We should keep in mind that it’s not a clear cut issue, “Gill’s relationship with hyper-Calvinism is a matter of academic debate.”

Quote: First, this view applied to Gill is an anachronism as the idea of saving faith being the known duty and within the natural ability of all men reached its fullest expression amongst the Baptists in 1785 with the publication of Andrew Fuller`s controversial book The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation. Gill, however, died in 1771 thus obviously having nothing to do with the debate that tore the Baptist churches apart after the book was published.

The second reason is that during the earlier part of the 18th century the view of what came to be called ´duty-faith`, formerly propagated by Anglican Latitudinarians such as Tillotson , was gaining ground amongst the Independents but Gill, a staunch Baptist, maintained he did not take part in this debate . Even Andrew Fuller believed that Gill did not enter into the controversy and John Ryland Jnr, quoting Gill`s The Cause of God and Truth, argued that Gill never wrote on the subject of ´the Modern Question ` and exonerates him from taking the usual Hyper-Calvinist stand. John Rippon assumes that Gill did enter the debate in later life because of certain ´corrections` he made to his book The Cause of God and Truth. Rippon, however, does not state what these ´corrections`, are and how they might have applied to the debate in question .

When Gill denies man’s ability to repent he’s not saying that it’s not their duty to do so but that, “the power and liberty of the will of man to come to Christ , that they rather declare the perverseness and stubbornness of it; that man has no desire, inclination, or will, to go to Christ for life, but rather go anywhere else, than to him. Man is stout-hearted, and far from the righteousness of Christ, and submission to it; is not subject to the law of God, nor the Gospel of Christ; nor can he be, till God works in him both to will and to do of his good pleasure; or until he is made willing in the day of his power. No one can come to Christ, except the Father draw him; nor has he a will to it, unless it is wrought in him .” [quoted from the Ella article linked below]

The hyper Calvinist will conclude that since they can’t/won’t come to Christ they can’t be expected to do so.

The Confessions:

“This saving repentance is an evangelical grace, whereby a person, being by the Holy Spirit made sensible of the manifold evils of his sin, doth, by faith in Christ, humble himself for it with godly sorrow, detestation of it, and self-abhorrency, praying for pardon and strength of grace, with a purpose and endeavor, by supplies of the Spirit, to walk before God unto all wellpleasing in all things. Zech. 12:10; Acts 11:18; Ezek. 36:31; 2 Cor. 7:11; Ps. 119:6, 128.” Tabular Comparison of 1646 WCF and 1689 LBCF

I think Gill’s views are high but within the Confessional realm of Reformed theology, the Confession does not deny duty faith but makes it clear that “saving repentance is an evangelical grace” using Gill’s term “sensible” to describe the work of the Spirit.

A few places to look:

Tom Nettles says of Gill, “He has doubtless been judged more harshly and even maliciously than any man of comparable repute in Baptist history.” Many have called John Gill a hyper-Calvinist who denied the need to preach the gospel to the lost. I will not seek to answer that question in this forum. Read Tom Nettles By His Grace and For His Glory, pages 73-107, for a thorough and balanced discussion of this issue

John Gill – The Baptist Page – Portraits

It’s not a settled issue:

“Gill’s relationship with hyper-Calvinism is a matter of academic debate.”

(John Gill (theologian – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

A little more:

Nettles finds one place where Gill “appears to hold the hyper-Calvinist view,” in that “Theoretically Gill held that the non-elect were not obligated to evangelical obedience, because the necessity of such obedience did not exist in unfallen humanity as deposited in Adam” (226). Nettles demonstrates, however, that this view did not work its way into Gill’s own practice (227). Gill disputed with Wesley, but he “did not differ in any essential theological category from the Grand Itinerant, George Whitefield” (241).

Some took hold of Gill’s “theoretical” answer, and as a result they did not call sinners to repentance. They reasoned like Grantham: sinners are not obligated to do what they are unable to do (247–48). Helped by Jonathan Edwards’ distinction between Natural Inability—what one is physically unable to do, and Moral Inability—what one is unable to do because one is unwilling to do it (the Gospel does not call people to do what they are physically incapable of doing but to what they volitionally refuse to do)—Andrew Fuller wrote The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation, which argued for “the congruity between divine sovereignty and human responsibility” (250). Like their Baptist forefathers, Fuller joined with John Ryland Jr. and William Carey in the opinion that “the affirmative side of the Modern Question [the Gospel should be indiscriminately proclaimed and all called to believe it] was fully consistent with the strictest Calvinism” (290). These three men who held to “the strictest Calvinism” initiated the modern missions movement. Clearly “strict Calvinism” is not to be equated with “hyper-Calvinism,” which Fuller rejects as “false Calvinism” (245). There is an important point here. Hyper-Calvinism is a specific theological position. It seems today that some non-Calvinists are ready to label anyone who appears to be less evangelistic than they think themselves to be as hyper-Calvinistic. The rejection of manipulative methods and coercive techniques in favor of boldly proclaiming the pure Gospel and trusting the Spirit to quicken hearts is not less evangelistic but more so (compare Paul’s practice in 1 Cor 2:1–5).

The Baptists, vol. 1 of 3, by Tom Nettles « For His Renown

Another one:

A Hyper-Calvinist, Gill`s major critics say, does not believe that God calls indiscriminately all who hear about Christ to believe in Him. They say this, holding that man is obliged as a matter of duty to trust in Christ as a condition of salvation. It is odd that this opinion is often closely associated with Gill for several reasons. First, this view applied to Gill is an anachronism as the idea of saving faith being the known duty and within the natural ability of all men reached its fullest expression amongst the Baptists in 1785 with the publication of Andrew Fuller`s controversial book The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation. Gill, however, died in 1771 thus obviously having nothing to do with the debate that tore the Baptist churches apart after the book was published. The second reason is that during the earlier part of the 18th century the view of what came to be called ´duty-faith`, formerly propagated by Anglican Latitudinarians such as Tillotson , was gaining ground amongst the Independents but Gill, a staunch Baptist, maintained he did not take part in this debate . Even Andrew Fuller believed that Gill did not enter into the controversy and John Ryland Jnr, quoting Gill`s The Cause of God and Truth, argued that Gill never wrote on the subject of ´the Modern Question ` and exonerates him from taking the usual Hyper-Calvinist stand . John Rippon assumes that Gill did enter the debate in later life because of certain ´corrections` he made to his book The Cause of God and Truth. Rippon, however, does not state what these ´corrections`, are and how they might have applied to the debate in question .

In The Cause of God Gill clearly stresses the Christian duty, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to call and command sinners to repent . All men are naturally bound to repent, argues Gill, because they have naturally broken the law. Commanding them to repent is putting them under the curse of the law which they have broken in their natural state. To Gill, this is a law-ordained need for repentance in the legal sense. What man has broken, he has a duty to mend. This does not mean, however, that man can mend what he has broken and obtain legal righteousness, but he is still a debtor to the law for having broken it. The law forces its demands on every one because all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. What Gill calls evangelical repentance, is for him another matter. He sees this as a turning form sin to receive pardon in Christ. This kind of turning from sin to Christ can only come about by a sovereign act of God`s goodness which leads to true repentance and Gospel righteousness.

Calvin taught likewise that there was an ´antithesis between Legal and Gospel (i.e. evangelical) righteousness`. Quoting Romans 10:5-9, he argues that there is a righteousness which is according to the Law described by Moses, “that the man who doeth those things shall live by them”. This is quite different to the righteousness of faith which says, “If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.”

John_Gill_and_Hyper-Calvinism

Some have attributed to Gill to be the first systematizer of a Baptist Hyper-Calvinist theology. Others have argued that Gill was in fact not a Hyper-Calvinist. Regardless, it was during Gill’s time period when the Particular Baptist Churches began their decline into Hyper-Calvinism. Gill did believe in eternal justification (that the elect were justified in eternity past) and did not seem to appeal to all in the same way that further generations of Evangelical Calvinists did, but it seems difficult to say that Gill was undeniably in fact a Hyper-Calvinist. Instead, most likely, Hyper-Calvinists used Gill’s theology and went past him to solidify their own theology.

Brief Biography of John Gill (1697-1771) « Working out Salvation with Fear and Trembling

Nettles says that Daniel started with the assumption that Gill was a hyper-Calvinist, and then defined hyper-Calvinism from Gill. For ages, people have said that Gill was a hyper-Calvinist without offering any proof from the writings or sermons of Gill (or at least not in context), and people simply accept what they are told.

Another reason people mistakenly believe that Gill was a hyper-Calvinist is they do not read his supposed anti-free offer comments in the context in which they were written. Usually, in these cases, he was writing against universal salvation. He did not deny that ministers should urge sinners to believe. He simply said that this external call in and of itself can do nothing. There must also be the irresistable internal call of the Holy Spirit as well.

The Sane Asylum: Another John Gill Post

New Focus | That the purpose of God according to election might stand

New Focus Interview on Hyper-Calvinism

1. Hyper-Calvinism

Beliefs: God is the author of sin and man has no responsibility before God. The Gospel should only preached to the elect. i.e. duty faith. and anti-missionary Belief in the five points is a prerequisite for true salvation, also known as Neo-Gnostic Calvinism. Proponents: Joseph Hussey John Skepp and some English primitive Baptists.

2. Ultra High Calvinism

Beliefs: That the elect are in some sense eternally justified. A denial of: The Well– Meant Offer; Common Grace; and God having any love for the non-elect. Proponents: John Gill, some ministers in the Protestant Reformed Church of America

3. High Calvinism

Beliefs: That God in no sense desires to save the reprobate, Most deny the Well-Meant Offer. Supralapsarian viewing God’s decrees. All hold to limited atonement. Most believe in particular grace and see the atonement as sufficient only for the elect. Proponents: Theodore Beza, Gordon Clark, Arthur Pink

4. Moderate Calvinism

Beliefs: That God does in some sense desires to save the reprobate, Infralapsarian in viewing God’s decrees. Affirms Common Grace. Proponents: John Calvin (some argue that he was a High-Calvinist), John Murray, RL Dabney

5. Low Calvinism

Beliefs: That Christ died for all in a legal sense, so one can speak of Christ dying for the non-elect. That God has two distinct wills. Affirms the Well-Meant Offer and Common Grace, Proponents: Amyraldrians , RT Kendal

6. Lutheranism

Beliefs:  That Calvinist over emphasize God Sovereignty over man’s responsibility. That Christ died for all in legal sense, that some are predestined on to life but none are predestined onto death. That the sacraments are means of grace regardless of one’s faith. Proponents: Martin Luther, Philipp Melanchthon, Rod Rosenbladt

7. American Baptist

Beliefs: That God has given man libertarian freedom, that God’s knowledge of future is based on His foreknowledge. That Christ died for all and desires all to be saved. Once a persons believes the gospel, he is eternally secure. Rejects Calvinism, some would even call it heretical. Proponents: Jerry Falwell, Adrian Rogers

8. Arminianism

Beliefs:  That God has given man libertarian freedom, that God’s knowledge of future is solely based on His foreknowledge. That Christ died for all and desires all to be saved. A person can fall from the state of grace i.e. lose ones salvation, since it is our free will that chooses Christ at conversion. Proponents: Jacob Arminius, John Wesley some Methodists

copyright Rev Jonathan James Goundry

The short comprehensible version.

Calvinists claim that the doctrine of “Perseverance of the Saints” (unconditional eternal security) provides eternal confidence, and those who are saved (elected) may never be lost.  Does the doctrine of “Particular Predestination” cause the believer to be more secure than the “Universal Call” of “whosoever believeth”?  In actual fact, is it possible that the doctrine of election might actually cause a lack of eternal assurance?

For 25 years I have labored in thirteen denominations represented by churches from Pentecostal to Presbyterian. In all of these churches, those professing Christ, have demonstrated “Christian assurance.” Christian security is not the sole possession of a denominational class. No person is saved by a doctrine. They are saved by a Savior. Even among Wesleyans, Nazarenes, Salvation Army, Free Methodist and United Methodist, those who claim to have embraced the gospel, as a general rule never question their eternal hope. Perhaps they should but they don’t. Christian assurance has little to do with Scriptural facts and everything to do with an internal Presence.

What assures any individual that he or she is among the elect?  Is it possible to live an entire life under the impression that you are elected, only to discover that you are not elected and doomed to hell?  If this might be true, then what prevents the opposite from being true?  Is it possible to live an entire life, confident that you are probably not one of the elect (living sinfully), and then discover that you are one of the elect and pre-ordained to heaven?  In either case, you are either doomed to heaven or to hell.

It is argued that the evidence of election is godly living. Could the unelected feign godly living in order to prove to himself or herself (and others) that they are among the elect?

When those who claim that they are among the elect are asked for the source of their confidence they often argue “the witness of the Spirit” (Romans 8:16).  This amounts to the same answer that one might get from an Arminian.  Both the Calvinist and the Arminian hang their hopes on the same thing, a subjective experience of internal evidence for their conversion, their election.

If election is determined (foreordained) by God in eternity past, what purpose is there in convincing people of this doctrine?  In believing the doctrines of Calvinism, no one who is unelected is made more elected.  Of those elect (assuming that some Wesleyan – Arminians may be among the elect) who do not believe in particular predestination, coming to believe in particular predestination in no way guarantees that they are more elect than they were before.  Except as a means of proselytizing others, why should any electionist feel compelled to convince any other person of the truth of personal election?

The argument presented by Calvinists as to why they aggressively share this doctrine of ordination among believers is that those who learn of election have their understanding of grace increased and this brings deeper appreciation for the work of Christ. Is this so? This is purely hypothetical in nature as there is no test to affirm their assertion regarding this. Jesus simply declared, “Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little.” Luke 7:47. (KJV)

Further, if a person does not believe in unconditional eternal security, is he nevertheless unconditionally eternally secure according to the articles of High Calvinism?  Other than for purposes of proselytizing others, what is the point of convincing another of the doctrine of “once saved, always saved”?  If the “once saved” are “always saved”, whether they know it or not is immaterial.  Even those who do not believe in unconditional eternal security are unconditionally, eternally secure if they prove to be among the elect.  Should anyone that is genuinely convinced of unconditional eternal security feel any compulsion to convince others of this truth?

Calvinists maintain that the doctrine of “Absolute Sovereignty” exalts and honors God while issues surrounding “free will” exalt men.  Because of this, they argue that Calvinism causes humility in man whereas free will causes arrogance on the part of man.  Is this true?  Is it possible that the opposite characterization might be a more accurate description?  How might particular predestination actually cause human as well as doctrinal arrogance?

According to High-Calvinism, God has decreed a certain number of individuals to be saved.  These have been declared as intimately known individuals prior to their humanity.  He has determined this in eternity past, based upon the counsel of His own sovereign will.  This cannot be altered in any measure.  Those who were not elected may not become elected and those who were elected can never become un-elected.  This is undoubtedly “theological determinism” (See: Islam).  How then does the Scriptural idea of sowing and reaping (the law of the harvest) work itself out in practical ways?  (See: John 4:35).

Nevertheless, it appears that there are two possible conclusions based upon observation.  This, of course, is predicated on the basis that those who appear to be converted people are actually among the elect.  In nations where there has been unusual evangelistic effort, there are apparent unusual and corresponding conversion results that support the concept that abundant sowing results in abundant harvest (“The entrance of thy Word giveth light… Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God… The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.”)  God does not appear to be predisposed to discriminate on an individual basis or cultural bias but fully intends that all men might be saved.

“The preaching of the cross is the power of God unto salvation”

“…it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching, men should be saved”

“I am made all things to all men that I might by all means save some”

One cannot be intellectually honest and in practice deny their philosophical system.  For instance, it is unreasonable to argue for world evangelism and at the same time believe in the “absolute sovereignty” of High-Calvinism.  The elect are the elect.  They are the elect with or without the exercise of human effort, which is an expression of human will. The gift of the evangelist or the giftedness of the evangelist is rendered unnecessary.

One cannot argue for the foreordination of the means.  There is no further means required. The means of “Particular Predestination” is the predetermined counsel of God plus nothing.  By sovereign decree,the elect will be the elect. The condemned will be the condemned.

The short, comprehensible version.

 The debate between Calvinism and Wesleyan – Arminianism cannot be resolved except in one’s own personal theology.  Therefore the issue is counter-productive for any Christian to engage in.

My only purpose for engaging in the debate is to render Calvinism mute as a tool for  proselytism and    division. I have no interest in convincing anyone to the view that Wesleyanism is a more precise view.

I am, as many Christians are, Arminian by default and only by degree.  The point I make is based upon Scriptural evidence; one may “believe” that particular election is the truth, but one may not “know” that particular election is the truth.  Believing and knowing are two different things. 

There is evidence for election(ism), but there is not overwhelming evidence for it.  The circumstantial evidence gleaned from the Biblical text cannot, in a one-sided way, support Calvinism.  There is simply too much other textual evidence that goes up against it. 

A person’s “practical theology” may often not be a reflection of his or her formal systematic theology.  A Calvinist may perform in the manner that we might expect a Wesleyan-Arminian to perform and vice-versa.

The argument put forth by Calvinists that Arminian’s hold a low of view Scripture and though it is true that some do, it is precisely for this reason (inerrancy) that those who are non-Calvinists object to the Reform exegesis of Scripture. Many believe that the hyper-Calvinist rendering fails to consider the full counsel of God by extrapolating, redefining terminology, deconstructing context and ignoring text to suit their bias. 

Converting anyone to either position is of no practical or eternal value especially within the context of Calvinism.  Possessing the knowledge of Calvinist election or convincing anyone of Calvinist election does not in any way make the individual any more elect than they were without the knowledge of election. (Deuteronomy 29:29; II Timothy 2:23). It is all right not to exhaustively know everything. We are not expected to.

It is neither anti-intellectual nor unscriptural to believe in a Wesleyan–Arminian view of Scripture in respect to sovereignty and free will. The weight of intellect and Scripture is not entirely on the side of Calvinism as it is made to appear.

Calvinism, as presented by Calvinists, is not necessarily the only legitimate way to view Scripture.  There is textual (face value) evidence supporting both views.  It is unfair (eisogesis, as do many advocates of High-Calvinism) to insist on literal definitions of predestination, specific election, ordained and foreordination and then redefine the words “all” and “whosoever” to mean only those who experience the “effectual” grace of God.

Furthermore, when situations in Scripture appear to argue for genuine exchanges between men and God (Abraham, Moses in Exodus 32:30-33, etc.) the high-Calvinist will say that this is not to be taken literally as this would be impossible based upon any model of absolute sovereignty. Without justifiable reason, literal language is made figurative and a law of hermeneutics is violated.

Calvinists and Wesleyan–Arminians can hold to their own respective views and remain intelligent, thoughtful and biblically sound Christians.  Neither sinks into heresy except when they adopt extreme views regarding either position.  The danger is not heresy.  The danger is the elitist, ultra-sectarianism that is forbidden in the First Corinthian epistle. “The eye may not say to the hand, I have no need of thee.” This behavior is referred to by St. Paul as carnality and/or immaturity.

Calvinism, while presented as a Scriptural argument, is more rightly understood as a philosophical system beginning with “minute/absolute sovereignty”.  Everything else follows from that presupposition.

There is no authentic Calvinism outside of five point Calvinism.  One may not hold four, three, two, or even one of the points and still be a Calvinist.  If you modify or exclude any of the five points, you become Arminian by degree. Being Calvinistic is not to be confused with being a Calvinist.

Those who support Calvinism often know much about Calvinism but rarely understand the nature of philosophical systems of thought (logic).

Any point of Calvinism that is denied causes all five points to fail as a system of logic.

If someone’s view of the nature of God’s sovereignty is unbalanced or misunderstood as a pre-supposition, it follows that the rest of the system is misapplied.

It is made to appear that this conflict between divine sovereignty and human free will is over the issue of whether God is absolutely sovereign over the universe and the affairs of men.  The sovereignty of God is not the issue in the debate between Calvinism, Wesleyan-Arminianism and other believers. The sovereignty of God is a given fact.  The real issue is the interpretation of how sovereignty is to be understood. 

• Some see sovereignty as a scale with God on one side and man on the other. Should man have any free will at all then God is not absolutely sovereign.
• Others think of  sovereignty as a circle where real freedom is expereienced within that circle without altering God’s power or authority.

Thus, the question to be resolved is not a major theological truth that we must come to Scriptural agreement on or become heretical.  The “absolute sovereignty” debate concerns itself with agreement on a very narrow explanation of a Calvinist interpretation of sovereignty as it relates to particular predestination and election.  The truth is, “predestinate election” as presented by Calvinism, exists within a very small but ardent stream of Christianity.  High-Calvinism stands in isolation, singularly opposed to the theological consensus of the larger expression of historical Christianity.

I wrote and posted this article because I am concerned about some subtle trends that seem to signal a rising tide of hyper-Calvinism, especially within the ranks of young Calvinists and the newly Reformed. I have seen these trends in numerous Reformed theological forums on the Internet, including mailing lists, Web sites, and Usenet forums.
Lest anyone wonder where my own convictions lie, I am a Calvinist. I am a five-point Calvinist, affirming without reservation the Canons of the Synod of Dordt. And when I speak of hyper-Calvinism, I am not using the term as a careless pejorative. I’m not an Arminian who labels all Calvinism “hyper.” When I employ the term, I am using it in its historical sense.
History teaches us that hyper-Calvinism is as much a threat to true Calvinism as Arminianism is. Virtually every revival of true Calvinism since the Puritan era has been hijacked, crippled, or ultimately killed by hyper-Calvinist influences. Modern Calvinists would do well to be on guard against the influence of these deadly trends.

read more…

The Marrow Controversy is one of those obscure questions that appears on the ARP examinations.  Many a student has little knowledge of this controversy that involved, among others, the Erskine brothers.  As a result of the Erskine brother connection, the ARP holds to the “free offer of the gospel”.  The Marrow Controversy shaped the groups that would one day shape the ARP.

I heard of the Marrow Controversy while in seminary, but it was not discussed or examined in any great detail (I can think of a few guys who were examined in Central Florida Presbytery who wish it had so they could answer R.C. Sproul’s questions about evangelism as Calvinists).

One of my favorite Puritans, Thomas Boston, was central to the Marrow Controversy.  The Controversy involved The Marrow of Modern Divinity by Edward Fisher.  Thomas Boston witnessed its censure by the Church of Scotland and saw this as an attack on the gospel itself.  He and the Erskines were among “the Marrow Men” who believed Fisher’s book defended true Christianity against both anti-nomianism and legalism.

Phil Ryken’s introduction to a recent (and needed) reprinting of this book is helpful to put some of this together.  This new edition includes Thomas Boston’s explanatory notes.  Even more helpful is Sinclair Ferguson’s lectures Pastoral Lessons from the Marrow Controversy.  It has 3 lectures that examine its history, the twin problems of license and legalism, and their resolution in the free grace of God.  In many ways, Tim Keller’s book The Prodigal God is a modern defense of free grace against license and legalism.  It is the Marrow Controversy applied to today.

“Anyone who comes to grips with the issues raised in The Marrow of Modern Divinity will almost certainly grow by leaps and bounds in understanding three things: the grace of God, the Christian life, and the very nature of the gospel itself.”- Sinclair B. Ferguson

It seems strange to think of license and legalism as twin deviations from the gospel of free grace.  Ferguson notes that both involve the same type of error, that of separating Christ from His benefits.  The antinomians, who were largely Arminian in their theology, created a conditional salvation.  Christ, they argued, died for all men.  But salvation is not granted to all men, but is conditioned upon faith.  This view often lapses into neo-nomianism wherein faith is the new law.  People are forgiven of their sins by Christ, but are sent to hell for unbelief or enter heaven by faith.  This neglects the fact that unbelief is itself sin for which there must be some atonement.

The legalist also separates Christ from His benefits.  They do this by making conditions that must be met prior to being offered the gospel.  This error is often called hyper-Calvinism.  Calvin held to the free offer of the gospel in which there are instrumental means which take place (faith) but not conditions that must be met (sorrow for sin, repentance etc.).  So, as Ferguson notes, they hold to unconditional election but conditional grace.  This is another version of the Galatian error of adding something to Christ in order to be saved (Christ + circumcision, Christ + anything).

We often find that one extreme begets the other.  In arguing against lawlessness, many a man sounds an awful lot like a legalist (and may in fact be).  In Scripture, the problem of lawlessness is the grace of God.  But in most books that seek to expose lawlessness the answer is more about what we do than what Jesus has done.

Ferguson strongly argues that this is one of the most pastorally vital controversies.  As pastors we deal with lawlessness and legalism constantly.  We find ourselves caught between them, accused of being a legalist by the lawless and lawless by the legalists.  Yep, been there and have the scars to prove it.

We pastors and elders would do well to study this controversy as a result.  Our ministry is all the weaker when we do not.  So, pick up that Ferguson series, Keller book or Fisher’s book.  Wrestle with the license and legalism in your own heart, and find God’s sufficient answer- the Christ who came to save sinners of all stripes.

When one reads books or blogs by Calvinists, the authors will almost always argue that we should not trust our hearts but go with our heads instead. In spite of the fact that Christianity is a “hearty” religion we are told to prefer a scientific, analytical approach.  We should remain detached, dispassionate, forensic as we consider the nature and character of God.

Okay, then… let’s go with our heads.  

There are many “heady” non-Calvinists books and blogs but Calvinists have their collective minds made up already (compartmentalism) and will pay no attention to anything non-Calvinists will say. Non-Calvinists are the devil’s instruments and heretics at best. Calvinists are as intellectually isolated and head strong as are Jehovah’s Witnesses and in many respects very similar in their approach to theological reasoning. Jehovah’s Witnesses start with their conclusion. They begin with preconceived assumptions about God and all of the exegesis is opinionated based upon that conclusion.

The ultra-sectarian Calvinist conclusion is simply this, God’s sovereignty and man’s free-will can be only viewed in one way and it’s their way. They view sovereignty as a scale with man (free-will) on one side and God (sovereignty) on the other. With this priory assumption, it stands to reason that if man has any authentic will then it tips the scale and God is not 100%%, completely sovereign and therefore not sovereign at all.

Non-Calvinist sovereignty and yes, there is one…

The non-Calvinist views sovereignty much differently. He or she sees sovereignty as an all encompassing circle (God and sovereignty) with men as dots within that circle, free to make real decisions. Man’s decisions will in no way alter God’s sovereignty or the outcome of history. God is big enough to handle real individual freedom. The decisions that we read about in scripture were real struggles of faith in real time. They were not simply pre-scripted (robotic) incidents.

Because of these totally different views, non-Calvinists and Calvinists fail to communicate. If we can’t agree on the nature of big things then it is doubtful that we should come to agreement on the small. There is no point then of arguing minutia. *There is no point in examining each usage of the words predestination, ordination, election, calling and their various forms.

*(I encourage the reader to do this as you will find that most of the time the words in their contexts have nothing to do with fore-ordination.)

One only need to type into their Google search engine, “Calvinism Refuted,” and they will have plenty of chemistry to read, if this is what one is  interested in. Every verse, parable and context has been exegeted using every “heady” resource available.  Literally thousands of pages have been devoted to academically opposing T-U-L-I-P. If any are interested in these sites then I am happy to supply the reader with more than they will care about. They will find verse by verse exegetes where context and Greek are relied upon for specific textual analysis. (Here is your opportunity to observe people going mad as they attempt to invent the perpetual motion machine,  “Predestination and Free Will: Four Views of Divine Sovereignty and Human Freedom“ by David Basinger and Randall Basinger from Amazon).

This book (above) is just more of five hundred years of hair splitting division with no resolution. Why? Because there is no resolution to be had. For me, this is nauseating enough without every Tom, Dick and Harry adding their two cents worth. This is why I have chosen to write in the chatty, quippy way as I do. If you are like me, you tire of reading complicated, and I must say, boring intellectual contortions that one must endure in order to get to the bottom of this issue if it were ever possible, which, by the way, it is not.

Speculative philosophies that include such hard to pronounce (let alone keep straight in one’s mind) terminology and definitions like  supralapsanarianism and infralapsanarianism are probably not worth a pedestrian’s time and effort. Because of this, I do with ultra-sectarianism the same as I do with the cultist. I ignore the specific details and ask the big over-arching questions that need to be asked.

I will confess that I do not like Calvinism because it makes God so undesirable.

There is a popular website entitled, “Desiring God” which serves to tout the message and person of John Piper and the Gnostic mysteries of Calvinism. When I have thought deeply about the implications of Calvinism I come to the conclusion that Calvin’s God is not desirable and sad to say, neither have been his adherents. The axiom, “Whatever a man attaches himself to is what he ultimately becomes,” in this case seems to pan out.

Okay, you do not have to be smart in order to understand the implications of Calvin’s sovereignty. 

Perhaps you have read the earlier entry entitled “Calvinism is Theological Determinism (Fatalism),” October 10, 2009 where I made it clear that everything is caused and there is only one cause in the universe. There are no chances, no choices and no changes. In other words, God does not nor cannot allow anything.

Think with me here.

What does this mean? Though I do not necessarily support every point of Arminius’ theology, it is on the following position that we most agree. If there is absolutely no free-will in the universe – no will which can rival the will of God - then God is the cause of every evil. 

Human kind will be held responsible for what they had no part (willful volition) in doing. Men are told not to kill and then caused to kill and then personally held accountable for murder. This does not only apply to individual wickedness but God becomes the cause of every pestilence, disease, natural disaster – every earthquake, tornado, hurricane and tsunami. There are absolutely no accidents, everything that happens is ultimately an “act of God.” Let your imagination run as wild as you like. I wish that I could make this philosophically work out some other way but I would have to manipulate logic in order to do what cannot be done.

 The devil and the angels did not rebel of his or their own willfulness. Adam and Eve were disobedient and sinned because God caused them to disobey an instruction that meant virtually nothing in the real sense. Every good and evil act is initiated by God. Get this, the slaughter of the innocents, the holocaust, abortion, mass murder, every despot  - Ghenghis Khan, Joseph Stalin, Aldolf Hitler, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, the September 11^th terrorists – are all automated by God for some ultimate, noble purpose. 

Apparently, the Calvinist God is more than willing to do what He advises us never to do, use the ignoble in order to accomplish the noble.  God can do this if He likes. After all, He is God but I just don’t see this in the revelation of His overall character. God can neither lie nor perpetuate a lie. He is not both good and evil at one and the same time.  To make God out to be like this, is to make Him the author of good and evil. God becomes two-faced (See: Hindu Dualism). A manipulative, untrustworthy and unpredictible God is not desirable.

All evil in the universe is ultimately the work of God. 

Some Calvinists will lay claim to this while others try to wiggle out of it. They will claim that man is still culpable even though a man has no means in which to prevent his own actions. Some men are hard wired by God for evil purposes while others for noble. Now let’s don’t think about this. Once we have arrived at this point, darkness becomes light, sour and sweet are alike, evil for good, vice for virtue and justice has lost it’s definition. Let’s then, just all agree that God has no problem with looking upon evil regardless of what the scripture says,

“Thou that art of purer eyes than to behold evil, and that canst not look on perverseness, wherefore lookest thou upon them that deal treacherously, and holdest thy peace when the wicked swalloweth up the man that is more righteous than he…”  Habakkuk 1:13

The truth is, the Calvinist God is not only comfortable with sin, he turns out to be responsible for it. Jehovah becomes a God of contradiction.

I invite the reader to take a fresh look at Matthew 17:14-21 where they will see the desirable Jesus in battle with the demonic world. Jesus, here in this passage, does not say, “Oh well, tough luck, this evil that has come upon you is the will of my Father.” Nope, he apparently thinks that this incident is not God’s will and explains to the boy’s father that the disciples were ineffective because this deliverence requires more than a word casually spoken. Change is possible. Circumstances can change. This situation required the application of prayer and fasting to be successful. It seems, from this passage, that there is some part men should play (prayer and fasting) in altering the spiritual climate. This story doesn’t appear to be fatalistic to me. How about you? 

________________________

At this point the author expects the Calvinist to play his Judas and the crucifixion of Christ trump card.

Jesus offered himself as a sin offering and Judas, “the son of perdition” was predestined to a task . The non-Calvinists accepts election to task and has equally challenging “trump card” scriptures which appear to support the non-Calvinist view. All of this was foreknown before the foundation of the world by God but this author does not accept, on the basis of Scripture, that God caused the death of His own Son. Jesus struggled in Gethsemane. He was tested in all ways as we are but did not surrender to sin. “Father, if it be Thy will, deliver me from this cup,” but in the end, “not my will but thine be done.” ”He offered Himself up for us all” – “for the joy set before him.”

Do you remember when Uncle Ricco, Napoleon Dynamite and Kip were all sitting together on the couch watching Ricco’s lame quarterbacking videos? Annoyed, Napoleon cynically speaks up and says, “This is pretty much the worst video of all time.” To this over statement Kip responds, ‘Napoleon, like anybody could ever know that?” It was a moment of truth, wasn’t it? No one could know whether this was the worst video ever made or not. In order to know this sort of thing a person would at least have to have exhaustive knowledge in two different respects. First, they would have to have an all encompassing aesthetic sensibility. Additionally, they would have to have viewed and know, when it came to all videos ever made, what is infinitely good and bad. This is infinite information that no one has.

Perseverance of the Saints…

You may be wondering what this has to do with Calvinism, election, predestination and the fifth point of T-U-L-I-P, “Perseverance of the Saints?” 

When it comes to the infinite, there are some things just too much for a finite mind to know. In previous entries, I have written (and quoted Calvin himself) about sovereignty and election. Over and over, I have only repeated Calvin telling the reader that God in eternity past specifically and particularly chose each and every individual who would be regenerated and this is done before they have ever been born into this present world. My point being that all men are basically born hopeless from the beginning. People enter existence already condemned or saved and Christ did not die for ALL men  but only for those whom God has preselected. This concept is called “Particular Election.”  

Further, and Calvinists will agree with me here, all of those who are Elected by God will never be lost. This is called by some, “Once saved, always saved” but the real language is “Perseverance of the Saints.” 

Here’s the deal. 

It would be impossible for anyone, even the most ardent Calvinist to know for certain that they are among the Elect. They could think that they are among the Elect but they could not know for absolutely certain that they are among the chosen.

Jehovah’s Witnesses have the same problem in knowing whether or not they are in the heavenly 144,000.

Muslim’s are never sure that Allah will admit them to Paradise, unless of course, they go out and blow themselves up in the name of Islam.

Now get what I am saying here. I am not saying that no Calvinists are Elect. I am just saying that it would be presumptuous to say so. Of course, when they do say so, they say so for the same reason that a Pentecostal or a Wesleyan says so. They have the witness of the Spirit (Romans 8:9 and 16) that they are a child of God and this has nothing to do with skills in debating the finer points of Romans 9,  Ephesians 2 or T-U-L-I-P.  

It is here that I want to do what no person who wants to be taken seriously should ever do. I want to argue from the position of particularity. In other words, I intend to resort to specific, personal experience and examples. In fact, I will perhaps set myself up as some sort of judge but not having the advantage of exhaustive knowledge of the mind of God or any person I am about to refer to.

For twelve years I taught a three credit course entitled, “Sovereignty and Free-Will” at a Minneapolis area college not more than twenty minutes from John Piper’s, Bethlehem Baptist Church. Because of this, I wound up having a number of hard-shell and objectionable Calvinists (they prefer to be called Reform but a rose by any other name is still a rose) in my classroom. In all, I would suspect that, over the years, I had about ten of those students. I really can’t imagine what they thought. They thought that the class was up for grabs and anyone’s opinion was as good as anyone else’s. They perhaps supposed that anything goes but this wouldn’t be true at Bethlehem Baptist now would it? Of course not. We have, as does Bethlehem Baptist, what might be called a “School of Thought.” We thought in a certain way and objected to other ways of thinking. That was our prerogative as it is Bethlehem Baptists prerogative and my expectation that, should I attend there, I will be subjected to Reform doctrine, otherwise called Calvinism.

Now here’s where I do what I should not do. Of those ten students, all experts at Calvinism, I can only think of one that has not now left the faith, presently living an immoral life, dropped out of ministry, or was expelled for insubordination. So far, of the ten, only one has seemed to persevere. Fortunately, the last chapter may not have been written yet and these prodigals may yet be restored. Perhaps they are Elect in spite of the poor performance? Who knows? At this point a good Calvinist would have two choices. They could either say, “They probably weren’t saved in the first place” or “Performance has nothing to do with whether a person will persevere or not. The appearance of external morality or the seeming evidence of faith is no indicator of whether a person is (Elect) saved or not. There need not be any evidence of regeneration or transformation.” I take no exception to this as this, according to grace, is possible but not ideal.

 “For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;” (Titus 2:11-13) 

 Here is my point.

For the longest time these students were convinced that they were among the Elect. In those same classrooms there were all sorts of denominations represented and it is true that not all of the other five hundred or more appear to have persevered. Still, none of these students were as adamant about persevering and arguing for it with as much conviction as the Calvinists in the room who overall, and almost to a person, have not done well. Knowledge of Election is no guarantee of Election, now is it?

There are others that become enamored with the tenants of Calvinism. They are busy learning axiom’s and theorems, memorizing minute details on how to defend their doctrines, staying up late at night pouring over Romans and Ephesians, reading ponderous books by Westminster PhD’s and honing their new found skills on their friends and family members. Is it possible that they engage themselves in this way, day after day, night after night, month after month and year after year and after having diligently learning all about every nuance of Calvinism, and at the precise moment they draw their last breath learn that all of this was a colossal waste of time and they were never regenerate in the first place? Well yes, and I think that this will undoubtedly be the case of some. Spiritually speaking, some have never brought up a drop of life-giving water from their own spiritual wells. Oh well, so be it, “che sara, sara.” Their heads are full but their hearts empty and their spirits are still dead in sin. “The flesh, it profiteth nothing” and “knowledge puffeth up.”

Calvinists are simply parrots all in the same cage.

Worldwide, Jehovah’s Witnesses are doing similarly each Thursday evening at their Theocratic Meetings. Are they committed to what they believe? You bet they are! Are they sincere? You bet they are! Are they Elect? Not on your life! Do they think they are! You bet they do!

Sadly, Mormon’s couldn’t possibly know if they are Elect or not (except the witness of the Spirit) and neither can a Calvinist. Do Mormon’s think they have the witness of the Spirit? Just ask them and they will tell you about their subjective, “Burning in the bosom,” as they call it.

I believe that a recipe for losing one’s assurance is to become a Calvinist and go about wondering whether you have it or not. It is much easier to take God at His word and believe what He says, “for “WHOEVER WILL CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED “ (Romans 10:13), “that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation” (Romans 10:9-10),  “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” They said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household” (Acts 16: 30b-31), “The one who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself; the one who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has given concerning His Son. And the testimony is this,that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life. These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life (1 John 5:10-13).“ 

How hard is this to understand?

Muslim’s, Buddhists, first year philosophy students, my twelve year-old grandson – they all get it. Still there remain some who do not take clear definitions for what they are. Fatalism means ALL is caused. There is no choice, no chance and no change in the universe. Once more, let me give you the textbook definitions of determinism and fatalism.

Determinism

“From the Latin de plus terminus, “end.”  In philosophy, the idea that all that happens is casually fixed and cannot happen any other way; the belief that all events in the universe, including human actions, are controlled by previous conditions.  Many forms of Calvinism are variations of theological determinism.”

Fatalism

“From the Latin fatim, meaning ‘that which the god’s ordain to happen.’  The belief that God, because He is all knowing and all-powerful, foresees and causes according to His divine foreknowledge every event in a person’s life and in the universe.  These events must occur; they cannot happen.  When God’s sovereignty is taken to be so wooden, the resulting fatalism is devastating to evangelism, missions, and ultimately to the nature of God and human beings created in His image.”

High Sovereignty (Calvinism) is theological determinism and theological determinism is fatalism. They all are the same thing by different names.

The raw facts of the matter… 

If you have been praying for your parents, your children or your next door neighbor you can stop right now as their eternity is pre-determined. Any and all excercise whereby you beseech God on behalf of another for any reason is a waste of one’s time. God’s pre-determined will has decided everything in advance.

Anyone who attempts to cajole you by offering some twisted explanation about God working through the means of prayer (or preaching) has not been honest. What is decided in the pre-determined will of God is decided and nothing we do by vain effort and futile works of the flesh will make one iota of difference in the ultimate outcome.

I invite the reader(s) to refer to the entry,  ”An Oxymoron – Calvinist Evangelism.”

Suddenly, I’m having a run of readership on this article!

Come on. This is just an opinion, for something really challenging, try “Is Calvin’s God Desireable?”

John Calvin was not called the “Pope of Geneva” for no reason…

Last week, on our way up to Canada, my wife, Jeanne and I rode along singing the great hymns of the church. When I say “great hymns of the church” I don’t mean Gregorian chants, Bach, Mendelssohn or Handle. I mean the kind of songs you can find in almost any hymnal of any denomination or independent church in the  Christian world. Even though a majority of churches have shifted to contemporary chorouses for common worship there still remains a living memory of hymns and gospel songs that have served the worldwide Church for as much as five centuries or more. I am thinking of composers like Charles Wesley, Issac Watts, Francis Havergal, P.P. Bliss, Fanny Crosby and songs like, “He Hideth My Soul,” Be Still, My Soul,” “Amazing Grace,” Blessed Assurance,” “Have Thine Own Way, Lord,” “O, For a Thousand Tongues” and so forth.

It suddenly occured to me that those going over to ”Reformed / Calvinist” churches, for the most part, stop singing the songs and choruses that the rest of us have sung and continue sing. They suddenly start singing the Psalms without accompaniment. I wondered why.

Now, I suppose if you were to ask them they will offer some rather noble reason like, “Singing scripture is more scriptural,” or perhaps “Singing the Psalms glorifies God.” I hope that this is an honest answer but down deep I just don’t think it is.

Another similar sectarian  mind-control scenario… 

When we were first converted we were exposed to the Plymouth Brethren or Christian Brethren as they are otherwise called. They didn’t sing the Southern Baptist songs that I grew up on either. Regrettably, they and we sang out of the “Little Flock Hymnbook.” A quick run through the authors of the songs contained therein and one realizes that, unless he or she has been a lifetime PB’er, they have never heard of a single one of these people or the hymns they have written. No matter how unsingable and unedifying these melodies were, we plodded through them week after week.  These weren’t necessarily bad hymnologically or poorly composed songs, it’s just that well, no one new to the PB’s knew any of them and this meant an incredible learning curve until we caught on. I’m not sure that we ever did like those hymns at all. To this day, I am not able to recall a single one of the tunes or lyrics and for me, none turned out to be particularly endearing. Fortunately for us, our group was eventually oustracized from the tight fellowship circle and our little Open Brethren group switched to singing the old favorites and the then more current stuff from the likes of Keith Green and Honeytree, YEAH!!! Once the door was slightly ajar, in came those pesky guitars and banjo’s along with a good amount of toe tapping and joy filled, even rather rowdy singing.

Getting it Right. Nomenclature and almost everything else…

Truth is, we had to learn a lot of other things like how to talk right. In most evangelical churches folks can simply ask questions like,”Are you saved?” or  ’When did you get saved” or “Are you born-again?” But this is not true in the Plymouth Brethren. No sir, you show yourself to be a novice if you didn’t ask the question in this way, “Are you the Lord’s? or “When did you become the Lord’s?”  This is just but one example of how our first experiences into the Christian world were slightly skewed. Almost over night we seemed to have had to learn special handshakes. Looking back, it all projected a rather Masonic Lodge sort of mystery about it. This was mystery that made us special and separated us from those other half-hearted, half-witted believers that just didn’t understand what New Testament Christianity was really all about.

Of course, we didn’t have a seminary trained pastor. We shunned seminaries as the spawn of the devil himself. While other groups (those nasty denominations) did it the worldly way we did it according to the Scriptures and “examined those who served among us.”  We never used any title for anyone, not Reverend (certainly not Reverend since only God was to be revered), nor did we call anyone Pastor or even Elder So in So. Terminology like Dr. This and That was from the pit of hell. Oh, we never actually said this outloud for anyone to hear, but this is what we were taught and sub-consciously believed.

We were trained in other separationists “new speak” nomenclature as well. We learned never to refer to ourselves as “going to church”.  No one ever went to church. We went to “meeting” or “assembly.” You couldn’t possibly go to church because you were The Church. Through distinctions of this nature we could detect the “Us’s” from the “Them’s” and  ”Innie’s” from the “Outie’s.”

Then there was this business whereby we again set ourselves further apart by not being a denomination. We didn’t have some sign over our door announcing ourselves as Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians or any non-biblical, man made, institutional name. No sir! “We gather to the Name of The Lord Jesus Christ each Lord’s Day at 10 A.M.. Lord Willing“  We always had to add the “Lord Willing” part. This is what OUR sign (even though a sign is less than New Testament, we had one) said and to us, at that time, it made all of the sense in the world. In many ways, this still makes sense to me. Yet, once I came off of the theologically provincial PB island I discovered that we weren’t really “Gathered to the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ” at all and were just as sectarian, and perhaps even more so, than everyone else. I still wonder how I ever got to these hard-headed convictions. It was a slow process and it took ten years to free myself from three years of PB indoctrination.

It didn’t stop there. We were persuaded to only consider PB interpretations of Scripture. After all, our commentarialists were not in it for themselves. They weren’t writing to obtain large book contracts or to advance a denomination, but were writing their little books for the sake of truth and the ”glory of God.” They were humble servants of God and did not even sign their names but rather used initials to indicate who the authors of various publications were. We insiders all knew what C.M. stood for (Charles McIntosh)  but he was a secret to everyone else. All of this was most likely false humility, but at the time this struck me as incredibly GODLY.  Though we weren’t told what to read we found ourselves clearing our shelves of both secular and what appeared to be,  unacceptable teaching from those of other doctrinal persuasions.  Many opted to read only the Schofield Reference Bible and often spent more time with Mr. Schofield’s ponderings and wanderings than with the scriptures themselves.

In the interest of time and your attention span, I will just list the ways in which the Plymouth Brethren turn out to be more Christian than the rest of you. I copy these directly from Wikipedia so you can look them up for yourselves if you happen to be more intrigued by this subject than you should be.

I have said all of this to say the following…

Were the Plymouth Brethren right? Well, yes, I think in many ways they were and are. Was all of this biblical? No doubt and in some ways I still prefer PB elements to that of the contemporary “Big Box” churches.

Plymouth Brethren eccesiology is something but it is not everything.  

After more than thirty five years of ministry I can still see the many ways in which the Plymouth Brethren have recaptured New Testament patterns of ecclesiology and worship. Yet, there remains a problem. I have come to believe that, like other ultra secrtarian, separationists, isolationists groups one of the real motivations for all of this indoctrination is the control of their adherents and the proselytism of new ones. I think exactly the same of Calvinism. It is about theological manipulation, power and domination. 

We, as Plymouth Brethren, were advised to “…come outside of the camp, bearing His reproach,” to “…come out from among them and be ye separate,” and on and on it went. After all, this sounds right doesn’t it? Some Plymouth Brethren will go so far as to not even have a sandwich with a person outside of their fellowship group. It’s in the Bible, isn’t it? Yet, in my mind the real reason for separation was theological domination, ie: “mind control.” This isn’t exactly cultic. You are free to go anytime you like but unknown to you, your security has been misplaced and in some sort of way you have wandered into a kind of intellectual legalism. You can but you cannot go anytime you like. You have moved on to a very small island and have destroyed both your boats and your bridges. One has been promised freedom and liberty but in fact, he or she have become the merchandise of men and fallen into a bondage that they may never or have a great deal of difficulty recovering from.

Now back to Calvinist mind-control isolationism…

This is how I see the doctrines of many sectarian groups. This is how regard the Calvinist  / Reform churches. This is why I think they take away the hymnbook and sing the Psalms. They know full-well that ninety percent of the songs in most hymnals found in the pew racks of most churches in the world could not, in good conscience, be sung by a Five-Point Calvinist because the inherent hymnology offers free grace to free men. They certainly wouldn’t want  anyone thinking about anything other than T-U-L-I-P.

Generally, you will not see TULIP Calvinists, or for that matter, Seventh Adventists, United Pentecostals, Church of Christ, Independent Baptists and other fundamentalist congregations supporting city-wide, multi-church events. They will be involved in some events but only if they can be the head and not the tail. Shouldn’t this raise a red flag? Likely not, if one has already been dominated and under the spell of mind-control theologies and/or practices. Ultra-secretarianism is not exactly a cult but it is toxic-Christianity and dangerous to the kingdom of God.

All of this mind-control is accomplished through the guise of honoring God through right belief, doctrine, behavior or practice.

For more on this subject see… “A Mind Control Reality Check”

Here is a  question from one of my readers. Read it then see my, “off of the top” response.

“…Just one quick question…if I believe in Christ and therefore “choose” to believe then is that a work since I’m having to believe. I never considered that but the more I’ve read from Calvinism’s view I’m seeing that can certainly be viewed as I’m elected because I selected Christ therefore leading to a “works” based salvation. I don’t know…it’s a little fuzzy and I could use a bit of clarification. I know salvation has nothing to do with me but then how do I reconcile that if I accept Christ I’m saved and if I reject Christ I’m not saved, which is what I do believe, but then how’s that nothing in and of me?

Thanks so much.

Your Friend In Christ,

_______________________________

My response went something like this…

In the Gospel sense, believe is the same as put confidence in.  God instructed the Israelites through Moses to look upon the serpent on the pole and be saved (Numbers 21, John 3). This is not a natural reaction when surrounded by serpents (especially a deadly serpent that can kill with a single bite). The human tendency would be to do one of three things, run, get up on something higher or go down swinging – stomping snakes (sin). You’ll remember that at least 3,000 rejected the offer and by disbelief perished. 

The unlikely, but saving action would be taking God’s instruction seriously, turning your eyes upward and away from self-dependency and, by faith (“belief in action”), trusting in Christ to do the work on your behalf (“being made sin for us… the just for the unjust that He might bring us to God”) and do what human effort (church attendance, ritual, good works) cannot do. This is how James argues for the definition of faith. We prove and demonstrate what we believe by our actions based upon that belief. This is why, as unbiblical as they are, some instituted altar calls. Jesus and the early church used public baptism  (a pretty all-or-nothing altar call) – in many cases a death sentence. See: my entry, “The Fallacy of Calvinism at First Glance.”

The thief on the cross could not offer anything to procure his salvation. He simply had to call out for mercy with confidence that Jesus, even while nailed up, dying on a cross, had the authority and power to provide it. Sometimes people can only see their own unrighteousness when compared to the glory and holiness of Jesus and this may bring about a hearty repentance – a repentance unto salvation.

It is said of the prodigal that he looked around at his situation and circumstances caused him to come to his senses, ie: “he came to himself” Luke 15:17. He thought, even if I am a slave in my father’s house, I will not be turned away and will be treated better than this. I will humble myself, admit that I have sinned by returning home. Sometimes people look at the condition of their sin, where it has taken them, have the same thought (“I’m in a pickle! I need to do something about this!”) as the thief on the cross. This may bring about what some have called an awakening followed by conviction, resulting in a hearty repentance. 

All of this is absolutely the opposite of works and self-confidence. Belief has nothing to do with works. It is a declaration of  the end of one’s self and expresses confidence in Christ alone… Christ plus nothing!

I can stuff you in a rain barrel, nail the lid on tightly over your head and everything you need to go to heaven is in that rain barrel. This doesn’t sound like works to me.  

Calvinists will make faith (belief in action) into a work.

Belief is just the opposite. Belief in the work of Christ alone is what separates Christianity from all other religious systems. This is contrary to religion (salvation by works or human effort). Religion requires that one manipulate the spirits, appease the God’s in one way or another.  

By contrast, the Bible says,

“What shall we do that we might work the works of God? … This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.”  It appears there is at least one work required.

“Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” “

Look unto Him all ye ends of the earth and be ye saved.”

“And ye shall seek me and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart.”

“But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.”  

Why should God seem to reward seeking? Isn’t that a work? Why should God reward any activity of man? Simply because believing and seeking is opposite to the very nature of man.

God does not reward the sun for shining. Why? Because the sun is doing what God made it to do.  But when you say all of this to a disciple of Calvin and point to scripture like these above and a hundred others, they will deny what they see and begin to extrapolate, dismantle and reconstruct to suit their speculative philosophy. They will resort to linguistic and intellectual gymnastics.  They will now say, “Yes, yes, okay, but where did faith come from in the first place? Unh? Unh?”  

To this, reply, “You know what, I don’t know and I don’t care. All I know is, once I was blind but now I see. I just did not call God a liar and took Him at his word and when I was twelve years old, I believed, trusted and called out, I was forgiven of my sin and I walked away a new creature in Christ Jesus. I have the inner witness that I am a child of God. I am in love with God through Christ and God’s love displayed for me through the cross. I don’t care a bit about the science of your soteriology.

I only can think that it would not be possible for anyone to know if they were elect or not. Aside from the subjective witness of the Spirit of God, no one could have a drop of confidence that they are among the elect. I will not allow you and your doctrine to rob me of my liberty and certainty.

Frankly, I don’t think that you are among the elect. Oh, well, that’s what I think. You may know Hebrew and Greek but I’m not certain that you know the living God. You have reduced God to a chemistry textbook while I have him in a love letter. It’s a romance – more like art than science.

Let’s say that in the end you are right and predestination and election is the truth. I doubt if it is, but say it is, who will care? Perhaps only those who thought they were elect and weren’t or those who thought they weren’t elect and are. Some will care for the better and some for the worse. For me, I simply believe what the scripture has said and took God at His offer of free grace, “These things I have written to you who believe (put confidence in) in the name (authority) of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life.” 1 John 5:13.

I’m sorry, but I just can’t live with the “Iffy-ness” of Calvinism. Calvinist election is not as secure as God’s “whosoever “ and “all “ – and “all” means “all”- the kind of “all” that everyone on the planet seems to understand.

Calvinism deals with the philosophy of salvation; the intricate what’s, how’s, who’s, when’s and why’s of soteriology. That’s nice, but it is not a biblical approach. Here’s the scriptural confidence. I was lost at sea and from somewhere came a life preserver. I didn’t care a straw on how it got there or what it was anchored to, or how well it was fastened at the other end. I just grabbed it and it held.

Perhaps you have heard the Blondin tightrope walking incident? Well, I was one who trusted Christ enough to get into the wheel barrel. You know what? He has promised to carry me across and he will. You are boring me with your articulate but cold, dispassionate chatter.”  

“But the righteousness based on faith speaks as follows: “DO NOT SAY IN YOUR HEART, ‘WHO WILL ASCEND INTO HEAVEN?’ (that is, to bring Christ down),  or ‘WHO WILL DESCEND INTO THE ABYSS?’ (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead).”  But what does it say? “THE WORD IS NEAR YOU, IN YOUR MOUTH AND IN YOUR HEART”–that is, the word of faith which we are preaching,  that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;  for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.”  Romans 10:6-10

Though I don’t suggest that anyone deduce their theology from Christmas greeting cards or hymns, you might sing to him, “I Know in Whom I Have Believed.” from the old Broadman Hymnal.

Here’s the deal. Calvinists have made God and the Bible too small. If the Bible simply gave us nothing but predestination and foreordination verses and context then I wouldn’t even type another word and no one else would either. I think that this is enough for today. Yes?

One more thing…

The Church is a river, not a reservoir.

We all know that cults control what their adherents are exposed to. For instance, a Jehovah’s Witness is not allowed to read Trinitarian literature. Just try giving a JW a tract and they will immediately reject it as “demonically inspired.” Mormonism, Scientology, Unification (Moonies), just won’t allow their adherents to believe anything they like and remain in good standing with the organization. For this reason, those who join these groups are told what they can and cannot read, see, hear and trust. When beliefs pop-up that do not fit, the cult immediately goes to work dispelling any evidence that opposes their theological propositions. Often the apologetic provided seems, to a rational mind, incomprehensible.  

Those who have worked in de-programming know that the number one challenge is ridding a cultist of his or her misplaced confidence. Their reliance on the authority of the prophet, Joseph Smith or the teacher, Charles Taze Russell and the Watchtower is superior to the Spirit and the Word of God. Everything must be interpreted through a demogog of one kind or another. Doctrinal isolation – being deprived of other points of view is key to the indoctrination process. Mind control requires the constant and steady drumbeat of a prescribed dogma. This should be no surprise. We expect this from a cult.

Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be free indeed.

 John 8:36

21Therefore let no man glory in men. For all things are your’s; 22Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are your’s; 23And Christ’s; and Christ is God’s.

1 Corinthians 3:21-23

Sectarianism is the evidence of Spiritual immaturity and carnality…

I see evidences of predestination but because I do not see overwhelming evidence of it. I am, by default, a non-Calvinist.

I have read widely and enjoy authors from a wide variety of theological perspectives. I challenge almost any ordinary Christian to have read more sermons by C.H. Spurgeon than I have. Though Spurgeon didn’t always preach or write like a Calvinist should ( I intend a future blog entry on examples of this), he claimed to be one and I like him. Then I have enjoyed other Calvinists like, John Piper, R.C. Sproul, James White (some subjects more than others), John McArthur but I also like John Wesley, C. S. Lewis, John Stott, Calvin Miller, Ravi Zacharias, Chuck Colson, Howard Hendricks, Philip Yancey, Chuck Swindoll, Max Lucado, A.W. Tozer and on and on it goes. I confess to even have read, Benny Hinn’s, “Good Morning, Holy Spirit.” As they say, “Sometimes I have to just eat the chicken and spit out the bones.”

It is my opinion that this wide exposure to theological thinking helps one to have a more balanced view of the “Faith of our fathers” or, let me put it another way, “the faith once delivered to the Saints.”

Some of my email and blog comment indicates that not all of my readers feel similarly.

Those who only see things from one perspective make me just a little nervous. John Calvin finished his massive (and I must say brilliant), “Institutes of the Christian Religion” by the time he was twenty-seven and by the end of his life he said that he wouldn’t have changed a thing. Should this bother anyone?  It’s an amazing person that has it all figured out (especially something so incredible as the sovereignty of God) by the time he or she is but twenty-seven years of age. Quoting Bob Dylan from “My Back Pages,” Ahhh, but I was so much older then, I’m younger than that now.”

I thank God for Luther’s justification by faith alone and for the Menno Simons and the Mennonites in reclaiming the importance of the Word of God. When carnality was rampant in the church, there was John Wesley, “a brand plucked from the fire” who felt elect to the task of “restoring holiness in the land.” Then, just at the right time, just when the church needed someone to step up and reach out to the poor and suffering, God gave us William and Catherine Booth and the Salvation Army was born. Even though, sometimes over the top, I like the Pentecostals welcoming the Holy Spirit back into the worship services.

Perhaps you don’t appreciate all of these influences as I do? Why not? Though no theological stream is crystal clear, do you value the Christian Missionary Alliance, the Southern Baptists, the Lutheran witness in the world or is every group but your group under suspicion? Have you and your group become the sole arbiter of Christian orthodoxy? Uh, oh.   

I am suspicious, and you should be as well, when Christian groups or leaders have only one point of view. This happens you know. I have run into sects who bang the drum in a certain way and they expect their adherents to fall in line. There is no room for the non-conformists – the person who asks the honest question or questions authority. These groups generally isolate their people from others and in the name of truth or doctrinal purity exert power through a certain kind of mind control. I could name these groups but I’m pretty sure that you have your own list. One of the problems with indoctrination and mind control is most often those who are the victim of this toxicity are the least aware that it has happened to them. They have become the proverbial, “frog in the kettle.”

”…knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation…

2 Peter 1:20

Perhaps you see what I might be getting at? Let me resort to quoting the great philosopher, Oscar (it may have been Grover) of Sesame Street, “One of these things is not like the other? One of these things does not belong… ”  Being able to make fine distinctions is a primary test of intelligence.

See an earlier blog entry: “Hyper-Calvinism.”

I have a young friend who has gone over to the other side and almost overnight he has become an expert at everything to do with the doctrine of Grace and the subject of soteriology. What he means by Grace and what I mean are two different things. He means “Sovereign Grace” (predestination and particular or specific election) while I mean something different. I mean what the Bible teaches…  

 11 For the grace of God has been revealed, bringing salvation to all people. 12 And we are instructed to turn from godless living and sinful pleasures. We should live in this evil world with wisdom, righteousness, and devotion to God, 13 while we look forward with hope to that wonderful day when the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, will be revealed. 14 He gave his life to free us from every kind of sin, to cleanse us, and to make us his very own people, totally committed to doing good deeds.                                                                                   Titus 2:11-14

He recently wrote me the following, “At one point you seem to be arguing that being a Calvinist means that your (sic) passive and lazy whereas Arminians (*For the purpose of clarity I am not an Arminian except by default. I am a non-Calvinist.) are go-getters.  This is simply untrue and any (sic) virtually any Calvinist resource could have corrected you on this matter.  God uses means to achieve his ends and so we act.”  He wrote me much more than this but for my purpose this will do.

My objection has nothing to do with Calvinists being lazy.

I do not need the help of an agent of Calvinism to know full well that they have been and are presently engaged in evangelism. They do not persuade and in most cases shun any kind of altar call or invite a decision but they are involved in preaching the gospel. In fact, historically they were on the vanguard of the advancement of the gospel throughout the world and though now they spend an inordinate amount time on evangelizing the evangelized to Calvinism they are still active in both evangelism and missions. Here’s my problem? I just cannot figure out why. For me, on their part this activity is a redundant absurdity.

My objection is simply this – they do not have to be involved in evangelism.

When asked why they do evangelism they will give two reasons. The first reason is legitimate but based upon their soteriology and view of sovereignty, the second is not.

Reason 1. 

We are commanded to preach the gospel and in obedience, we do it.

Reason 2.  

In reaching the elect God has chosen the means of preaching. We do not know who the elect are.

This may shock my Calvinists readers but preaching is not the means of election. The sovereign, predetermined will of God IS the only means of election. Preaching is meaningless. Evangelism is absolutely immaterial and unnecessary. People can do evangelism all they like but it has nothing to do with the ultimate outcome of a single persons’ eternal whereabouts. Insist and disagree all you like, it will not change a thing as Mr. Calvin has painted himself into his own corner.

Double  Predestination is the foregone conclusion.

This isn’t particularly complicated. Now let’s look at Calvin’s own words one more time and see if I am not right. Please tell us if the elect are not the elect no matter what. Tell all of us how preaching will change what has been decided in eternity past.

People are either saved or doomed and hopeless from the beginning. There is no way around it. It should not require a Ph.D. in logic to understand this. It could not have been made more clear. The elect are the elect and the damned are the damned. I suggest that folks who fatalistically believe in preordination – who don’t believe that prayer and preaching changes things, should just stay at home.

“Predestination we call the eternal decree of God by which He hath determined in Himself what He would have to become of every individual of mankind.  For they are not all created with a similar destiny; but eternal life is foreordained for some, and eternal damnation for others…  We assert that, by an eternal and immutable counsel, God hath once for all determined whom He would admit to salvation and whom He would condemn to destruction.  We affirm that this counsel, as far as it concerns the elect, is founded on His gratuitous mercy, totally irrespective of human merit: but that to those whom He devotes to condemnation, the gate of life is closed by a just and irreprehensible, but incomprehensible judgment.”

A comprehensive statement that incorporates the various elements of the Doctrine of Election into one concise paragraph.

 John Calvin                  

The Institutes of the Christian Religion II xxi. 4, and xxi. 7.

Based on Calvin’s position statement, I am sorry to further report that God has misled us and he turns out to be a respecter of persons after all. Since missions and evangelism have nothing to do with the final outcome we are left with a problem. From what is observable to the eye and perhaps supported by statistical analysis, God appears to prefer Americans to Sri Lankans and South Carolinian’s to Vermonters. He does not really want a “multitude which no one could number, of all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues.” Along with God, we should be satisfied with a smidgen of well-heeled folks from Grand Rapids, Minneapolis and Louisville.

 The Bible declares, “So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God”  (Romans 10:17). But according to the tenants of Calvinism this is not true. Faith cometh by the predetermined will of God. Hearing is the outcome of faith and not the other way round. God must first set a man alive before the man can hear and thus have any kind of faith.

I’d like to be wrong but I don’t think I am.

4 Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance? 5 But in accordance with your hardness and your impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, 6 who “will render to each one according to his deeds”…

Romans 2:4-6

How hard is this to understand? I shouldn’t think anyone requires the twists and turns of a Calvinist interpretation to figure this out. If a simple man can’t get it, it isn’t worth having. Man is culpable from the get go. In the end, a man’s lostness is not and will not be God’s fault. (I haven’t the time to explain how Calvinists wiggle out of this knot.) He has stretched out His hand all the day long and through the hardness of men’s hearts (God resisteth the proud) God’s goodness has been rejected. For this reason men will justifyably experience the wrath of God.

Calvinists: Please do not instruct me on the finer points of how you handle culpability. I already know what they are. Your explanation is entirely too convoluted. Thanks.

 A follow up to “Do Calvinists Cast Out Demons?”

(Some of this is not original. I am proud to admit that I stole a few of the ideas from Mark Rutland. Of all the influences in my life, Dr. Mark Rutland ranks at the very top. No other single individual has even come close to shaping my view of who Jesus is, how to do ministry and the nature of the kingdom of God as much as he has. He is a voice that America desperately needs to hear.)

“Now it happened on a certain day, as He was teaching, that there were Pharisees and teachers of the law sitting by, who had come out of every town of Galilee, Judea, and Jerusalem. And the power of the Lord was present to heal them.” Luke 5:17

We hear this word “anointing”  bandied about quite often, especially among Pentecostals and Charismatics. I wonder though if many understand it at all? Oh, certainly there are those academics who can draft a precise, twenty-five word paragraph on the theological definition. This, however, is not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about something textural.

Anointing, I know what it is until you ask me. I know when I’m anointed and when I’m not but if you ask me to explain it I am left rather speechless. I perhaps could do a better job at explaining what it isn’t.

On occasion, some will compliment me by saying, “Well, it’s about time we heard some really anointed preaching!” or “Man! Were you ever anointed!” This is nice affirmation but sometimes I just wonder if people (more precisely) Christians have any discernment whatsoever. They may be, as a group, the most bamboozled people on the planet. If a person just sweats a little or takes on an unusual, holy sounding inflection, like stretching out the word, “Tonnnnniiiightt-TTT” in some peculiar way then he or she must be anointed. If one can prance across the stage shouting content less gobbledygook and if they do it with enough gusto, wiping their brow and waving their hanky as they go, we are sold. Just pass the plate and we’ll turn our pockets inside out.

Christians are so gullible. Now, if one should try this out on the street corner the natural man (the man without the Spirit) will see through these antics like glass.

Just lately I have watched a YouTube video featuring a New Mystic by the name of John Crowder (not to be confused with David Crowder, the musician and song writer). Every so often he will close his eyes and go, “Yoh! Yoh, yoh, YOH, ah!” and this is somehow enough to give him credibility as an anointed prophet of the Most High. Or there is on the Inspiration Network, a Mike Murdoch who comes across as one having authority. He will squint his twinkling eyes like a car salesman just on the verge, tell you how God wants to bless you if you don’t withhold from Him and while he has you distracted, enamored, mesmerized, he will pick your pocket. Woody Guthrie once said, “Some men can rob you with a fountain pen.” With the starving millions of orphans, some people still don’t get it.

In saying this, I can predict what will happen. There will be some who immediately upon hearing this run into a monastic huddle  – the high walled and moat encircled enclave of Reform or cessassionist safety. They fall head long into the fortress of their books, their doctrines – and in hopes of avoiding false fire they are content to live with no fire at all. I have a word for those folks. What you have stuffed into your heads will never do what needs to be done. For proof look at the Christian landscape in America. We have grown obese with useless information.

I know what anointing is, don’t you?

It has been reported that fifty-seven percent of those claiming to be born-again have never experienced the presence of God or seen a miracle. Can you imagine?

On the other hand, there are others who have witnessed hundreds of miracles (the focus of power). Still, a majority like the Pharisee’s and teachers of the law, never once in their lifetimes have seen a miracle or been in the presence of God. They knew doctrine but did not know Him.

Though most are unadventurous and boring, I have gone to prayer meetings where God was so heavy in the midst that no one could speak, except to whisper, “God is here.”

There have been those times when we were no longer just singing songs, trying with all of our might to get excited (just bang those guitars a little harder and that should do it), but we became transported. Where? I dunno? Either we went up or something came down and there we experienced what could be only called, OTHER. The undeniable (albeit invisible) blanket of Shekinah glory enveloped the room.

I have often mechanically witnessed to folks out of obedience but there have been those times when there is a Spirit saturated unction and you knew that you were out of control and simply a conduit for the power of God. What is remarkable, they knew it too. This is when REAL, unforgettable, life transforming evangelism takes place. I wish that I could capture, bottle and sell it. I can recognize it but I can’t make it happen. This is authentically sovereign and I don’t understand how it all works.

Annointing. Does anyone else out there know of what I am talking about?

Or the time where for six months I went from prayer meeting to prayer meeting and came back home with the same ruptured disc and sciatica that caused me to only scoot from one chair to another, until that one morning in December when my friends Ann, Lauren, Aldo and Francesco prayed for me and like twice before, once with abscessed tonsils and another time with a cyst the size of quarter on the side of my face, it was gone in a heartbeat. Interestingly, in thirty-five years since being healed of tonsillitis it has never once re-occurred. I have not so much as have even had a case of scratchy throat. Now that’s Divine healing!

The “focus of power.” Does anyone out there know what I’m talking about?

This isn’t a Pentecostal thing. This is a Christian thing. This should be expected. We should have a God big enough to baffle us. This is what should separate us from the cynicism of secularism and the deadliness of theological rationalism, dispensationalism, Islam and make us at least somewhat competitive with animism and Voodoo.  

Speaking as one who has gone to seminary, you do not get this in a seminary or from reading stacks of books. It may occur as it did at Asbury in 1970. It might happen but it is not part of the curriculum. Matter of fact, a resisting and a quenching the Spirit, is a more probable expectation. It becomes one head talking to another. Someone once said, “We don’t really know if Christianity works. Only one person ever tried it and they crucified him.” One minute of  OTHER – Jesus among us (anointing) and we could shut the doors of every seminary in America. More takes place in five minutes than in one hundred years when Jesus shows up.  Oh, yes I know, “When two or more are gathered together in His name…”  but I am not talking about Him being here, I’m talking about Him being HERE – HERE  in manifest presence.

The truth about anointing…

Does anyone in their right mind REALLY want the anointing? In saying that we do, we are saying to God, “Here I am Lord, I am a blank piece of paper. Write on my life what you will.” This sounds good until God decides that, on this day or that,  He would prefer to scribble instead of paint a Correggio fresco.

The most anointed people did not drive luxury automobiles and live in ocean front mansions.  They lived on the run,  under the threat of death, in tiny, borrowed rooms, in caves, the wilderness, prisons and almost any other inconvenience that one can describe. The most anointed people in the New Testament, John the Baptist, Jesus, Peter, Paul had their heads chopped off , were crucified or met with some other horrifying death. 

Authentic anointing brings one of two things – RIOT or REVIVAL and often both at the same time.

I’m sure there are folks, even friends, who think that I should perhaps, as they say, “be more irenic (peaceful and conciliatory).” They would prefer that I didn’t come at this issue, as it were, with my “guns a blazin’”. If so, you have obviously missed how I feel about high-Sovereignty. To arrive at a full picture of my angst, read the earlier entry entitled, “I’m Finally Out of the Closet”, June 15, 2009. If you prefer irenic anti-Calvinism, I suggest you consult Mr. Geisler.

Christian leaders get uptight about all sorts of things and even though ”the kingdom is upon His shoulders,” we like to help out where and when we can.

I am disturbed about other theological issues as well. It is here in America that we can have the luxury of such public disagreement. With so many TV ministers and unemployed or underemployed Ph.D’s. trying to find suitable employment, make names and $$$$$’s for themselves, there is no end to spurious doctrines I might feel led to take on. For instance, I surely don’t like “Word Faith” and “Prosperity” teaching. I am leery of  “Open-Theism” and would like to nip it in the bud. I have just run into a scary fellow by the name of John Crowder, a proponent of The New Mystics movement and before that it was Todd Bentley, and before that Benny Hinn on and  on it goes, ad infinitum. In spite of all the compelling targets, one only has so much time and energy so we have to pick the item we most dislike and for me that has to be “high-Sovereignty.”

Oh, don’t go a “tut-tuttin me” you feel the same way but you don’t have the courage to draw fire.

If I have an axe to grind (and I do) then there must be some reason why I select this from the myriad of choices out there. Why pick on high-Sovereignty?

Masquerading as orthodoxy.

There are many reasons but for me – I believe that rather than honoring God, the doctrine does the opposite, it besmirches God’s character and nature and makes him out to be  the devil (just follow the concept to its logical conclusion to see what I mean) or perhaps the determinist god of Islam or a two-headed, dualistic god (the source of both good and evil) as in Hinduism . This is not the God I read about. To me, though nothing alike, the God of Calvinism is as extra-biblical as the god(s) of Mormonism.

Next, I earnestly believe that Calvinists mishandle the word of God ignoring or reinterpreting  large portions that appear disagreeable with their dogma. In my opinion, they often engage in eisogesis and do hermeneutical violence to the intent of the text. I have a high view of scripture and “jist don’t like folks a tamperin’ with it”. They pretend to care about theology but  in my view they are more committed to Calvin’s philosophical conclusions than to the Word of God.

Finally, and most importantly, they are proselytizers. They take “no quarter” or make no allowance for their opponents. Now, for me, I don’t care so much that a person decides, upon reading the Bible (without indoctrination), that Calvinism works. Sometimes, I am more of a Calvinists than Beza was. I can even see how someone might arrive at this notion. But, to be fair, I can also see how the “Holiness” churches land where they do as well.

Predestination is something but it is not everything.

Holiness is something but it is not everything. 

Being filled with the Holy Spirit is something but it is not everything.

Church governance is something but it is not everything. 

Is it really about  “The Glory of God” or is it about power?

Here’s the rub. Calvinists are not in the least irenic. They are divisive and destructive. With glossy-eyed, almost cult like devotion, Calvin’s progeny will allow for no other view of sovereignty than their perspective.  In fact, they have gone so far as to label any other sovereignty as heresy (Oh, yes they do). A Calvinist is un-relenting and will demand that entire churches belly-up to the bar alongside them and if they don’t, well, you’ve had it! Here it comes - the rancor and then a church split. Presto! A new, separationist Sovereign Grace or Reform Presbyterian congregation magically appears. 

I challenge any of you to invite a Calvinist to teach a Bible study to the naive. Don’t tell them what’s up and see what they do with it. If one is given complete liberty they will not, rather cannot, even in the interest of Christian charity, resist turning to Romans or Ephesians.

Like Jehovah’s Witnesses, their quivers are full of doubt producing doctrine. “What does it mean Jacob I have loved and Esau I have hated?” or “If a man is dead, what can he do for himself?” I have answers to those questions but millions are unprepared for this assault and are taken off  guard. Paul calls this kind of loyalty to men (Paul, Apollos, Luther, Calvin, Wesley) an evidence of immaturity and sinful. The truth should be that we do not belong to any of these men but they all belong to us. 

So there you have it.

Well, not all of it. Calvinism speaks through both sides of the mouth. The civilized tone is only a feigned politeness.  Calvinism’s adherents are  glib and smug elitists. (Oh, Tony, is this an ad hominem attack? Why, yes, yes, I suspect it is). So much so that John Piper was compelled to recently preach a message entitled “ Be a Kinder, Nicer Calvinist.”  Calvinism is not known for being kind and nice. They do not intend to be theological lap-dogs.” To this writer they are the rottweillers of contemporary evangelicalism.

So when it comes to Christian charity I intend to be as nice as Calvinism was and is to its antogonists and detractors. I at least want to be nicer than they were to Michael Servetus, Koornheerts, Jocobus Arminius, The Remonstrance and Hugo Grotius. Though I am not a fan of Open Theism, more recently, I would need to be  as irenic as John Piper was toward John Sanders, Clark Pinnock and Greg Boyd at the 2002 Evangelical Theological Society Conference. For a complete run down on what I mean, see these Christianity Today issues: November 2002 and January 2003.

I’m posting this in hopes of clarifying some misconceptions of what some people may think that I believe. Not only that, for some reason when you mention the name “Calvin”, some people that have never or  never intend on studying doctrine, theology, or church history, make judgement calls that are based on a lack of knowledge, or that are based on “opinions” they have heard from others. So instead of assuming you know me and what I believe, I hope and pray that this will shed a better light 0n me. My desire is for conversations to take place on these issues, but I am slowly losing faith in that happening. I AM NOT A HYPER-CALVINIST!! I adhere to the Doctrine’s of Grace, because and only because, I believe that the Word of God puts these beautiful doctrines on display throughout scripture. I do not, and will not, place these doctrines over Christ or the authority of scripture either. Christ and scripture are what led me to them. I found this short article over at Monergism Books. They have one of the best web-sites on the internet. I highly recommend you check them out.

Allow me to answer my own question. I don’t think so. As a group, they are simply too given over to rationalism.

To be perfectly honest, I would like for someone to prove me wrong on this. Remember, I am only writing observation and opinion. This item may offend both Ph.D’s and Calvinists at the same time but I don’t appreciate feigned niceties and fawning pretention. As the reader will detect, I have not tried to keep butter from melting in my mouth.

“For the kingdom of God is not in word (intellect and philosophy) but in power (supernatural display).”

1 Corinthians 4:20

________________________________

 “But if I cast out demons with the finger of God, surely the kingdom of God has come upon you.”

Luke 11:20

_____________________________

 “Some peoples’ God ain’t no bigger than their cranial capacity

Anonymous

A number of my friends are missionaries and serve in rather complicated parts of the world. These are dark, demonically controlled religious cultures of shamen, spells, spirits, sacrifices to idols and other things too sinister to briefly explain.

Another missionary once made the aside comment that he had never seen a Ph.D. cast out a demon. In more than thirty-five years, I have traveled, doing ministry in fifteen nations (been to Europe twenty-six times). Added to a great number of independent churches I have perhaps preached  thousands of times in churches of nineteen different denominations. I have worked on university campuses and street corners, among professional athletes, in circus tents, coffee houses, bars, campgrounds, prisons, Indian reservations, among gypsies, pagans of every description, Muslims, Roman Catholics, animists and almost every cult you can think of. I have been interpreted in at least twenty or more languages and you know what? I’m sure they have, but I have never seen a Ph.D. cast out a demon. Is this what it means, ”having the form of godliness without the power?”

Now this has caused me to think. I have also been in contact with Calvinists in many ministry situations and guess what? I have never seen a *Calvinist cast out a demon. In fact, it may be worse than that! I only once saw a demon manifest in a service where Calvinists were giving leadership. Did they step down and take authority? Did the leaders even discern what was taking place?  Absolutely not, they ushered the woman out of the meeting with instructions to her family members, that perhaps, first thing in the morning, they should take her to see a psychiatrist.

I suspect there are Calvinists who are, as they used to say, “filled with the Holy Ghost and power,” but I just haven’t met any. In my experience here is what they are good at. They are good at spelling, punctuation, grammar and syntax. They are excellent at attending conferences, pumping themselves up and encouraging each other on. They are great at typing and the mastery of words. I see them as readers of books, seminarians, academics, philosophers, scholars and intellectuals (I am not being anti-intellectual, I am simply arguing what Paul argued, we should put no confidence in the flesh). I regard Calvinists as those engaged in discussion, argument, debate, exegesis, eisogesis and proselytism but I do not see them as people with power unless it is the power of persuasion which they, according to their philosophy, should not even care about.

For me, John the Baptist described them best when he said,

“…But what did you go out to see? A man clothed in soft garments? Indeed, those who wear soft clothing are in kings’ houses.”

Indeed, I am not trying to be diplomatic.

*To be fair, to my diappointment I have rarely seen members of other theological persuasions cast out demons either.

At first this sounds like a joke. But really, if one honestly accepts the ridgid tenants of Calvinism then this becomes a vitally important question.

First, let me report that many Calvinists, though they cannot, according to their philosophy, make a legitimate choice for themselves, nonetheless make a choice to not have children or put the having of children off until a better time. In otherwords, many practice birth control of one kind or another. As the thoughtful people they are, they know better than to leave this up to God and have children willy-nilly. Many participate in what is called in the real world, “family planning.” 

When asked about how this might work itself out in the realm of miniscule (absolute) sovereignty they will give, what appears to this writer, a convoluted,  unsatisfying answer about God somehow directing them to contraception but try as hard as I might, I can never figure out how this works itself out in real time. To me this is all double-talk and an outright denial of their theology. If God is totally and absolutely sovereign (nothing will or can happen outside of his predetermined will) then the brave Calvinist, completely convinced of this, should breed with reckless abandon. For the most part, Calvinists know better and realize that God is not likely to limit their families to 2.5 children as a sensible God should. Their God will perhaps drive them into the poor house. After all, Calvinists are generally well educated and reasonably affluent. God forbid that they will be unable to provide every last one of their children a university education and the same Brahman opportunities their parents have been afforded in this life.

THIS IS THE REAL QUESTION… Believing in election and predestination, why would the Calvinist chance having children at all?

This question has not gotten past Calvinists. They have considered it and some have come up with an answer. Now imagine, you bring three children into the world to only see them part ways at the end of life. Two are predestined (before they are born) for hell and only one is left with the hope of heaven. Two have been born to perish.

This, we might all agree, is a horrible prospect but Calvin said it best, when he said…” For they are not all created with a similar destiny; but eternal life is foreordained for some, and eternal damnation for others…  We assert that, by an eternal and immutable counsel, God hath once for all determined whom He would admit to salvation and whom He would condemn to destruction… but that to those whom He devotes to condemnation, the gate of life is closed by a just and irreprehensible, but incomprehensible judgment.” (See: “The Horrible Decree” entry.)

Unquestionably, a good Calvinist man should cowboy up, shrug his shoulders and say, “Ummm, them’s, the breaks, Cindy. God is good! If , it just so happens that ,we brought children into the world that held for them only a hopeless eternity that’s just the roll of dice. Aw, shucks, apparently, we produced two bad seeds out of three.” With this as a prospect it would make sense for Calvinists to be celebate rather than potentially populate hell with more of their offspring.

With this in mind, some Calvinists have come up with the notion of covenantal or household salvation, I suppose a sort of DNA based election. Somehow God honors family lineage (unless there is the complication of divorce and the blended family – a problem for contemporous Calvinism) and elects families to salvation. This is just too much for my mind to entertain. I won’t even try to explain or challenge this concept because in so doing I would either display my ignorance or my brilliance.

I just don’t get the wiggling around on all of this. It’s, as we used to say, “A can of worms.”

The original issue remains, either it’s  a crap shoot and the Calvinist trusts God and has as many children as the Lord intends or he does all he and she can to prevent conception. Determining the will of God on this business is a rather tough one. In the end, who really cares about the will of God since finding it matters little. God’s will cannot be twarted or altered. It would be impossible to limit a family regardless of what precautions persons might employ. If God intends for little Johnny to be born, every pill and prophalactic obtainable will undobtedly fail.

Then there is the issue of adoption. I won’t even go there.

Addressing Calvinist objections to the terminology.

It is common to hear Calvinists call non-Calvinists, “Arminian’s.” Many non-Calvinists object to this label as they are not necessarily fully agreeable with all of the conclusions of Jacobus Arminius (1560-1609).

In the same way, many Calvinists take exception to the term “Hyper-Calvinist” being used to describe those who are proponents of John Calvin’s view of sovereignty.

So then, why do some critics call Calvinism “Hyper-Calvinism?” Is it possible for a person to be a Calvinist without the “Hyper” prefix? Could a person be Calvinistic without being a Calvinist?

There are millions who claim affinity with Reformed theology without being full-fledged five-point Calvinists. Generally, these people are referrred to as  moderate Calvinists. People like Ravi Zacharias, Norman Geisler,  Chuck Swindoll, Charles Stanley and even retired evangelist, Billy Graham fall into this camp.

Though the renowned Charles Haddon Spurgeon (1834-1892), the great British “Reformed” preacher claimed the distinction “Calvinist” for himself his preaching and writing was less than consistent with Calvinist theology (See his sermon: “Compel Them to Come In”  for only one of a thousand examples). Often Calvinists do not preach, pray or practice in consistent harmony with their theological or philosophical positions.

In fact, the larger portion of those who call themselves Calvinists are often in direct opposition to a Calvin, Beza, Piper description of Calvinism.

The one distinction of John Calvin’s  that  all of these people universally hold without equivocation is “unconditional eternal security” or position 5, Preseverance of the Saints. However, moderate Calvinists also generally disagree with Calvin’s means of arriving at “unconditional eternal security.” The reason for not ascribing to every point of John Calvin’s TULIP has to do with the implications of agreement.

Here they agree with Arminius, Wesley and others who argued two things. First, miniscule sovereignty, calls the character and nature of God into question. As both Arminius and Wesley claimed, the doctrine turns God into a dualsitic god and father of both heaven and hell. God becomes a tyrant, the father of good and evil and hence, the devil himself. Philosophically speaking, if there is no free-will then all evil in the universe originates with God. One does not need to have a Ph.D. in philosophy to figure this out. Calvinists do fancy foot-work to dispell this outcome but for many thinking people their defence and varied explanations fail to hold up under scrutiny.

Secondly, the doctrine must omit scripture that indicates something other than Calvin’s predestination. Moderate Calvinists  accept the “P” without the “TULI” portion.

So then, WHAT IS “HYPER-CALVINISM?”

There are descriptions but  no one definition. Here is a description that may help the reader understand the difference between “moderate Calvinism”, “Calvinism” and “Hyper-Calvinist.”

Moderate Calvinism has been roughly explained in the above paragraphs. Essentially, they recognize certain scriptures having to do with pre-ordination, election, pre-destination and so forth but will not, in any hard edged way, say that they are in league with Calvin’s assumptions and view his theology as philosophy beginning with miniscule (absolute) sovereignty. If Calvin was right, that man possesess absolutely no authentic free-will, then he is also right on all five-points. However, if sovereignty might be understood in some other way, as many people have surmised,  then his conclusions are faulty because the priory assumption was faulty at the outset.

Moderate Calvinists look at scripture and say, “Calvinism is something but it is not everything.”

On the other hand, a Calvinist that tenaciously holds to all five-points has no alternative but to view all scripture through his or her philosophical TULIP lens. When scripture seems to deny the tenants of Calvinism then dedication to the dogma calls for a re-interpretation of/or a ignoring of the text and/or context. Language must be redefined. Interpretors are called upon to reframe what appears to be a contradiction for their constituents. To many, this is “Hyper-Calvinism”.  Hyper-Calvinism requires an unyeilding commitment to the philosophical conclusions of John Calvin irrespective of any evidence to the contrary.  This is why Hyper-Calvinism” must have it’s commentarialists. Those familiar with the Jehovah’s Witnesses will recognize this same methodology. The ordinary member of Watchtower (and Calvinism) must never think themselves competent to unravel the complexities of scripture on their own.

Regrettably, Calvinism does not allow for non-conformity. All of those claiming to be adherents must unquestionably subscribe to every postulate of the hierarchy. There is no room for a  difference of opinion. Within Calvinism there is a required political correctness and those who will not submit to every tenant will find themselves intellectually bullied into compliance.

See: “The Horrible Decree” entry.

On more occasions than I’d like to remember I have made new acquaintances or run upon old friends who announced to me something like this, “I’m REFORMED!” or “Oh, I’m REFORMED now!” or “I have left such and such a church to attend a REFORMED church.” They are so proud of themselves as though they have moved from the primitivism of Grandma Moses to the non-objectivity of Wilhelm de Kooning or Hans Hoffman. They are now among the enlightened and rather audacuiously so not knowing that, as they say, ”been there, done that.”

I, at one time, tried to clarify the terminology but now I am just charitable, nod approvingly and  allow for this claim and misnomer of  REFORMED to go unchallenged. Getting this off of my chest and in the interest of time I would like to say it once and for all, Calvinists are among the Reformation but they did not and do not speak for the Reformation and it is dishonest for them, as a group, to pretend that they somehow exclusively own the term, REFORMED .

Here are the facts… 

More than one expression of the Reformation

Lutheran…                   German Reformation

Mennonite…                 Dutch, Swiss, German, Anabaptists Reformation

Episcopal…                   English Reformation

“The Reformation: from the Latin reformare, “to reform.” A movement that began in the early sixteenth century to reform the Catholic Church. It resulted in roughly a third of the Catholic Church being torn from the Pope’s hand. The movement can be grouped into three main parts: (1) The German Reformation, which gave birth to the Lutheran churches and centered around Martin Luther (1483-1581) and Philipp Melanchthon (1497-1560); (2) The Swiss Reformation, which gave birth to the Reformed churches and centered around Ulrich Zwingli (1484-1531) and John Calvin (1509-1564); and (3) The English Reformation, which gave birth to the Anglican Church and centered around King Henry VIII (1491-1547), Bishop Hugh Latimer (1485-1555), Bishop Nicholas Ridley (1500?-1555) and Archbishop Thomas Cranmer (1489-1556), the last three of whom were burned at the stake outside Baillol College in Broad Street, Oxford. 

The Reformers recognized the Bible as the sole rule of faith and practice and taught that justification was by faith alone. The Reformation rejected Roman Catholic teachings concerning the sacraments, grace, indulgences, purgatory and papal authority.” 

“Anthropology .the science that deals with the origins, physical and cultural development, biological characteristics, and social customs and beliefs of humankind.2.the study of human beings’ similarity to and divergence from other animals.3.the science of humans and their works.4.Also called philosophical anthropology, the study of the nature and essence of humankind.”

In debate, one of the favorite parries a Calvinist uses is to read Ephesians 2:1-9 (or some portion of it). Of course, what they want to do is set a logic trap. After reading the textual portion, they will ask, “What does the word ”dead” mean?” They are ready to say, “Dead does not mean asleep, it doesn’t mean unconscious, dead means dead and a dead man can do nothing for himself. He does not need to be awakened or resusitated, he must be resurrected and only God has the power to raise the dead.”

This is one of their primary arguments for election. A dead man cannot repent. He is insensitve to anything and everything spiritual. He is, as they put it, “totally depraved.” In order to be regenerated (Ordo Salutus – Order of Salvation) a person must first be resurrected (or regenerated) sovereignly by God, without the cooperation of the man. Once a man is regenerated, he then (and only then) has the capacity to repent. There are verses which will support this concept that men, without the aid of God and on their own volition, have absolutely no ability to turn to God in repentance.

Jeremiah 17:9 
“ The heart is deceitful above all things, And desperately wicked; Who can know it?
Romans 3:11
There is none who understands;There is none who seeks after God.

Wesleyan’s agree with high-Calvinists that men, without the aid of God and on their own volition, have no ability to turn to God. While they agree with Calvinists on this point that will not go as far. The Wesleyan will say that God IS speaking and is continually making Himself known and drawing men in a variety of ways. God  speaks through general revelation, the creation (the cosmos and the natural world), through the law written upon the heart, he speaks through Scripture which is going out into all of the earth. More could be said and other examples given but this should suffice to explain that “the grace of God is teaching all men. His voice has gone out into the whole earth.”

Wesleyan’s see Ordo Salutis differently. They argue that a person (soul) is awakened through a number of ways. God gains attention through conscience, circumstances, the law of God, creation, the witness of others, the hearing of Scripture, etc.) to the reality of God,  they become aware of his or her accountability to a Holy God,  the Spirit convicts one of sin (separation) and need and repentance (reconciliation) may or may not take place. The grace of God is resistible. The Spirit of God does not always (or continue) to strive with man.  

Ephesians 2:1-9 (American Standard Version)

¹ And you did he make alive, when ye were dead through your trespasses and sins, ² wherein ye once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the powers of the air, of the spirit that now worketh in the sons of disobedience; ³ among whom we also all once lived in the lust of our flesh, doing the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest:– ⁴ but God, being rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, ⁵ even when we were dead through our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace have ye been saved), ⁶ and raised us up with him, and made us to sit with him in the heavenly places, in Christ Jesus: ⁷ that in the ages to come he might show the exceeding riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus: ⁸ for by grace have ye been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; ⁹ not of works, that no man should glory.

At first this sound like game over, checkmate. That’s it, isn’t it? And the Calvinist is right. If man is no more than a spirit and a body then there is nothing more to talk about. The non-Calvinist should just shuffle his papers, put them in his briefcase, close it, hang his head and walk off of the platform.

The question however remains, is the Calvinist understanding of the nature of man correct? If a person is not a trinity (trichotomist – spirit, soul and body) and only a dichotomy (spirit and body) – if spirit and soul are the same thing - then there is no case. If spirit and body is all that God has to work with the “Electionist” is right. The man must be raised not awakened.

Though the scripture says that man is dead it also declares him to be also blind. How could it be that a man who is dead can be blind? Why would a Calvinist choose one text but ignore another? The Calvinist does not just ignore one text, if necessary, he will ignore a hundred.

Here is the verse that I have in mind.

2 Corinthians 4:4

In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

The Bible goes on to say in various places that men are not only blind but they are also lost, decieved, led astray and more.  

 The Bible is clear that God made man in His own likeness and image. This was a special creation where God breathed into him (Adam) the breath of life and he became a living soul (a unique individual with self awareness and conscience – a person). I think that the Calvinist will agree with me on this point, when Adam sinned his spirit was made dead and his person was marred (countenance fallen). When Adam sinned he was dead but he was also conscious of his sin and hid from God’s presence. So yes, we agree, the man is dead, separated from the life of God.

However, we also argue that Adam knew that he was naked and that he had made a huge error with disasterous consequences.

Still, the Bible does make a distinction between spirit and soul. For milennia the soul has been consider the seat of the will (personhood). The will has been universally understood to be the confluence of knowledge (intellect) and emotion. Here are a couple of verses in support of this concept that a spirit and a soul are different from each other.

Hebrews 4:12 (New King James Version)

At the risk of being redundant, I will restate the case once more. The soul of man is aware of God’s glory and majesty displayed in the heavens. Because of this, men are without excuse. The circumstances of life (joy, birth, illness, tragedy) can speak regarding the meaning of life and the inevitablity of death. All of this, we believe, gives God an angle in the turning of a person’s heart toward him. The Bible over and over says as much when it says such things as, “The entrance of Thy word giveth light” or ”Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God.” In fact, there is so much evidence that man is conscious and has the ability, in fact, even the responsibilty to turn from sin unto God that it is virtually impossible to site each one. Over and over men are warned, “Hear and your soul shall live.” A dead man is beyond hearing. 

I invite the Electionist to carefully read and consider the follow text. Nothing could be clearer and farther from hard-edged Calvinism and  ”Particular Predestination.”

Romans 2:4-6 (King James Version)

⁴Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance? ⁵But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; ⁶Who will render to every man according to his deeds:

In conclusion, this writer agrees with the Calvinist that man is dead. He agrees that man cannot regenerate himself. All men are without hope. Yet, he disagrees with the assertion that anthropology is as Calvinism describes it. Men bear the image of God and though fallen and defaced they continue to bear some resemblance to God. Because of this all men are eternally valuable.  Down deep each one has a longing for God and home and as with the Prodigal and the theif on the cross who both came to their senses so it is possible for all men to do similarly. 

John 1:9
That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

I’m FREE!

I am finally telling the truth about how I feel regarding high-sovereignty (Calvinism). Let me save you a lot of time and just cut to the chase. I don’t like it. Just because I don’t like it, isn’t enough. If you want specific examples of why I don’t like it, read the subsequent blogs.

I think that it is eisogetic, mind-control proselytism (“they make merchandise of men”) - as esoteric and unbiblical as Word-Faith, as speculative as open theism and as extra biblical as Mormonism. (“Oh, Tony, could you please tell us what you really think of Calvinism?”).   In a few words, I oppose it. I don’t even intend to co-exist along side of it.  I am not in the least charitable toward it. I am certainly no more charitable toward Calvinism than Calvinism is toward those holding any other view of sovereignty.

Further, I do not for one minute believe that their doctrine glorifies God. I think that it is distortion of the Christian God and more akin to Islam (fatalism) or Hinduism (dualism) than Christian theism. 

Pardon me if I don’t care how many books John Piper has written. Excuse me if I take exception to people who put him on a pedestal and bow to his every word (frankly, sometimes what he writes is pure drivel).  I think that he is wrong headed and he will ignore a hundred Scriptures for the sake of one. What scripture he cannot ignore, he will manipulate to suit his pre-determined philosophical conclusions. He will change literal language into figural and thus violate a principle rule of exegesis. To see what I mean, simply look at how he will twist the words, “whosoever” and “all.” A worse case still is their exegete of Hebrews 10:26-31 and many other similar portions. (Jehovah’s Witnesses do the same thing). I don’t really like this portion of scripture too much (it makes me uncomfortable) but I won’t mistreat it and make it say something it does not clearly say. One really needs to stop and ask themselves if Calvinists are as orthodox as they purport to be. Do they really honor the Word as they claim, or are they guilty of hemeneutical violence? They (Calvinists) “handle the word of God deceitfully.”

In the full counsel of God, I fail to recognize the character and the nature of God that he wants us to believe in. I intend to exercize my free will  and just state what I believe. I believe what high-Sovereignty teaches to be a devisive and dangerous distortion in the kingdom of God.

My thoughts regarding his recent blog:

The Tornado, the Lutherans and Homosexuality…

http://www.desiringgod.org/Blog/1965_the_tornado_the_lutherans_and_homosexuality/

This entire discussion of tornadoes and steeples is absurd double talk.

According to Calvin and Piper… there can be no apostasy to rebuke since there is no possibility of falling away… you either is or you ain’t. By one’s own volition, there can be no willful turning from anything. Calvinism is theological determinism (fatalism).

A warning? Perhaps, but for who and for what purpose? Who stands to benefit from it the most? Certainly not the already condemned. Assuming, as consistent Calvinists should, that all men without Christ are dead, this event “awakens” no one. According to Calvin, dead men have no will. They are utterly depraved and in order to respond to God, they must first be resurrected.

Try to follow me here as I attempt to make a comparison…

Calvinist Fatalism and Dualism.

Mr. Piper submitted an interesting article to World Magazine on the 9/11 disaster arguing that this was the action of God for some ultimate good. As John Piper wrote in World Magazine (Title: “Governor of all: God was sovereign over Sept.11, and so we have hope.” October 6, 2001).

Consequently, if it is true, as Dr. Piper maintains, that God caused (all events are God caused) the destruction of the World Trade Center and the loss of more than 2,970 lives then, it is also true that He (God) is equally responsible for the event of January 22, 1973 (the Roe versus Wade decision). So we must conclude that it is ultimately God who has caused the deaths of more than 50,000,000 unborn babies (3,700 each day in America). In my mind, this is where ridgid high sovereignty must ultimately lead us. Regrettably, this is the God we wind up with.

Calvinists cannot have it both ways. In this issue of abortion, there is nothing for anyone to protest since protesting has no effect on any outcome as everything is the result of God’s own counsel and will. I hope to be made wrong but this is “miniscule sovereignty” as I understand it. Everything is caused and there is no “allowing” for anything. I know Calvinists have high sounding and convoluted explanations for how things happen – how their God is not culpable -   but, once more, it is all incomprehensible double-talk.

Here, see if I misunderstand something and tell me.

“Predestination we call the eternal decree of God by which He hath determined in Himself what He would have to become of every individual of mankind. For they are not all created with a similar destiny; but eternal life is foreordained for some, and eternal damnation for others… We assert that, by an eternal and immutable counsel, God hath once for all determined whom He would admit to salvation and whom He would condemn to destruction. We affirm that this counsel, as far as it concerns the elect, is founded on His gratuitous mercy, totally irrespective of human merit: but that to those whom He devotes to condemnation, the gate of life is closed by a just and irreprehensible, but incomprehensible judgment.”

John Calvin

Frankly, this statement is hard to fiddle with. Things are a foregone conclusion. We are stuck with the way things are. In Italian we say, “Che sara, sara.“ “Faith does not come by hearing.” Faith comes solely by sovereign, divine decree.

My advice to a Calvinist? With a God as capricious as they give us  and an eternity as risky as they make it out to be, staunch Calvinists should never have children. But, of course, God’s will cannot be thwarted even if one should practice contraception (which many do). How absurd.

The Universal Extension of Grace /The Specific Application of Grace

Call, calling, called / Predestinated, predestined

Invite, inviting, invited / Ordained, foreordained

Whosoever / Elect, election

Come / Chose, chosen

Seek, sought

”But without faith, it is impossible to please Him: for he that cometh to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him.”

Hebrews 11:6

Here one must ask, “Why should God reward that which He is initially responsible for, i.e. faith?”  Why should God reward “believing that He is” or the “diligently seeking of Him?”

Wesley points out that God is not to be understood only as the absolute sovereign creator of the universe, but also as the moral governor of the universe.  As sovereign creator, He is not required to reward the sun for shining.  The sun is created to shine.  On the other hand, as governor, He allows human freedom within the context of his sovereignty.  It is not natural for man to exercise faith, believe that He is, or diligently seek after him.  If this were the created natural inclination of man, there would be no need to reward him, for what would be God’s expectation.  But God does not expect righteousness from man in the same way that He expects sunshine from the sun.  God allows the limited exercise of free will.  God extends His grace to the just and the unjust alike.

“And thinkest thou this, O Man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?  Or despiseth thou the riches of His goodness and the forbearance and the longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?  But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; who will render to every man according to his deeds: to them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honor and immortality and eternal life.”

 Romans 2:3-9

Only a few verses (less than 10) deal with the specific pre-determined will of God, and even those leave us wondering what those verses mean.  This writer agrees that the concept of foreknowledge is implicit in the Scriptures and agreeable with the general thrust of Scripture, but disagrees with the determinism and fatalism of Calvinism.

Determinism

“From the Latin de plus terminus, “end.”  In philosophy, the idea that all that happens is casually fixed and cannot happen any other way; the belief that all events in the universe, including human actions, are controlled by previous conditions.  Many forms of Calvinism are variations of theological determinism.”

Fatalism

“From the Latin fatim, meaning ‘that which the god’s ordain to happen.’  The belief that God, because He is all knowing and all-powerful, foresees and causes according to His divine foreknowledge every event in a person’s life and in the universe.  These events must occur; they cannot happen. 

When God’s sovereignty is taken to be so wooden, the resulting fatalism is devastating to evangelism, missions, and ultimately to the nature of God and human beings created in His image.”

The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.  But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die.  All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live.  Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways, and live?  But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die.  Yet ye say, The way of the Lord is not equal. Hear now, O house of Israel; Is not my way equal? are not your ways unequal?  When a righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them; for his iniquity that he hath done shall he die.  Again, when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive.  Because he considereth, and turneth away from all his transgressions that he hath committed, he shall surely live, he shall not die.

 (Ezekiel 18:20-28 AV)

He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.  And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.

 (Revelation 22:11-12 AV