Calvinism: The No. 3 “New Idea”
According to the song writer, Peter Allen, “everything old is new again.” Well, the leading secular humanist and politically left leaning news magazine, Time, has identified Calvinism as the number three idea “that is changing the world.” Time gives its reasons, and I believe that they are sound.
For people that have been watching Christianity for the past ten years this is no surprise. From all over the Arminian spectrum there is an exodus. It is an exodus of Christians who have become dissatisfied with the silliness of Arminianism. You see, the more a person takes the Bible seriously, the more that person has to submit his ideas to the Word of God.
When God was gracious to save me, he placed my in an Arminian/Pentecostal church. Coming out of a Jehovah’s Witness upbringing, the Pentecostalism was a shock, but the Arminianism was easy to slide into. There was just one problem, I eventually grew dissatisfied with the tenants of Arminianism, and what the Bible said. I eventually began to slip away from Arminianism, and towards Calvinism.
For about four or five years I was a four-point Calvinist. However, the point I had issues with was the unconditional election of man by God. It was not until 1998 that this point was fully resolved, and I accepted the TULIP. My journey seems to have mirrored many others. For about ten years others have made this journey also. and now a leading secular magazine is recognizing the re-emergence of Calvinism in the church, and its affect on young people. Why is that? Mark Driscoll has listed four reasons why this has happened, and I agree with him. However, Mr. Driscoll forgot one small point. Calvinism, as opposed to Arminianism is biblical. Since the tenants of Calvinism are deeply rooted in the bible, they will always be out in the realm of Christian ideas, and taught by pastors that are committed to the Word and not growing a church full of goats masquerading as sheep.
However, Mr. Driscoll makes a rather excellent point about why Calvinism is growing. He states that it is because Calvinism is reemerging in the urban context. What does this mean? Far be it for me to explain what Mr. Driscoll meant, but I believe that the new Calvinists are doing something that is biblical, namely evangelizing the cities and infiltrating the Christian universities. When the Apostle Paul did his missionary work in the first century, he focused on the major cities in the various regions of the Roman empire. Why? Very simply, ideas move out from the large cultural settings and into the world.
The re-emergence of Calvinism is also seen in the leaders of this movement. John Piper, Mark Driscoll, Al Mohler and many others are taking a missional approach and targeting the cities with the message that Jesus is NOT your homeboy, but is instead the sovereign Lord of all, and as such should be worshiped. That worship is not some sappy and poorly written love song that makes men uncomfortable with the underlying homo-eroticism that is in so much of what is called worship by the evangelical community.
All and all I am happy that Calvinism is making a much over due comeback. I am glad that new Calvinism is being spread in a biblical model. However, I am ecstatic that Calvinism is making such an impact in America that a leading left-leaning journal has to report it, and I am giggling over the fact that they had to identify this fact and expose it to the world.
53 Comments, Comment or Ping
Mark Caro
In the book of Romans ch.1, it states that, ” The Gospel is the power
of salvation to those who believe….” It is amazing to see how “Thee
True Gospel” will transend culture or trends, and it will hit “The Believer”
and have an effect.
Mar 14th, 2009
NANCY RUSSELL
I HAVE BEEN A STAUNCH CALVINIST FROM THE TIME I WAS SAVED. IT IS SO OBVIOUSLY BIBLICAL AND SO SUPREMELY SOVEREIGN THAT JESUS IS LORD AND MASTER THAT ONCE THIS TRUTH IS SEEN AND UNDERSTOOD THEREIN LIES THE LAW OF LIBERTY JESUS TALKS ABOUT. PRAISE GOD FOR THE TRUTH!
Mar 20th, 2009
Denise
Joh 15:19 If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.
Luk 6:26 “Woe to you, when all people speak well of you, for so their fathers did to the false prophets.
Regarding Mark Driscoll: not only does he have a filthy and vulgar mouth, not only is he proud of it, not only does he link to an x-rated “Christian” sex website, but the way he discusses Jesus Christ is utterly dispicable. It is not surprising then, why Time magazine would applaud him as acceptable.
Anything Time applauds should be a RED FLAG. Unregenerate men hate the things of God and therefore what is truly of God is considered foolishness by them (1Cor. 2:14). A little leaven leavens the whole loaf.
See Steve Camp on Mark Driscoll and more: http://stevenjcamp.blogspot.com/2008/01/pride-and-presumption-of-men-upon-grace.html
See Slice of Laodicea here for Driscoll’s x-rated website link: http://www.sliceoflaodicea.com/uncategorized/mark-driscolls-vulgarity-draws-media-attention/
For example, (in Erick Raymond’s review of Driscoll’s “Vintage Jesus” book), in his [Driscoll's] run through “The Gospel According to Mark”, describes Jesus as a guy who,â??[tells] a leper to shut-upâ??,â??,â??needs Paxilâ??,â??needs sensitivity trainingâ??,”[Is] an obvious workaholic who needed to start drinking decaf and listening to taped sounds of running water while doing aromatherapy so he could learn to relax.â?? Every Christian should be appalled at such descriptions of Jesus Christ who is Holy Holy Holy and to be feared!
Yet this is whom John Piper endorses and defends for repeatedly sharing the pulpit with him. See: http://www.desiringgod.org/Events/NationalConferences/Archives/2008/Podcast/95/
Paul Tripp thinks using foul language is merely cultural, and gleefully uses the “s” word and laughs when his kids learn to use it too. Go here ( http://stevenjcamp.blogspot.com/2008/09/paul-tripp-ing-likes-to-say-s-word-has.html ) for his “s” word use in a PROMO VIDEO for the “Power of Words” Desiring God conference.
How is it that Phil Johnson and John MacArthur (see: http://www.shepherdsfellowship.org/pulpit/Posts.aspx?ID=4074 ) can know and BOLDLY proclaim what is appropriate for speech and conduct especially for pastors and teachers and yet John Piper, a pastor and supposedly mature Christian of 30 years, does not by his own admission?
If we hold to biblical doctrine it will have an affect on our whole lives. If we are reflecting more of the world than Him, we should examine ourselves to see if we are in the faith. Remember 1John 1-2 (saying we know God yet walk in darkness–then we have not the Truth in us) as well as Titus 1 and 1Tim. 3 for the requirements (not suggestions or options) for elders.
Mat 5:10 “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 11 “Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. 12 Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
Is this happening with Driscoll or Piper? Or are they gaining a wider audience? Something to consider.
Mar 21st, 2009
Derek Manning
Denise,
Thank you for your comments.
I do not believe that the Time magazine article was any sort of stamp of approval on the Calvinistic resurgence in the world, but merely an acknowledgment of the fact that this idea is impacting the culture. Al Mohler states in his blog that Time magazine’s focusing on the Calvinist resurgence is something that should be “admired and appreciated.” I believe that Christians are so defensive (with good cause) of anything the secular world hurls at we don’t respond graciously.
Secondly, I am aware of Mr. Driscoll’s issues. However considering the fact that I have heard Dr. Bob refer to the “kick @$$” Jesus on more than one occassion, I don’t have an issue with Mr. Driscoll. It’s about time that Jesus be rescued from the feminized boys that are masquerading as pastors these days.
Mar 21st, 2009
Sir Aaron
Derek:
I don’t think there is any comparison to Dr.Bob’s kick@$$ Jesus remark and anything that comes out of Mr. Driscoll’s mouth. Driscoll is rude, crude, and disgusting. And these Christian sex sites are merely taking pagan pornographic concepts and repackaging them for married Christian couples. This is the type of thinking that leads to adultery and divorce.
And while I think sex is a topic that must be studied and discussed in a Biblical context, I don’t believe that there should be anything said on a Sunday morning that I cannot discuss with my child (assuming she didn’t hear it by sitting with me in church).
Good grief, even most of the heathen don’t want their kids using the “s” word.
Denise: I’m with you on this one, sister. Talk about culturally irrelevant, does anybody actually read Time magazine anymore?
Mar 21st, 2009
Robin Carter
I just recently read the Mark Driscoll site on marital intimacy. Frankly I find nothing wron with it. The Bible describes marriage as honorable and the bed undefiled. That is just what God meant for it to be. And just in case we did not get that message God gave us an instruction manual, the Song of Solomon. In essence, we marry so that we do not burn with lust for other. It is a gift from God freely given so that the desires we have naturally have, have an outlet. There is nothing wrong or nasty or sick about it. X rated is only if others are watchingyou and I don’t believe that you will have that in your home. Come on Christian wives, loosen up with your husbands and husbands with your wives. Parents teachyour children that the marriage bed is a blessing. We don’t need to be conservative in our own bedrooms. This leads to spouses seeking their sexual fulfilment elsewhere and to the indulgence of pornography. We are the Children of God and He has blessed us with our own private dancer and we need to get with the rhythm.
Mar 23rd, 2009
Robin Carter
PS I am also a 5 point Calvinist and I have been married 30 years next year. We have recently been exposed to the new reformation of urban evangelism using hip hop and Biblical music. Groups such as 116 Clique and Trip Lee, Lampmode, Lecrae,Ambassador etal have introduced Reformed doctrine to a generation of unchurched, overchurched, and turned off from church people who need Jesus. These guys are theologians who use their skills in hip hop to spread the word of God and to teach theology to a lost generation. Please check out Epiphany Fellowship.org and listen to the sermons. So what if the Time magazine wrote the aricle and exposed the explosion. God is great and He owns it all and He uses what He wants to let His Word be known.
Mar 23rd, 2009
Sir Aaron
I don’t know what site you say, Robin, but the site that was discussed at length in the aforementioned posts was a site called “Christin nymphos.” It is merely repackaging pagan pornographic ideas as Christian sex.
And what does “conservative” in our own bedrooms mean? And what evidence do you have that Christians who are “conservative” in their own bedroom leads to spouses “seeking their sexual fulfilment elsewhere.” You wouldn’t even know you weren’t being sexually fulfilled except that you saw some pagan notion of it somewhere. As Christians, we ought to be inspired to Scripture and focus our attention on living as believers should. We should not be allowing our lusts and passions to rule over us.
Mar 23rd, 2009
Travis
I dont see an issue with the sex topics Mark brings up, I have no problem talking to a child about sex. Its either me or someone else. If its presented in a biblical context why wouldnt we teach about it, I dont see anything scripture that says you have to be 16 years old to learn bout the beauty of sex and what it is meant for.
Mar 23rd, 2009
Sir Aaron
So you’d talk to your child about Nymphos then?
Mar 23rd, 2009
Sir Aaron
Where’d you go Denise?
Mar 24th, 2009
Derek Manning
Aaron,
Based on my own study of the Song of Solomon, I can say that many modern evangelical Christians would consider it “pornographic” if it was ever directly translated from the original Hebrew into English. I understand a certain amount of the concern voiced about Mr. Driscoll. However, my thread and my referencing of Mr. Driscoll was not in relation to his teachings on sexuality. It was solely in reference to a comment he made about the spread of Calvinism in the 21st century. I would appreciate it if we stayed on this topic.
One last thing to Denise, since Calvinism has been “spoken well of” by a secular magazine, are you going to abandon it?
Mar 24th, 2009
Sir Aaron
Derek:
I sincerely doubt that you’d put Song of Solomon into the realm of nymphos and dominatrix, which is what the sites linked to Driscoll discuss.
And my original reply to you directed to this comment: Secondly, I am aware of Mr. Driscoll’s issues. However considering the fact that I have heard Dr. Bob refer to the “kick @$$” Jesus on more than one occassion, I don’t have an issue with Mr. Driscoll. It’s about time that Jesus be rescued from the feminized boys that are masquerading as pastors these days. So you opened the door. I just went through it.
Did Time Magazine actually speak well of it? Or did it just recognize its influence?
Mar 24th, 2009
Jean Cauvin
Hello,
R.C. Sproul has said on several occasions that Calvinism is another word for Christianity.
Do you agree with this statement.
Remember, terms represent concepts. And the concept represented by the term” Christianity must be similar in term/concept via the term Calvinism.
One person told me that we should not follow Paul or Apollo, and that’s why he’s not a Calvinist. Even though I have pointed out the error, he still repeats it as the logical fallacy of equivocation.
We are not following a man, we are following a system that has a term wrapped around it (Calvinism) and that system in which we follow corresponds to Christianity.
Though historically, Luther spoke more on the subject then Calvin ever did. But since Calvin was a scholar and a systematic theologian, the term is wrapped with him via mode of thought and accuracy to the concept thereof.
A lot to think about. But this is no new concept. The term is new, but the concept is timeless via God’s existence in eternity.
Respectfully,
Jean Cauvin (Jude 3).
(Hey, I’m 500 Years Old This Year, Bake Me A Cake!)
Mar 24th, 2009
Mike
Derek,
Yo! I met you a few weeks ago. Nice article. The dissatisfaction with the silliness of Arminianism…comedy. A handful of reformed gents I sat with the other day all came to the same conclusion.
Good points Jean and HAPPY BIRTHDAY BROTHER…
Don’t forget to check out http://www.stfmag.com
Mike
Mar 24th, 2009
Derek Manning
Jean,
Are you saying that non-Calvinists are unregenerate?
Mike,
It was great meeting you also.
Mar 25th, 2009
Jean Cauvin
HI Derek,
I am not saying that non-Calvinists are unregenerate. Though it may be accurate to say that non-Calvinists are lacking in intelligence.
Though it may be possible for a non-Calvinist is regenerate on the rare occasion that they fight Calvinism with all their heart as a life devotion. At this point, I wonder.
George Bryson, Dave Hunt, I wonder sometimes. I don’t know. They fight against the Sovereignty of God so vehemently, that it may be that they are hated by God and thus on their way to hell.
Typically this is not an essential issue. Though it appears that it can BECOME an essential issue via Romans 1:18, and so fourth. To want humanism to conquer God’s Sovereignty so passionately is a concern I have as well I would think others should have as well.
Bryson may be going to hell.
But again, this is rare and this issue is usually a non-essential issue.
Respectfully,
Jean Cauvin (Jude 3).
Mar 26th, 2009
john
I occasionally attend Mars Hill Church in the evenings. We are going through the 1 peter Trial series and its great. Mark is a wonderful teacher and has important relevant, biblical things to say.
You can all quote me on this website of being condemning of Mark for such language. It is unbefitting a gospel minister.
Mark Driscol is the answer of God to the problems in American Christianity. Mark is a servant and messenger of God. You all should be so used of God. I should be so used of God.
That all being said..here’s some important things to know.
The websites that contain the accounts of Marks swearing, the bad choices of words and various other issues that Mark has created for himself are…ALL OF THEM way behind the times. Mark has repeatedly confessed the error of what he said, he has openly repented and asked forgiveness for those words. Mark has refrained from doing so up to this point.
I would encourage Denise to reconsider her summations because the information she has, is not up to date.
I would encourage the rest of you to reconsider Mark and stop slapping John Piper over this issue.
You can disbelieve me and continue to malign mark on this website and you will be no better than the slanderer that Stephen confronted and warned. He repented…and was forgiven. Mark has also repented, so now I ask in his place that forgiveness and acceptance be given him.
Dont forget he is a public figure and if your sins were public like his are you would have your posters and detractors condemning you as well.
Mark Driscol is a big target for the enemy, Mark of course is still human and like all of us can be his own worst enemy at times. Im asking you all to reconsider Mark Driscol as a repentant man and not some loon, sex promoter or false teacher.
David had his bathsheba, Moses his rock strike, Abraham his lies. God in his grace blessed them all. Now God has his Mark with his dirty mouth, I personally would rather have my name mentioned with my sin under the banner of Gods grace than having no mention at all.
John
Mar 31st, 2009
Derek Manning
John,
Thank you for the reminder that all of us have feet of clay…even pastors. One of Dr. Bob’s axioms is that Christians will disappoint each other, and violate each others’ rights. Provided his preaching does not contradict the essentials of the Christian faith, I have no problem taking the “watermelon” approach to his and others’ teachings. In other words, eat what’s good, and spit out the seeds.
Mar 31st, 2009
john
Thanks Derek:
Even my best watermelon has seeds. I think its probably the best we can all do is to spit out the seeds.
John
Mar 31st, 2009
Jean Cauvin
Hello,
I”m sorry if I’m not up to speed.
Did anybody see the “Nightline” debate on satanism. Watching that discussion almost caused me to break my television.
The “Christians” (Mark Driscoll and the Prostitute) clearly lost 100% on every issue. The pagan and the apostate clearly won the debate because the pathetic Christians had no answers.
The Prostitute used the logical fallacy of Argumentum ad Misericordiam because she could see that she was clearly losing on the issue of ideas.
Driscoll had to much “Red Bull” since he was a drone.
This was one of the most pathetic debates I have ever seen in my life. I speak out of respect, but Mark Driscoll has no right or qualifications in being a pastor and is a poor excuse as a wannabe apologist.
What a loser.
In Jesus name.
Respectfully,
Jean Cauvin (Jude 3).
Apr 3rd, 2009
Moshe A
Derek. Very cool name. For those interested its hebrew meaning is defined as ‘way or journey.’
Found in Proverbs 3:6; in all your “derek” acknowledge him… In all your “journey,” “direction,” “the path you take” or “the direction you take” acknowledge him.
I just wanted to put my thoughts in this post because I believe this can be a problem for two reasons. I am glad that you have come to believe in the doctrines of grace as they call them. At the same time, I encourage you to remember we are the elect of God and not Calvinists.
First, the road to Scripture must never end with Calvin. He was a man and he had many Romish problems attached to him. As Dr. Bob has put it so eloquently with his flea analogy, Calvin had many Roman Catholic fleas that needed to be addressed and I would assume they would have been had the Lord not taken him home so soon. That is a great assumption to make.
That being said, the man Calvin was not biblically sound. Mary’s womb sealed with lock and key? Lol!
But, I would agree the system (post Calvin from my understanding via the Synod of Dordt) is sound. Do we turn men and women into followers of a man or the Scriptures? I think you know the answer.
It was said earlier by the resident philosopher that he disagreed with another who said he didn’t follow Paul or Apollos. We follow Paul as he followed the Messiah.
I doubt quite seriously that anything could change this person’s attitude (save the Lord alone,) because he is steeped in the system and not the Scriptures.
He said; We are not following a man, we are following a system that has a term wrapped around it (Calvinism) and that system in which we follow corresponds to Christianity.
Though historically, Luther spoke more on the subject then Calvin ever did. But since Calvin was a scholar and a systematic theologian, the term is wrapped with him via mode of thought and accuracy to the concept thereof.
I would ask the question then; praytell, did Paul have a system or did he bring to us the Scriptures? Systematic theology, biblical theology, yada yada yada” All manmade titles unfamiliar with the biblical Jews. I am reminded that Luther told men not to call themselves Lutherans and knuckleheads do it anyways.
I believe we must graduate at some time in our growth, from Calvin and the Reformers and return to the Scriptures. We have that luxury because we have the scrolls in our hands. Yes it is true that Calvin was blessed to have access to the scrolls, but that is why he was able to put two and two together.
We now have at least 5 -10 Bibles in our houses and with the Holy Spirit and the resources made available in time, we have greater understandings of doctrine. God has promised that we would come to a unity in the faith because in our differences (due to the levels of maturity) God will make known, reveal or disclose the truth.
Philippians 3:15 Let those of us who are amature think this way, and if in anything you think otherwise, God will reveal that also to you.
Do not read into this. I am not saying that we cannot use the resources of Calvin or any of those men of God who took on the Rome. But, he and they were only men. They too are subject to the Scriptures as all man are. He and others had great things to say, but he is a resource to a better and greater source. The Scriptures.
In my “Judaizing Christianity” I am quite frustrated to see others offended by a doctrine because a name is attached. Probably the only thing I agree with at the moment w/ Mr. Cauvin is his attitude toward Arminianism, but I do go a tad farther in speech.
I am passionate about evangelizing Arminians because I fear they are guilty of doctrinal idolatry and therefore, i am not convinced of their salvation. One cannot run around stating God is not in control, maintain a denial of the effects of original sin, the lack of assurance of salvation and so on and so forth. By their fruits we will know them an in my opinion they need the Holy Spirit to understand these truths.(That is not that matter at hand and for another day.)
When the ears perk up on an Arminian if the term election is used and they automatically equivocate it to Calvin, I believe this is wrong. Of course, this applies equally to Arminius.
Election and Calvin are not synonyms! Election and man made systems are not equal. Moses and the Law are not synonyms. Where in the Scriptures do we have a foundation for calling ourselves after men? Follow a man I can perhaps entertain. Call yourself after a man than this is wrong. This was never a Jewish teaching.
If we are to offend men and women it must be because of the gospel and not a man.
Derek, you left Arminianism because you heard the truth. Not because of Calvin, but because of the Scriptures and they (the Scriptures) were like antibiotics that stomped out your bad theology because you were of the elect of God.
It is John 6 that tells us men must be dragged and not Calvin or anyone for that matter. We simply parrot the message for God’s glory, but we do not want our name to be associated with the message. It is obvious that Calvin, if he were alive today, would NOT have us call ourselves 5 point Calvinists. Therefore, if we want to honor God we should allow the Scriptures to offend and not any man.
((Now I am going to get myself into trouble.))
My second issue you raised is over the man John Piper.
I saw Sproul mentioned, but I will save R.C. Sproul and his heretical natural theology for another time Lord willing. Btw, anyone ever picked up Sproul’s book “Not a Chance? Doesn’t it just thrill you to see a book written by Sproul, a so-called Protestant (closet Thomist) and dedicate the book to a Roman Catholic who has likewise views on a particular subject? Does it not thrill your heart to see that Jaki is no ordinary RC, but is a Priest for Rome who has written several books in defense of the RCC?
Look up the name Father Stanley Jaki and see what he has done for Rome.
Next time you fill the need to write a book, why not dedicate it to a Mormon who also has something in common with your subject matter.
Was it only me who had a problem when he was to speak at the Cove? I never followed up, but I did send an email to the desiring God ministry and was blown off probably because I am a little fish in a big pond. What is my point?
Am I the only one who has read future grace? Is this “old news” for many? If it is I apologize. If it is new I encourage you to receive with all readiness of mind and examine what was said in his book on page 206.
Piper says; “Nothing I have said here diminishes the burden of this book to press home vigorously the future oriented aspect of faith. I stand shoulder to shoulder with Daniel Fuller and the conviction of his book, Unity Of The Bible, that..(he now quotes Fuller)
“a faiththat only looks back to Christ’s death and resurrection is not sufficient.”
(let me read that again)
“a faiththat only looks back to Christ’s death and resurrection is not sufficient….Forgiveness for the Christian also depends on having, like Abraham, a futuristic faith in God’s promises. Thus we cannot regard justifying faith as sufficient”
(let me repeat that statement) “Thus we cannot regard justifying faith as sufficient if it honors only the past fact of Christ’s death and resurrection but does not honor the future promises of God, thus mocking his character and integrity.”
One needs to look at that very seriously and consider what is said. The promises to Abraham are not given to us as they were him. Genesis speaks to Abraham with a promise that was given to no other.
I realize I am amongst mature believer’s so I apologize if I am speaking to the choir.
Genesis 17:18-21
Avraham said to God, “If only Yishma’el could live in your presence!”
God answered, “No, but Sarah your wife will bear you a son, and you are to call him Yitz’chak [laughter]. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him. But as for Yishma’el, I have heard you. I have blessed him. I will make him fruitful and give him many descendants. He will father twelve princes, and I will make him a great nation. But I will establish my covenant with Yitz’chak, whom Sarah will bear to you at this time next year.”
This and the promise made in Genesis 22 is made only to the man Abraham. Therefore, Mr. Fuller is in error to state that we are to be like Abraham and look for a future promise. The promise has arrived and 2000 years ago made propitiation for the elect. What more can we look forward to other than his return and eternity? Fuller said;
“a faith that only looks back to Christ’s death and resurrection is not sufficient….” May I be blunt? Boulderdash and Poppycock!
Hopefull my unintentional offense is used to cause people to rethink their positions concerning their individual heros. we have one King and his kingdom shall reign forever and ever. Christianity is not where we start. Christianity is the extension of Judaism. I dont care if people look to the 15th Century for information, but it must not stop and rest there. It is only the beginning of our pilgrimage to the Scriptures alone
Moshe A
Apr 4th, 2009
Patrick Taylor
Hey, Jean
I would hardly say that noncalvinists are lacking in intellegence. Such theologians as Dr. Norama Geisler are hardly lacking in brains and for that matter niether was Luters conter part Phillip Melencthon, who luther recognized as did Calvin as a superior exegete of the original languages as well as a better theologian than Luther. Other Non-Calvinists include Carl F Henry, Henry C. Theissen, Millard J Erickson, Prof. Craig Hawkins, non whom I would think of declaring unintellegent. The surprising thing about most modern Calvinists is that if they bothered to do any real deep research into Calvinism one would find that Calvin was not a Calvinists, for he did not hold to limited atonement and wrote much like an Arminian in his commentaries. The person most respnsible for Calvinism was Theodore Beza his son lin law not Calvin himself, who by the way wrote about Arminius that he was an exceptional student of good character and sound thought, wow surprise a calvinist aproving of the founder of Arninianism. You see what a litter “history” reading can do add a whole new and accurate perspective on the issue.
Pastor pat
May 8th, 2009
Patrick Taylor
Derek,
Question, just what part of Arminianism is unbiblical? Is it the soveriegnty of God issue? Is it that Arminian theology is the opposit of Refoemed or Calvanistic theology? Lets do some searching about the unbiblical part just to be carefully accurate in our accertions.
First let it be said that Arminius always considered himself within the refoemed family and he was a student of Calvinism with hight academic marks. Beza who ran at the times Calvin’s academy in Geneva gave a letter of recomendation on behalf of Arminius to the reformed churches of the Netherlands for his appointment approving of his former student. Arminius agreed with Calvinists in the aspect of God’s glory and covenants (Works of Arminius 1:363, 371-372). Arminius was at one with calvinists with regards to God’s glory as the purpose of evrything in creation and redemption. Arminius accepted the covenental aspect of refoemed theology as that Gos binds Himself to humanity through covenants (Works 1:409). He also believed that “sin” had destroyed mankinds free will whci was powerless unless infused by God’s divine grace (Works, 2:192). I think if some one is going to speak of differeing theological view points they must know something of what the true representation of the opposite view is in its pure form. One needs to read reformed Arminian theologians first before judging them as unbiblical. I would start with Roger Olsen’s book Arminian Theology Myths and Realities (IVP), Grace Faith and Free Will by Robert E. Picirlli (Randall House). Then lets discuss theology ok.
May 8th, 2009
Glen
Patrick,
You said… “He also believed that “sin” had destroyed mankinds [sic] free will whci [sic] was powerless unless infused by God’s divine grace (Works, 2:192).”
My question to you is how would you define God’s divine grace? and who was it given to? i.e. was it given to the entire world or just to some?
May 9th, 2009
Derek Manning
Patrick,
While it is well and good to consult learned men of God who have preceded us, those writings are not where we begin. We begin with the Bible. Jude 3 instructs us to “contend earnestly for the faith once and for all delivered to the saints.” In other words, everything we need to know about doctrines and morals are in the Bible, and this is our starting point.
Secondly, we ask ourselves the following questions:
1. If the doctrines of grace are true, then what should we expect to find in the Bible that demonstrate these doctrines?
2. If the doctrines of Arminianism are true, then what should we expect to find in the Bible that demonstrate these doctrines?
It is clear to me, and others that when a person attempts to answer these questions, that the evidence is overwhelming in supporting the first position.
If you wish to discuss the issue further, then it must be discussed in light of what the Scriptures say.
May 9th, 2009
Patrick Taylor
Derek,
You have hit the nail as it were on the head and thus it is to scrpiture we must go. However it has always struck me as odd in that when one gose to scripture we find various iinterpretations that come out from our searching. One finds that Calvinism is true and one finds the Lutheren perspective is true and one finds that the Arminian perpsective is true. Thus as Luther himself learned the Scriptures are not so easy that a six old can understand them for if this were so men like Calvin and Luther would be nonessential and so would theological instituions of higher learning. The fact that must be admitted is that we all have a certain bias presuppositions to our methodology toward what Scrpture says on a given issue. It is a false conclusion to say that these learned men came to their interpretaions on theological issue absant the searching of the Scriptures for their writings show other wise just as yours do. So yes lets go to the Scriptures but lets go as fellow Christian with the full acknowledegment of in essentials unity, in nonessentials liberty but in all charity.
May 11th, 2009
Stephen Macasil
Dear Patrick,
You wrote: “However it has always struck me as odd in that when one gose to scripture we find various iinterpretations that come out from our searching. One finds that Calvinism is true and one finds the Lutheren perspective is true and one finds that the Arminian perpsective is true.”
Basically, while Scripture remains Scripture irrespective of human interpretations, the human interpretations differ and vary based on varied hermeneutical principles. So the issue is with the methods of interpretation and whether or not they are valid.
By interpreting Scripture according to the form in which it was given, Arminianism and Lutheranism, I contend, are not exegetically tenable. In other words, by way of what we call the historico-grammatical method of exegesis (HGM), the perspectives of Lutheranism and Arminianism are shown to be incorrect.
While it is true that all possess presuppositions, the question becomes whether or not the presuppositions are true (i.e. biblical).
P.S. Earlier you referred to Carl F. H. Henry as a non-Calvinist. May you please provide your source for this claim?
May 11th, 2009
Patrick Taylor
STEPHEN,
You have a point howvever you make a mistaken assumption that those who are not Calvinists in the strictist sense do not use the historical-grammatical method. Thsi is a false assumption for Dr. Geisler,L.S. Chafe, Erickson, Ryrie, Robert P. Lightner and many who are in the Moderate Calvinistic ( Thus not 5 Pont Calvinists) Evangelical/Reformed Arminians and Reformed Lutheren who are not 5 point either. all in the their respective writings hold to this method of interpretation as I do. As to those I mention as not being Calvinists, what I mean is that they are not 5 point Calvinists and according to most srict 5 pointers if you deny one or more you are not a Calvinist in the basic meaning. Now I fully acknowledge that not all Calvinists would agree but for the most part the foundations of strict Calvinism rest on the premises that speak of these areas and I know that this is not the only aspect of Calvinism but much of it is revolved around them. As For C. F. Henry he is not a 5 pointer but fits into the Moderate or evangelical theological perspectives according to Gordon R. Lewis & Bruce A Demarest in “Intergrative Theology” (p.57). They put him into the Broad evangelical moderate/modified calvinistic camp along with such men as L. S. Chafer and Henry C. Thiesse and Millard J. Erickson.
May 12th, 2009
Stephen Macasil
Dear Patrick,
Then perhaps it is time to debate whether Calvinistic, Arminian, Lutheran, etc., doctrines have biblical warrant according to the HGM.
Regarding Henry, your appeal to Lewis/Demarest does not qualify as a source for your claim that he was a non-Calvinist. You said: “Other Non-Calvinists include Carl F Henry…” They are not saying as much.
I think you probably do not understand Henry or haven’t read him. That’s the only way I can make sense of the claim that he wasn’t a Calvinist. It’s like saying Gordon Clark or Robert Morey aren’t Calvinists. The person familiar with their works would be baffled as to where that idea arose!
Henry was one of the most radical proponent of Calvinistic epistemology. He also defended Calvinism against Montgomery et al. And Henry’s commentary on the eudokia of God is staunchly Calvinistic (which contends for the freedom of God in election over the popularized and unbiblical idea of a free will of man). Anyhow, before I continue to rant (Henry is a primary faith-hero of mine), let it be known that I find the claim absurd and view it as coming from a lack of understanding of his thought, or that you haven’t read his works and are relying on secondary sources…
May 12th, 2009
Patrick Taylor
Jean,
To be quite accurate Clavin was not theologian he was lawyer who’s father got him an appointment to the church. Calvin became a lay theologian as he sided with those in the refermation, but his professional training was as a legal scholar who became a reformer writing on theology.
May 14th, 2009
Patrick Taylor
Stephen,
Yes I too like Carl F. Henry very much and I have his six volume theological/philosophical writings, though I have not as of yet completed reading all of them but my conclusions about are at times bases on other Calinistic theologians second hand sources that may seem foolish and some of the rading I have done for example Henry dose belive that the fall rased mans (unregenerate) ability to comprehend truths about God (Vol. 2 pp. 135-136). “However serious its consequences and however far-reaching its affects, the fall of man, therefore, did not involve man’s total loss of knowledge of God, nor his rational competence or ethical accountability. Although sullied by the fall, the dvine image in man was not totally shattered.” (Henry Vol. 2 P.136). My friend this statement says much for this is also what moderate/modified evangelical Calvinists/reformed Arminians would stipulate to as well and do such Dr. Geisler (Chosen But Free p. 58-59). According to strict Calvinism or hyper Calvinism Totaly depraved beings have NO ability to understand or respond to God, not just a serperation from God. Problem, yes, for as Henry and Geisler note depraved beings are not obliterated from God but seperated and thus dose not imply an inability to hear and respond but a complete seprartion from God. The unsaved person can receive the truth (knowledge as Henry puts it) of God Rom. 1:20 (Geisler, p.59).
My Friend Stephen never assume anything ever, for any reason. Here I will state that Henry agrees with those of my perspective moderate/modified Calvinistic-reformed calsssical Arminians, who share this premise thus Henry is not a clasical hyper 5 point Calvinists in this regard say as a Micheal Horton is.
May 14th, 2009
Stephen Macasil
Dear Patrick,
You have committed a categorical fallacy in failing to recognize the distinction between postlapsarian human noetic faculties and the general revelation of God. The former refers to the state of fallen mankind while the latter refers to the activity of God. Two completely different things…
I will be glad to help sort this out if you wish.
But I can perceive your confusion on the issues, especially in placing Horton on the side of those that would deny the premise you assert. Horton would not deny the natural (innate) knowledge of God implanted in every human as image bearers. But this is besides the point. Much confusion and muddled thinking has produced such a mess. Perhaps we can sort it all out through clear and careful discussion.
May 14th, 2009
Patrick Taylor
Stephen,
I would welcome any and all debate and discussion of Ideas for this is what true Christians should do and it is fun and we laern things if we are open.
May 14th, 2009
Stephen Macasil
Dear Patrick,
The first issue that we need to get past is the claim that Henry was a non-Calvinist and that he held a perspective close to that of Norm Geisler. Since you are asserting a soteriological and epistemological likeness between the two, and since I am objecting to that claim as being far from true, then this issue should be discussed first.
In order to do that we must first begin with the “perspective of Norm Geisler” is, then the “perspective of Henry” and see if they are truly in agreement.
1. Geisler is a Thomist/Empiricist. Do you agree or disagree?
2. Henry opposed and argued against Thomism and Empiricism. Do you agree or disagree?
Henry also argued valiantly for the rejection of natural theology and natural law, two concepts Geisler valiantly argued in favor of.
I can go on down the list and provide many examples of how Henry and Geisler did not share a common thesis and how that logically led to epistemological as well as soteriological disagreement.
May 14th, 2009
Patrick Taylor
Stephen,
Yes I agree with you thwey disagee with each other on various issues, however you yourself make a falcious accertion in that if the quotes I mentioned are in fact in agreement as I believer they are this points to the fact that while one may have an opposite methodolgy as to the approach of theological distinctives most of the time but not on all issues dose equate them as fully opposed. Your basic premise is correct but I am dealing those aspects of Hyper- Strict Calvinism thus, Strict TULIP and no modification of it, not philisophical diversity. Dose Henry hold to Limited Atonement? Dose he deny universal Grace? What is his depth of the effect from the fall as to Total Depravity? If Henry dose not believe in Limited Atonement he is not a strict Calvinists by there own admission. It is herer that the questions must give the conclusions. Dose Henry mistakenly belive that Calvinism is Reformed Theology or is he prone to the correct aspect historically that Calinistic-theology was a part of the reformed theological movement just as Lutheren, Arminian, Armyaldian, Zwinglian and others that held views mostly the same but developed some modifications to them as the movement developed. My premise is to be accurate to the lingo of theology today and those who do not hold to a strict TULIP as it is conveyed would be either reformed evangelical theologically or modified Calvinists it is herer that I place Henry in this camp along with Geisler and myself, thus I perfer evangelical reformed, simply due to the fact I do not hold to Limited Atonement, Unconditional election, and irrristable grace as do strict 5 pointers. I belive in universal grace for this is clear in Scripture. However my frien I am not accertain that I am absolutely correct and am fully prepared to be challenged and corrected if I have misspoken for this is a part of grace and humility.
God bless you
May 18th, 2009
Patrick Taylor
Gelen,
I have been meaning to answer your question about the aspect of God’s grace being universal. I will say first “YES” it is and the Scriptures attest to this aspect. However this yes is not without qualification as yes saving grace has a particularistic aspect to it as well, so I will give you my thougts on this and we can proceed to discuss the issue.
First let give a definig aspect to Grace. The Grace of God is God’s goodness manifested toward the ill-deserved (Thiessen, p. 87). It is also the unmaritied favor of God shown toward mankind in the person and work of Christ Jesus and ultimately stems for the “Love of God” which is his very nature (1 John 4:8). Thus we should begin with the aspect of the extent of Grace in its common form. This is also not to taken as a common thisg but as an extensive part of God’s goodness, love and care graciously in the historty of creation and governance. The Common Grace of God upholds the universe (Col. 1:16-17; Heb1:3), and restrains social sin as well orginizes social iinstitutions,nations and such (Acts 17; Rom. 13:1-4). The Covenant with Noah in (Gen. 9:8-13). So we can see that there is a truth to a universal aspect to grace but is this all, is it only a sustaining grace and dose not touch any other aspect. “NO” it is not all there is that surrounds the universal aspect of grace. Gods Grace in Christ is not limited to part of mankind at all but extends over all humanity without exception (Pieper, p.21). scripture discribes that Gods’s grace in Christ is to all man (1 Tim. 2:4; Titus 2:11; John 1:29;John 3:16; 1 John 2:2; 2 Pet. 3:9), and thus I wil say that saving grace is universal grace (Pieper, p.21). Well we are off to a statr on this issue ther will be more to follow.
Blessings. Patrick
May 20th, 2009
Stephen Macasil
Patrick,
Are you trying to wiggle out of a corner? TULIP shouldn’t be synonymous with Strict Calvinism any more than the English alphabet should be synonymous with general education. The TULIP acronym is only fragment summary of Calvinism, and not representative of it as a whole.
TULIP only summarizes certain soteriological doctrines particular to Calvinism but says nothing of the essential doctrines of Calvinism that are logically prior to TULIP (such as sola scriptura, predestination and providence, the sovereignty of God, etc.). A person’s agreement with these things will necessarily produce an agreement with TULIP if they are carried out consistently to their logical end. But disagreements on these essentials or theological inconsistency will not.
Example 1: Sola Scriptura – belief that the Scriptures are the final judge in all matters (i.e. controversies) of doctrine and morals.
Apply this to the question, “Does God predestinate some to eternal life and others to eternal hell?”
a. Person in agreement with Sola Scriptura: The Bible says yes, so yes!
b. Person not in agreement with Sola Scriptura: No, the God I love would never do so.
c. Person claims to be in agreement with Sola Scriptura but does not affirm person a’s conclusion: Although it appears to say that in the Bible, since God is a loving God, and since it is not loving to predestinate a person to hell, then no – God does not predestinate some to heaven and others to hell. God is not a monster.
Person a is consistent and would have no problem with TULIP, person b is probably not a Christian and TULIP is disgusting to her, person c is inconsistent and illogical and may agree with TULIP only if it is presented nicely to fit the already pre-existing conceptual framework of God and religion (or if it’s trendy at the time, etc.).
This brief and elementary example illustrates how much more lies beneath the surface of Calvinism than just the TULIP. But why do I bring it up?
Henry and Geisler had such fundamental disagreements with the necessary principles foundational to forming a theology of any kind. Since Henry began with Scripture as the basis for knowledge (hence my epistemological references) and Geisler did not (as a Thomist opposed to Scripturalism he believed knowledge came through the senses, i.e. empiricism), it is no wonder why Henry would defend the Calvinist articulation of predestination and election and Geisler would argue against it.
At the level that both these men played, arguing over TULIP is a waste of time because they deal with the issues that are logically prior to even discussing such constructs as TULIP. In order to acknowledge the TULIP one must first agree with Calvinist articulations of predestination and election based on the eternal decree. Geisler would have none of this hogwash and Henry would become one of its greatest defenders! So when you placed them in a common camp regarding soteriological views, I objected on the grounds that only a gross misunderstanding could produce such a claim.
Here are a few quotes from Carl F. Henry that should end any doubt that he was a Calvinist:
>>The God of the Bible is still the predestinating and electing God who eternally decrees his purposes.
>>[E]lection presents Christ as representative of only those persons elected to salvation, and no others.
>>To transmute the meaning of eternal election into the constancy and reliability of God’s free love, as Barth does, either requires universalism on the premise that love is the eternal core of God’s being, or poses for love no less than for the traditional view of election the same dilemmas regarding eternity and time that disturb Barth. In the last analysis Barth’s doctrine of election is anchored less in the freedom of God than in a prejudiced view of a love-dominated divine nature that ontologically determines the direction and outcome of election.
>>As we previously emphasized, the message of divine predestination echoes through the Bible as a message of joy, and not of horror and dismay. It bestows privileges conditioned not on merit or race but solely on God’s will, grace and purpose. The classic New Testament text on election, Ephesians 1:1–12, identifies God’s grace in predestination to be Jesus Christ, that is, we are chosen in Christ. God’s gracious determination centers exclusively on Christ; outside of Christ the sinner can expect nothing. “He hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace” (Eph. 1:4 f., kjv).
>>Barth’s denial that God hardens and rejects some persons clearly runs counter to what Scripture itself teaches.
>>In objecting to the traditional view of predestination with its individual election of some but not all…
May 21st, 2009
Stephen Macasil
Patrick,
You asked:
1. Dose Henry hold to Limited Atonement?
2. Dose he deny universal Grace?
3. What is his depth of the effect from the fall as to Total Depravity?
My answers:
1. Yes
2. Yes
3. The question reveals a fundamental confusion of the issues. The discussion of the noetic effects of the fall or the discussion of how much of the moral imago was retained in man after the fall, do not pertain to the Calvinists soteriological reiteration of Romans 8:7-8 which says,
“For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. (Rom. 8:7-8 ESV)”
This is basically what the “T” is trying to convey. “TOTAL” depravity refers to the absence of any part (aspect) of man that has not been affected by the fall. Calvinists are saying that the fall had implications that affected man in his total being. IOW, there is no spared aspect of man that was not affected by the fall, i.e., is not in the same condition as it was prior to the fall.
But if you want to know Henry’s position, learn Gordon Clark’s, because as Henry said so himself, “his argument is persuasive.”
(G,R,A, Vol. II, p. 135)
May 21st, 2009
Patrick Taylor
Stephen,
Thank you, my friend for your reply it was very well articulated and informative. However there is a bit of presumption here and that is within the first adress as to (Sola Scriptura) as being exclusive to those who would by its nature adhear to Calvinism. Let state that I know of no orthodox theologian/biblical scholar of either of the various view points (Lutheren-Reformed Arminian-Moderate/modified Evangelical Calvinists) who denied Sola Scriptura in its foundational and fundamental essance. “Classical Armininianism includes belief in the supernatural inspiriation of Scripture and its supreme authority for Christian faith and practice and in the folowing norm of sloa scriptura-scripture above every other souces and norm,” ( Arminian Theology myths and realities by Roger Olson, p 82-83; Arminius, Works.1:374, 397-98, 609). “We Hold that the Bible stands benaeath us, giving a foundation to our understanding; that incirles us, making boundries for our speculations; that it resides within us, granting and confirminf the trues undertanding of God and ourselves; and it ultimately stands over us, judging according to the very mind of God. The Bible for us, then, is not than one religious resource among many, but the unrivaled touchstone for shaping all Christian beilief and practice”, (Why I Am Not A Calvinist by Jerry L Walls & Joseph R. Dongell, p.21). “Since Holy Scripture is God’s Word by inspiration, it posesses as a matter of course, also divine properties, namely. divine authority, divine efficacy, perfection, and perpescuity,” (Christian Dogmatics by Fracis Pieper, Vol 1: 307). “The Holy Scriptures are thus recognized by all schools as the true source of Christian Theology. This authority lies in the fact that they are an inspired revelation of God to man. They are divine in their origin-the product of the Holy Spirit’s inspiration. The authoritative language of Scripture argues the necessity of inspiration. Again, if the Scriptures were not divinely inspired, they could not claim as they do, to be infallible standards of religious truth. Only as we are convinced that the writers were aided by a supernatural and divine influence, and this in such a manner as to be be fallibly preserved from all error, can the sacred Scriptures become a divine rule in faith and practice,” (Christian Theology by H. Ortin Wiley, Vol 1 p.167, 172, 173). “Unlike any other book in the world the Bible bares the fingerprints of God. It has sanctity, divine authority, infallibility, indestructability, indefatigability, indefeasibility, and inerrancy,” (Systematic Theology by Geisler, Vol 1 p.252). “In the broader sence we speak of the entirety of Scripture as God’s self revelation. Inspiration has to do with the recording of truth. The Sprit of God moved upon men to write the sixty-six books of the Bible. The Bible carries with it the divine authority of God. Not only is Scripture inspired and authoritative, it is also inerrant and infallible. The Bible is superior to all other religious books in content, ” (Lectures In Systematic Theology by Henry C. Thiessen, pp. 63, 67). Wow Stephen a lot of quotes I think. However each of these men represent differing theological capms within the pale of orthodoxy such as reformed-Classical Arminian, Lutheren, Evanglical-Moderate Baptistic Calvanistic views and they all hold to the orthodox refomrmed view of Scripture without being 5 pointers in the hyper-strict sence and all affirm predestination. Your answers to the Henry question are good but I must say that for someone to think an argument is persuasive dose not entail agreement for Heny dose state as to his discussion on devine election with regrads to those passages that speak of “all” and “world” (Matt. 18:14; John 3:16-17; 2Cor 5:14-15; 1 Tim. 2:6; Heb. 2:9), that to equate these word as refering to the elect “seems contrived ” (semmingly unatural) and he has a dual view as to the deth of Christ for mankind in Adam and for the elect that he admits still has problems, his words, but it dose solve some issues and like him I fully acknowledge that a unlimited atonement would never lead to universal salvation and I do not hold to that view as I know he is disputing this perspective claimed by Barth (G,R,A, Vol VI 106). Do I think Henry is Calvinistic in his theology “YES” I do but for me it is to what degree.
As far as the TULIP, I know that it is not all that Calvinism entails however it is the ambassadore of it and as such many equate the Gospel as it (John Piper, Tulip The Persuit of God’s Glory in Salvation, 2000-back cover). There are other as well who hold to the deeper aspects of Scrptiture and the Doctrines of the Bible as being only encased in Calvinism such Spurgeon, Boettner, Kennedy and in viewing those who are not Calvinists strictly as Christians and saved though blinded and imperfect, rather pressuptuous words though Boettner is a fine theologian.
My friend Stephen I must get back to you my friend so God Bless
(Your Reformed Evangelical-Cal-luthre-minian i.e., the theological MUT a believers best friend.)
May 22nd, 2009
Patrick Taylor
Oh, Stephen
I almost forgot The premise you come at in regrads to apologetics in regrads to epistemology I have to disagree with your premise in the Persupositional leading to only the right way to approch Scpirture that leads to Calvinism but I appreciate you perspective for Gary Demar is a favorite of mine in somoe of his writings and I know he is a Presuppostionalist. Though I tend toward Habermas (Evidentialist) and am probably closer to the Culminative apologetics of Paul Fineberg as I like combining the strengths of all the big four (Being a master in the Martial Arts its kind of the way I think) and was a legal research assistant for a while. I think Scripture is always the place to start but not stop. By the way my favorite Philosopher is Thomas Ried (Common Sense Philosophy for me) and thus “all” means all and thats all means as one of my professors at Liberty University would say.
May 22nd, 2009
Stephen Macasil
Patrick,
I appreciate the quotes you’ve provided. They function according to your purpose, to show that adherence to the principle of Sola Scriptura is claimed by theologians from several camps. But I did not deny that adherence to SS is claimed, I pointed out that true and consistent adherence to SS will lead to Calvinism. This is because Calvinism is a doctrinal-life system deduced from Scripture while other doctrinal-life systems are inductively constructed. But see the following example:
There are 9 Americans living in 9 different states all visiting Southern California this weekend . Each of the 9 claim to abide by the speed limit on the 5FWY between Valley View and Beach Blvd., which is 65MPH. Eight of them receive a speeding ticket that weekend between those exits for doing 80-85MPH. The fact that they claimed to adhere and vowed to abide by the speed limit in that region does not void their citation from the CHP. Nor will a quote from their personal journal entry on how much they love laws, especially traffic laws, in particular speed laws on SoCal freeways, alter the reality that they were traveling in excess of 80MPH on the 5.
In a sense this describes how I view claims to SS from those that are caught by Scriptural radar when in violation. Most of the authors you’ve quoted can be demonstrated (by examining their written doctrines) to be in violation of the very principle they claim to abide by (SS). Therefore their quoted sayings in which they profess to abide by the very laws they break leave their quoted sayings hypocritical.
When SoCal visitor #9 (the one that did not get a speeding ticket) was asked why she didn’t get a speeding ticket she answered, “I kept it under 66!” Thus she is the only visitor that lived and thought consistently with her statement. She represents the person that claims to adhere to the principle of SS and thus does not deny Calvinism but other systems of doctrine-life.
May 22nd, 2009
Stephen Macasil
Dear Patrick,
you said: “I think Scripture is always the place to start but not stop.”
What do you do then if you begin with Scripture (which is the first half of your statement), but then due to the second half of your statement (but not stop) find yourself in an area forbidden by Scripture?
It seems that if your proposition contains both an affirmation of Scripture always as your starting point as well as an affirmation to not stop once you get going and are free from Scripture, that the statement is self-referentially incoherent.
Since your proposition includes both a declaration of always beginning with Scripture as well as a permit to enter into areas which Scripture forbids, then you should not use the term “Scripture” but replace it with a “selective portion of” or “arbitrary passage of” the Scriptures, because many portions of “Scripture” would prevent the notion of “not stopping” once you get going.
May 22nd, 2009
Patrick Taylor
Stephen,
Buddy glad to have heard from you and I must say the speed limit analogy is interresting though one must remember it has changed and the fast lane in the flow of traffic. Though it is interesting it dose not fly in that all of these men are consistant with Scripture as regards to SS, but it is that they do not limte there reading of Scripture as some in the Calvibists do they try not to proof text or isolate texts and approach them from a theological bias first rather then within its original context that being historical, rhetorical, social, theological, grammatical, literal and so on (Ben Witherington III, The Problem With Evangelical Theology, p.4). I do see your point though Stephen for if one sees a certain truth in the particulars in Calvinism in the texts and appraoches it with a strict TULIP then all Scriprtues leads to Calvinism as one reads Scripture through them. The problem is that if one or more of the links in this chain breaks then the system is damaged. An example is the exegeting of Romans by Calvinistic scholars and many others who fail to read it cumulatively rather than sound-byting it and it shows for example in isolation Romans 7 from the obvious connection to Romans 5 (Ibid., 7.).
Any way Stephen let me be clear about Scriptures place it is first formost and always the truth, governing standard and perfect revealtion of God from God for me. The idea of the “end” statemant is that of the analogy of the Bereans in Acts 17, as they searched the Scriptures to investigate Paul’s preaching and taching we read and study Scriptures and go where to verify comprehend (though the Spirit illuminates us in out reading of the Bible) the revelation. I agreee with Wesley Scripture, reason, tradition, culture, church, and so on to comprehend it thus Scripture is primary but where do I go to verify the reality of Pilot to Acheology that dug his actual proof of existance up and that is my point. God dose not comdemm us for seeking to understand for He encourages us to investigate His truth and revelations. The idea is this if no learning was needed outside the Bible to understand the John Calvin could have been an illiterate farmer in a small village and still be able to have written his commentaries and his Institutes, but you and I know that is not reality. Thus my point. Talk to you later Stephen Blessing and have a wonderful Memorial Day and from this veteran to you please say a prayer for out troops.
Patrick
May 23rd, 2009
Dembie
I hold fast to the sure foundation that there are no contradictions in God’s word. If there are any scriptures which teach Arminianism, (which is another way of saying salvation by the arm of man), either they have misunderstood the verse or they are contradictions to Calvinism, (that name being another way of saying salvation at the cross at Calvary). If there is a contradiction, the truth has not been found, yet.
Arminianism/Calvinism: Oh, I know that is not the origin of the names but Romans 1:20 says the invisible things of God are understood by the physical things we can see (not by nature-for you can not see the Trinity by looking at a tree or the weather, etc.). He has always given us this ability to see the spiritual things by the physical things even the Godhead, (Trinity), by the account of creation in Genesis in which we can see the Trinity by the 3 fold makeup of man and woman. So the men’s names were very providential giving a way to see the spiritual by the physical.
Not every time the word “saved” is used does it mean eternal salvation. Saved means delivered. There are many warnings and teachings for Christians to learn how to be delivered while on earth, which Arminians blindly twist to be warnings to the unbelievers.
Aug 9th, 2009
Frank!
I know this is an old post, but anyone have any thoughts on Driscoll’s message at the Crystal Cathedral this week?
Aug 26th, 2009
Stephen Macasil
Frank,
The last time I listened to a Mark Driscoll talk was late 2006/early 2007 (ish). Perhaps I’ll break the streak and find the one you’re asking about and post some thoughts. I’ll give you something in advance though, if it isn’t an improvement from the hermeneutical massacre and historical revisionism which was plagued by logical fallacies left, right, in, and out that I listened to back then, my comments will probably be short to the tune of either thumbs up or down…
Aug 26th, 2009
Frank
Stephen,
This is the Arminian Frank (not to be confused with Frank!). I’d very much be interested in your take on Mark Driscoll since one of his Acts 29 churches is making news in my part of the country. I asked about Driscoll earlier:
http://biblicalthought.com/blog/john-calvin-on-birthdays-on-his-500th-birthday/#comment-27551
Aug 27th, 2009
Stephen Macasil
Ok, I watched the video of Driscoll’s talk. I’ll put some thoughts together and either post them here or as a new thread.
Aug 27th, 2009
Frank!
Stephen,
Reformed Frank! here, thanks. And I listened to Pirate Christian Radio the other day, and Roseboroug gives it a thumbs up.
Aug 28th, 2009
Travis
Frank,
I currenty am a deacon at an Acts 29 church in Denver, a lot of the structure is the same, also I have a friend who I believe is a deacon at the well, in Augusta, let me know if I can answer any questions
Aug 29th, 2009
Frank
Travis,
Thanks for your kind note of Aug. 29. I would’ve replied sooner, but for some weekend thunderstorms. Thanks for offering to answer my questions. I may take you up on your offer.
For about a year, I’ve been acquainted with one of The Well’s members, a young man who owns a bookstore on Broad Street in downtown Augusta.
http://www.thebooktavern.com
http://www.booktavern.com
He’s an interesting, likable person, and I’ve sensed a Christian brotherly fellowship whenever I’ve browsed or shopped at his store.
While I was there yesterday afternoon (Aug. 31), he described Acts 29 as a network of churches that subscribe to a creed of core beliefs but that are free to vary their styles of worship. He said, as you may know, that The Well is moving to a new storefront location—right next to Planned Parenthood! So they’ll have their work cut out for them and, I hope, be a good influence.
A coworker of mine attends a non-denominational Bible Chapel setting up shop about six blocks down from The Well. He regularly passes out tracts on First Friday (a well-attended monthly celebration downtown) and has mentioned running into a Well member who does the same thing. The area—which includes restaurants, bars, nightclubs, and even a few strip clubs—can use all the godly influence Christians are willing to provide.
Anyway, I’ve mentioned these things as a way of saying I’d not suspected any problems at The Well until I read this thread about Mark Driscoll’s appearance at The Crystal Cathedral. Of course, there are some doctrinal differences between Arminians and Calvinists, but none are serious enough for each group to consider the other one outside the body of Christ.
Aug 31st, 2009
Travis
Ill try to answer the best I can,
first off the whole idea is to be anti Neo-Platonic, and be missional get out of the idea of bringing people to church to be saved but the people in the church bringing the gospel out of the church (building) not ecclesia.
There is much diversity in the network, which we and others say are the essential and the unessential’s, the essentials all Acts 29 churches must hold to or they are put under discipline, but the unessential’s which are many from eschatology to style of worship etc.
as far as Mark and the Crystal Cathedral, I don’t know what was said, I do know that Dr Schuller has made comments that are heretical and should be corrected, this is not an Armenian / Calvinist issue this is a false teacher issue, but we can go deeper with that if you want.
any more questions let me know
Sep 5th, 2009
Reply to “Calvinism: The No. 3 “New Idea””