biblicalthought.com

O_o Wow. I honestly have never heard of George Bryson but he’s talking like a dog chasing it’s own tail. LOL

Maryland Mama,

I looked up to George at one time. I was on a mission trip to Russia with a team he was leading. Thank God for the doctrines of grace! So many brothers and sisters need to see what it is to trust in human reason above Scripture!.

White: What value does Christ’s death have for the person that will spend eternity in hell?

Bryson: The value is intrinsic in His death - that He died for them.

Makes my elbow itchy…

Johnny B~

I don’t know if CC people are “afraid” of Calvinism…I think it may be a combo of ignorance (they just don’t know any better) and pride (especially some of the leadership)!

I will proclaim it repeatedely: There is such freedom in being a Calvinist! Bowing the knee to God and His word while not always easy…brings joy unspeakable…a full life…and true peace. He is in charge and we are SO not…

Praise Him!!!

Hello,

In the words of a wise philosopher, George Bryson is a dumb-dumb.

They at times make the issue an issue of division of faith. I believe Chuck Smith is along the same lines as Bryson. I know he wrote a little weak booklet on the synthesis of both. He talks about reading Pink’s book and throwing it across the room because it was to hard for him to understand. But via my personal experience with him, he seems like a hot head on this issue.

Does anybody know whether Calvary Chapel has experienced an official split over this issue?

Chuck allowed Walter Martin a stage in the 70s and I think in the late 60s so that was a good thing.

Anybody who wears a red sweater while they preach however is not among the elect.

Jean Cauvin

Just to be clear, we are not here to bash the CC system. We are here to encourage the readers to be strengthened in Christ. We must not forget that at one time we were also in the same place.

No matter what level of intellect we have, we were all once in darkness but God bestowed His grace upon us! We are called to be servants of all! Christ did say that whoever desires to tbe greatest must be the servant of all! Our Savior and Lord did not come to be served but to serve!

We are ministers of the new covenant, we do indeed have a treasure in earthen vessels! May we do all things to the glory of God!

Jean,

It was interesting when Chuck said he felt like luther throwing ink at the devil.

Man is proud and arrogant no matter whether he be a Calvinist or Arminian. It’s merely a sin you’ll find common among all mankind including myself (especially myself).

George Bryson is extremely ignorant. He appears to have such pride and seems closed off to any rebuke or correction even if its in God’s Word. He has this annoying attitude toward the doctrine of Grace and those of us who believe in it, like we’re ignorant and don’t know any better or we’re making God to be some kind of monster instead of a loving God. Not to mention he can be confusing when he tries to twist, oops I mean “explain,” scripture to fit his rational beliefs. Sometimes I wonder if he can understand his own thinking.

Calvary Chapels do not preach the whole counsel of God, they preach their own version of it. They preach what pleases them and usually the party line of Pastor Chuck or Jon Courson.

Calvary Chapel ministers are taught on purpose to be vague, disengenous in contraversial issues. While they boast in not seeking numbers, the training to ignore or resist dealing with contraversial issues is done so that they my gain in numbers.

Calvary Chapel ministry is not teaching the whole word of God simply because the Pastor decides what is contraversial and therefore what is divisive. Wherefore when the pastor speaks he will ignore those doctrines that are clearly stated and can be addressed in the text but instead he will sidestep them and feed you something that wont make you want to walk out the door.

I do wish this was not true but its in Calvary Distinctives written by Chuck Smith himself.
Pg 57-59.

Calvary stays away from the ‘name’ of contraversy, therefore they refuse to call themselves a denomination even though they are clearly one. You can quote them as saying they are not, but that is only because of the disengenous method of trying to be unified instead of telling all the truth. Pastor Chuck teaches his young ministers that if they become in volved in Reformed theology, or involved in contraversial issues they will loose half their crowd. So to remain pleasantly inert in teaching the bible so no one gets upset, its important to become devotional when the text might lead to a doctrinal stance that “they feel” shouldnt be taught because it might create division doctrinally.

The reality is in some cases that the pastors were so ill trained, they were unable to handle theological issues comfortably or with enough wisdom, Pastor Chuck simply taught them to sidetrack those teachings in favor of other friendlier teachings. Its calvary’s way of being seeker sensitive as well as preserving congregations lead by men who could not answer valid biblical questions beyond Chucks own teaching tapes.

Yes, I attend Calvary Chapel and have done so the last 5 years and I was married in one.
The realities of this denomination are what they are. If you dont like it, well move on.

IN a very real sense Pastor Chucks own limitations are spread to his young ministers. He had trouble with Gods sovereignty so in turn all pastors are to take the route Pastor Chuck did.
He saw that denominationalism was a trouble spot so he trained his ministers to avoid ‘title, names, doctrines or anything’ that would turn off people. Not only did this ministry as a whole turn from contraversy but from good solid biblical teaching as well. In order to protect the ministry and its leaders from problems a strong party line was propogated and is instilled in all young leaders.

John

[MODERATORS ARE NOT ON DUTY 24/7 - EXPECT SOME DELAYS AT TIMES]

Agilius,

Now theres a name I haven’t seen around here for many months! How have you been?

You’ve asked a great question: “…how you can reject a message that isn’t meant for you?”

Answer: They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do. - 1 Peter 2:8b (ESV)

Predestination is a biblical doctrine. The passage from John 12 that you’ve cited is from a predestinarian context. Back up a few verses and you’ll read:

37 Though he had done so many signs before them, they still did not believe in him, 38 so that the word spoken by the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled:

“Lord, who has believed what he heard from us,
and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?”

39 Therefore they could not believe. For again Isaiah said,

40 “He has blinded their eyes
and hardened their heart,
lest they see with their eyes,
and understand with their heart, and turn,
and I would heal them.”

41 Isaiah said these things because he saw his glory and spoke of him. 42 Nevertheless, many even of the authorities believed in him, but for fear of the Pharisees they did not confess it, so that they would not be put out of the synagogue; 43 for they loved the glory that comes from man more than the glory that comes from God. - John 12:37-43 (ESV)

This is what the Word of God says.

John,

I hear you on the way things are done at CC’s. What Chuck doesn’t realize, is that people are leaving because, they won’t make a Biblical stand on doctrine. I was at one, where a group of people left, because the pastor, wouldn’t teach, eternal security, when the text was clearly teaching it.

They do quote Chuck a lot, which is scary, he’s a man just like the rest of us. He’s not the final authority, on any Biblical teaching. His way out is, He would rather err on the side of mercy, then be dogmatic. That’s not a direct quote, but I heard him say something to that effect.

Being a regular listener to “The Dividing Line” and James White’s various debates; I am very aware of this debate with George “Get My Book” Bryson. I have yet to become a James White channel rat as I find the channel rats to be a bit too strange for my taste. I took a cruise up to Victoria British Columbia Canada last year with James White and some of the channel rats, and I still think the channel rats are too strange.

I was mainly on the cruise to hear what James White had to say on the subject of the cross.

So James White is a cool Calvinist and Tim Keller is a uncool Calvinist and it appears you guys are of the Presbyterian tradition and not the Reformed Baptist tradition. Hmmmm …. well James White did expose George Bryson as being totally ignorant of Calvinism as some in your group appears to be of Tim Keller.

I meant, all that GEORGE could quote was John 3:16

Sorry folks for the very long entry but I rarely respond to the statments made about me and what I believe on web sites. I have recieved a lot of e-mails telling me that I should say something on the sites that are showing the You-Tube clip and saying that I am afraid to speak up. The truth is I do not wish to spend a lot of time going back and forth so I am going to say a lot all at once. I recognize it will be way too much for some people who would rather get a little at a time. If you read the whole entry or just the last half of the entry, you will see what I have have been saying to the position of James White on John 6: 44 and related passages. To the open minded, it should be obvious that James White is reading into John 6: 44 and elsewhere what is not in in John 6: 44 and elsewhere. Enjoy!

_________________________________________________________

CHAPTER THIRTEEN
IRRESISTIBLE GRACE
SCRIPTURALLY REFUTED
To many (if not most) Calvinists, the sixth chapter of John offers very strong support for irresistible grace. For some Calvinists, John chapter six can only be understood as proof of the Calvinist doctrine of irresistible grace. A careful reading of this portion of Scripture provides evidence to the contrary. If you are a Calvinist, this may require that you take off your Calvinist colored glasses (presuppositions) if you dare. In verse thirty-seven we read:

All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out. (Jn.6: 37)

A couple of verses later Jesus said:

This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing (Jn.6: 39).

In what is considered (by Calvinists) as one of the most important passages for the Calvinist doctrines of salvation and damnation in general and irresistible grace in particular, verse forty-four of the same chapter says:

No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. (Jn.6: 44)

Then in verse sixty-five Jesus says to His disciples:

I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father (Jn.6: 65)

Backing up to verses thirty-five and thirty-six, Jesus says:
I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst. But I said to you [those that were opposing Him] that you have seen Me and yet do not believe (Jn. 6:35–36).

The failure of unbelieving Jews to believe was their forfeiture of essential spiritual food and drink. Their failure to come to Him and believe in Him was a matter of choice on their part as is evident in our Lord’s obvious displeasure with their failure (or refusal) to believe. It is in this context that Jesus also said:

All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out (Jn. 6:37).

NEITHER REJECTED NOR EJECTED

Thus, those who believe in Jesus Christ are one and the same as those whom the Father gives to Him. In like manner, in coming to Christ in faith, the sinner can be assured that he will neither be rejected (kept out) nor ejected (kicked out) of the kingdom of God. Jesus is making the lost aware of how secure in Him they will be if they come to Him in faith. He is also making the saved aware of how secure in Him they are because they have come to Him in faith. As evidence that this is indeed our Lord’s purpose, consider the next two verses.

For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day (Jn. 6:38–39).

Once again, the context makes it evident that the ones given to the Son by the Father are the ones who believe in Christ and have therefore come to Him in faith. For in the next verse He says:

This is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.” (Jn. 6:40)

Those who remained lost may have seen the Lord, but did not see and believe in Him. Those who saw and believed received eternal life and a guarantee of a resurrection to life, according to the will of God. While it is very clear that those who are given to the Lord are believers and therefore have come to Christ in faith, it is not clear, as Calvinists want us to believe, that those given to the Son by the Father believed because they were given. Those given to Christ are given to Christ because “God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life” (Jn. 3:16).

The reason a lost man can be (and is in fact saved) is because of who God is, what God is like, and what God did for the lost in the person of His Son. Jesus died for their sins and then rose from the dead to die no more. The God-ordained condition for salvation, or that which a man must do to be saved, is to believe in Jesus Christ (Acts 16:31).

Logically, faith in Christ is necessary to being given to Christ. Chronologically, faith in Christ is simultaneous to coming to Christ. When a lost person believes in Christ in time, He is given to Christ for time and eternity. Otherwise we have unbelievers given to Christ. It is believers and not unbelievers who come to Christ. It is believers and not unbelievers who are given to Christ. Even if we accept that there is a sense in which the one who believes in time was already given to Christ in eternity, those given must be viewed as believers, before they actually believe, and are given as believers to the one they will eventually believe in. Calvinists go adrift, in part, because they have factored out the all-important faith factor.

None of the above is meant to suggest that an unbeliever does not need supernatural enablement to believe. John six forty-four makes it very clear that we need to be supernaturally enabled to believe so that we can believe. Nor does it mean that faith in Christ produces that which follows faith, whether we are talking about regeneration or justification. Only God can and does regenerate the spiritually dead. Just so, only God can and does justify the ungodly. While God draws all unbelievers so they can believe, He only grants that believers come to Christ. Referring to John 6:39–40, Sproul is on the mark and makes my case when he says:

In this passage Jesus makes it clear that He is concerned about every believer being raised up at the last day. This qualifies His statement about what the Father has given Him that would never be lost. It is believers that are given to Christ by the Father, and these believers will never be lost. This affirmation builds on what Jesus declared only moments earlier (John 6:36–38).

I would, of course, apply 6:44 to what Sproul says in reference to 6:65. Notice, however, that Sproul Sr. admits, “It is believers that are given to Christ by the Father.” It is, therefore, not unbelievers who are given to Christ. On this we could not be more agreed. Nevertheless, Sproul, commenting on John 6:65, asks:

Does God give the ability to come to Jesus to all men?
According to Sproul and all committed Calvinists:
The Reformed view of predestination says no.
In John 6:65, Jesus says (as also quoted by Sproul):

Therefore … no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father. (Jn. 6:65)

We will be forgiven for asking the question, “To what does the word ‘therefore’ refer?” While speaking to those that opposed Him, Jesus says:

There are some of you who do not believe. … Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father.” (Jn. 6:64–65)

That is, to those who believe in Christ, it is granted by the Father that they come to Christ. You must, therefore, come to Christ in faith or you cannot come to Christ at all. If you do come to Christ in faith, you will neither be rejected nor ejected. At this point the Calvinist is likely to ask, “How is it that an utterly lost, totally depraved, and, yes, spiritually dead sinner is able to believe in Christ?” It is by God’s grace and with God’s help—that’s how. I completely agree with Sproul when he concludes from a reading of John 6:65:

The meaning of Jesus’ words is clear. No human being can possibly come to Christ unless something happens that makes it possible for him to come. … Man does not have the ability in and of himself to come to Christ. God must do something first. This passage teaches at least this much; it is not within fallen man’s natural ability to come to Christ on his own, without some kind of divine assistance. One thing is certain; man cannot do it on his own steam without some kind of help from God.

Where we differ is over the answer to the questions:

What kind of help is required? How far must God go in order to overcome our natural inability to come to Christ?

The Calvinist insists that this help must irresistibly lead to faith, and not just give the ability or capacity to believe. Not only so, but the Calvinist also insists that:

It takes much more than the Spirit’s assistance to bring a sinner to Christ—it takes regeneration by which the Spirit makes the sinner alive and gives him a new nature.

By what logic, or from what Scripture, does the Calvinist conclude that the Spirit’s assistance would not be enough, unless it included irresistibly making an unbeliever a believer or regenerating the lost before he believes, so that he can and must—indeed will—believe? Often the Calvinist says, or implies, that one must either believe that the Calvinist version of irresistible grace is necessary to salvation, or one must believe grace is not at all necessary to the process of bringing a sinner to faith in Christ. This is an incredible and unreasonable leap out of logic, or into illogic.

There is a logical and scriptural option that the Calvinist either ignores or rejects. We must be born again to see or enter the kingdom of God. Of that there should be no question. Coming to Christ, however, requires that we simply and truly believe in Christ. When we do, God gives us a new life and that new life is eternal. That is, God regenerates the believer when an unbeliever turns from his unbelief and believes. Again, faith in Christ does not regenerate or justify the spiritually dead sinner—God does. God, however, only and always regenerates and justifies a lost person when the lost person believes in His Son.

THE FATHER DRAWS

Again, 6:44 tells us that only those that the Father draws can come to Jesus. That is:

No one can come to Me unless the Father … draws him… (Jn. 6:44)
Although this verse is used by Calvinists as a basis to deny that some men will be able to come to Christ, combined with John 12:32, it does just the opposite. The Calvinist says that because God must draw many (if not most) people cannot believe and be saved, because in fact He does not draw many (if not most) people. As we will see, Jesus suggests that God draws all people so that all can believe and be saved. In so doing, He insures that no one will have an excuse for not believing.

Thus, both the Calvinist and the non-Calvinist Evangelical recognize that God draws and that if He did not draw a man to Christ, no man would or could believe in Christ. The Calvinist, however, uses this word “draw” to exclude (in his thinking and theology) most of the lost from ever becoming saved. The drawing work of God does not, however, make it inevitable for some unbelievers to become believers, as Calvinism says. It is the drawing work of God that makes it possible for all unbelievers to become believers. Exactly what God does to draw us we are not told in this particular passage. Perhaps John 16:8 holds the answer. It is in this verse that Jesus says:
When He [the Holy Spirit] has come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment.(Jn. 16:8).

Whatever this convicting work of the Holy Spirit is, it is work on the world. He does not (in this context) have the church in focus. That is, our Lord had the lost in mind, not the saved. The Calvinist asks a reasonable question when he asks: why do people positively respond when God draws them? The Calvinist unreasonably answers that everyone who responds positively does so irresistibly. Sproul, appealing to Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament353, argues that the word translated “draw” (i.e., a form of the word elko) means to coerce, force, or even drag. He notes that in James 6:2 the same word is translated drag. That is:

Do not the rich oppress you and drag you into the courts? (James 2:6, emphasis added)

He also points out that in Acts 16:19, the past tense of this word is translated dragged. Thus we read that:

When her masters saw that their hope of profit was gone, they seized Paul and Silas and dragged them into the marketplace to the authorities (Acts 16:19).

What he does not say is that a form of this same word is also used in John 12:32, where we read:

…If I am lifted up from the earth, [I] will draw all peoples to Myself.
I have heard many Calvinists seemingly dismiss the clear teaching of John 12:32. I have never heard them suggest a plausible interpretation of this verse. While the New King James Version uses the word “peoples” instead of “men,” the translators supply these words in both cases. Actually it could be translated, “If I be lifted up from the earth, I will draw all (or everyone) to Myself.” Thus, if the drawing of John 6:44 (i.e., by the Father) can be translated forced, coerced, or dragged, could we not say the same for the drawing of John 12:32 (by and to the Son)?

If being drawn to Christ leads necessarily and inevitably to saving faith in Christ, it would lead to universalism (i.e. everyone will be saved), which Calvinists rightly reject. John 6:44 tells us that everyone that comes to Christ must be enabled to do so, and in fact is enabled to do so by being drawn. It does not tell us that everyone who is drawn to Christ comes to Christ. Even so, Calvin taught that:

To come to Christ being here used metaphorically for believing, the Evangelist … says that those persons are drawn whose understandings God enlightens, and whose hearts he bends and forms to the obedience of Christ. The statement amounts to this …no man will ever of himself be able to come to Christ, but God must first approach him by his Spirit; and hence it follows that all are not drawn, but that God bestows this grace on those whom he has elected.
True, indeed, as to the kind of drawing, it is not violent, so as to compel men by external force; but still it is a powerful impulse of the Holy Spirit, which makes men willing who formerly were unwilling and reluctant. It is a false and profane assertion, therefore, that none are drawn but those who are willing to be drawn, as if man made himself obedient to God by his own efforts; for the willingness with which men follow God is what they already have from himself, who has formed their hearts to obey him.

Irresistible grace “makes men willing who were formerly unwilling”. That is, it makes an unbeliever a believer or it makes an unbeliever believe. The unbeliever has no choice in the matter. More precisely the unbeliever chooses not to believe (for this is in accordance with his unbelieving nature) and God overrides his choice and makes him a believer or makes him believe in spite of his choice not to believe, according to Reformed Theology. Calvin makes it sound like the only alternative is to say that God only draws the willing. That misses the point of being drawn.

Being drawn does not make the unwilling willing. It enables the otherwise unable. Being enabled to come to Christ, actually coming to Christ, and necessarily coming (being compelled) are not the same. The last requires the first two; the first two do not automatically or inevitably lead to the latter. If I were given one hundred dollars I would be enabled to buy a product or service that costs one hundred dollars. The ability to buy something is not the same as actually buying it. Actually buying it could be by my own decision, or because someone forces me to buy it.

Even so, the ability to believe is not the same as actually believing, nor is it the same as necessarily believing. A person must be able to believe in order to believe. The ability to believe, however, is no guarantee that a person will actually believe. The Calvinist wrongly assumes that to be drawn to Christ is to come to Christ. It is eisegesis not exegesis that leads to such a conclusion. That is, you have to read such a view into this text because it is simply not found here. As Calvin said, to believe in Christ is to come to Christ. To be drawn to Christ enables an unbeliever to become a believer and one who is apart from Christ to come to Christ.

The drawing work of God is irresistible in that there is nothing a sinner can do to keep from being drawn to Christ. Thus, there is nothing a sinner can do to keep from being enabled to believe. Again, we must distinguish between being drawn to Christ, which enables us to believe and therefore come to Christ, and actually coming to Christ, which involves a willingness to believe on the part of the enabled.

The ability to believe is from God and God alone. The responsibility to believe is entirely ours. This question is not, as Calvinists suggest, “can a lost and spiritually impotent man resist an all-powerful God who has determined to save a person no matter what?” Instead, the question is “has God determined to save such a person no matter what?” Conversely, the question is not; can a lost and spiritually dead sinner believe if God does not draw him? Of course, he cannot. The question is; are their people God has chosen not to draw? The scriptural answer is that there are no such people.

This text in particular and the testimony of Scripture in general does not teach that God has determined that coming to Christ in faith is forced upon a person in any way whatsoever. Just the opposite is true. The challenge, appeal, and proclamation of the Gospel, as well as the words of the sixth chapter of John, assume and state in a myriad of ways that a lost, depraved, and spiritually dead sinner must respond positively to the drawing work of God and choose to do what he is enabled to do by the drawing work of God. What a man is enabled to do by the drawing work of the Father is believe in and receive Jesus Christ. That is what is meant by the words “come to me”. They are not made to believe and they are not made believers. In effect, a Calvinist paraphrase of John 12:32 could read as follows:

If I be lifted up from the earth, [I] will draw all elect men to Myself,” or “If I be lifted up from the earth, I will draw all kinds of men (from different nations, walks of life, etc.) to Myself.

As Sproul surely knows, a single Greek word (such as elko) can be used to convey very different ideas depending upon the context. This is, in fact, why the translators of most translations used different English words (i.e., draw, drag) to translate what is essentially the same Greek word in different contexts. It is not what the word “draw” may or can mean in some contexts that is at stake here. It is what the word “draw” means and implies in this context.

Thus, if we say, as Calvinists rightly say, that the drawing itself is one hundred percent something God does, then of course, it is irresistible in the sense that man cannot keep an all-powerful God from doing what He has determined to do. Since He has determined to draw all people to Christ (John 12:32), no one can and therefore no one will stop Him from drawing all people to Christ.

If we say that to be drawn to Christ implies that the one drawn necessarily or irresistibly comes to Christ and is therefore saved, as Calvinism teaches, then John 6:44 combined with John 12:32 does not teach the exclusive version of unconditional election found in Calvinism. Instead, the two passages teach an all-inclusive doctrine of unconditional election found in a Calvinistic version of universalism. That would be a theological oxymoron if there ever were one.

By analogy, consider the love God has for the lost. Is it resistible or irresistible? It is irresistible in that a man can’t keep God from loving him if that is what God has determined to do. It is resistible in that God does not force everyone or anyone He loves to receive or reciprocate His love. So it is with the drawing work of God. No one can keep God from drawing him. It is in this sense irresistible. Since, however those enabled to believe are not thereby forced to believe, it is in this respect resistible.

Calvinists are intent on finding an irresistible grace that makes salvation inevitable for an elect caste and impossible (due to the absence of irresistible grace) for a reprobate caste. This colors their thinking and theology as well as their interpretation of Scripture. Calvinists are not, however, as observant of the particulars of this verse as they should be. Again, the verse reads:

No one can come to Me unless the Father… draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day (John 6:44).

To be raised up at the last day, two things must be true of a person.

1. He must be drawn by the Father.
2. He must come to Christ.

That is, to believe in Christ, a lost and naturally unable sinner must be drawn and thereby enabled by the Father to do so. To come to Christ, an enabled sinner must choose to believe in Christ or choose to come to Christ in faith. This is the only way a man can come to Christ.
Again, in order for us to come to Christ, or if you prefer, in order to enable us to believe in Christ, the Father must draw us. Just as the work of salvation belongs to God and God alone, so drawing a man to Christ (thereby enabling that man to come to Christ in faith) belongs to God alone. This is not, or at least should not be, in dispute. This enabling to believe, however, does not negate our responsibility to believe in Christ as well. In fact, we are responsible to believe precisely because we are enabled to believe.

If we were altogether unable to believe, then it is rather silly to talk about being responsible to believe. Believing in Christ is our responsibility and not God’s. It is only the enabling work of God that makes an otherwise unable man responsible for believing. A careful reading of John 6:65, combined with John 6:37, does not provide any kind of theological silver bullet for Calvinism, as so many Calvinists contend. Again Jesus says:

Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father (Jn. 6:65).

The word “therefore” in this verse takes us back to the why of what he says in verse 65. Why does He say what He says in this verse? The answer is to be found in the preceding verses. That is, our Lord says:
There are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him. And He said, “Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father (Jn.6:64–65).
An important connection exists between the word “believe” and the word “therefore.” If we bring our Lord’s words together without the explanatory intervening words it reads:

There are some of you who do not believe. … Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father (Jn. 64a, 65).

1. The Father draws us to enable us to believe in Christ.
2. The Father grants that if we believe in Christ we thereby will come Christ. That is, believing in Christ is coming to Christ.

The problem was not that our Lord’s antagonists could not believe in Him. It was that they did not believe in Him. The drawing work of God enables all to believe and come to Christ (Jn. 6:44, 12:32) Those God the Father gives to the Son of God (i.e., those who believe) come to Christ. Why? Because believing in Christ is effectively coming to Christ. Coming to Christ is the immediate result of believing in Christ in this initial and most foundational sense. Believing in Christ is also what God requires of the lost so that they can be saved. This is not a contribution to salvation, as Calvinists charge, but a condition of salvation as Scripture teaches.

The enabling work of God (i.e., the Father’s drawing) is a gift of the Father to the unbeliever so that he can believe. It should not be confused, as it is in Calvinism, with the gift of the believer to the Son. In other words, the ability to believe is a gift of God to the unbeliever. The act of believing is the responsibility of the one enabled to believe.
The sticking point for many Calvinists is found in the words “and I will raise him up at the last day,” which concludes verse forty-four of chapter six. These words are found at the conclusion of several different statements involving the destiny of believers. Let us look very closely at what they refer to specifically in John 6:44. Again Jesus says:

No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.

The Calvinist wrongly assumes that everyone whom the Father draws comes to Christ and is saved. They also wrongly believe this verse teaches that everyone the Father draws is raised up at the last day. Instead, what this text really teaches is that:

• Those that the Father draws to the Son, which we know to be all from John 12:32,

And:

• Those that believe in Him, which we know to be some from many texts in general as well as this context in particular,
… Will be raised up or resurrected with the just on the last day.

Again, a person must be drawn, which is what God does for us, and he must believe, which is what God enables us to do for ourselves. Calvinists and non-Calvinists agree that there are many who do not and will never believe in Jesus Christ. Calvinists and non-Calvinists agree that those who never believe will forever be lost. Calvinism says, however, that the reprobate do not believe and will not believe because they cannot believe. Concerning John 6:44, White said in an open letter to Dave Hunt:

In John 6:44, the key passage regarding ‘drawing,’ we read: “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.” This is a single sentence. In Greek we have, helkuse auton, kagw anastesw auton en te eschate hemera. The direct object of the action of the Father’s drawing is the first auton, “him.” A grand total of two words separate the first ‘him’ from the second appearance of the same term, “and I will raise him up on the last day.” Now, you are telling us that this is a different ‘him,’ a different group of people. That in fact there are Eph. 1:1-14) many, many who are drawn who will not be raised up. You are telling us that the Father draws millions to Christ, but they do not experience the last phrase of this single sentence. And upon what basis? You don’t tell us. ‘Surely’ you can do so! What is the basis, Mr. Hunt?.. There is no exegetical connection outside of your own theology that says that.
Here is what White is saying:

*Because there are only two words between the first “him” and second “him” of John 6:44, what happens to the second “him” must happen to the first “him” and in fact the first “him” and second him must be the same “him”.

White’s argument is not only misleading but it misrepresents Hunt’s argument. To say as Hunt does, that all are drawn, which we know to be true from John 12:32, and that all those who will be raised up had to have been drawn, which we know to be true from John 6:44, is not the same as to say that the first “him” and the second “him” refer to a different “him”. John 6:44 does not say that some of the drawn will not be lifted up (i.e., saved) and does not need to. That is said elsewhere and clearly implied in John 12:32. Thus the first “him” and the second “him” can be one and the same “him” without saying what White says or suggests.

That is, just because John 6:44 does not say that all will be drawn does not mean that it says that all that will be drawn will be raised up (i.e., saved). Since John 12:32 does say all will be drawn (because in fact Christ was “lifted up from the earth”) and because in fact not all will be saved (as White agrees) then Scripture contradicts White and does say, “You can be drawn but not saved”. To demonstrate the fallacy of White’s interpretation of 6:44 let us consider another issue. Suppose I was to say “God is love”. Now suppose someone argues that since I say God is love, I must also say that love is God. The second affirmation that is not true does not follow from the first affirmation that is true. Again, suppose I were to say that the sky is blue. Someone then suggests that I believe blue is the sky. That would, of course, be silly.

Even so, just because I say a man must be drawn to come to Christ is not to say that all who are drawn must come. To say it does, White has to engage in eisegesis and commit a very basic logical fallacy. Thus, the problem is not with Hunt’s exegesis but with White’s eisegesis. That is, it is not that Hunt refuses to see what is in John 6:44 but that White sees what is not in 6:44 while closing his eyes to what is in John 12:32. In response to my own handling of this portion of Scripture in The Dark Side of Calvinism, White says:

…Though…George Bryson]…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.

While White quotes me accurately, he clearly does not accurately understand what he quotes. For White goes on to say:

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 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)?

White is so convinced that Calvinism provides the only possible explanation to anything, that he finds it difficult (if not impossible) to even grasp the argument refuting his position. It is one thing to disagree with someone else’s view. We all do. It is another thing to be unable to even see what the other point of view is saying.

Suppose I was to invite 50 people to a celebration in my home. Suppose also that I was to say that only those people I invite into my home (the 50) would be allowed into my home. Would it follow that since I invite all 50 into my home that all 50 will take me up on my invitation? Conversely, if not everyone took me up on my invitation, would it mean that I did not really invite them? The number of the people in the home cannot exceed the number of people invited. However, the number of people invited could easily exceed the number of people who accepted the invitation.

Even so, the number of people who come to Christ (or who actually believe in Christ) cannot exceed the number of people who are drawn to Christ. However, the number of people who are drawn to Christ can certainly (and does) exceed the number of people who come to Christ (or who actually believe in Christ). Stated differently, the number of people who are drawn can be greater than the number of people who come but the number of people who come cannot be greater than the number people who are drawn.

White’s Calvinist tradition and strong bias for Reformed Theology evidently makes it impossible for him to see either what Jesus is saying or what I am saying Jesus is saying. That is, despite the fact that all are drawn to Christ, not all will come to Him`. To say that those who are drawn to Christ must come is to read more into the word draw than is there. There is a simple way to prove (based on the text itself) that what I am saying is true. Ask yourself this question; why is the drawing (elkusay) work of the Father needed? The answer is simple. The drawing work of the Father is needed so that a person is able (dunatai) to come (elthein) to Christ.

If a person is not able to come, they cannot come. However, if a person is able to come, does it follow that they will come? That is the logic of Calvinism. Most of us are able to do all kinds of things we actually (for one reason or another) never get around to doing. Would it follow that if we did not do something, we were not really able to do it. Again, that is the logic or illogic of White. Again, White asks:

…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)…

Think through this question and assertion with me for a moment? Has anyone suggested that someone given to the Son by the Father does not come to the Son? What I have repeatedly and clearly said is that the Father gives believers and believers only to the Son. These believers and only these believers come to the Son. Unbelievers are not given to the Son and do not come to the Son. Is this so difficult to understand? Remember what Sproul Sr. said:

In this passage Jesus makes it clear that He is concerned about every believer being raised up at the last day. This qualifies His statement about what the Father has given Him that would never be lost. It is believers that are given to Christ by the Father, and these believers will never be lost. This affirmation builds on what Jesus declared only moments earlier (John 6:36–38).

White has given us four choices:

1. He disagrees with Sproul. If this is so, he must believe the Father gives unbelievers to the Son.

2. He does not understand this simple distinction of believers versus unbelievers.

3. He did not understand me when I said the Father gives all believers and only believers to the Son and those believers and those believers only come to the Son.

4. He deliberately misrepresented what I was saying.

The reader will have to decide for himself which of these four errors White is guilty of. If there were a 5th choice, and one, which exonerates White, I would love to hear it. At the very least, White is guilty of what is referred to as the Argument from false cause. According to Meithe, this is:

A logical fallacy that mistakenly draws a causal connection between events simply because one event follows the other in time of succession.

The two events are (1) God’s drawing work of the unbeliever and (2) God’s resurrecting work of the believer. Certainly there is a relationship between the drawing work of God and the resurrecting work of God. The latter only occurs if the former occurs. But the former can and does occur without the latter occurring. In other words, just because God has to draw us as well as resurrect us, it does not follow that He will necessarily resurrect us simply because He has drawn us. In between the drawing work of God and the resurrecting work of God, God requires that we do what He enables us to do by His drawing work, which is to believe in His Son. If we do not meet His condition of believing, He will not resurrect us. God makes sure we can believe. We are therefore responsible to believe/come to Christ because we can come to Christ. God makes sure we are able to believe. We are responsible to believe.

In harmony with the teaching of Scripture, non-Calvinist Evangelicals say that those ultimately lost do not believe because they will not believe. We also say that they could believe because of the drawing work of the Father, which enables an unbeliever to become a believer. Again, I agree with Calvinists when they say that without the enabling work of God, no one could believe. I disagree with Calvinists when they say that the enabling work of God is limited to those they call the elect. We will revisit this issue regarding the words “… I will raise him up at the last day.” For now, listen to what Jesus said about those who did not believe:

I have a greater witness than John’s; for the works which the Father has given Me to finish—the very works that I do—bear witness of Me, that the Father has sent Me. And the Father Himself, who sent Me, has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form. But you do not have His word abiding in you, because whom He sent, Him you do not believe. You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life (Jn. 5:36–40).

Revisiting John 6:37–39, Jesus says:

All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day.

Again, the question that must be answered is: Who is it that the Father gives to the Son? We know that those given to the Son by the Father will come to the Son and be secure in their salvation. That is, they will “by no means [be] cast out.” Concerning these same people, we know that God will “lose nothing.” This is also to say, we know that they will be “raised up at the last day.” Who are the ones, however, whom the Father gives to the Son? Returning to verse forty, we can see that Jesus answers this question as follows:

…This is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day (Jn. 6:40).

Why is this so difficult for White to understand? Just as we must be drawn and come, so those who see the Son and believe will be raised up at the last day. It is not enough to see the Son, just as it is not enough to be drawn. You must see and believe, just as you must be drawn to Christ and come to Christ. Calvinists are right when they say that those who see and believe are one and the same as those that will never be cast out, never be lost, have everlasting life, and will be raised up at the last day. Calvinists are wrong when they say that if you are drawn to Christ, you will necessarily come to Christ and be raised up at the last day.

According to Calvinism, but contrary to Scripture, if God does anything to make it possible for you to be saved, you must therefore eventually become saved. The logic of this would be that if you see the Son (which we know from verse forty is God’s will), you will believe in the Son (which we also know from verse forty is God’s will). Calvinists agree with non-Calvinists that it is God’s will that both seeing the Son (whatever that may mean) and believing in Him are God’s will and that both are a characterization of the saved. It seems that everyone who believes in the Son would also have seen Him, in some sense. Will everyone, however, who has seen the Son in this necessary way, also believe in the Son? Just because you must see and believe, does it mean that you will believe if you see or because you see? The Calvinist logic would say yes. Yet Jesus also says:

I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst. But I said to you that you have seen Me and yet do not believe.” (Jn. 6:35–36).

Calvin himself said:

He uses the words, see and believe, in contrast with what he had formerly said; for he had reproached the Jews with not believing, even though they saw (verse 36).

Thus we know:

• Some will see and believe and therefore will be saved.

We also know:

• Some will see and not believe and therefore will remain lost.
This also leads directly to verses 44 and 65, where Jesus continues to tell us what God must do, which is enable and grant, and what we must do, which is believe. God reveals the Son, so that we can see Him and therefore believe in the one we see. God draws us to His Son so that we are able to believe in the one we are drawn to. This is to say that God grants that believers, not unbelievers, come to Christ. God gives believers, not unbelievers, to Christ.

It is indisputable to all Bible believers that if we believe in Christ, God grants that we come to Christ. From the human side, this is the only bridge we need to cross. It is also indisputable, or at least should be, that all believers belong to Christ because they have been given to the Son by the Father.

NOT WILLING

If we go back in the narrative of John’s Gospel, we read where Jesus addresses His opponents as follows:

“You do not have [the Father’s] word abiding in you, because whom He sent, Him you do not believe. You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.” (John 5:38–40)

Here our Lord specifically tells us why these men did not have the Father’s Word abiding in them. It was not because they were not elect or that they were not irresistibly or effectually called. It was not because they had not been subjected to irresistible grace. It was because they inexcusably did not believe in God’s Son. Here our Lord tells us why they could not have eternal life. It was not for any of the reasons that Calvinism suggests. Rather it was because they were not willing to come to God’s Son in faith. Again consider the following verses from John Chapter Six:

“I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst. But I said to you [those that were opposing Him] that you have seen Me and yet do not believe.” (vv. 35–36)

“Everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.” (v. 40)

“No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.” (v. 44)

“Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.” (v. 45)
“He who believes in Me has everlasting life.” (v. 47)

“I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever.” (v. 51)

Since I keep seeing this same old and very misleading statement that I do not want to debate White I thought some would like to know that I have offered to debate White on these topic but have been turned down because it is not on a topic he is uncomfortable with. It would seem that he is allowed “conditions” but not me. Kind of strange don’t you think? I also think it is curious that I cross examined White but Reformed sites refuse to air that cross examination. The larger article is simply to answer the many questions or assertions found on this and other “threads”. So the first entry does call for answers. The second and longer entry is simply a response to some of what is said on this site. I did not answer comments that pointed out how ignorant I was, I assume in contrast to how smart someone has to be to call someone ignorant on a web site. That is is usually the kind of things people say who have no “argument”. The lady who wrote this is probably way to smart for me to engage in a debate with. It is not much different than saying I am ugly, which I will admit to. In Christ, George

Do you have the cross examination available on you tube? If so, we’d be glad to post it here.

“George Bryson is a very unusual non-Calvinist. He is able to describe the doctrinal position of Calvinism without putting any extra eggs in the pudding. His descriptions are fair and accurate, and he clearly knows his subject. The first portion of the book, the place where he does all this, is very good…The name of this book is The Five Points of Calvinism: Weighed and Found Wanting.” (Reformed professor Douglas Wilson)

Just so that no one has a heart attack Wilson did not agree with my refutation-only that my explanation of Calvinism is correct and that is all I am saying he is saying.

Mr. Bryson,

Scripture does seem to indicate that God sends, ordains, brings, etc., evil. Here are a few passages that declare that:

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Amos 3:6 Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?

Job 2:10 But he said to her, “You speak as one of the foolish women would speak. Shall we receive good from God, and shall we not receive evil?” In all this Job did not sin with his lips.

Genesis 50:20 As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today.

1 Kings 9:9 And men shall say, Because they forsook the Lord their God, who brought out their fathers from Egypt, out of the house of bondage, and they attached themselves to strange gods, and worshipped them, and served them: therefore the Lord has brought this evil upon them.

Romans 11:36 For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.

Dear Stephen

While I disagree with what I believe you understand these Scriptures to be saying (specificically that God is morally responsible for or the cause of moral evil in the world, I appreciate your willingness to come right and say it. Some Calvinists, as I am sure you are aware want to duck this issue.

Dear Mario

I “Can you provide…specific quotes where “Calvinism” states that God is ultimately and morally responsible for all that happens, including moral evil?

Before I do, can you tell me if you agree or disagree with the view (regardless of who teaches it) that says “God is ultimately and morally responsible for all that happens, including moral evil”

Knowing this will help me avoid scratching where it does not itch.

Dear Sonja

I have probably missed a lot so I am not sure who you are directing your comments to. Unless you tell me otherwise, I am going to assume that you are speaking to one or more of my Calvinist friends.

Sonja,

Are just going to do a blog by and not explain what you mean and give some examples, with scripture backing it.

Hey Travis

I would happily share with you a biblically based interpretation/understanding of these passages, but I am trying to keep the questions straight. You seemed to agree with Stephen and would say that Calvinism teaches that God is morally responsible for everything including sin. Is that true or am I misunderstanding you? Stephen is that what you are saying?

Dear Mario

Let me know if you think the following quotes from Calvin and well known and respected Calvinists are saying that God is morally responsible for everything, including moral evil.

————————————————————————————————–

John Calvin wrote:

I… ask how it is that the fall of Adam involves so many nations with their infant children in eternal death without remedy unless that it so seemed meet to God? … The decree, I admit, is, dreadful; and yet it is impossible to deny that God foreknew what the end of man was to be before he made him, and foreknew, because He had so ordained by his decree. … God not only foresaw the fall of the first man, and in him the ruin of his posterity; but also at his own pleasure arranged it.
The word hardens, when applied to God in Scripture, means not only permission, (as some washy moderators would have it,) but also the operation of the wrath of God: for all those external things, which lead to the blinding of the reprobate, are the instruments of his wrath; and Satan himself, who works inwardly with great power, is so far his minister, that he acts not, but by his command. … Paul teaches us, that the ruin of the wicked is not only foreseen by the Lord, but also ordained by his counsel and his will… not only the destruction of the wicked is foreknown, but that the wicked themselves have been created for this very end—that they may perish.

To Calvin, whether it is passive or not:

… The will of God is necessity …

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.

R.C. Sproul Jr. represents 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 asks:

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…

Sproul Jr. continues:

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.

R.C. Sproul Sr. admits that:

It was certainly loving of God to predestine the salvation of His people, those the Bible calls the “elect or chosen ones.” It is the non-elect that are the problem. If some people are not elected unto salvation then it would seem that God is not all that loving toward them. For them it seems that it would have been more loving of God not to have allowed them to be born. That may indeed be the case.

A. A. Hodge, an Infralapsarian, concedes 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.

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 created all the characters in it, and he wrote the part where Macbeth killed King Duncan.

Does this represent the Calvinism you believe in?

George Bryson said: “Calvinism teaches that God is morally responsible for everything including sin. Is that true or am I misunderstanding you? Stephen is that what you are saying?”

Mr. Bryson, you are probably not misunderstanding me. I want to point out that there may be a misunderstanding, not so much with what I’m saying, but with how you’re interpreting it.

The words “morally responsible,” cannot be applied to God, for he is responsible to no higher judge. Since responsibility logically implies accountability, and since God is not accountable to anyone or anything, God cannot be spoken of as morally responsible to or for anyone or anything.

It has been noted historically that to place a set of standards above God to which or whom he must adhere, is to make that thing or standard – God. Since there is no higher authority than God, then whatever He wills to do is moral and good – regardless of how we interpret it. Therefore, in the very asking of such a question it assumes God’s accountability to someone or something, in this case it would be the asker. Paul argued this same thing in Romans:

So, one major difference between us is may be the way we view God. I cannot place moral judgment on God because my position presupposes that nothing Higher in authority, morals, ethics, etc., exist. Since Scripture clearly affirms that God created all things including (ra) evil (and I deny the false distinction between moral and natural evil), I must accept that as true and try, by grace, not to judge Him for something that I may not understand by way of my humanistic speculation.

Just a quick excursus to lay out some possible presuppositional differences in order to move along the discussion – at least in obtaining an understanding of each other rather than talking past one another (like many Calvinists have done and do).

Just my .02….. If we are able to sin (and we certainly are) and that sin is not ordained in some manner by God would it not then be outside the will of God? If what we are able to do anything outside the will of God for our lives would we not then have more authority over our lives than God?

Example: One of my hobbies is woodworking. If I make my desk and that desk then decides (outside of my will) that it does not want to be a desk and decides to be a dresser, then would not that desk would then be more powerful/have more authority for its life than I do.

As Travis said above Joseph’s brothers sinned when they sold him into slavery and lied to Jacob. Joseph then later says that God meant it for good. Does this not mean that it was in the will of God for Joseph’s brothers to sin?

George,

Our mission and purpose is to defend Scripture. We want to look at what the Scripture in its context. Once again, the goal is to strengthen Christians from trusting in emotions and feelings. Most Christians out there really don’t understand what they believe.

We are concerned with what Scripture says above and beyond a man’s opinion, be it Luther, Calvin, Chuck Smith, etc…..A man is measured by what Scripture says. When we find ourselves in error, we should be willing to submit to the authority of Scripture even if it does not feel good.

Sonja said:

“I attend Calvary Chapel. So sad to see supposed “Christians”, behaving so vehemently towards another brother. It’s one thing to talk about your doctrinal beliefs, but to demean another in the name of Christ is wrong. How do you justify things like making fun of what a pastor wears, etc. I pray your doctrine of “Grace” actually becomes a reality in your life that you live out.”

Sonja,

We are not attacking each other here. We are discussing a topic that must be addressed and dealt with. I too attended Calvary Chapel. I realized though, that what some pastors at Calvary do, is villify the term Calvinism. While many pastors say it is dangerous and to ignore theology because it is not important, they do infact adhere to a theology. One that has a low view of Scripture. Theology is to be biblically based and not based on our feeling or emotions. Emotions and feelings are deceptive. We should seek to know and understand Scripture above and beyond our human reason.

Am I the only brother that God has experienced the enlightening from a misguided view Calvinism into the glorious doctrines of grace? The saints need to encourage those who are currently struggling. This is all done to the glory of God.

The saints of old have died for the Faith Sonja. We contend earnestly because it is the souls people that are on the line. The faith was not delivered so that man can interpret his own way. Man is the receiver of truth and must interpret it according to what God has revealed, according to His word.

Dear Glen

Not at all. It means that God did what He did in Sending His Son based on the very real condition of man. One has to assume (as Calvin does) that God wanted and decreed for man to sin to make your argument. If so it is just a game as Grudem suggests.
____________________________________________________________

ADDENDUM A

MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS THAT MATTER

CALVINIST COMPATIBILISM

As noted many times in the main body of this book, many Calvinists, especially those of the mainstream, affirm that God is absolutely sovereign while also affirming that man is meaningfully and responsibly free. Unfortunately Calvinists also mistakenly conclude that believing in the sovereignty of God leads to what both philosophers and theologians refer to as determinism of one form or another. Some Calvinists believe in what can be called “soft” determinism”. Others believe in what can be called “hard” determinism. Those who believe that the Calvinist version of divine sovereignty and the biblical view of human freedom are compatible hold to the relatively softer view of determinism.

Calvinists are, of course, right when they affirm that you can believe both in the sovereignty of God and a meaningful freedom for man. Thus there is a biblical kind of compatibilism. Calvinists, however, go seriously wrong by insisting that man can be (and is) responsibly free, while all of man’s decisions (and faith itself or the lack thereof) are decreed or determined (as Reformed Theologians define these terms) by God. Because Calvinists so often give the impression that the concept of compatibilism somehow resolves the contradictions introduced in a Calvinist doctrine of salvation and damnation, it is needful that we explore this matter a bit further.

The Calvinist compatibilist faces (or in some cases refuses to face) a problem in their system. Why? Because Calvinist compatibilism makes God responsible for the sin of the sinner. Since the absolutely sovereign God is also absolutely holy, it does not follow that God could be responsible for sin. Not all Calvinists, of course, have the same thing in mind when they say they believe in compatibilism. Some Calvinists (such as James White) of the compatibilist persuasion directly or indirectly assert that one act (and the decision leading to that act) can be caused by and the result of the decisions of both God and man. They believe that the same act (and decisions leading to that act) must somehow (i.e., in some inscrutable way) be both righteous and sinful. Remember the X-factor mentioned earlier.

Most of these Calvinists will rightly reason that an act must be righteous if and when God does it because an absolutely righteous God can only act in accordance with and in conformity to His absolutely righteous nature. They will wrongly reason that it is exactly the same act (or decision) that God does in righteousness that a sinful man does in sin. In answer to how this can be, the Calvinist usually answers that it is “inscrutable”, “incomprehensible”, “a mystery hidden in the secret counsel of God”, or by simply “shrugging his shoulders”. Allow me to state Calvinist compatibilism (relative to man’s sinful acts which relate to God’s decrees) in different ways:

*God is absolutely holy and can only do good things.

*Fallen man is totally depraved, and is incapable of doing any good.

*Sometimes God and man do the same thing.

*Therefore the same thing can be good and bad.

Calvinists can also say that:

*God determines or decrees all that was, is or will be, even the sinful choices men make.

*Sinful men make sinful choices in accordance with their sinful nature (i.e., they only do what they want to do when they sin) and are therefore solely responsible for the sins they commit. Conversely, God is therefore not responsible for the sins He determines or decrees that sinful men commit.

In either view, an absolutely free and holy God can supposedly be the cause of something sinful and still blameless. A man who is totally enslaved to sin and can only choose among sins (i.e., cannot choose not to sin) and is under the irresistible decree of God which causes him to sin is still morally responsible for his sin. Even though the Calvinist compatibilist says that man is to blame for the sin he commits (and not God) which is true, he contradictorily argues that the decree of God is the cause that leads man to do what he does, which is clearly not true. Again, the Calvinist argues that man is responsible for the sin he commits because it is the sin he wants to commit and is therefore in accordance with his sinful nature and sinful desires.

As noted earlier, that only moves the problem back one level. For the Calvinist also argues that it is God who caused man to be the sinful way he is (directly or indirectly) through His decree. The best any Calvinist can do is to say that the answer to this problem is to be found in a “hidden” or “secret” decree. Which is to say it cannot be found. Much has already been said on these (and related) matters. Both Scripturally and logically there are very good reasons for rejecting these kinds of compatibilist views. For now I think it best to give some serious consideration to the view that says or suggests that the exact same act can be both morally good and morally evil.

YOU
MEANT EVIL AGAINST ME;
BUT
GOD MEANT IF FOR GOOD

One of the more important passages of Scripture that Calvinists use to promote this kind of compatibilism is found in Genesis forty-five. Many years after his brothers sold him into slavery. This also one of several passages of Scripture that Calvinists believe can only be understood calvinistically:

Joseph said to his brothers…’I am Joseph your brother, whom you sold into Egypt. But now, do not therefore be grieved nor angry with yourselves because you sold me here; for God sent me before you to preserve life…God sent me before you to preserve a posterity for you in the earth, and to save your lives by a great deliverance. So now it was not you who sent me here, but God…’ (Gen 45:4-24).

Later, Joseph’s brothers’ said to him:

Before your father [Israel] died he commanded, saying, “Thus you shall say to Joseph: ‘I beg you, please forgive the trespass of your brothers and their sin; for they did evil to you.’ “Now, please, forgive the trespass of the servants of the God of your father.” And Joseph wept when they spoke to him…[He then said] ‘as for you, you meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, in order to bring it about as it is this day, to save many people alive.’ (Gen 50:16-20)
On one hand, we have the sinful acts of Joseph’s brothers. All parties agree that what they did was sinful.

*Joseph’s view of what his brothers did to him:

I am Joseph your brother, whom you sold into Egypt…’as for you, you meant evil against me’.

* Jacob’s view of what his other sons did to Joseph:

…Please forgive the trespass of your brothers and their sin; for they did evil to you.

*Joseph’s brothers’ view of what they did to him.

We are truly guilty concerning our brother, for we saw the anguish of his soul when he pleaded with us, and we would not hear; therefore this distress has come upon us. And Reuben answered them, saying, ‘Did I not speak to you, saying, “Do not sin against the boy”; and you would not listen… (Gen 42:21-22)?

On the other hand, Joseph understood that God used his terrible plight to further His divine purpose.

…God sent me before you to preserve life…God sent me before you to preserve posterity for you in the earth, and to save your lives by a great deli