Today a friend of mine kindly emailed me a PDF of George Bryson’s “The Dark Side of Calvinism.” I began reading the Foreword by Chuck Smith and found, as James White calls it, amazing ignorance (1:51-2:15)! Now, I’m not saying this to be mean, and I don’t think James is either, but it truly is amazing ignorance.
George Bryson and I have shown recently that we can have amicable discussions about our disagreements in theology without being overly harsh and nasty, so please do not take this to be a personal attack on Chuck Smith or George Bryson. I don’t have a Calvary Chapel chip on my shoulder. I did not come out of the Calvary Chapel system, although I have attended a few in the past.
This is a matter of theological debate. I am convinced by Scripture that Calvary Chapel is wrong on their position concerning what they call Calvinism. I would not be unhappy if masses flocked out of the Calvary Chapel system (or to borrow another James White term, non-denominational denomination) and joined local Presbyterian & Reformed churches, but I am not making that plea as of yet.
In the Foreword to Bryson’s book Chuck Smith wastes no time in demonstrating his confusion of what the Bible teaches by immediately polarizing a quote from Calvin on Predestination calling it “unscriptural” and “radical.” Smith doesn’t explain to us why it’s unscriptural or radical, he simply states it and moves on. I want to begin this discussion with a quote from Chuck Smith’s Foreword:
“The doctrinal distinctive of Reformed Theology cannot be reconciled with what we know about God from His holy Word. Scripture has taught me to believe that God is loving and absolutely just. Could and would such a God allow a man to be born who has no possibility to be saved?” (pg. 7)
First, notice that Chuck Smith asks whether “such a God” [as Calvinism affirms] could or would allow someone to be born who has no possibility to be saved. Perhaps this is just an appeal to emotions or an attempt to drive the dramatic effect. In this video Chuck Smith claims that God is omniscient, meaning that he has all knowledge and therefore does not learn. Smith reasons correctly when he states that if God learns then he doesn’t have all knowledge. This is a clear example of Smith’s view of God’s omniscience, a view that I hold as well (as do all Calvinists).
But if God has all knowledge, then does it not follow that He knows who will and will not be saved? And if this is the case, then is it not also the case that according to Calvary Chapel’s view of predestination (that God predestines those that he foresees will choose to believe), that God allows some people to be born that have no possibility to be saved since He knows beforehand those that will believe and those that will not, and allows those that won’t end up believing to be born anyway?
How can Chuck Smith say on the one hand that Calvinism is “unscriptural” and “radical” because it teaches that God allows some people to be born that have no possibility to be saved, when his own position necessarily produces the same consequence, namely, that God allows some people to be born that have no possibility to be saved?
Looks like this one cuts both ways, with advantage going to the Calvinists. Could this be the Dark Side of Calvary Chapel?
{ 30 comments… read them below or add one }
The vital difference being that one is a direct result of one’s free will while the other is a deity multiplying dead men in order to populate hell which He supposedly created for fallen angels.
One scenario is risidual while the other is damnation solataire.
A Biblical Critique of Chuck Smith’s Study: “Calvinism, Arminianism & The Word Of God” Ray Kane
“In this article we will look at the unbiblical and incorrect statements of Mr. Chuck Smith of “Calvary Chapel” fame, with respect to his study on election and predestination. His study reflects not only his own personal views but that of the leadership of most, if not all Calvary Chapel churches. The “Calvary Chapel” collection of churches represent a sort of pseudo denomination that branched out from Mr. Smith’s original mega church out in Costa Mesa California. These folks are correct about many spiritual issues but they are dead wrong about their views on Calvinism as I will point out in this study. My comments are in bold print and the text of Mr. Smith’s study is in unbolded print. Please read this study carefully and completely. It is not meant as an exercise in speed reading. You are bound to miss some important points if you do not spend quality time digesting this material. The original article can probably be found at this Calvary Chapel web page”: www3.calvarychapel.com/library/smith-chuck/books/caatwog.htm (this link seems to be broken)
Here is Chuck Smith’s direct, misinformed attack against Calvinism:
Calvinism, Arminianism, and the Word of God: A Calvary Chapel Perspective pdf by Chuck W. Smith
Calvary Chapel are just as vehemently opposed to, wrong about and ignorant of “Calvinism,” predestination (it’s in the Bible), election (it’s in the Bible), Reformed Theology (biblical doctrines) and the Doctrines of Grace (biblical doctrines) here in New Zealand as they are in America or anywhere else for that matter.
The way many people go on you would think that it is the degenerate free-will that is sovereign rather than God who IS sovereign and autonomous. When redeemed mankind are glorified they will be truly free but they will not have total free-will as they will not be able to sin. They will be able not to sin and unable to sin, yet still free. Free to please God in all that they do and say and think. Forever……
“…..while the other is a deity multiplying dead men in order to populate hell which He supposedly created for fallen angels.”
If you are inferring that this is what Calvinism/Reformed Theology teaches, you are bordering on blasphemy and you are dead wrong. You will be treading on very dangerous grounds. If you yourself are going around to others and saying that this is “Calvinism” and that this is what “Calvinism” teaches, God just may strike you down with a lightening bolt out of the blue or something more simple and insignificant as choking to death on a fish bone. You should be trembling in your shoes and trembling at God’s Word. Do you fear God?
If I have mistaken you and misunderstood you please forgive me.
Every single human being, past, present, future including you and I, deserve nothing but to be cast into the lake of fire forever and it is a WONDER that God’s chose to save anyone let alone multitudes that WE cannot number* but God can and does. God chose His people before the very foundations of the world, not on some foreknown or foreseen choices people may or not make but by a direct decision and choosing by God Himself, for His OWN good pleasure. If it was not for God being actively involved in the new birth of human beings, no one would choose Christ, ever. They cannot and WILL not while they are dead in their trespasses and sins. They need to be born again first. Regeneration precedes faith. John 1:12-13* The blind cannot see this truth. Born of God. And John chapter 3 of course.
*Revelation 7: 9After this I looked, and behold, a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands, 10and crying out with a loud voice, “Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!” 11And all the angels were standing around the throne and around the elders and the four living creatures, and they fell on their faces before the throne and worshiped God, 12saying, “Amen! Blessing and glory and wisdom and thanksgiving and honor and power and might be to our God forever and ever! Amen.”
*John 1:9 The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world. 10He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. 11He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. 12But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, 13who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
Born of God. Those who receive the LORD Jesus Christ and believe in His name are those who are born of God. They do not believe and receive and then are born of God. They receive and believe and repent as a direct result of the new birth. They are wonderful gifts that can now be willingly received. No one takes an active part in assisting God in the new birth. The new birth, born again, regeneration, is a divine, miraculous, sovereign, awesome work of God alone and to God alone the glory be and none to man.
Sound doctrine is a thrill to the soul.
Great resources for teaching on regeneration, the new birth, born again:
Definition of Monergism: The view that the Holy Spirit is the only agent who effects regeneration of Christians. It is in contrast with synergism, the view that there is a cooperation between the divine and the human in the regeneration process. Monergism is a redemptive blessing purchased by Christ for those the Father has given Him (1 Pet 1:3, John 3:5,6, 6:37, 39). This grace works independently of any human cooperation and conveys that power into the fallen soul whereby the person who is to be saved is effectually enabled to respond to the gospel call (John 1:13; Acts 2:39, 13:48; Rom 9:16). More
Essays on Monergism
The following essays on monergism are listed in order of depth. For those who are exploring the issue for the first time, I recommend reading the first articles, since they are written on a more basic level. When you begin to understand the critical nature of this doctrine and wish to explore it further, go ahead and study the other essays and charts listed further down this page. They are filled with biblical support. The ideas and concepts presented here may come as a surprise to some. Nevertheless I would encourage you to stick with it because such a reaction is normal and I am confident it can be prove beyond doubt that monergism is a sound and biblical doctrine – a doctrine centered in the person and work of Jesus Christ that I believe may just change your life.”
I for one would love that all Christians would read and study all these articles and dig in further and deeper than they ever have before .
Rick,
If God knows one will use his free will to reject his gospel offer, why create him in the first place? When Jesus says that it would have been better for Judas had he never been born (Mark 14:21), what exactly does your free will defense accomplish? The real difference between the two positions is that Calvinists believe God’s purpose in creating men He knows will be condemned is a function of His sovereign will alone as opposed to a plan based around the wills of creatures.
Jacob I loved Eassu I hated. God choses whom He choses and hardens those He hardens. His Soverign will and power of His Word. Worth preaching…
Rick, you’ve missed the point. Each system ends with God allowing someone to be born without the possibility to be saved. I’d like to hear your answer to Ryan’s question, “what exactly does your free will defense accomplish?”
Douglas, thanks for the links.
“, God just may strike you down with a lightening bolt out of the blue or something more simple and insignificant as choking to death on a fish bone.”
That is what God does to people who do not understand Calvinism? That statement is representative of some who espouse Calvinism and suggest that God’s wrath is on their side. There are many humble Calvinists; Douglas is not one at this point.
Heres his quote again:
“The doctrinal distinctive of Reformed Theology cannot be reconciled with what we know about God from His holy Word. Scripture has taught me to believe that God is loving and absolutely just. Could and would such a God allow a man to be born who has no possibility to be saved?”
Notice how he ASSUMES that someone born without the possibility to be saved would make God unjust; but according to W(w)ho’s standard of justice are we to appeal. This is just one more of countless examples demonstrating the humanism the non Calvinist are entrenched in.
5PB, I’d like to see how Chuck Smith or any of his cronies would explain how God is “loving,” according to their sense of the word, while allowing people to be born that He knew beforehand would end up not believing, therefore ending up in Hell.
“The doctrinal distinctive of Reformed Theology cannot be reconciled with what we know about God from His holy Word. Scripture has taught me to believe that God is loving and absolutely just. Could and would such a God allow a man to be born who has no possibility to be saved?”
The judge has spoken from his place high above the Word of God, telling men what “we know about God” and then stating what He[God] is allowed to do.
Yes Stephen, I have made a couple series of refutations on youtube against an Arminian and a Pelagian and asked both of them the same question. Guess what? Not a single answer from that side yet; and I don’t expect to get one either.
“That is what God does to people who do not understand Calvinism?
Rick, I didn’t say that sort of thing. Re-read what I said. Could God strike you down for any reason? What reason is there for God not striking us all down, stone cold dead? We deserve it don’t we? Remember, God is not mocked. You disort and lie about what Calvinism really is and what Calvinists actually believe and you border on blasphemy if not already over the line and you go around the blogs spreading your distortions all over the place. You need to STOP and think before going on any further. That’s what I think. Is there Scriptual backing?
Go to Monergism.com and do some serious study on what Calvinism really is and what it isn’t and hopefully, God will open your eyes. You do realize don’t you that God’s grace and mercy are not deserved?
You cannot come to any harm by starting here:
Calvinism
SPURGEON ON CALVINISM:
“It is no novelty, then that I am preaching; no new doctrine. I love to proclaim these strong old doctrines, that are called by nickname Calvinism, but which are surely and verily the revealed truth of God as it is in Christ Jesus. By this truth I make a pilgrimage into the past, and as I go, I see father after father, confessor after confessor, martyr after martyr, standing up to shake hands with me. Were I a Pelagian, or a believer in the doctrine of free-will, I should have to walk for centuries all alone. Here and there a heretic, of no very honorable character, might rise up and call me brother. But taking these things to be the standard of my faith, I see the land of the ancients peopled with my brethren; I behold multitudes who confess the same as I do, and acknowledge that this is the religion of God’s own church.”
Here is a study called “The God Nobody Knows”
Is God the same today, yesterday and forever? Is the LORD Jesus Christ God, Yahweh?
Every Christian is truly reformed. True? A Christian is either truly reformed by the grace of God alone of he is just not a Christian. True? I don’t care if someone mocks me (any many others) by calling me “truly reformed” in the mocking sense, many have done so in the past and continue to do so today, and no doubt into the future, it’s all water off a ducks as far as I’m concerned. They are not ignorant, they know and will be judged according to that knowledge. Not because of ignorance. There’s no excuse. There is a lot of rot flowing out of places like the boars head, that’s for sure. Judgment day is comming. When is your appointment with Death due? Mine is anytime. Are we ready to meet death? Most people aren’t prepared…..
I would have liked some Biblical references for Mr. Smith’s statements. Many people violently oppose Calvinism for the same reason that others violently oppose Arminianism (I’m not implying that here). It’s not enough to express displeasure in something, but to actually reason for it by Scripture, which I didn’t see in Mr. Smith’s statement.
Joey, your verse citation is electing one to a nation, not salvation. Would it have been possible for a child of Esau to have been saved?
5PB, I don’t see any problem with God creating someone who will reject the Gospel and be sent to Hell. God can and does create whom he will. The person being sent to Hell is naturally sinful (not just doing sinful deeds) and still responsible for their sin. We are all born guilty, we have to be declared innocent in Christ for us not to be damned. God is not the Author of Sin, therefore we can’t blame Him for sending someone to Hell for eternity. I hope I didn’t misunderstand your question.
Stephen Macasil said…But if God has all knowledge, then does it not follow that He knows who will and will not be saved? And if this is the case, then is it not also the case that according to Calvary Chapel’s view of predestination (that God predestines those that he foresees will choose to believe), that God allows some people to be born that have no possibility to be saved since He knows beforehand those that will believe and those that will not, and allows those that won’t end up believing to be born anyway?
This appears as a non-sequitor.
Rick..If God knows one will use his free will to reject his gospel offer, why create him in the first place?>
A non-calvinist position. The difference should be free-will.
our founding truth, please explain how…
@Patrick
I never really presented a question; just made a point. I do, however, agree with what you stated. : )
If I’m not mistaken, Calvary’s position is not unlike God choosing everyone, yet predestination is more or less, retroactive to man’s will. Whatever man chooses, was God’s foreknowledge.
Calvary’s position is based upon the human logic that “God must be fair” in order for God to be deserving of the love and devotion that he askes of us. Now, Every CC member believes God is fair, and God is just, they believe it on the basis of the presumptions of their pastors sermons and exegesis of scripture that is presented.
I submit to you that the premise upon which Calvary Pastor’s build their theology on this issue is human free-will. In this case the sinner’s free will becomes the arch enemy of both God and man.
Chuck Smith cannot stomach the idea that God creates humans which he knows will only end up on hell. So in order to maintain the premise of free will and to connect the ‘fairness of God’ Chuck and so many other CC Pastors tell their congregations “when some sinners reject the gospel they are ‘really’ guilty of sin and deserve hell”.
Whats really been taught is that “Christ rejection” is the only ‘fair’ motive God can have in order to send someone to hell. Now, most Calvary Pastors are so against anything that draws them into debates on predestination that most any dumb argument that helps side step the issue is believed. CC Pastors know that many have died in their sins without hearing about Christ, and those Pastors have rightly said they will be judged as sinners and face eternal damnation. But, this teaching is relatively rare, its usually not taught clearly.
In fact if you were to poll some CC members you would find that they believe in a 3rd scenario (completely unbiblical) which presents the sinful pagan that has not heard the gospel and has died in his sins as having a hopeful chance because God will judge them on what they know….and in a vague misty kind of reasoning conclude that some pagans might be saved because they imitated a kind of belief in God that would be unfair for God to condemn.
I do not say that CC members have officially constructed a theological 3rd option, Im only saying that I have found in my own experience that some of them create this option in their minds and hold to it as if it were a genuinely biblical truth. You can find it exists when you present the scenario I described and question them as to “Gods fairness”.
This brings me full circle. What is being taught at Calvary Chapel is men are not really that sinful until they become Christ rejectors, then God has no choice but to send them to hell because they dont want Jesus or heaven. This is a set up for a false catagory, those men who have rejected Christ, these fit into the ‘blasphemy of the Holy Spirit’ catagory (that CS teaches) that shall never be forgiven and the same catagory that includes the opportunity to hear the gospel but it was spurned. These are the ‘hell bound’ sinners of the Calvary Chapel teachings. For Calvary Pastors to remain consistent they connect the use of free-will rejection of the gospel to the fairness of God, now, God is exonerated from creating a man only to send him to hell.
Again, Why? Because to Chuck and others its fair for God to damn rejectors, not ignorant sinners.
So what? This doctrine is only a matter of convenience to the disturbed conscience of a Christian, not to the sinner who faces such a future. What difference does it make to add Christ rejection to an innumerable list of sins committed against God that hold him guilty and under God’s wrath? It does little to make him more guilty. It does nothing to make the sinner feel better at the judgment of God. Calvary admits that God knows the future, they admit that God knows who will be saved and who will be damned. But the effect of such a doctrine is really a salve to soothe the fears of Christians that God is ‘not fair’ like they want to believe or were told to believe.
But as one of our posters has stated God really is going to save everyone, its those who ‘opt out’ that are damned. Unfortunately Calvary Pastor rarely ever speak about such subjects. Its normal to hear them say “away from God” instead of Hell or Lake of Fire.
Such terrible terms become distasteful in their mouths and a God that sends sinners to such a place without the opportunity of being Christ-rejectors too is hard for them to admit.
What shall we say to these things? Shall we begin to judge God as unfair to sinners that have not heard the gospel? I think we should use a term that Paul uses “merciful”. God may not have been merciful to them as he has been to others. God’s severity and judgment fell upon others that did not receive the mercy of a gospel call and the working of the Holy Spirit to illuminate their minds to the truth. The scripture says Rom 9:18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
This is the stumbling block to the Calvary Chapel pastors that are taught up in the doctrines of Smithism…”hath mercy on whom he will”.
This is unreconcilable with the ‘fairness’ teachings of Chuck Smith and so it remains a stumbling block and an offense to them.
In a way its a denial of the great mercies they have received. Its a turning away from looking steadfastly upon the kind of mercy they are to preach.
To preach a mercy and a forgiveness from God that demands more than an approval from our human logic; what it requires is a humility and fear before God that our coming to Him is not a mere matter of choice alone.
The whole world lies in wickedness not ‘universal salvation’ therefore God is not to be judged as unfair unless the sinner has “opted out”. Instead God is to be preached as Merciful and Kind, that instead of preaching up man determining to ‘give or take’ God’s mercy, the truth should be told that God will quicken the dead minds of sinners and will give eternal life to his enemies simply because he will be merciful. That is a great gospel.
Its not a matter of emphasis, its a matter of depicting what is really going on.
So its not to him that will or runs (which would be fair)….but to God that shows mercy.
John said..Whats really been taught is that “Christ rejection” is the only ‘fair’ motive God can have in order to send someone to hell.
The unpardonable sin?
In fact if you were to poll some CC members you would find that they believe in a 3rd scenario (completely unbiblical) which presents the sinful pagan that has not heard the gospel and has died in his sins as having a hopeful chance because God will judge them on what they know>
The same can be said in any church, and unlike Calvary’s doctrine.
This brings me full circle. What is being taught at Calvary Chapel is men are not really that sinful until they become Christ rejectors,>
A non-sequitor; therefore, a pre-supposition.
But as one of our posters has stated God really is going to save everyone, its those who ‘opt out’ that are damned.>
Jesus told sinners “whoever thirsts” right? I could be wrong, but, wasn’t his ministry was for everyone.
So its not to him that will or runs (which would be fair)….but to God that shows mercy.>
Maybe it is mercy and will, and maybe it’s not.
Praise him!
foundation…
Its false its false….but what do you have to offer instead? Do you want to affirm Smithism?
All you offered was that you will not believe scripture; will you combine Mercy and will?
Thats your answer to what God has said is Mercy alone.
The non sequitor belongs to you.
You probably should read what Calvinists believe, it seems you are ready to regurgitate the same Arminian arguments that have already been answered a hundred different ways.
A universal call means that no sinner has the right to deny the claims of God upon himself to repent and believe the gospel. It does not mean that God has determined to save everyone except those that opt out.
This is your non sequitor and one that carries your error forward into unbiblical notions of Gods mercy.
OFT, I still can’t see the non sequitur, even after your explanation (#17). Perhaps I assumed too much, that you used the term “non sequitur” in its normal sense. So, to be clear, please explain what you mean by your use of the term “non sequitur” (or non-sequit*o*r, as you’ve spelled it).
If God has all knowledge, then He knows who will and will not “choose” to believe the gospel. For example, say that someone named Herman Reprobatis, 1852-1917 (fictional), died in unbelief. On Smith’s view, God knew before Reprobatis was born that he would not “choose” to believe the gospel. Since God knew before Reprobatis was born that Reprobatis wouldn’t “choose” to believe, God allowed someone to be born without the possibility of being saved. If it is said that Reprobatis *could* have still been saved in spite of God’s knowledge of the contrary, then God’s knowledge cannot be said to have been certain. Or even more troublesome, that God’s knowledge is incomplete.
Chuck Smith believes that God has all knowledge and that He doesn’t learn anything (so do I). He teaches that election & predestination are based on God’s knowledge of the future, whereas the Calvinist says it is according to the eternal decree. Smith would argue that before the world was created, God’s knowledge extended all throughout the future until the end of time and that He knew who would and wouldn’t “choose” (according to their free will) to believe the gospel. Smith’s view, and the view of the Calvary Chapel denomination by default, is that God allowed those that He knew would not choose him to be born anyway.
That being the case, if his complaint against Calvinism has any merit, then the consequences of Calvinism must be shared by Calvary Chapel too since their view yields the very implications Smith complains about in Calvinism – that God allows people to be born who have no possibility to be saved.
Since we have the same “problem,” then the focus should be on *why* God does this. Upon examination of this, the Calvinist wins.
OFT, you said: “Jesus told sinners ‘whoever thirsts’ right?”
May you provide a Scripture reference for this? I’d like understand more about your position, and a reference will help me in seeing how you interpret Scripture. Thanks.
That being the case, if his complaint against Calvinism has any merit, then the consequences of Calvinism must be shared by Calvary Chapel too since their view yields the very implications Smith complains about in Calvinism – that God allows people to be born who have no possibility to be saved.
Since we have the same “problem,” then the focus should be on *why* God does this. Upon examination of this, the Calvinist wins.>
From what I understand, the difference is free-will. Upon that examination, the Calvinist cannot win, because he doesn’t know.
OFT, you’re not making so much sense. What do you mean by “he doesn’t know?”
You might be missing the point. Example, Reprobatis dies in 1917. God had knowledge of this even in 1916, even in 1816, and even in 16BC, right? His foreknowledge is exhaustive, right? Well, if it were true in 1851 (the year before Reprobatis’ birth) that God knew he would not believe via free will, then God still allowed him to be born with no possibility to be saved, right?
Free will is a myth anyway, and wouldn’t answer the *why* mentioned above, although it has been tried numerous times…
I’d like to throw in my two cents. This article seems to imply that Smith is more Pelagian (prevalent among many churches), which I hope is not the case. The Reprobatis situation is dependant upon one’s definition of God’s Foreknowledge. To the Arminian, God’s Foreknowledge is based upon Him Knowing who will and will not reject the Gospel before creation. To the Calvinist, God’s Foreknowledge is based upon His Choice as to who will and will not reject the Gospel before creation. In both cases, Reprobatis was naturally sinful (as all of us) and already condemned. I apologise if I repeat what has been said.
According to Arminianism, God created Reprobatis knowing he would ultimately reject the Gospel. It is Reprobatis’ fault and is still a willful rejection. God permitted him to reject the Gospel.
According to Calvinism, God created Reprobatis that he would reject the Gospel. He was behaving in accordance to his nature. God Ordained him to reject the Gospel.
According to Pelagianism, despite God’s Foreknowledge, Reprobatis still could have made the choice. Thus, God’s Knowledge is incomplete and leads to Open Theism and ultimately doubts the Authority of Scripture.
The question asked is “Why would God create someone who would never repent?” One could immediately assert that “The secret things belong to the Lord our God… (Deut. 29:29).” But does this answer the question? It does and it doesn’t. Why would God create Reprobatis, Knowing (to the Arminian) he will, or Ordaining (to the Calvinist) him to, sin? Creating someone to reject the Gospel is not the same as creating someone knowing they will reject the Gospel. The answer is neither Arminian nor Calvinist. God will get the Glory for saving based upon Christ’s Merit and damning based on our sinfullness.
Too often our discussions of these matters are man-focused rather than God-focused. Are we not creatures of the Creator? (Gen 2:7-”then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.”) Are we not all sinners deserving of God’s wrath? (Eph 2:3-”among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.”)
Some may sigh and roll their eyes when I quote Romans 9:18-24, but this passage speaks to the heart of the issue:
“So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?”
As many other godly men have said, the primary question is not, “Why would God create anyone (pre)destined for hell?”, but rather, “What amazing grace that God would save any!”
Stephen,
You are right, of course. Both views affirm that God allows people to be born who he knew beforehand would end up in hell. I have great trouble with Smith’s view, because if God’s knowledge is perfect and he knows what you’ll do, then do you really have a choice? I mean if God’s says you’ll choose to go to hell, aren’t you destined to end up there? So either you believe in God’s sovereign choice (i.e., election) as expressed in Calvinism or you believe in destiny.
It seems to me that Paul answered this very question. If God chooses us and makes a decision (such as he did with Esau and Jacob), then why does he blames us?
“Not only that, but Rebekah’s children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”
What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses,
“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” It does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?” But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’ ” Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?
What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?
Thanks for that Steve. You nailed it!
Quoted from John’s post “Calvary’s position is based upon the human logic that “God must be fair” in order for God to be deserving of the love and devotion that he askes of us.”
The fairness god, is the hippie god. The word love is re-interpreted. No judgment or righteousness with that love. That’s what I came away with after years of being a cc member.
After many years of involvement in non-denominational churches which are very denominational. The understanding of man’s sin and God’s Holiness are twisted. The whole idea of venial and mortal sin is what clouds the minds of churches that do not understanding the gravity of man’s sin and God’s sovereignty.
We are all born bound for hell. It’s only God’s mercy, love toward us and His grace that chooses sinners to be saved, that anyone is saved. Not by any choosing on our part would be a work. Ephesians 2:1-10
“1And you were dead in the trespasses and sins 2in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— 3among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. 4But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, 5even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ— by grace you have been saved— 6and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.”
These like minded churches forget about the sinning in the mind. They set standards for people to live by. Which are visible only in the actions of the body. Those standards become works that are not realized by the workers of those standards, because of their misunderstanding of the sinful nature of man and his need for God’s grace toward our sin. Which isn’t a work of the Holy Spirit in their lives.
This is my experience in these types of churches and the cc denomination. I’ve also heard good teachings on grace, mercy, election and the sovereignty of God. Then it is all undone when they put their “but we’re not teaching the Calvinist view.” Then they start un-teaching what they just got through teaching from the Bible. I was in lock step with what they were saying about the “but”.
Until I received the full knowledge of man’s sin and the Beauty of God’s Holiness, did I understand the Biblical teaching of God’s election and predestination of sinners to salvation.
If we don’t understand the sinful nature of man, we’ll never understand that only God can save us by His mercy and grace.