Muslim Questions to a Calvinist

Bassam Zawadi over at The Muslim Debate Initiative posted 5 questions for Calvinists.  I have included the questions and my answers below. May they be edifying. 

---

Question 1: How does God determine the elect? I understand that it is His sovereign will, but is it arbitrary? If not, then how and why not?

Answer 1: The purpose of election is the glory of God. Therefore he chooses based not upon arbitrary pointing but upon his own good pleasure. I am sure you have done things that often appeared arbitrary to those who did not understand or know what you were doing, until the purpose was complete. Read Romans 9:18-23 for more on this.

---

Question 2: Isn’t it unfair and unjust for God to create some human beings as totally depraved (despite them having free will, He purposely created them totally depraved) and then abandon them by not electing them and turning them into reprobates?

Answer 2: This commits what is known as the equal-ultimacy fallacy and is also covered in Romans 9:18-23.

---

Question 3: Isn’t election and not Jesus dying for the sins of people the ultimate cause and foundation of salvation? If yes, then doesn’t that demote the importance of Jesus dying for our sins and shouldn’t the main message of the gospel be figuring out how to know you were elected?

Answer 3: How do you know if you are elected? By looking to Christ. You must remember that we were chosen in Christ Jesus before the foundation of the world. God ordained that our election be by the means of Christ and him Crucified. The only way to be sure of our election is to repent and believe in Christ as our savior, and by faith look to him as the assurance of your calling. The only way to be elect is if Christ saved you, the only way to know is faith, which is a gift of God. How you know you're elected, and how God knows you are elected are two different things.

---

Question 4: Could the elect in reality be thought of as having sought forgiveness? I ask this because it appears that they weren’t really doing any “seeking”, but were themselves sought out and chosen by God to be forgiven. Please comment.

Answer 4: No, none of us were seeking God when he found us. John teaches us that we cannot even see the kingdom of God before we are born again from above. Paul tells us we were dead men whom God made alive in Christ Jesus. It is hard for a dead man to seek anything, but once made alive that man can repent and seek forgiveness.

---

Question 5: How would you respond to this Arminian argument: Calvinism is built upon the premise that fallen man is “too far gone for even God to be able to reach him [thus necessitating an Irresistible Grace].” However, ask the Calvinist, “Is it simply too difficult for God to enable an unregenerate sinner to receive Him, without using an Irresistible Grace?” If Calvinists answer, “no,” then the Total Depravity argument becomes moot, and then it’s no longer a matter of man’s depravity, but man’s accountability, when enabled by God’s prevenient grace. However, most Calvinists reluctantly answer, “yes,” thus making God to be the one who has Total Inability, that is, the total inability to reach fallen man without resorting to an Irresistible Grace, and thus it is the Calvinist who is shown to be the one denigrating God’s power.

Answer 5: This comes from a fundamental misunderstanding of irresistible grace, probably brought about by the name of the tulip loving Dutch. Irresistible grace does not mean that it cannot be resisted but that it can overcome all resistances. Once we settle this we realize the absurdity of this question. Allow me to rephrase: 'Is it simply too difficult for God to overcome an unregenerate sinner's resistance to receive Him, without overcoming an unregenerate sinner's resistance to receive Him?'  Proverbs 18:17

---

Soli Deo Gloria

The Legacy of the Reformers on Courtship, Engagement and Marriage - Part II

John Calvin: The Making of a Covenant.
Calvin’s basic understanding of marriage as is covenant. The concept of covenant has long been taught in western Christendom and Calvin applied this structure to the contractual obligations of marriage. Using Malachi 2:13-16, he insisted that the relationship of a covenant was not simply on the vertical plane between God and man but also on the horizontal relationships between husband and wife. As God draws the elect into covenant with him, he also draws man and wife into covenant with one another, by their mutual consent as well as through other regulations, or as Calvin put it:

But in order to press the matter more on the priests, he calls their attention to the fact that God is the founder of marriage. Testified has Jehovah, he says, between thee and thy wife… Hence Solomon, in Proverbs 2:17, calls marriage the covenant of God, for it is superior to all human contracts. So also Malachi declares, that God is as it were the stipulator, who by his authority joins the man to the woman, and sanctions the alliance: God then has testified between thee and thy wife, as though he had said, "Thou hast violated not only all human laws, but also the compact which God himself has consecrated, and which ought justly to be deemed more sacred than all other compacts: as then God has testified between thee and thy wife, and thou now deceivest her, how darest thou to come to the altar? and how canst thou think that God will be pleased with thy sacrifices or regard thy oblations?"

Unlike Rome and Luther, Calvin saw some separation of the Church and the State as a biblical and good thing, which informed his theology of marriage. Marriage was not a divine institution but the social one. Calvin, like Luther did not see a sacramental purpose in marriage rather it served the function of procreation as well as a way to build and strengthen love between husband and wife. Celibacy was the exception not the rule, and that it was an equal calling as marriage, not more, nor less.

Calvin also sought the consent of both parties involved in the marriage, which was radically different from the Popish tradition which only required permission and consent of the parents. Though Calvin wished for consent from both the parents and the lovers, he did not require parental sanction. He did however believe these brash marriages to be ill advised. Calvin drew on the story of Caleb as justification for this view, since it was Caleb who held his daughter out as a prize without her consent. This was despicable in the Frenchman’s eyes.

Calvin however was not without his own brand of impediments and he even agreed with Rome on many of them. In his 1546 Marriage Ordinance he declared that marriages of young people were null and void, that is women under the age of 18 and men under the age of 20, though the age of consent with parental approval may have been younger than that.

Another barrier Calvin set up was one of mental ability or inability. While not a clause as we might assume in our modern times, this allowed for the annulment of an engagement contract by those who were drunk or had their minds temporally impaired. There is no record of Calvin ever actually annulling a marriage or engagement for the reason of mental deficiency as defined in the twenty-first century.

A third impediment was against that of polygamy or even previous engagement. In the case of previous engagement this was not another engagement that had been annulled, but one that was current. If such a contract were found then the latter would be annulled. Other than this Calvin wrote little on the subject, however when it came to polygamy Calvin wrote extensively. This is probably because the Anabaptists and Lutherans of the day began to practice it and delve into a theology allowing it. Most sources seem to generally agree that the theologians were drawing on the examples of Old Testament patriarchs and kings. Calvin thought that men ought not to follow the example of these heroes of the faith in this manner because God created monogamy as part of the order of creation. The basis of his argument comes from Genesis 2:24 where God institutes marriage as a holy ordinance condemning polygamy with the imperative “the two shall become one flesh.”

To marry more than one wife was not simply to mock God but also to court trouble. Calvin drew upon the patriarchs showing that they lived in disorder and their lives were filled with strife and hostility. Further that not only was the marriages horrific on the husband but also upon the wives paying special attention to Leah and Rachel, two sisters who hated each other and competed with each other for their husbands love.

Another impediment Geneva set up was the fitness for marriage, that is a barrier against one who lacks virginity, is sexually incapable, contagion, or disparity in age. For Calvin, one’s virginity was not necessarily essential for marriage. If one presumed to be a virgin and was found to have lied about this to their potential spouse, on this Calvin did not discriminate. This was not the same as premarital sex between the two, which Calvin also spoke harshly against, but rather this was deemed premarital adultery, which Calvin thought desecrated the body and soul of the adulterer.

The 1546 Marriage Ordinance restricted marriage to “capable persons.” Those who were deemed incapable were those unable to produce children for any number of reasons including emasculation, impotence, permanent injury to genitals, etc, were seen as "incapable." The ordinance called for the annulment of all such marriages and by implication engagements. Calvin deemed all those with such disabilities as eunuchs and drawing from the words of Christ in Matthew 19:11-12 inferred that they were not men (or women) and were not fit for marriage. Thus, all marriages involving such were automatically annulled.

Those with incurable diseases, especially contagious ones, were also not allowed to enter into marriage in Geneva. That being said if one were to contract a disease that were not contagious the spouse was not allowed to annul the marriage or abandon their partner. For Calvin marriage was “in sickness and in health” as the saying goes. Therefore, it was only engagements which were annulled. However, if disease was contracted during the marriage that threatened the safety of the spouse or children, separation was allowed but not annulment or divorce.

As for those whose ages were drastically different and seeking an engagement and marriage, Calvin often saw it as a lust after the flesh and not something fit for the church of God. Calvin was so vehement about this that he risked losing his life-long friendship with William Farel, when he sought to marry a girl four decades his junior. Calvin sought to find a way to automatically annul this engagement, which took quite a toll.

On the taboo subject of incest Calvin also weighed in. However on this subject he threw his lot in with Luther, mostly. Taking a more “protestant” view of incest, and limiting the degrees of separation to those specified in the biblical write, (e.g. Leviticus 18, plus three, prohibiting marriages between fathers and daughters, uncles and nieces, and first cousins.) Geneva was stricter, still calling for prohibitions against not simply a son’s widow, but a grandson’s, a nephew, and a grandnephew’s. Likewise it paralleled this with a by forbidding a woman to engage her daughter’s, granddaughter’s, niece’s, or grand niece’s widower. Further, fathers and mothers were not allowed to have relationships with their step children. Calvin once again drew upon biblical stories, mainly that of Moses who delivered the Law, including the law which forbade incest, though He himself was a product of an incestuous relationship.

Calvin’s final impediment was that of interreligious marriage. The Protestant ought not to marry a Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Jew, Muslim, Pagan, or unbeliever. However if one found that they were married to a member of these other faiths they ought to remain married. This position comes from the biblical passages of 2 Corinthians 6:14 and 1 Corinthians 7:12-16.

Calvin breaks this into a before and after picture of marriage. In the former passage he says Christians are to do everything they can not to marry one who is not a Christian. Further, they ought to seek to marry pious Christians. On the flip side though he sees those who have already entered into an interreligious marriage as required to stay within it, because a zealous, pious Christian will sanctify the marriage far more than the unbeliever will disgrace it.

For Calvin the joining of opposites seemed to glorify God in many ways. The husband, with the “helpmeet” of his wife, was appointed to look up to God in reverence. The two would complete each other, steering one another from sin, preserving integrity, build and fortify love, sanctify and edify the members so long as the remained in the faith.

Marriage in American Evangelicalism
We believe the bible not the traditions of men. Again and again we hear this refrain, but do those who espouse it actually believe what they are saying? Perhaps if they did there wouldn’t be such a high divorce rate, just over 45%, among Americans and 32% amongst professing Americans Evangelicals. It is time that we sought to develop a theology of engagement and marriage that resembles any of our forerunners. Pulling from the traditions of the Catholic, Lutheran, and Reformed, as well as other traditions, such as the Anglican or pietistic and formulate a proper theology of marriage rather than a theology where marriage is very easily annulled almost any reason.

This theology of marriage would include a covenantal setting between the members as well as the approval of their pastor. Further unlike Luther an ample courtship ought to be required. Much of the modern divorce mess is because the two people do not know one another nor do they understand the gravity of the covenant. Restoring the understanding that their marriage is not about their happiness but God’s glory is vital to the success of that marriage. This alone will allow frustrated husbands to love their wives. It will also allow those upset wives to respect their husbands.

A final improvement on the marriage system in the American Church would be an increased difficulty to divorce. The any rhyme or reason annulment system in place currently does not take to heart the notion of a Covenant between man, wife, and God. If a contemplative period were required I believe that the divorce statistics would drop dramatically in America.

---

---

FIN.

The Legacy of the Reformers on Courtship, Engagement and Marriage - Part I

The Western Epidemic.
Western civilization owes much of its culture, values, and advancements to the Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth century. However what affect, if any, did this movement have upon the thought of sexuality and gender roles? How did Luther’s priesthood of the believer affect the home life and what effect did Calvin’s semi-theocratic Geneva have upon a culture breaking away from years of sexual renunciation? While not a central or even a tertiary tenet of the Reformation, the sexual ethics and attitude in the west owe much of their freedoms to the Reformers, their legacy is as inescapable in the history of sex as it is in the history of theology.

We believe the bible not the traditions of men. This is and other similar sayings are often the cry of western evangelicals who are ignorant of their history, from the King James Version Onlyists to Baptist perpetuity movement to the anti-intellectualism prevalent in many denominations. Courtship, engagement and marriage are no exception to the rule. Our tradition shapes our thought even in this aspect of theology. However because of our “tradition-less” tradition we have lost a sense of where we come from and even why it might be that we ought to return at least portions of our history unto our thought and theology about marriage.

Canon Law: From Whence We Came.
The canon law of the Catholic Tradition had a great affect on the reformers in this specific area of theology. Foremost the Catholic Church distinguished between an engagement contract and a marriage contract, the former being much easier to annul than the latter. The engagement contract often had many clauses and could be added to often and for many reasons, such as job security, parental conceit, and time limits. Furthermore there were fourteen main reasons that the engagement might be annulled, including youth of the members, polygamy, incest (including sisters of your brothers wife and spiritual sponsorship), disease or deformity, physical desertion (consisting of two years or more), failure to meet the terms of the contract, expiration of the contract, cruelty, fornication, special affinity (a more serious form of fornication), entry into the clergy, entry into a religious order, or mutual consent.

Clearly it seems rather simple to annul, engage, and it was also rather simple to consummate a marriage. A couple did not need the blessing of a priest or patristic or even a public ceremony if an engagement contract had been accepted. A marriage was considered consummated if the engaged couple acted out their marital relations. Though for two who were not engaged this would have been considered premarital sex, and would fall under the same punishment as fornication. Of course, a woman could escape the marriage if she could show that her fiancé raped her.

Once a marriage had been consummated it was far more difficult to annul. Many of them were simply retroactive versions of the engagement impediments. The first was the ability of either of the parties to choose to enter into the marriage. If one of the parties was shown to have entered the marriage under compulsion of sort then the marriage could be annulled. The second defined if either the members could actually have given their consent. If one of the members was not a baptized member of the Catholic Church they could not enter into the sacrament of marriage. The third impediment dealt with the sanctity of marriage, this included the use of contraception or promiscuity among either partner. The final impediment forbade bigamy and polygamy in all forms. This included any prior marriages, which were not annulled by the previous spouse’s death.

Martin Luther: The Beginning of Reform.
Martin Luther owes much of his theology of marriage to the Canon Law and rightly so as he was an Augustinian Monk who sought, not to break from the church, but reform it to scripture. He brought many of the same impediments to marriage, though he did not list as many for the contracts of engagement. He insisted on a less separation of incest moving out of the context from four degrees of blood separation to only forbidding those listed in Leviticus 18:6-13. He also denounced the further use of incest which forbade marriage to a brother’s wife’s sister or the like, seeing this as neither commanded nor forbidden by scripture. Further Luther could not understand why anyone who was baptized by another could not be married to him or her nor his or her son or daughter? If all were baptized into the death of Christ then were they not all spiritual sisters or brothers by the common baptism? Thus he rejected this popish stipulation upon marriage:

So away with this foolishness; take as your spouse whomsoever you please, whether it be godparent, godchild, or the daughter or sister of a sponsor, or whoever it may be, and disregard these artificial, money-seeking impediments. If you are not prevented from marrying a girl by the fact that she is a Christian, then do not let yourself be prevented by the fact that you baptised her, taught her, or acted as her sponsor.

Luther further saw no merit in the premise that one might not be able to marry their adopted children or non-believers, criminals, those who had at one time taken a vow, such as nuns or monks, servants, priests, the formally engaged, et cetera. Perhaps the most interesting objection is to those who are engaged to one and marry another, because he takes a relative view of this marriage. In his opinion the man should stay with the first girl if at all possible, however, he cannot forbid the man from accepting the latter as his true wife and rejecting the former engagement.

Luther also simplified divorce, stating that adultery was the main grounds for divorce in staunch opposition to the Canon Law of the Catholic Church. He also taught that the state ought to make adultery a capital offense as it was during the theocracy administered by Moses. His other allotment for divorce was the failure to fulfill the marital duties. This could consist of many things, including marital relations, provision, and child rearing.

Luther thought that marriage ought to be for the glory of God and the sanctification of the believer however not sacramental as the Catholic Church held. Luther rejected the notion that marriage was simply for procreation and a form of lust control. While he did see childbearing as a main tenet of marriage he also submits that “he who recognizes the estate of marriage will find therein delight, love, and joy without end.” Thus, to Luther marriage is a holy institution and ordinance. Where the Roman Church saw marriage as what was often bestowed upon those who could not endure celibacy, Luther saw it as a place in which to display the glory of God.

---

---

...To Be Continued...

Two Blog Reviews

Yesterday Roger Olson posted what he believes is "The first fatal flaw in the Calvinist system" it is a rather interesting position. The basic argument is that the statements "God has predestined all things for his Glory" and "certain heresies (probably all heresies) detract from, diminish, demean God’s glory and rob God of his glory" are incompatible. I assume the specific Calvinist he is referring to is Bruce Ware and the specific heresy is Open Theism. It is no secret that Olson is sympathetic toward Open Theism, and finds Reformed Theology less than biblical.

At first glance this does look like a very tough situation for the Calvinist. However I believe that this is more of a rhetorical argument than an actual one. I believe that the word glory is being used in two different ways in the previous resolution. In the first statement the Calvinist would be speaking of God's self Glorification, the second statement would be perhaps better worded, something like "certain heresies (probably all heresies) dishonor God or perhaps more strongly are sins against God." This I believe is Dr. Olson's real problem with Calvinism, the idea that God can be completely sovereign over creation, and still hold men responsible for their actions. However isn't this just what God does with regards to Assyria and Israel? God uses a wicked people to punish his people and then punishes this wicked people for the sins they committed. (Isaiah 10)

Also the Christian cannot escape the cross of Christ. Clearly this even was foreordained by God, and in one sense is the most dishonorable act ever worked by the hands of men, yet in it God is glorified. These men are still held responsible for their sins against the Creator, but God is glorified in their sin. (Acts 2:23) Furthermore Dr. Olson is simply asking the question that Paul answered almost 2000 years ago, "shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? By No Means!" Allow me to rephrase it "If God predestined our sin should we continue in sin that his glory might abound? By No Means!" "How does God still find fault, for who could resist the will of God? Who are you oh man to answer back to God?"

So to recap some Calvinist's could have been a little more precise with their language, indeed are we not all guilty of this at some point or another? The real problem for Dr. Olson is not heresy at all it is how God can find fault in men when he has foreordained them to do the sins they do. Perhaps Dr. Olson would like the explanation given by the late Dr. Greg Bahnsen, "Men will always do what God predetermined, but God has predetermined that they do it freely, that they do it according to their own wishes." This is indeed mysterious but to go past this understanding is to escape the limits of scripture, and to deny one or the other is to deny scripture, something that is not an option for the christian.

My second blog review comes from someone by the name of Dwayna Lizt, who is the president of Lighting the Way Worldwide. Dwayna is a CCM singer (forgive me if she identifies with some other genre) who appears to have been raised Southern Baptist, and through some trying times in her life was introduced to the doctrines of Grace, from what I read on her organizations site she has had a pretty rough life.

Unfortunately she has started labeling a good, Christian pastors, as new aged heretic. Just a word on this, I doubt she has read the book considering she is judging it by its cover. Even so is the subtitle "Practices that Transform" necessarily "New Age"? This understanding is a very limited understanding of how God works. God uses the means of preaching to bring sinners to him, however I somehow doubt she would be against a book on preaching with the subtitle, "Preaching that Transforms." Such a book may be far very heretical, but it might also be a great text on the art of biblical preaching. Likewise Paul tells us, "brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. What you have learned and received and heard and seen in me practice these things, and the God of peace will be with you." Philippians 4:8-9 Emphasis mine. It would seem that Paul is instructing the Christians at Philippi to use these practices so God can transform them through them.

The real reson Ms. Lizt showed up on my radar was because she posted a blog condemning us heathens who can enjoy Porter while meditating on the word of God. This is to be expected coming from a lady raised in the bible belt, as noted before the reason for the removal of wine is churches was a marketing scheme that took hold like wildfire in the south. Also people often forget that Jesus started his career preaching the gospel as a bartender to drunk men and women, in part by making them more wine. Although she quotes scripture, never cited, on why we "shouldn't" drink at a bible study she conveniently neglects the passages which show us that wine is a gift and indeed a good thing. Also she pictures the Bride of Christ sitting on a barstool with whiskey and beer all around, saying the Bride is worth a lot more. I agree the Bride of Christ deserves the best wine, strong drink, and beer not the light beer nor well whiskey that she is trying to portray her around.

Some drink for though for Ms. Lizt.
But the vine said to them, ‘Shall I leave my wine that cheers God and men and go hold sway over the trees?’ - Judges 9:13

You cause the grass to grow for the livestock, and plants for man to cultivate, that he may bring forth food from the earth and wine to gladden the heart of man, oil to make his face shine and bread to strengthen man's heart. - Psalm 104:14-15

Then Ephraim shall become like a mighty warrior, and their hearts shall be glad as with wine. Their children shall see it and be glad; their hearts shall rejoice in the LORD. - Zechariah 10:7

Give strong drink to him who is perishing, and wine to those who are bitter of heart. Let him drink and forget his poverty, and remember his misery no more. - Proverbs 31:6-7

“Come, everyone who thirsts, come to the waters; and he who has no money, come, buy and eat! Come, buy wine and milk without money and without price. - Isaiah 55:1

On this mountain the LORD of hosts will make for all peoples a feast of rich food, a feast of well-aged wine, of rich food full of marrow, of aged wine well refined. - Isaiah 25:6

And Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. (He was priest of God Most High.) - Genesis 14:18

And of course:
And if the way is too long for you, so that you are not able to carry the tithe, when the LORD your God blesses you, because the place is too far from you, which the LORD your God chooses, to set his name there, then you shall turn it into money and bind up the money in your hand and go to the place that the LORD your God chooses and spend the money for whatever you desire—oxen or sheep or wine or strong drink, whatever your appetite craves. And you shall eat there before the LORD your God and rejoice, you and your household. - Deuteronomy 14:24-26

As you can see while being drunk is not a good thing, drinking in moderation is. It is holy and good and blessed by God for the children of men, do not let your tradition blind you to this.

New Calvinism...

The theological system called Calvinism is one of the latest trends sweeping the nation. The form of this "New Calvinism" as it is called is characterized quite nicely in a recent blog post my C. Michael Patton entitled "What Is The New Calvinism?... And Are You Part of It?" In this article Dr. Patton does a very nice job of summarizing what New Calvinism in America is and I suggest if for that, however I do find his final paragraph to be slightly disturbing.

The only critique that I have of the movement is one of perception, not one of intention. It is that the New Calvinist movement is just that—New Calvinist. As strong as I am on the reformed doctrines of grace and as much as I love the Evangelical attitude, Calvinism is not what we are about. Calvinism simply represents one interpretive component of the Gospel. No matter how important we might believe this component to be, it pales in comparison to the bigger picture of Gospel. I am a Christian who believes in the atoning death, burial, and resurrection of Christ first. My Calvinism comes forth or fifth.

Did you notice the problem, or what I am taking issue with? It is not that his "Calvinism" comes fourth or fifth, but that it seems his "Calvinism" is bifurcated from the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. Now I am sure that Dr. Patton would never view his Calvinism apart from the life, death, burial, and resurrection of Christ it does seem odd that he can view those aspects of his faith apart from his Calvinism as though they were two different compartments in an ice tray. If the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ are of first importance, which they are, what gives them meaning? Wouldn't it be the person of Christ, who God is, and if belief in Christ actually saves?

Over a hundred years ago C.H. Spurgeon responded to something along these lines during what is now called the Downgrade Controversy where doctrine took a back seat to "felt needs" and the like. Spurgeon actually was as bold as to proclaim that the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, that is the things of first importance are not only the Gospel but also what has been nicknamed Calvinism. He puts it far better than I would:

"Salvation is of the Lord." That is just an epitome of Calvinism; it is the sum and substance of it. If anyone should ask me what I mean by a Calvinist, I should reply, "He is one who says, Salvation is of the Lord." I cannot find in Scripture any other doctrine than this. It is the essence of the Bible. "He only is my rock and my salvation." Tell me anything contrary to this truth, and it will be a heresy; tell me a heresy, and I shall find its essence here, that it has departed from this great, this fundamental, this rock-truth, "God is my rock and my salvation." What is the heresy of Rome, but the addition of something to the perfect merits of Jesus Christ—the bringing in of the works of the flesh, to assist in our justification? And what is the heresy of Arminianism but the addition of something to the work of the Redeemer? Every heresy, if brought to the touchstone, will discover itself here. I have my own private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the gospel, if we do not preach justification by faith, without works; nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God in His dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the gospel, unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the cross; nor can I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called, and suffers the children of God to be burned in the fires of damnation after having once believed in Jesus. Such a gospel I abhor.
C.H. Spurgeon - A Defense of Calvinism - Emphasis Mine

Calvinism is so tied up in the death and resurrection of Christ because it is the doctrines that explain that Christ died for my sins, not some concept out there that if I am good enough I will get into heaven, not to make a way for me to be saved but to actually save me. This is what every Christian believes even if s/he does so inconsistently with the rest of their theology. Furthermore they believe that Christ's payment was accepted by God and thus Christ was raised. Another "Calvinistic" concept, Christ actually bought me from God, not almost paid for me and I have to add something but actually bought me, paid in full. That is the Gospel. That is Calvinism. So yes while some aspects of Calvinism are not by necessity of First Importance, the aspects of "New Calvinism" are, namely the doctrines of grace which is the main emphasis of the "New Calvinism" and secondarily the Nature of God.

I hate the doctrine of Hell... or What the hell is wrong with me?

Dr. C. Michael Patton of Credo House recently wrote over on The Parchment and Pen Blog a brief summery of eight of his biggest beefs with Christianity, or perhaps western evangelical subculture. While I agree with many of his main points, when he comes to his finale he seems to change his post from the quarks often found in evangelicalism to a doctrine of the Christian Faith, that is Hell.

To be fair to Dr. Patton I will quote the relevant text here:

Hell. This is hands down the most difficult doctrine in the Christian faith. We believe in a loving God who sees fit to allow his creation (his children) to suffer in a place we call hell—a place, by the way, that affords more suffering and than anything imaginable. A place, by the way, that is never-ending. It is not as though I don’t believe it. I do. It is not as though I look at God in judgment. I don’t. It is simply something that confuses me. While I completely disagree with any form of “Christian” universalism (i.e. all people are going to make it to heaven), second-chance theories (i.e. unbelievers will experience a second chance to escape hell in the after life), or the idea of annihilation ism (i.e. the belief that hell, along with all its inhabitants, will eventually be annihilated forever), I understand and sympathize with the reason why they go in this direction. If I could find some sort of loop-hole to get out of believing in the doctrine of an eternal hell, I would. If there was such a thing as a Christianity that did not necessitate a belief in hell, I would submit my resume. (And believe me, I have tried). Oh, closely connected to this are the cliché answers Christians give about hell. Many Christians I have encountered act as if hell does not bother them in the least. Of all the things you can be cliché about, don’t do so here.

Dr. Patton states that hell is a difficult doctrine of the Christian faith, even the most difficult doctrine, I agree that it is a very "difficult" and even "confusing" doctrine. I don't think it is good for the Christian to hate any doctrine found in Scripture.

Just for a moment imagine if we applied this to other "difficult" or "confusing" doctrines of Christianity. It would look something like this:

I hate the Trinity, it is a "difficult" and "confusing" doctrine and I don't like it. Oh I'm not looking at God in judgment for being who He is. Far be it from me. I also don't believe that any of the Trinitiarian heresies have any validity not that I haven't tried to prove them.

I don't believe that we as Christians have the right to hate God or what He has chosen to reveal to us about Himself. We ought to turn to Him in faith when something is difficult or confusing instead of hating Him for it. Now I am not saying that we as Christians ought to be anti-intellectual, in that we don't try to work through these difficult and confusing doctrines, rather when we reach the end of the limits of our minds we turn to God in faith. We trust, that while we now don't understand fully, God in His wisdom has a plan and a reason for everything, including Hell, which will result in His glory and our good.

For a much more thorough and philosophical article on the topic of Theodicy or The Problem of Evil by Dr. Bahnsen. While Dr. Bahnsen does not deal directly with the doctrine of Hell in the article his logic concerning the existence of Evil can be used for Hell also.
Grace + Peace.

P.S. I just realized I could have saved a lot of space if I had simply said the doctrine of Hell may make you hate yourself for not understanding God's mind about it but must never make you hate God.

Calvinism, Hyper-Calvinism, and Arminianism

Well they are at it again. "Whosoever Will: A Biblical-Theological Critique of Five-Point Calvinism", a tome put out by B&H Academic publishing and edited by David Allen and Steve Lemke, seems to once again mistake historic Calvinism with Hyper-Calvinism. You may remember that David Alan made this mistake a few years ago at the John 3:16 Conference. Anyways rather that entering the fight I would once again simply like to show the differences between Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism also I would like to show the similarities between Hyper-Calvinism and Arminianism, since they spring from the same philosophy.

Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism.
First thing that ought to be noted is that both Calvinists and Hyper-Calvinists will both affirm the so called five points of Calvinism (Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, and Perseverance of the Saints). Yet this is often where the similarities in the two systems part ways. The Calvinist affirms human responsibility, in that all men are commanded to repent and believe the Gospel where as the Hyper-Calvinist would say that because men are unable of their own accord to turn to Christ they are not under obligation to repent. Furthermore some Hyper-Calvinist's believe that God has no love for the reprobate at all. No Calvinist would say this, no matter how high their theology is. Furthermore some neo-gnostic Hyper-Calvinist's would say that only those who adhere to a Calvinistic understanding of the Gospel are saved. The Calvinist on the other hand can affirm that there are many who are with the Lord that held to Arminianism or Wesleyan theology, though they might say they held to it inconsistently. A final distinction, though there are a few more, would be that Hyper-Calvinists are anti-Evangelistic or anti-Missional. No one can make that claim of Calvinists as many of the greatest Missionaries ever have held to Calvinist Theology, e.g. William Carrey, Jonathan Edwards, David Brainard, George Whitefield, John Eliot, et cetera.

Arminianism and Hyper-Calvinism.
While Arminians and Hyper-Calvinists would differ on a lot of things including the so called five points of Calvinism (see above), the philosophical presupposition behind each of these systems is identical. It stems from the belief that Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility are incompatible. They simply differ on which portion of the premise to reject because of their presupposition that "mans ability and responsibility must coexist." The Arminian will see that the bible teaches all men are to repent and believe, saying, given their previously stated presupposition, "See all men are commanded to repent and believe the Gospel," which is true "therefore all men must be able to do so of their own accord," which is false. The Hyper-Calvinist will see that the Bible teaches that no man has the ability to to repent and believe, and thus say given their previously stated presupposition, "See men are unable to repent and believe the Gospel on of their own accord," which is true, " therefore all men must not be commanded to repent and believe," which is false. This is when the true Calvinist steps in and takes the true portions of their statements and puts them together saying that "All men are commanded to repent and believe the Gospel, yet of their own accord they cannot do this." In this the Calvinist rejects the incompatiblism of Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility as well as the presupposition that "mans ability and responsibility must coexist," turning from Philosophy to Scripture as the final authority in this matter.

I hope that clears some things up. Grace and Peace.

>

P.S. Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism have been confused twice by the Dean of the School of Theology at Southwest Baptist Theological Seminary and a Professor of Philosophy and Ethics New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary once in print, once at a conference I cannot recommend anyone attend either of these Seminaries. To be mistaken on a basic area of Historical Theology is lazy at best and outright deceitful at worst.

What, an Update? Blog Review.

What a new post... yes, I know your feed readers are burning...

Anyways The Seeking Disciple over at Arminian Today posted a blog about the differences between Calvinism and Arminianism entitled "Discipleship: Where Arminianism and Calvinism Clash." This is my response.

In paragraph 3 He says: "Calvinists would insist that the person was saved by irresistible grace whereas the Arminian would say that the sinner was saved by surrendering to the grace of God that they could have resisted but instead surrendered to (Acts 16:14-15, 30-34)." Actually a Calvinist would agree with both of those statements. A member of the elect can resist God's saving grace it is just God's saving grace can over come all resistance. Furthermore a Calvinist will say that all the elect will surrender to God's saving grace, though the reason for this would differ from that which Arminianism gives.

In paragraph 4 he says that "the Calvinist would encourage the person to abandon a life of sin (at least I hope they would and feel confident many would do so)" but wouldn't by definition "stress that true repentance is not just feeling sorry for our sins but actually leaving a life of sin and pressing toward the higher calling of Christ Jesus". It seems that he is creating a strawman, I hope unknowingly. I agree that the issue of the mortification of sin in the believer is different between the Calvinist and the Arminian, but not at this point. The Calvinist will say that this side of heaven no sin will ever be slain completely but must continually be mortified. There will never be a day when anyone wakes up and says, "Yes! I mortified all my sins completely so now I do not have to continue to fight sin." For more on this from the Calvinistic Prospective see The Mortification of Sin in the Believer by John Owen.

In paragraph 5 he states that: "Jesus didn't die to preserve sinners in sin but He died to make saints out of sinners". This seems to be a complete misunderstanding, or misrepresentation of the doctrine of Perseverance of the Saints. A brief summery of the doctrine would state that "when we speak of “once saved, always saved,” we are not taking into account the full scope of salvation. We have been saved (justification), was are being saved (sanctified), and we will one day be saved (glorified). You cannot claim to have been “saved” (justified) unless you are being sanctified. Jesus Christ is Savior and Lord." (Michael Horton, Putting the Amazing Back into Grace, 171) Thus according to the Calvinistic position God continuely works in the lives of those who are elect that they might grow in holiness.

Finally in paragraph 1 he assumes Calvinism to prove his Arminianism. Allow me to explain. He stated that part of the Gospel is that a person places their "personal faith in the Lord Jesus for the remission of sins (Ephesians 2:8-9) and that without faith it is impossible to please God (Hebrews 11:6)." However wouldn't this coming to faith be an act that pleased God? How is it that the carnal minded unbeliever pleases God by coming to have faith without first having faith? You must either assume Calvinism, that God is the one who gives the faith (Ephesians 2:8-9), or deny Romans 8:7-8 and ironically Hebrews 11:6, not to mention the words of Jesus in John 6:35-51,8:39-47,10:25-29,17:9ff.

Just one more thought. Antinominism is a problem that has plagued both Arminianism and Calvinisim in the past and that both theologies must fight it and it's brother legalism in order to remain within the Faith.

Soteriology - Quick and Dirty

Often when one is in an unwanted place it is good to change places. Thus when affliction sets in within the mind it may be good to get away into a good bit of theology; and what better topic than one that will start a heated debate among almost everyone I know? Instead I think I will simply summarize (emphasis on simply) the differing views of soteriology (doctrines of salvation) that have rooted their heads within the Christendom.

Heretical Systems:
Pelagianism - Named for a Fourth century British Monk named Pelagius who first formalized this teaching. (Pop culture reference, King Arther's hero in the 2004 film starting Clive Owen, which on this point was historically inaccurate.) Pelagius taught that men were not corrupted in any way by Adam's sin, he was merely a bad example for us. Christ was a good example who taught us how to live morally. Through hard work following Christ's good example rather than Adam's bad example one might achieve salvation. Furthermore without grace or faith man can choose to move toward God without any prompting by the Holy Spirit. Therefore in this view of salvation man is the effectual agent, but he is also the only acting agent, faith and grace are unnecessary. This does not mean that the atonement of Christ was unnecessary for the forgiveness of sins, however, it did not compel anyone to actually seek the forgiveness of those sins, nor does it play a role in sanctification.

Semipelagianism - After Pelagius was defeated in debate by St. Augustine, a new breed of his teaching popped up. This view held that man was still in most ways unrestricted in what he can and cannot do with his relationship to God. The difference between this view and the fully Pelagian view is that man cannot make it to God apart from grace. This view does hold however that man can turn to God apart from any act of Grace on God's behalf. Again in this view the effectual agent of salvation is man. Both Pelagianism and Semipelagianism were condemned as damnable heresy by the Council of Orange in 529 AD.

Hyper-Calvinism - Hyper-Calvinism is not John Piper sitting in starbucks after five vente lattes. This is a view that believes the command of the Gospel is not for every single person but only for the elect. Further this system also denies God's love for mankind as a whole and that evangelism is necessary at all because God has predestined some to life and others to death.

American Decisionism - This view picks and chooses what it likes from all of the major views and rejects what it doesn't like. Therefore it is often hard to pin down what this view is actually espouses. However the majority takes Arminian or Palegian free choice and combines it with half of the Calvinist's Perseverance of the Faith. This creates the mentality that "I chose Christ at one time in my life so I'm saved and can live like a pagan if I so choose," or as I call it "decisional once saved always savedism," or "conditional unconditionalism" e.g. that salvation is by a one time admittance that Jesus is Lord that being said I can do whatever I want. One could liken this position to the argument, "well my spouse loves me unconditionally so its okay if I go and have an adultery."

Systems Within Orthodoxy:
Arminianism (Wesleyanism) - A theological system named for Jacob Arminius and better articulated by John Wesley. Far to often zealous, though well meaning Calvinists, will wrongly overgeneralize this position labeling it as semipelagian or even pelagian. (Though sometimes this analysis is correct of the individual or group.) However this seems to come from a lack of knowledge of what this system actually teaches. There is much that Arminians and Calvinists agree on, first that men are born spiritually dead, unable to come to God outside of His grace, and that salvation is only possible by grace through faith. They also agree that men must actually choose to follow Christ. Finally they agree that if one is saved they must continue in the faith. However after this the two part ways.
The Arminian believes that while all men are dead in their tresspasses and sins that through prevenient grace, (common grace) can be made alive by submitting to it rather than resisting it. (The Calvinist also believes in common grace, but believes it serves a different function.) This prevenient grace is granted to all men allowing all the capacity to turn from their wickedness to righteousness. On the cross Christ died for all men in the same way so that, among other things, this grace could be given to all men. However as fore mentioned this grace can be resisted and rejected, and by this condition one obtains their election. Finally in this system one who does not continue on in the faith loses the salvation they once had. So in this view while the major agent of salvation is God, the ultimate agent of salvation is the individual man who continually makes the choice not to resist the grace of God so that they are able to choose Him.

Calvinism (Reformed) - This theological system named for John Calvin, which was greatly influenced by St. Augustine, and was later made into an acronym by those tulip obsessed dutch. This view is often wrongly overgeneralized by zealous, well meaning, Arminian Christians as Hyper-Calvinism, which I believe again comes simply from ignorance of the system. (Though sometimes this analysis is correct of the individual or group.) As mentioned in the above paragraphs about Arminianism, Calvinists believe that all men are born spiritually dead, unable to come to God outside of His grace, and that salvation is only possible by grace through faith. However for the Calvinist there is no prevenient grace in the sense that it quickens men to life. Rather the common grace of God to all men is displayed in every good thing that every man has. God does grant some men the gracious gifts of repentance and belief to the elect. Now to be sure these gifts of grace can be resisted and rejected but the Holy Spirit can overcome any resistance man might build up.
This factors into the way in which the Calvinist views the atonement; Christ died for all men, to be sure however he did not die for all men in the same way. He did not die for Judas the same way He died for Peter, so while the cross of Christ is sufficient for all the world, it is effective for only the elect, therefore election is not based upon the condition of "making a decision for Christ." That being said, if you remember I wrote both Calvinists and Arminians believe that once a Christian is saved they must remain in the faith. Where they differ is that while the Arminian believes one can lose their salvation, since they might fail to continue, the Calvinist does not, because God will continue to work in the Christian transforming him into the image of Christ. This however does not mean that a Christian will never stumble, only that when he does he will be granted the grace of Repentance and Belief again.

Modified View, 4 Point Calvinism - There are many forms of this and to try to touch on all of them here would be quite a task however what they all try to accomplish, some more than others is a bridge between Arminiansm and Calvinism. This group might also include the Lutheran view though putting it here seems funny to me.

Yaayy for Quick and Dirty - Unfortunately far to many within the American Church fall outside the realm of orthodoxy on this core issue of the Gospel. Work for reformation in those churches and pray for their revival. Oh also if my facts are mistake please feel free to comment, however try not to turn this into a huge debate over which view is most correct. There are plenty of other places for that.

Soli Deo Gloria!

Are the reformed against evangelism or do they actually do it?

For those of you who cannot see the videos here are links to them.
Part One
Part Two

Calvinism Debate

Dr. James R. White is in the middle of a radio debate with Christian radio host Steve Gregg on the topic of Calvinism. Days 1 and 2 are finished if you need to catch up click the links below.
Day 1
Day 2

There are 3 more sessions in this series, listen at 4pm-5pm CST, April 7th, 8th and 9th at:

http://www.thenarrowpath.com/
or
www.kkmc.com
or
www.aomin.org

Dr. White of Alpha and Omega Ministries will likely post each debate session available for download on his blog. if you miss the live show. I would also suggest listening to Dr. White's biweekly internet radio program The Dividing Line. It usually airs Tuesdays at Noon CST and Thursdays at 5PM CST. However if you miss the live show he usually posts a free download version and a high quality version in his blog. It is a wonderful resource and I highly recommend it.