not the presidency of God.

Mr. Cleary also assumes there is such thing as the “compatible will” of Calvinism.

On the contrary, it has been Manuel that has done all the assuming in regards to man's will. That is, Manuel believes that his view of libertarianism is the only possible explanation of man's will. But this is patently false. Anyone who has familiarized themselves with the discussions on man's will knows that there are differing views on how a man comes to make a choice. Thus, if Manuel wishes to continue acting as if his is the only viable viewpoint, he will be engaging in gross intellectual dishonesty.

Now, he finally reveals his Calvinism , God does” will it,”...

This is how Manuel chooses to dodge the point I made about him not establishing his view of libertarianism. He just continues right along with his accusations that I'm hiding something.

That is exactly what I am pointing out, is God the Lord over all without exception?

Yes, God is Lord over all without exception. As I stated above, God's sovereignty is not hinged on man's consent.

There is no fact that all or any refers to the Calvinist idea that all kinds of men are individuals somehow dragged against their wills supernaturally when others are not, this is the real issue I feel Mr. Cleary is not being so forthcoming.

Here, Manuel lights up a straw-man that he's been setting up all throughout his post. He states that it is the Calvinist's idea that men are "dragged againsts their wills" to salvation. But, again, this is patently false. This is not a Calvinist idea at all. We do not believe nor teach it. See folks, this is what happens when someone is unable to deal honestly and accurately with what Calvinists actually believe. They set up straw-men and gross charicatures and proceed to attack them. When challenged with the facts, they resort to saying that we aren't being forthcoming with our beliefs. Needless to say, this tactic is most disingenious.

What Mr. Cleary means by:” the willing cannot be forced.” Is that God supernaturally makes you willing and others he does not. This is completely diametric to the teaching of the NT.

Is it really? Then where are Manuel's exegetical refutations to the verses that Calvinists use to support their doctrine? As I look thru Manuel's posts on my blog I cannot find a single exegetical refutation of a single verse used by Calvinists to support the doctrine of man's inability and deadness in sin.

Again, faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God. Where does this passage say what the Calvinist is saying? He is purposely avoiding these areas of his doctrine.

Yes, faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. Calvinists affirm this. Thus, a better question to ask is, how does this verse specifically contradict what Calvinists believe and teach? Or perhaps the question should be, where has any Calvinist ever stated that men are regenerated apart from the preaching of the gospel? If Manuel fails to address such questions, then it is he who is avoiding things.

...when does God remove the heart of stone and replace it with a heart of flesh?

At some point after the man first hears the gospel. The precise moment of regeneration is unknown.

The gospel is the supernatural power of God(Romans 1:16) to save through our own faith from the heart...

Romans 1:16 says nothing about man being saved through his own (libertarian) faith. It merely states that the gospel is "the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes...". The verse, as written, does not contradict anything in Reformed theology.

what I failed to do is break down all the intricacies and nuances of your doctrine that you are so trying to hide for the sake of being exposed for what you really believe...

In other words, Manuel is indeed failing to accurately represent the Calvinistic position on all the issues that have been brought up.

I do indeed believe the Calvinist preacher is a “false prophet” and has been led astray by a false tradition doctrine of the Reformed passed down through the years by philosophical ideas based on difficulties from the scriptures...

Yet another dodge. Manuel was asked if he specifically believes that Calvinists are not Christians. He stops just short of saying so in his response to the question. But it can be deduced from what he has stated thus far that Manuel does not believe that Calvinists are Christians. But to be sure, I will pose the question again; does Manuel believe that Calvinists are not Christians? Yes or no? If he dodges again, what then of his constant whining that I'm hiding what I believe?

It is the Calvinist that is not consistent, they will back up and say All means all when God is Lord over all but the scripture cannot mean all men but only the elect or all kinds of men, is God the Lord of only all kinds of men, Which would causes the scriptures to contradict itself?

Here, Manuel appears to be complaining that Calvinists will sometimes use the term "all" universally while sometimes they do not. This is quite true but not for the reason that Manuel would have folks believe. Calvinists do not take the meaning of one word and then assume that that same word means the exact same thing in every single instance it appears in scripture. Rather, we allow context to determine meaning. No more, no less. One fine example of this is how the Apostle John uses the term 'world' in his gospel. It is acknowledged by folks on both sides of the Calvinism debate that 'world' is used in several different ways by the Apostle. Thus, when Manuel complains about this, he is again complaining against cold hard facts.

Now, this ends my general response to Manuel. As I'm sure Manuel will point out, there are parts of his post that were not addressed. This was due in part to an upcoming exegetical response to what he has written here so far. The response will deal with several verses that Manuel refers to most often when he argues against Calvinism.

It Never Rains But Pours

2007-03-08T17:28:00.000-05:00

mlculwell said:

This is what Calvinists are so good at; "vacuum Isolation" which they call "exegesis" but is really "exegesis" these good folks(those attempting your argument using your own submitted isolated passages and scenarios) just fell into your isolation vacuum trap. LOL!

This is the opening statement from a somewhat lengthy comment posted to my blog earlier this week and, as one can readily see, should prove to be yet another interesting look at how folks choose to argue against Calvinism. Surely a near incoherent statement that ends with "lol" isn't promising much in way of a serious critique. In fact, the above statement reminds me of the bad joke told badly. No one laughs except the poor bloke telling it.

At any rate, just what is "vacuum isolation"? How does it relate to the blog entries it was posted to? I say entries because mlculwell posted the same comment to three or four different blog entries and none of them were directly interacted with. In fact, one of the blog entries that this was posted to was one in which I discussed John 12:32 within it's immediate context. Thus, I'm left wondering how I can be accused of "vacuum isolation" (whatever that means exactly) when I presented an argument based on the immediate context in which the verse is found.

(John 7:38-39 KJV) This passage says If A-N-Y man thirst let him come unto me and drink. He is allowed by his thirst. Oh, but the Calvinist will say what about the next verse?

Mr. mlculwell seems to think that spelling out certain words is enough to refute Calvinism. Fine. Since I'm one who believes in answering folks on their own grounds, what about Ephesians 1:5 where it states that Christians are P-R-E-D-E-S-T-I-N-E-D to adoption acording to God's will? Then there's Acts 13:48 that says the gentiles who were A-P-P-O-I-N-T-E-D to eternal life believed. And who can forget 2Thessolonians 2:13 where it is stated that God has C-H-O-S-E-N the elect for salvation? Will mlculwell concede the force of his own argument when it is turned around on him? Will he then present an actual argument as to why John 7:37 (not v. 38 & 39) contradicts Calvinism? Will he, for instance, elaborate on his underlying assumption that "if any man thirsts" really means that every man without exception thirsts for the gospel and only needs a little wooing on God's part for him to drink? Will he directly interact with the Calvinistic interpretation of this verse and others like it? Or, will he simply continue with his spelling-bee argumentation?

Because the believer according to Calvin is a mindless robot made to believe, made to thirst.

I would be very interested to see if Mr. mlculwell can provide the book and page number where Calvin made the claim that men are robots who are forced to believe against their will.

One will notice that the above passage does not use the term A-L-L but rather A-N-Y

Aside from the fact that this is still spelling-bee argumentation, what is the point? What difference does it make if John 7:37 has 'any' instead of 'all'? Where is Mr. mlculwell's discussion on whether or not these words are limited by contextual considerations?

There is that little nasty indefinite pronoun* any *again and it's relation to anyone hearing the word and either accepting or rejecting the word in their hearts because of different situations or cares of this life and the flesh of mankind because men love their flesh rather than the spirit of God.

As written, this statement is a bit difficult to follow. It seems that Mr. mlculwell believes that the mere appearance of the term 'any' necessarily implies libertarian free-will over and against compatiblistic free-will (i.e. the Calvinist position). If so, this would of course beg the question. Further, the above statement conflates two different sections of scripture (Matt. 5 and Matt. 13) without a clear demonstration of how they relate to each other or the point being made.

Above is a person/persons that have a stony heart because of the cares of this life (Not because of sins of their forefathers as both Catholics and Calvinists falsely claim...

This statement appears to be based on Matthew 13:20. If so, Mr. mlculwell has it all wrong. The Calvinistic interpretation of this verse does not rest on anything other than what the verse itself states. Matthew 13:20 is part of the parable of the sower. In this parable, four different types of people and how they react to hearing the gospel are presented. The first refers to people who hear the gospel but do not understand. This lack of understanding results in the gospel message not taking root. Reformed theology is consistent with this description. The second person is presented as having a stoney heart but the verse does not state that the stoney heart comes from the "cares of this life" as Mr. mlculwell stated above. The "cares of this life" phrase refers to the third person described. This person is too caught up and in love with the world to have room in his heart for the gospel. Reformed theology is likewise consistent with the two previous descriptions. The fourth and final description is in reference to someone likened to "good soil" and thus the gospel takes root and is fruitful. This final description is also consistent with Calvinism. Thus, if Calvinism is consistent with all the descriptions found in the parable of the sower, then Mr. mlculwell is mistaken to assert that Calvinism interprets this parable thru some supposed grid.

...man is a free moral agent able to hear, choose and be saved by his God.

Yes, man is indeed a free moral agent who is able to hear and choose and be saved by his God. So, since Calvinism affirms this statement as written, what is Mr. mlculwell's argument?

...the gospel message is for all of mankind...

Yep.

...not all will be saved...

True.

...but any man can be saved .

And I can agree with this but with one caveat. Any man can be saved if God so wills it. Thus, the difference between Mr. mlculwell's view and my own is the assumption of libertarian free-will which has yet to be established.

Next, Mr. mlculwell quotes Romans 10:8 and says this:

(who Calvinists ? NO the 12 apostles of the lamb who were sent…

The only response I can possibly give to this devastating observation is, well, what?

(Side note:he cannot be the Lord "over all" but only "all kinds of men" and thus Calvinists remain consistent in their interpretation. Go figure….

Here, Mr. mlculwell seems to be complaining that Calvinists often point out that words like 'all' and 'any' are often limited by contextual considerations. Thus, he is complaining against cold hard fact. Go figure.

Calvinists say God makes you a believer without you being involved in the process, What? Ridiculous!

Actually, Calvinists say that God grants men the faith that is required to come to Christ. Once that faith is given, it will then be excercised thus making man involved in the process. This is in stark contrast to Mr. mlculwell's assertion that Calvinism teaches man is saved apart from faith which is truly ridiculous.

(oh but God automatically makes you believe without hearing more ridiculousness)

At this point, I feel it necessary to point out that we're dealing with someone who is swimming in ignorance. Either that, or this person is about as intellectually dishonest as they come. Reformed theology doesn't teach that "God automatically" does anything. Further, Reformed theology does not teach that God forces men to believe for the simple reason that the willing cannot be forced. That is, Calvinism teaches that God removes man's heart of stone and replaces it with a heart of flesh that is capable of belief. And what of Mr. mlculwell's unsupported assertion that Calvinists believe that we are saved apart from the preaching of the gospel? Well, to use his own words, "more ridiculousness"!

...these false prophets refuse to preach that same message and we hear all kinds of ridiculous reasons why.

Here, Mr. mlculwell is referring to Reformed preachers when he uses the term "false prophets". The assertion here is basically that Reformed preachers (and by extension, all Calvinists) do not say the same thing as the Apostles (at least, according to mlculwell) and therefore they are all false prophets. But if this doesn't beg the question, nothing possibly can. In order to establish this notion, Mr. mlculwell will need to sit down and refute Calvinism en toto while simultaneously establishing his own viewpoints as the only Biblical option. And as I have shown above, he hasn't even come close to successfully critiquing Calvinism. Moreover, to say that Calvinists are false prophets is fundamentally no different than saying that we are not Christians. Is this indeed Mr. mlculwell's view? I would be interested in hearing him elaborate on this point.

...yes, the Calvinist is correct when they teach the term "all" is limited in certain contexts concerning believers and unbelievers...

And with this admission, Mr. mlculwell effectively torpedos his own statements above about 'any' and 'all'. That is, once it is admitted that terms like 'all' and 'world' are often times limited by context, these words can no longer be thrown out as if their mere appearance in a text of scripture automatically falsifies the Calvinist's interpretation.

There is quite a bit more that Mr. mlculwell posted but most of it re-hashes what has already been covered above and so going on would not be productive. I mean, really, how much more bad argumentation am I going to have to showcase in order to drive home the point that too many non-Calvinists are far too willing to engage in the most horrid argumentative antics in order to attack a system of theology that they do not like?

Analogy of Divine Determinism

2007-02-24T11:20:00.000-05:00

The analogy of an author writing a play may help us to grasp how both aspects can be true. In the Shakespearean play Macbeth, the character Macbeth murders King Duncan. Now (if we assume for a moment that this is a fictional account), the question may be asked, "Who killed King Duncan?" On one level, the correct answer is "Macbeth." Within the context of the play he carried out the murder and is rightly to blame for it. But on another level, a correct answer to the question, "Who killed King Duncan?" would be "William Shakespeare": he wrote the play, he created all the characters in it, and he wrote the part where Macbeth killed King Duncan.

It would not be correct to say that because Macbeth killed King Duncan, William Shakespeare did not kill him. Nor would it be correct to say that because William Shakespeare killed King Duncan, Macbeth did not kill him. Both are true. On the level of the characters of the play Macbeth fully (100 percent) caused King Duncan's death, but on the level of the creator of the play, William Shakespeare fully (100 percent) caused king Duncan's death. In similiar fashion, we can understand that God fully causes thing in one way (as Creator), and we fully cause things in another way (as creatures).

Wayne Grudem
Systematic Theology
pgs. 321 & 322

The words of King David himself mirror the above analogy:

All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be. Psalm 139:16 NIV

Thus, it would seem that the world is God's storybook.

Assuming The Definition Of Choice

2007-02-13T18:52:00.000-05:00

Our new friend Chris has left another comment on another thread. I'm addressing it here because this latest comment was posted on a rather old entry I made back in May and it has nothing at all to do with my previous response to him. This aside, Chris' latest comment seems hinged on the notion that the mere fact of choice defeats Reformed theology. But as every professing Calvinist already knows, this simply isn't the case. Added to this is the fact that Chris nowhere defines just what a 'choice' is. He, like so many non-Calvinists, seems to believe that there is only one way to define 'choice' (if a definition is even pondered at all). So again, without any further ado, let's look at what Chris has to say about choice.

I never said God was powerless over the decisions that men make.

Chris doesn't have to spell it out. His theology does it for him. See, Chris' theology affirms that God cannot or will not violate the so-called free-will of man. If God does, then Chris' theology judges God as being unjust because God is said to be making a man into a robot (which is an argument that Chris mentions below). So, since God cannot be unjust, then God cannot be in control of the decisions of His creatures.

My theology believes in a God that chooses to allow mankind to make his own decisions.

So does mine. That is, in Reformed theology, man not only makes choices, but does so according to his strongest inclination at the moment the choice is made. Thus, man chooses what he desires most at any given moment. Now, I don't know about Chris, but this sure sounds to me like mankind does indeed "make his own decisions".

Key word being "Chooses".

It would have been helpful if Chris would have taken the time to define what he means by "chooses". As it is, this statement is meaningless since Reformed theology more than accounts for the reality of choice.

Sure God could have created a world full of robots who move, speak, make decisions etc... whenever He turns the key but that idea absolutely defeats the purpose of so many things such as faith; whenever He turns the key...

Ah, the old "Calvinism turns man into robots" argument. What Calvinist hasn't seen this one or has taken the time to respond to it? Indeed, Calvinists have written extensively on this. In fact, I have yet to see an introductory work on Calvinism that hasn't addressed it. Thus, I'm forced to ask if Chris has read even one? If so, then why is he not interacting with what Calvinists have to say in response? If he hasn't, then, yet again, Chris has alot of studying to do if he wishes to refute Reformed theology.

...but that idea absolutely defeats the purpose of so many things such as faith; Who needs faith to believe when the decisions are being made for them?

The Reformed definition of 'choice' that I gave above is enough to refute Chris' statement about "decisions being made for them". That is, if man chooses according to his strongest inclination at any given moment, then no one but man is making his decisions. But what of Chris' reference to faith? Does Reformed theology undermine the need for faith? Not in the least. See, Chris' statement has the underlying assumption that faith in God is not an efficacious and divine gift. But scripture teaches otherwise (see Ephesians 2:8). Scripture further teaches that man is spiritually "dead in trespasses and sin" and that man's will is enslaved. Now, if these all be true then one is forced to ask how a man's will is free in the libertarian sense. And since faith in God is a spiritual act, how can a spiritually dead sinner who's will is enslaved to sin, perform a spiritual act such as excercising saving faith? This question is made even more problematic for Chris' theology when 1Corinthians 2:14 tells us that a sinner cannot accept or understand spiritual things. The Calvinist's solution to this scriptural dilemma is to simply accept scripture's teaching that faith is indeed a gift from God. Thus, Reformed theology does not undermine faith but confirms it.

God's omnipotence is reflected in the fact that He can do whatever He wants to do.

And I can agree with this. In fact, I submit that Reformed theology does more than give lip service to this definition of omnipotence. That is, Calvinism affirms that if God chose to create a world where everything that happens has a purpose, including evil, God has the right to do so. Calvinism also affirms that if God had chosen to create a world where He has predestined some to eternal glory and chooses to leave the rest in the sin that they love (reprobation), then He has the right to do so. In stark contrast, given his theological pressupositions, Chris' theology does not give God these rights. Thus, Chris' theology does not affirm the definition of omnipotence that Chris himself has offered.

If He chooses to allow a man to make a choice, it occurs that way because God chose it to be.

Here again, Chris has as his underlying assumption that Reformed theology does not account for the fact of choice. But since this is patently false and has been shown as such here, this statement is rendered meaningless.

If I allow my children to use their own free will to make a choice, does that make me an impotent father? No it doesn't.

A few points here:

1) Chris' analogy of a father allowing his son to use his free-will is itself inaccurate. There is not a father/son relationship between God and all mankind. Only God's elect enjoy such a relationship.

2) The analogy has as it's starting assumption that libertarian free-will is a fact. But this just begs the question in favor of the analogy.

3) Granting just for the sake of argument that the analogy is accurate, God would still be impotent because it is a self-imposed impotence. That is, God may have the power to override the free-will of His creatures but He does not. Thus, within the context of Chris' theology, God cannot override the supposed free-will of His creatures no matter how much He would want to because of a self-imposed limit of His power.

Now, this wraps up my response to Chris' latest post. I don't believe however, that Chris will take the time to respond to what I've written since he has yet to respond to my previous entry. In fact, Chris hasn't deemed my last entry to him as worthy of response so it is unlikely that he'll respond to this entry as well. One can always hope though...

Yet Another Fine Example Part Two

2007-01-31T09:07:00.000-05:00

Chris said:

This will be my final comment because it is clear that you have the gift to justify whatever you do or say, by the way which is a huge indicator of pride.

I find it odd that Chris would say that I'm trying to justify what he calls sarcasm while he paints his own rhetoric as "true feelings". He then goes on to intimate that on top of being hateful, I'm now being prideful. So let me get this straight; if someone defends their theology from attack then they're being prideful? If someone defends themself against ad hominum then they're being prideful?

My comments do reflect my sincere feelings. It's very wrong of you to judge them as anything other than just that,my sincere feelings...

Okay, so everything Chris says is his sincere feelings and I am wrong to judge them. Fine. But if this is the case then it is equally wrong for Chris to judge my response to him as sarcasm because I too was sincere in what I stated. So by his own standards, Chris is wrong in calling my comments sarcasm and his jab about me being prideful is equally wrong for the same reason.

I just don't understand how angels can rejoice over one lost soul receiving Christ when it was predetermined.

Well, Calvinists believe in predetermination and we don't have a problem rejoicing when we see a lost soul saved. Thus, It would seem that Chris' difficulty here is due to his theological presupposition of libertarianism. To a Calvinist, God is simply saving creatures that do not deserve anything other than damnation.

Let me ask you a question... Have you ever said something, knowing what you meant but it was misconstrued by someone else?

Here, Chris is still trying to justify Falwell's prayer that God not let anyone say no to His will. But if I have misconstrued what he meant (which I haven't since I am aware of what Falwell's soteriological stances are), so what? It is irrelevant as to what Falwell meant to say for the simple reason that what he actually said is inconsistent with his own theology. Thus, my statement that he tripped over his own tongue is still accurate.

So, in essence what you are saying is, you've never missed the will of God.

No, that is not what I'm saying. My acceptance of His word is by His grace and power and not of my own wisdom and understanding. No more, no less.

Sin is not the will of God but you do it anyway.

Was it God's will for Joseph's brothers to sell him into slavery? Was it God's will that the Assyrians plunder and destroy Israel? Was it God's will for men to crucify our Lord Jesus? If Chris says yes to any of these, then he effectively dismisses his own statement here. That is, each of these events were done according to God's will yet each of them involved sinful actions on the part of men. Reformed theology can account for this. Can Chris' theology do the same?

When you fail it is by your own consent, not God's.

Yes, but so? Who is claiming otherwise? Is Chris suggesting that we Calvinists believe that God "forces" men to choose the things that he does? If so, Chris has alot more studying to do.

What about David who was a man after God's own heart... was it God's will for him to fall?

Again, if Chris knew as much about Reformed theology as he should in order for him to successfully attack it, then he wouldn't need to ask this question.

I know this, Rom. 8:28 says He'll take our sin and use it to fulfill His perfect plan. That doesn't mean the sin we commit is His will it means that there is provision made.

This might be what Chris thinks Romans 8:28 means but it isn't what the verse says. The verse states that "...God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, those who are called according to His purpose." At best, Chris' statement is an unsupported assertion regarding the meaning of the verse. Moreover, is Chris aware that this verse is one of Calvinism's prooftexts? If not, then, again, Chris has a lot more studying to do if he wishes to successfully critique Reformed theology.

It is really cocky to portray one's self as a man who just never has missed the Lord's direction for his life.

So along with "hateful" and "prideful", I'm now "cocky". Chris' ad hominum's are starting to pile up. At any rate, this latest jab at my character is based on a misunderstanding of a previous point made (see above) thus nothing more need be said here.

My only concern is that we don't miss what's really important, winning the lost no matter the cost!

While I can appreciate Chris' zeal for evangelism, is Chris really willing to "win the lost no matter the cost"? Does this include sacraficing sound doctrine? Has Chris ever heard the saying that "what you win them with is what you win them to"?

I suppose the term "Hyper-Calvanist" would be a term that has been given to those who believe that some were created to populate Hell with absolutely no chance for redemption.

What Chris is saying here is that anyone who agrees with election and reprobation is a hyper-Calvinist. But this is so ridiculously wrong that it's almost humorous. I suppose Chris got this notion from listening to men like Ergun Caner who, despite his position at Liberty University, doesn't have a clue as to who is a hyper-Calvinist and who isn't. Indeed, I suspect that Ergun Caner doesn't care one way or the other and simply uses the term to spite Calvinists. At any rate, Chris would do well to follow this link and read up on what constitutes true hyper-Calvinism.

That doctrine makes the crucifixion a sideshow.

And Chris can only make this statement by first assuming without benefit of argument that the substitutional atonement of Christ was made for all men without exception. But this is just more question begging.

Why would Christ have died if the Lamb's book of Life were already filled out?

Upon reading this, one wonders if Chris has read Revelation 13:8 and 17:8. Both these verses explicitly state that the Book of Life had been written "from the foundation of the world". Now, that certainly sounds to me like it had indeed already been filled out.

Why would God send His son to suffer at the hands of His chosen people if salvation was predetermined?

Well, simply put, God has ordained the ends along with the means to those ends. Again, if Chris had done his homework before coming here to attack Calvinism, he wouldn't be asking these kinds of questions.

My theology says, like Christ, whosoever will may come.

So does my theology. Yet again, Chris is not aware of the real issue here. The real issue is *how* and *why* men come to Christ. Throwing out the above means that Chris must first assume that because men choose to come, it must mean by default that their decision was not predetermined. But this is just more question begging.

Once you've said yes, you are eternally secure.

So just how does that work in a libertarian theology? Does Chris really believe that you have the "free-will" to get yourself in a relationship with God but afterward you don't? To put it another way, if man can choose Christ of his own "free-will", why can't man then reject Christ of his own "free-will" afterward? Does Chris really believe that before you say "yes" you have free-will but afterwards you don't?

J. Matthew's theology says only a select few may come therefore making it a club.

Chris just can't resist reiterating his rhetorical nonsense about "clubs". At any rate, John 6:44 states that only those drawn to Christ may come to him and that those same ones will be raised to life. These individuals constitute the bride of Christ. If Chris wishes to keep refering to the Son's bride as a "club" then that's fine me as I won't be the one answering for it later on.

Even though I am eternally secure, I know my sin matters because it breaks the heart of God and reaps consequences.

Chris misses the point here. That is, to those who do not hold to eternal security, Chris' sin does not matter because it doesn't determine ultimate destiny after spiritual rebirth. This is why his theology is susceptible to this criticism that he leveled earlier at Calvinism. Thus, if sin doesn't matter to Calvinists, it doesn't matter to Chris' theology for the same reason.

J. Matthew's theology is really a strike against the preached word because as in his own words, "In my theology, God wills it and it is so." Wouldn't this mean that all of those who were meant to be saved would just automatically come to Christ?

Yet again, if Chris had studied up on Calvinism before attacking it, he would know that this just doesn't wash. As I pointed out above, God has ordained the means along with the ends. This means that the preaching of the word is an ordained method to bringing in God's elect. Thus, the preaching of the word becomes a necessity in bringing those to Christ who God has predestined for glory.

"Of course, Chris assumes without benefit of argument that the "old old story" is one of Arminian libertarianism and autonomy. Can anyone say, "question begging"?"

Makes no sense.

Here, Chris dodges a point I made previously about his habit of question begging. Actually, this is the second of two dodges but I'll let the first one slide in favor of time considerations. Now, Chris stated earlier that Calvinism "sucks the hope out of the old old story". But as I rightly pointed out, Chris can only say this by first assuming that his theology is correct. But the problem for him is that he is a long way from proving this. Thus, he begs the question by making such statements because he has yet to show that the "old old story" is about human autonomy.

You're exactly right about one thing. My theology does say that grace and mercy not extended to every soul defeats the purpose of grace and mercy.

Chris here admits that his theology places obligation on grace and mercy which now causes him no end of problems. Grace is defined as "the freely given, unmerited favor and love of God." The question that Chris must answer is, how can grace be both obligated and freely given at the same time? Indeed, if grace is obligated, then God owes it to man and it is no longer freely given. Grace, then, is no longer grace.

Yes I do affirm God's foreknowledge. He is Omniscient. What I do not affirm is that it was not His choice that John T. Sinner reject His son.

Here, Chris sidesteps the point regarding God's foreknowledge. So I'll reiterate. If God knows that Mr. Sinner is going to reject Him from the beginning of time, then history is somehow fixed. This means that when Mr. Sinner is actually born in time, he will live and die with no more than an illusory choice of where his eternal destiny lies. It cannot be any other way than what God knew it to be from the point of creation itself. It is this same dilemma that caused men such as Clark Pinnock, John Sanders, and Gregory Boyd to embrace open theism yet Chris refuses to even acknowledge the problem.

I'll leave this to you and all of your friends. I have a ministry to oversee and really don't have the time you have to spend on this type of thing.

Here, Chris states his intention of leaving this discussion because he simply has no time for it. Yet, Chris has commented on my blog several different times now since writing this and has even stated that he'll respond if there is anything that he would apparantly deem worthy responding to. So which is it? Will he continue this discussion or leave it? Has the restraints that his ministry places on him suddenly dissappeared or is Chris reserving an out for himself? I suppose we will have to wait and see.

Yet Another Fine Example

2007-01-27T18:13:00.000-05:00

In my previous posts, I've been pointing out the lack of any real interaction and argumentation coming from those who would attack Reformed theology. Since I started blogging about ten months ago, I've had several visitors come by to take a passing shot at Calvinism. Only two of those attempted to put up actual arguments but they ended up abandoning those arguments as soon as they were challenged. Last night, a fellow named "Chris" came by and left his thoughts on a post I did months ago concerning one of Ergun Caner's bad sermons. I would characterize Chris' post as yet another fine example of what I've been talking about recently, that being an almost total bankruptcy of argumentation from non-Calvinists. So without any further ado, let's take a look at what Chris has to say.

I would have to say that you are grasping at straws to say, "Falwell tripped over his own tongue".

I beg to differ and will elaborate on this in a moment.

It was clear in Dr. Caner's sermon that it is indeed the will of our Father for us all to come to His son for salvation.

I assume that what Chris means by "us all" is that God wills each and every individual man and woman to come to Christ and it may be clear in Caner's sermon that this is what both Caner and Falwell believe but there is nothing in Caner's sermon that establishes this notion. Caner, like so many non-Calvinists, assumes his interpretation of passages like 2Peter 3:9 without bothering to demonstrate that their's is the correct interpretation over and against the Calvinistic understanding.

I believe his prayer reflected that of one who desires that the lost be saved.

Yes, but so? Falwell's desire to see lost men saved doesn't justify his remark being inconsistent with his theology. Moreover, is Chris tacitly suggesting that Calvinists do not want to see sinners saved? I hope not because this notion would be utterly ridiculous and easily refuted.

I understand his prayer as asking the Spirit of God to strongly convict the sinner so that they would repond positively to the gospel.

This may be what Chris understands Falwell to mean but this isn't what Falwell said. Falwell specifically used the phrase "do not let one person say no". This phrase is couched in a statement and not part of a request. Further, this statement is not consistent with Falwell's libertarian theology. In other words, this is something only a Calvinist can say while being consistent with his own theology. Thus, my statement about Falwell tripping over his tongue is accurate.

I am one who allows the Spirit of God to guide me through prayer and Bible study.

And herein lies the rub. In Chris' theology, man allows God to do this or that. In Chris' theology, God is sovereign only by consent from those He rules. In Chris' theology, God's rule is reduced to mere Presidency. In stark contrast, I am one who allows nothing where my God's will is concerned. In my theology, God sees fit to give me wisdom and insight into His written word. In my theology, God wills it and it is so. In my theology, God is king over His creation and His will is not dependant on mere consent.

I believe in eternal security because it is a doctrine that is clearly spoken of in the word of God not because someone I look up to told me I should.

And I too believe in "eternal security" (minus, of course, any attached libertarian notions) and for the same reasons. I would hasten to add however that I believe in the other four points of Calvinism for the same reason that I believe in "eternal security". That is, all five points of Calvinism are clearly set forth in God's revealed word. It is for this reason that I embraced Reformed theology and continue to do so even after many interactions with folks like Chris.

I do not accept the doctrine that says God has predetermined and ear marked certain souls for Hell. I believe that according to what I have read and studied.

If Chris is refering to the doctrines of election and reprobation, then I can only say that I do accept these doctrines according to what I have read and studied. It would have been helpful if Chris would have defined what he means by "ear marked certain souls for hell" and interacted with what Calvinists have to say about election and reprobation.

I wanted to establish that because it is also my take that those who consider themselves "Hyper Calvinists" appear to be very hateful.

And here is where Chris' post takes a nose dive. Who is considering themselves to be hyper-Calvinists? Not I. Nor does anyone with whom I have linked to on my site along with those who frequent my blog. In fact, I have never met a self professed hyper-Calvinist on the 'net or anywhere else. Moreover, who is being hateful? In what way? Is Chris suggesting that anyone who calls themself a Calvinist of any stripe is hateful?

I suppose you feel as if you can be because you have been preselected for Heaven and your sinful attitude doesn't really matter to God seeings that you are part of the club.

Here, Chris throws out a couple of gross but common charicatures of Reformed theology in that our sin supposedly doesn't matter and that we are part of some sort of "club". For the first, Chris apparantly doesn't realize that everyone who holds to any form of eternal security gets this criticism about how sin doesn't really matter. Thus, Chris shoots himself in the foot for bringing this up without elaborating on how it relates to Reformed theology. As for the second, I have seen this one many times. It's often times thrown out by the most bitter of non-Calvinists who have interacted with Calvinists at length but haven't gotten anywhere. I can't help but wonder if Chris realizes that what he calls a "club" is what we Calvinists call the bride of Christ.

I guess I would have to wonder; if what you say is true of God really is, then what's the purpose? I mean, why experience life; so you can try to make everybody agree with your point of view?

This one is a bit confusing. That is, I think I know what Chris is asking but what he actually states ends up as a criticism against his own theology. In his view Chris must "win" as many people to Christ as possible which is all well and good. But those who hold to Chris' theology will very often go off the deep end with how they go about "making everyone agree" to accept Christ. Gimmicks and outright shameful tactics are often employed in libertarian churches to achieve this end. In contrast, a Calvinist will preach the gospel as it is, without compromise and gimmick, and leave it in God's capable hands. We do not go to absurd lengths to "win the lost at any cost" as some would say.

You paint a very grim picture of our God and for that you should be very ashamed.

And I would say that to posit God's impotence in the face of His creation's will is a far more grim portrayal of our God than anything a Calvinist can conjure.

You people suck the hope right out of the old old story.

Of course, Chris assumes without benefit of argument that the "old old story" is one of Arminian libertarianism and autonomy. This is of course begging the question.

Your point of view makes grace and mercy a myth and the prayer of the saintly Grandmother a waste of time.

I honestly don't know what Chris is going on about in regards to "saintly Grandmothers". But I do know that Calvinism is the truest expression of grace and mercy that I have come across simply because we don't place obligation on them. That is, in Chris' theology, God is only graceful and merciful if He offers all men without exception a libertarian choice to accept or reject Him. If God does not, then God is unjust according to Chris' theology. This makes grace and mercy an obligation and thus completely empties the two terms of any real meaning.

Do the world a favor and just keep your doctrine of destruction to yourself.

Of course, Chris doesn't show how Reformed theology is a doctrine of destruction. But that's just par for the course at this point. And despite the suggestion to the contrary, I intend to keep on blogging in defense of Calvinism as long as I am able. Sorry to disappoint you Chris!

Atleast then those who are supposedly on their way to Hell without a chance can enjoy the life they are living here on earth!

As I look at Chris' closing shot, I can't help but wonder if Chris has ever thought about his libertarian views in light of God's knowledge of future events. I assume that Chris affirms the foreknowledge of God so I would ask Chris how someone whom God knew would end up in hell from eternity past would have a "chance" to not go to hell? To put it another way, let's say that before God creates the world, He foresees that John T. Sinner is going to live and die without Christ. Several thousand years later John is born. Now, does John have a real chance at changing his destiny? If yes, then Chris throws out God's knowledge of all things for the sake of human autonomy because had John went to heaven, God's knowledge would be falsified. If Chris says no, then John T. Sinner never had anything more than an illusory chance at salvation and thus Chris' own position bears the brunt of the criticism he's leveling at Calvinism. So Chris can pick his poison.

Now, I invite Chris to come back to elaborate and defend his statements and to do so without all the emotionally charged rhetoric that he has displayed thus far. Only then will we be able to have a constructive dialogue if in fact dialogue is what Chris seeks. However, I think most folks would readily agree that dialogue is not what Chris had in mind when he posted his comments to my blog.

Dennis Clough Strikes Again

2006-12-24T03:27:00.000-05:00

Readers of this blog may remember a charming fellow by the name of Dennis Clough who argued here on my blog that the story of Cain and Abel refuted the Calvinistic position on a number of issues. Readers of this blog may also remember that Mr. Clough became very emotional and outright nasty in his posts and was warned several times to either control himself or go elsewhere with his tirades. In the end, he disappeared leaving various points and issues sitting on the table. Several days ago however, Mr. Clough resurfaced after six whole months and sort of picked up where he left off on the Cain and Abel issue. Here is how he chooses to dust off his arguments in that particuliar thread:

You aren't half as tired of my comments as I am of the conclusions of Calvinism which will not stand the light of Scripture. And it's actually funny to be accused of repeation from the Calvinist camp! They who crank out endless books "explaining" Calvinism over and over again to the fully indoctrinated lest they forget exactly how many hairs there were on Calvin's head. The rank and file are so inundated with the flood of cookie cutter books they have little time to read the Word itself it would seem.

And then if there are not the proper "oohs" and "ahhs" from the choir at each presentation of the faded and frayed "tulip" , there will be recriminations! It will be suggested that one is not intellectual, perhaps the unpardonable sin to a Calvinist!

After all, didn't Jesus carefully seek out educated fishermen and indoctrinate them in the theological maze of Calvinism? Peter, James and John were trained theologians, having graduated from the Seminary of Full Nets with a degree in sheep feeding! Not sure if this qualified them to be serious Calvinists however, especially since they were too busy writing Scripture that refutes those nefarious doctrines to actually study Calvinism. Too bad, they could have really done something for God if they were better equipped!

As anyone reading this can readily see, this latest broadside by Mr. Clough is woefully short on substance. There is no mention of any of the issues that he left six months ago nor does he even try to salvage his arguments regarding Cain. The post is nothing but emotionally charged rhetoric which is what his posts devolved into before he disappeared (for further examples see here and here) and thus requires no direct interaction from me. One would think that after so many months Mr. Clough would have been able to calm down enough to actually engage the issues surrounding Calvinism. But ironically, I suppose I should thank Mr. Clough for his latest jab at Calvinism because it only serves to highlight and reinforce my comments and observations from my previous post on the bankruptcy of argumentation from non-Calvinists.

Missing The Mark

2006-12-04T14:21:00.000-05:00

About a month ago someone named Evelyn had this to say in response to my blog in general:

Calvanism: How do you explaine this?

Passage 2 Peter 2:20:
20If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning.

1 Corinthians 15:2:
2By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.

To which I responded with:

Hi Evelyn,

Explain what? Calvinism affirms the truthfulness of these passages just as much as they do the truthfulness of such passages as John 6 and Romans 9. If you believe that the two passages you have quoted somehow contradicts my position then you will need to present an argument for me to consider. As it stands, all you've done here is prooftext under the guise of posing a question.

I haven't heard back from Evelyn so I would like to go ahead and briefly comment further on her passing shot at Calvinism.

Aside from the fact that she's obviously prooftexting, she simply misses the mark. Her quoting of 2Peter 2 and 1Corinthians 15 appears to be aimed at the doctrine of "the perseverance of the saints". Since this doctrine is the logical and theological conclusion of other more basic and foundational doctrines (i.e. God's sovereignty, the nature of man's will, election and reprobation etc.), her passing shot is virtually meaningless. It's like she's trying to stop a train by disabling the caboose or killing a rattlesnake by cutting off it's tail. It's simply not going to get her anywhere and only serves to highlight the bankruptcy of argumentation from the non-Calvinist side and further strengthens my convictions in regards to Calvinism being the truest expression of the gospel of our Lord.

When Ignorance Isn't Bliss

2006-10-29T01:30:00.000-05:00

The other day, my family and I were eating out at a local resturant. We were in a section that had one other large family sitting in it. At one point the other families' discussion grew more audible and we could tell that they were discussing the bible. It was at this point that we were privy to this interesting tidbit:

The bible was written in Hebrew, then translated into jewish. From jewish, it was translated again into the King James.

Now, it isn't neccessary for me to go into a correction of the above quote for the simple reason that if you are reading this blog then you probably have an idea of how our english bibles came to be. I suppose the only thing I would like to say about this episode is that if people are going to be this ignorant, they should at least do it in the privacy of their own homes because they never know when their ignorance might appear on the 'net as someone else's blog fodder!

To My Readers (both real and imagined)

2006-10-16T15:06:00.000-05:00

I would like to apologize to anyone out there who might visit this blog regularly (especially you Tom) as I have not blogged on anything in over a month. Much of my online time the past month has been spent engaged in drawn-out dialogues with some pretty nasty anti-Calvinists on a certain message board. Engaging these kinds of people is quite time consuming and can mire a body down in so much theological muck as to cause a person to wonder why they bother in the first place. I have to keep reminding myself that somebody has to do it. Why? Because really bad anti-Calvinist argumentation is rampant on message boards like the one I frequent. These arguments are like bad rumors. No matter how far out that rumor may be, it will be spread and even believed by folks who should know better or, worse yet, by those who don't know any better. It is folks like these in this latter group for whom I dirty myself. These are the folks who have never been exposed to the doctrines of grace and thus are the most susceptible to being duped by rabid anti-Calvinists. Then there are the "fence sitters". These are the folks that are almost convinced of the truthfulness of the doctrines of grace and are waiting for someone to confront and refute something they may have read by an anti-Calvinist. Thus, I roll up my sleeves, don my oxygen tank, and wade in. But fear not my loyal readers (both real and imagined), I have no intentions of abandoning my blog as so many others do these days. I will continue to post here and, God willing, more frequently than in recent weeks.

Simple Math

2006-09-14T19:54:00.000-05:00

"Sola gratia", or "grace alone" is a doctrine that is affirmed by the vast majority of protestant Christianity. But it has been my experience that protestants outside of the reformed traditions only pay lip service to this doctrine. That is, they will affirm sola gratia on the one hand, while emptying the term of all meaning on the other. Case in point:

We believe in salvation by "Grace" plus nothing and minus nothing. The conditions to salvation are repentance and faith in Jesus the Christ:

This statement comes from Covington Seminary's statement of faith. Immediatly, the Calvinist sees a very basic problem. It is here stated that salvation is by grace plus nothing and minus nothing. Leaving the "minus" out, we can put it another way:

Grace + Nothing = Salvation

G + N = S

Now, this would be in accordance with Sola Gratia if the statement stopped here. But it doesn't. The statement goes on to say that salvation is conditioned on two other things. That is, two conditions are added to the above formula so that now we have:

Grace + Faith + Repentance = Salvation

G + F + R = S

As just stated, the problem is obvious to a Calvinist. The statement started with positing that salvation came by grace plus or minus nothing only to turn around and say that salvation came by grace, repentance, and faith. In the above formulas, nothing (N) cannot be equivalent to faith (F) and repentance (R) because to suggest this would be to deny the reality of faith and repentance in Christian doctrine. Thus, for the Christian, it is one or the other and not both. And while I'm sure that Covington Theological Seminary is a fine institution of Christian learning, someone over there needs some classes in remedial math.

Visitors From The Blogosphere

2006-09-04T00:08:00.000-05:00

This Labor Day, I would like to give a shout-out to all the reformed bloggers who have taken the time to post their thoughts here at Conversations.

Mike Ratliff of Possessing the Treasure - Mike was the first to link my blog on his site (many thanks Mike!). One of Mike's most recent posts discusses the crucial doctrine of justification by faith alone.

Bob Ladwig of The Puritan's Sword - Bob has recently drawn attention to the fact that Joel Osteen has released a board game version of his "Best Life Now" book (oh brother).

Thomas W.S. of Doctrine Matters - Tom's latest post is an excerpt from John Newton's "Evil Long I Took Delight". Check it out!

Bartimaeus of The Five Points of Calvinism Defended - Bartimaeus' most recent entry highlights an excerpt from the August 2006 issue of Tabletalk written by RC Sproul.

J.D. of Did You Hear What You Just Said? - J.D.'s most recent entry is 3 months old but is still an eye-opening testimony to the lengths that non-Calvinists will go to in arguing against the doctrines of grace. In my opinion, J.D. should post more often because, as my previous entry shows, there are plenty of "Arminian sayings" on the web to draw attention to.

Jason Robertson of Fide-O - Yeah I know, as if this guy needs a plug from me! Anyway Jason's most recent post concerns the covenant of works and is, as always, an interesting read.

Pilgrim of Slaves of Righteousness - Pilgrim's latest is a light-hearted comparison between himself and Charles Spurgeon.

David McCrory of Covenant Corner - David recently linked to an eye-opening article that discusses Wal-Mart's involvment with homosexual activism.

Lady Raven of The Reforming of the Raven - Now, "Lady Raven" has several different blogs that appear to be dedicated to several of her many (and unusual) interests. From what I can tell, the one I've linked to here is where she blogs on her views as a reformed Christian. This entry is particuliarly interesting as she discusses what it means to be offended in our day.

And lastly, Gene Bridges of Triablogue and Strange Baptist Fire - Gene reportedly had a rough time of it this past week so everyone is encouraged to pray for him. Also, I would like to thank Gene for letting all us Star Trek fans know about the new SFX in upcoming episodes of the original Star Trek!

Anti-Calvinism Quote Of The Day

2006-08-27T12:18:00.000-05:00

A long-time poster over at Zola Levitt's message board who goes by the screen-name "Littlesooz", has posted a comment in response to a quote from Loraine Boettner. I've looked at this quote all morning trying to figure out how it relates to the quote from Boettner and I can't make heads nor tails of it. Anyway, here is the quote:

Well, I would say that is true if one serves a Ku Klux Clan god.

As I said, I don't see how this relates to Boettner's statements and even if it did, how does this really answer what Boettner was saying? A one-liner like this isn't going to refute anything and only calls into question the credibility of the person posting it. And as I've previously pointed out in reference to similiar statements, this person may very well have to answer for it.

Dave Hunt: The Man, The Myth, The Dishonesty

2006-08-21T00:32:00.000-05:00

In the reformed communities, Dave Hunt's name has become synonymous with such terms and phrases as, misrepresentation, ad hominem, charicature, poor research, and dishonesty. This concensus stems largely from Dave Hunt's polemical work entitled, "What Love Is This?". This work hit the bookshelves in 2002 and almost immediately, James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries began the tedious task of documenting the errors that permeated the pages of "What Love Is This?" (hereafter referred to as WLIT). It wasn't long before Dave Hunt's own ministry began to lose revenue due to WLIT and eventually was forced into publishing the work himself thru his own ministry due to his publisher refusing to put out the second edition. Amazingly, Hunt has recently released a third edition of WLIT despite the fact that he is still being forced to self-publish the book.

Now, as mentioned above, James White has documented many gross errors contained within WLIT (both first and second editions) and others that have sprang from Dave Hunt's ministry and writing. Some examples of White's documentation are:

Hunt's statement that Charles Spurgeon "unequivocally" denied limited atonement (see here)
Hunt's endorsement of the New World Translation's rendering of Acts 13:48 (see here)
Hunt's exegetical error on 1John 5:1 and the subsequent retraction of his statements in regards to the same in the second edition of WLIT (see here)
Hunt blaming the refusal of his publisher to print the second edition of WLIT on some great "Calvinistic conspiracy" (see here)
The now infamous "Hebrew original" of Acts 1-15 (see here)

After reading thru these examples coupled with listening to White's audio files, one wonders how anyone in their right mind could endorse Dave Hunt's work. Indeed, I was surprised to find an individual recently who not only bought WLIT, but was aggressively defending both Hunt and his book. And what's sad is that no matter how many times Hunt's errors are demonstrated, this individual believes Hunt to be right and everyone else to be wrong including Laurence Vance whose criticism on parts of WLIT was written off by this individual as being biased.

Also, this person at one point linked to a Q & A section of Hunt's site in which I found this interesting tidbit:

Sadly, with few exceptions, most of the Calvinists who write to me make similar unsupported charges. For example, see James White's response to my book, What Love Is This? -Dave Hunt

This statement was made in response to a letter Hunt receieved that was critical of his work in regards to Calvinism. The charges made against Hunt are similiar, if not identical to many of White's own criticisms of Hunt. Yet, Hunt says that not only are the charges unsupported, but White's charges are equally unsupported. Undoubtedly, Hunt is referring to White's open letter that was written and posted to White's site soon after WLIT was released. And as anyone can see, White's open letter (which is also linked above) is lengthy and full of documentation of White's charges. In light of this, I dare say that Hunt's statement above is a bold-faced lie. There simply is no other way of looking at it. For Hunt to dismiss White's open letter as "unsupported charges", is outright dishonesty on Hunt's part. It is precisely this, coupled with the documentation on James White's site, that justifies and strengthens the reformed community's opinion of Hunt and his work. And it is this sort of thing that is ignored and/or explained away by ardent supporters of Hunt such as the aforementioned individual. Indeed, since White's documentation shows Hunt to be immune to correction, can we really expect Hunt's supporters to be any different?

The Servetus Maneuver

2006-08-15T07:27:00.000-05:00

I love Star Trek. Specifically, I love the "Next Generation". I remember one of the earlier episodes in which Captain Picard, while on board his previous ship, the Stargazer, had been brainwashed into believing that he was re-living a past battle in which he was forced to destroy an attacking ship. During that battle, Picard came up with an unorthadox maneuver that would eventually be labeled, the "Picard Maneuver", a tactic that had no known defense. So while brainwashed and still aboard the Stargazer, Picard believed that the Enterprise was the attacking ship from the past and was preparing to repeat his patented maneuver. But as one may guess, the crew of the Enterprise did figure a way out of the whole situation and they went on to explore the galaxy happily ever after.

In like manner, non-Calvinists and unbelievers alike will employ the "Servetus Maneuver" whenever they are faced with Calvinist opposition. This tactic is often used as a last ditch effort when confronted with superior argumentation or, in place of an argument to begin with because everyone knows the "Servetus Maneuver" cannot be defended. Or, so the non-Calvinist assumes. The problem with the "Servetus Maneuver" is that those who employ it have great difficulty answering the question of just why the burning of Servetus automatically falsifies Calvin's theological viewpoints. The main thrust of this tactic is to paint Calvin as being as tyrannical and blood-thirsty as Vlad the Impaler himself, so that anything and everything about the man was just wrong. But even if it be granted that Calvin was a religous Hitler, the logical fallacy remains. The one employing this tactic is still left with refuting Calvin's views biblically. At any rate, both Steve Hays and Gene Bridges of Triablogue have recently addressed the issue of Servetus and everyone is encouraged to peruse their handling of this issue.

Pelagius Wannabe

2006-08-10T07:25:00.000-05:00

An anonymous commenter going by the name "Pelagius", visited my blog recently and posted his thoughts on a particuliar entry of mine, and on Calvinism in general. Here is what he said (with my comments interspersed):

I laud you for your intellectual honesty even though I am a Finney Presbyterian and disagree with your theology.

A Finney Presbyterian? Didn't that used to be an oxymoron?

As you point out in your post, most Calvinists deny that under their system of theology; which is predicated on the Eternal Decree; God is according to Reformed theology - the author of sin.

Pelagius seems to think that I believe God to be the author of evil whereas, most Calvinists do not. But what I stated was that, while Calvinists deny that God is the author of evil, they will admit to God being the ultimate cause of all things and that nothing occurs but by His will. As I pointed out in my last blog entry, Calvinists use the term "author" differently in theological contexts. The Westminster Confession of Faith states:

God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes tatken away, but rather established...

I, and every Calvinist author I have read affirm these words. So what Pelagius fails to do is to address how the Calvinist defines the term "author" in theological contexts, and also fails to address the distinction between *primary* and *secondary* causation. Since Pelagius offers no argumentation to these distinctions, nothing further need be said here.

Calvinism is a system of necessity and precludes any liberty, free will, free agency or second causes.

Yes, Calvinism is a system of necessity but it does not preclude liberty, free-will, or free-agency. What Pelagius is doing here is smuggling in his views of Libertarianism and human autonomy under the guise of these terms. He fails to mention the competing theories of man's will such as Compatiblism. Like most non-Calvinists, Pelagius assumes his particuliar theory of man's will without benefit of argument.

When theologians attempt to get around this logical truth, they create a host of philosophical and logical problems and inconsistencies.

Notice how Pelagius proceeds to criticize Calvinism based on his unsupported assumptions of how free-will and liberty are properly defined. This is the fallacy known as "question begging".

Surprisingly Hodge's Systematic Theology is full of contradictions and errors - all because he wants to maintain the concept of free agency and free will;

Notice again how Pelagius does not offer us any examples of Hodge's supposed contradictions and errors. Though I haven't read Hodge's Systematic Theology, I assume that Hodge at some point affirms free-will and free-agency but defines these terms according to deterministic/compatiblistic thinking. If so, then Pelagius is still begging the question because he hasn't bothered to demonstrate just why Libertarian free-will is correct and why compatiblistic free-will is in error.

"I must admit, the scriptures that you have quoted do not charge God with sin."

Nor did I mean for them to. The verses I briefly examined address God's relationship to evil. I have never claimed that God sins nor do I know of any Calvinist who has. Undoubtedly, Pelagius means to say that he disagrees with my assesment of the verses covered in my article. But again, he offers no argument which causes me to wonder what this fellow's purpose was in posting this response since without supporting argumentation to the assertions made, it is pointless.

The Face of Evil

2006-08-06T10:07:00.000-05:00

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools... Romans 1:18-22 NIV

These will wage war against the Lamb, and the Lamb will overcome them, because He is Lord of lords and King of kings, and those who are with Him are the called and chosen and faithful...For God has put it in their hearts to execute His purpose by having a common purpose, and by giving their kingdom to the beast, until the words of God will be fulfilled. Revelation 17:14 & 17 NASB

Response To "Alpha"

2006-07-19T20:54:00.000-05:00

"Alpha" had this to say in response to my earlier post titled, "God's Relationship to Evil":

Thank you for allowing me to respond to your post. I am not a Calvinist or Reformed Doctrine follower but perhaps we both can learn from one another.

And thank you for taking the time to post your thoughts on what I have written. But before we go any further, I would like to clarify that I do not "follow" anything or anyone other than Christ. I mention this so as to hopefully avoid any accusations that I follow Calvin instead of Christ. As long as this canard is avoided, I believe that we may indeed be able to learn something here. Moving on:

I list below a very clear section of scripture from the Lord in Jeremiah 19. Verse 5 clearly refutes the reformed position and the following claim within your earlier post-“However, the Calvinist at some point must admit that Reformed theology affirms God as the ultimate cause of all things and thatnothing occurs but by His will”.

Jeremiah 19:5 reads:

and have built the hight places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire as burnt offerings to Baal, a thing which I never commanded or spoke of, nor did it ever enter My mind; NASB

In Jeremiah 19, the LORD is rebuking Israel for turning to heathen gods (in this case Baal) and for offering their sons as burnt offerings. Verse 5 states that God did not command or speak these things to the Israelites. The LORD further states that these things the Israelites were doing did not "enter His mind". Alpha's contention seems to be focused on this last phrase. Apparantly, these things not "entering" the mind of God refutes the notion that God decrees all things that take place. But why should we accept this? Alpha doesn't present an argument for why Jeremiah 19:5 contradicts Calvinism. Alpha simply says it does. As it is, the verse is recording God's assurance that He did not in any way command or approve the actions of the Israelites. Alpha needs to demonstrate a contradiction between what is written in v. 5 with the Calvinistic notions of God's preceptive will and decretal will.

Mat 23:37, Acts 7:49-52, and Proverbs 1:22-31 are additional scriptures to support that not all things are authored by the Lord.

I do not see anything in Acts 7 or Proverbs 1 that speaks directly to the issues at hand. As for Matthew 23:37, much can be (and has been) said here. Calvinists have written extensively on this verse and have effectively removed it from the arsenal of the non-Calvinist. For a thorough exegetical discussion of Matthew 23, click here.

I maintain that GOD permits all things for HIS ultimate GLORY.

And I would say that God "works all things after the counsel of His will". I see no reason to maintain that God merely permits things to happen in light of the fact that none of the verses I covered stated anything about God merely "permitting" evil. Further, this would be a double-standard. That is, folks who hold the view that God permits evil that He knew about before hand but did nothing to stop it, is guilty of inconsistency in that these same folks would hold any person accountable for the same thing. For example, a lifeguard that "permitted" a child to drown because he simply didn't feel like getting wet on that particuliar day, would be held accountable for the child's death (and probably buried under the jail to boot). So the obvious question is, since God isn't being held accountable, why is man?

Moving on:

The Bible says he changes not:

And I agree. It was never my argument that He does.

Now to address the verses in question.

Yes, lets. But, for the sake of brevity and simplicity, I am going to address one commentary at a time. In other words, if Alpha wishes to interact with this post, we can discuss the verses in question and Alpha's comments on those verses one post at a time in either the comments section of this post or the home page.

The first verse I would like to address in regards to Alpha's comments is Acts 4:28. Alpha said:

My reply to this is statement is to turn your Bible to Acts 2:23 and see emphatically where through GODS foreknowledge the cast of characters you listed earlier would crucify our beloved Jesus.

In order to answer what Acts 4:28 states, Alpha takes us to Acts 2:23 where the term "foreknowledge" is mentioned (incidentally, this is what I originally said would be done by a non-Calvinist). The problem here is that Alpha assumes that the term "foreknowledge" means what he thinks it means but provides no supporting argument. In other words, Alpha fails to demonstrate that God determines because He foreknows instead of God foreknowing because He determines. The text of Acts 2 does not lay out the "simple foreknowledge" view that Alpha apparantly endorses. So in order for Alpha to succeed in refuting my comments on Acts 4, he would need to demonstrate the simple foreknowledge view (mere prescience) from the text of scripture.

I also wish to thank you for allowing me to post on your blog. I realize that it may stretch very long but it was necessary to clarify and perhaps enlighten others in the future. It is my hope that what I have offered is of help.

And, again, thanks for taking the time to post your thoughts. Now, as to your comments on clarifying and enlightening myself or any other Calvinists who may read what you have posted, I must say that you will need to present arguments for all that you contend since much of what you posted was assertive in nature. That is, many of the scriptures you posted or cited to counter what I originally discussed in my article was not accompanied by argumentation (such as Mat. 23:37). As I said above, if you wish to continue to dialogue on the verses in dispute, we can begin at Acts 4.

God Bless You... alpha

And may God bless you as well.

Anti-Calvinism At It's Worst

2006-07-03T16:46:00.000-05:00

Every Calvinist who has spent any time trying to witness to others the truth of the doctrines of grace has experienced what can only be called "anti-Calvinism". Anti-Calvinism can be characterized by sheer hatred of the doctrines of grace and the willingness to attack them by any means neccessary. Every logical fallacy from ad hominem to outright dishonesty can and will be employed by anti-Calvinists in order to gain any percieved ground in their holy war against what is so plainly taught in scripture. The single most shameful fact in this is that the typical anti-Calvinist is a professing Christian. These professing Christians will drop every standard of holiness, civility, and honesty in order to paint Calvinism in the worst light possible. Nothing can be more saddening than to watch a brother act like a trial lawyer, skillfully sowing the seeds of doubt to get his guilty client off the hook.

Now, I occasionally visit one of those web boards where folks can post on various topics related to and about Christian doctrine and I ran across one such anti-Calvinist named Bill Johnston. I attempted a dialogue with Bill because he seemed sincere and willing to openly discuss issues related to the doctrines of grace. Unfortunatly, Bill turned out to be one of the worst anti-Calvinists that I've ran across. What makes Bill such a bad anti-Calvinist is the fact that he knows very little about Calvinism and has admitted such. In fact, Bill makes Dennis Clough look scholarly. Below are some of Bill's statements from the aforementioned web board and my comments concerning them. I believe it's worth calling attention to this sort of behavior due to the fact that so many professing Christians will engage in it. It is my hope that at least one non-Calvinist out there will read this and evaluate if his/her argumentation is any better. note: these quotes do not appear in chronological order.

No, you chose to believe God is unjust by providing salvation for some, but not for others. You've been lied to, pal!

Bill says that Calvinists believe God to be unjust. Of course, we don't and Bill has been told this but Bill doesn't care. Bill believes that if God doesn't give all men since the time of Christ a chance to "get saved" then God is unjust. When I confronted Bill about those who lived in the new world and Australia during and immediatly after the time of Christ, and how they might have recieved the gospel, his response was one of those "All I know is..." statements. Bill still hasn't faced this issue squarely.

But, I don't suppose you guys witness to anyone, since you don't know who is chosen and who isn't, right?

Here, Bill muses that Calvinists do not witness to folks because we don't know who the elect are. Bill has been corrected on this as well but he has refused to listen. At any rate, Calvinists witness to any and all precisely because we don't know who the elect are. Calvinists believe that preaching is the means to God's ends in bringing His elect to His Son. In other words, we believe that God ordains the means along with the ends. Thus, preaching to all is in complete harmony with Calvinistic theology.

Jesus told us to go preach the Gospel to everybody, so it's obvious He didn't believe like you do. Thank God

Yes, Jesus told us to preach to all men. As stated above, Calvinists affirm this. But notice how Bill doesn't attempt a demonstration of just how the great commission contradicts anything in Calvinistic theology. Bill relies almost entirely on assertive argumentation and, at times, outright dishonesty.

It's also funny to hear folks like yourself claim that not all are chosen for salvation, but somehow all the people that claim this have been chosen

Kinda like how when the Christian witnesses to the lost, all the while believing that he himself is going to heaven while the person he is witnessing to is headed for hell, right? Oh, and never mind that Christians are referred to as "the chosen" many times in scripture.

That's always funny to me! Are there any in your group that have been chosen to go to hell?

What's funny is that this statement is no different than suggesting that a Christian is hell-bound. Further, this question is loaded and designed to mock Calvinism. It demonstrates unequivically that Bill is not serious about any of the issues surrounding the doctrines of grace. Since he cannot hope to refute Calvinism with such argumentation, what reason is there for him to act in this manner outside of sheer spite?

I've never heard such a crock of cr*ap in all my life that God created some people to go to hell, which obviously means you believe it is God's will for some folks to burn forever!

Aside from the fact that Bill is having to censure himself, this question bears just as much on his own position. For instance, Bill believes that God had perfect knowledge of all future things. This means that God knew that the majority of mankind would reject Him and end up in hell. But God chose to create anyway knowing these people would live and die without ever having hope that things would turn out different. If they did, then God's knowledge would be imperfect. So can Bill explain why God created men who had no hope of salvation? Would Bill even acknowledge the problem beyond "All I know is..."?

Bill takes his argumentation to new lows with these next two statements...

That's right, because I refuse to see things from the devil's point of view!

What? Now, why would I want to allow the devil to decieve me into believing like you?

The first statement was in response to me pointing out that he is attacking a belief system that he knows little about. Again I ask, what is to be gained in this kind of argumentation? It cannot be a concern for truth because there is no demonstration of truth in either of these statements. Again, I can only conclude that what is driving Bill at this point is pure spite.

This is classic cultism that claims "we are all saved, but God appointed some from outside our little group to go to hell....but, none of us of course because we are all saved!"

You tell those calvin cult followers!

Here in these two quotes, Bill resorts to calling Calvinists "cultists" (nevermind the fact that he doesn't bother to show just why). Since cults lie outside of what's accepted as Christianity, I can only conclude that Bill's opinion of Calvinists is that they are not Christians. Now, if Calvinists who believe this about non-Calvinists are called "hyper-Calvinists", why can't Bill be called a "hyper-Arminian"? At any rate, belief in predestination does not qualify anyone for cult status anymore than does believing that musical instruments are not acceptable for worship.

calvinism is nothing more than a pimple on the butt of the Body of Christ. One that needs to be popped!

This one I'll let stand without commentary as it says more than I could hope to about Bill's argumentation.

If you truly believe God fixed things so some people don't have any way of getting saved, then you serve a mean, ugly, evil god!

Only at death will any of us know for certain if we were right in accepting or rejecting Calvinism. If Bill is wrong in rejecting it, then he will one day stand before God to give an account for what he has said about Him publically all the while professing to be His child.

So, what is a "Calvinist" believe anyway? Can you name off a few points of exactly what they believe?

I don't follow calvin, or armin, or any other such foolishness. I simply read what God says and believe it.

Here, in these final two quotes, Bill displays his lack of knowledge concering this ancient debate. He asks what a Calvinist believes from, oddly enough, a non-Calvinist. The problem here is obvious. Instead of interacting with Calvinists about their beliefs, he chooses to ask a non-Calvinist for information while continuing to belittle and attack Calvinists. He further says that he does not follow Calvin or Armin (Armin?). Anyway, there is certainly nothing wrong with ignorance. We are all ignorant of a great many things. The problems begin when one tries to attack something that he doesn't understand. This axiom has been shown to be true too many times to count. Bill has been told that he doesn't understand Calvinism but that doesn't seem to matter to him. What little Bill knows, he hates. And as of this writing, Bill is still at it with no more knowledge than when he first started making the kinds of statements quoted above. As a professing Christian, Bill is supposed to be a lover of truth no matter what that truth might be. To know the truth requires a willingness to investigate. Bill lacks this quality and I believe that only God can give it to him. For the sake of those who frequent that particuliar message board, may it be soon. And for the Calvinists who frequent this blog, may your contact with anti-Calvinists such as Bill be few and far between!

The Conversion of Lydia

2006-07-01T13:55:00.000-05:00

Sometime ago, I happened upon a web page critiquing Calvinism that was written by a self-professed former Calvinist named Steve Jones. During Mr. Jones' discussions on the five points, he briefly mentions the story of Lydia found in Acts 16. Here are his comments:

The conversion of Lydia (Acts 16:14) does not prove the Calvinist's point. God was not here opening the heart of a totally depraved rebel. She was already "a worshipper of God," not a so-called "spiritual corpse."

Mr. Jones' argument appears to be that Lydia was already a believer. Thus, the reference to God opening her heart should not be understood as God causing Lydia to accept the Gospel message. Rather, this would be looked at as some sort of post-conversion blessing being bestowed by God. Now, I didn't then, nor do I now believe that Mr. Jones' brief treatment of Acts 16 is compelling and worth even responding to. However, I saw where a commenter on a reformed blog used this same argument recently. This caused me to wonder if Mr. Jones' understanding of Lydia's conversion was a common one so I thought that I would go ahead and offer a few observations.

First, here is Acts 16:14 as it reads in the NASB under the heading of (ironically) "First Convert in Europe":

A woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple fabrics, a worshiper of God, was listening; and the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul.

The verse states that God opened Lydia's heart so that she would respond to Paul's preaching. The very next verse states that Lydia and her house-hold were baptized after this response to Paul's preaching. The Calvinist argument is that Lydia, despite being a "worshipper of God" was not a Christian convert before Paul's sermon. Her acceptance of Paul's words came only after God enabled her to respond. Lydia's conversion to Christianity at this point is evidenced by her baptism afterwards. Also, the Calvinist's view of free-will (i.e. compatiblism) is consistent with these events as described by the biblical narrative.

Now, Mr. Jones' objection seems to be based solely on the phrase "worshipper of God". He appears to be assuming that this phrase demands one to be a Christian convert. But I would only point out that the Pharisees themselves were "worshippers of God". Indeed, modern practicing Jews can be said to be "worshippers of God". Even Christ Himself stated that people honor Him with their lips while their hearts were far from Him (Matthew 15:8,9). Obviously, this phrase does not demand a Christian conversion. Also, if Lydia were already a Christian, why would God need to open Lydia's heart to respond to Paul's preaching? Why would Lydia put off baptism until that point if she were already converted? It would seem that in order for Mr. Jones' interpretation to hold up he would need to:

explain why the term "worshipper of God" can only be applied to Christians
show that Lydia's response was something other than regeneration
explain why Lydia was not baptized until her encounter with Paul

Until these issues are dealt with by non-Calvinists who are in agreement with Mr Jones, I see no reason to amend my original evaluation of Mr. Jones' comments on Lydia's conversion.

Dennis Clough and Luke 19:10

2006-06-09T12:25:00.000-05:00

Readers of my humble blog are no doubt aware that a fellow named Dennis Clough has become a regular visitor here at Conversations. But readers here may not be aware that Mr. Clough is indirectly responsible for the recent increase in visitors to my blog because it was he whom I was responding to on Alan Kurschner's site when Alan graciously recommended my blog to his readers. There is tremendous irony in this because Mr. Clough hates Calvinism and has visited several reformed blogs of late making this known (see for instance Mr. Clough's post here and the many refutations he receieved in response). Despite his visits to these other blogs, Mr. Clough has decided to pitch his tent here, which is fine (that is, as long as he behaves himself) because Mr. Clough has given me much to blog about in the past week or so. Take for example Mr. Clough's assertions in regards to Luke 19:10. Mr. Clough has contended on both Alan's site and here that Luke 19:10 somehow refutes the Calvinistic interpretation of John 6:44. But as we are about to see, Mr. Clough's assertions are not justified.

Here is Luke 19:10 as it reads in the NASB:

For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost.

Here, Luke records Jesus as saying that He has come to seek and to save that which was lost. This is a statement by our Lord in regards to His mission here on earth. The question that needs to be answered is just whom is Christ seeking to save? Is it all mankind or a specific group of people? Before we answer this, let's look at two other statements describing our Lord's earthly mission.

The first of these two will be Matthew 1:21 which reads:

She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins. NASB

This was spoken to Joseph by an angel of the Lord. The angel is telling Joseph who Jesus is and what he is coming to do. Jesus' mission is to save His people from their sins. So again, who is it that Jesus saves from their sins? The text states that it is His people who is saved from their sins. So Mr. Clough has two options here. He can insist that all people are Jesus' people or he can say that only some are His. If Mr. Clough chooses all people, then Jesus failed in His mission because not all are saved. If he chooses some people, he must give an answer as to who these people are. The Calvinist of course, says this group is none other than the elect. If not the elect, then who? Mr. Clough might claim that the Jewish nation is in view here. But if this is so, again, Jesus failed in His mission because not all Jews are saved. Clearly, the Calvinistic interpretation is preferred.

The next verse I wish to look at before returning to Luke is John 6:38 & 39 which read:

For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. NASB

Here in John 6, Jesus states that His earthly mission is to do the Father's will and that the Father's will is that Jesus lose none of those whom the Father has given Him and to raise them to life. Now, the first thing to notice is just who it is that Christ will not be losing. This is a specific group of people that the Father has given Him. If Mr. Clough tries to insert "all men" here, then what he ends up with is either Universalism or the notion that Christ failed to do the Father's will. Both of these are unacceptable so, what does Mr. Clough do here?

So far, Matthew states Jesus will save His people from their sin, and John says that Jesus will do the Father's will by raising to life all those given to Him. What then of Luke 19:10? We have already noted that v. 10 states that Jesus has come to seek and to save that which was lost. In light of the previous verses, those whom Jesus seeks are His own people. Further, these people are the same ones that the Father has given Him in order to raise them to life. But this is not all. Luke 19:10 falls within the story of Zaccheus the tax collector being converted. Jesus states in verse 19:9 that salvation came to Zaccheus because he was a son of Abraham. So in context, Jesus sought to save the Sons of Abraham. Undoubtedly, the non-Calvinist or perhaps Mr. Clough himself would object to gentiles being referred to as sons of Abraham. But this term is not limited to the jews for two reasons. First, if the term "son of Abraham" were limited to the jews, then Christ failed in his mission because all jews are not saved. This is clearly unacceptable. The second reason is that Scripture identifies Gentiles as also being the sons of Abraham thru faith (Gal. 3:7). So we see that Luke falls in line with Matthew and John on Christ's mission. Contextually, Jesus sought to save the sons of Abraham in Luke. The sons of Abraham are "His people" according to Matthew. And "His people" are the ones whom the Father has given to Christ for the purpose of raising them to life in John.

In looking at these statements of Christ's earthly mission, we have seen that all three refer to a particuliar group of people. This particuliarity in Christ's mission is in complete harmony with the Calvinistic interpretation of John 6:44 because there is no disjunction between those whom Jesus sought to save and those who are drawn to Him by the Father. In order for Mr. Clough's assertions in regards to Luke 19:10 to hold up, he will need to deal with the demonstrated harmony of all three accounts of Christ's earthly mission and then show an inconsistency with the Calvinistic interpretation of John 6:44.

Calvinist Humor

2006-06-06T14:31:00.000-05:00

If any of you out there have ever heard of an atheist named Reggie Finley, a.k.a. the "Infidelguy", then click here. This audio clip is brought to you courtesy of the guys at Fide-O!

Also, this one from Purgatorio, is just plain evil. Click here.

Calvinism and John 12:32

2006-06-02T22:13:00.000-05:00

As I've stated previously, the text of John 6 comes up frequently whenever Calvinism is discussed. Upon being quoted John 6:44, the non-Calvinist's retort is almost always John 12:32 with an accompanying cry of, "All means all!". At this point, it becomes necessary for the Calvinist to address John 12:32 for the sake of progress in the discussion. Since I have had this same defense used against me by two different people in the last two weeks, I would like to discuss a few issues that bear against the non-Calvinist's use of John 12:32.

The first of the above mentioned issues is Universalism. It is the Calvinist's contention that if John 12:32 is read back into 6:44, then the result is an affirmation of Universalism. The reason for this contention is in how both verses read. For instance, 6:44 reads thus:

No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day. NASB

And John 12:32:

And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself. NASB

The plain reading of John 6:44 is that no one can come to Christ unless first drawn to Him by the Father. Non-Calvinists will often concede this if pressed. It's the rest of the verse that causes problems for them as the verse goes on to state that those who are drawn (represented by "him") are also raised to life by the Son. What non-Calvinists are essentially doing then, is accepting the first half of the verse but denying the second half. This is done by going to John 12:32 and insisting that all men are drawn to Christ. Now, the problem should be obvious. If 6:44 states that all those that are drawn are then raised, and if all men without exception are drawn to Christ per 12:32, then you have an affirmation of Universalism. Since both sides reject Universalism, another explanation must be sought. For the non-Calvinist, this usually means an immediate switch to "all these other verses over here". For the Calvinist, it means dealing with these verses on their own and in their immediate contexts.

Now, when John 12:32 is brought forward by non-Calvinists, there is never any mention about the context in which Jesus makes His statements. The only thing that seems to interest those using this verse against Calvinists is the appearance of the term "all". The assumption is that "all" always means all men everywhere. This assumption remains even when the Calvinist points out that the term "all" is often times limited by contextual considerations. So obviously, the question is what did Jesus mean when He said that He will "draw all men" to Himself? Did He mean all men everywhere, or all *kinds* of men?

The important thing to note about the non-Calvinist's use of this verse is that "all men everywhere" are not in fact drawn to Christ. We know this to be true by both Biblical and experiential considerations. The Pharisees for instance, were not drawn to Christ unless one wishes to count their attempts at killing Him. Further, each of us knows or have known people who have never had an interest in Christianity outside of trying to disprove it. There is also the issue of those who have never heard of Jesus Christ. So, either Jesus was mistaken in what He said, or He did not mean "all men everywhere" but rather, all kinds of men. In support of this, we find in John 12:20 that there were Gentiles who were wishing to see Jesus. When Jesus got word of this, He began to address a crowd that now comprised both Jew and Gentile. It is to this mixed crowd that Jesus made His comments about "drawing all men". And it is this consideration that makes the Calvinist's interpretation of this verse not only plausible, but probable. That is, the Calvinist believes this verse is limited by this contextual consideration coupled with the above mentioned issues. If the non-Calvinist's interpretation clashes with other texts, and makes no sense of the verse when considered on it's own, then the Calvinist's interpretation becomes the most probable. Indeed, it would seem that these considerations would make the Calvinist's interpretation the only one *possible*.

Undoubtebly, the non-Calvinist will object with something like, "but you're changing *all* men into *some* men just to make it fit your doctrine!". But I would point out that this isn't a response to the argument offered. In fact, I haven't heard a non-Calvinist address the Calvinist's interpretation of 12:32 with anything other than comments like this. Indeed, in order to refute the Calvinist interpretation of John 12:32, the non-Calvinist will first need to:

Harmonize this verse with John 6:44
Show that all men since the time of Christ have in fact been drawn to Him
Refute the contextual argument derived from John 12:20 with the appearance of Gentiles seeking Jesus

Without addressing these issues, the non-Calvinist will be obliged to hand over one of their primary prooftexts to Calvinism.

Does The Story of Cain Contradict Calvinism?

2006-05-31T16:33:00.000-05:00

I recently visited Alan Kurschner's site and read some comments that a fellow named Dennis Clough had posted concerning Calvinism. I responded with a couple of points concerning his comments and he responded by directing me to a challenge he made concerning Cain that shows, according to him, that Calvinism is false. So, in order to avoid any accusations that I, or any Calvinist will not or cannot answer Mr. Clough's challenge concerning Cain, I will take the time to respond to the claims made by Mr. Clough.

Mr. Clough, in a somewhat lengthy commentary on various issues, had this to say concerning his challenge to Calvinists:

I challenge any Calvinist to say that God did not call Cain! One must deny the clear record of Scripture in order to do so.

Apparantly, Mr. Clough is saying that God called Cain to salvation thus negating the Calvinist doctrine of irresistable grace because Cain rejected God's call. Further, Mr. Clough states that to deny Cain was called salvifically would be to deny clear scriptural teaching. So we have here several assertions made by Mr. Clough that he believes refutes Calvinism. Is he right? Let's take a look.

Mr. Clough's first statements regarding Cain in his post read thusly:

Besides receiving what God freely gave, Eve’s faith was seen in her excitement at the birth of Cain indicating that she thought he would be the promised Messiah.

Mr. Clough states that Eve was excited at Cain's birth because she thought that Cain would be the promised Messiah. But where does the text say that Eve believed Cain to be the Messiah? Nowhere in the text of Genesis 4 does it state that Eve believed such a notion. In fact, Genesis 4:1 simply states that Eve credited the LORD with helping her bring forth her firstborn. So where does Mr. Clough get this idea if not here? It appears that right off the bat, Mr. Clough is reading notions into the text that aren't there. Is this a developing pattern? Let's continue and see.

Cain refused to bring blood and rebelled against God’s clear call to get right.

Here, Mr. Clough claims two things concerning Cain. The first claim is that Cain refused to offer God a blood sacrifice. The second claim is that Cain rebelled against God's salvific call. So in response to the first claim, I'll quote Genesis 4:3-5 which reads:

So it came about in the course of time that Cain brought an offering to the LORD of the fruit of the ground. Abel, on his part also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of their fat portions. And the LORD had regard for Abel and for his offering; but for Cain and for his offering He had no regard. So Cain became very angry and his countenance fell. NASB

Mr. Clough's first claim from his above quote is that Cain refused to offer God a blood sacrifice. But where in the above citation does it state that Cain refused to do anything? The text simply states that Cain brought an offering of the fruit of the ground and that God rejected it. So it appears that Mr. Clough is still reading things into the text that aren't there. His second claim is that Cain refused God's salvific call. But is he yet again reading a notion into the text that isn't there? So far, Mr. Clough is 2 for 2. Can he keep it up?

Genesis 4:6 & 7 read thusly:

Then the LORD said to Cain, "Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen? If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouchning at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it." NASB

Here, the LORD addresses Cain and tells him that if he does well his "countenance" will be lifted up. If Cain does not do well then sin will overcome him. Now, I presume that Mr. Clough's contentions are based on these two verses (he doesn't give specific citations in his post). If so, where is this supposed salvific call? Where does God explicitly state that He is calling Cain to salvation? And where is Cain's denial of this supposed offer? God's statements are simply what will happen if Cain does this or does not do that. And notice that if Cain does good then all that happens according to God's statements is that his "countenance" will be lifted up. This simply means that he'll be in a good mood with perhaps a smile to boot. Thus, it is my contention that God's statements to Cain are *descriptive* of what will happen if Cain does good and not *prescriptive* of what Cain could and should do for salvation. It is also my contention that Mr. Clough is fairly consistent in reading concepts into the text that aren't there as all of his stated assertions cannot be demonstrated from the referenced texts.

In Mr. Clough's first quote above, he stated that he challenges any Calvinist to deny that God called Cain and that to make such a denial is to defy Scripture. I submit to Mr. Clough that I have not only denied that God called Cain salvifically, but have shown this from the text of Scripture itself.

Anonymous Response

2006-05-29T10:28:00.000-05:00

This morning, I recieved a response to my article about Ergun Caner's recent anti-Calvinism sermon. I would like to briefly address this response sent in by "Anonymous".

Oh, my! All this wears me out!! I am sick and exhausted of all this debating, etc.

So have you been debating this issue yourself? If so, where? When? Certainly not here. If not, then how can you be exhausted from something you have not engaged in?

For me, I will follow the Lord Jesus Christ! I want to be available to hear His still small voice.

Okay, so are you suggesting that because I and others choose to debate relavant issues within the Church that we do not follow the Lord Jesus? And just what does it mean to be "available to hear His still small voice"?

How can this happen if I jump on every bandwagon that comes along in Christianity?

By "bandwagon", do you mean denomination, or perhaps a particuliar theological view? If so, are you denying that you are a member of a denomination with particuliar theological views (i.e. bandwagons)? If you are a protestant, are you not on the "protestant bandwagon"? If your theological viewpoints put you in agreement with Jacob Arminius, are you not on his "bandwagon"?

Can we come together in the essentials of the Word of God and eliminate all this debating?

As long as false doctrine exists within Christ's church, then no. Would you want to fellowship with someone whom you believed was teaching false doctrine? Or perhaps someone in your congregation that openly attacks what you believe to be the Gospel? Are you seriously suggesting that Christians should throw out doctrine in favor of unity?

No wonder the American Christian Church is going down the toilet!!

I would agree that evangelicalism is indeed swirling down the toilet. But who is to blame? Those who are trying to confront false teachers and their doctrines or those who stand idly by and do nothing?

The drug addict whose life is transformed by the Gospel of Christ couldn't care less about your debates.

This would depend on whether or not this former drug addict cared about what Scripture so plainly teaches on watching your doctrine closely (2Timothy 4:2-4)

Mike Ratliff is correct when he says, "it's a sad day when 'Christians' are more in love with their traditions than they are with their sovereign Lord".

Mike Ratliff was indeed correct but not in the way you mean. What Mike is talking about are those who would sacrifice clear and unambiguous passages of Scripture for the traditions of men. You are thus in error by trying to turn Mike's statements into an endorsement of Christian complacency.

I might add: it is a sad day when "Christians" are more in love with their "interpretation of theology" than they are with their Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ!

What I see here is nothing more than a veiled attack on my, and every other Calvinist's status as a believer. It is a common thing for folks such as yourself to suggest that just because a Calvinist dots his soteriological "I's", and crosses his theological "T's", that he is somehow a subversive heathen seeking to destroy the truth of God's Word. What is telling about such assertions is that they can never be demonstrated and I would invite you to try. But that would involve going to the Scriptures for such things just as the Bereans did, which, based on your comments is apparently something you would be unwilling to do. This tells much about who really cares for God's truth as revealed in Scripture.

Questions and Answers

2006-05-17T19:58:00.000-05:00

I received an email recently containing some questions regarding my previous post on God's relationship to evil. I would like to address those questions here for the benefit of any curious readers out there.

The first question reads thus:

What do you mean when you said that a natural disaster and evil are the same thing?

This question refers to my comments on Amos 3:6 regarding the prophet's statement that God causes disaster to befall the cities of men. The first thing I would point out for the questioner is that the translators for the NIV chose the word "disaster" over the more literal term "evil" meaning that they themselves saw these terms as synonymous. The second thing to point out is that a natural disaster is considered a kind of evil by both sides of the debate on the problem of evil. Just because natural disasters are beyond the control of man doesn't mean that they are not a kind of evil. I believe that the questioner would agree that whatever causes suffering and death can be considered evil, be it man or hurricane.

The next question reads as follows:

Isn't evil a man's action?

Yes it is. But as I pointed out above, evil is not limited to the actions of man. For instance, is it an evil thing or a good thing that thousands died when the tsunami struck a few years back? As stated above, suffering and death result from natural disasters. Surely suffering and death are not morally neutral things.

And God being responsible for 9/11?!?!?

I wouldn't say that God is "responsible" for 9/11 but I would say that this event happened according to His will. In my article on God's relationship to evil I made mention that Calvinism does not say that God can be responsible for evil in the sense of somehow being held accountable to His creation. The notion that creation can hold it's Creator accountable for His decrees is absurd. Can man really sit in judgement on God himself? I believe to ask this question is to answer it. But I do understand where the questioner is coming from. For the non-Calvinist, it is difficult to see how God can have anything to do with the decisions of evil men. I mean, how can God have "caused" the terrorists to do what they did? The best way to answer this is to show from scripture what God has done in similiar situations in the past. Case in point:

Woe to the Assyrian, the rod of my anger, in whose hand is the club of my wrath! I send him agaisnt a godless nation, I dispatch him against a people who anger me, to seize loot and snatch plunder, and to trample them down like mud in the streets. Isaiah 10:5,6 NIV

In Isaiah chapter 10, we find that the Jewish nation has fallen away from God and that God intends to punish His people by sending the Assyrians to invade and destroy. The thing to note here is that God is the One bringing the Assyrians against the Jewish nation and not just allowing them to do what they would otherwise do anyway. This is further evidenced by God's statements that the king of Assyria believed that these events transpired apart from any divine influence. The text of Isaiah 10 further states:

Does the ax raise itself above him who swings it, or the saw boast against him who uses it? Isaiah 10:15a

Here, God is rhetorically stating that it was He who is the cause of the actions of the Assyrians. He goes on to say that He intends to punish the Assyrians for the arrogant attitude of their hearts due to their belief that they have accomplished these things on their own. Non-Calvinists have had a difficult time explaining how these events fit in with the notion that God only allows things to happen according to the supposed free-will of man. But this issue aside, I would ask the questioner to think of these passages in light of 9/11. If God could bring a heathen nation like the Assyrians against the Jews, why not then can God bring the terrorists against the people of the United States? I mean, what is the fundamental difference between these two events? Does the questioner believe that we as a nation are better than the Jews of Isaiah 10 and should not be punished as God sees fit?

If you hold God responsible for evil then what is Satan for?

Again, I do not hold God responsible for anything. I would not presume to think that I or anyone can call into account God's decrees. As for Satan, I believe him to be on a leash of sorts. That is, he does only what God allows him to do instead of what man allows him to do. But I believe that in light of all the verses I covered in my article on God's relationship to evil, this question about Satan also applies to the questioner's beliefs. In other words, if God Himself claims to create and/or cause evil, what is Satan's role? Does he act contrary to an omnipotent God's decrees or does he act according to those decrees? Can a creature such as Satan defeat his Creator's purpose for him? If so, how does this square with God's omnipotence? I hope our questioner will place as much time and consideration on these questions as I've given to his/hers.

God's Relationship to Evil

2006-05-06T18:30:00.000-05:00

In almost any conversation about Calvinism, there is the accusation that Reformed theology makes God responsible for sin and/or evil. The Calvinist will usually answer this charge by denying that God is responsible in the sense of being held accountable by His creation and that He is not the author of sin by making a distinction between primary and secondary causation. However, the Calvinist at some point must admit that Reformed theology affirms God as the ultimate cause of all things and that nothing occurs but by His will. Through all this theological wrangling lies the main issue, which is, what scripture says about God's relationship to sin and evil. I will review several sections of scripture that speak directly to this issue without going through all the theological considerations just mentioned.

The first verse I would like to briefly discuss is Isaiah 45:7 which reads:

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. KJV

The obvious point to make about this verse is that God, thru the prophet, states that He creates evil. The King James translators chose to give the most literal rendering of the underlying Hebrew which is why you would see other, less pointed, translations in the NIV or NASB. But even with other, less literal translations of the underlying Hebrew, the meaning changes little, if at all. The terms employed by other translations such as adversity, disaster, catastrophe, etc. are all synonyms. So, in light of these considerations, what does the non-Calvinist do with this verse? How does the common assertion that God only *permits* evil to happen but has nothing to do with it otherwise, do justice here? How does the non-Calvinist point an accusatory finger at Reformed theology for making God the "author of evil" when you have God's own testimony that He creates it? These questions will become more weighty as we continue with the Biblical testimony.

In the book of Lamentations we read:

Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that both good and ill go forth? Lamentations 3:38 NASB

Here we have the prophet Jeremiah stating that both good and ill come from God. The NASB's rendering is a bit interpretive in comparison to the KJV which again has translated the underlying Hebrew as "evil". But do the implications not remain the same? Is not the prophet trying to communicate that both sides of the moral spectrum come from God himself? If not, what other possibilities are there that can do justice to this verse as it reads?

Next, we have the prophet Amos stating:

When a trumpet sounds in a city, do not the people tremble? When disaster comes to a city, has not the LORD caused it? Amos 3:6 NIV

The prophet Amos states that when a disaster strikes a city, the LORD has caused it. Again, the KJV renders the underlying Hebrew as "evil" versus the NIV's "disaster". But I again point out that the meaning is the same. Moreover, this statement by the prophet has modern implications. Do not modern disasters such as 9/11 or hurricane Katrina not fall under God's hand and will according to Amos? If this be admitted, is it not true that the terrorist attack on the twin towers was "caused" by God Himself? Was this act of terrorism not evil? I believe that many non-Calvinists would still be reluctant to state that God had anything to do with 9/11 even if they conceded the above reasoning. But what about hurricane Katrina? Many non-Calvinists have stated that Katrina was an act of punishment from God. But is not a natural disaster a kind of evil? If the non-Calvinist answers in the affirmative, what does this do for his criticism of Reformed theology?

Next is Job 2:10 which reads:

But he said to her, "You speak as any foolish woman would speak. Shall we receive the good at the hand of God, and not receive the bad?" In all this Job did not sin with his lips. NRSV

Here, Job has just answered his wife by saying that men receive both good and bad from the hand of God. Again, the KJV translators chose to render the underlying Hebrew term as "evil" versus the New Revised Standard's "bad". The most important thing to notice concerning this verse is that it explicitly states that Job did not sin by the comments he made. In modern discussions of this topic, it is the non-Calvinist that accuses Reformed theology of "making a monster out of God" by stating essentially the same thing as Job. But notice it is scripture itself that defends the Calvinist's assertions against this criticism. I have commented previously on one non-Calvinist's handling of this verse. His solution to how the verse read was to simply not quote it in full and to state that Job was suffering from some sort of dilusion due to his afflictions. As I noted before, this attempt at censuring the word of God in order to save one's theological presuppositions is inexcusable.

The next verse I would like to briefly discuss is Exodus 4:11 which reads:

The LORD said to him, "Who has made man's mouth? Or who makes him mute or deaf, or seeing or blind? Is it not I, the LORD? NIV

In this section of Exodus, Moses himself is complaining about being God's mouthpiece. God's answer is very interesting in that He states that it is He that makes men mute, deaf, seeing, and blind. Now, I do not believe that these are the only infirmities that God can be said to be the cause of. I mean, why would God only be the cause of blindness and deafness and not of, say, cancer or diabetes? Either way, disease is considered a kind of evil amongst those on both sides of the debate on the problem of evil. If it be admitted by the critic of Calvinism that disease is a kind of evil, then what is his explanation of this verse? How does this fit into his system of theology?

The last verse I would like to discuss has to do with what theologians have called the single most evil act man has ever commited. This act being the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus Christ. The book of Acts has this to say:

For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur. Acts 4:27, 28 NASB

This text states that Herod, Pontius Pilate, the Jewish people and the Gentiles did whatever the "hand and purpose" of God predestined them to do. As all Christians know, these people were all involved with the execution of our Lord and though the crucifixion is how our salvation is made possible, this was an act of pure evil on the part of the parties named. So if it be admitted that all those involved in the crucifixion were predestined by the hand and purpose of God to the roles they played, and it be admitted that they commited evil, what can be said against the Calvinist who affirms that God is the ultimate cause of all things? In the case of this particuliar verse, the non-Calvinist will try to slip in their concept of "foreknowledge" in order to distance God from what is plainly stated. But the Calvinist only need respond by pointing out that the term foreknowledge is not mentioned here or in the immediate context. So what else is left?

In all the verses that we've looked at, nothing is at all stated that God merely "permits" or "foreknows" evil. In fact, four of the verses bluntly stated that God creates or causes evil. So for the non-Calvinist who takes the view that God only permits evil and does not in no way cause it, what does he do with these verses? How will he continue to criticise Calvinism for affirming what the text of scripture so plainly states?

Strange Baptistfire Launched

2006-05-01T19:01:00.000-05:00

In response to one of the worst anti-Calvinist sites on the web, Gene Bridges, Evan May, Timmy Brister, Dustin Segers, and Nathan White have collaborated on a new site called "Strange Baptist Fire". Aside from answering the anonymous folks over at "Baptist Fire", they will also be discussing issues related to Calvinism within the Southern Baptist Convention. Everyone is encouraged to visit this site regularly.

Ergun Caner's Predestined Sermon

2006-04-12T20:44:00.000-05:00

This past weekend, Dr. Ergun Caner of Liberty University preached a sermon titled, "Why I'm Predestined Not To Be A Hyper-Calvinist". Now, this is the same Ergun Caner that showed up at the Founder's Blog recently and "kicked the hornet's nest" so to speak, and this has led to the upcoming October 16 debate between Dr. Caner and Dr. James R. White. The reformed community has been buzzing with anticipation ever since the announcement for the debate was made. I commented previously about Dr. Caner's behavior over at the Founder's blog and how this would make the upcoming debate interesting to say the least. Caner's sermon also gives the outlook of an interesting debate as well. Caner launched immediately into the old straw-man argument of equating historic Calvinism as Hyper-Calvinism and hammers away on 1 Timothy 2:4 as if no Calvinist has ever discussed this passage before and the sermon only gets worse from there.

One thing in particuliar that caused my jaw to drop was Dr. Caner's statement that God did not hate Esau from before the foundation of the world but that God's hatred was based on Esau's works. Dr. Caner was of course refering to Romans 9 and I only need quote that particuliar section to show how badly tradition can blind a man to how a text actually reads:

for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God's purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, it was said to her, "THE OLDER WILL SERVE THE YOUNGER." Just as it is written, "JACOB I LOVED BUT ESAU I HATED". Romans 9:11-13 NASB

May October 16 come swiftly!

UPDATE:

James White responded to Ergun Caner's sermon here. Anyone who has listened to Caner's sermon is incouraged to hear Dr. White's rebuttal. Also, when I first listened to Dr. Caner's sermon I stopped just short of Jerry Falwell's closing prayer. I wish I had kept on listening because Falwell proved Charles Haddon Spurgeon correct when he noted that Arminians do not pray in accordance with their own theology. After stating that God "will not force you against your will to come to the cross", Falwell trips over his own tongue and prays this:

Do not let one person say ‘no’ to your precious will. Save the lost, reclaim the wayward.

Obviously, the question is raised," how is this statement consistent with the theory of libertarian free-will?" (I think Calvinists everywhere already know the answer to that one ;-)

What About Proverbs 16? (part one of two)

2006-04-06T22:56:00.000-05:00

When was the last time you had a conversation about Calvinism that *didn't* include a reference to John 6, Romans 9, or Ephesians 1? Or even Acts 4 or Genesis 50? These sections of Scripture are exceedingly difficult to avoid when discussing the Biblical foundations of Calvinism with non-Calvinists. But, when was the last time you discussed Proverbs 16? Believe it or not, this chapter in Proverbs lends much Biblical support to Calvinism in general and to theological determinism in particuliar. So, before we discuss particuliar verses in Proverbs 16, a brief summary of determinism and indeterminism is in order.

First up is "determinism". Nearly all Calvinists hold to one form of determinism or another. There are "hard" determinists and there are "soft" determinists. This latter form is sometimes referred to as "compatibilism". It isn't neccessary for my discussion to go into all the theological ins and outs of these different forms of determinism. It will be enough to keep the focus narrowed to how determinism relates to the will and actions of man. So, in a nutshell, determinism is the belief that all man's actions and decisions are causally determined by both internal and external influences or causes.

The exact opposite of this is "indeterminism". Most, if not all non-Calvinists hold this position. Again, in a nutshell, indeterminism is the belief that the will and actions of man are not causally determined by internal or external causation. In other words, the will of man is as free to choose one course of action as another. Now, it should be pointed out that some indeterminists will concede that causes do *influence* the decision making process but that they cannot "decisively incline" the will in either direction. In other words, there cannot be a clear cut cause that determines the will to make a choice. This is also known as the theory of Libertarian free-will. Now, with these brief and somewhat simplistic definitions out of the way, we can begin to look at some of the verses from Proverbs 16.

First up is Proverbs 16:1 which reads:

The plans of the heart belong to man, But the answer of the tongue is from the LORD. NASB

The plain reading of this verse is interesting in that it suggests that no matter what the plans of man might be, the words that come from him are somehow "from the LORD". Now, as the verse reads, a determinist has no problem. But what does the indeterminist do with it? If libertarian free will is defined by there not being any "causally determinative" forces working on the will, how is this consistent with man planning a course of action but his choice of words is from God? In order for libertarian free will to apply here, there cannot be a disjunction between what man plans in his heart and what choice of words comes from his mouth. In other words, man cannot be the cause of his plans while God is the cause of his words.

Now, I suppose that one possible way out for the indeterminist could be that this verse refers only to a few whom God chooses to lead in this manner for His purposes. I am familiar with at least some non-Calvinists who are comfortable in saying this. But I would only point out that the verse itself does not explicitly limit God's actions to some instead of all. Also, this would damage the common charge that determinism makes robots out of men. In other words, those who level this charge at Calvinists would be guilty of saying that God makes robots out of *some* men instead of all. The inconsistency in this position would be glaring to say the least.

I will continue this discussion of Proverbs 16 in part two of this article. The verses under consideration will be 16:4, 16:9, and 16:33. Stay tuned!

Clearing Up Or Creating Confusion On John 6?

2006-04-03T18:05:00.000-05:00

Last night, while following links thru the blogosphere, I happened upon a blog called "Philosophy of Religion" authored by a fellow who calls himself the "philosapologist". I scrolled down a bit and an article titled, "Clearing Up Contemporary Calvinistic Confusion" caught my eye. The article addresses John 6 so, needless to say, I was very curious to see how philosapologist clears up the Calvinists' supposed confusion regarding this text. Five full paragraphs later I'm sitting there feeling somewhat cheated and, well, confused. Why? Anyone familiar with the Calvinism/Arminianism debate knows John 6 is a key text that always (along with Romans 9 and Ephesians 1) ends up on the center stage of exegetical scrutiny. The amount of time and ink spent on John 6 by Calvinists is almost staggering and I have to ask, does philosapologist really believe that he can refute centuries of Calvinistic exegesis in just 5 paragraphs? Just to give you an example of what I'm talking about, here are two links to modern Calvinists' websites who have discussed John 6. I ask the reader to look at these and to note the depth to which they treat the text in question and to compare them to the five paragraphs that philosapologist has provided to "clear up calvinistic confusion". Also, I would like to briefly discuss a couple of other problematic aspects of philosapologist's article.

The first thing to note is that philosapologist starts his discussion of John 6 with a contextual argument. He states that Jesus is in debate with the religious leaders of his day and quotes John 5:37-38 and 5:45 (this takes up two of his five paragraphs by the way). He then states:

The point of the passage is this: Jesus' opponents could not come to him because of their track record of rejecting his previous offerings of light.

Philosapologist is leading into John 6:35-45 by starting with a contextual argument derived from John 5:37. The problem here is that the context philosapologist starts at is not the context of John 6:35-45. Jesus' debates with the religious leaders that philosapologist mentions ends at John 6:1 which reads:

SOME TIME after this, Jesus crossed to the far shore of the Sea of Galilee (that is, the Sea of Tiberias), NIV

From here, John records the feeding of the 5,000 and the miracle of Jesus walking on the water. The text then has Jesus discussing the unbelief of the same crowd that had witnessed the feeding of the 5,000 and had followed Him to Capernaum looking for more miracles. This sets the stage for John 6:35-45. So if philosapologist begins his contextual argument by saying that Jesus is debating the religious leaders of His day and quotes John 5:37, 38, 45, to support this, his entire article is in error from the very beginning and thus is lead to an erroneous conclusion. Arguing against calvinistic exegesis based on the wrong context simply isn't going to get it done.

Another thing to note is that the key verses from John 6 are never quoted in full. In other words, philosapologist's readers do not get to see if what he says lines up with what is actually stated by the text. Case in point:

The answer to the question to whom does "no one" refer is quite simple: it means no one who has a relationship with the one true God and creator of the universe refrains from coming to Christ.

The verse being referred to here is John 6:44 which reads:

No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him and I will raise him up at the last day. NIV

For the Calvinist, it's easy to see why philosapologist would not want to present the verse as it reads. It explicitly states that no one can come to the Son unless first drawn to Him by the Father. But that's not all. It goes on to state that the one drawn is raised up. Does philosapologist's contexually based assertions do justice to how the verse actually reads? Of course not since he starts with the wrong context in the first place. Philosapologist is still reading into the text the notion that Jesus is still debating the religious leaders from John 5 when in fact Jesus is explaining to a crowd of people who have followed him to Capernaum just why it is they do not believe in Him.

The last thing I would like to address is the use of the word "contemporary" in the title of philosapologist's article. Is he suggesting that Calvinists no longer interpret this text the way, say, Warfield, Turretin, or even Calvin himself did? If this is the case then I would simply state that I have read Calvin's remarks on this section of John and what he states is no different than what modern expositors such as White or Sproul would say. In fact, Calvinists are very uniform in their handling of this text because they simply let it speak for itself.

So, in light of these issues I've brought forward, I can only say that what philosapologist ends up doing is *creating* confusion for the Calvinist instead of clearing it up.

Workplace Tracts

2006-03-31T23:12:00.000-05:00

In my meanderings thru the workplace, I recently came across some tracts and booklets that you would find at your local church for the purpose of some quick info and for passing them out to folks you witness to. I looked thru them to see what subjects they addressed and who the authors were. One booklet in particuliar caught my eye due to it's title, "Where Is God When You Hurt?". Due to the title, I figured that it would try to address the "problem of evil" and a quick scan of the opening page confimed my suspicion. The booklet was written by a fellow named Richard W. Coffen. I had never heard of Mr. Coffen so I looked him up on the web and found that he is associated with the Seventh Day Adventist Church. Since I know someone who is a member of the SDA church, I was curious to see how someone from that denomination would handle the subject. So I sat down to read. But, as you might guess, I was less than impressed and would like to briefly address some of the things written by Mr. Coffen. I will limit my discussion to the way in which Mr. Coffen handles and interprets certain verses mentioned in his booklet.

First up is Mr. Coffen's handling of Luke 13:16. He sets up his comments on this verse by relating real life examples of suffering and evil and trying to establish that God does not will evil of any kind and that since Jesus was here to do only the Father's will, He didn't will evil either. Now this all sounds well and good but the issue is how Mr. Coffen handles Luke 13:16 in relation to other verses that bear on the same subject. In other words, is Mr. Coffen guilty of ignoring verses that contradict his reading of Luke? We shall see...

Luke 13:16 reads thus:

And this woman, a daughter of Abraham as she is, whom Satan has bound for eighteen long years, should she not have been released from this bond on the Sabbath day? NASB

Here is Mr. Coffen's remarks:

Did you notice whom Jesus blamed for the woman's condition? Satan had crippled her for 18 years. But Jesus came to our planet to show us what God wants.

With these comments, Mr. Coffen attempts to show that Satan was "the lone gunman" so to speak, and that the Father and the Son had nothing to do with it.

Now, when I first read this I immediatly thought of Job and God's interaction with Satan in regards to Job's afflictions. But I'll hold on Job for a moment in order to discuss another verse that sprang to mind that bears on Mr. Coffen's interpretation of Luke 13:16. The text is John 9:3 which reads:

Jesus answered, "it was neither that this man sinned, nor his parents; but it was so that the works of God might be displayed in him". NIV

This verse comes on the heels of the disciples asking Jesus about a blind man they had met. They wanted to know the reason for his blindness which they assumed was the result of sin. Jesus' answer is eye opening to say the least. Jesus states that this man was not struck blind because of sin at all but that he was blinded for the purpose of God showing his power and mercy to this man thru Christ. The implicit statement here is that there was divine purpose in this man's condition irregardless of Satan being named as the direct cause of the woman's infirmities in Luke. How can I say that you might ask? I readily concede that there is not an *explicit* statement in John 9:3 that names God as (ultimately) causing this man's blindness for that specific purpose on that specific day in time. But I can answer this objection by stating that the *implicit* is there and that I can show elsewhere the *explicit* statement that God is (ultimately) the cause of, not only blindness, but all infirmities that afflict man. My prooftext will be Exodus 4:11 which reads:

The LORD said to him, "Who has made man's mouth? Or who makes him mute or deaf, or seeing or blind? Is it not I, the LORD? NASB

This verse provides us the *explicit* statement that God makes man mute, deaf, and blind. I believe it clearly establishes the Calvinistic interpretation of John 9:3 and disproves Mr. Coffen's contention that God had nothing at all to do with the woman's infirmities in Luke 13:16. But what about the mention of Satan and Not God in Luke 13:16? Without getting into a drawn out discussion of the theological distiction between primary and secondary causation, I will simply take the reader to the book of Job for the answer to the question concerning Satan's involvment with the woman in Luke (incidentally, this is where Mr. Coffen goes as well).

After trying to establish that Satan is solely and ultimatly the cause of evil by appealing to Luke 13:16, Mr. Coffen takes his readers to the book of Job and relates the tragic events in Job's life as recorded in the opening chapters. This is, I believe, where Mr. Coffen is at his worst. Let's pick up with his comments...

During Job's depression after having lost livestock and children and health, his wife muttered something about cursing God and getting it over with. But Job retorted, "Shall we accept good from God, and not trouble?"
(Job 2:10)
That's a rather puzzling affirmation, because the implication is that we should actually expect both good and bad to come from God's hand. But we really shouldn't construct theology on the musings of someone wallowing in the slough of despond. Deep depression is hardly the crucible for deep theology. And even Job himself later admitted that he really hadn't known what he was talking about.

Now, the first thing I would point out is the glaring lack of any mention of the "conversation" between God and Satan concerning Job. This is significant because God explicitly gave permission to Satan to inflict all the suffering that Job experienced. Indeed, it was God himself who mentioned Job to Satan in the first place. But of course, Mr. Coffen does not even hint at these things because they are detrimental to his assertion that Satan is the cause of man's woes and acts solely apart from God's will in such matters. I also believe that this bears heavily on Mr. Coffen's interpretation of Luke 13:16 as mentioned above.

The second thing to mention here is Mr. Coffen's handling of Job 2:10. Coffen only quotes *half* the verse and proceeds to tell his readers that Job was depressed and simply talking out of his head. But is this the case? Here is the full verse:

But he said to her, "You speak as one of the foolish women speaks. Shall we indeed accept good from God and not accept adversity?" In all this Job did not sin with his lips. NASB (emphasis added)

The part of the verse that Mr. Coffen did not quote states that Job did not sin by saying that man recieves both good and adversity from God. It hardly needs to be pointed out how the very mention of this half of the verse refutes Mr. Coffen's assertion that Job was merely depressed and saying things that are not accurate. If this were true, the text would agree with Mr. Coffen and affirm that Job did indeed sin by implicating God for his woes. Further, the second half of the verse brings out even more the relevance of God's granting permission to Satan to afflict Job. Why? Because often the argument is made that God only gave permission to afflict Job and thus is not responsible (that is, being the cause) for the evil that befell Job. But again, the text itself refutes such an assertion by stating that Job did not sin in saying that men recieve both good and ill from the LORD. It is therefore very telling as to why Mr. Coffen did not completely quote Job 2:10. This kind of cut and paste handling of God's word is saddening and inexcusable.

I could go on reviewing Mr. Coffen's booklet but I think that I have made my point. The problem of evil cannot be dealt with by holding up certain verses and ignoring others. There are many verses in the Bible like those I've brought forward and they must be dealt with by those who profess to love truth. I can only hope that Mr. Coffen is not representative of the way Seventh Day Adventists handle the word of God.

Swatting Calvinists?

2006-03-31T16:19:00.000-05:00

A few days ago I ran across a blog called "calvinist flyswatter" with a subtitle that reads:

the reformed calvinist blogosphere produces theological flies. i swat them.

The "i" in this statement refers to someone who calls himself "Charles". Now, Charles is the same "Charles the brave" that James White responded to recently on his web cast over the interpretation of Matthew 23:37. Incidentally, for anyone wishing to hear the Calvinistic interpretation of this standard Arminian prooftext would do well to follow the provided link.

Anyway, I have been looking thru the articles on Charles' site hoping to find material to interact with here at Conversations. What I found however, is that most of what is written there is not written by Charles himself but by a fellow named Bob Ross who seems to have it in for James White. On top of this, Ross himself seems to have no problem with calvinism per se, but has issues with the particuliars of the "Ordo Salutis" or order of salvation. I'm no mathmatician, but I would hazard a guess that the material on this site written by Bob Ross that deals with the ordo salutis versus what Charles himself has written, is easily 80% or better and this includes the comment sections.

In light of these things, I can't help but wonder; why have a website about "swatting calvinists" when there is hardly anything on the site that directly challenges the five points themselves or is even written by the one claiming to swat "theological flies"?

James White and Tom Ascol to debate Ergun and Emir Caner

2006-03-28T16:16:00.000-05:00

James White announced on his blog today that he and Tom Ascol will be debating Ergun and Emir Caner. This will be a very interesting debate considering the email exchange Dr. White and Ergun Caner had recently. This exchange can be found here: http://www.aomin.org/ErgunCaner1.html

The debate will also be interesting in light of the Caner brothers' recent behavior over at the Founder's blog. Hopefully, the Caner brothers will distance themselves from their behavior of late and engage the issues in a mature and scholarly manner.

First Post

2006-03-28T14:38:00.000-05:00

For my first post here at Conversations I would just like to briefly state the purpose of this site. I love discussing theology. Specifically, I love discussing the system of theology known as Calvinism. Notice I said "discuss". I do not like heated debate and flame contests. I'll give you an example of what I mean. About a year or so ago, I had a brief conversation with a lady who had made some rather pointed comments on a particuliar message board about my system of belief and I responded. It only took a couple of exchanges for her to resort to questioning my status as a christian and abruptly ended the exchange. Thus, I suppose the moral of this story is if you are the kind of person who does this kind of hit-and-run posting, or are just plain itching for a fight, please go elsewhere. If you fail to heed this warning, I will not hesitate to either answer you on your own grounds or ban you altogether. Otherwise, I welcome any and all comments you may have concerning Calvinism and any other topic I happen to post here. Thanks and welcome!