Book Review: The Dark Side of Calvinism by George Bryson
It appears that George is restless! As Stephen wrote in a previous post, George keeps on repeating his arguments. The previous article has nothing to do with us declaring that George will not debate James White. The article is pointing to the questioning of George by James White and the ridiculous answers given by George. We have indeed asked George to provide the video of his cross-examination of James White, but he has not provided it. I took the liberty of exploring George’s book on Calvinism entitled, The Five Points of Calvinism: Weighed and Found Wanting. Here is his explanation of his credentials to speak on Calvinism:
“On many different occasions I have heard Calvinists say something like the following: If only every true Christian with a working knowledge of Scripture understood Calvinism in general and the five points in particular they would be five point Calvinists. However, as I hope it will become apparent, it is precisely because I understand Calvinism in general and the five points in particular that I am not a Calvinist– of any kind. I have spent more than 27 years in the serious study of Scripture. I could not even begin to calculate the hundreds of hours I have given to the study of Biblical, Systematic and Historical Theology. With great interest I have also carefully read the writings of Calvinists as well as those considered more moderate. Just as Calvinists can and do understand non-Calvinistic systems of theology without embracing them, so non- Calvinists, such as myself, can understand Calvinism and still reject it as unbiblical.”
Note that George says he understands Calvinism “in general.” He further says “and the five points in particular.” This is the reason he is not a Calvinist “of any kind.” George goes on to say that he has studied the Bible “seriously” for more than 27 years. George states, “I could not even begin to calculate the hundreds of hours I have given to the study of Biblical, Systematic and Historical Theology.” He has read the writings of Calvinists. George, have you read the writings of Calvin?
George, who’s systematic theology have you studied? Robert L. Reymond? Wayne Grudem? Which others? When you say you’ve studied “Historical Theology,” how is it you reject the biblical teaching on this site? It is based on Scripture and biblical historical theology.
George quoted from Loraine Boettner’s book The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination. George quotes the following from page 52: “If you understand Calvinism and still reject it, (as I do) some Calvinists will conclude that you must not really believe the Bible to be God’s Word. Nothing could be further from the truth for myself and hundreds of thousands of others. Nevertheless, a rejection of Calvinism is interpreted by some Calvinists as a rejection of God’s Word. Thus Boettner reasons that:
“The Bible unfolds a scheme of redemption which is Calvinistic from beginning to end, and these doctrines are taught with such inescapable clearness that the question is settled for all those who accept the Bible as the Word of God.[7]”
This is a nice quote, however, George, you should have quoted the rest of it. Here is what Boettner writes,
“These doctrines are set forth in the most impressive way; and the unstudied naturalness and simplicity with which they are given make them all the more impressive. Should anyone ask us the question, Are there any stars in the heavens? Our answer would be the heavens are full of stars, Ps. 8:3,4. Or again, Are there any fishes in the sea? Our answer would be, The sea is full of fishes, Ps. 104:25, 27. Or again, Are there any trees in the forest? We would again reply, The forest is full of trees. And in like manner should we be asked the question , Is the doctrine of Predestination in the Bible? Our answer should be, The Bible is full of it from Genesis to Revelation.”
Are you saying then that you reject the doctrine of predestination? I will look at your view of the five points from your book and compare them with historical theology. We are not spreading lies George. The whole point to the post of the cross-examination was the question that asked if someone could explain what you said on the video, specifically, when you said, “The point here is you cannot come, you are not able to come unless He draws you, but being able to come and actually coming to Him in faith are not exactly the same thing. He enables you to come and if you come to Him and are drawn and you can’t come to Him unless you are drawn, then He will raise you up. But He doesn’t raise people up unless they come to Him. But the ability to come He gives, but making you able to come doesn’t mean you come.”
{ 107 comments… read them below or add one }
I would say to George, you serve a weak god if indeed him can call you and man has the power to not come. Your god is a god of confusion as well, if he sent his son to die with no plan behind it. If he die for all people and not all people that he died for don’t come when they are called then that god is powerless with no order behind his plan.
The Biblical teaching of predestination come with a full understanding of the nature of God, His power, His righteousness, which He well use in the judging of people Who He calls to come to Him will come. It’s not because of anything we do because we are destine for hell because we are sinner, this is what we do because sin dwells in us. If God can not have us come to Him when He calls us to come to Him then He has no power over sinful man. Men do not desire God we are enemies of God, nothing can change that but God.
Could you imagine what would happen to George if he came out and said he now understand the power of God to call those he died for and they came to He. Chuck would boot him, then where would he be. As long as you read the Bible with anti Biblical predestination glasses you’ll never come to the understanding of Biblical predestination.
No knock on George I was there not long ago. Once my understanding had no preconceived ideas I understood and the Bible became a flowing story of God and His redemption for His people.
Mario!
Good to read you again, brother. It’s amazing to see George keep coming back and repeating the same things without argument, even when his assertions have been refuted many times over.
At this point George has not only been refuted, but has been shown to be irrational in continuing to repeat assertions that have already been refuted.
If an argument is invalid or a premise is refuted, it is not rational to continue “walking in it” as if it had not been. Now I understand that George hasn’t claimed to me that he is a rational man, but as soon as anyone makes public truth claims they are instantly bound by the laws of logic to sustain them. If they are shown to be fallacious, it is as if they had been defeated. Imagine a prisoner of war in a jail cell acting as if he is still engaged in war. We would think that prisoner is out of his mind! We’d say, “that poor guy thinks he’s still on the battlefield. He doesn’t realize he’s been captured. He keeps yelling through the jail bars that he’ll never be caught and that our prisoner-capturing strategy is ineffective, etc.”
I think of George in a similar way…
Thanks for the post!
Brothers and sisters, the issue is that George, in order to escape being held down by divine sovereignty, clings to the title of a blog, ” Why George Bryson Won’t Debate Anymore. He cries “lies, lies.” In another blog the writer wrote the following,
“I think it’s fair to say that this is a very good example of when one’s presuppositions that are brought to the biblical text do not, in fact, cannot, withstand the scrutiny of it and yet the subject (i.e., the one holding to his presuppositions) persistently does all that he can to make sense out of his no longer sustainable preconceived ideas. After all, admitting to it would necessitate radical ramifications for one’s view of God, man, and the Bible, especially when it comes to the good ol’ Calvinism vs. Arminianism debate. I do not think it’s necessarily fair to say that Bryson wasn’t trying to honor God, however. That much I think we should give him credit for.”
There is no secret! We all know George would love to debate again, Just as a fighter who is knocked out would want his opportunity to have a rematch. In an attempt to try and restore an hurt ego, everyone knows he’ll get knocked out the next time. So will it be with George in a second debate.
George responded the following, “I do not have a problem with you finding disagreement with me on your web site. It actually helps me sell my books. I do not mind hearing that you cannot understand what I am saying-because it confirms my theory that many Calvinist cannot understand what they do not agree with or are committed to.” You can read the rest at http://nomocondemnation.blogspot.com/2009/07/james-r-white-vs-george-bryson.html.
George goes into his same repetitions. I find it amazing that he says “I don’t mind that you cannot understand what I am saying-because it confirms my theory that many Calvinist cannot understand what they do not agree with or are committed to.” ??????????
I’d like to know what “my theory” is because it is really George that cannot understand what he does not agree with or what he is committed to.
Here is a comment from James White from his website about George Bryson:
” Now, I saw a lot of really bad argumentation going by as I was checking each page for citations of those three passages. It is clear that since our debate in 2002 Mr. Bryson has determined it would be best to create some kind of defense regarding John 6. Numerous pages in different sections are devoted to a very passionate, yet utterly muddled and incomprehensibly vain attempt to get around the teaching of the Lord in the synagogue in Capernaum. And though he directly quotes numerous Calvinists, all of whom point to the same textual issues (especially the fact that John 6:44 says all those who are drawn are also raised up), his tradition is so thick and so impenetrable that he continuously misses the point. In fact, he can go on to make these claims (p. 126):
*
Only in the imagination of a committed Calvinist do we see that all who are drawn by the Father come to Christ or believe in Christ.
*
Only in the imagination of the committed Calvinist do we see that being drawn by the Father means that the one drawn must come to Christ.
*
Only in the imagination of the committed Calvinist do we see that those who do not come to Christ were not drawn.
I invite the reader to review John 6:37-44 for a tremendous example of the power of tradition displayed in these incredible statements. Is it my committed Calvinist imagination that those given by the Father and those drawn by the Father are the same group? Is it my committed Calvinist imagination that all the Father gives to the Son as a result of being given come to the Son (Bryson rejects this simple grammatical and textual fact). Is it just my Calvinist imagination that the “him” who is drawn in 6:44 is the “him” who is raised up (another plain textual fact Bryson ignores)? One thing is for certain: the words of the Lord Jesus recorded for us in this passage continue to refute every vain effort made by men to mute their testimony to God’s utter sovereignty in the matter of salvation.
I should, however, note one positive thing: there are so many citations of good, solid Reformed sources in this book that I truly believe Mr. Bryson has unwittingly lent us a hand in “getting the word out.” Evidently he feels his replies are compelling, but in fact, most of the time, he simply does not provide a comprehensible, let alone a compelling, reply. Therefore, I truly believe we will see more folks coming to see the importance of rightly handling God’s truth in the matter of His sovereignty as a result of this book. The site is http://vintage.aomin.org/BlogArchives0104.html
Howdy Mario,
I have read George Bryson and have observed how he tries to make (inaccurate) distinctions even within Calvinistic doctrines. His Book, “The Dark Side of Calvinism” is really not a scholarly work in that he lumps most Calvinists into “hyper-Calvinism” because he wants to maintain “autonomous Free-will.” His definition of freedom is sloppy and inaccurate.
Thanks for shining the light on this error.
Hey Guys
I missed you all. I hope you missed me. I have been traveling a lot recently and have to ration my time on the computer. In my absence I appreciate what you have done to keep my books on the radar. Books of a theological nature can be a “hard sell” sometimes. I believe in giving credit where it is due, and you folks deserve a lot of credit for the exposure my book seems to be getting. You know what they say-”no bad publicity. Anyway, I hope you are all happy and in good health and I am serious about this. Have a great day. I thought you might like to read some of what some of your comrades have have been saying about me as well as what some who do not seem to agree with you. Feel free to say anything you want about anything that is said-I know you do not need my permission anyway. Keep these quotes up as long as you long and be assured I will not send you a bill. In Christ, and still friends I hope.
“George Bryson…has as much ability to write a systematic theology as I have to star in the NBA finals.” (a really short white guy I assume)
“I think Bryson is theologically incompetent and an embarrassment to exegetes everywhere if you want to be offended by something.” (can anyone identify?)
“The idea of him writing a systematic theology would be hysterically funny if not for the fact that he actually thinks he’s qualified to write one.” (what? No one disagrees)
“There are some good exegetes in CC…don’t embarrass the whole group with this drivel.” (Now that really hurts!)
Hi George,
I met you several years ago in Starkville, MS when you spoke on Calvinism. I was on staff of a different church…I read your Statement of Faith. Wow! It’s more Baptist than the Baptist Faith & Message (the measuring stick for Baptist orthodoxy…). This is exactly what I have believed since I was saved in ‘73, but the Baptist Faith & Message is now fairly Calvinistic. Arghhh! … When I lived in Flagstaff, AZ I was involved with Calvary Chapel. Bob Irish (now in Ventura, CA) was my pastor. He’s a great guy. Keep on blessin’ folks, George!
Concerning Bryson and Calvinism
“…If Pastor Chuck wants to refute Calvinism, I plead with him to find people in the company who are qualified to do so.” The Calvinist moderator of what many consider an anti-Calvary Chapel pro-Calvinist website. (A Calvinist I think)
The Dark Side of Calvinism
There are a lot of books that have been written to promote the Reformed doctrine of redemption and reprobation. There are relatively few books that have been written to challenge what is more commonly referred to as the Calvinist doctrine of salvation and damnation. One reason is that most non-Calvinists have never taken the time to seriously look into what Calvin and Calvinism teaches. There was a day in which that may have been OK. Today, however, Calvinism is coming at the rest of us (aggressively) from all sides. The Calvinist doctrine of salvation and damnation is no longer confined (if indeed it ever was) to Presbyterianism, The Dutch Reformed, Particular or Reformed Baptists or a relatively few others that have gone down the Reformed road.
Now there are “modified” dispensationalists like John MacArthur passionately promoting the Calvinist doctrine of salvation and damnation through “Lordship Salvation, doctrine” a variation and expansion of the fifth point of Calvinism (i.e., perseverance of the saints). A few years ago a Charismatic Calvinist was practically unheard of. Today, John Piper is not only one of the most popular Evangelicals in America he is one of the most outspoken and ardent defenders of Calvinism in the country as well. Men like MacArthur and Piper will not likely replace the R.C. Sproul’s or the Lorraine Boettner’s in the Reformed community, but they are helping swell the numbers of those who embrace Reform doctrine (not to be confused with the Reformation). We now have hyper-Calvinism as well as the more common variety of Calvinism called hypo-Calvinism (i.e., “mainstream Calvinism) that sounds a lot ( or exactly) like what used to be called “extreme” Calvinism.
What we need today are a few more Biblicists that can and will graciously, carefully, prayerfully and scripturally answer Calvinism. I have known George Bryson since before he was a student of mine at Western Theological Seminary. This was back a few decades when we were both much younger. If you presently share the convictions of Calvinism and are committed to the cause of Calvinism, George’s book The Dark Side of Calvinism may leave you feeling more than a little uncomfortable. For that he does not apologize. I can recommend The Dark Side of Calvinism and his earlier primer titled The Five Points of Calvinism-Weighed and Found Wanting, not only because in them he fairly represents the Reformed doctrine of salvation and damnation but because in them he also clearly and scripturally refutes the Reformed doctrine of salvation and damnation.
If you believe that what the Bible says about why some are saved and others damned is important, The Dark Side of Calvinism is must reading for you. If you are a Calvinist, it may not only make you think, but it should also help you rethink Calvinism. If you read reviews about a book before or after you read the book, you may have noticed that George’s books typically average two and ½ stars out of five. Look closer. It is not because many people rate his books with 2 and ½ stars. Rather, it is because committed Calvinists almost always give him a one star (the worst rating a book can receive) and almost everyone else that takes the time to read and rate his books gives him five stars (the best rating they can give a book). You may love The Dark Side of Calvinism because it exposes the dark side of Calvinism (in the light of Scripture) or you may hate it for the same reason (i.e., because it exposes the dark side). Either way, it is much more likely that this book will keep you awake than put you to sleep.
Dr. Earl D. Radmacher
Former President of Western Baptist Theological Seminary
(Could a really educated man say such things?)
“You can have John 3: 16 or John Calvin”. Much to his credit, Bryson displays a strong bent to serious scholarship…something notably deficient in much of popular evangelical propoundings. He employs no `straw man’ mischaracterizations, instead citing prominent Calvinists themselves, Bryson intends to be both accurate and thorough. Some will think he is too thorough; by the middle of the book he has completely refuted both Calvinist logic and Calvinist exegesis–in fact he has successfully demonstrated that the consistent Calvinist must practice the dubious art of eisegesis (pressing a meaning into a text, as required by an immovable presupposition), rather than the necessary practice of exegesis (drawing a meaning from a text)…On some points Bryson’s theology and soteriology depart considerably from mine…but he knows his topic here and he knows the arguments of those who would oppose him. His book deserves a large readership within the evangelical community, especially among Calvinists and those potentially tempted by Calvinism’s `happy face’ (unconditional election [to life]) but not cognizant of its `dark side…(On-line review-by Wesley Janssen)
Excellent, Logical Rebuttal To Calvinism-This book puts into words the way I’ve always felt about the sovereignty of God and the accountability of Man. I appreciated the way the author refutes Calvinism using logic. I especially liked the section where he shows how Calvinists skew the argument by only presenting two alternatives. (Have you stopped beating your wife, yes or no)…Thanks for a great, meaty yet readable/understandable book! (On-line review by Yeshua’s Girl)
An Excellent, In-Depth Examination of the Problems with Calvinism- George Bryson knows the teachings of Calvinism better than any Calvinist I’ve ever met. This book is an excellent, well-researched, thoroughly footnoted, in-depth, Biblical examination of where Calvinism has departed from the Scriptures. If you have been struggling with Calvinism, or have questions about Calvinism, you’ll find this book very helpful. (Charlie Campbell-Evangelical Author/Apologist-Always Be Ready Apologetics).
EXCELLENT BOOK! Once I picked it up I could not put it down. Point after well thought out points were made and the researched content was eye opening! If you are in need of a balanced book on Calvinism, then this is the one for you my friend! (On-line review by Blessed John “phototiger”)
The Dark Side of Calvinism by George Bryson is another light in the spectrum of books dispelling the gloom of Calvinism. Up until a few years ago, there were very few books challenging the labyrinth of Calvinistic logic, but recently, several books have been written, each with their own strengths. Laurence Vance’s The Other Side of Calvinism is an excellent source for seeing in their own words what Calvinists teach and believe. C. Gordon Olson’s Beyond Calvinism and Arminianism: An Inductive, Mediate Theology of Salvation contains some of the strongest exegetical arguments against Calvinism that exist. Dave Hunt added his weight with the striking book What Love Is This?
Bryson’s book is a mixture of these others. Like Vance, he has numerous quotes from Calvinistic authors. Like Olson, he includes exegetical arguments. Like Hunt, he employs logic to show the illogic of Calvinism. Bryson’s real strength, however, is in the tone of the book. His book is full of grace. Of all the books written against the so-called “Doctrines of Grace” his is the most gracious. This is an amazing feat considering that his primary purpose was to show the Scriptural abuses, logical sinkholes, and foreboding theological implications inherent in the Calvinistic system.
One way he was able to accomplish his gracious tone was through numerous and memorable illustrations which cleverly shed light on the illogic of the Calvinistic logic (e.g. pp. 80, 83, 89, 97, 353). Of course, I don’t think Calvinists are amused, no matter how gracious Bryson is, for he says “it is the ‘distinctives’ of the Reformed faith that are of concern to me and are the focus of this book” (p. 16). He wants to make sure his readers understand that only Calvinism is under attack—not Calvinists…victims of their own theology (pp. 16-17).
The Calvinistic crimes Bryson is most concerned with revolve around three central distinctives: the doctrine of reprobation (chaps 2-3; p. 31), the idea that God causes sin (p. 17, 68-69), and the Calvinist’s lack of assurance (pp. 245, 268, 270-71, 284, 286). Though most Calvinists deny all three of these teachings, Bryson shows that consistent Calvinists must either believe these things, or reject their entire system. The logic of Calvinism—the good, the bad and the ugly – stands or falls together (pp. 49-53, 275).
Since this is the nature of Calvinism (p. 51), Bryson does not feel compelled to deal with the five points of Calvinism as traditionally presented, namely, TULIP. Nor does he begin with what is considered the “weakest link”: Limited Atonement. Instead, Bryson takes the bull by the horns and begins at the central and strongest point—Unconditional Election (chaps 2-3). From there he goes on to deal with Limited Atonement (chaps 4-5), Irresistible Grace (chaps 6-7), Total Depravity (chaps 8-9), and Perseverance of the Saints (chaps 10-11).
Each of the five points is dealt with in two chapters. The first explains the point using numerous Calvinistic quotes. If you want to know what Calvinists teach, you don’t have to trust Bryson to tell you; he lets them tell you in their own words. The second chapter of each point is devoted to the Scriptural and logical refutation of the point just explained. Bryson closes out the book with what is often called the “Sixth Point of Calvinism”—the Sovereignty of God (chap 12) and a summary chapter (chap 13).
…I found many references where the Gospel was presented as faith alone in Christ alone (pp. 30, 121, 130, 154, 171, 176, 177, 189, 190, 191, 192, 196, 199, 202-203, 205, 206, 207, 225, 231, 244, 246-49, 348, 349, 350, 352, 356, 366, to name a few). In one place, he very clearly states that “While it must be emphasized that we bring nothing but faith, it must also be emphasized that we must bring faith. …Requiring the lost to bring faith is not to ask the lost to make a contribution to their salvation, but it is a consistent reminder that salvation is all of God and not at all of man” (p. 244, italics his).
…In the same vein, he takes Calvinists to task for their weak stance on assurance. Because of their doctrine of perseverance of the saints, he forcefully points out that no one who believes in the Calvinist doctrine of Perseverance of the Saints can have assurance of salvation (pp. 245, 268, 270-71, 284, 286). I love his statement on p. 286 that says, “The Calvinist doctrine of salvation provides no more assurance of salvation than Arminianism does, and perhaps less.” (Jeremy Meyers-book reviewer for Grace Evangelical Society (GES)).
The Five Points of Calvinism
Great critique of the Calvinist Doctrine…I found this book incredibly simple to comprehend, yet insightful and convincing. This is a manageable, well-balanced read for anyone interested in a critique of Calvinism. Without name-calling (as some so-called “Christian” reviewers do on these webpages and thus give a very poor image of a Christian church in America), George Bryson presents a structured, Bible-based presentation of Calvinism’s inconsistencies….
Wonderful summary and critique of Calvinism and its flaws… The issues raised with Calvinism still remain very hotly debated subjects within the Christian world. I came across this little gem while studying issues related to flaws inherent in Calvinistic doctrine. It should be noted that I neither subscribe entirely to nor wish to defend Arminianism by disagreeing with Calvinism. One of the dangers involved with studying these doctrines lies in the temptation to choose either/or – Calvinist or Arminian, which simply creates a false dichotomy and discourages thorough contemplation and examination of scripture. However, the issue here is Calvinism. One of the main dangers of Calvinism lies in that Calvinistic doctrine does not send up the red flag to most Christians like other false doctrines may. This is because although the typical Christian may not be aware of it, Calvinistic leanings have become standard doctrine for many evangelical Christian churches all over the world. In fact, many Christians believe Calvinistic doctrine and may not even know it, at least in terms of being “Calvinist” doctrine.
This book’s value stems first from its conciseness and accuracy and should be in the library of any Christian because how one views these issues literally determines how you perceive God, other people, and reality itself. Second, perhaps the most convincing and credible reason the book represents such a valuable find lies in the fact that instead of trying to explain Calvinism himself, Bryson lets Calvinists do the explaining for themselves. This approach becomes extremely telling with regard to the inescapable flaws of the Calvinistic perspective. Thirdly, Bryson’s arguments remain extremely sound (both scripturally and logically) throughout.
Structurally, the book has two parts. The first deals with what Calvinism says and is according to the most influential and famous Calvinists in history. The second deals with the theological and philosophical implications (i.e. why Calvinism is wrong) of the Calvinistic perspective.
These issues (the five points of Calvinism and the issues they in turn raise) remain among the most critical of the entire Christian worldview and should be understood thoroughly and refuted readily. This book provides for and facilitates both. Highly recommended. (On-line Review by J.D.)
There are four or five major Christian cults (those which use the name of Christ and somewhat rely on the Bible as the basis for their beliefs), but Bryson introduces Calvinism as an additional system of theology to beware of. Unfortunately, Calvinism has been developed, systematized, and reduplicated in most Christian commentaries, theology books, and even institutes of higher education. It is not recognized by most as a man-made system of thought that significantly departs from the teachings of the Bible. Whereas the Bible teaches that 1) man can and does respond to the truth of the gospel, that 2) the believer (on the basis of his position in Christ) is selected for service and ultimate glorification (in accord with the foreknowledge of God), that 3) the Lord Jesus died for and redeemed the whole world of men without exception, that 4) man is indeed able to refuse the gospel message and is not irresistibly forced to believe it by the Holy Spirit, and that 5) the believer can utterly fail in his Christian life (and therefore lose blessings in this life and rewards in the life to come, but can’t lose or forfeit the non-revocable eternal life promised by God), it is abundantly clear that Calvinism, as a system, is an unfortunate aberation of true biblical doctrine. Bryson, in this work, makes the faults of the Calvinistic system abundantly clear. Bryson does a brilliant job of summarizing the teachings of reformed theology in the area of salvation. (On-line review by Tony Badger “The Badger”)
One of the best short treatments of Calvinism in print. I bought this book from Amazon last year, and I was greatly impressed with it. One of the most important points it stresses is that the Calvinism-Arminianism debate is actually improper, because there exists a THIRD (more biblical) alternative that is neither Calvinist nor Arminian. Alas, that point is forever lost on critics from the Reformed camp especially, who have been brainwashed by their elders into believing that all non-Calvinists like Bryson are “Arminians”. And predictably, some reviewers are upset because Bryson dares to insinuate that their sacrosanct Reformed tradition departs from scripture on the salvation issue — which it surely does. Dave Hunt explains the details of all that in his 600-page book, but George Bryson does a very admirable job in pointing out the basic scriptural weaknesses of Calvinism in this relatively brief volume. And, in spite of reviewer accusations to the contrary, I believe Bro. Bryson does so with a gracious spirit. Way to go, George! (On-line review by Terry L. Burnett-USA.Net)
Concise, Fair, Irenic, Primer on Calvinism. Hats off to George Bryson for the best concise guide on the Five Points of Calvinism that I have read to date. In all fairness to Calvinists of all stripes Bryson devotes the first half of this small format 120 page book to letting the Calvinists describe their own system–from the donkey’s mouth so to speak. Since there are so many flavors of Calvinism, he graciously presents their “soft” and “hard” takes on the T.U.L.I.P. The second half is his rebuttal to each of the five points using Scripture. Bryson rightly points out, as I have in other reviews, “that there is no Calvinism without [all] the Five Points. I agree with Bryson and mainstream Calvinists that there is no such beast as a “moderate” or “3, 4-point Calvinist”. The five points stand or fall as a unit. However, being a “non-Calvinist” doesn’t mean you are an Arminian either. A moderate or mediate view disagrees with both of the extremes. Biblicists, whether they realize it or not, actually disagree with all five points and not just Limited Atonement. Bryson correctly says “As long as Christians think the Calvinist doctrine of Total Depravity is simply that all have sinned; or that the Calvinist distinctive of unconditional election is that salvation is unmerited; or even that the Calvinistic view of perseverance can be equated with the doctrine of “once saved always saved,” they will continue to incorrectly think of themselves as Calvinists.” I wish some of our leading biblical/dispensational theologians and teachers would wake up to this fact and stop confusing other believers by calling themselves a “something or other Calvinist”! For more on this important distinction see also Samuel Fisk’s excellent work Calvinistic Paths Retraced. Other insights include, “The problem with the Calvinistic view of perseverance is similar to the problem of the Arminian view of perseverance. That is, in Calvinism and Arminianism, justification and sanctification are hardly (if at all) distinguishable.”, and “Calvinism denies the believer assurance whereas Arminianism denies the believer security.” Finally, Bryson couldn’t have summed up Calvinism any better “A person will either be saved or damned FOR all eternity because they were saved or damned FROM all eternity”. To paraphrase the Calvinist professor James Daane; all roads in Calvinism lead to reprobation. Too long to quote here, but please be sure to check out the quote on page 118 from Calvinist theologian John S. Feinberg…very candid and telling remarks about his own system!! This little book is highly recommended. I also look forward to reading Bryson’s in-depth book entitled The Dark Side of Calvinism: The Calvinist Caste System. (On-line review by Whosoever Will “Biblicist”.
What? You think he has been brainwashed?
The hireling surfaces and has no shame about it.
George:
Im glad you feel good about your ‘amen corner’. The Calvies have theirs too. Just so you know the Mormons also have theirs and so do the JW’s.
Human back-slaps validate nothing and you know it. The anti-Calvinists dont care 1 iota about our recommendations from pro-Calvinist readership.
“Consistent Calvinism”. Ive noticed that is the way to bait-and-switch.
The way thats used is,….”If the Calvinist were consistent then they would believe the conclusions Ive stated”. Then George you go on to tell the Arminian believers what we believe when in fact we dont believe those things and we dont arrive at those same conclusions. So you switch what we do believe for what you say we believe.
The way you do this to convince others is to add your numerous quotes.
George I read your “wieghed and found wanting book” and it was a very inaccurate book and the quotes were stated in a way to feed the reader your conclusions not to prove your conclusion. You did a good job in leading the witness and then get answers to questions you steered the argument toward. George its just plain dishonest and its not Christ-like.
If your book was actually dangerous to the reformed theological position, the reformed theologians of today would have to really read it over and weigh in on your conclusions and your evidence that set back the reformed doctrines or 5 points.
But, in fact no one is taking you seriously, none of the reformed theologians consider you even as dangerous as a fly in the ointment.
What you do George is keep the Calvary Chapelites from going any farther with biblical truth than the trite and shallow teachings that Calvary Chapels have offered the body of Christ. Youre not advancing the kingdom George your keeping people confused about what the reformers taught Ive got young believers with anti-calvinistic mindsets simply because its black-balled by evil reports. Not that they can prove or can substantiate their disagreements with reformed teaching, but they are doing so on
name association. Smithism is good, Calvinism is bad. Coursonism is good, boettner is bad.
Yet. the comedic end is great appreciation for Edwards, Bunyan, Calvin, Piper, Mcarthur…why? Because as I heard from one Calvary Chapel attender…”Dude these guys are great and they teach the word with a depth I dont hear very often”.
So how many recommendations does it take to make a rebuttal to Calvinism into a “highly recommended book?” I suppose as many as will read your book and never read Calvin or Piper or McArthur for themselves.
John
If your book was actually dangerous to the reformed theological position, the reformed theologians of today would have to really read it over…
It is rather doubtful that they would do that.
@John
You pointed out something very important when you quoted George as saying, ”If the Calvinist were consistent then they would believe the conclusions I’ve stated.”
He then goes on to tell his readers that Calvinist actually believe “such and such.” Well, I guess we could play that game as well.
Since George believes in free will, and if he were consistent, he would have to deny divine inspiration regarding the scriptures; therefore, George Bryson denies divine inspiration.
FPB,
And if he (by implication) denies divine inspiration then he necessarily denies inerrancy, and if he denies inerrancy he denies the only grounds for objective theological knowledge, and without objective grounds for theological knowledge he cannot say with any certainty whether Calvinism is true or false – yet he’s written a book about it littered with such claims! LOL
Gentlemen, Gentlemen
Why the need to be so angry or hostile all the time. Even if you do live a long-life I do not think that it will be a happy life with all this (whatever it is you have built up inside) if you do not attempt to enjoy life a bit more. I do not hear this kind of hostility from Piper. In fact, he says he is enjoying God and I believe him. Do you? Maybe you should take up a hobby or something. Do I sound all that angry to you? I know you disagree with me-you are supposed to. You are a Calvinist and I am not. That is Ok-I can live with it. Besides as you have pointed out none of the really smart people are listening and if they are listening with an I.Q. higher than a toaster, they are buying it. Have a good night from the other side of the world or day from the other side of the world-In Christ, the non-Calvinist
Sorry-correction-there goes my theory about being inerrant!
“Besides as you have pointed out none of the really smart people are listening to me and if they are listening with an I.Q. higher than a toaster, they are not buying it. Have a good night or day from the other side of the world-In Christ, the non-Calvinist that no one that is anyone is paying attention to”.
WHAT REFORMED REVIVAL?
For many years I have repeatedly heard that all of the great missionary/evangelists of days gone by were Calvinists. Now I am frequently hearing about all of the people who are coming to Christ through the Gospel of Calvinism or the Doctrines of Grace or The Five Points of Calvinism (or whichever of these labels you prefer). I get calls and e-mails telling me that I must be blind not to see the great Reformed revival that is taking place all over the world. And I confess, if there is a great Reformed revival that is actually leading the lost to faith in Christ, I must be blind.
I am not boasting or complaining when I say that I have been in full time ministry more than forty two years. I have lived and ministered all over America in many different cities and states. I have had my own talk show, and have talked to hundreds of thousands of believers over the years. I have also been the guest of others on their talk shows, including Calvinists. I have been the guest speaker at hundreds of churches over the decades I have been in the ministry. I have travelled to many countries and have spent more than 22 years travelling back and forth (almost monthly) to Russia. In all these years and in all of these places I have never seen evidence of this Reformed revival.
In fact, I have never even met or talked to a Calvinist who told me they came to Christ through the preaching of the Reformed Gospel. I have interviewed some well-known and respected Calvinists (including R.C. Sproul Sr.) and they have all told me of coming to Christ through the ministry and message of a non-Calvinist. What am I supposed conclude from this? Am I missing something? When Calvinists refer to a great Reformed revival are they talking about the lost coming to Christ for salvation or they talking about the saved coming to Calvinism for a Calvinist kind of reformation?
When I point this out my Calvinist friends (who all came to Christ knowing nothing about the Calvinist Gospel through non-Calvinist churches and evangelists) cry foul. They say that the Gospel (1 Cor. 15: 1-3) is the same but it is your understanding of the Gospel that is different once you become reformed. While that is true, would it not also strongly suggest that something is very enemic about the Calvinist Gospel. All the great Calvinist writers have told us what the Calvinist doctrines of grace are or what the Calvinist Gospel is. Why doesn’t anyone seem to use the Calvinist Gospel or use it effectively? After all, it is supposed to be the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes (Rom. 1: 16). Right?
Please do not misunderstand me. I am not saying that as a Calvinist or believing as a Calvinist you have never led anyone to faith in Christ. Surely some Calvinists have led some non-Christians to Christ. I am simply saying that like the Prince of Preachers, Charles Spurgeon, you have to preach to the lost as if you were not a Calvinist and did not believe in or know about Calvinism to be effective in Evangelism. Think for a minute. Why do you suppose a lot of non-Calvinists really like Spurgeon? Do you think it could be because he preached a very non-Reformed Gospel as if there was no such thing as a Calvinist Gospel or a useful Calvinist Gospel while doing the work of an evangelist?
Why do you suppose Spurgeon had so many critics among the Calvinists of his day? Do you really believe it was because they were just hyper-Calvinists? Do you think that it could be because they did not recognize the Gospel he preached as Reformed. Am I not saying that great Calvinist preachers today never lead the lost to saving faith in Christ. I am saying that when they preach to the lost, they preach a Gospel that is distinctively not Reformed. They answer the question “What must I do to be said?” as Paul and Silas did for the Philippian jailor (Acts: 16: 26-31). Why do you suppose D. James Kennedy was so effective with and through Evangelism Explosion? Or why do you suppose so many non-Calvinists like Evangelism Explosion? Do you think it could be because Evangelism Explosion (as I documented in my first book on Calvinism) ignores the Calvinist Gospel and uses one closer to the Gospel of the New Testament, the one many non-Calvinists have used for two-thousand years?
I assume that a great preacher like Piper has led many to faith in Christ. I assume that a great preacher like MacArthur has led many to Christ. This is not about counting noses. It is about what gets those noses into the kingdom of God. Despite what they say the Calvinist Gospel says, when they preach to the lost, they do so as if there was no such thing as a Calvinist Gospel. Most of us (myself and especially included) could only dream of having a gift of preaching like a Piper or a MacArthur. No matter what they say the Gospel means or implies they never go near an unbeliever with such a Gospel. Why? I think you know why!
In other words, these men are effective not because of their Calvinist Gospel but in spite of it and because they rely on something much closer to the Biblical Gospel when preaching to the lost. Still, I must ask, why it is so hard to find a Calvinist who came to Christ through a Calvinist ministry or in a Calvinist church? One reason is that Calvinist ministries and churches are much more focused on reaching (converting) the non-Calvinist believer for the cause of Calvinism than they are for reaching the lost for Christ. The enthusiasm that Calvinists feel for Calvinism (whatever it is) is only a revival of enthusiasm fo Refomed theolog. Sorry-not the same thing as a revival that leads the lost to the Savior.
Finally, why is it that while I was planting churches in Russia by winning the lost to faith in Christ (not nearly as many as I would like to have won and would still like to win), I never saw many (if any) Calvinists engaged in evangelism? Now that there are a lot of non-Reformed believers that came to Christ (after the walls came down) I do see more Calvinists coming to the mission field. To date, I have never seen a Calvinist, a group of Calvinists, or a Calvinist church coming to Russia to start a church by winning the lost to faith in Christ. They seem to be coming to reach the already regenerate with the Gospel of Calvinism, which is about reformation and not regeneration or faith in our Savior.
Just a few things to think about! In Christ, George
George,
I’m a Calvinist that is involved in evangelism. It is what I love to do! If you’d stop calling them Calvinists for the same of labeling them in a negative light and call them what they are, biblical, then your argument falls to the ground.
There are many out there evangelizing George. Do you have that much information or been around the planet to make the statements you do? Just because you have not seen them, doesn’t mean they are not out doing ministry. You can be so contentious……….
“They seem to be coming to reach the already regenerate with the Gospel of Calvinism, which is about reformation and not regeneration or faith in our Savior.”
This is a statement made in ignorance. May God have mercy on you.
I am coming to realize something important. I see God’s sovereign work in and through the modern evangelical churches. From Saddleback Church to Calvary Chapels….I meet more and more brothers and sisters becoming Calvinists and giving God the glory! Just this weekend I met 3 couples.
God is on His throne. He is definitely using the Calvary Chapel system to save sinners and then brings them out into the doctrines of grace.
Hey Mario
So cheer up? If this is what you mean by revival I had it all wrong. For once you and I may see eye to eye. The Reformed revival is a revival of Reformed theology and not much in the way of reaching the lost, Thanks for the clarification and for the show of solidarity. In Christ, George
Hey Mario
I have a challenge for you.
“If you [and company would] stop calling [me those who do not believe in the fatalism of Calvinism, Armenians,Syernetsist, Semi-Pelagian and man centered] for the sak of labeling [us] in a negative light and call [us] what we are, biblical, then [I would consider not calling you a Calvinist.
But I thought you were proud of the lable and the association. My mistake. In Christ, George
I would think someone referring to me as “contentious” on this site, given all that you have “contentiously” said about so many others on this site, is like Danny Devito complaining about too many short people in Hollywood. I think you will see (if you review the record) that even after your many less than “godly” remarks about me, I have responded in a very civil and even charitable fashion toward you and others on this site. I could say ((what you have said about me) to you but If I did then I could not be very civil or charitable. Could I?
To the real issue. Someone on this site (probably a fan of mine) asked me if I have read Calvin. I can actually said I have read Calvin’s Institutes (the longer and finished version) in two English translations. I have also read all of his commentaries that I could find printed or on the Interenet, which I believe to be all but the book of Revelation. I honestly wonder how many Calvinists have actually read much about Calvin. Someting when I quote him at legnth and certainly in context (and with my own commentary or explanation of what he meant by what he said, I have been called everything but beutiful. The scholars and theologians of this website are of course, very well informed not just about what others say Calvin meant but by what Calvin said. Since it appears to me that we all want to get back the real issuesI would like to try your patience by quoting a few comments made by Calvin. I do not wish to argue with you over what Calvin said-he said what he said-I can leave it at that. What I would like to know is “can you agree with what he said at it is” or is it required that it be explain in ways that will make it palatable or even better understood. These are not trick questions. Questioning my motives for asking them may score you browny points with some friends but it will not advance the cause of Christ or of Calvinism that you seem to think are closely related and I disagree.
“By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which He determined within Himself whatever He wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are predestined to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each have been created for one or other of those ends, we say that he has been create for life or death.”
Just in case somone is not familiar of The Westminister Confesion viewed the same matter, here what it says:
“According to the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men…are predestined unto everlasting life; and other are foreordained to everlasting death… These…men, thus predestined and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number so certain and definite, that it cannot either be increased or diminished.”
Calvin explained that:
“… Since the arrangement of all things is in the hand of God, since to Him belongs the disposal of life and death, He arranges all things by His sovereign counsel, in such a way that individuals are born, who are doomed from the womb to certain death, and are to glorify him by their destruction. … I, for my part, am willing to admit that mere prescience [foreknowledge] lays no necessity on the creatures … the dispute is superfluous since life and death are acts of the divine will rather than of prescience. If God merely foresaw human events, and did not also arrange and dispose of them at his pleasure, there might be room for agitating the question, how far his foreknowledge amounts to necessity; but since he foresees the things which are to happen, simply because he has decreed that they are so to happen, it is vain to debate about prescience, while it is clear that all events take place by his sovereign appointment.”
And:
“There is no random power, or agency, or motion in the creatures, who are so governed by the secret counsel of God, that nothing happens but what he has knowingly and willingly decreed … the counsels and wills of men are so governed as to move exactly in the course which he has destined.”
Is Calvin going to far or have some Calvinist understood him to be saying something other than what he seems to be saying.? I am looking for an honest, civil response. Will I get one? In Christ, George
Someone on this site asked me if I had read Wayne Grudem. I can say that I have not only read Wayne Grudem but find is Systematic Theology useful when trying to undestand what Calvinists mean by what they say. I am not sure about you, but I accept Grudem’s basic understanding of Calvinism as consistent with mainstream Calvinism. Do you? I really appreciate the way Grudem explains what he believes Calvinists mean by predestination. Do you? More importantly do you agree with what he says:
“The analogy of an author writing a play may help… In the Shakespearean play Macbeth, the character Macbeth murders King Duncan. Now (if we assume for a moment that this is a fictional account), the question may be asked, “Who killed King Duncan?” On one level, the correct answer is “Macbeth.” Within the context of the play he carried out the murder and is rightly to blame for it. But on another level, a correct answer to the question, “Who killed King Duncan?” “William Shakespeare:” he wrote the play, he created all the characters in it, and he wrote the part where Macbeth killed King Duncan.
What do you think? Good analogy or bad analogy? Remeber we are being civil now. Right?
Hey Gentlemen (or ladies)
I like the straightfoward, non-sense, no punches pulled reasoning of R.C. Sproul Jr. Anyone share my views? When it comes to the introduction of sin in the world he seems to be in agreement with Cheung, You would probably know better that I do. What do you think about what he says in Almighty over All?:
God wills all things that come to pass. … God desired for man to fall into
sin. … God created sin.
Sproul Jr. explains that we only have four options:
Adam, Eve, Satan, [or] God…
He then says:
The difficult question is how men came to be sinners in the first place. Remember that once there was God and nothing else. Now there is not only God and the universe but also evil. Where did it come from?
Sproul Jr. rules out Adam, Eve, and even Satan because they were created good and as such are supposedly incapable of doing bad on their own. He then says:
Who are we left with? The case against God, the argument that he must be the one who introduced evil into his world, does not just rest merely on the process of elimination.
Sproul Jr. goes on to say:
We know that God was present…he is always present…Did God have the means? Of course he did. There is no power greater than him that could somehow stop him from changing Eve’s inclination [from good to evil]. We know that it is not only possible for God to change a person’s inclination; we know in fact that it is his habit to do so. He does it all the time…But even if God works through secondary causes-hires someone else to do his work for him-he cannot cease to be the primary cause. In a human trial we recognize that hiring a hit man does not shift the blame from the hirer to the hiree. Both the triggerman and whoever ordered the hit stand trial for the crime. And both can hang for it.
The same could apply to Adam and Eve and the fall. God might not have operated on Eve personally. He might not have flipped the switch, changing her inclinations from good to evil. He must, however, have been the ultimate cause. He could have set things up in advance, arranged all the possibilities such that it would happen. But as the sole creator and controller of those possibilities, the trail ultimately leads back to God.”
Is Sproul Jr. right? I do not think Sproul Sr. would agree, but I could be wrong. What do you think? Still civil!
There is an advantage of being 11 time zones away. I am sending you a few “howdy” notes while you sleep. Time to wake up and enjoy this wonderful day that God has made. Let us, Calvinist and non-Calvinist alike, rejoice and be glad in it. Now back to work, George
A. A. Hodge, an Infralapsarian, admits that:
… All the world knows that as a predestinarian [Calvin] went to the length of Supralapsarianism*, from which… the Synod of Dort, and the Assembly of Westminster, recoiled.
John Piper says:
…I conclude with Jonathan Edwards, ‘God decrees all things, even all sins.
Edwin Palmer says:
This is the awesome biblical asymmetry. God ordains sin and man is to blame.
Calvin complained about his detractors because:
They deny that it is ever said in distinct terms, God decreed that Adam should perish by his revolt. As if the same God, who is declared in Scripture to do whatsoever he pleases, could have made the noblest of his creatures without any special purpose. They say that, in accordance with free-will, he was to be the architect of his own fortune, that God had decreed nothing but to treat him according to his desert. If this frigid fiction is received, where will be the omnipotence of God, by which, according to his secret counsel on which every thing depends, he rules over all? But whether they will allow it or not, predestination is manifest in Adam’s posterity. It was not owing to nature that they all lost salvation by the fault of one parent. Why should they refuse to admit with regard to one man that which against their will they admit with regard to the whole human race? Why should they in caviling lose their labor? Scripture proclaims that all were, in the person of one, made liable to eternal death. As this cannot be ascribed to nature, it is plain that it is owing to the wonderful counsel of God.
Comforting thought to start the day with, unless you are “born doomed from womb”? But who cares about those reprobates? Certainly not God. Right? You really got to love that asymmetry.
When we examine ourselves, we should be able to say as Job did,
“”Then Job answered the LORD: 2″I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted. 3 ‘Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge?’ Therefore I have uttered what I did not understand, things too wonderful for me, which I did not know. 4 ‘Hear, and I will speak; I will question you, and you declare to me.’ 5 I had heard of you by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye sees you; 6 therefore I despise myself, and repent in dust and ashes.” Job 42:1-6
George: So youve read all Calvins commentaries? So you like Grudem?
So you read reformed theologians of all kinds?
But in the end youve done nothing more with it than come here to mock?
These reformed brothers are grappling with hard issues, theyre confronting things that many will not confront.
For you George this issue is what are you going to do with what youve read and heard? I realize that you are a celebrity of sorts and that even though you are heavily criticized by the reformed camp, you have alot of favor with other camps.
Here’s something for you to consider, when the non-calvinist comes to a Church and he begins to expound his Arminian views, does he draw away
many many people after him and the Church begins to split?
Or is it when a Calvinist comes to an Arminian based Church and his views are heard fairly and openly, what happens? You got it, many will begin to reconsider thier previous teachings and compare them with scripture.
George, they begin to see that God’s sovereignty is not friendly to the carnal minds of sinners or the assumptions of newly formed converts.
They find out that the bible has more to say about God and his mind than the Arminian has been letting on. So, you tell me George, if Calvinism is so unscriptural how is it that Calvary chapelites all over not only appreciate the reformers but when shown what reformation theology is, they become reformed?
In the Calvary Essentials, Chuck Smith bailed on God’s sovereignty and tossed the issue to the side, deciding to push that issue under the rug and then blame the Calvies for urging that Christians should approach the subjects and study them.
George, the body of Christ is bound to know God, not simply the doctrines that Chuck wants to share, but all the doctrines, even though difficult and sometimes hard to receive.
You dont believe Calvin or the reformers, you dont agree with Grudem and you dont believe us either. But youve not removed the splinter from your own eye either. It remains there, so much so that youre searching high and low to be delivered of it. That splinter is God’s sovereignty contained in Election.
Now that time has passed and Chuck Smith has chosen which camp he will defend, he chose Arminian semi-pelagianism. Ok, thats fine. But just remember that for all the problems you suppose Calvinism has, Chuck- Smithism has them in abundance. Any Christian that has the diligence to question not just the reformers but Smithism will find the scriptures contradict Smithism.
Secondly, when Christ is preached, Calvin is not, When the gospel is proclaimed Christ is preached Grudem is not. So, when the cross is proclaimed and sins are rebuked, when Christ’s blood is declared sufficient and good works and law keeping are put down where should we inject Calvin or Grudem or Luther? Are you saying that to be faithful to the reformed faith I must inject the words of uninspired teachers?
Maybe thats where we differ George, maybe Smithism is more apt to inject Chuck or John Courson or even you into the message.
Charles Spurgeon preached Christ, so preach Christ, Ive never said anything else on this board or any other.
Lastly George when it comes to sin there is no place other than God to put the issue. Where else do you want to put it?
Adam and Eve chatting it up with the serpent, God knew that untold disaster of such a monumental scale was going to occur, yet God didnt say, “hey Adam hold on there”…”Wait Eve, before you take that bite”
Nope, he just let the only two humans on earth go forward, and by doing so reveal something about God that is a hard pill to swallow. God just at least permitted sin to enter the world, or at best just accomplished it by setting a forbidden tree, two naive humans and a devil in the same spot.
What else can you make of it George? Calvinist or Arminian…that dont change the facts, it doesnt change the outcome.
Someone is going to ask the hard questions George and theyre not going to just sing kum by ya at the beach. Their Christianity is deeper than
“Well, man sinned and we did it.” Original sin enters the equation, Election, chosing and predestination enters the equation, experience and example enter the equation. What are you going to tell your congregation George? That God didnt chose, he’s just a victim of the devil too? He got the raw deal when the devil pulled one over on Adam. So why if the devil got what he wanted with Adam, did all of Adams prodigy become infected with sin too? Its not recorded that such a thing is of the devil, but in fact points to God? Just like Calvin said…original sin is not a natural material defect in man its a God-ordered deficiency.
No easy answers, no quoting John 3:16 and all is well.
I submit to you George that youre not helping the body of Christ to grow up. Youre keeping them immature in their thinking and in their spiritual grasp of God. Its easy to keep the congregations at bay spiritually when they are just given a little taste of spiritual gifts, and a little tiny spec of Sovereignty or just the tiniest bit of election…because the bible has that word in it. But when youve opened up the congregation to a whole world of God-minded Sovereignty and power, questions pop like pop corn and now the anti-intellectual, the dumb down quasi-spiritual teachings wont feed them any more. Its not a matter of some divisive teacher trying to draw away converts to himself, no, its the truth of God entering in and that flock hearing the masters voice calling them. They all move forward towards Jesus and they turn away from vain attempts to corral them in with “It aint so cause God is now the author of sin” and such like terms.
Are you trying to protect them from God?
Let the flocks feed on good land George, let them drink pure water. Unless you find yourself a celebrity withstanding Christ taking them where he wants.
John
George,
I am assuming you are in Russia since you say you are 11 time zones away? How are things going with CCCPM?
Hi George!
I’ll bite. Yes, I agree with Calvin. And why? Because I find his explanation of predestination to be non-contradictory with Scripture.
Calvin wrote: “With regard to secret movements, what Solomon says of the heart of a king, that it is turned hither and thither, as God sees meet (Prov. 21:1), certainly applies to the whole human race, and has the same force as if he had said, that whatever we conceive in our minds is directed to its end by the secret inspiration of God.” (Inst. 1.18.2)
Now, in order for your beliefs to be true, George, Solomon must be wrong, and if Solomon is wrong then the Scriptures cannot be inspired since they wouldn’t be inerrant. So, can you reconcile your doctrine of human free will with the Proverbs passage above?
Hi John, have you read WCF Chapter V paragraph IV?
Here it is: ” The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God so far manifest themselves in His providence, that it extends itself even to the first fall, and all other sins of angels and men; and that not by a bare permission, but such as has joined with it a most wise and powerful bounding, and otherwise ordering, and governing of them, in a manifold dispensation, to His own holy ends; yet so, as the sinfulness thereof proceeds only from the creature, and not from God, who, being most holy and righteous, neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin.” [not by a bare permission]
Now George cannot reconcile this, or should I say “will”not, but it’s not clear to me from what you wrote that you’ve understood it[the Adam and Eve comments] Just asking.
I was looking through the Calvary Chapel Distinctives, the map book for what Calvary believes and found very possibly why George is confused concerning his doctrine. Here are quotes from what Chuck Smith wrote in the book.
“It’s easy to fall into legalism. We need to beware of this temptation. Beware of taking the hard stand. I have found, for the most part, that when a person gets heavy into ‘Reformation Theology,’ they usually get heavy into legalism. They want to make sure the ’T’s’ are crossed and the ’I’s’ are dotted just right. ’Reformation Theology’ has some good points, but so does a porcupine. When you embrace it too forcefully, then you’re going to get the points.
Some people object because they feel that I gloss over certain passages of Scripture, and they’re correct. But glossing over controversial issues is often deliberate because there are
usually two sides. And I have found that it’s important not to be divisive and not to allow people to become polarized on issues, because the moment they are polarized, there’s division.
A classic example is the problem in our understanding of the Scriptures that refer to the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man. The Bible actually teaches both, but in our human understanding they’re mutually exclusive. People who become divisive on this issue
claim that we can’t believe both, because if you carry the sovereignty of God to an extreme, it eliminates the responsibility of man. Likewise, if you carry the responsibilities of man to the extreme, it eliminates the sovereignty of God. This mistake is made when a person takes the doctrine and carries it out to its logical conclusion. Using human logic and carrying divine sovereignty out to its logical conclusion leaves man with no choices. So, how are we to deal with rightly dividing the Word on the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man? We need to believe both of them through faith, because I can’t keep them in balance by my understanding. I don’t understand how they come together. But I do believe them both. I believe that God is sovereign, and I also believe that I’m responsible
and that God holds me responsible for the choices that I make. I simply trust God that both assertions of Scripture are true.
There’s a pastor who recently came out with a little pamphlet on Calvinism, and on the front cover, there’s a balance scale with John Calvin on one side and John 3:16 on the other. Which side would you rather stand for? Don’t get polarized. Don’t let the people get polarized. The minute you do, you’ve lost half your congregation because people are split pretty evenly on this issue. So if you take a
polarized position you’ll lose half of your congregation. Do you really want to lose 50% of your congregation? You know the beautiful thing about being called Calvary Chapel? People don’t know where
you really stand. Put Baptist in your title, and people know where you are, and half the people will never come because it’s a Baptist church. Put Presbyterian in your name, and they know where you stand, and half the people will never come because they know what
the Presbyterians believe. Put Nazarene in your name, and immediately they’ve got you pigeon-holed. They know who you are, and they don’t need to go. But Calvary Chapel has a sort of mystique about it. ’What do these people believe?” “I don’t know, but let’s go find out.” And the whole field is ours. You want to fish in as big a pond
as you can find. When you’re marketing something, you want the largest market appeal possible. So don’t chop up the market and say, “Well, we’re just going to fish in this little market here.” Keep the market broad. Fish in the big pond. Fish where they are biting.
Note Chuck Smith’s analysis of Reformation theology in the above quote. Also Chuck says, “Some people object because they feel that I gloss over certain passages of Scripture, and they’re correct. But glossing over controversial issues is often deliberate because there are
usually two sides. And I have found that it’s important not to be divisive and not to allow people to become polarized on issues, because the moment they are polarized, there’s division.”
Here he mentions he “glosses over certain passages of Scripture. Glossing over controversial issues is often deliberate.”
In chapter 6 Chuck writes, “Now, how is it possible for a person to claim to have declared, ’the whole counsel of God?” The only way a person could make that claim to his congregation would be if he taught
through the whole Word of God with them, from Genesis to Revelation. Once you’ve taken your congregation through the Bible, then you can say to them, “I have not shunned to declare unto you the whole counsel of God.” This can’t be done with topical sermons. Topical sermons are good, and they have their place, but when you’re preaching topically, you’re prone by nature to preach only those
topics that you like. And there are topics in the Bible that aren’t very inspiring. They don’t excite the people, but they are necessary issues that have to be dealt with. The human tendency, however, is to avoid these. I f you’re only preaching topically, you may also tend
to avoid controversial or difficult topics, and the people won’t gain a well-balanced view of God’s truth. So the value of going straight through the Bible is that you can say, “I have not shunned to declare to you all the counsel of God.” Now, I believe that I can say to the people at Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa, “I have declared unto you the whole counsel of God,” because we have taken them from Genesis to
Revelation seven times. We’re currently beginning the eighth round. We don’t skip anything. And that’s why in the majority of the Calvary Chapels, and the most successful ones, you’ll find the systematic teaching of the entire Word of God, going through the Bible from cover to cover.”
Chuck also says, “Another advantage of teaching the whole counsel of God is that when you come to difficult issues that deal with problems in an individual’s life or within the Church body, you can address them straightforwardly. We need not worry about people thinking, “Oh, he’s aiming at me today.” People in the congregation know that it’s simply the passage of Scripture being studied that day. So it can’t be, “Oh man, he’s really picking on me,” because they realize that you’re going straight through the Book, and you’re not jumping from topic to topic. We’re just going straight through the entire Word of God.”
In chapter 6, Chuck writes that he deals straightway with the difficult topics.
Note in chapter 11 what chuck says about the perseverance of the saints:
“We believe in the security of the believer but we also believe in the ’perseverance of the saints.’ We don’t believe that because you are a saint you will necessarily persevere, but that you need to persevere because you’re a saint.”
Clearly this is not what Scripture teaches. Here God’s sovereignty over the believer is denied and emphasis is put on the individual’s will to persevere.
Here is another quote from Chuck Smith in chapter 11, “So we seek to take a balanced position rather than getting on one side and pressing the ’Five Points of Calvinism.’ When you take hard
stands on these non-foundational issues, you’ll just empty your church of all of those who have Methodist, Nazarene, and other Arminian-infiuenced backgrounds. Why would you want to do that?”
Another quote from chapter 11, “and so we don’t take the
hard-line Calvinistic position of limited atonement that says Jesus didn’t die for everybody, only those who would believe in Him. We do not accept that believing in Him has nothing to do with human responsibility, but is totally the sovereign choice of God.”
Note how Chuck disagrees with limited atonement that says Jesus didn’t die for everybody, only those who would believe in him.”
Indeed however, John 3:16 says “whosoever believes.” The passage further states in verse 18, “he who believes is not condemned, he does not believe is condemned already.”
In my opinion, clearly there is a twisted, misunderstood view of what Scripture teaches.
Just a few more quotes, “I, like every other student in Bible college, wrestled with this issue. I was reading Arthur W. Pink’s The Sovereignty of God. I got so confused because Pink states that man has no choice in the issue of salvation. It is all up to God. There’s no human responsibility. As I was reading the book, I got so confused that I finally stood up, took the paperback, and threw it across the room. I felt like Martin Luther throwing an ink well at the devil. I said, “God, I can’t understand it.” I was frustrated mentally. It was then that the Lord spoke to my heart and said, “I didn’t ask you to understand it, I only asked you to believe My Word.”
The believer must understand God’s word. How can one believe in something that is not understood? Paul continually prays that believers grow in the grace and knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ.
In Pink’s book, specifically the chapter Chuck Smith quotes from, there is no place where Pink denies human responsibility, but focuses on Christ as King, he demonstrates from Scripture the wonderful acts of the Triune God in salvation.
“I believe it’s valuable to use good commentaries to help in understanding the meaning of a passage. I appreciate the insights God has given to other men on passages of the Word. But in saying that I appreciate and do read commentaries, I must also confess that often I will read pages and pages from commentaries and get absolutely nothing that I can use. Sometimes when you
read seven commentaries on a particular passage, you’re more confused when you’re through than when you started, because there are so many different concepts or ideas on a particular passage. So I believe that one of the best commentaries on the Bible is the Bible
itself.” Chapter 6
These are just a few quotes from the book titled Calvary Chapel Distinctives: The Foundational Principles of the Calvary Chapel Movement.
When George Bryson answers questions, this is where his foundation comes from. May the Lord continue to use these writings and draw more and more believers to ask those difficult questions knowing there are answers that are biblical and not contradictory.
George, just about time to get up for you! Left some messages for you to read this beautiful evening here in California, and wonderful morning were you are. Have a blessed day!
Although George makes a respectable effort to disprove that he misunderstands Calvin, a quick peek into Chapter Two of his book seems to hint otherwise. George wrote:
“It must be stressed that Calvin actually believed that those who are eternally damned were created to be saved.”
I would like to hear more on how George drew this conclusion from Calvin. It seems pretty clear that Calvin taught the opposite of what George said “must be stressed.” Any response, George?
In the previous section George attributes election and reprobation to the pagan concept of good and bad fortune (i.e., luck), yet Calvin attributed them to the eternal decree of God,
“by which He determined with Himself whatever He wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of those ends, we say that he has been predestined to life or death.” Calvin, cited in Bryson
George makes the statement, “For those tempted to think that I am misrepresenting Calvinism a few words from John Calvin should demonstrate that such is not the case.” This claim flies on the heels of an outrageous claim where George stated:
“Calvinistically speaking, if it is your good fortune to be among the elect you will be saved for all eternity because you were in effect (and unconditionally) saved from all eternity. Even so, if it is your misfortune to be among the unelect you will be damned for all eternity because in effect (and unconditionally) you were damned from all eternity.”
George is simply wrong. “Calvinistically speaking,” good and bad fortune have no place in the Calvinistic system. Calvinist theologians can be quoted ad nausium to establish that George has well-misrepresented Calvinism.
It is a mistake to blindly assume George Bryson as a reliable guide in matters concerning Calvin and Calvinism; too many errors and misrepresentations. Let the reader be warned.
These quotes are from the free online version of George Bryson’s book, “The Five Points of Calvinism Weighed and Found Wanting.” More to come.
Hello Brad: yes Ive read the WCF (as you quoted) and I agree with it.
But I wanted to toss out to George that even at the fall, God’s actions and inactions (what we cannot see) are not so easily answered and that his constant rebutting doesnt take us anywhere.
You cannot even read Gen 3 and walk away from it safely thinking God had nothing to do with what happened here. Why couldnt that devil be in some tree in Canada instead of Eden? I hope you see what Im saying, I believe the reason that Georges dislike of Election is because its not easy. Its not humanly intuitive for him. It raises to many questions he is not prepared to answer. His answers so far constitute endless rebuttals without offering anything in the form of biblical theology of a systematic that would “correct” our errors. Its all a continual “the calvies are wrong, the calvies are wrong”.
Take Grudem for example, it seems that George doesnt agree with the
Shakespear/Macbeth analogy, but again, does George fairly handle Grudem? No, he just quotes him as if Wayne shoots a blunderbust at the subject. Its on pages 321-322 of WG systematic.
What has George offered instead? Maybe he should have just quoted WG’s Arminian statements and said..”this is what I believe”. But we cant seem to get that either.
This little rant is a repeat of other posts of mine.
I dont make God the author of sin, but I dont pretend that God is the hapless victim of putting too many folks in one garden and then it got out of hand.
Stephens right, George, for all his claims to have read “all” of Calvins commentaries cannot seem to express any single truth the way the author intended it, Caveats and all.
Mario: Im sure you know this, but in regards to preaching the whole bible from Genesis to Revelation you can in one sense say you have preached the whole counsel of God.
But in many other senses you have not.
One sense is that even though you preach the fall in Gen 3, that doesnt mean youve preached total depravity. Even if youve preached Ephesians 1 doesnt mean youve preached Divine Election. If what Chuck said was true in all senses then Calvary should be well versed in Election, Total depravity and even limited atonement. But we both know that their Arminian assumptions dictate exegesis and the reformed view is never even mentioned all the while they brag about “all the counsel of God” is spoken with a straight face.
It doesnt bother me as much that Calvary have the Armin bent. What bothers me is that they hold theological positions that determine their exegesis of Scripture while hiding the fact they hold them. Add to this the fact that they want the unlearned CC member to think that what they are being taught is pure-unadulterated-inspired doctrine and anything other than what theyve taught is ‘mans teachings’.
The gloss over is not only a fabrication, but the reality of their handling the flock strikes me as manipulative and disengenuous.
Calvary Essentials is in my opinion a telling manifesto of chosing numbers at the cost of truth. CS chose a pragmatic approach to growing the churches. But even after they have established their churches the charade keeps going.
Thanks for the response John, I misread your intended thought to George. I agree that the CC movement is disengenuous in the effort to control the flock. In the Sunday School class I attend, we have studied many of the Christian denominations to understand their positions, not afraid to compare to see if it be true. They are not so sure they have gotten it right I guess–not enough to allow free honest exposition. I think it’s like a shepherd allowing a ewe to give birth but never allowing the kid to mature to independence but rather to hold him in a state dependence by withholding the nourishment that is necessary to matue. The Word says that God will hold teachers to a higher accountability, so I will leave that to Him and warn anyone who’ll listen to watch out.
Somewhere, sometime ago someone wise once said: “For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you have need again for someone to teach you the elementary principles of the oracles of God, and you have come to need milk and not solid food.” The fruit of modern evangelicalism shows up in the character of the players–according to pollsters, infidelity, divorce, abortion, etc..are statistically no different from the secular world. I believe it will be a terrible judgement, one that I fear to be near.
Dear Gentemen
Believe it or not. in some ways this has become one of my favorit websites. Not because I believe much of what you have said, I am not even sure that some of you believe some of what you said. But because it least some of the time you admit to believing what Calvin. Some of your moderate “brothers” will respond “liar, liar pants on fire’” when I quote Calvin. So even though you could improve in consistency and scale back on the hostility, most of you seem to be at least trying to come to grips with the kind of God you believe God is. For that I commend you. It is very cold and very beutiful here today, and I also speak as a so-cal boy. God bless and in Christ, George
In different time zones things come out different
Again I stand corrected”
Dear Gentemen
Believe it or not. in some ways this has become one of my favorit websites. Not because I believe much of what you have said, I am not even sure that you believe some of what you said. But because it least some of the time you admit to believing what Calvin said. Some of your moderate “brothers” will respond “liar, liar pants on fire’” when I quote Calvin. So even though you could improve in consistency and scale back on the hostility (almost sounds poetic, don’t you think), most of you seem to be at least trying to come to grips with the kind of God you now believe God is. For that I commend you. It is very cold and very beutiful here today, and I also speak as a so-cal boy. God bless and in Christ, George
Although George makes a respectable effort to disprove that he misunderstands Calvin, a quick peek into Chapter Two of his book seems to hint otherwise. George wrote:
“It must be stressed that Calvin actually believed that those who are eternally damned were created to be saved.”
May I ask a serious question of John? Given what I just quoted Calvin saying as well as the message of the whole book, do your really believe that this typo proves what you seem to be suggesting. This is not the only typographical error found in one of my books. But even if you are not the brilliant scholar/logician I thought you wanted me and others to believe you are, if you really believe you really thought I thought Calvin was saying that God damns those he elects to save or any such thing, you just went down a few levels from not being very high up anyway. I admit that I am not as convinced that you are the brilliant, theologian, scholar that you seem to think you are, but even I would have thought you would recognize an obvious typo. Maybe you are just having a little fun with me, and I can live with that. As much as I do not want to dissapoint you or let you down, the process I use in writing a book is not infallible. Please tell me you were have just a little fun. If you were serious, I will need to think about the grade level employed in our future conversations. I will also revisit all of the typo’s that have found there way into this site. Have a good whatever it is there now. In Christ, George
George:
Its not this John, I never called you on typos and I dont remember hoping you looked upon me with brilliance or superior scholarship. Everyone here knows I am arm-chairian not Semi-narian. I do confess I wish I were a seminary graduate.
John
Thanks John
I appreciate the clarification. You know that to all of us non-Calvinists all Calvinists (especially if they are named John) merge in our minds as one.To the other John (or Johnny) I found a copy of my book and checked out the reference. Why it may appear on an internet site that is used for reference I do not know. But the book (that I hold im my hands) says:
“It must be stressed that Calvin actually believed that those who are eternally damned were created to be damned just as the saved were created to be saved”
That is very difficult (I think) to misunderstand.
And remember that as Calvin taught, God:
“…determined with Himself whatever He wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of those ends, we say that he has been predestined to life or death.”
If you believe this I accept you as a Calvinist. If not I think your pretending to be a Calvinist or have deluded yourself into believing you are a Calvinist. I accept that of the good folks on this that call themselves Calvinists are in fact Calvinists. In Christ, George
Hey Stephen
I said:
“Calvinistically speaking, if it is your good fortune to be among the elect you will be saved for all eternity because you were in effect (and unconditionally) saved from all eternity. Even so, if it is your misfortune to be among the unelect you will be damned for all eternity because in effect (and unconditionally) you were damned from all eternity.”
You said:
“George is simply wrong. ‘Calvinistically speaking,’ good and bad fortune have no place in the Calvinistic system.”
Webster says:
A person who suffers misfortune
- unfortunate person…unfortunates
See also: abject…calamitous…disastrous…doomed…hapless…miserable, misfortunate, pathetic, piteous, pitiable, pitiful, poor…underprivileged… wretched. [sounds like the reprobate to me]
Fortune can be a good thing like wealth can be a good thing. Wealth comes in more than one way. Many of you rich in ways that others are not. Misfortune is symple the antonym. If being among the elect is a good thing for you, being among the non-elect is a bad thing for the reprobate. If you have a good wife I would say you are very forunate. I am. If you have a not so good wife are not so fortunate. Anyone disagree? In Christ, George
“It must be stressed that Calvin actually believed that those who are eternally damned were created to be damned just as the saved were created to be saved”
George: saved “just as” damned is not what Calvin stated Neither do I believe it. Why? Because I dont understand Election? No, Because simpleton axioms like this are used by the dissenter in order to create a fog about the issue and invent errors to attach to it. Whoever then reads the complaints sides with the dissenter simply because its shown in an evil light.
Calvin doesnt write so lengthy an explanation of predestination that afterwards can be summarized as simply “saved just as damned”
Reading the Institutes Book 3 Ch 23 especially 6-8 (pg 225-235)
You come away with Calvins version predestination which in these texts looks pretty supralapsarian. But Calvin doesnt just willy-nilly damn folks, nor does He claim God does so.
What Calvin is bringing forward is far more than just the eternal destinies of men. Calvin is holding forth God’s righteous judgments as perfect and above reproach. Calvin is saying that to Cavil against the decrees or to calculate God’s wisdom or fairness is ridiculous foolishness. Man has no standard against which to place God, in fact its illegal to reply against God.
Several times Calvin comes forward to say “Your arguments are just devolving into blasphemies” What are you able to do against the decree of God?
Now, the Arminian has gone to God’s defense because the ‘horrible decree’ is in the estimation of human reasoning unfit and unworthy of God, not to mention poor ole sinful humanity is really wedged in tightly beween its sins and the judge of the universe.
So, the reproof of Paul to rebuke the illegal reply to God is tossed aside, and argument after argument is thrown up against God’s sovereignty.
Then of course the Calvinist is judged and slandered every single day because he states the truth. God makes his creation for him self and for his own purposes. Rev 4:11 Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created. ….and here it is… God getting glory in the destruction of the wicked. Just how many texts in Revelation do you need to agree with that?
Calvinists of all kinds weigh in differently, not so much as to disagree with Calvin, but to render other explanations that lay stress upon other aspects of divine purpose. Bavink for example doesnt follow Calvin down the road of summarily ‘dooming’ the sinner irrespective of sin. Bavinck doesnt seperate the sinner from sin by foreknowledge. Meaning that God is damning the innocent creature by injecting it into the created world where sin abounds. The idea is that man in this realm cannot be other than innocent even though he be only the ‘intent’ of God and not yet the physical creation of God. So it all gets really technical and really perspectival.
Bavinck says that supra and infra cannot contain all the wisdom of God
on this issue and accordingly draws up short to explain the ‘good pleasure of God’.
What cannot be gotten away from is the power and wisdom of God is revealed in scripture where God handles people and sins in such a way that admits a limited human investigation. Afterwards vain speculations and judging God only create error upon error.
Its been said by far better than me, but Ill put it in my own words.
George, just what do you want us to do with God? Do you want us to report on his works differently? Or, since you disagree with our conclusions do you want us to refrain from declaring the source of salvation and damnation of men is God? Maybe you just want God left out of the picture and place man center stage in regards to damnation?
Now that the door to knowing that God is all powerful and all wise and we are his creation and subject unto him do you want us to close it and forget that God is like that? Is it safer to just to believe Jesus had no more to say than Jn 3:16?
We cannot go back, we cannot pretend that God is a hapless victim of Adams taste for forbidden fruit. We cannot pretend that God’s wisdom is
within our grasp.
Lastly consider this George ok…
Sinful men have no right to assume they know the mind of God and thereby are eternally damned
Saved men have no right to assume they know the mind of God and thereby are eternally saved.
The saved mans assurance is found in Christ, the sinners hope is found in Christ. The gospel leads both saved and lost to Christ and its at the cross that sinful men and God meet and reconcile.
George youve attacked Calvinism over and over again for a variety of reasons, but one of them stands out to me.
I believe one of those reasons is that if predestination to reprobation is true then sinners have a “right” to give up all hope in Christ and dispair of life.
But I submit to you that the doctrine of predestination is not geared toward ”forming assumptions that we can know the mind of God”. It is operational in steering sinful men toward Christ the only hope of the world and the only message that God has given to the world “Jesus Christ has come into the world to save sinners”.
Johnthepretender
George, you may quote Webster’s definitions of “fortune” and “misfortune” after the fact in attempt to escape your error, but since you qualified your terms as being *Calvinistic* you need to provide Calvinistic sources that establish luck, chance, fortune, etc., as the cause of election and reprobation. If you are not able to do that then you should publish a retraction.
Speaking of retraction, it is well-known that Augustine published retractions later in his life. Among those retractions was:
“In my writings Against the Academics,” says he, “I regret having so often used the term Fortune; although I intended to denote by it not some goddess, but the fortuitous issue of events in external matters, whether good or evil. Hence, too, those words, Perhaps, Perchance, Fortuitously, which no religion forbids us to use, though everything must be referred to Divine Providence. Nor did I omit to observe this when I said, Although, perhaps, that which is vulgarly called Fortune, is also regulated by a hidden order, and what we call Chance is nothing else than that the reason and cause of which is secret. It is true, I so spoke, but I repent of having mentioned Fortune there as I did, when I see the very bad custom which men have of saying, not as they ought to do, ‘So God pleased,’ but, ‘So Fortune pleased.’” (Cited by Calvin in Inst. 1.16.8)
Calvin comments on Augustine’s retraction, writing:
“In short, Augustine everywhere teaches, that if anything is left to fortune, the world moves at random.”
Just prior to that, Calvin wrote of Basil:
“[I]t was a true saying of Basil the Great, that Fortune and Chance are heathen terms; the meaning of which ought not to occupy pious minds. For if all success is blessing from God, and calamity and adversity are his curse, there is no place left in human affairs for fortune and chance.”
Calvin agrees with Basil that *Fortune* and *Chance* are heathen terms.
So it stands that you have misrepresented Calvinism again. Fortune and Chance may be, Brysonistically speaking, the cause of election, but not *Calvinistically speaking.* The sad thing is that the majority of your readers will never know the difference.
P.S. Are you willing to discuss the contents of your book?
“P.S. Are you willing to discuss the contents of your book?”
Uh-oh, I can see another slaughter not seen since White vs. Geisler when it comes to what is Calvinism.
I will try to come back to some of the issues that are being proposed a little later. For now, as a kind of show of solidarity with my Reformed brothers and sisters I would like to offer and article I have just reread that I am sure many seasoned Calvinist friends has read (perhaps many times). I hope you will all enjoy it as much as I did.
On May 21, 2008 John Piper asked the question “Why are Calvinists so negative?”
Even if you do not agree with Piper, you will find his straightforward answers refreshing. I do, and I am not a big fan of Piper. His first answer is a kind of blame the Reformed doctrines of grace and the kind of person that is drawn to such doctrines. He says:
“I think there is an attractiveness about them to some people, in large matter, because of their intellectual rigor. They are powerfully coherent doctrines, and certain kinds of minds are drawn to that. And those kinds of minds tend to be argumentative…So the intellectual appeal of the system of Calvinism draws a certain kind of intellectual person, and that type of person doesn’t tend to be the most warm, fuzzy, and tender. Therefore this type of person has a greater danger of being hostile, gruff, abrupt, insensitive or intellectualistic. I’ll just confess that. It’s a sad and terrible thing that that’s the case.
The second answer he suggests for angry Calvinists is to be found in the fact that some Calvinists, while truly believing in the doctrine of election are non-elect or reprobate Calvinists. Even if they are elect, the evidence of election, regeneration is not yet a reality for them. That is:
“Some of this type aren’t even Christians, I think. You can embrace a system of theology and not even be born again.”
Another reason for negative Calvinists is the failure of non-Calvinist churches to see, believe or teach the Calvinism that they do not see in Scripture and therefore do not believe and teach them as scriptural. Piper explains:
“Another reason for Calvinists could be seen as negative is that when a person comes to see the doctrines of grace in the Bible, he is often amazed that he missed it, and he can sometimes become angry. He can become angry that he grew up in a church or home where they never talked about what is really there in Romans 8, 1 Corinthians 2, and Ephesians 2. They never talked about it—they skipped it—and he is angry that he was misled for so long. That’s sad. It’s there; it’s real; the church did let him down, and there are thousands of churches that ignore the truth and don’t teach it. And he has to deal with that.
The last reason Piper suggests for the negative Calvinist is they are trying to proclaim the doctrines of grace to those who God has not revealed the doctrines of grace to or has not personally touched by this grace. Piper says:
“Another reason Calvinists might be perceived as negative is that they are trying to convince others about the doctrines. If God gives someone the grace to be humbled and see the truth, and the doctrines are sweet to him, and they break his pride—because God chose him owing to nothing in him. He was awakened from the dead, like being found at the bottom of a lake and God, at the cost of his Son’s life, brings him up from the bottom, does CPR, brings him miraculously back to life, and he stands on the beach thrilled with the grace of God—wouldn’t he want to persuade people about this? Do Calvinists want to make everybody else Calvinists? Absolutely we do!… Why wouldn’t we want to share this with people?
Is Piper unwittingly to blame for some of the negative Calvinists by what he believes and is teaching about the Calvinist doctrines of grace? His short answer is:
“Time will tell.” and “I hope not”.
You can find the complete article on the Desiring God website.
George, everything you touch turns to poison. Why is that?
How is it that during the middle of a discussion about you misrepresenting certain people’s writings, can you so baldly introduce yet another misrepresentation of another person’s writing?
Until you can understand and appreciate the subtlety of modifiers & qualification in language, you should avoid trying to do theology and philosophy altogether since they are an intellectual discipline of which “words” are essential.
It would be too much to say that this last post with your commentary proves that you cannot read. I wouldn’t go as far as to suggest that. However, it surely establishes you as one that cannot read well.
Unbelievable.
Hey Stephen
I am truly sorry that I used webster to define the word “fortune” when discussing “Calvinism”. I forgot that Calvinists get to choose how they define the terms non-Calvnists use when Calvinists refer to Calvinists. Thanks for the reminder?
Hey Stephen
I am truly sorry that I used webster to define the word “fortune” when discussing “Calvinism”. I should kno better. I forgot that Calvinists get to choose how they define the terms non-Calvnists use when non-Calvinists refer to Calvinism. This also helps explain why the word “fatalism” should not be used in referece to Calvinism. They deny by there own definition of fatalism that Calvinism is not fatalism. How much happier we would all be if we could do this. But I know this has to a special agreement between the Lord and those of his elect that know they are His elect for salvation. Thanks for the reminder?
Hey Stephen
That really hurts or does it demontrate that I actually understand Piper better than you might want your friends to think. Being the word- master that you are, I am sure you would not have used the words Piper used. Maybe that is because you do not see what Piper sees. He seems to see a lot of angry Calvinists. So do I. Do not try and play down the significance of my agreement with Piper. Enjoy it. It does not happen enough. Or maybe you should add to his list of reason why Calvinists are anger with the name “George”. Try your eggs sunny side up today. In Christ, George
You quoting me say that according to Calvin and Calvinism:
“It must be stressed that Calvin actually believed that those who are eternally damned were created to be damned just as the saved were created to be saved”
You then said”
“George: saved “just as” damned is not what Calvin stated Neither do I believe it. Why? Because I dont understand Election? No, Because simpleton axioms like this are used by the dissenter in order to create a fog about the issue and invent errors to attach to it. Whoever then reads the complaints sides with the dissenter simply because its shown in an evil light.”
That really clears up the “fog” for me. You do not “understand election” but do you love it, preach it, want the whole world to believe it, are you willing to split churches over it” You do not understand that election is to salvation as reprobation is to damnation? Some one help John understand election and reprabtion. Oh how Calvin? Can he help? Remember he said that God:
“…determined with Himself whatever He wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of those ends, we say that he has been predestined to life or death.”
Maybe this is a job for the word-master. Tell him Stephen what this means, please. I dare not wade out so deep as you truly great and humble theologians do everyday on this website. In Christ, George
Johnny B. says”
“I would say to George, you serve a weak god if indeed him can call you and man has the power to not come. Your god is a god of confusion as well”
Feel better now.
By the way should I conclude from this that you do not serve the same God that I serve? Certainly you are not saying that you are also serving a “weak” “God of confusion”? That would ofcourse mean that we are not just taling about a different understanding on grace but a different God. Right? You really want me to believe you do not believe in the same God I believe in or were these just the unfortuanate use of words. Sorry, I forgot that Calvinist cannot use the word “unfortunate” this way. Talk to Stephen-he will set you straight-I think. In Christ, George
George, you wrote: “I forgot that Calvinists get to choose how they define the terms non-Calvnists use when non-Calvinists refer to Calvinism.”
What you most likely forgot is that you wrote “Calvinistically speaking” in your book. “Calvinistically speaking” implies “from the Calvinist perspective” or “as it pertains to Calvinism” etc. What you should have written is “Brysonistically speaking.” As I’ve given in my response, Augustine, Basil, and Calvin all objected to the *use* of the particular heathen term of your choice. You can rant on and on about it, but you can’t say you haven’t misrepresented your opponent. In logic we call this the straw man fallacy…And you’ve been caught red-handed!
You also wrote: “This also helps explain why the word ‘fatalism’ should not be used in referece [sic] to Calvinism.”
Should I dig through the other threads and quote from our discussion on fatalism where I documented your formal fundamental error?
Re: Piper, you just don’t read or comprehend well (as seen in your numerous misrepresentations of Calvin in your book). John Piper was a literature major so it is no surprise that he may write over your head at times. But let me point out just one of your many errors:
1) You read Piper and gave the following summary – “Another reason for negative Calvinists is…”
a) Notice how you read Piper and then gave a written expression of your understanding, including, “reason for negative Calvinists.” Here we are led to believe that John Piper is giving reasons *why there are* indeed “negative Calvinists.” We should expect to find this claim in the quote you’ve provided, but Piper wrote: reason Calvinists *could be seen as* negative. There is a fundamental distinction between an actual negative Calvinist and an apparent negative Calvinist. This quote from Piper references the latter. Piper reiterates this later in the next quote when he said, “Another reason Calvinists *might be perceived as* negative is that…” But again you failed to give attention to the modifiers and instead made Piper out to say something very different. You wrote: “The last reason Piper suggests for the negative Calvinist is they are…”
Is there not a distinction between someone *being perceived* as negative versus *being* negative? Jesus was *perceived as* a drunkard and a glutton (Lk. 7:34). Would you use the same reasoning and say that Luke was giving *reasons why* Jesus was a drunkard and a glutton? Hmmmmm???
What you failed to percieve is that Piper wrote and article with the question, “Why are Calvinists so negative?” it is hard to imagine that getting over someone’s head. In small section was about the “percieved” negativity. The rest was about the real negativity of Calvinists. Can you percive that?
George,
I think there is an attractiveness about them to some people, in large matter, because of their intellectual rigor. They are powerfully coherent doctrines,
I’m on your side when you say Calvinism makes God the author of sin. Sin is by definition the transgression of God’s law (1 John 3:4), that is, it is the very opposite of God’s will. But Calvinism want to sell sin as something in accordance with the “will of God”. That’s blatantly self-contradictory. The whole history of the world is a story of mankind going AGAINST God’s will. That’s what everybody understands by “sin”.
Thus, declaring sin to be the will of God is to reverse its meaning. How ist this “powerfully coherent”??? How is such nonsense intellecutally appealing at all???
Calvinism’s theodicy disqualifies this man-made philosophy and so this set of doctrines cannot even be taken seriously.
-a helmet
A helmet, you are confused…..
Many if not most mainstream Evangelicals would agree with the evangelistic appeal found in an article with the heading HOW YOU CAN KNOW THE TRUTH. The article says to a lost person:
Are you wandering, not sure about truth, lost in your search for identity? Do you know yourself to be unfaithful to God? Do you need to be saved from moral compromise? Well then, there’s very good news for you. Jesus appeals to you to come to Him, to ask Him to forgive you and make you a child of God. For you see that anyone receives Him has the right to become a child of God (Jn. 1: 12). This was the message that Mary and Peter believed. Jesus calls you to know the truth so you can be set free (Jn. 8: 32).
In response to the heading HOW YOU CAN KNOW THE GOD OF TRUTH, this same article says:
If you would like to know the truth, lift up your empty hands of faith and trusts Him for salvation.
Gentleman (and possibly ladies) I submit that in your heart of hearts you know this is true and probably close to what you would say when speaking to a lost person, if you wanted to see him or her saved. No need for the Reformed Gospel/Non-Reformed Gospel in evangelism if we will simply appealed to the lost: “lift up your empty hands of faith and trusts Him for salvation”. Would that not work for both sides? Would it be asking too much for all of us to agree on this much?
In Christ, George
This may be a question too deep for many of this website to entertain-but would the combined theological “weight” of Mario Herrera, Johnny B., and Stephen Macasil even register on a sensitive scale? Just a question. Before anyone protests at the personal nature of such a question, remember the heading on this thread. George Bryson: Weighed and Found Wanting. I do not mind-really. Have a good day and evening.
The Question (most) Calvinists want to forget and do not want anyone to ask:
George Bryson-When a child is raped is God responsible and did He decree that rape?
James White-If He didn’t then that rape is an element of meaningless evil that has no purpose. What I am trying to point out by going…
Hank Hannegraff-So what is your answer there? Because I want the answer to that question.
James-I’m trying to go to Scripture to answer…
Hank -Yes-but what is the answer to that question he just asked so that we can understand the answer to the question.
James-I mentioned to him “Yes” because if not it is meaningless and purposeless-and though God knew it was going to happen. He created without a purpose-that means God brought the evil into existence, knowing that it was going to exist but for no purpose-no redemption-nothing positive-nothing good. I said…
Hank-If He decreed it-then it has meaning to it?
James-It has meaning-it has purpose.
Hank-Got it!
James-Suffering-all suffering has purpose-everything in this world has purpose-there is no basis for despair-but if we believe that created knowing all this was going to happen-but with no decree-He just created and all this evil is out there-and there is no purpose-then every rape-every situation is like that is purposeless evil and God is responsible for despair.
…George-God can use evil and He does but to blame God-which is what a decree does-to blame God for the rape of a child is a horrible attack of the very character and love of God.
One Calvinist asks:
What do you think about James White? I know others on the Reformed forums who give him glowing endorsements, but I was disappointed with him in today’s BAM radio program. … White more or less agreed that God is the author of sin in the debate. And, since White is presented as the spokesman for Calvinism, the part I heard didn’t speak well of us.
(Third Millennium Ministries-website)
Even more pointed, in comments found on the Internet in a section called “Whilin’ Away the Hours,” the Calvinist John Rabe offers what he calls:
“A loose paraphrase from the James White and George Bryson debate on the Bible Answer Man:
“begin paraphrase:
“BRYSON: Calvinists believe that God is an evil potentate who causes sin and tyrannically damns people for no good reason and causes babies to be raped.
“WHITE: Yes, and here’s why I believe that. Genesis 50 says …
“end paraphrase[.]
“Yikes! With friends like this who needs enemies?
Calvin explains:
There is no random power, or agency, or motion in the creatures, who are so governed by the secret counsel of God, that nothing happens but what he has knowingly and willingly decreed … the counsels and wills of men are so governed as to move exactly in the course which he has destined.
Calvin also reasons:
… Since the arrangement of all things is in the hand of God, since to him belongs the disposal of life and death, he arranges all things by his sovereign counsel, in such a way that individuals are born, who are doomed from the womb to certain death, and are to glorify him by their destruction.
… I, for my part, am willing to admit, that mere prescience [foreknowledge] lays no necessity on the creatures … the dispute is superfluous since life and death are acts of the divine will rather than of prescience. If God merely foresaw human events, and did not also arrange and dispose of them at his pleasure, there might be room for agitating the question, how far his foreknowledge amounts to necessity; but since he foresees the things which are to happen, simply because he has decreed that they are so to happen, it is vain to debate about prescience, while it is clear that all events take place by his sovereign appointment.
Calvinist Edwin Palmer represents Calvin and Calvinism as mak¬ing God and His predestination the cause of:
… the moving of a finger, the beating of a heart, the laughter of a girl, the mistake of a typist—even sin.
R.C. Sproul Jr. represents consistent Reformed thinking and theology when he says:
God wills all things that come to pass. … God desired for man to fall into sin. … God created sin.
Sproul Jr. explains that we only have four options:
Adam, Eve, Satan, [or] God…
He then says:
The difficult question is how men came to be sinners in the first place. Remember that once there was God and nothing else. Now there is not only God and the universe but also evil. Where did it come from?
Sproul Jr. rules out Adam, Eve, and even Satan because they were created good and as such are supposedly incapable of doing bad on their own. He then says:
Who are we left with? The case against God, the argument that he must be the one who introduced evil into his world, does not just rest merely on the process of elimination.
Sproul Jr. goes on to say:
We know that God was present…he is always present…Did God have the means? Of course he did. There is no power greater than him that could somehow stop him from changing Eve’s inclination [from good to evil]. We know that it is not only possible for God to change a person’s inclination; we know in fact that it is his habit to do so. He does it all the time…
But even if God works through secondary causes-hires someone else to do his work for him-he cannot cease to be the primary cause. In a human trial we recognize that hiring a hit man does not shift the blame from the hirer to the hiree. Both the triggerman and whoever ordered the hit stand trial for the crime. And both can hang for it.
The same could apply to Adam and Eve and the fall. God might not have operated on Eve personally. He might not have flipped the switch, changing her inclinations from good to evil. He must, however, have been the ultimate cause. He could have set things up in advance, arranged all the possibilities such that it would happen. But as the sole creator and controller of those possibilities, the trail ultimately leads back to God.
Suppose the writer of the script exercises the kind of control over the play that ensures the actor playing the evil man does exactly as the script says he will do. From the vantage point of the audience, within the context of the play, the evil character, played by the actor, is responsible for the crime. From the perspective of the writer of the script, the writer is in reality responsible for the crime committed in the play by the actor playing the evil man. (end quote)
If we were to call God the writer of the play, and a sinful human becomes the actor/evil man, then it would be appropriate to say that God committed the terrible crime (since He is the writer), and yet to also say that the evil man/actor committed the terrible crime (since that was written into his role). When all the theological fog is cleared away, Calvinism asserts that God is really the one responsible for whatever happens, good or bad, while man only appears to be the one responsible for his actions (that were in actuality “scripted” for him). Since, however, we are in this divinely written play, and it appears to be reality to us, and is in fact our reality, the Calvinist says we are free. The Calvinist also believes that we will ultimately be held account¬able for what Calvinism says or suggests that God is really responsible for. Many will object to my analogy of the play. They argue that this is not really what Calvinism says or suggests. To the contrary, Calvinist Wayne Grudem says:
The analogy of an author writing a play may help. … In the Shakespearean play Macbeth, the character Macbeth murders King Duncan. Now (if we assume for a moment that this is a fictional account), the question may be asked, “Who killed King Duncan?”
On one level, the correct answer is “Macbeth.” Within the context of the play he carried out the murder and is rightly to blame for it. But on another level, a correct answer to the question, “Who killed King Duncan?” “William Shakespeare:” he wrote the play, he cre¬ated all the characters in it, and he wrote the part where Macbeth killed King Duncan.
The hypo-Calvinist scholar John Feinberg admits:
Sometimes it would be easier not to be a Calvinist. An intel¬lectual price tag comes with any conceptual scheme, but the one that comes with Calvinism seems beyond the resources of human intelligence to pay. Calvinists hold views that appear at very least counterintuitive. This is especially so with respect to Calvinist ac¬counts of God’s sovereign control in relation to human freedom and moral responsibility for evil.
If Calvinists are right about divine sovereignty, there seems to be little room for human freedom. If freedom goes, so does human moral responsibility for sin. Worst of all, if Calvinists are right, it appears that God decides that there will be sin and evil in our world, maybe even brings it about that there is such evil, and yet, according to Calvinists, is not morally responsible for any of it. We are.
Reformed theologian Vincent Cheung says that:
When Reformed Christians are questioned on whether God is the “author of sin,” they are too quick to say, “No, God is not the author of sin.” And then they twist and turn and writhe on the floor, trying to give man some power of “self-determination,” and some kind of freedom that in their minds would render man culpable, and yet still leave God with total sovereignty. On the other hand, when someone alleges that my view of divine sovereignty makes God the author of sin, my first reaction tends to be, “So what?”
Would you say “So What?” or “No Way?”
We say, so what?
Gordon Clark asked, “Is it just then for God to punish a man for deeds that God Himself ‘determined before to be done?’”
Clark answered, “Whatever God does is just.”
Clark understood that God is the Divine Legislator that is the grounds for all morality. Cheung understands that to even ask about God’s morality in any situation is foolish since He Himself is the grounds for all morality! This is exactly what I have been telling George all along too, but George is so bent on misrepresenting us that he has completely dismissed our answers numerous times. George Bryson attacks a straw man created by his own hands and then does a victory dance when he knocks it down. But he does not and maybe never will deal squarely with proponents of the biblical position.
If it is said at any time that God is responsible for sin, immediately it should be asked, “responsible to whom or what?” George hasn’t, and perhaps cannot, answer this. Clark explains,
“God’s causing a man to sin is not sin. There is no law, superior to God, which forbids him to decree sinful acts. Sin presupposes a law, for sin is lawlessness.”
“Man is responsible because God calls him to account; man is responsible because the supreme power can punish him for disobedience. God, on the contrary, cannot be responsible for the plain reason that there is no power superior to him; no greater being can hold him accountable; no one can punish him; there is no one to whom God is responsible; there are no laws which he could disobey…The sinner therefore, and not God, is responsible; the sinner alone is the author of sin. Man has no free will, for salvation is purely of grace; and God is sovereign.”
Quotes are from Clark’s RRR. (The Trinity Foundation)
Hey Stephen
I like your “tell it like you believe it attitude”. That is why I like Cheung even though I strongly disagree with him. I think he understands Calvin and is among the most consistent Calvinist I am aware of. When you say “we” are you including Mario and Johnny B?
The question is this; is somthing God does just because He does it or does He do it because He is just and He only does and can do just things? This is like the Bible is true because it says it is versus the Bible says its true because. I realize that such a distinction may be lost on Mario but should not be lost on Stephen.
George, you’re asking a form of the ages-old question first formally sparked by Plato. The “Euthyphro Dilemna” as it is called, basically asks if the pious are loved by the gods because they are pious, or if they are pious because they are loved by the gods.
You have spoofed the question, “is som[e]thing God does just because He does it or does He do it because He is just and He only does and can do just things?”
It should be, “is something God does just because He does it, or does He always do what is just?” In other words, is He lawmaker or is He lawful?
The way you’ve phrased the question fails to clearly account for the distinction you’ve predicted would escape Mario’s mind. But apparently it is you that such a distinction is lost on since there is no real distinction in your supposed contrast.
(a) is som[e]thing God does just because He does it
(b) does He do it because He is just and He only does and can do just things?
The clause in (b) “He only does and can do just things” can almost mean the same as (a) “som[e]thing God does just because He does it.” If whatever He does is just then surely we can say that He cannot do anything unjust. Your stating of it seems unclear to me.
The proper contrast, as mentioned earlier, should be between:
(a2) is something God does just because He does it?
(b2) does He always do what is just?”
The question is designed to establish the answering person’s position on whether or not anything is higher than God in terms of authority. If you deny (a2), you must accept (b2). If you accept (b2), you deny the God of the Bible.
If:
“God’s causing a man to sin is not sin.
Can you say that:
God’s causing a man to molest a child is not child molestation?
If it is possible to deliberately cause someone to do something that wicked for man who does the wickedness but not the one who causes him to do it (say with a gun pointed to the agent of the wickedness) are you saying that there is no necessary link between the deliberate cause of wickedness and the wickedness done?
You evidently buy into the notion that might makes right? In the abstract you may really believe this concept. What about in the concrete? Would you tell a mother of the victim of serial killer that the serial killer is guilty of something wickent the God who deliberately and irresistibly caused the serial killer to kill is blameless?
George.
It is clear that you stay up grasping to find a way to keep your view. You remind me of a dog chasing his tail. You cannot escape the fact that God does as He pleases.
Psalm 115:3 “Our God is in the heavens; he does all that he pleases.”
We love you George, therefore, we tell you the raw, biblical truth. What you should do is lay your weapons down, and surrender to the Sovereignty of the King of Kings.
When are we getting that cup of coffee? Starbucks. I’ll buy.
George, again you attempt to borrow from Plato, and again you show that you’re approaching these questions a bit confused. The Thrasymachaen moral position (laid out in Plato’s Republic) that justice is the property of the stronger (or “might makes right”), largely depends on the notion that justice is nothing more than obedience to current laws. In this sense, one must be a relativist since laws come and go as political powers come and go. This is what is meant by the phrase, “might makes right.” To deduce from what I’ve written above that my position is the same or even similar to Thrasymachus’ points to your fundamental misunderstanding of both me and old Thrasymachus.
Hey Mario
I will concede that you are the expert on tail chasing dogs.
Hey Stephen
Before Plato there was a law above all law based on and reflecting the very character and nature of God. While you may not understand, recognize or accept it, you are one of those “eternal relativists” who thinks right and wrong are/were determined by divine decree or will. When in fact, a true absolutist sees right and wrong as fixed in conformity to the nature and character who does not change, and cannot change in his nature and character. We do agree that you you seem to understand Calvin as he wanted to be understood. Maybe you and I should go after all of those “wimpy” “Calvinist Lite” types that will not concede that Calvin makes God out to be the author and cause of sin. I have noticed lately that many inconsistent Calvinists are really “ticked” at folks like you saying that you are worse than folks like me. And remember, I am supposed to be a synergistic, palagian blasphemer. I think you ought to strike back at Johnson for saying folks like you are “sub”, “phony” “fake” and “false” Calvinsits. I think you are the genuine article and it would make my life easier if everyone who claims to be a Calvinist would come right out and say what Calvin said or implied by what He said. I might even admit that you know Calvin as well as I know Calvin. The only real big difference between us is that you like Calvin (I mean agree with Calvin) much more than I do. At my age, all the dancing around what Calvin said just wears me out. In Christ, George
Hey Guys,
Why don’t you guys that really believe Calvin got it right (soteriologically speaking) challenge those hypo-Calvinists to a debate over at the Phoenix Preacher. I think some of you would have an easier time proving they were hypo-Calvinists than they would have proving you are a hyper-Calvinist which is what they call consistent Calvinism? You might have to adjust a little to the Oprah/Jerry stuff a little, but hey, once the inner child is released, he can run wild-right? Oh-one more thing-be careful that you do not hurt their feelings-some of them are extremely “sensitive” and please do not tell them I told you so. In Christ, George
Few questions for George:
“Before Plato there was a law above all law based on and reflecting the very character and nature of God.”
Are you referring to the Mosaic Law? That was a law before Plato. Many theologians will tell you that the Mosaic Law was “based on and reflect[s] the very character and nature of God.” But all you said is that there was “a law.” Whichever “law” you’re referring to, you need to explain and justify how it is that you *know* of such a law. Is the law you speak of an eternally established set of moral principles? Is it one principle? Are they mysterious abstract moral virtues? Is it a single abstract virtue? What are they? What is it? And how do you know they/it really exist? Your statement is highly ambiguous.
“While you may not understand, recognize or accept it, you are one of those ‘eternal relativists’ who thinks right and wrong are/were determined by divine decree or will.”
Please explain (if you can) what an “eternal relativist” is. I may in fact be one, but I need you to articulate the definition so I can examine it. I don’t see how such a thing could exist since the term “relativism” generally represents ideas that are dependent on (i.e., relative to) other factors. But in my view, that I argue is grounded in Scripture, there wasn’t any other external factors in existence prior to the ex nihilo creation.
“When in fact, a true absolutist sees right and wrong as fixed in conformity to the nature and character who does not change, and cannot change in his nature and character.”
Are you claiming to be a true absolutist?
George, who are the “hypo-Calvinists over at the Phoenix Preacher?” What is the Phoenix Preacher? Is it on TBN? Is it a website? If so, send a link!
Hey Stephen
I am on my way to a meeting and I have to leave for a while but I cannot go until I tell you that I just had one of the best laughs I have had in a very long time. I am not laughing at you. I just found it so funny that you do not know who the folks are at Phoenix Preacher are. But you have probably lived in a different world than I have lived in. Many (not all of these folks) claim to be Calvinists and many of these folks (not all) really have it in for Chuck Smith. The only person many of these folks (not all) think less qualified to speak on anything biblical or theological than me is Chuck Smith. Some of these folks (not all) believe they have been mistreated, picked on, hurt, persecuted etc, by Chuck directly and indirectly. Anyway, I just assumed you knew them, which only proves I do not actually know everything-because I wrongly thought you knew them. Just proves that just as all of us “non-Calvinist” idiots do not hang out together, not everyone claiming to be a Calvinist live in the same neighborhood. If you can believe it is possible, I think they think I am less intelligent than you folks seem to think. Anyway, if you go over to phoenixpreacher.net watch who you walk on. Have a good evening and if I can I will catch up with you later. In Christ, George
LOL, I have a pretty wide circle – but have never heard of the Phoenix Preacher. I just saw the site, and boy, light text color on black background sure does give me a headache! As you can tell, I’ve designed the beautiful biblicalthought.com with the opposite color scheme, dark text on white background. I will only be able to go a minute or two at a time on the Phoenix preacher for that reason. Thanks for the link, George.
MARIO TO LIGHT TO WEIGH
Who said Mario is intellectuall to light to weigh? That is mean and I will not stand for it on a website like this where brothers do not say such things about brothers even if it true.
You are welcome Stephen. Interesting observation. Remember, tread lightly or you may “feel” the wrath of someon “high and mighty”.
The law above the law to which I refer was before the law of Moses. I refer to the eternal stardard of right and wrong, based on the nature and character of God. The “absolute relativist” which you should have read about in philosophy 101 believes that God is eternal but ultimate right and wrong can only be truly understand as what God determines or wills to be right and wrong. God’s will is right because it God’s will. Whatever He says is right because who can argue (and win the argument) with God.
Who said Mario is intellectually to0 light to weigh? That is mean and I will not stand for it on a website like this where brothers do not say such things about brothers even if it true.
Who says George cannot find spelling erros and correct them?
erros? What is that?
The Sixth Point of Calvinism
Calvinists sometimes seem to affirm freedom of choice for a lost man regarding where he will spend eternity. Calvinism as a system, however, will not allow it. The primary reason Calvinism denies man this freedom is found in a seriously flawed definition of sovereignty. Despite the fact that Calvinists see themselves as the vanguards of divine sovereignty, the concept of sovereignty as found in Calvinism undermines and degrades the concept of sovereignty found in Scripture.
One of the ways in which Calvinism undermines the biblical concept of divine sovereignty is by confusing it with the biblical concept of divine freedom. For some Calvinists, such as James White, God’s sovereignty and God’s freedom are practically synonymous. It is truly doubtful that any thoughtful Evangelical would disagree with the fact that God is absolutely free because He is absolutely sovereign—and He is absolutely sovereign if, and only if, He is absolutely free. According to White, however, the problem is:
Sin causes man to constantly seek to insert himself into the work of God in salvation, so every generation has to be reminded of their complete dependence upon Him and of His perfect salvation. That is one reason why I do not believe the common “Five Points” … is enough for today. There is a sixth point that lies at the head of the list, which must be firmly proclaimed and defended today: the freedom of God. While it may have been taken for granted a few centuries ago, today it is surely a belief under fire. But since it lies at the very heart of the debate, we need to begin with a discussion of what it means.
On one hand, the Calvinist doctrine of sovereignty teaches us that everything is as it ought to be. In other words, things are as the sovereign God desired, determined, and even decreed them to be. Thus, according to Calvinism, if God is on the throne, in charge, and in control, things could not be other than they are, unless He had determined or decreed them to be some other way.
On the other hand, Calvinists constantly bemoan the fact that man (especially those pesky Arminians) does not accept God’s sovereignty but openly denies and even attempts to resist that sovereignty. They do this without even noticing how inconsistent this view is. Assuming Calvinism is true, how can man (even an Arminian man) do anything to offend God, or please Him for that matter, that God did not sovereignly predestine that he would and should do?
Calvinists may speak of sin causing this or that thing to happen in a secondary sense, but in the primary and morally responsible sense, a consistent Calvinism teaches that God causes everything, including sin and the refusal of some men to embrace Calvinism. Some Calvinists may not mean to teach this and may even deny that this is what they are teaching. In such cases, however, these Calvinists are failing to understand the implicit and sometimes even explicit teachings of Reformed Theology. In fact, according to a consistent Calvinism, God “… causes man to constantly seek to insert himself into the work of God in salvation.” God does so by His own irresistible determination and decree, which caused the “sin” that “causes man to constantly seek to insert himself into the work of God in salvation.” A consistent Calvinism also holds that God caused James White, for example, to complain about what God caused by His irresistible decree. And according to this way of thinking, I could not escape being caused by God to point out how silly all this sounds.
In mainstream Calvinism in general, and for White in particular, the meaning of God’s freedom can be stated as follows:
• God can and does as He pleases in all matters, including with man and his eternal destiny. God has the only say in what He does with man. Conversely, man has no say in what God does with him.
In more picturesque terms, the divine potter shapes the human clay into any form He pleases to use and (in the case of some) to dispose of as He pleases. Ultimately, the human clay cannot meaningfully assist or resist the way he or his future shapes up. The divine potter does as He pleases with the human clay and the human clay does as the divine potter pleases. Period! Even the things that we are told in Scripture that displease God are decreed by God in accordance to His own pleasure, according to a consistent Calvinism.
Focusing heavily upon the image of a potter and his clay (Romans 9), Calvinists misinterpret Paul’s use of this image by going far beyond Paul’s intended purpose. In fact, Calvinists not only go too far but they take you in the wrong direction. How would a consistent Calvinist answer the question “why have You made me this way?” The Calvinist could, and probably should, logically and theologically, say that even this question, along with the sinful rebellion they say it represents, is really determined and decreed by God. Not only so, but a consistent Calvinist could and should also be able to say that even the non-Calvinist misunderstanding of the biblical doctrines of salvation and damnation and the non-Calvinists’ rejection of Calvinism are also determined and decreed by God. The fact that no Calvinist suggests such an interpretation for the potter and the clay only proves that Calvinists cannot go all the way down the interpretive road they are asking others to travel on. Nevertheless, for White, at least one of the issues he believes is at stake is the affirmation that:
God truly can do as He pleases, without getting permission from anyone, including man …
Given the basic and faulty premise of Reformed Theology, how could a man object to God doing what He pleases, unless God determined and decreed that he would object to God doing what He pleases? If Reformed Theology is true, God had to decree even that.
If Calvinism’s view of God’s sovereignty is true, then every thought (correct or in error), every feeling (good or bad), and every statement (either for or against Calvinism) have been sovereignly determined and decreed by God. If Calvinism’s view of God’s sovereignty is true, we could never actually know it, test it, or argue its merits—we could only “go through the motions” that look like real thinking and arguing but which are actually merely the sovereignly determined and decreed acts or thoughts of God working themselves in, through, and out of us.
I have described and defined this Calvinist dilemma repeatedly because once one understands the dilemma, it seems absurd and unbelievable. Why would anyone believe such a thing? The fact is, even to have a meaningful discussion of Calvinism, some central tenets of Calvinism cannot be true and for all practical purposes must be assumed not to be true.
What if God, however, simply chose to give man a choice in where he spends eternity? Not possible, says the consistent Calvinist. For as there can be only one will that truly accomplishes anything, according to Calvinism, so there can only be one being who is free. White likes to say that he believes in libertarian free will, but only for God. Earlier I referred to this as monovolitionism. Richard Phillips, vice president of The Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, perfectly identifies the Calvinist concern by asking:
Who is free? Man or God? Which is sovereign?
For Phillips, White, and the Calvinism they represent, the answers to these questions are the theological bottom line. God is free. Man is not. For White, this is also to say that God is sovereign. Man is not. It is true that a sovereign being is by definition a free being. It is not true, however, that a free being is necessarily a sovereign being. Therefore, while it is true that an absolutely sovereign God would have to be absolutely free, as the one and only true God is, one does not have to be absolutely free to be meaningfully free. A being that is meaningfully and relatively free is not thereby relatively sovereign, if I may use an oxymoron to illustrate my point.
Calvinism is simply guilty of muddying the theological waters. Many hypo-Calvinists want to dance around this issue because Scripture often affirms that man is both free and responsible. They often state their view in a way that makes it seem like they really believe that both man and God can be free. Given enough time to explain what they mean or what is implied by their view, however, they end up denying that man is free in any meaningful or responsible way.
Mainstream Calvinists want to be able to say that both God and man are free, but object when the Biblicist does so. For when a Calvinist says that unregenerate man is free to reject the gospel, as they often do, they mean something very different than does the non-Calvinist Evangelical. Free to reject, according to Calvinism, actually means exactly the same thing as bound to reject. When freedom and bondage mean the same thing, they mean nothing. When a reprobate freely rejects God’s offer of eternal life on the condition of faith in Christ, it is, according to the Calvinist, because of his bondage to sin. That is, the reprobate is only free to reject, not free to accept or reject. Some freedom! This kind of convoluted thinking has led some very bright and godly men to say some pretty incongruent things. For example, Charles Spurgeon says:
Free agency we may believe in, but free will is simply ridiculous.
I suggest that what is really ridiculous is to believe you are a free agent in any meaningful sense, unless you have a will that is meaningfully free. In theological lockstep with Spurgeon, George Bishop says:
Man is a free agent. But man has no free will.
Pardon me if I cannot distinguish between the Calvinist definition of a free agent and my definition of a non-free agent. I fail to see how a man with no free will can still be a free agent. How can there be such a thing as free agency, without a will that is free through which the agent can express freedom or act freely? Spurgeon says:
I believe in [the Calvinist version of] predestination … its very jots and tittles. I believe … that every word and thought of man … is foreknown and foreordained [in the Calvinist sense].
He also says everything:
… is ordained and settled by a decree which cannot be violated.496
Spurgeon goes on to say:
… I believe in the free agency of man, that man acts as he wills, especially in moral operations—choosing the evil with a will that is unbiased by anything that comes from God, biased only by his own depravity of heart and the perverseness of his habits …
Perhaps unconsciously, Spurgeon reduces the decree of God to no effect on man by saying that man’s choice to commit evil is “unbiased by anything that comes from God, biased only by his own depravity of heart and the perverseness of his habits.” Spurgeon asks:
Can you understand it, for I cannot, how a man is a free agent, a responsible agent, so that his sin is his own sin and lies with him and never with God? … I cannot comprehend it: without hesitation I believe it, and rejoice to do so, I never hope to comprehend it. I worship a God I never expect to comprehend …
The Reformed professor Douglas J. Wilson is right when he says:
From cover to cover, the Bible teaches that divine sovereignty and human responsibility are compatible with one another; nowhere does the Bible even suggest that the affirmation of divine sovereignty leads to the denial of human liberty.
R. Laird Harris represents the hypo-Calvinist view as follows:
Calvinism does not deny free will. It declares that God’s sovereignty extends to all things and persons, but that His sovereign control in some inscrutable way does not deny man’s free moral agency and responsibility. … Calvinism does not claim to solve the problem, but only to put it in the Scripture focus and leave it there, not going beyond what is written.
Feinberg goes as far as to say:
Common sense, let alone Scripture, suggests that we are free and morally responsible for our actions.
To be “free and morally responsible” in Reformed Theology is, however, to be neither free nor morally responsible. Man becomes excused from moral culpability by any view that sees man only doing what God makes him do (by His hidden decrees). While not recognizing what they are doing, or recognizing it and not admitting it, some hypo-Calvinists engage in a serious redefinition and defining down of the meaning of freedom to avoid coming into conflict with the contradictions imposed by their views of human depravity and divine sovereignty. Sometimes Calvinists will simply accept conflicting definitions of divine sovereignty and human freedom and leave the resulting logical problems unresolved. In fact, Calvinist Thomas Schreiner admits:
The scandal of the Calvinist system is that ultimately the logical problem posed cannot be fully resolved. The final resolution to the problem of human responsibility and divine justice is beyond our rational capacity.
The example I provided earlier for the kind of Calvinist that Feinberg refers to is Edwin Palmer. According to Palmer, a true Calvinist embraces:
… both sides of the antinomy. He realizes that what he advocates is ridiculous.
Palmer goes on to admit:
It is impossible to harmonize these two sets of data [divine sovereignty and human responsibility].
The Calvinist creates and introduces this apparent paradox, with all its awful ramifications concerning the character of God and the destiny of men. He then berates us for wanting to take a probing look at the arguments and evidence offered upon which it precariously rests. While Palmer apparently does not see the utter impossibility of what he is affirming, at least he concedes that it comes across as “impossible,” “ridiculous,” and “nonsense.” As far as concessions go, this should raise some eyebrows. What it all leads to, according to Palmer and Calvinism, is that:
This is the awesome biblical asymmetry. God ordains sin and man is to blame.
George, you wrote: “The ‘absolute relativist’ which you should have read about in philosophy 101…”
I’m asking about the “eternal relativist,” not the “absolute” relativist. And, the description you’ve given sounds an awful lot like a version of the Divine Command Theory.
That is what happens when you do not get enough sleep. It was supposed to be “absolute relativisit” though “eternal” works. Travelling today-If I stop somewhere with wi-fi I will check in so no one worries about me or misses me too much. In Christ, George
Hey Stephen
Do you think Phil Johnson is referring to your brand of Calvinism when he refers to the “dirty rotten” kind that is worse than Arminianism and that he suggests is understandably leading some formerly good Calvinists (like him of the hypo-variety) to abandon Calvinism altogether for a more hip emergent perspective? His thesis seems to be that the Calvinism Lite Chan is good but sometimes leads to the extremes of Cheung and when it does it not only perverts Calvinism, it may lead to the repudiation of Calvinism.
As a side note, like some many labels that are easy to slap on your theological opponent, I would not refer to you as someone who believes in the standard (if there is such a thing)”divine command theory” because those who seem to be championing this theory, seem to be saying that morality, ethics, righteousness of God is not predictable in any sense and that if he says two plus two (to mix things up a bit) is five it is five. An absolute relativist, as I am using those words has a little more respect for both the character of God as revealed in Scripture and for the standard which is a reflection of His nature. Only you can tell me how “willy-nilly” you are concening rightness and wrongness. Still, it is a “relative” view of morality in some sense, sense you are able to see the rape of a child as decreed and caused by God, without thinking it would be wrong for God.
George,
Where can I find out more about what you’ve said Phil Johnson’s position is? As to whether or not he’s referring to me and my “brand,” you’ll have to find that out from him. I’m not aware of the remarks you’re referring to, but if you’ve given a true account then I’d agree with him that our position (Vincent and I) may lead one to repudiate Calvinism and flock over to the more hip emergent perspective. Calling it extreme is not helpful though since “consistent” is a better description.
Please send the references I’ve requested. And don’t worry, Phil Johnson isn’t an authoritative commentator on Calvinism or Reformed Theology from my perspective. He too has a “brand” with quite a list of objectionable tenets. I appreciate his opinion though, so please send the references and I’ll look into it.
Hey Stephen
My view is that much that is considered hyper-Calvinism is consistent Calvinism and much that is called hypo-Calvinism is truly sub-Calvinism. While you may agree with Johnson concerning some of what he labels hyper-Calvinist after all of ou little chats I think you will recognize at least some of what you believe as what he considers hyper-Calvinism. I see you much closer to Vincent Cheugn than to Francis Chan. I see Cheugn much closer to Calvin than I see Chan. I admit that this is an outsiders view. In Christ, George
http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/hypercal.htm
George:
Hypo, Hyper, Sub-Calvinists? Is this the only way that you can find some chink in the armor? This is what its come down to?
Finding variations in Calvinistic thought and then on that basis lining them up with your own “consistent” formula and afterwards spewing them back at us?
When you cant get John 6 right, youve got to jump on the web posting up a long diatribe about how calvinists dont fit your own conclusions about Calvinism.
But you also need to distance yourself from Arminian Calvaries too?
Do you critique your own with that same microscope as you do here?
In the end George folks want to know what the bible means, not what you think Vincent or Francis add up to in some scorebook of your own.
So, when you ask Stephen his view on it, does that validate the diatribe in such a way that its elevated from rant to relevant?
Point your high powered ism-gun at Smithism and go at it. Im sure that if you compare your Coursons against your garden variety CC pastor you can warrant concern that they vary from Smithism as it was once delivered to the saints. Maybe you can write a book on it, maybe you can champion yourself as a biblicist over against those Arminian Calvary Pastors…
Will they validate your biblical views by reason of your catagorization of their beliefs? Will they refuse Arminianism because youve shown them that the catagory they are in differs from Chuck Smith on various points and that it would be better for them to become ‘biblicist’ rather than Armin or Calvy?
Im willing to say that they wont give you as much attention as you get here.
Hey John
Why so cranky? I was having an adult conversation with Stephen. Is this the usual you or did I catch you on a bad day
This whole thread just illustrates why I’d like to see George B do a real-time debate with someone like James White or whomever….I got a headache trying to follow Georges subterfuge…blind alleys, misquotes, half-truth and innuendo…
and no…I won’t cite any…this is a mile long thread and i don’t have the time…so sue me.
I just wanna know…
George…why won’t you debate James White in real-time with real cross examinations and such?
Hey Robert
Too much TV might be responsible for the headaches. As for debating James White, you must have just come out of a coma. I debated him for three hours on the radio (during which time he said God is the cause of rapists raping babies). I have two published articles with him in print. I debated him (with a cross examination) in front of a live audience. I invited him to debate me with our without a cross examination on a very important topic and thus far he has refused-which he has the right to do. You need to get off the couch a little more and catch up on what has happened since the turn of the century. If you did that it might be more difficult to rationalize the comments you just made. Didn’t they teach you anything in that Yoga class? Oh-Iam sorry-maybe that was not you that was into Yoga. But what does it matter if the facts do not matter. Be nice and you might find it is returned. In Christ, George
Robert,
George did debate James White. We’re still trying to get George to explain what I quoted from his answer to James White’s question on John 6:44. Here is what George answered:
“The point here is you cannot come, you are not able to come unless He draws you, but being able to come and actually coming to Him in faith are not exactly the same thing. He enables you to come and if you come to Him and are drawn and you can’t come to Him unless you are drawn, then He will raise you up. But He doesn’t raise people up unless they come to Him. But the ability to come He gives, but making you able to come doesn’t mean you come.”
George, can you clarify this please?
Robert, we are still waiting for George’s cross-examination……
It was a pretty good debate though, George is pretty good at scratching his elbows and opening and closing his water bottle for no reason….
James White asks George at the 3:20 mark of the video, “could you name one that confuses ability with enablement?” George’s answer is “nnn-ada-ah,”
I want to see your videos George! Do you have them?
Hey Mario
Have you tried therapy for whatever seems to be eating at you. I agree-it probably will not work-carry on.
Hey Mario
I really enjoyed that debate with you and who was that? By the way Stephen has been up-front with his views. You just seem to entertain yourself with what you must believe to be intelligent remarks. I confess I am entertained as well?
By the way, do you think God causes child molestors to molest children? Or are there some things God does not cause?
George,
About therapy, in my fallen condition, I definitely would need therapy were it not for the Lord Jesus Christ!
As far as something eating at me? There is nothing really other than wanting to see the cross-examination you say you have with James White.
About my intelligent remarks, I simply quoted from your words in the cross-examination video.
Have a great day!
I will never understand why God ordains that children be molested (which I can speak on from experience)—-it is evil. But what sinners mean for evil, God means for good and at that we are not permitted to see beyond.
Which is more comforting: 1)God reacts to evil (which He neglected to stop from happening) and uses it for your good, or 2)God ordains evil (which accomplishes exactly what God intends it to do) and uses it for your good?
The greatest evil ever committed was the crucifixion of Christ—-God says He ordained it (Acts 2:22-23). God uses the actions of humans to accomplish His purposes, all the while, humans are doing exactly what they want to do, using their ‘free wills.’
God ordains the free choices of humans–it’s seen in the Scriptures from Gen. to Rev., but it is not fully understandable. It’s not exactly building our egos either—-it’s not supposed to.
My thoughts…
Soli Deo Gloria
George,
Do you think it pleased God to kill his Son?
Hey Robin
I suspect that what you believe in relationship to child molestors and God is not what Calvinism actually teaches. But I will not lecture on this matter. I will just say that I am sorry for whatever way the person you referred to was abused, but I do not think it bothers me (and it troubles me a lot even to think about) as much as it is repugnant and contrary to God. I am certain that it was not God who caused it, as Calvin taught and many Calvinists believe. My next post will be on supralapsarianism-which corresponds to Calvinism of Calvin. In Christ, George
THE SIGNIFICANCE
OF
SUPRALAPSARIANISM
FOR
CALVINISM
How far have you gone down the “Reformed” road or how far are you willing to go? It is no secret that I believe that Calvinism (in all forms) is unbiblical. And while I admit to having read a great many different kinds of Calvinists who hold to very different and even conflicting views concerning what Calvin meant by what Calvin said, I have tried to form my opinion of Calvinism from Calvin Himself. It may be a fault with me, but I believe he deserves at least that much respect from those who claim to represent what he taught to others. Those who seriously and substantially disagree with Calvin (as I do) should be at least as careful to fairly and accurately represent him as those who (generally speaking) believe he got it right on the big issues.
The more I read Calvin and consider what is both explicit and implicit in what he said, the more I have come to believe that there are very few real hyper-Calvinists. Instead I have found that there is an over abundance of hypo-Calvinists. While labels like these are subject to differing definitions (often used as pejoratives by opposing Calvinist camps) I will define a hypo-Calvinist as someone who does not go (logically and theologically speaking) all the way with Calvin. Surely, such people who claim to be Calvinists do exist in large numbers. In contrast, a hyper-Calvinist is one who goes beyond where Calvin will take you. While I am not saying that there are no individuals claiming to be “Reformed” that go beyond Calvin, I must confess I have never met one. That may be because I just do not get out enough or that there are not that many of them around.
The vast majority of those who call themselves Calvinists or even “mainstream Calvinists” do in fact stop short (often far short) of what Calvin explicitly taught and clearly implied in what he taught. This is especially evident to me when I quote Calvin (as I often do) and my Calvinist friend says something like, “Calvin never said that or that is not what Calvin meant”-even though what he said he said in the clearest possible way. What is called “mainstream Calvinism” or “popular Calvinism” and sometimes even “orthodox” or “historic” Calvinism is really “Calvinism Lite”. I am not talking about confused Arminians (who for whatever difficult to imagine reason) think they are Calvinists. I am referring to five point Calvinists. I am not even referring to those who hold to one or more of the five points of Calvinism but illogically deny one or more points of the so-called doctrines of Grace. Rather, I am speaking about the Calvinism of John MacArthur Jr., R.C. Sproul Sr., J.I. Packer, John Piper and even Lorraine Boettner. Admittedly some popular Calvinists are “’softer” than others. Some almost hide their Calvinism and some (such as James White) seems to be in transition from a softer version to a harder version of Calvinism. Nevertheless, much of what passes for mainstream Calvinism or the Calvinism of Calvin would undoubtedly be considered “wimpy” by Calvin himself.
The Calvinism that is more consistent with Calvin (or Calvinism taught and implied in what Calvin taught) is frequently mislabeled hyper-Calvinism. Most of what passes for “Compatiblism” would not be compatible with Calvin, though many try and make it seem so. It is widely accepted (by infralapsarian Calvinists who know the difference between infralapsarianism and supralapsarianism) that Calvin was a supralapsarian. So why are the “orthodox” Calvinists called infralapsarians? Why do they label the supralapsarian Calvinists as “extreme Calvinists”, “unorthodox Calvinists”, or even “sub-Calvinists”?
While I find the more muscular version of Calvinism more unscriptural than the more enemic version, I am convinced that the Calvinism of Vincent Cheung is much closer to the Calvinism of Calvin than the what may be the watered down version of Francis Chan. So why are infralapsarians in the majority and supralapsarians in the minority in the greater “Reformed” community of believers? There is probably several answers to that question that goes beyond the scope of this brief article. While R.C. Sproul Jr. may have moved away from infralapsarianism (see Almighty Over All) and toward or into supralapsarianism, Vincent Cheung is probably the supralapsarian to be reckoned with today. He is certainly among the most consistent of Calvinists I have read. He is not only willing to go all the way down the “Reformed” road but insists that all Calvinists should be doing so. Yes, there is a theologically “Reformed” road and if you travel it all the way, you will be much closer to Vincent Cheung than Francis Chan.
While I seriously doubt that anything I could say about Vincent Cheung would be considered a compliment (by him) I do appreciate his willingness (or insistence) on laying everything out on the table. I even suspect that if Cheung (and those who generally agree with him) ever wins the day and become the dominant Calvinist camp, the debate between Calvinists and non-Calvinists would become much more Bible centered.
As it is, Calvinists have so qualified their views (which often conceals as much as it reveals about what a particular Calvinist believes) that the focus is not as much on “is Calvinism true or not true according to Scripture” but what does a particular Calvinist mean when he says he believes this or that. While in my own attempts to represent Calvin and Calvinism, the closer I get to what Calvin said and what he obviously meant by what he said the more I hear “That is not Calvinism, that is hyper-Calvinism.”
Speaking only of the soteriological issues at stake, I would personally like to see R.C. Sproul Sr. and Vincent Cheung engage in a few very public debates for at least the greater Reformed public so that they could become a more “Informed-Reformed” public. While I have a great deal of respect for the ability of R. C. Sproul Sr., I would put my money on Vincent Cheung (if I were a betting man) on who would win and who would lose if the issue was on who really represents the Calvinism of Calvin.
To Cheung, the infralapsarian (the view of most of the leaders of the more popular version of Calvinism) betrays spiritual, theological, and logical immaturity at best. As a system of theology, associated with Calvin or not, infralapsarians are (in the mind of Cheung) guilty of various kinds of blasphemy because of their association with this system. Cheung explains that:
“…God created the elect and the reprobates because he willed to manifest himself and to be glorified through them. Although the reprobates do not consciously glorify God, he glorifies himself through them by what he causes them to do and what he does with them. He is glorified by the elect in their salvation and by the reprobates in their damnation.
“The nature of purpose and design necessitates a supralapsarian scheme of the eternal decrees, in which the decree of election and reprobation appears before the decree for the fall of humanity, and in which the decree for the fall of humanity appears before the decree for the creation of humanity…the supralapsarian would say that God decrees the fall of humanity so that he would accomplish the decree of reprobation.
“Supralapsarianism is the biblical and rational order…Thus infralapsarianism is blasphemous by implication, since it insults God’s intelligence and denies his rationality.
“Infralapsarians retort that supralapsarianism undermines God’s justice, but to assert this they smuggle in a private and unbiblical standard of justice, one that rejects God’s absolute sovereignty and violates strict logical inference, and then evaluate the eternal decrees by it. Their attempt to defend God’s subservience to a human standard of justice turns out to be a subversion against his sovereign and divine justice, and a denial of even a simple ability for logical planning and arrangement in the mind of God. Hence their objection commits another act of blasphemy.
“Louis Berkhof [an infralapsarian], in explaining some of the objections against supralapsarianism, writes, “Notwithstanding its seeming pretensions, it does not give a solution of the problem of sin. It would do this, if it dared to say that God decreed to bring sin into the world by His own direct efficiency.” But I dare say this. In fact, I dare not deny it, because if I do, I would be saying that some other power has the ability to generate and control sin by its own “direct efficiency.” Handing over divine power to humans and demons, this is the blasphemy of dualism.
“Berkhof continues, “Some Supralapsarians, it is true, do represent the decree as the efficient cause of sin, but yet do not want this to be interpreted in such a way that God becomes the author of sin.” But I do affirm that God is the sovereign and righteous author of sin, for the same reason that I just stated. To deny that God is the author of sin necessarily implies some form of dualism, and this amounts to a rejection of biblical theism. The result, again, is blasphemy.
“But Berkhof persists: “It is pointed out that the supralapsarian scheme is illogical in that it makes the decree of election and preterition refer to non-entities, that is, to men who do not exist, except as bare possibilities, even in the mind of God; who do not yet exist in the divine decree and are therefore not contemplated as created, but only as creatable.” This is a perplexingly stupid objection. Infralapsarianism confuses the order of purpose and design with the order of execution. It complains that in supralapsarianism, God decrees the identities of the reprobates without a view to their sinfulness. However, the Bible explicitly asserts this view, that reprobation is unconditional, and that God created some people for salvation and all others for damnation “out of the same lump” (Romans 9:21). The reprobates did not create themselves; God created them, and created them as reprobates.
“Infralapsarians hides behind their human standard of justice, that God must designate as reprobates only those who are already guilty, but is it better for God to decree that all of humanity should fall into sin without any reason for it and without any thought of redemption? On the other hand, although supralapsarians would say that God could indeed decree the fall of humanity just because he wishes it, in their scheme, God decrees the fall of humanity so that there would be sinners for him to save and to damn.
“The major objection against the supralapsarian scheme amounts to an opposition to the idea that God could designate the identities of the reprobates before he decrees their fall into sin. In supralapsarianism, God first decrees that there would be reprobates, and then he decrees the fall so that these reprobates could materialize. Again, the objection is against unconditional reprobation. To put it another way, the objection is against God’s absolute sovereignty, or the fact that God is God.
“Then, the objection against unconditional reprobation is that it is unjust – that is, not according to any standard stated in Scripture, but according to man’s sinful intuition. He is uncomfortable with the idea! In any case, by the time God executes punishment upon the reprobates, they have already fallen into sin, so that God does not in fact punish anyone who is sinless and innocent, that is, except when he caused the suffering of Christ. Even then, the punishment inflicted was just in God’s mind because Christ was bearing the guilt of the chosen ones (Isaiah 53:10).
“Again, the objection against supralapsarianism really amounts to a denial that God is God, and that he is not a man or a mere creature. Some people say they believe in God, but they do not in fact believe. This is a major culprit behind false theological systems such as Liberalism, Arminianism, and inconsistent Calvinism. There is in fact no biblical or rational objection against supralapsarianism. People simply do not wish to allow God total sovereignty over his own creation. Once we abandon false and man-centered assumptions, the offense of absolute divine sovereignty vanishes. Whether we will abandon these assumptions is another question. The work of the Spirit in sanctification is needed for us to relinquish all sense of human autonomy and man-centered thinking, including the relative and illusory type of “freedom” that appears so frequently in the popular form of Calvinism.
“As with many such controversies, the real question in this disagreement between supralapsarianism and infralapsarianism is whether we are willing to “let” God be God on his own terms. A consistent supralapsarianism is the only position that honors God, Scripture, and logic. And it is the only God-centered position. One of the things that we learn from the doctrine is that God actively decreed and caused the fall of humanity as one of the steps by which he would fulfill his eternal plan. Sin was not an accident…
________________________________________________
Keep in mind that this not a rebuke of those guilty of the “errors” of a non-Calvinist such as myself-that sees even “Calvinism Lite” as repugnant and a serious departure from Scripture. Vincent Cheung is calling R.C. Sproul Sr., John Piper, J.I. Packer and all other hypo-Calvinists and advocates of “Calvinism-Lite” blasphemers by embracing infralapsarianism. Even if you say he is not really calling Sproul Sr. and company blasphemers, he is certainly calling some of what they believe (infralapsarianism) as blasphemous.
If you are like me, you find serious fault with Cheung’s understanding of Scripture, God, the implications of what it means when the sovereignty of God is biblically affirmed (and much more). But for anyone who has taken the time to read The Institutes (especially book 3) it is difficult (I would say impossible) deny reasonably deny that Cheung accurately and fairly represents the main premise of Calvin and Calvinism. If you believe that Calvin was right and that Cheung accuaratel understands Calvin, then you would have deny the logic of Cheung to refute his supralapsarianism. I do not think that can be done.
To carry on an intelligent and meaningful conversation with Calvinist friends I constantly have to discover what kind of Calvinist they are. I have to find out how far down the “Reformed” road they have travelled. Most are unwilling to even concede (or consider) that they stopped very short of where Calvin is trying to take them. I would not need to do this if every Calvinist understood (and agreed with) Calvin as well as Cheung does. If I were teaching a course on Calvin and Calvinism I would not exclude Sproul Sr. or Lorraine Boettner. But I would be derelict if I don include those men who have championed supralapsarianism as well. I will this short article with the question I began with:
“How far have you gone down the “Reformed” road or how far are you willing to go?”
George: All that just to say you dont like Calvinism? So what?
But, its cute that you offer no ingredients from own brand of soup
(doctrine) into which youve introduced your own brand of rat-poison.
When it comes to scripture all is silent, when it comes to finding some way of pitting Piper against Cheung…well then your willing to play.
This is the same tactic applied over and over again. But you stand outside of these reformed doctrinal issues and say “Im above all that” with your unexplained and unproven doctrines of your own.
I asked you to take that microscope of fault-finding and place it upon your own doctrines, but all I got was some idiotic comeback and avoidance of my questions to you.
Maybe you should read your own calvary pastors and the contradictory things they say explaining one verse or another? But I can count on you to ignore the death in your doctrinal casket while you paint it white with complaints about Calvinism.
Your honor toward Calvin is only a patronizing jargon. You consider Calvin errant and dangerous so why pretend the decorum of scholars?
What would it matter if all Calvinists were Supra? What would it matter if they were all Infra? In reality it means nothing to you. For once youve determined a Calvinists own slant you simply pit him against another Calvinist with a different slant, as if you care 1 iota about consistency in Calvinism. This of course is what you offer in lieu of biblical proof. But that elusive validation never seems to find its way to you.
God no doubt has you preparing another book and another set of speaking engagements in order to bash Calvinism and in effect bash God’s sovereignty. You get to work up teachings comparing one Calvinist against another and then afterward get applauded for your ‘truth’.
When Jesus said “lead us not into temptation”, he meant for us to stop praying to God and begin praying to the Devil, cause God wouldnt lead us into temptation would he? How many times have I heard this text butchered by Smithism? All because your own taste for what pleases Calvary Chapel’s is better than what pleases God. Your rock throwing
will eventually land upon your local CC Pastors house and youll find
your criticisms are only your own.
I think I hear this same principle in use….yes, I do.
We are of Paul, no we are off Apollos, But George says “I am of Christ”
That seals the deal so the rest of us can stop comparing ourselves against each other and move on to comparing ourselves to George. Is dividing Christ they way to prove your own slant on doctrines?
But this is exactly what is being pushed upon us, “we need to move to the Piper camp”…no, “we need to move to the Cheung camp”. But then George says “theyre all wrong” they need to move to my camp.
So, the self-proclaimed biblicist moves away from the bible to quoting one preacher or another and tells us “rally to your camps”. As Calvinists were all moving towards the truth of scripture; but George for the sake of easier bashing and less homework wants the reformed to form one tribe.
Tell that you to Coursons and your Smith’s and your Bob Coys or Skip H.
Pigeon hole them, pit them against one another, write books about them
telling everyone they diverge from each other and are not willing to go down the same arminian semi-pelagian road…as far as it will take them.
Theyll send you packing.
Hey John
I may have forget but I do not remember you always being such a “grumpy old guy”. Is there something I said about about supralapsarians you disagree with? Or is there something Cheung said about infralapsarians you find disturbing? Or is that you only like it if a Calvinist of one kind talks about Calvinits on another kind? Do you remember what I taught you about “breathing deeper” or something like that. Smile a little (unless you do not have anything to smile about) and you will live happier if not longer-I think!
Hey John
I had to do something before I could take the time to read your very upbeat and positve response. Wow-something got you going! I still say you need to get a hobby or something before you “pop a cork”. Now get out there and enjoy your life a little. Seriously!
George,
Why do you aim your sarcastic responses toward the individual. John is addressing you about your doctrine. You make adhominem comments about him. This is not personal George, it is spiritual. By your unbiblical responses, it is easily seen that something has been struck in you. You are attempting to “push someone’s buttons” to ease the tension or frustration you feel.
Does making those statements to John please your flesh? It comes across as I read it…….
Dear Mario
Coming from someone who seems to live to be rude (revisit all of your remarks) it is hard for me to believe that even you believe I should take you serious.
George,
We pray that God enlightens you! I will be the first to admit I err and am not perfect! You love to incite these sort of responses. From your responses, you speak reckless words.
You took this blog serious the moment you responded. You have tried to cover your human centered, fallen thinking, but you have not been able to. Well does Scripture say where there are many words, sin is not absent.
George: Got the hobbies covered, I love to fish and shoot and ride my motorcycle.
Got the breathing thing down, I write these posts with simplicity I dont get into a tizzy as you seem to presume that upon me.
Lets go down a little road together.
If I were to find Mario or Stephen teaching something I disagree with or I think is error I would not handle it as you do.
I would say Hey Mario, what you said and what the scripture says in such-and-such place is different, could you explain? If the explanation was still not to my liking I would not seek to correct them by the tactic you use.
If I were to use your tactics I would have to adopt a divide and conquer method, note the difference, presume one or both are in error and then on the basis of their differences pit Mario or Stephen against each other and ask my readers to chose a camp. Yet, after I gave the call to muster in either camp I would condemn both camps simply because its not in accord with my own camp.
I dont have to exert the effort to prove one scripture, I dont have to put my own interpretations out for scrutiny all I have to do is register complaint of assumed error and proceed as if my accusation were true.
Do you think either of them will profit from my complaints? Do you think they will grow in knowledge of Christ and his grace?
Would you consider doing this to Skip and John C? Im asking you a question, would you do this to your own CC Pastors?
Would you pit them against each other, call to your readers to pick a camp and then condemn both camps?
Im telling you, they would brand you as divisive, not biblical or wise or approved but simply divisive and no matter what your doctrinal position reject your person based on that.
Then someone might say “Well George answered this in his books”. Well does that mean I need to buy your books? Or does that mean that once youve delivered your faith to the saints it need not be said again? Is your own explanations so well done that further explanation need not be offered?
What I despise George is not y0u, but this low-brow tactic where you assert error, establish no biblical basis for the error and will not address the difficult questions of sin, origins of sins, authorship of sins or God’s part in providence. I wonder that youve even wrestled with it so as to form your own opinions. All I know is that you dont like Pipers or Cheung’s.
Again, so what!
I have no compulsion to pull apart Vincents conclusions, he can have them without my approval. You give yourself the latitude to feel approved
outside of Vincents stand on Supralapsarianism. Am I not granted the same right to feel approved even if I am Infra? Or maybe I am supra?
Just how deep will you cut asunder the minds of men who agree? Until you find disagreement? Then will you be justified in holding your psuedo middle position (no calvy no armin position)?
You keep repeating this tactic and I keep repeating back “You havent proven your own position”.
John<—–breathing properly, smiling and going fishing
Hey Mario
Wow! I am so busted. You see right through me.