I had a recent exchange with a former member of the church and his position against Calvinism. Since he was public in his point of view and a former elder, I have no problems answering him publicly and do so for the benefit of the flock entrusted to me. He shall go nameless, and will remain so unless he chooses to respond. I really wanted to leave this be, but given that the effects of those who think and teach this way are so pervasive among the flock entrusted to me and the other elders by Our LORD and Savior Jesus Christ, I feel compelled to answer.

Allow me to say upfront that when I say the word Calvinist, I do not mean by it that I get up on the morning and read from John Calvin’s work for my quiet time. I do not mean by the term that I follow John Calvin and that he is any way my LORD and Savior. He is not. He is a fallen man that I believed was simply used by God during his time to express clearly what the gospel was and is according to Scripture. This form of theology is only held to where Scripture confirms it, and where Scripture does not confirm it, we distance ourselves from such things. The Bible is our guide and God’s glory is our goal in understanding how we view the world in which we live.

The opposing view to Calvinist doctrine is Arminianism, which was started by Jacob Arminius. He was a Dutch theologian who lived in the 1600s and he opposed Calvinism with his views. If you are a protestant living today, you fall into either one or the others camp.

My antagonist here will say that he is neither Arminian nor Calvinist, but that he is a biblicist. This is nothing more than an arrogant attempt to sound pious by saying that he holds only to what the Bible says. Let me be clear, both sides hold to what the Bible says, in that we appeal to the Bible for our views. However, I must confess than when I see what the Arminians are saying… it seems they do a lot of disregarding what the Bible actually says. They also do a lot of reinterpretation. For instance, the latest that I have heard is that when it comes to the word “elect,” they are actually saying that God elects “everyone.” This view is unsupportable as I hope you will see.

To the letter:

My position was stated as clearly as possible to the congregation in writing, but those writings seem to have been suppressed as I stated in my resignation letter. Please consider this my position as delineated to the elders of First Christian regarding Calvinism:

The theory which is today commonly known by the name Calvinism was first introduced by Augustine in the fourth century.

Yes, both men agreed on a lot of things because they were drawing their beliefs from Scripture. When the Bible is the place of our beliefs, we tend to agree on a lot of points. John Calvin appealed to Augustine to help show that he (Calvin) was not out of line with Christian orthodoxy, but that it was the Roman Catholic Church that was in error. He was using Augustine, one whom the RCC claimed as a pope, to show their error.

Calvin did not agree on all points with Augustine. But on the main issues, they were in agreement, as are those in the Reformed camp today. The reason this is so, is because these truths that both Calvin, Augustine, and those who are Reformed hold to, are biblical truths (Please note that I was accused of being a Calvinist before I knew what a Calvinist was. Why? Because I was preaching and teaching what Ephesians and the Gospel of John taught us.)

He taught that Christ did not die for all men, but for a chosen few whom God had chosen and predestinated to become His children.

This really is one of those questions that separate Calvinists and Arminians. Who does Jesus truly die for? Most in evangelical circles will start screaming John 3:16!, John 3:16! But those of you who know me know that I reject using John 3:16 for the answer to every Arminian affirmation. John 3:16 says that God so loved the world, not that Jesus died for every single soul to walk the earth. As was recently pointed out by Stan in the comments section, the “so” in that verse is qualitative, not quantitative. In other worlds, God loves the world in a certain way, that He gave His Son. Not that He loved everyone without exception.

This topic is really under the heading of limited atonement, or, what many like to call as particular redemption. The atonement is not limited in its ability, but limited to those whom it is applied to. The Arminians want to say that the atonement applies to all, and it is our responsibility to make it apply to us. Calvinists are saying that it only applies to the elect. In other words, we believe that Christ’s atonement is complete and not faulty at all. He doesn’t need our help in saving us. What He did on the cross was completely sufficient for all who believe and there is nothing that needs to be done by us in order to be saved.

The Arminians, on the other hand, believe that Christ’s atoning work made it possible for all to be saved and only those who really work hard enough will actually be saved. This is basically works theology and human-centered theology. That is the crux of the difference when it comes to our view. Arminians want to say it is about us and our choices, while Calvinist declare that it is God and His Sovereign will.

But back to particular redemption. Why is it that Calvinists hold to this position? We do so because we believe that God’s sovereign and declare will is that there are a certain number of elect and Christ will save everyone completely who is elect. I know, this idea of election causes many to bluster at the thought, but is is Scriptural. We get the idea from verses like Deuteronomy 7:6-8; John 13:18; Romans 9:11-24; 11:5-6; Ephesians 1:3-14; 2 Timothy 2:19; 2 Thess. 2:13; 1 Peter 1:2, 15, 2:4, 9, 21; 2 Peter 1:10, just to name a few verses.)

The idea of particular redemption stems from this concept of election. Not only did God choose those whom He planned to save before the foundations of the world were laid, but He also guaranteed that they would be saved by Christ’s work on the cross. In other words, His atonement is certain because it doesn’t rest or reside in the one being saved, but in the One who is doing the saving.

Listen to Paul’s words in 1 Thessalonians 5:9-10 For God did not appoint us to wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, ¹⁰ who died for us, that whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with Him. The appointment stems from His election of us. This isn’t based upon anything in us, but because of His own free, immutable and contingent-free will. Before Adam had sinned, God had already decreed whom He would save and whom He would leave to their sin. In this election, He determined that we would be free from His wrath because of the atoning work of Christ on the cross. Christ died for us, the elect. He didn’t die for those who are not the elect. To do so would mean that His death was powerless, otherwise if He died for all, all would be saved. However, we know this not to be true.

This last statement ruffles the feathers of those who seek to let their entire theological view be informed by John 3:16. Their argument is that Christ died for everyone in the world without exception. But… the text doesn’t say that. It said that God so loved the world that He gave His Son that WHOSOEVER believes in Him, should not perish but have everlasting life.

Only those who believe in Him will benefit from His death. Those who do not believe in Him will not benefit from His death, for they were not destined to believe or benefit from the cross. Who is Christ’s atoning work effectual for? Those who believe AND those who don’t believe, or just those who believe? Calvinist believe that His death is completely effectual for the elect, because this is who Jesus died for.

Ephesians 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her. Notice who Christ gave Himself for. It was not the world, but the church, those who believe in Him. His purpose is to take the elect, cleanse them and make the ready for the great marriage feast to come. In fact, the Father predestined those who believe to be blameless, holy and spotless before Him (Ephesians 1:4). His death accomplishes this decision by the Father completely. His death on the cross was the specific means for bringing His elect into this holy condition and to make those who are His elect His sons. How? By Jesus Christ Himself (Ephesians 1:5).

This act of grace is not for the world or the non-elect, but for those who are His and have been predetermined to be His. Let me state it again, Christ gave Himself for the church, not for the world.

Paul will say this again in Galatians 1:3-5 Grace to you and peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ, ⁴ who gave Himself for our sins, that He might deliver us from this present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father,⁵ to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen. Again, who did He die for? The text says that He gave Himself for our sins, so that we would be delivered from this present again, according to the will of God our Father, and not our wills (John 1:12-13).

Do you see a constant reoccurring theme here? Over and over again, I appeal to Scripture to make my case. I don’t just appeal to ONE verse, but many. I don’t just rest on twisting one verse, like John 3:16, but let Scripture support what I believe.

OK, let’s look as some more verses on this topic. Look at what Christ says about His own people and His own death. John 10:14-15 ¹⁴ I am the good shepherd; and I know My sheep, and am known by My own. ¹⁵ As the Father knows Me, even so I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep. Notice who Jesus say He lays His life down for… His sheep, who know His voice. He doesn’t lay His life down for the goats, but those who belong to Him.

Jesus also goes on to rebuke those who do not believe in 10:26 But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you. It is very simple, those who believe in Him for salvation are His elect. He died for His elect. He rejects those who do not believe because they are not His sheep.

One final verse. Jesus also says that those who are His sheep, not only believe, but also follow Him as well. John 10:27 My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. We see that intimate knowledge by Our Lord. He knows them. He doesn’t just die for us, call us, and redeem us, but He knows us. Those of us who belong to Him, listen to His words and believe as He has taught us.

This is why Calvinists believe in particular redemption. This is why we say that Jesus died for those who are His. We say it and believe it because He said it, and both Peter and Paul said it. This is not a doctrine that we have come up with on our own, but one in which our very LORD gave us. If you do not believe it, perhaps you should ask the question: “Am I really one of HIS?”

Now, let us go back to the words of my antagonist. He writes:

He taught that Christ did not die for all men, but for a chosen few whom God had chosen and predestinated to become His children.

It is true, Calvin did teach these things. He taught these things because Jesus taught these things, so did Paul, and so did Peter. Our antagonist doesn’t offer any proof against this position, he just blasts it and move on. This is the case for so many who rail against Calvinism. They just accept whatever sounds good without looking at the biblical reasons we hold to the positions we do. They think in attack us they are doing the gospel a favor. But they are not. It is better to believe in the truth given to us by God, than try to water it down and make it acceptable to men. I admit, these truths are difficult. But they are the truths of Scripture and we need to try our best to understand them and teach them.

I heard about this debate from one of the men attending my church. I’m glad he mentioned it and glad I found it at Ed Stetzer’s site. It’s worth the listen, so play it in the background while you go about your work. I will post comments once I finish listening to it. Also, listen to it and see if there is something said by either side that really challenges your views.

Thoughts? After I listened to it, I saw what the man in my church told me about the debate. Michael Horton, who was defending Calvinism, kept referring to passage after passage, while Roger E. Olson just kept appealing to his logic. Not good.

One point that both Horton and Olson agreed upon were about those who try to claim to be “biblicist” as opposed to being Arminian or Calvinist. I saw this in my series in Answering an Arminian, where that writer tried to claim to be a Biblicist. I liked what both men pointed out is that the moment you open Scripture, read it and begin to interpret it, you start doing theology and that immediately puts you in one camp or the other. so this claim to be a “biblicist” is completely false. No one can just open Scripture and quote it without interpretation.

The Southern Baptist Church voted this week at their convention to keep the “sinner’s prayer” as a form of conversion. Some might think this an odd thing, but the there have been those Baptist Calvinist who have questioned the use of the “sinner’s prayer.” They have done so because it gives the allusion that by saying the “sinner’s prayer,” one is actually saved.

One is not saved by saying the “sinner’s prayer.” I agree with the Calvinistic Baptist and this in one of the reasons I left the SBC back in the 1990s. Too much emphasis is put on what we do as opposed to what God does in saving us. No where does the Bible ever tell us to utter this prayer, it truly is an invention of men, specifically that bastard of revivalism known as Charles Finney. Sorry but I must call him that. He did more damage to the church in American than a hundred liberal courts or seminaries with the implementation of his new methods, i.e., the sinner’s prayer. More churches have been led down a hell-bound path by adopting such practices as altar call than any liberal professor could ever dream of. It would boggle our minds to know the number of people who were led to believe they were saved by trusting in these damnable actions of their own, instead of trusting in Christ. You hear it today every time the sinner’s prayer is put forth, and once a person says this prayer, they are told to write the date down so they can remember when they were saved.

This is all focused on what the sinner does and not what Christ does. If we are truly to be saved, we must believe in Jesus Christ for salvation. We are not to “say” a prayer, although prayer will result after true belief comes about. We are not told in Scripture to walk an aisle, go to the altar or do any other thing in order to be saved. Simply believe in Christ and His work for salvation. We are saved by faith alone in Christ alone, and this is NOT of ourselves, but is a gift of God. We are merely passive recipients of God’s grace.

To take and add altar calls and sinner’s prayers to the gospel is no different than the Roman Catholics calling for indulgences in order to be saved. It is Christ plus our works that ends up not saving us at all.

So I am saddened by the actions of the Souther Baptist Convention. They have added works to our salvation. This should be rejected by all Christians, Baptist and non-Baptist alike.

Here is a bit from the story about the SBC:

The resolution was originally presented by Eric Hankins, pastor of First Baptist Church in Oxford, Mississippi, though the version approved by the committee omitted language designed to refute the denomination’s increasingly Calvinist membership. (An effort to put much of the language back in was defeated in a floor vote, as was an effort to remove references to the phrase “Sinner’s Prayer.”)

Indeed, Hankins says his resolution was sparked by a talk from one of the SBC’s Calvinist stars, David Platt. Speaking at the Verge church leaders’ conference March 1, the pastor of the Church at Brook Hills in Birmingham, Alabama, said the emphasis on the Sinner’s Prayer is unbiblical and damning.

“I’m convinced that many people in our churches are simply missing the life of Christ, and a lot of it has to do with what we’ve sold them as the gospel, i.e. pray this prayer, accept Jesus into your heart, invite Christ into your life,” Platt said. “Should it not concern us that there is no such superstitious prayer in the New Testament? Should it not concern us that the Bible never uses the phrase, ‘accept Jesus into your heart’ or ‘invite Christ into your life’? It’s not the gospel we see being preached, it’s modern evangelism built on sinking sand. And it runs the risk of disillusioning millions of souls.”

Speaking at the SBC Pastors’ Conference preceding the Baptist’s annual meeting, Platt referenced his Verge sermon, lamenting that his messages “can become three-minute YouTube clips.” But, preaching from John 2-3, he reiterated his statements that believing in Jesus is not enough. “Many assume they are saved simply because of a prayer they prayed,” he said. “It’s not that praying a prayer in and of itself is bad—but the question in John 2 and 3 is what kind of faith are we calling people to?”

I have often said that when an Arminian prays, they pray like Calvinist when it comes to the salvation of others. What I mean by this is that Calvinist believe that the Spirit of God must move in a person’s heart before they are saved. The Spirit moves, causing them to be born again, and THEN they have the ability to believe in Jesus Christ for salvation. God gets all the glory for our salvation because we are completely dependent upon Him.

Whereas the Arminian goes around spouting the damnable doctrine of free will. They say that we have the freedom to choose God of our own and when we trust in Christ for salvation, it is because we are just infinitely smarter than everyone else. The focus is always on what we “do.”

Yet, when it comes to their prayers, Arminian’s do not pray consistently with their doctrine. Instead of praying that God need not move in the hearts of the unbeliever, since they are wise enough to make the choice on their own, they pray that God would move and change their hearts… O Lawd!!!

Jerry Johnson, with Against the World, demonstrates this by giving us a consistent Arminian prayer in the following video:

Several weeks ago, pastor Ed Young out of Dallas went on an anti-Calvinist rant for some odd reason, accusing them of … and I’m not making this up… of wearing skinny jeans. For those of you who know a Calvinist, you know we are hiding under our desks with this new charge! Yes, we’re guilty of wearing skinny jeans. However, I have not worn any skinny jeans since some time in the 1980s.

Of course, I’m jesting. There is nothing wrong with wearing skinny jeans as long as you are skinny. I am not, so I like to wear relaxed fit jeans. Not baggy, gang banger jeans, but jeans with some room in them so I don’t look quite so fat (apparently I am, a friend who turns 99 next November accused me of such while I was on vacation.)

The point is that Ed Young ripped into us Calvinist accusing us of all manner of things, like wearing skinny jeans, in order to tell his congregation of 24,000 that we are … nasty bad people and that he doesn’t like us very much. Poor Ed Young did an absolute terrible job of showing how we are bad, after all, the Scripture never says anything about wearing skinny jeans. BTW, for those of you who do not know, Ed Young is absolutely enamored with what pastors wear since he has started a fashion web site to help inform us that we need to dress more like him.

This tirade of Young’s was answered by those who are bona fide Calvinists and know what we actually believe. You can see Neil’s post here, and James White’s response here. You may remember I met James White back in April.

Young didn’t seem to really know what we believed. Give what his tirade was over, Young might be hard pressed to give one theological distinctive of Calvinism. James White shows that Young really doesn’t know…

BTW, this is one of the reasons I believe in denominationalism. If he were a member a true denomination, they could actually rebuke and deal with Young. But given the state of the non-confrontational churches, there is no real oversight or accountability for people like Young. One reason why he may have gone off the deep end.

In the video below, Jerry Johnson gives his take as well.

Jerry Johnson explains why he is a Calvinist. I might want to explain why and how I became a Calvinist here in the future.

A friend wrote me this past week and asked me to listen to a recent sermon by her pastor. I typically only go to one place to listen to sermons, SermonAudio.com* because most sermons today are more inspirational chats from a qualified life coach and rarely resemble the preaching of God’s word. (Just the fact that pastors are referred to as life coaches and team members at all, shows us the desperate state of the church).

The reason my friend wanted me to listen is because at about minute 43, the man complained about suffering from making the Bible an idol. I know what he meant, but it really disturbed my friend. There are some times when we revere the Bible so much that we exalt it above the God it exalts. I have no reason to believe that this is a major sin in the church, given that most don’t even open their Bibles. But that is another post.

The real problem I had with this pastor is that he spent a great deal of time bashing “the rules” as he put it and then told us what we were to actually do if we wanted to grow spiritually. In other words, he bashed Calvin and Calvin’s list of things not to do on the LORD’s day, and all the rules we all grew up with, and then replaced those rules with his very own rule.

The problem with this is that it is the typical DTS grad sermon: heavy on moralism, absent of the gospel and ignorant of anything that Calvin actually wrote. DTS grads do this frequently. It is as if there is some unwritten rule that you haven’t really preached unless you have ripped into Calvin on some level. It’s considered really cutting edge to do so, because we all know that NO ONE has EVER ripped into Calvin before from the pulpit.

But if they would actually take the time to read Calvin’s Institutes of Christian Religion, they would find a man who truly understood the Scripture, understood God’s sovereignty, understood salvation, understood God’s grace.

If this Yea hoot** actually would read Calvin’s Institutes he might have a better understanding of the gospel itself and quit giving his congregations rules to live by, when they cannot live to the rules that God gave us. What hubris this bozo has. He thinks because some try to honor the Laws given to us by God, that they are grossly mistaken and then replaces God’s Law with his own law. He pulls his new law from Matthew 9:13 But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice.

What was his new law to live by? “Be a mercy giver, not a rule keeper!” Wow. How deep. How profound. How legalistic.

The problem with DTS grads is that they fail to see that there are no rules we can keep. This is why we preach Christ crucified. He is the rule keeper. We are not. The Law’s purpose is to condemn us and send us to the cross to find the One who kept the Law perfectly and trust in Him for salvation. Then once we have trusted in Him and received the grace we need, then we respond out of a heart of gratitude to keep God’s Law. Keeping God’s Law is not a standard of righteousness for us, but does show us how we are to live as believers. It is the model. Yet, instead of the Law condemning us, it causes us to rejoice in Christ because of what He did to save us. We can rejoice in the Law just as Christ did:

But his delight is in the law of the Lord,
And in His law he meditates day and night.

The Yea hoot, instead of meditating on God’s Law, meditates on his own law, “be a mercy giver, not a rule keeper!” and weighs down his people with just another law that they cannot keep. Again, this is why we preach Christ and not ourselves. This is why we exalt Him in our sermons and not our rules of engagement. But this pastor fails to see this. He might actually grasp this reality if he actually took the time to read Calvin’s Institutes of Christian Religion instead of bashing him all the time.

If he actually took the time to read… well, should I continue?

My dear friend has languished under this man’s ministry for years and has felt that she needs to leave. I hope she can actually find a church where the gospel is preached faithfully. It certainly isn’t in this DTS lead church. DTS grads are far too busy condemning those of us who actually see a usefulness to God’s Law, while coming up with their own brand of law. So very sad.

Alas, and before those of you condemn me mentioning Calvin in a positive light, saying that I follow Calvin, I do not. I follow Christ and His word. If you spend any time around a true Calvinist, you will find that Calvinist rarely quote Calvin. We are too busy quoting Scripture, just as Calvin did. In fact, anti-Calvinist tend to misquote Calvin more than Calvinist quote Calvin. That is because the source of Calvinism is not really Calvin, it is the Bible. As the other great Calvinist Charles Spurgeon once proclaimed: “Calvinism is the gospel.”

That they quote Spurgeon so much, again shows the irony of it all. They quote one of the leading Calvinists of the 19th Century, but bash the one who gave us the model of theology that so captures God’s grace.

*My link actually will take you to Grace Family Baptist Church. I know, me, a presbyterian, sending you to a baptist church. But Voddie Baucham and Stephen Bratton are two of the best preachers on SermonAudio, along with Alistair Begg, Paul Washer, Paul Tripp and Sinclair Ferguson.

**I call this pastor a Yea hoot because when he preaches, he sounds like a Yea hoot. He is so busy trying to be relevant that he doesn’t take his calling to the pulpit seriously. He reminds me of what it would sound like if someone like Beavis or Butthead became a preacher. My heart aches for that congregation. We don’t need men who are trying to be relevant or “liked” but who will proclaim God’s word seriously. (My friend said she approached him once about all this, and he said he wanted people to like him, and if he preached seriously, they wouldn’t like him. We are not called to be liked, but called to be faithful and obedient.)

Finally, I did email this man with my concerns. I don’t expect to hear from him. He is too busy being liked. But I will let you know if he does respond.

From Spurgeon’s sermon where he proclaimed “Calvinism is the gospel.”

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.

Again, I was listening to another excellent sermon by Voddie Baucham yesterday and he pointed out the falsehood that so many use in their attempt to destroy the doctrine of election from 2 Peter 3:8-9.

But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. ⁹ The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us,^[a] not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

Using verse 9 alone, many make the argument that God doesn’t want anyone to go to hell. They see it as support for their position that only the only people who go to hell are those who refuse to turn to Christ in repentance.

Background

This is one of those classic Calvinism and Arminian debates that has raged for hundreds of years and there are a lot of underlying currents to it. Some of the questions that many have when it comes to this subject of election is: Is God still good if He can send good people to hell? If our salvation is completely up to God, then can God really send those who reject Him to hell? What about man’s free will?

You can see that there is a lot riding on this one verse for those who hold to Arminian views of Scripture. They see that salvation is really up to us making the decision to follow Christ of our own free will. The problem with this is the description we are given of ourselves before we trusted Christ does not bode well for free will at all. Plus, free will, as defined by Arminians is never supported in Scripture. What we see is that no one seeks God (Romans 3:10). We turn away from God and want nothing to do with Him. It is by His grace that He causes us to become born again first, then we see the wisdom, joy and love that is found in Christ when we turn to Him and believe. Even the faith we have to believe in Him for salvation, is a gift from God (Ephesians 2:8-10).

Verse 9

The real problem for Arminians and using verse 9 to say that God is not willing that any, meaning all without exception, is that the book of first Peter is not written to “all without exception.” It is very specifically written to those called by Christ. Peter is writing to believers who have trust in Him for salvation. More to the point, Peter is writing to those who are being mocked for their belief in the Second Coming of Christ. There are those saying: “Where is the promise of His coming?” Peter is writing to assure them that Christ is coming, but in His timing, not our or the scoffers.

It is in this context that he writes:

But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. ⁹ The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us,^[a] not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

His patience in returning is not slack at all, and He is patient because He is not willing for any of “us” to perish. Who are those represented by “us” (“you” in NU). It is the elect, the ones who are destined to come to know Christ throughout all times, not just the days in which Peter writes, but in our day as well.

Baucham used an excellent illustration at this point to help explain the verse. He said imagine what it was like for the Christians living through World War II. They were wondering the entire time, “is this the end?” The answer was “no” because God is still being patient with “us” or the elect in seeing that none of the elect would perish. For those living during that horrible war, this verse was true because those who read this today, had not yet come to know Christ. God is patient toward the elect, making sure that none of them would perish. This is why Christ has not yet returned.

The Arminians use this verse incorrectly to prove their point in that they only take verse 9 and divorce it from the rest of the letter. You cannot do this and be faithful to the text. What so few realize is that when it comes to the letters in the New Testament, they are not written to world or non-believers. These letters written are written to those who do believe, the church, the elect, those whoare professing Christians. The Bible is not God’s love letter to humanity, but God’s love letter to His people.

Now please don’t take this too far. I’m not saying we cannot use these letters to reach the lost or preach to the lost. How many people have come to know the LORD over the years because of letters like the Epistle to the Romans? But the context of these letters is for and to those who believe. That is why Peter starts his first letter:

Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To the pilgrims of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, ² elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace be multiplied.

What I am saying is that when it comes to developing our theology, what we know about God and our salvation, we must read the verses in context, and not strip them out in order to make our point. This is what many do when it comes to the doctrine of election. Although, I must confess, the last argument I heard from an Arminian against election was rather original. When I pointed out the election spoken of in Ephesians 1, he replied: “Well, that only applies to the original recipients of the letter.” Gee, how convenient. I never had the opportunity to hear his proof text for this level of exegesis, or to ask him exactly how we know which parts of the letters apply to us and which parts don’t. Probably a good thing.

The point to all this is that God is not willing that any of His elect should perish. This is why He is slow in His coming. Thank goodness. Had He been hasty in His return and we would not have had time to trust in Christ.

One last point, are there any verses that support what I’m saying?

John 6:39 This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day.

John 10:38-39 And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. ²⁹ My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father’s hand. ³⁰ I and My Father are one.”

I have been trying to write this article for several days now. I recently re-read J.I. Packer’s Introductory Essay to John Owen’s Death of Death in the Death of Christ. I first read the article about 15 years ago when I was an intern in Dallas.

It wasn’t until some events that took place this week that I was reminded of just how important this topic is to our salvation and eternal well-being. If you recall, I lamented the fact that so many of my seminary acquaintances on Facebook were celebrating Ash Wednesday and Lent and thought it odd that I would challenge them on it. This is important because when you begin to think about why they are celebrating something (by adding to the gospel and Christ’s righteousness), it comes back to this issue of the old gospel vs. the new gospel that Packer wrote about so many years ago.

In other words, so many who came through Dallas seminary were there because of their belief in the new gospel, as opposed to the old gospel. They were not their because God called them, regenerated them, gave them a new heart in order to believe. They were there because they decided to follow Jesus, in the same way that one decides to follow the false prophet Mohammed or Mary Baker Eddy, or Joseph Smith. There is no conversion necessary for one to follow those people. We are born with a heart to follow those who are into works righteousness because our fallen natures lead us to believe we can earn our own righteousness apart from Christ. The new gospel plays itself right into our fallen nature because we like works righteousness.

We get Christians like that because of the new gospel. Listen to Packer’s words:

“Without realizing it, we have during the past century bartered that gospel (the old gospel) for a substitute product which, though it looks similar enough in points of detail, is as a whole decidedly different thing. Hence our troubles; for the substitute product does not answer the ends for which the authentic gospel has in past days proved itself so mighty. The new gospel conspicuously fails to produce deep reverence, deep repentance, deep humility, a spirit of worship, a concern for the church. Why? We would suggest that the reason lies in its own character and content. If fails to make men God-centered in their thoughts and God-fearing in their hearts because this is not primarily what it is trying to do.”

Packer goes on to say that the new gospel doesn’t save as the old gospel because it is not intended to. The new gospel makes it possible for men to save themselves. In other words, Christ didn’t die on the cross to save sinners. Christ died on the cross to make it possible for sinners to save themselves.

This is nothing short of Arminianism in it’s fullest form. It strikes at the heart of the gospel because it suggests that men can save themselves. This is why this argument between Calvinism and Arminianism is so important. If we can save ourselves, as the Arminians say, then Christ did not need to die. (Please forgive me for the strawman. Arminians do not believe this. Please see Kyle’s comment below.)

But we cannot save ourselves, this is why He did die. As Paul writes Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her. Jesus saves sinners and that is what we need. We don’t need a gospel that seeks to make it possible for us to be saved, but one that brings about the certainty that we are saved.

That is part of the difference between the two gospels. One leads to God moving in a person and saving that person, while the other seeks to encourage fallen humanity to move toward God and save themselves. How does it bear fruit? You see it in things like Protestants taking up a Lent, or other such nonsense instead of walking by faith and trusting in the means God has given us to grow in grace and maturity.

The fruits of the new gospel seem to be winning out. Packer continues:

“(The old gospel) was always and essentially a proclamation of Divine sovereignty in mercy and judgment, a summons to bow down and worship the might Lord on whom man depends for all good, both in nature and in grace. Its center of reference was unambiguously God. But the new gospel the center of reference is man. This is just to say that the old gospel was religious in a way that the new gospel is not. Whereas the chief aim of the old was to teach men to worship God, the concern of the new seems limited to making them feel better. This subject of the old gospel was God and His ways with men; the subject of the new is man and the help God gives him. There is a world of difference. The whole perspective and emphasis of gospel preaching has changed.”

How has this affected the church?

It has affected the church because those who came to know Christ under the old gospel, are starving in the pews because of the new gospel. These new gospel preachers are not preaching reverence, sin, repentance… they are preaching better marriages, better families, better politics even. But they are not calling men to fall upon the mercy of God. There is no need to, since they are not in need of God’s grace or His mercy. To them, it’s good enough that God provided a way through Jesus Christ. They don’t need any more Jesus than that.

This results in a popular religion that looks a lot like Christianity because it never really calls us to accept our own sinfulness. The new gospel merely calls us to be better, do better, try harder. It’s the gospel of Joel Osteen and Oprah Winfrey. It is not the gospel of Charles Spurgeon, John Calvin or John Owen. In fact, the purveyors of the new gospel don’t have time for men like Spurgeon, Calvin or Owen, except to criticize them with one faulty charge or another.

The new gospel doesn’t allow for time to read what men of the faith have said in the past because there is no room for such when you need the latest self-help book from the Christian bookstore (just the term “self-help” undermines the Gospel). We are too busy with our accountability partners, our what-the-Bible-means-to-me Bible studies, our retreats, and our sacraments of door-to-door evangelism and revival meetings.

There is no time for reading or reflection, unless it contemplative reflection upon ourselves, because to read someone like Owen, would show that we truly need to rely upon God to be saved. We are in need of His mercy. And there is no room for that in our new gospel churches. Not only do we have to save ourselves, we have to save the world as well. Leave it up to God? While only a bunch of Calvinist would do that. There is no time. We can’t wait for God, He is far too slow. We need to do it and do it now.

Some rejoice at the new gospel. We have seen it reinvent itself in a number of ways, from Seeker Sensitive Churches to the Emergent Movement. The problem is that the new gospel gives us the same old bad fruit. Through the new gospel we get rock bands in worship, rock-star preachers, tattoos, a yearly Harley Davidson Sunday, and cancelled services on Super Bowl Sunday, services held in movie theaters when the occasional film about Jesus comes along and whatever floats the ex-druggy music minister’s boat.

Don’t worry, there is nothing about holiness, repentance, reverence of God or other things in the new gospel churches. They are far too advanced for that.

And those of us who long for true gospel preaching, preaching of the full-counsel of God, communion, prayer, songs that are prayerful… never mind us, we will continue to long for Jesus’ return knowing that when He does, He will have the purveyors of this new gospel ripped from the church and cast into outer darkness along with the rest of the tares.

I hate surprise arguments, especially the ones that make no sense at all. I confess, the argument the Arminian made to me in my last debate so caught me off guard and surprised me that I was almost speechless. Given Proverbs about not answering a fool lest he think himself wise, I probably should have remained speechless.

The man’s claim? After attacking me about my Calvinistic views on predestination and my response to read Ephesians 1, he said that Ephesians 1 wasn’t written for us, just the original audience.

Like I said, I was dumbfounded. You could make that claim about every book in the Bible and then just punt the faith all together. If the Bible is only written to those in the original audience, then he is either requiring God to provide new revelation today, or there is no hope of salvation.

Now, I’m sure the man would not say that. I’m sure he thinks he is wise enough to tell which books of the Bible are written to us, and which books are not. The problem with this is that the moment he starts determining which books are for us and which are not is the moment that he places himself above Scripture. Instead of submitting to what Ephesians 1 is saying, he had determined it is not for us. This is no different than what liberal theologians have done when they determine that the resurrection is not true.

This really is just neo-orthodoxy with a new twist. Those who are neo-orthodox believe that the Bible isn’t God’s word until it becomes God’s word to us. Again, the problem with this view is that it places us above the Bible in terms of authority.

This is not how the writers of the Bible treat the Bible. As Paul writes: All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

Paul wants us to know that all of Scripture is written to us and is to be used for our spiritual well-being. This is the same man that preached the full counsel of God to the Ephesians themselves (Acts 20). He held nothing back, because it all applied to them, and to us.

When Paul writes his letter to the Ephesians, he never intended it just to remain with Ephesus and the church there. It was intended to be circulated among the churches because what was true for the Ephesians in the letter was true for every believer, both near and far, and those not yet born. This is what happened as well. The churches in Asia Minor circulated the letters as they received them and copied them. If the truths were just for the original audiences, I’m sure Paul would have said so.

The reason why the man probably made the argument is because he knows the text definitely speaks of predestination. Arminians cannot get around this truth. Paul is clearly speaking of things that were determined before the foundations of the world were laid. They know it says this. I’ve also heard them say that it was not individuals that Paul was writing to, but the collective whole. Yes, but the church is made up of individuals and the truth Paul is writing about applies to individuals as well as the broader elect.

Arminians must give some excuse for what the text says other than accepting it for what the text… says. There is probably something deeper in this man that prevents him from accepting what it says. There usually is. Sometimes, these

I think the sad aspect of the entire ordeal is that the man was willing to punt great spiritual truths for his theological position. If predestination were not true, the Bible would never speak of it. But it does speak of it and it brings the believer comfort and joy knowing that God had us in mind before He even brought creation into existence. We are not just Christians by happenstance but Christians because of His sovereign will and plan. It’s sad that men like the Arminians miss this in attacking such a sound doctrine and the word of God itself.

For those of you who are interested in Ephesian 1, here are verse 3-14, which is the subject of the man’s comments:

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, 4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love 5 he predestined us[a] for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,6 to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. 7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, 8 which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight 9 making known[b] to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ10 as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.

11 In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, 12 so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory.13 In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is the guarantee[c] of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it,[d] to the praise of his glory.

If you have held Calvinistic positions on anything concerning Scripture for more than a minute, you know that the moment you voice such convictions, it will not take long for someone to make the claim that they disagree with you and “will not put God in a box.”

The irony is that the moment they say they will not put God in a box, is the moment they do. The problem with their box is that it is much worse than the box used by Calvinists because their feelings and emotions define the box they use, as opposed to the box used by Calvinists, which is scripture.

The reality is that whenever we think about God at all, we put Him in a box. We can’t help it. We are finite beings trying to think and describe that which is infinite. We are sinful and fallen trying to grasp that which is sinless, holy, perfect and blameless. Therefore it behooves us to think about Him with the guidance of Scripture. It is the only way we can think about Him properly and without error. What the Bible tells us about God is what we are to believe about Him. What our hearts tell us about Him, should be highly suspect, especially when our hearts are telling us that He is love in the sense that we want Him to be, and not love as defined in Scripture. This debate really is another form of the Calvinist/Arminian debate that started so many years ago.

Just a side note before we go on: please realize that Calvinists do not follow Calvin. What we are saying when we say we are Calvinist is that we are in agreement with what Calvin wrote about salvation, God, and man, and what Augustine wrote about salvation, God, and man, because both men held to what Paul and the New Testament wrote about salvation, God, and man. Don’t expect us to quote Calvin when we are teaching theology or (heaven forbid) debating theology. You can expect Lutherans to quote Luther, but Calvinists quote Scripture, not Calvin. This is why Calvinism won’t go away. It’s rooted in Scripture and the truth found therein. I also concede that the antithesis of Calvinism, Arminianism won’t go away either because it’s rooted in fallen human nature and the desire of man to be “like God” (Genesis 3:5). But this truth is for another blog post.

The reason I point out that we are quoting Scripture as Calvinists is because we make our case using God’s word about Him, about us, and about salvation for our understanding of how things are. We don’t rely on man’s opinion. We rely on what God’s word says about who He is, and who we are. This is really important when it comes to understanding what we believe because these issues we debate are of an eternal nature.

Let’s play Pascal’s wager on this one. If the Calvinist is wrong in his view of God and the fallen nature of man, and the Rob Bell’s of the world are right, then what difference does it make? If God, who according to Bell & Company, is just a big Teddy Bear in the sky, loving us with a gooey elixir of love, then it matters not. Why do people get so upset with Calvinists if this is the case?

However, if God is actually holy, just, righteous, and a hater of iniquity, then perhaps we should take what Scripture says about Him and us more seriously. It would be nice if we could just cover every sin of mankind in some coating of love conjured up by men if Scripture actually supported such a view. But we cannot. The word of God is the authority on God and who He is, not our fickle feelings or desires.

I think Calvinists get the most grief when we point out that God’s wrath rests upon the unbeliever. I did this in a recent post and it caught the attention of some friends who did not like that I pointed this out. Their problem wasn’t with what Scripture said which would have been a far more worthy debate, but with the fact that I pointed this out without mentioning the love of God. I didn’t mention the love of God because that was not the issue being addressed. That would be like asking me how to make a chocolate cake and then accusing me of putting the cake “in a box” because I didn’t mention how to make green beans.

I do admit that I don’t mention the love of God that much. I don’t mention it on purpose. There are so many preachers proclaiming nothing but the love of God that people are living in all manner of sin without regards to holiness because they are convinced that it doesn’t matter what they do, God loves them just the way they are. This is what happens when you start preaching that God loves unconditionally.

The reality is that God doesn’t love every fallen sinner. The idea of “unconditional” love  is a view of love that was constructed in the counseling halls of academia and is not found in Scripture. If God loves us, it is because of the sacrifice of His Son first. Yes, I know the word says: But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us… This is an absolutely wonderful passage and a reminder to us that God’s love for us is not dependent upon our ability to live perfect lives. We are still sinners, saved by grace and we still fall into sin. We need the reminder that His love was upon us long before we committed our first sin. But to say that this same love is upon those who are not in Christ by faith, and through grace, is saying too much. To say this love extends to the wicked sinner, or worse, the moralistically self-righteous, is abusing the truth. Romans is written to believers, beloved of God, called(the elect) to be saints… and says nothing encouraging for the unrepentant rejector of truth, be they those who have heard the gospel or have not heard the gospel.

To say that God’s love extends to everyone without exception is a lie and the most unloving thing we can do. The unbeliever needs to know that God is not happy with him/her in their sin. They must know that they need to repent of their ways and turn to Christ alone for salvation. I believe that pastors who are preaching the unconditional love of God, hoping to win converts, are doing more damage to the church than the haters of Christianity do because they present a false gospel. They present a God who loves us no matter what. But this is not what Scripture tells us. Just look at Psalm 5:4-5 For You are not a God who takes pleasure in the wickedness, nor shall evil dwell with You. The boastful shall not stand in Your sight; You hate all workers of iniquity. For the average Christian, because they have been taught so poorly about the God who is, this concept of God hating anything at all will throw them into vapor lock.

We may not like what Scripture says about God or us for that matter. But we must trust in the God who reveals Himself through Scripture and reject our own inclinations. To trust our feelings, desires and wants when it is contrary to Scripture is utter foolishness. By that I mean there is no greater fool than the one who rests in his own inclinations especially when Scripture contradicts those inclinations.

Those who merely preach Christ’s love, present a gospel without the cross of Christ and the gruesome nature of His death on behalf of… sinners. Those who preach the full counsel of God, as Paul did, preach of God’s wrath and His Law, so that the sinner can see where they are in relationship to the God who is. It also helps us to see how much God loved us. God’s wrath and His Law give us clarity about who we are, and what we rightfully deserve. It humbles us before Him because we know that if we are not saved by His grace alone, in Christ alone, then there is no true hope for us. There is nothing in us that is lovable and not fully deserving of God’s wrath.

Try telling that to most Christians today and they will respond (correctly): “that is not my god!” I have been told this before. I agree, the God I preach is not their god. For this, I get accused of putting God in a box.

But there is hope. There are some who are beginning to see the truth about who God is. I love that this article popped up on my Facebook account this past week. One of the Duggars, Jessa Seewald, actually came out and said what I’ve labored to say here so many times. She was confronting those who when confronted with sin, scream “don’t judge!” She writes concerning the person who appeals to an all loving god:

“The person speaking this is right — their god is not angry with them,” she said. “He can’t be, because he doesn’t exist. They are not talking about the God of the Bible. They have created a god in their own mind to suit themselves.”

I wish that more Christians would understand this. We must let the word of God define who God is, not our desires or wicked feelings. To do so is to put God in a box of their own making, and not relying on who God has told us He is. We may not like what His word says about us, or Himself. But this is all we have that we can trust. To trust anything other than God’s word is utter foolishness.

Updating my blogroll use to happen far more frequently than it does now. I think that was because I was able to spend more time on blogging, reading as well as writing. I can no longer do that. I have barely enough time to write any posts at all, much less keep up with all the blogs I’ve subscribed to. The only reason I’m doing it now is because I cannot sleep.

Updating the blogroll was also done a lot once blogging hit the scene some 10 years ago because it was a way to help build up readership. The theory was that if you added someone’s site to your site, then they would do the same. I’m not sure that is the case any longer. Blogging has changed over the past 10 years. The only blogs that last are those who persevere in writing. Given that, a lot of blogs have come and gone. That is why I eliminated several blogs from my blogroll. The owners of those blogs have not kept them up with any frequency.

I also have to say that I eliminated Wintery Knight from the blogroll. I’ve grown tired of his posts, especially his anti-Calvinistic posts in which he uses the same, tired out straw men. Calvinism, as far as I’m concerned, is the gospel (first said by C.H. Spurgeon). Anything less is not. Where it becomes less for WK is the constant mantra of free will, as in “all man must do is exercise his free will in deciding to follow Jesus.” Sorry, I don’t believe the Bible teaches that. In fact, where it mentions the will of man and salvation, it says that salvation has nothing to do with “man’s will.” See John 1:12-13. We are saved by grace alone, by faith alone, in Christ alone, not by those things and our “free will.” Also, the Bible never talks about men in their pre-conversion state as being free. They are slaves to sin, unable to do anything but sin. See Romans 6.

Just for clarity sake, I didn’t come to know Christ when I was 29 years old because I exercised my free will. I came to know Him because His Spirit moved in me, gave me a new heart and the desire to follow Him. Had God not first moved in me to bring me to faith, I would be one miserable agnostic today. Instead, I’m a child of God, saved by grace and blessed with all the spiritual blessings to be had in Christ.

Finally, I did add another blog that I have found interesting and well done. You probably have seen Alec Satin’s comments on some of my posts. His blog is call While It’s Yet Day and he covers things from a Reformed perspective. You might check it out.

If I removed your blog and would like it placed back in the blogroll… well, blog and let me know, for I will.

Filed under: Blogging

It is that time again, when we look back over the past year to see our accomplishments. For me personally, this is truly a wonderful exercise given how the LORD has worked in my life in the past year. A year ago, I was single, barely employed, and living with family. Now, I’m married to a wonderful woman, teaching urchins in the public schools, and currently looking for a house to buy. God’s hand has really been evident.

I have also seen some major accomplishments with my blog. Two major milestones were reached, the first was that this year has been the most popular since moving to WordPress back in 2010. The site crested more that 70,000 hits for the year and is currently approaching  77,000 hits.

We also saw an all-time milestone as well. Just a few weeks ago, the site crested 300,000 hits all-time. That is more than a quarter million hits. Maybe next year… well, just have to wait and see.

With that, I thought I would give you the Top 25 posts for the year, starting with posts 25-21. This will exclude counts on my “homepage” and “about” page since those are not exactly blog posts. Here are the first five:

25. Do Calvinists Put God in a Box? This post discusses the often used attack against Calvinism that says we Calvinists put God in a box in our defense of the faith. We agree that we do so, but the box is defined by Scripture. Ultimately, the box is defined by God Himself as it describes His nature. He cannot be anything other than what He is, and what He has revealed to us in Scripture.

24. Andy Stanley Proves His False Teacher Status Once Again. This post was put together after Stanley was caught saying how wonderful it was when the families with gay men in them came together…the same men who left their wives and children, to live in debauchery. It had a YouTube video associated with it, but apparently Stanley’s minions have had the video pulled.

23. Top 10 Reasons I Hate Christmas Shopping. I wrote this several years ago and apparently, it rings true for quite a number of people.

22. Tyndale Pulls Books, But Should Repent Along With the Rest of the Church. This one focuses on the fact that Christians bookstores will publish “anything” as long as it sells. Never mind what the Bible says. This is one reason I’m in the habit of saying that if a book is popular at the Christian bookstore, then don’t waste your money on it. Bad theology sells. Good theology cannot be given away.

21. Oreo Cookies: Top 10, 11, 12…25 Ways to Eat Them. This is the second most popular food post on my blog.

Posts 20-16 will run tomorrow.

Filed under: Blogging

Continue reading My Egregious Public Error

Continue reading The Covenant of Grace Has No “Ifs” and “Buts”