Calvin on Hospitality

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

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

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

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

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

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

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!

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!

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

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

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

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!

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

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

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

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

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...