Contend Earnestly: Calvinism
Showing posts with label Calvinism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Calvinism. Show all posts

Wednesday, January 20, 2010

When the Calvinist Becomes a Practical Arminian

I have found it interesting throughout my journey as a follower of Jesus and specifically, a Calvinist, the ways in which I have found my own "kind" sounding and acting more like the Arminian, than what our doctrines shouldcall us to be. There are two ways I have found this to be true most blatantly in my Calvinistic brothers (and much in myself): Theological Discussion and Evangelism.

Even more specifically in these discussions is the glaring difficulty the Calvinist seems to have with our own doctrine of God's sovereignty. I believe we need to repent and start acting like good Calvinists. We love to say that Calvinism leads one to complete humility, but to be honest, I see more pride in Calvinistic people, than humility. The reason that Calvinism SHOULD drive us to humility is the understanding of man's condition and understanding that God is so sovereign that he doesn't need our wisdom or works, but has decided to work through them, spefically preaching, to bring the sinner to Jesus.

But, why doesn't this Calvinistic orthodoxy actually follow in our Calvinistic orthopraxy? Here is what I mean.

This is a trustworthy statement; and concerning these things I want you to speak confidently, so that those who have believed God will be careful to engage in good deeds. These things are good and profitable for men. But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and strife and disputes about the Law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. Reject a factious man after a first and second warning, knowing that such a man is perverted and is sinning, being self-condemned.
Titus 3:8-11

For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus.
Philippians 1:6


In our dealings with other cultures and peoples in evangelism and gospel living, we shouldn't feel as though we have to have every answer, nor should we feel as though we have to give every available answer to the hearer/discusser all at once. We should rest in the fact that God is sovereign and that his Spirit is truly at work. We should truly be humble with the sinner, knowing how to engage them where they are and how much to engage them with. As a Calvinist, we should be able to give some truth, not all at once, depending on the situation and the true urging of the Spirit, not the urging of our self glorifying pride. We should allow the Spirit to engage each person where THEY are, not where WE WANT them to eventually be.


This doesn't mean to purposely hold back for the sake of holding back, but we need to know when to lay off of our fire hose of orthodoxy and allow God to work on their heart, instead of acting like we are both the scalpel and the surgeon on the sinner's heart. We need to remember that we are merely the axe (Isaiah 10:15) and must allow God to be the one that receives all the credit instead of our own intellect or source of timing of giving the sinner knowledge of his Maker. We should allow God to decide when to strike the wood and when to lay the axe aside. While in conversation, don't feel like you have to correct every error made by the other's involved, but act like you actually believe in God's sovereignty and have real conversations in love.

Not only this, but remember that God is at work on Christians as well. We need to remember Phil 1:6 and act like we believe it. When speaking to those who do not agree with Calvinistic doctrines, it makes more sense to show them (live them out) our doctrines than beat them over the head with them, which shows zero understanding of humility or God's sovereignty. When we do this, we act like we are God's sanctification expert, sent to correct those other dumb people. When you get into debates, where you try and correct every error, you sound really dumb. First, these debates have been happening for centuries, and you think you are the new Martin Luther attacking the Wittenburg door of the Arminian. There is so much pride just within those kinds of debates, that you will drive the Arminian away instead of pressing them into Jesus. We should strive to press everyone into Jesus, including ourselves, knowing he is the one full of truth, full of wisdom, full of God and full of rest and sanctifying power. Why do you feel it is your job to sanctify the Arminian? You aren't being a peacemaker, nor are you being one who exudes Christlikeness, but you end up looking like a prideful ass, who looks like they hate their "enemy" instead of loving them.

I just ask my Calvinist brothers to please start living out what we believe to be truth.


Be humble. Trust Jesus. Be ready to speak. Be ready to listen. Let Jesus sanctify. Side note...you're not Jesus.

I'll leave it at that, and trust that Jesus will speak to some through this post and start sanctifying us all to his side for his glory.





Read More......

Wednesday, July 08, 2009

Why People Hate Calvinists


I'll be upfront, I am a Calvinist. I know that it is sometimes used like a cuss word or could be used like a "yo momma" joke...Yo momma is such a Calvinist, you said you got her tulips and she started quoting Romans 9. Anyways. From what I have found being a Calvinist is that it is sometimes a curse calling myself one because of the baggage that comes along with it. These are also things that I have been guilty of, but figured I would throw these out there to hopefully remind myself and others why people hate us so. And this is a reality that we need to make changes in. These aren't straw man attacks against us, these are real gripes with real ground to stand on. What is funny is that as a Calvinist desiring to discuss theology with other Calvinists I have seen these characterizations happen over and over again personally.

That's Not Exegesis, That's Eisegesis!

What I have found with us Calvinists is that we like to think that we have the corner on exegesis. Almost like we invented biblical interpretation. We can argue with the best of them on Greek syntax and verb forms but if you for some reason don't get it after all that explanation, we will simply go to our "go to guy"...the good ole Mr. Eisegesis. If after everything we have explained to you and you still don't get it and you try and explain your case, if we don't like it, out comes the claim that you are not exegeting Scripture, you are eisegeting Scripture. We are the ones who always allow Scripture to speak for itself, not you. You simply are allowing reason and your tradition overwhelm your thoughts on Scripture instead of allowing it to speak for itself.

I have heard this claim no matter the argument and no matter the competing views. So reason number one for people hating Calvinists is the simple claim of us having the corner of exegesis. You don't agree with our exegesis...you should stop with your stupid eisegesis.

"I Don't Know" Isn't In Our Vocabulary

Whether we like it or not Arminians have some very good thoughts on Scripture and bring up some great arguments. What happens when they bring up these arguments and won't leave us alone after we tell them that they are the kings of eisegesis? We would never simply tell them, "I don't know," but we pull out the balance beam and parallel bars and start our gymnastic routines with the Bible.

We make the most absurd observations on Scripture, whether it is trying to show why "all" doesn't mean "all" or why "world" doesn't mean "world." It becomes something like out of the Bible code handbook. You first have to put on Calvin's goggles then you can see the clarity of the golden plates. There are some hard parts of Scripture that just aren't clear on how they fit into the theological beliefs of Calvinism.

We have to realize that it isn't wrong to simply say, "I don't know", when something doesn't seemingly fit into our theological system. Although I don't agree with Spurgeon on his thoughts of the atonement, he at least said that he didn't understand how the common call and desire of God for the reprobate to be saved worked if Jesus only died for the elect. He admitted that it was a tough issue that he could not reconcile. He simply said, "I don't know". It would seem that Deuteronomy 29:29 gives us this precedence to do so:

The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever, that we may observe all the words of this law.

Some things we just don't know, some things we need to say, "I don't know" to. We are human, this is okay. We should stick to those theological understandings that God has given us understanding with and be willing to be transparent with the others. God's glory isn't taken away when we don't know how things all fit, God's glory is shown off though when we decide to admit our finite humanness to our brothers in Christ.

Calvinism Should Drive Us to Humility, Too Bad We Instead Drive Over People With It

The theological conviction of Calvinism should put us in a very humble position. If we understand that we utterly sinful, totally depraved, not good, with no capacity to turn to Jesus unless the Spirit opens our eyes and draw us, then we should see that Christ is most exclaimed and glorified and we are left with no boasting on our part. Instead of humility, what I have seen most clearly is that our pride is built because we have the theological corner of the market. We enter debates with our heads held high and scoff at those who disagree with us. I understand that people might make ad hominem and straw men arguments against us, but I wonder what would happen if we actually responded with humility instead of attacking them like they just landed on the beaches at Normandy.

I think we would get a lot further in discussions on theology with our brothers in Christ if we came at them with humility and actually listened to what they had to say. Some that I have seen scoff and are very rude to those who have differing opinions and outlooks on Scripture. We like to say that we are merely the messenger, but sometimes we act as though we are the message and giver of wisdom. We like to tell others that they can't do anything apart from Christ, that they do no good, that they do nothing that would make God choose them...then we seemingly forget that these same things apply to us.

Forgetting humility should disqualify us from Calvinism. We should have to turn our Calvinist card into CJ Mahaney and have to attend a Free Will Baptist church for a year. If we believe in Soli Deo Gloria, then we need to start living it instead of living like we believe in Soli Me Gloria.

These are three quick reminders to myself and hopefully some other Calvinists to get back to a theological system that should honestly drive us into believing God's sovereignty, His greatness and our humility. May we love those brothers and sisters in Christ who don't believe exactly as we do and realize that, although we think we know everything, we truly don't.

When you have to do gymnastics for Scripture, continually tell others that they are eisegeting texts while you are showing perfection and show off your humility with pride, you are practically showing that you don't believe that God is to be praised or that God is in control. But, you are practically showing that you are to be praised and that your arguments are what is going to win people to Jesus or to a theological system. Sad really.

May we live like God would desire for us to live and may we speak to others of the faith as God would desire us to.

Read More......

Thursday, March 12, 2009

Calvinism is Changing the World


This is pretty interesting. Time put out an article on 10 things changing the world right now and number 3 is Calvinism. For the entire article, you can click here. I thought this was pretty interesting and pretty honest from Time magazine. Take a gander:

By DAVID VAN BIEMA

If you really want to follow the development of conservative Christianity, track its musical hits. In the early 1900s you might have heard "The Old Rugged Cross," a celebration of the atonement. By the 1980s you could have shared the Jesus-is-my-buddy intimacy of "Shine, Jesus, Shine." And today, more and more top songs feature a God who is very big, while we are...well, hark the David Crowder Band: "I am full of earth/ You are heaven's worth/ I am stained with dirt/ Prone to depravity."

Calvinism is back, and not just musically. John Calvin's 16th century reply to medieval Catholicism's buy-your-way-out-of-purgatory excesses is Evangelicalism's latest success story, complete with an utterly sovereign and micromanaging deity, sinful and puny humanity, and the combination's logical consequence, predestination: the belief that before time's dawn, God decided whom he would save (or not), unaffected by any subsequent human action or decision.

Calvinism, cousin to the Reformation's other pillar, Lutheranism, is a bit less dour than its critics claim: it offers a rock-steady deity who orchestrates absolutely everything, including illness (or home foreclosure!), by a logic we may not understand but don't have to second-guess. Our satisfaction — and our purpose — is fulfilled simply by "glorifying" him. In the 1700s, Puritan preacher Jonathan Edwards invested Calvinism with a rapturous near mysticism. Yet it was soon overtaken in the U.S. by movements like Methodism that were more impressed with human will. Calvinist-descended liberal bodies like the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) discovered other emphases, while Evangelicalism's loss of appetite for rigid doctrine — and the triumph of that friendly, fuzzy Jesus — seemed to relegate hard-core Reformed preaching (Reformed operates as a loose synonym for Calvinist) to a few crotchety Southern churches.

No more. Neo-Calvinist ministers and authors don't operate quite on a Rick Warren scale. But, notes Ted Olsen, a managing editor at Christianity Today, "everyone knows where the energy and the passion are in the Evangelical world" — with the pioneering new-Calvinist John Piper of Minneapolis, Seattle's pugnacious Mark Driscoll and Albert Mohler, head of the Southern Seminary of the huge Southern Baptist Convention. The Calvinist-flavored ESV Study Bible sold out its first printing, and Reformed blogs like Between Two Worlds are among cyber-Christendom's hottest links.

Like the Calvinists, more moderate Evangelicals are exploring cures for the movement's doctrinal drift, but can't offer the same blanket assurance. "A lot of young people grew up in a culture of brokenness, divorce, drugs or sexual temptation," says Collin Hansen, author of Young, Restless, Reformed: A Journalist's Journey with the New Calvinists. "They have plenty of friends: what they need is a God." Mohler says, "The moment someone begins to define God's [being or actions] biblically, that person is drawn to conclusions that are traditionally classified as Calvinist." Of course, that presumption of inevitability has drawn accusations of arrogance and divisiveness since Calvin's time. Indeed, some of today's enthusiasts imply that non-Calvinists may actually not be Christians. Skirmishes among the Southern Baptists (who have a competing non-Calvinist camp) and online "flame wars" bode badly.

Calvin's 500th birthday will be this July. It will be interesting to see whether Calvin's latest legacy will be classic Protestant backbiting or whether, during these hard times, more Christians searching for security will submit their wills to the austerely demanding God of their country's infancy.

Read More......

Tuesday, February 17, 2009

I Think My Wife's a Calvinist

This is hilarious. Thanks to Ted Kluck for pointing me to Taylor's Blog.
I love when he sings, "She made me burn my NIV study Bible" and "She loves Spurgeon more than she love me"

Read More......

Jesus, Keep Me Near the Cross

This book comes out well before Easter to make sure that you are able to buy it, study it and then teach its truths to others as Easter comes about. The book is laid out to have 25 short teachings and thoughts on the cross of Christ. It has most theologians that you can think of in the Reformed and Calvinistic circles and then also includes at least one I know that wasn't a Calvinist (Adrian Rogers). Most of the chapters are about 3 to 4 pages which include many different angles to look at the cross. The topics range from Christ's humility in Gethsemane, silence among his accusers, our sin putting him on the cross, propitiation, forsaken by God, etc. I am not going to list every theologian and every topic, but I will say that this book is a very good one to help someone as they study further on the cross of Christ. This book is a book of quotable thoughts for any pastor.

Some of my favorites were Martin Luther, C.J. Mahaney, Tim Keller, Adrian Rogers and Augustine. Martin Luther is first up in the book, and in my opinion, it didn't get any better than Luther. I really enjoyed his chapter and found myself continually reading because of his start of the understanding of the "True Contemplation of the Cross." Here is an excerpt from Luther's chapter:

Take this to heart and doubt not that you are the one who killed Christ. Your sins certainly did, and when you see the nails driven through his hands, be sure that you are pounding, and when the thorns pierce his brow, know that they are your evil thoughts. Consider that if one thorn pierced Christ you deserve one hundred thousand.

The whole value of the meditation of the suffering of Christ lies in this, that man should come to the knowledge of himself and sink and tremble. If you are so hardened that you do not tremble, then you have reason to tremble. Pray to God that he may soften your heart and make fruitful your meditation upon the suffering of Christ, for we ourselves are incapable of proper reflection unless God instills it.

But if one does meditate rightly on the suffering of Christ for a day, an hour, or even a quarter of an hour, this we may confidently say is better than a whole year of fasting, days of psalm singing, yes, than even one hundred masses, because this reflection changes the whole man and makes him new…

Martin Luther, p. 12 (taken from Martin Luther's Easter Book)

Although there were some that stood out, there were also some where I couldn't wait to read and they seemed to fall a little flat. Not only tha, there were some that were just plain bizarre where I will either need to study further or just glaze over for the sake of the other chapters. The odd ones were John MacArthur's take on Christ's forgiveness on the cross. He believes that Christ was only asking for the forgiveness of those who would end up believing in Him and not everyone that was at the cross crucifying him. I believe he ends up making his theology read into this part of Scripture a little too much. The other two that I will have to study a little further were J.I. Packer's on Christ descending to hell and also Joseph "Skip" Ryan's chapter on Christ being thirsty. He takes this to mean that Christ was spiritually thirsty and not physically. My first take is that he is trying to stretch this text further than it allows.

Even with these three, the other 22 chapters far outweigh them to keep me from recommending this book. I would recommend this to any who would like a good understanding of the cross from a wide set of generations, convictions and theologians. Just know, that it doesn't get better than Luther's chapter, but that doesn't mean the rest of the book gets "worse." Highly Recommended
Buy the book:

Crossway

Westminster Books



Read More......

Friday, February 06, 2009

Question Answered: How do you know you are predestined?

Conner asked a question that I thought I would open up for anyone else to answer as well. I don't want it to get lost in the comments section, since the post that he comments on is from a post that I did a couple of years ago. Here is Conner's comment:

My name is Conner and i will be attending west coast baptist college this fall where i will be learning homiletics from Dr. Goetsch. so i guess i am what you call an "IFB." and there are many questions that i would like to ask you. first of all, seeing as you are a calvinist, what makes you think that you are one of the predestined ones that will be going to heaven?

This is a great question. I really like the honestly put forth and the challenge that sometimes catches Calvinists off guard.

Here is my answer in a nutshell. I would ask that anybody else that wants to comment, please do so.

Here is my answer:

Conner.

Good question. And you can ask any question that you would like.

As far as how I know that I am predestined?

I know that I am one of the elect because of the life, death and resurrection of Christ.

Calvin said it very eloquently:

Jesus is the mirror of your election

Although, I believe in duty faith, it is all about Christ, not about me or my works. Although out of my faith, works will come because I love him. But my assurance of election is all based on Christ and what he has done, not based on what I have done.

Because let's be honest. The more and more we look to ourselves the more we see our sin.

This is what happened to Isaiah in Isaiah 6. He saw the Christ and fell to the ground saying, "I am undone."

So, the way I am assured of salvation is because of the work of Christ.

Read More......

Wednesday, January 21, 2009

Spurgeon Answering Why God's Desires Aren't Always Fulfilled

This is an answer that Spurgeon used when people spoke of God's unfulfilled desires:

'But if he wishes it to be so, why does he not make it so?' Beloved friend, have you never heard that a fool may ask a question which a wise man cannot answer, and, if that be so, I am sure a wise person, like yourself, can ask me a great many questions which, fool as I am, I am yet not foolish enough to try to answer. Your question is only one form of the great debate of all the ages, - 'If God be infinitely good and powerful, why does not his power carry out to the full all his benevolence?' It is God's wish that the oppressed should go free, yet there are many oppressed who are not free. It is God's wish that the sick should not suffer. Do you doubt it? Is it not your own wish? And yet the Lord does not work a miracle to heal every sick person. It is God's wish that his creatures should be happy. Do you deny that? He does not interpose by any miraculous agency to make us all happy, and yet it would be wicked to suppose that he does not wish the happiness of all the creatures that he has made. He has an infinite benevolence which, nevertheless, is not in all points worked out by his infinite omnipotence; and if anybody asked me why it is not, I cannot tell. I have never set up to be an explainer of all difficulties, and I have no desire to do so.
Charles Spurgeon, MPT, vol. 26, pp 49-52

Read More......

Friday, December 12, 2008

Death By Love




I have read much of what Driscoll has written and also listened to many of his sermons, including the ones that are associated with this book. But, it seems as though Driscoll shows thoroughly his love for his people in this book entitled, Death By Love: Letters from the Cross. Many people have had issues with Driscoll's past books, either with his choice of terms, descriptions of theological dialogues, and even some ways that he has "counseled" people in the past. But, it will be very difficult for pastors and congregants to have much to quibble about in this book.

In Death by Love, Driscoll lays out the theological implications of the cross in letter form. What he has done is chosen different counseling situations that he has encountered in the past and then writes a "formal" letter to that person so that they can see what Christ has done for them to get through the situation that they find themselves in.

What one will find is that this is classic Driscoll. He is kind when he is needed to be kind and he is very straight forward when that is needed as well. This is why many have enjoyed Driscoll throughout the years is because he doesn't pussy foot around tough issues but hits them head on. There is no difference in this book. This book deals with real people, in real situations, with very real problems. Driscoll handles this very well without demeaning the person or the glory of Christ. I would tell each and every person, pastor or layman that deals in counseling to pick up this book to see how a true man of God counsels in the most difficult situations imaginable. To give you a glimpse of what I mean, here are the chapter headings:


I. Demons are Tormenting Me: Jesus is Katie's Christus Victor

II. Lust is My God: Jesus is Thomas' Redemption

III. My Wife Slept with My Friend: Jesus is Luke's New Covenant Sacrifice

IV. I am a "Good" Christian: Jesus is David's Gift Righteousness

V. I Molested a Child: Jesus is John's Justification

VI. My Dad Used to Beat Me: Jesus is Bill's Propitiation

VII. He Raped Me: Jesus is Mary's Expiation

VIII. My Daddy is a Pastor: Jesus is Gideon's Unlimited Limited Atonement

IX. I am Going to Hell: Jesus is Hank's Ransom

X. My Wife Has a Brain Tumor: Jesus is Caleb's Christus Exemplar

XI. I Hate My Brother: Jesus is Kurt's Reconciliation

XII. I Want to Know God: Jesus is Susan's Revelation


Driscoll handles each one of these with a Reformed perspective with much grace. One chapter above is especially personal when Driscoll handles "My Daddy is a Pastor." This chapter is written to his one and a half year old son, Gideon. This is a great chapter to read where Driscoll lets the reader into his personal life and what goes on behind closed doors.

After each chapter above Dr. Gerry Breshears handles the common questions to each. He does this succinctly so that the answers are not over burdensome, but get straight to the point with much detail and precision.

Again, I highly recommend this to anyone who is handling counseling situations or has dealt with, or dealing with, any of the situations mentioned in the above chapters. For further information about this book, you can check out the homepage here. Link to Buy

Read More......

Monday, November 10, 2008

When Friends Err: Part I

This is a very hard subject. What do we do when our friends in ministry are in error on theological subjects and others point it out? Because I am not in the spotlight like some, although I have dealt with this subject, I haven't dealt with the subject in the public eye. I have had to correct friends of mine who have taught error and had to correct them in front of groups because of questions being posed to me because of the teaching of this individual. It wasn't easy, but it was necessary. Did this person hold it against me? Actually no. I went to him beforehand to let him know and then proceeded to do in a way that hopefully was very God honoring.

The issue I have is the fact that we have those in the public eye, who come up with formulas of labeling others, but when faced with one of their friends in this area they start to back peddle. It is really some sort of friendship bias because they "know" the person. To me, this doesn't make sense. What good is it to have clearly defined labels if they aren't followed through with? What good is it to clearly define some dangers in the modern evangelical circles if when these definitions are then put to friends that those who pose these definitions back off? This is clearly dangerous to do, and very confusing.

I know you are crying for examples so let me give you some. One is general and then the others will be specific. The most general one that I find are with those religions that we deem as against Protestant Christianity. We preach and defend against these, whether it is Roman Catholicism, Buddhism, Mormonism or Islam. What I find interesting is that preachers around the nation don't have the balls to follow through with their exclusive claims of the cross. If we believe that only those who believe in Jesus Christ are saved, then if someone doesn't not believe in the efficacy of the Christ and His atonement, then they are outside of the faith. What is found though, is that when some are pressured, they will throw up their hands and say, "I leave that to God." While I understand this to an extent, and the statement is ultimately true, we should have the guts to at least state, "If they do not believe in the Christ alone, and his efficacy, then they are outside of the faith and will go to hell." This is a far better response than what we have found with some within contemporary circles (here and here). Take a stand. Say something to defend Jesus, not your friend.

Specifically now.

Last year I visited the Resurgence Conference 2007 with Bruce Ware. I really like Bruce Ware and believe his thoughts on the atonement and his convictions in general are much like my own. Dr. Ware's most widely heard ministry is against Open Theism. The conference that I attended was called, "Where the Hands of God and Hands of Man Meet." It was about Calvinism (Reformed), Arminianism and Open Theism. Bruce Ware went through a complete weekend of just hammering Open Theist positions and called out their error quickly and succinctly. He even brought up a great passage when speaking to the Open Theist in Isaiah 41:21-24

“Present your case,” the Lord says.
“Bring forward your strong arguments,”
The King of Jacob says.
Let them bring forth and declare to us what is going to take place;
As for the former events, declare what they were,
That we may consider them and know their outcome.
Or announce to us what is coming;
Declare the things that are going to come afterward,
That we may know that you are gods;
Indeed, do good or evil, that we may anxiously look about us and fear together.
Behold, you are of no account,
And your work amounts to nothing;
He who chooses you is an abomination.
Isaiah 41:21-24

This put me over the edge of thinking that Open Theism is outright heresy. We then found out that Bruce Ware, under his own admission, was close friends with some of the major proponents to this thought. Bruce broke this passage down to show that the Open Theist is worshiping another god and not the God of the Bible. So, during the Q&A someone asked, "Would you then consider Open Theism as heresy?" Bruce Ware responded by saying, "no, I would not. I have close friends who are open theists and find them to love Jesus very much." I had issues with this, so I stood up and had to question this. I put forth the logic to Dr. Ware that if we can't say that my mormon friend loves Jesus, therefore he is "in" then how is this different than his Open Theist friends? He responded that it was different. I then asked, "How is this different? You taught that they worship another god and that those who choose this god is an abomination. Do you know of anywhere in the Scriptures where a regenerated elect person of God is ever called an abomination?" He quickly moved on and didn't really respond to my questioning. He, by this Q&A just tore down his entire argument for the past couple of days. I was thinking, "Why is this such a big deal if they are one of the elect and saved?" It seemed like double talk. I greatly respect Dr. Ware, but this made little sense to me. I felt like he was giving a "pass" because his friends were involved in this area of theology.

Another example is more recent. This one involves James White and Phil Johnson. I respect Phil a lot yet find him sometimes irritating, probably because in our demeanor we are a lot a like. Phil and others historically have given definitions of what is deemed as hyper-Calvinism. If you want to see a great break down of the different levels of moderate, high and hyper Calvinism, check out Tony's chart here.

One of the defining points of hyperism is the thought that God has no desire to save the reprobate. Historically, Calvinism has thrown this idea back and forth, but landed with the fact of the two wills theory that was a proponent of Calvin himself. Meaning, that God has a revealed will and a secretive will. Meaning that although God desires all people to be saved, in his secretive will, not all can be saved. He chose some, and past over others for his own glory by the consulting of his own will alone. This would fall in line with the following:

“Do I have any pleasure in the death of the wicked,” declares the Lord God, “rather than that he should turn from his ways and live?
Ezekiel 18:23

“Say to them, ‘As I live!’ declares the Lord God, ‘I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn back, turn back from your evil ways! Why then will you die, O house of Israel?’
Ezekiel 33:11

There is much more to this argument and very easy to show that God does indeed desire for all men to be saved. Classic Calvinism would definitely agree with this as well. The problem here is that Phil Johnson has clearly laid out this definition of hyper Calvinism here and James White clearly denies the free offer and God's desire here. After reading the two, it is clear that James White falls into the historic definition (notice I said definition of, not labeling him as one outright) of a hyper Calvinist. But, we find Phil Johnson defending his friend here. I understand wanting to defend a friend, but this really is out of bounds to leave all definitions of what it means to be a hyper Calvinist and defend someone because you like them and have seen them in action. I don't think any of us are saying that James White doesn't go out and evangelize or defend the faith. That isn't what the question is here. The question and definitions are solely from a theological understanding on the free offer and desire of God. On this, James White is sorely in error, yet Phil Johnson seems to defend this error for only the reason of a friend being caught up in it. Just my perception.

This is disheartening for sure. What I hope happens behind closed doors is for Phil and James White to have some good discussions on the free offer and desire of God and for James White to be corrected in his error. But, I will tell you that James White's response to this allegation is immature and laughable. Instead of arguing from Scripture, like he tells all of his opponents to do, he merely tries to draw up straw men and argue from practice by belittling his opponents. Dr. White, just because you happen to be defending the faith on the weekend that this conference was going on, doesn't mean that this clears your name as a proponent of the historical claims of the gospel. At least be honest and respond in the ways that you desire your opponents to respond. Because if they would have made the same claims that you did in your response, you would have laughed at them and undercut them the first chance you got.

:::UPDATE:::

Let me say this. I would argue that because of White's definition and understanding of God's desire (found here) that this would at least be deemed as having hyper tendencies. He might not be a hyper Calvinist outright, but it would seem as though some of his thoughts on the desire and free offer would lean the way of the hyper Calvinist.

Tomorrow we will look at what we should do when a friend is found to be in error theologically and others notice this error and ask us about it.

Read More......

Thursday, September 11, 2008

The Reformed Doctrine of Unlimited Atonement


This is a post that my friend David did over at theology online. I really liked it and hope that it will shed some light on those who refuse to believe that the unlimited view of the atonement is merely Arminian or by deviant Amyraldians. Take a look and also take a look at the links included within the post. David has compiled quite the list that is overwhelmingly in the favor of the Reformed TRUE understanding of the atonement. Here it is, enjoy:

For the last few months I have been working my way through some rare out-of-print works by Henry Bullinger.

These works include:

Henry Bullinger, Common Places of Christian Religion, (Imprinted at London by Tho. East, and H. Middleton, for George Byshop, 1572).

Henrie Bullinger, The Summe of the Foure Euangelistes Comprehending both the course of the historie, and also severall points of doctrine set foorth in the same, pointing foorth as it were with the hand, that IESVS is CHRIST, the only perfect and sufficient Saviour of all the Faithfull, (Imprinted at London: William Ponsonby at the signe of the Bishops head, 1582).

[Henry Bullinger], Looke from Adam, And behold The Protestants Faith and Religion (London: Printed by Iohn Haviland, for Thomas Pavier, and are to be sold at his shop in Ivie Lane, 1624).

Henry Bullinger, A Hvndred Sermons Vpon the Apocalipse of Iesu Christ. (London: Printed by Iohn Daye, Dwellyng ouer Aldersgate, 1573).

[Henry Bullinger], An Holsome Antidotus or counter-poyson agaynst the pestylent heresye and secte of the Anabaptistes newly translated out of the Latin into Englysh by John Veron, 1570.

Henry Bullynger, A moste sure and strong defence of the baptisme of children against the pestiferous secte of the Anabaptytses. set furthe by the famouse Clerke, Henry Bullyinger: & nowe translated out of Laten into Englysh by Jhon Verone (Imprynted at Worceter by Jhon Oswen, 1551).

These works have added a lot of useful material for my Bullinger file. What is clear now, beyond any doubt whatsoever, is that the doctrine of unlimited atonement was a Reformed doctrine. The evidence now is of such efficacy that only a proverbial fool would insist otherwise. When it comes to the Web’s many many uber-Calvinists and uber-apologists who insist that this doctrine was either invented by heretical Arminians or by deviant Amyraldians, it is now clear that they are just wrong. Some of our internet cowboys need to get their head out of their posterior on this point. One may not agree with the doctrine. One may claim it is illogical. One may claim it is inconsistent with the doctrine of Predestination. One may claim that later Calvinists refined and smoothed out earlier inconsistencies. One can think and believe all that. What one cannot do is be dishonest about the plain and undeniable historicity of the doctrine in early Reformed theology. To do that is just to engage in mindless smear campaigns and sectarian polemics. When we add other early Reformation leaders like Luther, Zwingli, Musculus, Gualther, Calvin and many others, it is either willful stubbornness or willful ignorance to deny the evidence of history. When folk over there at Puritanboard or on Paltalk or on the various boards out there, call the doctrine of ‘double-reference’ theory of the atonement “blasphemy” those persons exhibit some of the worst forms of ignorance imaginable.

It’s time that our uber-calvinists out there on the big wide web leave behind their sectarianism and arrogance and rethink their approach to Reformed theology and to those who deviate from them the merest nanometer.

David

Also...here are the links to the quite large database of quotes and references compiled by David on the Reformed view of the atonement, love of God, desire of God, etc.

THE Index



Read More......

Friday, August 22, 2008

Why I Love Calvinism


This obviously isn’t going to be a complete thought of every reason that I love Calvinism or give each argument fully and completely. This isn’t even meant to be a polemic, as it would be a very weak one. The reason for this is a simple look at the three reasons that I love Calvinism.

Calvinism is the Most Humbling

But He gives a greater grace. Therefore it says, “GOD IS OPPOSED TO THE PROUD, BUT GIVES GRACE TO THE HUMBLE.”
James 4:6


He has told you, O man, what is good;
And what does the LORD require of you
But to do justice, to love kindness,
And to walk humbly with your God?
Micah 6:8

Through the understanding of Calvinism it makes it clear that I really have nothing to add to the cross of Christ. Calvinism points to the fact of just how bad of a sinner I am and how I have no part in the salvation of my soul. When one sees that God is completely sovereign over all things, that he owns everything, that he does not change his mind, that we can give him nothing or teach him anything, that he has predetermined all things, it then points back to me and asks a very poignant question by God, “What have you done?” It is almost as funny as the questions that God asks Job in his declarations to Job in chapters 38-41 of the book of Job.

When Job understands fully that God is very much in control in every instance, all the time, then Job responds correctly:

“I know that You can do all things,
And that no purpose of Yours can be thwarted.
‘Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge?’
“Therefore I have declared that which I did not understand,
Things too wonderful for me, which I did not know.”
‘Hear, now, and I will speak;
I will ask You, and You instruct me.’
“I have heard of You by the hearing of the ear;
But now my eye sees You;
Therefore I retract,
And I repent in dust and ashes.”
Job 42:2-6

Job was of course a Calvinist, because Job understood the great sovereignty of God, and Calvinism is not an extra biblical account, but points us all back to the great understanding of the biblical themes of God’s sovereignty.

Calvinism Answers the Mystery of Salvation Most Paramount

Although we cannot fully answer the mystery of salvation fully. Which is, “How can God be both in control and man still have responsibility?” Calvinism does answer is the most correct way for our understanding. Pelagianism, Semi-Pelagianism and Arminianism all come way too short in this understanding. Where all these constitute some way that man has good in them and responds accordingly because of something inside of them, Calvinism states that we are so evil that we cannot respond without the grace of God fully. Although Arminianism states this in some way with prevenient grace, it misses the point of us being completely evil and still leaves too much in the hand of man, and not God.

If we can all agree that there is still mystery how salvation works, then I want the best stated theology that points all praise and glory to Christ, not me in any way. In other words, I want to err more on over emphasizing God’s sovereignty than erring in giving man too much credit. By doing this, the blazing glory of God is profound in this understanding if we can see that man deserves nothing, that he can’t respond to grace and therefore when he does, it is all because of God and not because any natural function within our affections.

I believe that within the doctrines of total depravity and unconditional election we see that God’s glory is on display and not man’s. Because of these doctrines I believe that the mystery of salvation is put on a glorious, yet still mysterious, way.

Calvinism Ensures My Witness

When I spend my time telling others about Christ, my witness it ensured through the correct understanding of God’s sovereignty seen in Calvinism. As a side, if you want more specifics check out these two older posts found here and here. God tells Isaiah in Isaiah 6 to go and tell the people, yet they will not turn from their ways and they will harden their hearts to the message. Without the correct understanding of God’s sovereignty, Isaiah was a complete failure. Without the correct understanding of God’s sovereignty, Jeremiah was a complete failure. Without the correct understanding of God’s sovereignty Christ was a failure. The reason I say the last is because Christ went from 5000 followers, to 12 scattered apostles. With the remaining 12 he had one that betrayed him and then killed himself. Afterwards, Christ hung on a tree being brutally beaten and dying there like a king with no honor. But, a correct understanding of God’s sovereignty opens the surety of God’s plan. Just take a look at Acts 4:27,28.

We are told to be witnesses for Christ, but what if no one is converted? Is that person a failure? Many preachers that I have seen (especially in the IFB tradition) boast in how many have been saved or baptized under their preaching. While these numbers may be true, what about those who pastor for years and see very little result? They, in the eyes of many, are a failure. But in the eyes of our Lord, he has done the will of the Father.

My witness is not to convert people. Although I love to see it, my witness is to preach the gospel of my Saviour, and that gospel hardens the heart of many and softens the heart of many. Understanding Calvinism allows me to trust in the Lord fully that he will grow whom he desires and snuff out those with the gospel whom he desires. Without this understanding, every small church, every pastor who has little converts are complete failures and will receive nothing from the Lord. Without this understanding Christianity becomes a numbers game instead of a God exalting, cross centered focus.

My witness is ensured by the understanding of Calvinism, because if I do what God has commanded I can rest that he is doing his part, that he is using my witness to either harden the person’s heart, or soften it for His glory. Either way, I am not a failure and neither is God.

This is just a quick glimpse into why I love Calvinism. If you have any questions on why I love Calvinism or you desire to get a better understanding of what Calvinism is, please don’t hesitate to comment or email me at sdmcbee at hotmail dot com.

Soli Deo Gloria!

Read More......

Thursday, August 07, 2008

Freedom of the Will


This is an excerpt from Jonathan Edwards' Freedom of the Will and this was the start of my understanding the obsurdity of the will being truly free. This takes a little time to understand and read through but Edwards does a great job in taking apart the Arminian view of the will through logic. I would encourage any to pick up this book and read it in its entirety. Here ya go:

If the Will, which we find governs the members of the body, and determines their motions, does also govern itself, and determines its own actions, it doubtless determines them the same way, even by antecedent volitions. The Will determines which way the hands and feet shall move, by an act of choice: and there is no other way of the Will’s determining, directing, or commanding any thing at all. Whatsoever the will commands, it commands by an act of the Will. And if it has itself under its command, and determines itself in its own actions, it doubtless does it the same way that it determines other things which are under its command. So that if the freedom of the will consists in this, that it has itself and its own actions under its command and direction, and its own volitions are determined by itself, it will follow, that every free volition arises from another antecedent volition, directing and commanding that: and if that directing volition be also free, in that also the will is determined; that is to say, that directing volition is determined by another going before that; and so on, till we come to the first volition in the whole series: and if that first volition be free, and the will self-determined in it, then that is determined by another volition preceding that. Which is a contradiction; because by the supposition, it can have none before it, to direct or determine it, being the first in the train.

But if that first volition is not determined by any preceding act of the Will, then that act is not determined by the Will, and so is not free in the Arminian notion of freedom, which consists in the Will’s self-determination. And if that first act of the will which determines and fixes the subsequent acts, be not free, none of the following acts which are determined by it can be free.— If we suppose there are five acts in the train, the fifth and last determined by the fourth, and the fourth by the third, the third by the second, and the second by the first; if the first is not determined by the Will, and so not free, then none of them are truly determined by the Will: that is, that each of them are as they are, and not otherwise, is not first owing to the will, but to the determination of the first in the series, which is not dependent on the will, and is that which the will has no hand in determining. And this being that which decides what the rest shall be, and determines their existence; therefore the first determination of their existence is not from the Will. The case is just the same, if instead of a chain of five acts of the Will, we should suppose a succession of ten, or an hundred, or ten thousand. If the first act he not free, being determined by something out of the will, and this determines the next to be agreeable to itself, and that the next, and so on; none of them are free, but all originally depend on, and are determined by, some cause out of the Will; and so all freedom in the case is excluded, and no act of the will can be free, according to this notion of freedom. If we should suppose a long chain of ten thousand links, so connected, that if the first link moves, it will move the next, and that the next; and so the whole chain must be determined to motion, and in the direction of its motion, by the motion of the first link; and that is moved by something else; in this case, though all the links, but one, are moved by other parts of the same chain, yet it appears that the motion of no one, nor the direction of its motion, is from any self-moving or self-determining power in the chain, any more than if every link were immediately moved by something that did not belong to the chain.— If the Will be not free in the first act, which causes the next, then neither is it free in the next, which is caused by that first act; for though indeed the Will caused it, yet it did not cause it freely; because the preceding act, by which it was caused, was not free. And again, if the Will be not free in the second act, so neither can it be in the third, which is caused by that; because in like manner, that third was determined by an act of the Will that was not free. And so we may go on to the next act, and from that to the next; and how long soever the succession of acts is, it is all one: if the first on which the whole chain depends, and which determines all the rest, be not a free act, the Will is not free in causing or determining any one of those acts; because the act by which it determines them all is not a free act; and therefore the Will is no more free in determining them, than if it did not cause them at all.— Thus, this Arminian notion of Liberty of the Will, consisting in the will’s Self-determination, is repugnant to itself, and shuts itself wholly out of the world.

Read More......

Friday, April 25, 2008

A Prayer for the Lost


Dear Lord.
I thank you for your grace. I thank you for your patience with me. I thank you for how you have given me the gift of your Son, Jesus Christ. My God, I know that you own everything, that you are above everything, that you created everything, that you know everything and that you are in control of everything. I know that you did not need me, but you wanted me. You did not have to save me, but in your will, and for your glory you did so. My Lord, I thank you for my salvation and benefits of having a loving relationship with you, my Abba, my Father, My Master, My Lord. I cannot fathom to be without you.

Dear Lord.
I earnestly pray for John that you would place your grace upon him. I pray that you would open his eyes to see your glory. Open his ears so that he can hear your gospel call. Open his mind, so that he can understand the depths of your Scriptures. Open his heart, so that he can follow you all the days of his life.

My God, I pray that you would earnestly seek him, and lay hold of him, so that the light of the gospel would shine upon him that he would turn to you and away from his wicked ways, from following Satan, to following his Creator and Saviour. I plead that you show mercy and give grace to him that he would be saved from the bondage of sin to the loving arms of your Son, and become a slave to righteousness. I pray that you would give him the same gift of salvation that you have bestowed on this undeserved sinner.

God, I say this all as your child and not your master. I don't pretend to know all things, or understand all things, so I surrender this request at your feet. I know that all your ways are good, just and right and that you are most holy. I know that no purpose of yours can be undone and I trust you in your ways, for you are God and I am, as Job put it, but dust and ashes.

So, as I bring this to my God I ask out of ignorance, but I also ask out of love for John and plead for his soul, but I also beg that your will would be done.

So God, I leave this to you and your will and ask that your name be glorified in it. I ask that you continue to use me to show the Gospel to John. I pray that I would be your vesel and that the seed would be planted and that the Holy Spirit would be able to use the seed that I planted to fulfill your will for John.

Out of the respect of Your Word where you command that we make our requests be made known to you I now ask simply that you would open John's eyes to your Gospel and that he would become a warrior for the cause of Christ for the glory of You.

Through your Son's blood, because of His name, I pray these things to my Father, my Creator, My God.

Amen.

Read More......

Wednesday, April 23, 2008

Calvinistic Evangelism is not Jumbo Shrimp


The one thing that tires me the most with those who try and defame Calvinism and the doctrines of grace is the fact that the haters always say that Calvinism kills evangelism. What is weird is that if they even read a little about church history, and I mean very little, they will see that some of the most amazing evangelist in church history were Calvinists. To name a few, check out John Calvin himself, John Knox, Jonathan Edwards, J. Gresham Machen and Asahel Nettleton. Again...start there and when your head stops spinning, call me and I will give you more. No doubt there have also been some great Arminian evangelists as well, but I don't hear any Calvinists saying that Arminianism kills evangelism so there is no need to go there.

I hava a good friend who is an evangelist in Austria and also goes into Iraq every once in a while to play "preach Jesus and hope you don't get shot." He is an evangelist also to some guys at the United Nations. He has been leading a small group Bible study there for years and has some pretty amazing contacts as he has been able to preach Jesus to many "high-ups" for many different nations across the world. His stories that he tells me about are far above amazing and I can't put everything here that has been said, and I can't even type his name as it would put him in to danger next time he heads into Iraq.

We talk about every month to catch up and encourage one another in prayer. Try telling someone who leads a Bible study at the U.N. and goes to Iraq for the purpose of proclaiming Christ, that ministry is difficult. I almost laugh everytime I ask him to pray for me in these areas, but he is very patient and very gracious and truly prays for me and never scoffs at my requests.

Last week we had our time of conversation and he told me a story of a certain high up bio nuclear scientist for a certain nation. I really can't give specifics on which nation he represents as it is just too dangerous. This scientist used to meet at this small group Bible study and then some years ago told my friend that he would no longer attend because he just didn't believe anything that was said at the small group. My friend wanted to keep in contact so they continued to go out to dinner every three months to make sure that the friendship was kept in tack.

This past month they were at dinner for over three hours and this scientist admitted that my friend's thoughts on Jesus and the Bible were now starting to "make sense" and that he felt like "something inside him was convicting him of these truths." One of the scientists issues was the fact that if he believed in what my friend was telling him that his whole life (the scientist is in his 60's) would have been a waste, because everything he believed would be put to the side. My friend said, "What if God was using everything in your life until now, to bring you to this very point of understanding?" The scientist was blown away, and merely said, "good point." The scientist then remarked that he would "lose face" with many of his friends and co-workers. My friend simply asked, "Who do you want to 'lose face' with more, your friends or the one who will judge you when you die?" Again...touche.

At the end of the night, the scientist simply said that he wasn't ready to completely surrender to the truths that were being represented.

Before we move on from here, let me ask, "How would you respond to someone who you have had contact with for years, seems like they are ready to surrender to Christ, but then they simply said, "I am not ready tonight." What would you say? Would you beg and ask, "What if you die tonight?" Would you think that you don't want this to "slip away?" Would you try and get him to "repeat after me and you will be saved?"

Here is what my friend said:

That is okay. God has a hold of you and he won't let you go. Take your time, you don't have to decide tonight.

I wonder how an Arminian would have responded?

The one who believes in complete sovereignty in salvation isn't looking for a prayer but looking for God's timing. The Calvinist can sleep at night knowing that God has his plans for his elect and it will happen in his time. The Calvinist doesn't have to try and convince even further at the dinner table in fear that the man might get hit by a truck on the way home and "surprise God."

The Calvinistic Evangelist rests all his hope, not on the method of evangelism, but on the sovereignty of his Creator and the sustainer of his faith.

You see, Calvinistic Evangelism is not Jumbo Shrimp. It is not an oxymoron, but it is the complete rest in the sovereignty of our Lord who bought us with a price. Calvinism doesn't kill evangelism but allows evangelism to rest not on the presenter, but on the Creator. It puts away pragmatism and places it's hopes on the glory and will of God. I believe that the Calvinistic Evangelist is the best way to evangelize and the way that the trust in God is completely at rest.

So, tonight, if you are a Calvinist and you have friends that you continually share the gospel with, sleep well and eat some jumbo shrimp tomorrow.

Read More......

Tuesday, March 04, 2008

For all you blog addicts...Some Links


Here are some links for your enjoyment before we continue in the 10 Steps to Become a Legalist series:

David has done a masterful job at putting together Calvin quotes on the unlimited/limited position of the atonement: Calvin on Unlimited Expiation, Sin-Bearing, Redemption and Reconciliation

John Piper ellaborates on his thoughts on allowing Arminians to teach in your church: Calvinism, Arminianism and Education

erik at Irish Calvinist brought back an oldie but goodie: What does Light Beer and American Evangelicalism have in common?

Bob Kauflin at Worship Matters has a great post on: Can Christian Musicians Play Secular Music for God’s Glory?


Have fun reading...be back tomorrow...

Read More......

Friday, November 16, 2007

John Calvin on John 3:16

I figured while we wait I would go ahead and post Calvin's commentary on John 3:14-17. I think you will find some of the things said here is the same that we are purporting to all.

14. And as Moses lifted up the serpent. He explains more clearly why he said that it is he alone to whom heaven is opened; namely, that he brings to heaven all who are only willing to follow him as their guide; for he testifies that he will be openly and publicly manifested to all, that he may diffuse his power over men of every class. 60 To be lifted up means to be placed in a lofty and elevated situation, so as to be exhibited to the view of all. This was done by the preaching of the Gospel; for the explanation of it which some give, as referring to the cross, neither agrees with the context nor is applicable to the present subject. The simple meaning of the words therefore is, that, by the preaching of the Gospel, Christ was to be raised on high, like a standard to which the eyes of all would be directed, as Isaiah had foretold, (Isaiah 2:2.) As a type of this lifting up, he refers to the brazen serpent, which was erected by Moses, the sight of which was a salutary remedy to those who had been wounded by the deadly bite of serpents. The history of that transaction is well known, and is detailed in Numbers 21:9. Christ introduces it in this passage, in order to show that he must be placed before the eyes of all by the doctrine of the Gospel, that all who look at him by faith may obtain salvation. Hence it ought to be inferred that Christ is clearly exhibited to us in the Gospel, in order that no man may complain of obscurity; and that this manifestation is common to all, and that faith has its own look, by which it perceives him as present; as Paul tells us that a lively portrait of Christ with his cross is exhibited, when he is truly preached, (Galatians 3:1.)


The metaphor is not inappropriate or far-fetched. As it was only the outward appearance of a serpent, but contained nothing within that was pestilential or venomous, so Christ clothed himself with the form of sinful flesh, which yet was pure and free from all sin, that he might cure in us the deadly wound of sin. It was not in vain that, when the Jews were wounded by serpents, the Lord formerly prepared this kind of antidote; and it tended to confirm the discourse which Christ delivered. For when he saw that he was despised as a mean and unknown person, he could produce nothing more appropriate than the lifting up of the serpent, to tell them, that they ought not to think it strange, if, contrary to the expectation of men, he were lifted up on high from the very lowest condition, because this had already been shadowed out under the Law by the type of the serpent.

A question now arises: Does Christ compare himself to the serpent, because there is some resemblance; or, does he pronounce it to have been a sacrament, as the Manna was? For though the Manna was bodily food, intended for present use, yet Paul testifies that it was a spiritual mystery, (1 Corinthians 10:3.) I am led to think that this was also the case with the brazen serpent, both by this passage, and the fact of its being preserved for the future, until the superstition of the people had converted it into an idol, (2 Kings 18:4.) If any one form a different opinion, I do not debate the point with him.

16. For God so loved the world. Christ opens up the first cause, and, as it were, the source of our salvation, and he does so, that no doubt may remain; for our minds cannot find calm repose, until we arrive at the unmerited love of God. As the whole matter of our salvation must not be sought any where else than in Christ, so we must see whence Christ came to us, and why he was offered to be our Savior. Both points are distinctly stated to us: namely, that faith in Christ brings life to all, and that Christ brought life, because the Heavenly Father loves the human race, and wishes that they should not perish. And this order ought to be carefully observed; for such is the wicked ambition which belongs to our nature, that when the question relates to the origin of our salvation, we quickly form diabolical imaginations about our own merits. Accordingly, we imagine that God is reconciled to us, because he has reckoned us worthy that he should look upon us. But Scripture everywhere extols his pure and unmingled mercy, which sets aside all merits.

And the words of Christ mean nothing else, when he declares the cause to be in the love of God. For if we wish to ascend higher, the Spirit shuts the door by the mouth of Paul, when he informs us that this love was founded on the purpose of his will, (Ephesians 1:5.) And, indeed, it is very evident that Christ spoke in this manner, in order to draw away men from the contemplation of themselves to look at the mercy of God alone. Nor does he say that God was moved to deliver us, because he perceived in us something that was worthy of so excellent a blessing, but ascribes the glory of our deliverance entirely to his love. And this is still more clear from what follows; for he adds, that God gave his Son to men, that they may not perish. Hence it follows that, until Christ bestow his aid in rescuing the lost, all are destined to eternal destruction. This is also demonstrated by Paul from a consideration of the time;

for he loved us while we were still enemies by sin, (Romans 5:8, 10.)

And, indeed, where sin reigns, we shall find nothing but the wrath of God, which draws death along with it. It is mercy, therefore, that reconciles us to God, that he may likewise restore us to life.

This mode of expression, however, may appear to be at variance with many passages of Scripture, which lay in Christ the first foundation of the love of God to us, and show that out of him we are hated by God. But we ought to remember — what I have already stated — that the secret love with which the Heavenly Father loved us in himself is higher than all other causes; but that the grace which he wishes to be made known to us, and by which we are excited to the hope of salvation, commences with the reconciliation which was procured through Christ. For since he necessarily hates sin, how shall we believe that we are loved by him, until atonement has been made for those sins on account of which he is justly offended at us? Thus, the love of Christ must intervene for the purpose of reconciling God to us, before we have any experience of his fatherly kindness. But as we are first informed that God, because he loved us, gave his Son to die for us, so it is immediately added, that it is Christ alone on whom, strictly speaking, faith ought to look.

He gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him may not perish. This, he says, is the proper look of faith, to be fixed on Christ, in whom it beholds the breast of God filled with love: this is a firm and enduring support, to rely on the death of Christ as the only pledge of that love. The word only-begotten is emphatic, (ἐμφατικὸ ν) to magnify the fervor of the love of God towards us. For as men are not easily convinced that God loves them, in order to remove all doubt, he has expressly stated that we are so very dear to God that, on our account, he did not even spare his only-begotten Son. Since, therefore, God has most abundantly testified his love towards us, whoever is not satisfied with this testimony, and still remains in doubt, offers a high insult to Christ, as if he had been an ordinary man given up at random to death. But we ought rather to consider that, in proportion to the estimation in which God holds his only-begotten Son, so much the more precious did our salvation appear to him, for the ransom of which he chose that his only-begotten Son should die. To this name Christ has a right, because he is by nature the only Son of God; and he communicates this honor to us by adoption, when we are engrafted into his body.

That whosoever believeth on him may not perish. It is a remarkable commendation of faith, that it frees us from everlasting destruction. For he intended expressly to state that, though we appear to have been born to death, undoubted deliverance is offered to us by the faith of Christ; and, therefore, that we ought not to fear death, which otherwise hangs over us. And he has employed the universal term whosoever, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers. Such is also the import of the term World, which he formerly used; for though nothing will be found in the world that is worthy of the favor of God, yet he shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when he invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life.

Let us remember, on the other hand, that while life is promised universally to all who believe in Christ, still faith is not common to all. For Christ is made known and held out to the view of all, but the elect alone are they whose eyes God opens, that they may seek him by faith. Here, too, is displayed a wonderful effect of faith; for by it we receive Christ such as he is given to us by the Father — that is, as having freed us from the condemnation of eternal death, and made us heirs of eternal life, because, by the sacrifice of his death, he has atoned for our sins, that nothing may prevent God from acknowledging us as his sons. Since, therefore, faith embraces Christ, with the efficacy of his death and the fruit of his resurrection, we need not wonder if by it we obtain likewise the life of Christ.

Still it is not yet very evident why and how faith bestows life upon us. Is it because Christ renews us by his Spirit, that the righteousness of God may live and be vigorous in us; or is it because, having been cleansed by his blood, we are accounted righteous before God by a free pardon? It is indeed certain, that these two things are always joined together; but as the certainty of salvation is the subject now in hand, we ought chiefly to hold by this reason, that we live, because God loves us freely by not imputing to us our sins. For this reason sacrifice is expressly mentioned, by which, together with sins, the curse and death are destroyed. I have already explained the object of these two clauses,

which is, to inform us that in Christ we regain the possession of life, of which we are destitute in ourselves; for in this wretched condition of mankind, redemption, in the order of time, goes before salvation.

17. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world. It is a confirmation of the preceding statement; for it was not in vain that God sent his own Son to us. He came not to destroy; and therefore it follows, that it is the peculiar office of the Son of God, that all who believe may obtain salvation by him. There is now no reason why any man should be in a state of hesitation, or of distressing anxiety, as to the manner in which he may escape death, when we believe that it was the purpose of God that Christ should deliver us from it. The word world is again repeated, that no man may think himself wholly excluded, if he only keep the road of faith.
The word judge (πρίνω) is here put for condemn, as in many other passages. When he declares that he did not come to condemn the world, he thus points out the actual design of his coming; for what need was there that Christ should come to destroy us who were utterly ruined? We ought not, therefore, to look at any thing else in Christ, than that God, out of his boundless goodness chose to extend his aid for saving us who were lost; and whenever our sins press us — whenever Satan would drive us to despair — we ought to hold out this shield, that God is unwilling that we should be overwhelmed with everlasting destruction, because he has appointed his Son to be the salvation of the world.

When Christ says, in other passages, that he is come to judgment, (John 9:39;) when he is called a stone of offense, (1 Peter 2:7;) when he is said to be set for the destruction of many, (Luke 2:34:) this may be regarded as accidental, or as arising from a different cause; for they who reject the grace offered in him deserve to find him the Judge and Avenger of contempt so unworthy and base. A striking instance of this may be seen in the Gospel; for though it is strictly
the power of God for salvation to every one who believeth, (Romans 1:16,)

the ingratitude of many causes it to become to them death.. Both have been well expressed by Paul, when he boasts of

having vengeance at hand, by which he will punish all the adversaries of his doctrine after that the obedience of the godly shall have been fulfilled, (2 Corinthians 10:6)

The meaning amounts to this, that the Gospel is especially, and in the first instance, appointed for believers, that it may be salvation to them; but that afterwards believers will not escape unpunished who, despising the grace of Christ, chose to have him as the Author of death rather than of life.

Calvin, J. (1998). Calvin's Commentaries: John (electronic ed.). Logos Library System; Calvin's Commentaries (Jn 3:14). Albany, OR: Ages Software.

Read More......

Thursday, November 08, 2007

Learning from Calvin: Being in the World


I have been reading Stephen Nichols' book, "the Reformation: How a Monk and a Mallet Changed the World" It is a brief overview of the different reformations that went on after the 95 Theses was beaten into the large Wittenberg door. As I was reading this I encountered a part of Calvin that I never knew. Something that I have been trying to teach our congregation any time I get the chance, and they have responded graciously. It is the understanding of what the church is here for. It is the understanding that we need to be the salt on the earth and a city on a hill. The only way that we can do this is to not stay focused on us and expecting people to come to us, but it is the knowledge that we must go.

This isn't a social club that meets once a week and then back to our normal lives. We are called ambassadors for Christ, we are his representation for the world. I always ask myself, "If I don't them, who will?" It also helps that believe that God predestines all things and he is in complete control, so I believe that every person I see, God put them there, in front of me, to hear the Gospel.

We are to season the earth, but how can we if we go out about our jobs and other duties, then merely come to church every Sunday and then leave back to those jobs with no understanding of our responsibility? It really is high treason if we do so. It is something that we cannot do, we must focus on how we can be people of real religion as James puts it in James 1:27. Know that church is not a building, but church is God's people. Just as when people look at a high church steeple and see holiness and love, they should also see the same through you. For the world, that church represents Jesus, they should see the same in us every time they glance in our direction.

This was Calvin's focus and I found this commentary on him helpful in Nichols' book:

Theologians of the medieval era tended to downplay life outside the walls of the church or monastery or convent. They tended to give little credence to one's work in the world and to the world itself. Calvin and Luther, joined by many other Reformers, hammered out a doctrine of vocation: one's work is a calling. They also reminded their congregations and us that this is God's world, and we are to cultivate it and enjoy it for God's glory. Calvin locked the church doors so the church could be in the world.

May we also do all to the glory of God. Soli Deo Gloria!

Read More......

Saturday, November 03, 2007

Calvin Denies the Cross?

After spending time interacting with EgoMakarios I decided to go to his blog to find out what he was about. I found a post that stated, "Calvin Denies the Cross Outright" and thought I would read it. This is the most explicit use of lying to make a point that I have seen in a long time, well, since the last time I read Dave Hunt. I am glad that he at least gave where in the Institutes he found this denial, so I decided to take a look. Calvin hits it dead on. Calvin's use of the Apostle's Creed and Jesus going to hell is one I don't ascribe to, but this is not the point of the section that Calvin is dealing with. Calvin's point is that if Christ merely died a physical death that would be empty of any worth for us sinners. I could not agree more. Christ's most excruciating time came at the wrath disposed upon him for our sins. He bore our sins, the just became the unjust, to be sin for us, this was the importance of the cross. I just couldn't believe what I was reading over on his blog so I had to mention it over here. This is why so many misrepresent Calvin without ever reading him or trying to honestly understand his teachings. Here is the entirety of the section that Calvin was concerned with:

10. But, apart from the Creed, we must seek for a surer exposition of Christ’s descent to hell: and the word of God furnishes us with one not only pious and holy, but replete with excellent consolation. Nothing had been done if Christ had only endured corporeal death. In order to interpose between us and God’s anger, and satisfy his righteous judgment, it was necessary that he should feel the weight of divine vengeance. Whence also it was necessary that he should engage, as it were, at close quarters with the powers of hell and the horrors of eternal death. We lately quoted from the Prophet, that the “chastisement of our peace was laid upon him” that he “was bruised for our iniquities” that he “bore our infirmities;” expressions which intimate, that, like a sponsor and surety for the guilty, and, as it were, subjected to condemnation, he undertook and paid all the penalties which must have been exacted from them, the only exception being, that the pains of death could not hold him. Hence there is nothing strange in its being said that he descended to hell, seeing he endured the death which is inflicted on the wicked by an angry God. It is frivolous and ridiculous to object that in this way the order is perverted, it being absurd that an event which preceded burial should be placed after it. But after explaining what Christ endured in the sight of man, the Creed appropriately adds the invisible and incomprehensible judgment which he endured before God, to teach us that not only was the body of Christ given up as the price of redemption, but that there was a greater and more excellent price—that he bore in his soul the tortures of condemned and ruined man.

Calvin, J., & Beveridge, H. (1997). Institutes of the Christian religion. Translation of: Institutio Christianae religionis.; Reprint, with new introd. Originally published: Edinburgh : Calvin Translation Society, 1845-1846. (II, xvi, 10). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

Read More......

Wednesday, August 22, 2007

Unconditional Election - Affirmed


This is a repost before I nail a tough subject that will bring much debate and comments from a lot of people, which if kept charitable, will be a great time of discussion. Til then.

This doctrine is one that I have not always subscribed to. It is one that I was never even taught until about 8 years ago. It was one that I would have probably laughed at before then and scoffed at. I always thought that I was in control of my destiny, that I was the one who in control of my actions that I was the one who chose the paths on which to walk. So, naturally when it came to salvation I thought it was I who chose God and at times I thought how lucky He was to have me on His team. This doctrine has been debated all the way back to Augustine and Jerome against a man named Pelagius, it was the doctrine that is said to be the foundation of the reformation against the Catholic church in the 16th Century, it is what defined the Protestant movement and again is what was attacked by a man named James Arminius and what has been defended by men like Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Owen, John Bunyan, Jonathan Edwards, Charles Spurgeon, R.C. Sproul and John MacArthur. This doctrine is one where we must lean completely on Scripture as our entire conscience fights against it. Even our society would tell us it isn’t true, and they do this every time they tell us that “You can do anything you set your mind to” or “you choose your destiny.” So, this doctrine is one where we need to put away your old inclinations and just hear Scripture, listen to what it says plainly for this was Paul’s prayer at the beginning of Colossians:

For this reason also, since the day we heard of it, we have not ceased to pray for you and to ask that you may be filled with the knowledge of His will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding,so that you will walk in a manner worthy of the Lord, to please Him in all respects, bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God;
Colossians 1:9,10



We are going to study what it means to be chosen of God and look at some key words to describe what this means:
1. Importance of the words: Foreknew, foreknowledge, foreknown, foreordain
2. Importance of the word: Predestine
3. Importance of the words: chosen or elect

Importance of the word foreknew, foreknowledge, foreknown, foreordain

The first word that comes with much debate and is at the real root of this debate is the word foreknown. Some say that this word means that God foreknew whether man would choose Him or not and based on those actions of belief, God elected those to salvation. So God looked through the portal of time and saw those who would choose Him and then He elected them or chose them unto salvation. The other view, the one that I hold to, is that God’s foreknowledge is much more intimate, much more thorough than just someone’s actions but that God foreknew you in a way to where He foreknew you as a person not just merely your actions. Let’s look at the first part of our text to understand this
, Romans 8:28-30.

And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.

So, the question here is what did God foreknow in this passage? Does it say anything about God foreknowing anything about actions? Now, understand we do know that God knows everything, but what does God foreknow in this passage? It points to Him foreknowing the person, not their actions. There are three times that God’s foreknowledge is mentioned in verb form, here in Romans 8:29, also in 1 Peter 1:20 and also in Romans 11:2, so let’s look at these as well to get a well informed prospective.

God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew. Or do you not know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel?
Romans 11:2

If you address as Father the One who impartially judges according to each one’s work, conduct yourselves in fear during the time of your stay on earth;
knowing that you were not redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers, but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ. For He was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you who through Him are believers in God, who raised Him from the dead and gave Him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God.
1 Peter 1:17-21


So, the three times that God’s foreknowledge is mentioned in the verb tense we have that God foreknew what? The person or persons, but now what does the word actually mean. For this, we need to break the word down. The word in the Greek means to “know beforehand, or to predestine” but what about this word “know?” Is it just merely having knowledge about something or someone or is there something more here.

The word “know” or “knew” is a very intimate word to the both the Hebrews and Greeks. The word actually is used to describe that Adam and Eve knew each other and then their son Cain was born in Genesis 4:1. If the word merely meant to know about someone, then we have a true miracle of birth in Genesis 4:1 instead of the obvious reality that to “know” for the Hebrews was a very intimate term between two persons.

We also see this intimate relationship in
John 10:14

“I am the good shepherd, and I know My own and My own know Me,
even as the Father knows Me and I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep. I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one shepherd.
For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life so that I may take it again.
John 10:14-17

So does God just merely “know” of Christ? Or is this an intimate relationship between the two?

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
And before you were born I consecrated you;
I have appointed you a prophet to the nations.”
Jeremiah 1:5

This knowledge or to know is also shown in Matthew 7:22,23; 1 Corinthians 8:3, 2 Timothy 2:19; Exodus 2:25; Galatians 4:9

When you think of the word predestine what do you think of? The word means exactly what we would take it to mean, the Greek word means “to decide beforehand or predetermine. In the biblical sense it comes with the connotation as God decreeing from eternity past.” There is no way around this word that is used many times in the New Testament. Take a look at these verses and the variety of ways the term is used:

Acts 4:28; Romans 8:29,30, 1 Cor 2:7; Eph 1:5,11

We can see especially in Ephesians that God predetermined His elect to obtain His inheritance, Why or for what cause? For the kind intention of His will. We also see this when David speaks to God in Psalm 139:1-16

So we, see that when we are told that we are predestined by God, that is exactly what is meant, the all sovereign Creator predestines His own, His elect to heaven.

The Importance of the words: Choose and Elect

So, now after seeing the importance of the words foreknow and predestine we come back to the words choose and elect. When God speaks of choosing a people He does it because of His will not ours. We can actually see this all through the Bible. How does God choose people? Does He choose them because they are seeking Him or do they get chosen by the mere fact that God wants to use them? Think of this…

The choosing of Abraham: Genesis 12 says nothing of why He chose Abram He just chose. What is interesting is that after Abram is chosen, the first action after his choosing is a sinful one! God told him to go forth from his relatives and he took Lot and his wife. I think this just shows once again that God chooses weak vessels, gives them faith and uses them for His glory. God does not look to who is strong in faith and hope they will choose Him, that is backwards.

Also, look at others that were chosen:

The choosing of the nation of Israel: Deut 7:6
The choosing of Moses: Exodus 3,4
The choosing of Gideon: Judges 6-8 (Oh Valient Warrior!) where was Gideon at this time? Hiding
The choosing of Jeremiah: Jeremiah 1
The choosing of David: 1 Samuel 16
The choosing of the twelve apostles: Luke 6 (John 15:16; You didn’t choose me; I chose you!)
The choosing of Saul: Acts 9



The Greek word translated “chosen” is eklektos, from the verb kaleo, “to call,” and the preposition ek, “out.” Literally, it means “the called-out ones.” The term is often used in the New Testament as a synonym for Christians (e.g., Col. 3:12; 2 Tim. 2:10; Titus 1:1). The expression “called-out ones” emphasizes that we who are saved are redeemed because of God’s choice, not our own. Jesus told His disciples, “You did not choose Me, but I chose you” (John 15:16). In other words, if you are a Christian, it is ultimately because you were chosen by God Himself, not because of anything you did to get yourself into the Kingdom of God
John MacArthur



So, the words chosen ones or the elect are actually the exact same words in the
Greek and it is referred to 24 times in the New Testament. There is no way
around these simple to understand words. We have been chosen by the all
sovereign God to our position as His chosen people.

1 Peter 2:9 speaks to this specifically:
But you are A CHOSEN RACE, A royal PRIESTHOOD, A HOLY NATION, A PEOPLE FOR God’s OWN POSSESSION, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;

So when we see this in Colossians 3:12 that we are chosen by God, that is exactly what it means. We did nothing to earn this election, we did nothing to earn this choosing, but He chose us out of the kind intention of His will, not ours.

Conclusion

We have seen that sometimes our earthly view that seems correct is actually just the opposite. We think we chose God but in 1 John 4 it tells us that we love, because He first loved us. Without God foreknowing us, choosing and predestining us, calling us, we would still be lost
and without hope. But, if you believe in Jesus Christ and you believe that He God’s Son who died on the cross and rose again, and He alone is your Lord, than that is shown as proof of your election, because only those who know Christ have been chosen. Just as it says in John 10:26 but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. Notice, Jesus does not say that because you don’t believe you are not my sheep but those who are not called, who are not chosen by God cannot believe. They cannot be Christ’s sheep.



When I was coming to Christ, I thought I was doing it all myself, and though I sought the Lord earnestly, I had no idea the Lord was seeking me.… [Then] the thought struck me, How did you come to be a Christian? I sought the Lord. But how did you come to seek the Lord? The truth flashed across my mind in a moment—I should not have sought Him unless there had been some previous influence on my mind to make me seek Him.… I saw that God was at the bottom of it all, and that He was the Author of my faith, and so the whole doctrine of grace opened up to me.… I desire to make this constant confession, “I ascribe my change wholly to God.”

Charles Spurgeon







Read More......
Related Posts with Thumbnails