CanJAmerican, I Am

Substitutionary Atonement

2017-04-09T18:00:00.000-04:00

Over the last few years I have engaged on Facebook's Messenger, with a young man of my acquaintance, on the subject of the Atonement. More specifically with his intense dislike of the Substitutionary view of such.

Here is a sample of his comments:

the satisfaction theory of atonement is wrong since Jesus didn't satisfy god since he didn't get eternal punishment.

in the west around the time of Anselm and especially during the reformation people started to view God as a harsh blood thirsty entity that had to be appeased by the blood of His son

is it just that the wrath of God on Jesus was for a couple minutes while for us it's eternal, I don't think so

the substitution theory is a disgusting theory

He recently posted the following video to which I responded.

The video is designed to incite outrage against the Bible - it shows a white man who raped a black woman, but not just any white man, a neo-nazi, so clearly there is no intention on the part of the artist to accurately represent that which he despises, and he succeeds in his effort.

Let's compare his representation of the atonement with what the Bible teaches on the subject, and it will be evident that the artist is not interested in the truth, and actually despises [the one] who created him:

His version - young white man commits a crime - rape. When brought before the judge, there is no remorse nor punishment for his crime, in effect no satisfaction for his sin. The judge has 2 dudes beat up on his own son, and then sets the rapist free, to leave and continue to rape at his pleasure.

The Bible version:

In 2 Samuel 11 & 12, we have the story of King David's adultery with Bathsheba, who becomes pregnant as a result. David sends for her husband who is on the battlefield, fighting for his king. He hopes Uriah will go home and sleep with his wife so that the child will appear to be his own. But Uriah doesn't go home, so David has him killed in battle, and then marries his pregnant widow. The murder is to cover-up the adultery.

If the repercussion of David's double sins followed the video version, you'd have Jesus beat up and David free to go on with life. But that's not how the story plays out.

The first thing the Bible teaches is that there are no innocents as far as God is concerned.

Romans 3:10-18

As it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one." "Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive." "The venom of asps is under their lips." "Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.” “Their feet are swift to shed blood; in their paths are ruin and misery, and the way of peace they have not known.” “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”

In David's story we notice the displeasure of the Judge toward the sinner (that's not in the video).

2 Samuel 11:26-27

When the wife of Uriah heard that Uriah her husband was dead, she lamented over her husband. And when the mourning was over, David sent and brought her to his house, and she became his wife and bore him a son. But the thing that David had done displeased the Lord.

The prophet Nathan (the judge's representative) comes to David and calls him out on his sin (that's not in the video), via a story that Nathan tells.

There is punishment for David because of the sin (that's not in the video).

2 Samuel 12:11-12

Thus says the Lord, "Behold, I will raise up evil against you out of your own house. And I will take your wives before your eyes and give them to your neighbor, and he shall lie with your wives in the sight of this sun. For you did it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel and before the sun."

David's response to Nathan (repentance) is significantly different than the neo-nazi's in the video!

2 Samuel 12:13

David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the Lord.”

David wrote the 51st Psalm after this meeting with Nathan.

¹Have mercy on me, O God, according to your steadfast love; according to your abundant mercy blot out my transgressions. ²Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin! ³For I know my transgressions, and my sin is ever before me. ⁴Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight, so that you may be justified in your words and blameless in your judgment.⁵Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.⁶Behold, you delight in truth in the inward being, and you teach me wisdom in the secret heart.

The Bible affirms that repentance is necessary for salvation and that the atoning sacrifice of Christ is only for those who do repent. All mankind is guilty, but Christ is the substitute only for those who recognize that they are guilty and repent of their sin.

You can do a Bible search for the words REPENT, and REPENTANCE using Bible Gateway

Here's some of what you will find:

Job 42:5-6

I had heard of you by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye sees you; therefore I despise myself, and repent in dust and ashes.

Psalm 7:12-13

If a man does not repent, God will whet his sword; he has bent and readied his bow; he has prepared for him his deadly weapons, making his arrows fiery shafts.

Mark 1:14-15

Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of God, and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.

Luke 5:32

I [Jesus] have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance.

Acts 17:30-31

The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.

There is a judgement coming and only those who repent of their sins will be saved from that judgement, because Christ has been their substitute.

Romans 5:9-10

Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life.

Romans 5:12-21 explains substitution. Adam was the substitute that took mankind away from God. Jesus Christ is the substitute that brings those who repent and believe back to God.

v.12

Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man [Adam], and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned...

v.19

For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous.

The video affirms amnesty with no repentance, and thus encourages the rapist to continue raping, since the judge gave him a free pass.

Clearly, the video does NOT present truth, and you should reject it and embrace the truth of the Bible, repenting of your sin and trusting Christ as the sole mediator between you and God.

1 Timothy 2:5-6

For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time.

For further reading:

What is the substitutionary atonement?

Did Early Christians Believe in Substitutionary Atonement?

Substitution in the Church Fathers

What you can't sing without Penal Substitution

Atonement tweet sparks blood feud on social media

All scripture quotations are English Standard Version
unless otherwise noted.

60 and counting

2017-02-02T08:00:00.000-05:00

Today I celebrate a milestone birthday - 60! Over the last few weeks I have been looking back over those years and decided to write this post encapsulating my journey. The most important aspect of the trip is an awareness that God is sovereign over all things. There are a few significant turns in the journey over which I had absolutely no input or control. Other turns were by my own choice, some good and some bad, yet in all of them God ruled sovereignly. My trust is settled in God who is merciful and gracious, and I am thankful for the life He has blessed me with. I have broken this post into 5 year segments, to highlight significant events in each segment.

1942-1957

My journey begins almost 15 years before my birth when the Canadian Army drafted my father and sent him to Jamaica with the Brockville Rifles.

In his memoir (unpublished), he recounts his adventures in Jamaica; one highlight is a full-pack climb to Blue Mountain Peak (7400 ft). He wrote that he was determined to reach the summit so that he would be able to tell his children of his accomplishment. He fell in love with the island and, after completing his theological studies, returned to Jamaica with our mother in 1952, settling in Prospect District, St. Elizabeth. Their home had no electricity or indoor plumbing, but this was not a sacrifice to them as their childhood homes in Ontario were the same. They had been married 9 years but had no children, and shortly after arriving adopted a 4-yr old girl from the German community of Seaford Town.

Over the next 7 years my mother gave birth to 5 children, with the first living only a few hours. I am the 3rd of those 5 and the only child not born in Jamaica.

1957-1962 (Birth to 5)

My parents returned to Canada on furlough every 4 or 5 years to report to their supporting churches and raise additional funds for their mission work. I was born on their first furlough and returned with them to Jamaica in the summer. I have many wonderful memories of those early years and even today when I hear wind rustling through trees I am reminded of that house.

1962-1967 (5 to 10)

Furlough in Canada where I was placed in 1st Grade, likely because I was a reader. This should have meant that I would graduate 12th grade in 1974 at 17, a fact that will figure prominently further along in the story. Returning to Jamaica, we moved to Anchovy, St James, and attended St. James Prep School in Montego Bay.

1967-1972 (10-15)

Another year long furlough (6th Grade), then residence in Montego Bay at Felicity Drive (by the gully). Final year at St. James Prep, Cornwall College (2 years), Fairview High School (1 year).

1972-1977 (15-20)

Furlough was delayed a year as we moved to Kingston while another missionary family took their furlough - attended Calabar High School. Returning to Canada I should have entered 12th grade, but was held back. This was probably the most significant decision up to this point in my life over which I had no control. Had I graduated from high school in Canada, there would have been no reason for me to return to Jamaica with the rest of the family. That would have completely changed the entire direction of my life. I am beyond thankful that my parents made that choice for me.

Returning to Montego Bay and Cornwall for my senior year, with the 15 minutes of fame (loved every second of it) that came from my role as Mr. Squeers in Cornwall's production of Smike - the Musical. Had my first date with Gloria when she was visiting with her folks - Pelican Grill for banana splits.

Tennessee Temple University (Chattanooga, TN) for a semester (they asked me not to come back!). Home for the spring of 1976, while my parents prepared to leave Jamaica after 24 years. Canada for the remainder of the year, summer near Hamilton, and fall in Kitchener. Began corresponding with Gloria via snail mail and the occasional phone call.

1977-1982 (20-25)

Toronto for a year, then returned to the US to go back to TTU for a semester. Transferred to Northland Baptist Bible College (Dunbar, WI), where Gloria was, returning to Chattanooga, after one semester. We were married in Wisconsin on June 9, 1979, and enrolled at TTU for the fall, dropping out after a few weeks with no plans to return.

1982-1987 (25-30)

Both of our daughters were born and we returned to TTU to finish our degrees thoroughly enjoyed the college experience.

1987-1992 (30-35)

Both of us graduated (90 & 91) and treated ourselves by returning to Jamaica as our graduation present to ourselves. Had a wonderful trip and returned the next year on the first of 5 trips with large groups. Moved to Lakeland, FL, to be near Gloria's parents.

1992-1997 (35-40)

Worked a number of different jobs in FL from sales, to software training, to pizza delivery, and a stint as a night auditor at a hotel. Heavily involved in the church we were members of, in teaching, music, and drama.

1997-2002 (40-45)

Left FL for Columbia, SC, to attend seminary with the intention of going to Jamaica as missionaries. Worked for a computer firm as a trainer and served as a Music Minister with a very talented praise team and fantastic choir.

2002-2007 (45-50)

Served as the Executive Director of a small ministry based in PA that sponsored a deaf school in Jamaica. Also served as pastor of a church and interim pastor of another, and went to work as peak season help at UPS.

2007-2012 (50-55)

Resigned from the pastorate and returned to a sales career, just as the economy began to struggle. Major failure there! Continued with UPS and joined Columbia Charlotte Shuttle.

2012-2017 (55-60)

Continue to work at both jobs. Very thankful to enjoy both jobs and the people I work with.

2017-? (60 and on)

My goal is to start and finish 2 large personal projects: 1) writing a book - I have written a few blog articles on the theme of Monergism vs Synergism. There are a number of additional articles on that theme I would like to write and there may be enough to constitute a book; 2) compile a list of 100 Hymns for Worship. The premise for that number comes from fact that there are 50 Sundays in a year, excepting the Sunday for Easter and Christmas. Four hymns per Sunday is 200 hymns, so each hymn would be sung twice a year. There are so many great hymns spanning almost 500 years of writing, that I expect to leave out many wonderful songs.

These projects will mean that I will spend less time on Facebook, so will be trimming my friend list a little. We also have a granddaughter who brings joy to my heart and have already made up 2 silly songs for her.

I am blessed beyond my worth with the family and friends God has granted me. My father lived into his 93rd year and my mother will celebrate her 95th in a few days, so I have fairly good genes, if only I hadn't worn them out in the knees. I look forward to the continuation of the journey.

Election 2016 - Ramblings

2017-01-18T11:00:00.000-05:00

For my first post of 2017, I present to the reader a chronological compilation of my Election 2016 posts on FB, as well as responses to some of my friends FB posts. I also have included a link to my previous blog post on the election.

– – – – – – – – – –

Jul 24 - from FB

So we were watching "Air Force One" this afternoon and I decided that i'ma gonna vote for Harrison Ford for President. He was downright Reagan-esque when he said "Get off my plane!" Almost the same inflection as "tear down this wall."

Get Off My Plane!

I expect that my support for him will earn me an ambassadorship - to Jamaica of course. My first task as ambassador will be to move the residence to MoBay, so that I can go to Doctors Cave for my sea bath every morning, before all them there ship tourists show up. My second task will be to build a Devon House I-Scream shop on the property, so I can have ice cream with every meal.

All 502 of my FB friends will be welcome to stay in the residence for a nominal fee, deposited to my account at the First National Bank of Cayman.

Thank you fer yer support.

– – – – – – – – – –

Aug 9 - Blog Post: 2016 Election

– – – – – – – – – –

Sep 6 - from FB

My wife informed me this morning that if either of the 2 main candidates is elected this fall she is moving to Canada. She further stated that if I, as a Canadian citizen, don't go with her (so that she has some legal standing for her citizen application), she will be rowing across Lake Erie, with the hope that Canada has a wet foot, dry foot policy.

– – – – – – – – – –

Nov 4 - from FB

A friend posted this meme to which I responded.

The fact that many so called evangelicals support a woman who supports the slaughter of unborn children in the place where they should be the safest - their mother's womb, proves that Christianity has nothing to do with their belief system - it's just a cover for left wing politics...

Many conservative evangelicals struggled with whether to vote for Trump, or to vote third party, or write-in, because of Trump's serious character flaws. He was no more worthy of the Presidency than Clinton. The difference for many came down to the party platforms - for life or for the murder of the unborn.

– – – – – – – – – –

Nov 9 - from FB

This meme struck my funny bone, forcing me to respond.

I received a call this morning from someone who I had a hard time understanding. At first I thought he was calling from Microsoft to help me with the virus on my computer, but then I understood that he was the Prime Minister of Canada.

He informed me of a fantastic business opportunity for Canadian citizens living in the US. In order to facilitate the vast number of Americans desirous of moving to Canada this week, I have volunteered to help with their transportation. If you are in this group, please send me $20 in non-sequential numbered $100 bills. I will take care of all the paperwork and will provide transportation to the US side of Lake Erie, where a high speed boat will take you to the Canadian side. Buses are leaving at midnight from a back lot near you.

If you think this is just a scam for me to make boatloads of money, you should call 1-800-OCA-NADA, and they will confirm the veracity of this correspondence.

Thanking you in advance, I am respectfully.....

Oops, that's actually a real phone number!

– – – – – – – – – –

Nov 10 - from FB

I read today that Clinton received 6M less votes than Obama received in the previous election. I have also heard it said that poll numbers are designed to discourage the voters of the party that is trailing in those polls. Since the polls incorrectly showed Clinton leading, I wonder if they had the opposite effect - rather than discouraging Trump voters, they actually discouraged Clinton voters from casting a ballot, as they assumed a win by Clinton?

– – – – – – – – – –

Nov 12 - from a friend's FB

"The idea to do a million woman march in support of Hillary sounds like a really really great idea to me. Let's do it ladies!"

Electoral College: Make Hillary Clinton President.

My 1st response: "Ignore the Electoral vote for the popular vote - will never happen. America would cease to exist as a nation if that were even possible. Anarchy would rule but maybe Clinton's supporters would prefer that to Trump!"

A third party's response: "That's why your opinion is about the size of your brain. Almost nonexistent. Popular vote should have always been. Not even Biblical. Line your mind up."

My 2nd response: "You are showing your ignorance of American history and why the founding fathers established the electoral college. Do a little research before you write nonsense on FB.

p.s. I am NOT a Trump supporter."

– – – – – – – – – –

And finally

It is common knowledge that Clinton won the popular vote by 2M over Trump. That vote difference caused an uproar by folks (like the individual above) who apparently did not pay attention in their Civics/Government class in high school.

If the system had been based on the popular vote, a single state, California, would have determined the outcome of the election. The New York Times shows that Clinton had almost twice as many votes in California as Trump (8.7M to 4.4M). The math from those numbers shows that in the other 49 states Trump won the popular vote by 2M.

Market Watch noted that "Under our electoral-vote system, American voters elected a national president, not California’s choice."

Planes, Trains, and Automobiles

2016-10-08T10:00:00.000-04:00

18 days, 9 states, 6 airports, 5 planes, 2 trains, 3000 miles driven

Week 1:

Sun/Mon - Gloria and I drove from SC to Mother's house in MO, passing through GA, TN, KY, and IL.

Thu - Gloria stayed at Mother's, while Mother and I flew to Portland, OR, stopping in Denver, CO. (my first time in CO)

Week 2:

Sun - nephew Raj's wedding to Heather. Love dancing with all of my family at weddings.

Mon - Back to MO, via San Francisco, CA. (my first time in CA)

Tue/Wed - Gloria and I retraced our route to SC.

Sat - Loaded Sarah's moving truck.

Week 3:

Sun/Mon - identical route as week 1 to MO.

Tue - on to Chicago to unload truck.

Wed - Metra Train into downtown Chicago, then CTA Subway to ORD, then to CLT and home.

Had confused Washington Blue Line station with Washington/Wells Brown/Orange/Pink Line station. Spent 30 minutes wandering around downtown Chicago until a nice young lady directed me to the correct station.

Misunderstanding or Misrepresentation

2016-09-07T18:00:00.000-04:00

I occasionally engage on social media in discussion related to biblical topics. In some cases my remarks never see the light of day, or are removed shortly after I post them. As a result I have adopted the habit of typing and saving my remarks on my computer before posting them. I have already posted some of those conversations and in the coming weeks will be posting more of them.

This post contains 2 of those conversations. The first is from a post in August, 2009, by Dave Noffsinger titled Calvinism Illustrated at his Kansas Preacher blog.

http://kansaspreacher.blogspot.com/2009/08/calvinism-illustrated.html

Here is the text of my comments, which not surprisingly do not appear on Noffsinger's blog.

Dave,

Your illustration fails at this point:

3. As a matter of fact, I even decided to see the eldest (who has done nothing to me) suffer eternal punishment...

The truth is that all men have NOT "done nothing." We have freely and willfully turned our backs on God, rejected Him, and hated Him.

We should be amazed that He has offered mercy and grace to any of His enemies, when He was in no way obligated to do so.

It appears from this post that you have not read Calvinistic writers. Most of your arguments are not arguments against what Calvinism actually affirms, but against misrepresentations of that which Calvinism affirms.

Read some Piper, Sproul, White, MacArthur, Edwards, Boettner, and the Canons of Dordt. Then critique that which Calvinism actually affirms, rather than a mischaracterization of it.

(posted August 13, 2009 10:52 AM)

The second is from a post in April 2014, by Chris Noland at his Pastor Chris Noland blog.

http://chrisnoland.org/2014/04/02/calvinism-why-i-believe-it-is-a-false-doctrine

Don't bother looking for this post as you'll get an "Oops! That page can’t be found" message. It appears to have been removed sometime after I commented and replaced by this post.

https://chrisnoland.org/2014/04/02/the-great-war-part-one-the-players-in-the-war-revelation-121-6

Here is the text of my comments:

"I may agree with some minor tenants of Calvinism, but I am not a Calvinist. I may agree with some minor tenants of Armeninianism, but I am not Armeninian."

I once talked with a gentleman who was well informed about a number of disciplines and I was able to learn things I did not know about those disciplines. However, when he began to talk about the Bible, he had Moses building the Ark to save his wife, his sons, and their wives. It was at that point that I began to wonder if he wasn't as well informed about the other disciplines he seemed so knowledgeable about!

I had a sense of deja vu reading your post and wonder if you are also not as knowledgeable about this topic as you might think. ArmEnians are from the country that touches the northern border of Iran. ArmInians are those who are named for Jacob Arminius, a Dutch theologian (nor are there as many N's and I's in the names).

Here are some of the other errors in your post:

You note that "we are to believe the scriptures for what they say", yet you will not find any affirmation in the scriptures of your notion that God gives to all the unregenerate "the ability to choose to believe on Him." You will actually find the opposite of that in Romans 8:5-8

"For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God."

Notice that the carnal mind CANNOT be subject to the law of God and those in the flesh CANNOT please God. That is a word that indicates lack of ability.

Another error is that you believe that Calvinists affirm that God will turn away some who desperately want to be saved and will save some who have no desire to be saved. Clearly you have not read any anything written by Calvinists!

In John 6, Jesus states that "all that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out (v.37), and continues by saying that "no one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him" (v.44).

The Father here gives individuals to the Son, those individuals come to the Son, and the Son will not cast them out. This chapter is one of the strongest in affirming the Father's electing choice.

2016 Election

2016-08-09T21:00:00.000-04:00

A friend of mine posted a video on Facebook that was critical of the Republican candidate for President in the upcoming American election. I responded with the following:

Brian - Not too many people I know that are supporting Trump, but not going to vote for Clinton. Is there a 'Neither' option on the ballot.

– – – – – – – – – –

Others joined the conversation and here are some of their comments, along with a further comment of my own. To protect their identities, I have removed anything in their posts that would identify them, and have edited their comments for content.

– – – – – – – – – –

Bob - All Americans need to understand that they are into a political state of civil war. But it's not just a case of Democrats vs Republicans or Hillary vs Trump. To avoid the rhetoric and state it simply, it's battle of sanity vs insanity. And, in this battle, the only arms available are votes. So, they must go out and vote for what they stand for, or, put another way, send a message to the world that America will NOT have a Trump for President.

– – – – – – – – – –

Joe - Isn't the insanity in this case the empowering of a clear criminal?

Thus far you know Trump is NOT a politician, but is relatively successful at producing something of value to society. Until 8 yrs ago he voted & funded Democrats - so he IS a NY Democrat at his core. Because of his choice, the press is now against him and their natural hate for all things not labeled with a D makes them particularly vicious.

Hillary in [sic] the other hand has been horrid... [and] she look[ed] us all in the eyes and lie[d] on [matters that] she clearly does not need to lie about...

So if we have to get a NY Democrat, wouldn't a financially and ethically successful one make more sense?

– – – – – – – – – –

Bob - I refuse to be an ostrich. Donald Trump is the worst candidate for president in the history of the USA. I don't care if he is a washed over Democrat or a bigoted Republican.

– – – – – – – – – –

Joe - I will not march in line with "lemmings" while telling others they have their heads in the sand...

I will abstain the vote because [the candidates] are both liberals.

– – – – – – – – – –

Brian - I have lived in the US since 1978, when my parents and all but 1 sibling acquired our green cards. Since I am not yet a citizen, I have not had the opportunity to vote in any political election in that time. If, however, I had been a citizen, I would have voted for the Republican candidate in every previous election.

The reason for my voting in that way has to do with the platforms of both parties.

Democratic Platform

Republican Platform

The Democratic platform supports the murder of unborn children via abortion, which I hold to be reprehensible - a mother's womb should be the safest place for a child.

Securing Reproductive Health, Rights, and Justice (p.37)

We believe unequivocally, like the majority of Americans, that every woman should have access to quality reproductive health care services, including safe and legal abortion...

We will continue to oppose—and seek to overturn—federal and state laws and policies that impede a woman’s access to abortion...

The Republican platform supports the sanctity of human life.

The Fifth Amendment: Protecting Human Life (p.13)

...we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to children before birth.

We are proud to be the party that protects human life and offers real solutions for women.

This single issue is enough reason for me never to vote for the Democratic candidate for President. My opposition to abortion is not recent, but with the birth of my first grandchild a month ago, the issue is more real to me now than ever. I cannot imagine her not having been brought into the world.

It is of great concern to me that many who profess to be Christians are willing to support the Democratic candidate, and I wonder if they are ignorant of the party's platform, or if other issues take precedence over human life.

But the current election season presents me with a quandary. (Remember that I don't have a vote.) I could not in good conscience vote for Clinton, even if I thought she would make a good President (and I don't). I would also have a difficult time voting for Trump because his position on abortion is unclear. One would hope that a candidate would heartily affirm his own party's platform, but Trump may or may not. What is strange is that I find myself in agreement with those who are opposed to Trump, but not for the same reasons. There is strong disagreement among my friends who consistently have voted for the Republican candidate. None of them are willing to vote for Clinton, and many of them are unwilling to vote for Trump. Others intend to vote for Trump, not because they believe that he will make a good President (in fact the opposite), but as a vote against Clinton. This is a strange election when voters are determining their preference by who they are against rather than who they are for.

In the midst of this confusion, there is comfort from the Scriptures. In Daniel 2, we have the record of God revealing Nebuchadnezzar's dream to Daniel, after the king had determined to execute all of the wise men in the kingdom because of their inability to tell him his dream.

Daniel 2:19-23

Then the mystery was revealed to Daniel in a vision of the night. Then Daniel blessed the God of heaven. Daniel answered and said: “Blessed be the name of God forever and ever, to whom belong wisdom and might. He changes times and seasons; he removes kings and sets up kings; he gives wisdom to the wise and knowledge to those who have understanding; he reveals deep and hidden things; he knows what is in the darkness, and the light dwells with him. To you, O God of my fathers, I give thanks and praise, for you have given me wisdom and might, and have now made known to me what we asked of you, for you have made known to us the king's matter.” (ESV)

Our Sovereign God removes kings and sets up kings, and the next President will be no exception, even though neither of the candidates is worthy of such high office.

Solus Christus

2016-06-20T19:00:00.000-04:00

A friend of mine (we'll call him Sam) posted the following to Facebook. Bob and Joe (not their real names) joined the conversation, centered around whether Christians and Muslims worship the same God. I entered the discussion, which went back and forth between Bob and myself. To protect their identities, I have removed anything in their posts that would identify them.

– – – – – – – – – –

Sam - I grew up in the 70s which means I got to watch the whole careers of Bird, Magic, Jordan, Ripken, Payton, etc. In the boxing world it was a time like no other. Frazier, Foreman, Norton, Quarry, Shavers, and of course, Muhammad Ali. He was absolutely amazing!

Ali boasted and truly believed he was the greatest. History has, with little room for doubt, revealed this to be the truth. Many years ago, Ali made a decision to commit his life to the Muslim faith. "There is no god but Allah; Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah." Last night, Muhammad Ali found out if he made the right decision.

Bob - You know, that's always been a confusing point for me. The God that Christians, Jews, and Muslims all believe in is the same God in the Old Testament. We just differ when it comes to Jesus, Muhammad, and messiah yet to come. Yet, in this world, we treat each other with such hate and venomous vile towards each other, spewing forth so much violence. If we all believe the same God and pray to the same God, why hasn't God just stopped this confusion and hate? We all pray to him, he hears all of us, so why let all his children fight and kill each other in his name and glory? That's like the president letting the different military branches fight and kill each other to see which branch is the best. That wouldn't happen because we all are Americans and the president (no matter which president) would order the branches in a clear and precise way to stop fighting and focus on enemies abroad. And the branches would all listen to him because he is the one they are all following. So why isn't that happening with God? Does he want us to fight and kill each other? This fighting has been going on for at least a thousand years.

I'm ranting, but you hit a nerve when you said that Ali will find out if he made the right decision by picking Allah. Allah is the same God we as Christians worship. Allah means God in Arabic. If Ali picked the wrong God, then we as Christians have too.

And I know that we Christians pick Jesus and Muslims pick Muhammad, but if Jesus and God are one and the same person, then Muslims pick Jesus too, they just don't realize it. For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son. That who so ever believes in him, shall not parish, but have ever lasting life.

Well, if you believe in God, and God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are one, then you believe in Jesus as well. Thus all Muslims and Jews also would go to heaven when they die.

Sam - A true believer in Jesus Christ must be a believer in ONLY Jesus Christ. He claimed that He was the only way, the truth, and the life, and that NO ONE could come to God without Him. If this is not true,then Jesus is either mentally disturbed and deluded or He is flat out lying, either of which would disqualify Him as a Savior. If He is speaking the truth then He cannot be simply one of the ways.

In a search for truth, if you start with a flawed premise you will eventually end up with a wrong conclusion. Jehovah God of the Bible and Allah are absolutely NOT the same. I will not debate this on Facebook but I challenge you to do diligent research on this. It won't take you long to see the difference.

Bob - What I am questioning is if we as Christians/Jews and if Muslims can stop hating each other based on religion bc technically we all worship the same God. I'm trying to make sense of a thousand year old war and finding common ground for more peace and less death and violence. But the more we make differences that separate us with something as important as who we worship, the harder it would be to ever find common ground. We will never find peace and will continue to fight and kill each other over something as silly as religion.

Joe - My understanding is that Ali accepted Christ into his heart as his savior in his early years. If that is true, I believe he's in pretty good shape right now. Just my opinion

Brian - The Bible never references the notion of "accepting Jesus into one's heart." It insists that repentance is necessary for the forgiveness of sins:

Luke 24:45-47 - Then he [Jesus] opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, and said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem."

In Acts 17 Paul is preaching to the philosophers in Athens and here is how he ends his sermon (v.31-32) "The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.”

Nothing in either of these passages about "accepting Jesus into one's heart," but a clear emphasis on repentance.

Bob - I could have sworn it was all about just believing in Jesus. Say it with me, "for God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that who so ever believes in him shall not perish, but have ever lasting life." Could you hear yourself saying it in your kid voice? So if Ali believed in Jesus at some point in his life, then he's good. I'm sure he asked to be forgiven of his sins at some point, but it's not a requirement for heaven.

Brian - You show a lack of understanding the Gospel when you insist that forgiveness of sins is not a requirement for heaven.

Bob - Look, I'm not saying as sinners we shouldn't repent and ask for forgiveness for our wrong doings. What I'm say is if a man on his dying breath proclaimed Jesus as his lord and savior and then died, without asking for forgiveness of his sins, he would still be in heaven.

Brian - No, that man would not. The Bible is clear that one must first recognize that they are a sinner and that Christ is the only Savior of sinners. That leads to repentance and faith. A man cannot proclaim Jesus as Lord without the above understanding.

Bob - Well then sir, this is where we were taught differently. I go off of John 3:16 as do a majority of other Christians. God seemed very clear in the bible verse about simply believing in Jesus as lord and savior to get to heaven. My church even reinforced that idea.

But if you believe differently, then that's up to you and I'll pray for you. God bless.

For more articles on the subject of Solus Christus see Monergism

All scripture quotations are English Standard Version
unless otherwise noted.

Repentance

2016-04-20T12:00:00.000-04:00

Update - April 20, 2106

A few days ago I came upon an article at the website for Open Doors titled Muslims Turn to Christ in Unprecedented Numbers. It was posted on February 10, 2016 and advances the idea, that Muslims are embracing Christianity as a result of visions of seeing and speaking to someone they identify as Jesus.

I posted a comment and received feedback from 2 other posters - Walter and Carla. By the time I was able to respond, only Walter's post was still showing, so am not sure what happened to Carla's. However, I did reply to both of them, quoting the relevant portion of Carla's post.

Download a free PDF of the original article posted March 19, 2014.

I began reading Tom Doyle's Dreams and Visions a few weeks ago. and am writing this article after reading the first chapter. I assume that a writer (any writer) is going to establish in his first chapter the direction he intends to go in the rest of the book. Upon completion of this article, I intend to finish reading the book and read a similar book, Which None Can Shut, by Reema Goode.

The question at the heart of the book is whether or not God is presenting Himself to Muslims in dreams that ultimately lead to their being evangelized and becoming disciples of Christ. The first chapter does not encourage me to believe that God is doing such.

Before I briefly examine the story told in that first chapter, it is necessary to establish what the true Gospel is. Not all that passes for the Gospel is the true biblical Gospel. In two separate passages in the writings of Paul he speaks of another Jesus and a different Gospel.

2 Corinthians 11:4

For if he who comes preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or if you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted-you may well put up with it! [emphaisis mine]

Galatians 1:6-9

I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed. [emphaisis mine]

Since there is other Jesus and a different gospel, it is incumbent upon believers to make sure that we proclaim the true gospel. It is easy for believers to recognize the false religions that reject the Bible completely. In contrast, it is more difficult to recognize different gospels that contain a substantial amount of truth. In other words, religions that are wholly untrue are fairly easy to identify, but gospels that are NOT wholly untrue, but which contain significant truth, are much harder to detect. It's not so much what the false gospels include as it is what is excluded that shows them to be false. A false gospel will focus on a portion of the gospel, while ignoring the foundation of the gospel.

The true gospel focuses on man's greatest need-that of a Savior-and is a gospel that requires repentance and faith. Any gospel that leaves out repentance and faith is a false gospel. Sadly, in many otherwise good churches, the message of repentance and faith is passed over in preaching, thus presenting a partial gospel that is missing the foundation. I don't believe an individual can be truly born again if all they have heard and affirmed is a partial Gospel.

John MacArthur, in The Gospel According to Jesus, writes:

Any message that fails to define and confront the severity of personal sin is a deficient gospel. [p.67]

NOTE: page numbers are from the 1994 edition.

He goes on to add:

This is the theme of the gospel according to Jesus. He came to call sinners to repentance. The corollary is that until people have been brought to see that they are sinners, until they realize their thirst, until they feel the weight of sin and long to be rid of it, the Lord will not give them salvation. [p.72]

Here are some passages that speak to the necessity of repentance:

1 Kings 8:46-51

When they sin against You (for there is no one who does not sin), and You become angry with them and deliver them to the enemy, and they take them captive to the land of the enemy, far or near; yet when they come to themselves in the land where they were carried captive, and repent, and make supplication to You in the land of those who took them captive, saying, 'We have sinned and done wrong, we have committed wickedness'; and when they return to You with all their heart and with all their soul in the land of their enemies who led them away captive, and pray to You toward their land which You gave to their fathers, the city which You have chosen and the temple which I have built for Your name: then hear in heaven Your dwelling place their prayer and their supplication, and maintain their cause, and forgive Your people who have sinned against You, and all their transgressions which they have transgressed against You; and grant them compassion before those who took them captive, that they may have compassion on them (for they are Your people and Your inheritance, whom You brought out of Egypt, out of the iron furnace),

Matthew, Mark, and Luke record that John the Baptist preached a message of repentance.

Matthew 3:2

Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

Mark 1:4-6

John appeared, baptizing in the wilderness and proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. And all the country of Judea and all Jerusalem were going out to him and were being baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.

Luke 3:3

And he went into all the region around the Jordan, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.

The Gospels also record that Jesus himself preached repentance.

Matthew 4:17

Jesus began to preach, saying, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."

Mark 1:14-15

Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of God, and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel."

Luke 5:32

I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance.

Luke ends his Gospel by stating that "repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem" (Luke 24:47).

In his sermon on the day of Pentecost, Peter ends his message with a call to repentance:

Acts 2:38

And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Paul, preaching to the philosophers in Athens, also ends his sermon with a call to repentance:

Acts 17:30

The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent.

MacArthur notes that "repentance has always been the foundation of the New Testament call to salvation. [p.183]"

One of the remarkable features of the Gospel that commands repentance is that God provides both repentance and faith as gifts which then actuate in belief.

In Acts 11, when Peter explains to the "apostles and brethren who were in Judea" that "Gentiles had also received the word of God," they respond by glorifying God because he "has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life" (Acts 11:18).

In 2 Timothy 2:24-26, we again read about God granting repentance.

And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth, and that they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him to do his will.

In 2 Thessalonians 3:2, Paul notes that "not all have faith," and in 2 Peter 1:1, Peter addresses his letter to "those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ."

The true Gospel focuses on mankind's need of a Savior and shows that God provides the necessary repentance and faith that obtains salvation. A gospel that ignores repentance is a different Gospel.

In Doyle's book we learn that Noor's husband has taken a fourth wife, who is much younger and more beautiful. Dream Jesus walks beside her along a lake and professes a great love for her, leaving her with a feeling of great peace. He instructs her to find Kamal, who will answer her questions. The following day she finds him in the market and shares the dream with him and they converse for some period of time.

Dream Jesus is presented as a lover not a Savior, and yet her greatest need (like all mankind) is for a Savior. From her perspective, Noor's greatest need is for someone to love her as her husband used to, and Dream Jesus is just that person. It's also interesting to note that she has peace even before she becomes a believer. When she meets Kamal he answers her questions and asks her if she is willing to be persecuted and to die for Dream Jesus. What is glaringly missing from the story is any discussion of her need to repent. Neither Dream Jesus nor Kamal says anything to her about her sin and the necessity of repentance. There's talk about the failure of religion, her giving herself to Jesus, persecution that probably will follow, but nothing about her sin and the necessity of repentance. This Dream Jesus is very different from the Jesus who meets a Samaritan woman at the well, recorded in John 4.

We noted 2 Corinthians 11:4 above, and further in that chapter we're told that Satan disguises "himself as an angel of light" (v.14). Based on Doyle's first chapter, I believe that Dream Jesus is not the real Jesus, but is in fact an angel of light.

Dennis McBride wrote a lengthy article on the subject for the monthly publication Think on These Things. It was published in two parts in 2013. The following is from Part 1:

What Isa Doesn't Say: I'm most struck by what Isa doesn't say in the accounts I've read. Although the encounters are said to prepare the dreamers for the gospel, there is little or no mention of sin, repentance, confession, righteousness, or forgiveness; and no presentation of God's holiness or justice. Simply put, the need for salvation isn't clarified (or in some cases even mentioned), yet that was at the heart of Christ's communication with unbelievers when He was on earth. But Isa's "gospel" is minimalistic and void of any clear and concise call to repentance. Gospel clarity and precision would be especially important for those Muslims who don't have a biblical background to draw from and who would therefore need to understand what God requires of them.

Does Isa Pass the Test? Jesus used a variety of approaches when speaking with unbelievers, depending on the individual or group (e.g., Nicodemus, Rich Young Ruler, Woman at the Well), but typically He identified who He was, confronted their sin, called them to repentance, called them to believe in Him, cautioned them to count the cost of discipleship, and then to take up their crosses daily and follow Him. He didn't state all those elements in every case, but collectively they constituted the thrust of His message.

By way of contrast, Isa typically identifies who he is (or the dreamer instinctively knows who he is), and tells the dreamer he loves him and wants him (the dreamer) to follow him (Isa). Sometimes the dreamer is overwhelmed with a sense of love and peace just by being in Isa's presence (which was never the case with unbelievers in the presence of Jesus). So the message that emerges is one of believing in Isa and following him apparently apart from the Holy Spirit convicting of sin, righteousness, and judgment (John 16:8).

The full text of McBride's two-part article can be found here:

Part 1

Part 2

Here are more resources on the subject:

Muslim Dreams and Visions of Jesus by Fred Butler

Thoughts About Muslims Seeing Jesus also by Fred Butler

Don't You Believe It by Richard Fisher

Scripture taken from the New King James Version.
Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc.
Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Travel Tweets e-book

2014-06-09T10:00:00.000-04:00

This is my first e-book, and contains my favorites of the more than 300 tweets from my Shuttle_Van_Man (SVMan) account. I hope you enjoy reading them as much as I enjoyed writing them.

You can download the book by clicking this link and choosing either the:

E-Pub,

Mobi, or

PDF file

Regeneration Precedes Faith Redux

2014-03-30T22:00:00.000-04:00

Four years ago I posted an article titled
Regeneration Precedes Faith.
This is a follow-up to that article.

The Calvinist statement that regeneration precedes faith tends to confuse folks, as many view regeneration and salvation as synonymous. Calvinism affirms that regeneration IS a new birth, but IS NOT completed salvation.

One writer shows his confusion by stating:

We must remember here that when [Calvinism] talks about regeneration, it is not talking about anything less than THE new birth. In [Calvinism], "regeneration" is not merely God drawing people to Christ - so that they can believe and then, at that point, be saved. No. In [Calvinism], regeneration is completed salvation. So when [Calvinism] says that regeneration precedes faith, it means salvation precedes faith. It means the new birth precedes faith.

While agreeing with him that regeneration is the new birth, or, more technically, the restoration of spiritual life lost in Adam, Calvinists would disagree that salvation precedes faith.

Here is the difference, as I understand it, between the synergistic and monergistic views:

Synergism posits that faith—sourced in man and exercised in belief—causes salvation. Some insist that repentance is required, while others insist that it is not.

Monergism posits that repentance and faith are gifts given by God—actuating in belief—causing salvation.

In Acts 11, Peter explains to the "apostles and brethren who were in Judea" that "Gentiles had also received the word of God." Their response was to glorify God because he "has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life" (Acts 11:18).

In 2 Thessalonians 3:2, Paul says that "not all have faith."

In 2 Peter 1:1, he addresses his letter to "those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ."

These verses establish that repentance and faith are gifts, and they are not given to every individual. They are received prior to actuation and thus are given at regeneration. God gives these gifts solely to the elect, at the time of his choosing, and they always actuate in belief.

Looking at the resurrection of Lazarus, we can see parallels in his physical resurrection and spiritual resurrection.

Physical

Life is restored. The word of God is spoken to him—"Lazarus, come forth" (v.43)—and the command not only restores life to him, but also reverses the decomposition and removes the sickness that caused his death.

Spiritual

Romans 10:14-15: the Word must be heard, as it is the means the Holy Spirit uses to regenerate the elect.

How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it is written: "How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace, who bring glad tidings of good things!"

Physical

Lazarus exits the tomb; being restored to life actuates in him leaving the tomb. In one sense, the command was irresistible; Lazarus had no say in his being brought back to life and could not disobey the "come forth" command. He wasn't given life so that he could decide whether or not he wanted to stay in the tomb. In another sense, his strongest desire, once life was restored, was to leave the tomb. There was a perfect coordination of the command and his desire. Notice also that Jesus did not go into the tomb to bring him out; leaving was something Lazarus did on his own, because he was restored to life.

Spiritual

Once regenerated (spiritual life restored) the gifts actuate in belief. Now that the elect has been brought back to spiritual life (lost in Adam), he believes. Regeneration unstops his ears, removes the blindness from his eyes, replaces his stony heart with a fleshly heart, and enables him to believe. Life is not restored so that man can decide whether or not he wants to actuate the gifts. He acts on his strongest desire now that life is restored.

In both cases regeneration necessarily precedes activity. In other words, those dead, whether physically or spiritually, are inactive. They must have life restored prior to any action on their part.

Online Theological Discussion

2014-02-23T22:00:00.000-05:00

UPDATE - July 7, 2014
My interlocutor in the following discussion
insists that Calvinists must necessarily affirm
that God is the author of sin.
Here is a post by Colin Maxwell titled
Does Calvinism believe or teach that God is the Author of Man's Sin?
that clearly shows the opposite.

Last year I engaged in a discussion with another member, in the private messaging section of an internet forum. Here is the entirety of that discussion except for the first post from each of us, and selected portions from his subsequent posts. The sole purpose of the redactions is to hide the identity of the other member.

My text will appear non-italicized, while his will appear in blue italics.

– – – –

Thu, July 11: In [a thread on the forum] I refuted your statement about Hyper-Calvinists and prayer. I noticed you dropped the HYPER label in your article. Clearly you refuse to be corrected concerning your error.

– – – –

Fri, July 12: Your primary argument against synergists is a strawman at best. Just because a person asks God to save someone, doesn't mean we are telling God to save them against their will. God can cause circumstances (as He did with Paul) that can (not WILL) make it hard (not impossible) to "kick against the pricks", but I, nor any logical Non Calvinist Baptist pray with the idea of God imposing an irresistible salvation upon the subject of our prayers.

However, if you a monergist, then you don't believe that a person's prayer would lead to anyone's salvation because the elect are already predetermined. Thus that would make you a hypocrite for accusing a synergist of something that you don't believer yourself.

And it is not a "Hyper" Calvinist that believes this. The Westminster Confession clearly states that God from eternity determined all things WHATSOEVER comes to pass. Knowing that this deterministic statement would lead to the obvious result of God being the author of sin, they included a pre-emptive clause "so as that He is not the author of sin". Well, yes, that does make Him the author of sin. Only an honest Calvinist like A.W. Pink was bold enough to admit it, and bold enough to admit that God doesn't love everybody.

Nevertheless, if God determines all things whatsoever comes to pass, then there is no need to pray because it's going to happen whether you pray for something or not. The Calvinist by praying for anything is asking God to alter the course of predetermined events which is in conflict with Calvinist theology.

And no, I will not be "corrected" because I spent far too much time reading and memorizing the Bible then studying man-made creeds, catechisms, confessions, and Calvin the baby sprinkling, amillennial, murdering Augustinian.

– – – –

Fri, July 12: Part 2

Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved. Rom 10:1

What happened to Israel after Paul prayed that? Paul wrote them off in Acts 28, and TItus wiped out Jerusalem, and for 2000 years Israel has been under blindness (Rom 11:25-26).

Now if Paul KNEW that Israel was elected to be saved according the Calvinist view, then why would Paul make this prayer?

– – – –

Fri, July 12: You clearly do not see the difference between the END God has purposed and the MEANS to that end. The Scripture commands believers to make disciples, so Calvinists obey the command as no one can believe without hearing, they cannot hear without a preacher, and they cannot preach unless they are sent (Rom. 10:14-15).

What I notice missing from your writing is any attempt to comprehend that which Calvinists actually affirm. You raise arguments that have been responded to by numerous people over the years, information that is readily available online. It appears that you would rather misrepresent your brothers in Christ than make the attempt to understand the actual views.

– – – –

Fri, July 12:

Psalm 5:5 The boastful shall not stand before your eyes; you hate all evildoers.

Psalm 11:5 The Lord tests the righteous, but his soul hates the wicked and the one who loves violence.

It's not very bold to agree with the text of Scripture that clearly shows that God doesn't love everybody. He in fact hates a few people.

– – – –

Fri, July 12: I was a Calvinist in the Presbyterian church after I left Judaism long before I became a Baptist 20 years ago. I understand Calvinism all the the Confessions quite well.

The typical Calvinist response is "you don't understand Calvinism". As a Jew, I had to memorize Genesis through Deuteronomy by the time I was 13. When I joined the Presbyterian church I memorized the Westminster Confession of 1646, and 1689, the Helvitic Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism. I've read Augustine's City of God several times, Calvin's Institutes (I have them in 3 volumes), and several books by John Gill, Whitefield, Spurgeon, Martin Lloyd Jones, BB Warfield, JI Packer, Hodges, Mohler, Sproul, Piper, MacArthur, Carey, et al. My college textbook for Systematic Theology was by a Calvinist (Wayne Grudem) and all of the books for my masters in counseling were Calvinist authors (Jay Adams).

So yeah, I have quite an extensive history in "understanding" Calvinism. The reason that I give the answers that I do is BECAUSE I HAVE studied all of the other sources. I choose to believe the Bible, not how some committee that met at a synod told me I should believe it based on the Augustinian views of election and predestination which is the basis of Calvinist theology. Augustine derived his beliefs from Manicheaism a Gnostic and Buddhist system of beliefs. Not to mention the involvement that the Freemasons had in Calvinism. Study the history of James Anderson and the Apartheid imposed on Afrikans by the Dutch Reformed Church (whose logo was the Queen of Heaven). and how Freemason Calvinist churches were established in Afrika to exploit slaves (Jonathan Edwards and George Whitefield were both slave owners).

I am an independent fundamental Baptist and want no part of ANYTHING that smells like Rome.

– – – –

Sat, July 13: So with all your reading you SHOULD know the difference between means and ends. The only option left is that you feel it's ok then to MISREPRESENT your brothers in Christ. With your knowledge you should be able to refute what Calvinist's actually believe and provide exegesis of the relevant passages to show the error. Where is that form of refutation?

I am not as well read as you, but currently am halfway through Pink's Sovereignty of God. I'm sure you will appreciate my unwillingness to accept your statement that Pink "was bold enough to admit it" (the it being that God is the author of sin) without you providing the source. From our interaction here I would not be surprised to find that any such statement (if he in fact made it) was taken out of context by you.

– – – –

Sat, July 13: From Pink's Sovereignty of God. I'm assuming you have read chapter 1.

"God is sovereign in the exercise of His love. Ah! that is a hard saying, who then can receive it? It is written, "A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven" (John 3:27). When we say that God is sovereign in the exercise of His love, we mean that He loves whom He chooses. God does not love everybody;[2] if He did, He would love the Devil. Why does not God love the Devil? Because there is nothing in him to love; because there is nothing in him to attract the heart of God. Nor is there anything to attract God’s love in any of the fallen sons of Adam, for all of them are, by nature, "children of wrath" (Eph. 2:3). If then there is nothing in any member of the human race to attract God’s love, and if, notwithstanding, He does love some, then it necessarily follows that the cause of His love must be found in Himself, which is only another way of saying that the exercise of God’s love towards the fallen sons of men is according to His own good pleasure."

Chapter 11,

"Can God "love" the one on whom His "wrath" abides? Again; is it not evident that the words "The love of God which is in Christ Jesus" (Rom. 8:39) mark a limitation, both in the sphere and objects of His love? Again; is it not plain from the words "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated" (Rom. 9:13) that God does not love everybody?"

Like I said, Pink was one of the few honest Calvinists that had the guts to be honest with the implications of his theology.

– – – –

Sat, July 13: So where is the quote from Pink that says "God is the author of sin"?

Feel free to stop using the phrase "few honest Calvinists" implying that most of us are only intent on deceiving people into embracing Calvinism. As a self-professed former Calvinist you know that to be untrue.

– – – –

Sat, July 13: I'll make this really simple. Where does sin come from? Calvinists will admit that it comes from man's will. But Calvinism holds that compatibilist freedom determines the persons nature. Thefore a person can only act out of that nature which he has been programmed with. If man does not have the liberty to choose between decisions that are not determined by any external factors, then they must be internal. If they are internal then God is the author of that persons will (which Calvinism admits). That only delays the issue one more step but the implication is still the same. If man is determined to do sin of which he has no choice, then it is still the programmers fault because ultimately, it is the programmer that determined that he sin which still makes God the author of sin.

If man does not have free libertian will, then sin could not have originated with any choice that man made because he was determined to make that choice.

You can not hold that God determines ALL THINGS whatsoever comes to pass, and at the same time exclude sin from the equation. In Calvinist theology, God is ultimately the author of sin.

– – – –
Sun, July 14:

Well, yes, that does make Him the author of sin. Only an honest Calvinist like A.W. Pink was bold enough to admit it, and bold enough to admit that God doesn't love everybody.

This is the 3rd time now that I have asked you to provide the source in Pink's writing where (according to you) he admitted that God is the author of sin. Apparently you cannot provide that source!

You claim to have been "a Calvinist in the Presbyterian church" and to have widely read Calvinist writers and thus to "have quite an extensive history in "understanding" Calvinism.

In this correspondence you have shown that you have no interest in understanding what your brothers in Christ actually affirm, and are intent on purposeful misrepresentation. You join the vast numbers of men who, because they cannot refute actual Calvinism, are forced to resort to misrepresentation, in an attempt to discredit that view.

– – – –

Sun, August 11: I am close to the end of Pink's Sovereignty of God. In Chapter 8 (page 158 of the edition I am reading) he writes:

Let it be emphatically said that God does not produce the sinful dispositions of any of His creatures, though He does restrain and direct them to the accomplishing of His own purposes. Hence He is neither the Author nor the Approver of sin."[emphasis mine]

A clear refutation of your statement above.

– – – –

Sun, August 11: What you have there is merely a preemptive denial that gives Calvinism plausible deniability in the even that someone accuses Calvinism of holding that God is the author of sin. Just because he denies it's implications, does not mean he can explain why the denial is legitimate. If God determines ALL THINGS, then how is He NOT the author of sin? Is sin not a thing? Does sin have some kind of existence that we do not know about? Why then do we call sin sin if sin is not knowable? If, however, sin IS knowable, and from the Bible definitions of it, it most certainly is, then sin exists. If sin exists, then it must logically be included in all things. Common sense says that if God determines ALL things, then that includes sin.

You can not walk away from the implication just because someone offers a summary denial of it. How many times has a police detective heard "he could not have possibly killed that person, he's just not capable. He's the most generous and kind person I've ever met and not a violent bone in his body", only to later find out that the accused actually IS guilty. Just because someone makes a blanket denial does not change the facts. Simply stating a blanket denial only absolves God of being the author of sin in theory, it doesn't offer any explanation as to how or WHY He is NOT the author of sin if He indeed determines ALL THINGS WHATSOEVER come to pass.

The ONLY explanation that does not ascribe sin to God is that man has libertarian free will and chooses to sin, and that man's choice was not caused by any other influences or compulsion than the man's own decision to sin. Calvinism merely delays that obvious implication by stating that mans will is acted out by the nature that he has been given, and he therefore can not act otherwise, even though he could if he wanted to, but he doesn't want to because it is not in his nature to want to, and thus he does not have the ability to choose good or do good. But that still does not resolve the problem. If man has the total inability to act other than the nature that God gave him, then ultimately man can not be held accountable for his inability to act otherwise, and if he is acting in a way of which he is incapable of acting otherwise, then God is still the author of his sin because He created a will in the 'non elect' that can not act other than how it was programmed to act, and if man is only acting out of that which he was programmed, then man can not be the author of his own sin because he is not sinning because he choose to sin, but because someone gave him a will that prevents him from doing otherwise. Implication: God is the author of sin and evil. There is no way to get around that implication.

– – – –

Mon, August 12: You made a false claim. I have refuted your claim.

Now you insist that Calvinism MUST affirm something which is completely contrary to Scripture - that God is the Author of sin. The Bible is clear that man is responsible for his own sin and every Calvinist will affirm that.

In Peter's sermon recorded in Acts 2:22-24 you have 2 things that are clear: the 'men of Israel' with 'lawless hands" crucified Jesus, who at the same time was "delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God."

“Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know— Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death; whom God raised up, having loosed the pains of death, because it was not possible that He should be held by it. [NKJV]

Calvinists affirm that man is solely responsible for his sin and thus his condemnation is just, in keeping with the text of Scripture.

In that same chapter of Pink's work he writes:

Should someone respond, Then is God the Author of Sin? We would have to ask, in turn, What is meant by "Author"? Plainly it was God's will that sin should enter this world otherwise it would not have entered, for nothing happens save as God has eternally decreed. Moreover, there was more than a bare permission for God only permits that which He has purposed.

God clearly has a purpose in permitting sin to exist, but such purpose cannot make God the author of sin. If you deny that purpose you end up with sin existing without purpose and God having no control over the world he created.

- - - -

Sun, August 11: Can not you see the contradictory logic of Pink's statement? If God willed sin, then He is the author of it. Pink even admitted that everything that is willed by God is decreed by God, and all things that God decreed are what He created. If God wills what He decrees, and He willed sin, then it necessarily follows that He decreed sin as well, and if He decreed sin then He is the author of it. Thus, you make God dependent on sin to prove His sovereignty which means that God was not wholly God until sin was created, thus a Creator that existed for eternity was not wholly omnipotent until He had an opportunity to demonstrate His sovereignty by decreeing sin in order to triumph over it.

Now just exactly who did God have to prove this too? Before God was sovereign over creation, He was loving someone from eternity, but in Calvinism, God gets more glory by determining that some spend eternity in hell, then He would if He had determined that all would freely worship Him which God COULD HAVE done, but He didn't, and if He didn't, then it means He determined others to hell because He wanted to. If that's the god you serve I feel sorry for you, because that's not the God of the Bible. The Bible is clear that mercy rejoices against judgment (James 2:13), and there are things that God said specifically that He did not decree or desire,

"And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin." Jeremiah 32:35.

Furthermore, you are misinterpreting Acts 4. I have written a short explanation of this verse so I won't repost it here. [website redacted]

Calvinism only says in theory that man is still responsible for sin by ignoring the implications of their theology. Calvinism does NOT hold that man has the ability to choose whether or not to sin because that is the entire crux of total inability. If you understand the compatibilist view of freedom, and boil it down to it's core, the implications are illogical and contradictory because Calvinism only says that man is accountable due to God's saying so, but without explaining logically or Biblically how compatibilist freedom does not make God not only the author of sin and evil, but how a loving God could WANT and DESIRE the damnation of anyone by a predetermined arbitrary decree. God does not need the "purpose" of sin to be God, He was God before sin was ever considerable and do claim that sin is necessary to God is to give sin an equally deified status that rivals the sovereignty of God, makes God dependent upon evil which is a form of pantheism.

- - - -
Mon, August 12:

If God willed sin, then He is the author of it.

NO, willed for a purpose, which neither I nor you actually knows.

If that's the god you serve I feel sorry for you, because that's not the God of the Bible.

I don't serve your misinterpretation of the God of the Bible.

Furthermore, you are misinterpreting Acts 4.

I referenced Acts 2, not 4.

Calvinism does NOT hold that man has the ability to choose whether or not to sin because that is the entire crux of total inability.

True! Adam as representative for mankind chose for us. He made the wrong choice with the result that all mankind is spiritually dead. If you are unwilling to accept Adam as our 1st representative you must not be willing to accept Christ as the 2nd representative. Romans 5:12-19

I understand that you intensely dislike Calvinism, and that's OK. In order to refute it though you will need to actually refute what the view affirms, not what you think it should affirm.

- - - -

Thu, August 15: I finished reading Pink this morning.

In Appendix 2: The Case of Adam (pg.249 in my copy) he writes:

Here then is the difficulty: If God has eternally decreed that Adam should eat of the tree, how could he be held responsible not to eat of it? Formidable as the problem appears, nevertheless, it is capable of a solution, a solution, moreover, which can be grasped even by the finite mind. The solution is to be found in the distinction between God's secret will and His revealed will. As stated in Appendix I, human responsibility is measured by our knowledge of God's revealed will; what God has told us, not what He has not told us, is the definer of our duty. So it was with Adam.

That God had decreed sin should enter this world through the disobedience of our first parents was a secret hid in His own breast. Of this Adam knew nothing, and that made all the difference so far as his responsibility was concerned. Adam was quite unacquainted with the Creator's hidden counsels. What concerned him was God's revealed will. And that was plain! God had forbidden him to eat of the tree, and that was enough. But God went further: He even warned Adam of the dire consequences which would follow should he disobey—death would be the penalty. Transgression, then, on the part of Adam was entirely excuseless. Created with no evil nature in him, with a will in perfect equipoise, placed in the fairest environment, given dominion over all the lower creation, allowed full liberty with only a single restriction upon him, plainly warned of what would follow an act of insubordination to God, there was every possible inducement for Adam to preserve his innocence; and, should he fail and fall, then by every principle of righteousness his blood must lie upon his own head, and his guilt be imputed to all in whose behalf he acted.

He continues on pg.251:

To affirm that God decreed the entrance of sin into His universe, and that He foreordained all its fruits and activities, is to say that which, at first may shock the reader; but reflection should show that it is far more shocking to insist that sin has invaded His dominions against His will, and that its exercise is outside His jurisdiction: for in such a case where would be His omnipotency? [emphasis mine]

In your statement above you appear to insist that sin has invaded His dominions against His will!

The ONLY explanation that does not ascribe sin to God is that man has libertarian free will and chooses to sin, and that man's choice was not caused by any other influences or compulsion than the man's own decision to sin.

Pink continues on pg.252:

Thus, though God is not the Author of sin, and though sin is contrary to His holy nature, yet the existence and operations of it are not contrary to His will, but subservient to it. God never tempts man to sin, but He has, by His eternal counsels (which He is now executing), determined its course.

So there you have it. Contrary to your false statement above:

Well, yes, that does make Him the author of sin. Only an honest Calvinist like A.W. Pink was bold enough to admit it, and bold enough to admit that God doesn't love everybody.

I have shown that Pink (along with all the other Calvinists that I know) affirms that the scripture declares that God is not the author of sin. For you to insist that Calvinists must affirm that God in fact is the author of sin, based on some logic of yours, and to then use that logic to prove Calvinism to be false is to misrepresent your brothers in Christ.

I call on you to desist from such misrepresentation!

- - - -

Sun, August 11: All you have shown which is what I have consistently maintained, is that Calvinism offers a mere DECLARATION that God is not the author of sin. But even your quotes from Pink say that God WILLS it, and wills its course. Just because you admit to everything BUT God being the author of sin, does not mean that rejecting the conclusion of your theology eliminates the implications. You, nor any other Calvinist, has proven that Calvinist theology does not make God the author of sin, you have simply denied the implications and frankly, in a very inconsistent and illogical manner.

It's a very simple concept. Sin exists. Sin had an origin. Sin was introduced to the world through Adam. If God determined all of Adam's actions, then Adam did not truly have a choice to NOT sin. Therefore claiming that God is the author of Adam's actions, but not his sin is absurd because you can not separate the 2. If God determined and willed for Adam to sin, then God is ultimately the author of sin.

Notice this example in your own quote from Pink, how that Pink ADMITS the problem, but simply offers a mere preemptive exclusion to the implication:

"To affirm that God decreed the entrance of sin into His universe, and that He foreordained all its fruits and activities, is to say that which, at first may shock the reader; but reflection should show that it is far more shocking to insist that sin has invaded His dominions against His will, and that its exercise is outside His jurisdiction: for in such a case where would be His omnipotency?"

Does begging the question resolve the negative implication? No it doesn't. This is not an explanation, it's a justification for the premise without tackling the implication in a manner consistent with Scripture or Calvinism's own stated premise on the determination of God. So OF COURSE is shocks the reader. What Pink did NOT do here, is PROVE how that sin being the result of mans own choice to sin INVADES God's dominion. He simply stated such as a question rather than proving the assertion. If God's omnipotence requires that He control every event, then you can not rightly say that He is omnipotent because there is nothing to compare His omnipotence to that He Himself does not control. The very fact that actions resulting from free agency exist and that God responds to those actions either in judgment or justification offers a demonstration of God's power against evil and for good. Premises contrary to that are simply offering no better explanation than that God is having a universal chess match with Himself.

- - - -

Thu, September 5: Earlier I referenced Peter's sermon recorded in Acts 2. In Genesis 50:20, we have another similar example of mans wickedness and God's purpose being joined.

But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive.

If we both agree that the text of scripture is accurate, we both must necessarily agree that this passage affirms that God was not the author of the evil done to Joseph by his brothers, yet the evil served the purpose of God.

Where we disagree is your insistence, based on some logic in your own mind, that my affirmation that the evil served a purpose, requires me to affirm that God was the author of their sin. Calvinism agrees with the scripture that God is not the author of sin. Your insistence that Calvinism must affirm that which the scripture denies and your apparent crusade to refute Calvinism on that basis is pure misrepresentation.

Monergism vs. Synergism - Part 3

2013-09-16T08:00:00.000-04:00

Download a free PDF of this article

Preaching and Evangelism

In the first article of this series, I defined and illustrated Monergism and Synergism. In the second article, I looked at the Apostle John's affirmation of Monergism in his Gospel. In this article, I will show how each view approaches preaching and evangelism.

As a prelude to the discussion, we must first explain the doctrine of election, as it directly affects our topic.

Theopedia states that election "refers to God's choosing of individuals or peoples to be the objects of his grace or to otherwise fulfill his purposes." In the Old Testament, the nation that descended from Abraham physically was that people. In Deuteronomy 7:6-8 we find the reason God gives for the electing of that nation.

For you are a holy people to the Lord your God; the Lord your God has chosen you to be a people for Himself, a special treasure above all the peoples on the face of the earth. The Lord did not set His love on you nor choose you because you were more in number than any other people, for you were the least of all peoples; but because the Lord loves you, and because He would keep the oath which He swore to your fathers, the Lord has brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you from the house of bondage, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.

When we come to the New Testament, we note that the elect are a "spiritual house" (1 Peter 2:5) and are described by Peter as:

…a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; who once were not a people but are now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy. (1 Peter 2:9-10)

Both Monergists and Synergists affirm the doctrine of election, but there are differing views as to how God elects. Monergism views God's electing choice as unconditional, while Synergism views it as either conditional or corporate. A discussion of the differences is beyond the scope of this article, but the Theopedia entry (referenced above) explains the dissimilarity between the views.

No matter which position one may take with regard to election, each view must necessarily affirm that the elect (whoever they may be) will not fail to come to faith, and that the non-elect will not come to faith. In light of that, each view must necessarily answer this question: Why preach and evangelize?

The simple answer to the question is that the Scriptures command it. Matthew ends his gospel with the words of Jesus:

And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen.
(Matthew 28:18-20)

Luke, in both his writings, notes:

…repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. (Luke 24:47)

…you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth. (Acts 1:8)

There can be no question that believers have been given the task of proclaiming the Gospel with the intent of making disciples. But again, in light of God's electing choice, I must ask why. Scripture provides the answer; it is the means God uses to accomplish that which He has purposed to accomplish.

In Romans 10:13-15, Paul shows the process that God uses to bring the elect to faith.

For "whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved." How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it is written: "How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace, Who bring glad tidings of good things!"

Preachers (the people of the beautiful feet) are sent to speak the Gospel; it is heard and believed; the elect call on God and are saved. Luke, in his Gospel, notes that "…there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents…" (Luke 15:7).

Paul continues, in 1 Corinthians 1:21-24, to show that the power of the Gospel is only effective for the elect. To the non-elect it is a stumbling block and foolishness.

For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

Then, in 1 Corinthians 3:5-7, Paul explains that the preacher is responsible for the planting and watering, and the Holy Spirit is responsible for the harvest.

Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers through whom you believed, as the Lord gave to each one? I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase. So then neither he who plants is anything, nor he who waters, but God who gives the increase.

The result, of this planting and watering on the part of the preacher, and the Holy Spirit's use of such to reap a harvest, is given to us in Revelation 5:9:

And they sang a new song, saying: "You are worthy to take the scroll, and to open its seals; for You were slain, and have redeemed us to God by Your blood out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation…

There is not a tribe, tongue, people, or nation that does not have representation in the elect people of God. In a sense it can be said that the entire world will be saved, as no people group is left out. It is exciting to realize that, as we observe the command to go into all the world our success is guaranteed, as God's elect people are drawn from every people group.

Having established that preaching and evangelism have a purpose, our focus now moves to which approach (Synergism or Monergism), in practice, most consistently follows the Scripture. While both views will heartily affirm the purpose, we will see that Monergism most consistently follows the purpose.

Monergism, as we have established in the previous articles of this series, insists that unregenerate man is naturally incapable of obeying the Scripture's command to repent, while Synergism insists that the command implies natural ability. Two American evangelists of the early 19th century represent the divergent views: Charles Finney represents Synergism, while Asahel Nettleton represents Monergism.

William Farley writes about each man in separate articles. On Finney:

One historian sums up Finney's theology: "The whole idea that an unregenerate man was governed by a fallen nature was all wrong. …A decision of the will, not a change of nature, was all that was required to be converted."

On Nettleton he writes:

Convinced that man was dead in sin, he believed that conversion was the work of God, not man. To Nettleton, new birth was a radical change that produced repentance and a life of growing holiness. In his final analysis, this transformation was the ultimate proof of salvation.

The study of a sermon each man preached puts the difference between the two views in stark contrast.

In Finney's sermon, titled Sinners Bound to Change Their Own Hearts he states:

As, therefore, God requires men to make to themselves a new heart, on pain of eternal death, it is the strongest possible evidence that they are able to do it. To say that he has commanded them to do it, without telling them they are able, is consummate trifling. Their ability is implied as strongly as it can be, in the command itself.

In Nettleton's sermon, titled Regeneration he states:

That the Holy Spirit makes use of the word and many other instruments to bring sinners to Christ, I have no doubt. But that men are naturally so inclined, as to approve of and obey the precepts of the gospel, unless some peculiar course of sin or prejudice prevent them, contradicts the whole tenor of the gospel, in which it is a fundamental principle, that by nature we are children of wrath, and that we are at enmity with God and blinded to the light of his truth and dead in trespasses and sins.

Since Synergism affirms that man has the natural ability to choose Christ, preaching and evangelism is tasked with convincing man to do that which he has the ability to do. Synergism is focused on the response, and the success of evangelistic enterprises is determined by the quantity of respondents. As such, synergistic preaching and evangelism tends to manipulate (on a scale from soft to hard) in order to secure decisions. On the soft end of the scale, preaching and evangelism attempt to remove the offense of the Gospel, in order to make it more palatable to the unregenerate. At the hard end of the scale is the "hell-fire and brimstone" style of preaching that uses guilt to coerce decisions. All synergistic preaching and evangelism will fall between these extremes, as it not only seeks to plant and water, but also to produce the increase, which (as we have previously noted) is reserved for God (1 Corinthians 3). At both ends it will be short on exegesis of the biblical text and long on stories and illustrations.

I recently had occasion to listen to the first in a sermon series by a fairly well-known pastor in a large city. The recording was just shy of an hour long, and it wasn't until close to the 45 minute mark that the speaker referenced the text of scripture. He told a story from the Old Testament but provided no information that would identify the book in which the story was recorded. He followed that up in the closing minutes of the sermon by referencing a New Testament passage, informing the listener of the book in which it was found, but not the chapter or verse.

A bi-weekly Christian newspaper recently advertised a conference and included short biographies of the speakers. One of the speakers was shown to have well over 1 million professions of faith in his church over an almost 40 year ministry. It further stated that the average attendance in the church over those same years was slightly above 2,000.

One website reported on a missionary who reported hundreds of decisions on his field of service, while also reporting a baptism rate of less than 5%. Another website reported on a ministry that had a program of beach evangelism. This ministry used a formulaic approach, whereby they asked questions designed to solicit positive responses and then led the respondents in a prayer of decision. Their own follow-up showed that significantly less than 5% of those who made decisions showed any interest in the things of God.

What is clear about the disparity in the above numbers is that the preaching and evangelism in each case was tremendously successful in securing professions but was a colossal failure in carrying out the great commission command to make disciples.

During my college years, the church I attended had regular weekly visitation. We, too, had been trained in a formulaic system designed to secure professions of faith. On one evening's excursion, I was partnered with a very personable young man; in a few hours we visited seven apartments and he lead seven people to profess faith. What was tragically missing from our training was any kind of follow-up discipleship program.

On a recent trip to my hometown with my parents, I met a man who had been in youth group with me. For most of the past 40 years he has lived a life that provides no evidence of new creaturely-ness, yet he believes his profession of faith and subsequent baptism by my father has secured his salvation. Since synergism is very successful in convincing unregenerate men that they have the ability to "change their own hearts" by making a decision, there are countless hundreds, maybe thousands, like this man.

James Adams, in his article titled Decisional Regeneration, says that such doctrine "…sees the new birth as the result of a mechanical process that can be performed by man", and shows that one's view of man's spiritual condition determines the evangelistic approach.

Can a man be born again by answering "yes" to a certain group of questions? Can a man be born from "above" by walking to the front of a building? Can a man become a true Christian by responding to an invitation as a result of being "crept up on" unawares? Your answers to these questions will be determined by your view of man's spiritual condition.

In contrast to Synergism and recognizing man's natural inability, Monergism (in affirmation of 1 Corinthians 1:24), focuses on the clear and passionate presentation of the text of scripture. Success is determined by how accurately the text of scripture is presented; response is left to the Holy Spirit.

In his "Introductory Essay" for John Owen's The Death of Death in the Death of Christ¹, J.I. Packer writes:

[Monergism] presents the three great acts of the Holy Trinity for the recovering of lost mankind—election by the Father, redemption by the Son, calling by the Spirit—as directed towards the same persons, and as securing their salvation infallibly. [4]

Packer also notes:

…the message to be delivered is simply this-that Christ Jesus, the sovereign Lord, who died for sinners, now invites sinners freely to Himself. God commands all to repent and believe; Christ promises life and peace to all who do so. [18]

Charles Spurgeon, in a sermon titled Sinners Bound with the Cords of Sin, shows that man will not come to Christ unless he is drawn:

Here, then, stands the riddle, that man is so set against God and His Christ that he never will accept eternal salvation until the Holy Spirit, by a supernatural work, overcomes his will and turns the current of his affections. And why is this? The answer lies in the text-because his own iniquities have taken him, and he is held with the cords of his sin. For this reason he will not come to Christ that he may have life. For this reason he cannot come, except the Father which has sent Christ draw him.

Arthur Custance, in The Sovereignty of Grace², notes:

The message that will in the end bring life is not man's rationalization as exhibited in his theology, nor his intuitive understanding as set forth in his poetry, nor even the persuasive power of the eloquence by which he succeeds in captivating his hearers. The message is the Word of God, the "seed" (Luke 8:11). [281]

Thomas Boston, in his work Human Nature In Its Fourfold State, writes:

…seeing the elect are not to be known and distinguished from others before conversion, as the sun shines on the blind man's face, and the rain falls on the rocks as well as on the fruitful plains, so we preach Christ to all, and shoot the arrow at a venture, which God Himself directs as He sees fit.

As the Gospel is proclaimed, the Holy Spirit opens the heart of the elect (Acts 16:14), replaces their stony heart with a fleshly heart (Ezekiel 11:19, 36:26), gives the gift of repentance (Acts 11:18) and faith (Ephesians 2:8) and enables them to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved.

We noted above that preaching is the means by which God accomplishes His purpose of saving the elect. Prayer for the lost can also be considered as a means. Spurgeon referred to prayer for the lost as "awaken[ing] the Almighty Arm." A synergist, when asked why one person believes the Gospel and another does not, responded by noting that "God… has or will grant sufficient grace to everyone to make such a decision." In the synergistic view, God is not permitted to do more for a single individual, as what He does for one he must do for all. A prayer for any individual though is a specific request for God to do something more for that individual. The monergist, on the other hand cannot know whether or not his prayer will be used by God in the salvation of the one he prays for. Therefore, any prayer for the lost is effectively a monergistic prayer.

Not What My Hands Have Done
George William Martin / Horatius Bonar © Public Domain

Not what my hands have done
Can save my guilty soul
Not what my toiling flesh has borne
Can make my spirit whole
Not what I feel or do
Can give me peace with God
Not all my prayers and sighs
And tears can bear my awful load

Your voice alone, O Lord
Can speak to me of grace
Your pow'r alone, O Son of God
Can all my sin erase
No other work but Yours
No other blood will do
No strength but that which is divine
Can bear me safely thro'

I praise the Christ of God
I rest on love divine
And with unfalt'ring lip and heart
I call this Savior mine
My Lord has saved my life
And freely pardon gives
I love because He first loved me
I live because He lives

¹ John Owen, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ. (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust).
² Arthur Custance. The Sovereignty of Grace. (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Pub. Co., 1979).

Scripture taken from the New King James Version.
Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc.
Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer:
Links in this article are provided solely for information purposes,
and do not in any way imply full and complete endorsement.

Jamaica Week 2013

2013-07-29T07:00:00.000-04:00

This is short, daily summary of our week in Jamaica

Fri, May 3: Left for the Charlotte airport at 4:00 am. Flew to Atlanta, then to Ft Lauderdale. Rode the S Florida Tri-Rail to West Palm Beach, where Barbara was waiting for me. David & Devene, Merle, Miss Daphne, and Dayna joined us for supper.

Sat, May 4: Flew to Montego Bay with Mother. Spirit charged us $50 for Mother's carry-on. While walking from the plane to Immigration & Customs, I saw a small child who was not able to keep up with her Mother/Grandmother/Guardian, so I picked her up and carried her. Had supper with Mother, Billy, and MK 'cousin' Jane at The Pelican Grill.

Sun, May 5: Attended morning service at Faith Baptist Church, pastored by Delroy Campbell, then afternoon 50th Anniversary service at Hillview Baptist Church (Program-PDF). I was privileged to participate in the service by reading the Scripture. All of the former pastors, both missionary and national, were represented and received plaques honoring their service. Stopped in downtown MoBay on the way home for some Devon House I Scream.

Mon, May 6: Day of Rest. Spent a few hours at Doctors Cave Beach.

Tue, May 7: Billy was teaching a class at Regent College of the Caribbean, so Mother and I traveled there with him. Took the A1 east (see Google Maps ) from MoBay to the B5, then south through the mountains. Passed through Albert Town, Christiana, and the Pickapeppa manufacturing plant before turning west on the A2. Stayed overnight with Mrs. Hanson, a long-time and dear friend of our family.

Wed, May 8: Continued west on the A2 down Spur Tree Hill to join the Clubines for breakfast in Whitehouse. They were staying at the Point of View Villa. Traveled further west on the A2, then north on the B8. Stopped at Fairview for a short while to greet many who were there for the 50th Anniversary Bible Conference.

Thu, May 9: Mother and I returned to Fairview for the Bible Conference, while Billy worked on preparing the final exam for his students.

Fri, May 10: Back to Fairview for the dedication of the new library building, with which I was very impressed. Attended a gospel concert in the evening at Hillview Baptist Church. While the sound system was being assembled, I commandeered a mic and told what I thought was a funny story. The audience seemed to agree, so I recorded a short version for YouTube.

Sat, May 11: Fairview Graduation (Program-PDF) at Hillview in the afternoon, followed by a banquet (Program-PDF) at the Holiday Inn SunSpree Resort in the evening.

Sun, May 12 AM: Drove to Cataboo Baptist Church in St Elizabeth, where I was privileged to preach (MP3-46:24). Daddy was involved in the first building project for this church shortly after arriving in Jamaica in 1952. Read more about Cataboo in these posts:

May 7, 2007: Photographic history of Cataboo Baptist Church
July 1, 2007: Cataboo Baptist Church—impact on Ed Morrell's life
August 15, 2007: Mission Trip 2007 Final Report

Sun, May 12 PM: Black River Baptist Church hosted a Memorial Service (Program-PDF) for my daddy. I read a tribute (PDF) for Jim & Edna Green that was written by one of their sons. They were the first co-workers of my folks, and my siblings and I knew them as Uncle Jim & Aunt Edna.

Mon, May 13: Returned to Ft Lauderdale with Mother.

Tue, May 14: Rode the train from West Palm Beach back to Ft Lauderdale. Return flight to Charlotte, NC, through Atlanta, then a ride on the shuttle home.

Daddy's Funeral Service

2013-04-14T15:00:00.000-04:00

The funeral service was recorded on an Olympus WS-110 Digital Voice Recorder that was placed on the pulpit. You may read the documents, or listen to the audio, by left-clicking the links, OR you may download the PDFs or MP3s by right-clicking the links.

Funeral Program: PDF

Page 1 is the front of the program, page 2 is the inside, page 3 is an insert for the graveside service, and page 4 is an insert with the special music lyrics.

We honored Daddy's WWII service in the Canadian army by concluding the graveside service with the Canadian National Anthem.

Welcome and Prayer: Brian McKillop (MP3 - 03:55)

Scripture Reading: Kieron Sharpe (MP3 - 2:50)

Memories:

Tribute to a Beloved Grandpa: Charity Myers PDF - (MP3 - 06:00)

Tribute from the Association of Independent Baptist Churches, Jamaica: Billy McKillop PDF - (MP3 - 02:16)

Tribute to a Co-Laborer: Bob Clubine PDF - (MP3 - 09:21)

Remembrance: Billy McKillop PDF - (MP3 - 12:57)

Message: Mark Hunsburger (MP3 - 14:10)

Benediction: Jerry McKittrick (MP3 - 01:40)

This Tribute was included in an email sent on April 9th to the Baptist Mid Missions (BMM) family. BMM is the agency that Daddy and Mother have served with since going to Jamaica in 1952.

Daddy's Obituary

2013-04-08T22:50:00.000-04:00

Rev. John Franklin McKillop, 92, passed away on April 1, 2013, in Jupiter, FL. He was born in Dutton, Ontario, on August 7, 1920, to Neil and Josephine (Baxter) McKillop. Jack was raised by Al and Abbie Kennedy. He served with the Canadian Army in Jamaica during WWII. He later graduated from London Bible College in Ontario, Canada.

On August 7, 1943, Jack married Doris McKibbin; they had six children. His chosen occupation was missionary to Jamaica for Baptist Mid-Missions. Jack was preceded in death by his parents, one sister, two brothers, and an infant son, Kenneth Douglas, who is buried in Jamaica.

Jack is survived by his wife; two sons: Rev. Brian McKillop and his wife, Gloria, of Columbia, SC; Rev. Billy McKillop and his wife, Sherry, of Montego Bay, Jamaica; three daughters: Margaret Whitehead of London, Ontario; Barbara and her husband, Rev. Kieron Sharpe, of Jupiter, FL; Marianne and her husband, Dr. Daniel Devasirvatham, of San Diego, CA; 14 grandchildren: Carla (Robert Brown), Tammy (Rosaire Bondy), Angie (Marc Dyke), Katie (Seth Rowe), Rachel, Ariel, Sarah, Charity (Rev. Lee Myers), Raj, Shanthi, Priya, Caleb, Zachary, and Gabrielle; and four great-grandchildren: Daniel, Alysha, Lauren, and Nicole.

A visitation will be held in the Maranatha Room at Evangel Baptist Church, Silva, MO, on Sunday, April 14, 2013, beginning at 2:00 p.m. Funeral services will follow at 3:00 p.m. Burial will be at Twidwell Cemetery in Clubb, MO.

Online condolences can be made at www.rueggfuneralhome.com

Daddy's passing

2013-04-01T21:09:00.000-04:00

My precious daddy in his 93rd year, passed into the arms of Jesus around noon today.

His body will be taken back to MO and our family will gather on Sunday April 14 at 3pm to celebrate his life.

I remember as a child attending many funerals (because my daddy was a preacher) and this song by Fanny Crosby stands out in my memory.

Safe in the arms of Jesus, safe on His gentle breast,
There by His love o’ershaded, sweetly my soul shall rest.
Hark! ’tis the voice of angels, borne in a song to me.
Over the fields of glory, over the jasper sea.

Safe in the arms of Jesus, safe on His gentle breast
There by His love o’ershaded, sweetly my soul shall rest.

Safe in the arms of Jesus, safe from corroding care,
Safe from the world’s temptations, sin cannot harm me there.
Free from the blight of sorrow, free from my doubts and fears;
Only a few more trials, only a few more tears!

Jesus, my heart’s dear Refuge, Jesus has died for me;
Firm on the Rock of Ages, ever my trust shall be.
Here let me wait with patience, wait till the night is over;
Wait till I see the morning break on the golden shore.

Daddy's declining health

2013-04-01T10:16:00.001-04:00

In August (2012) Daddy celebrated his 92nd birthday and many of us were with him at Missionary Acres to celebrate. His memory has been slowly failing but he still knew his children by name, although he was not able to call his grandchildren by name.

Marianne and her family spent Christmas with Mother & Daddy and noticed a precipitous decline in his health. He was withdrawn and seldom engaged in conversation. As has been their practice for a number of years they traveled to FL early this year, to spend the winter months with Barbara.

His health continued to decline and Hospice began to visit daily to shave and bathe him. The Hospice people have been a tremendous help to Mother and Barbara and a number of them are Jamaican, from towns or villages that Mother is familiar with.

I was able to be with them to celebrate Mother's 91st birthday on Feb 7th and my daughters joined me for a few days. There was only one time in that week when I thought that Daddy actually knew who I was. On the Sunday of that week, there were 17 members of our extended family for dinner, which is not uncommon for our family! Daddy walked into the dining room and when he saw the crowd, he looked at each one and smiled, the most expressive I had seen him that week. When my girls and I were leaving to return to SC, Mother said to Daddy, "this is Brian and these are his beautiful daughters." Daddy looked at them and replied, "yes, they are beautiful!" the most he had spoken that week.

He had been able to get around with his wheeled walker until a week ago, when he was so weak that he collapsed in the bathroom. He has not had the strength to eat and his weight has dropped to the low 100's. Last week Gloria went to FL to be with them and to help Mother and Barbara with his care.

Yesterday morning (Sunday) he was not responsive and Marianne was able to come from CA late last night. This morning his breathing is labored and we expect the Lord to take him home shortly.

In August Mother and Daddy would celebrate their 70th anniversary on his 93rd birthday. A few weeks ago I prayed that the Lord would allow us the privilege of having him with us until then.

On behalf of my siblings, our spouses, and our children, let me express our grateful thanks to God who, for His good pleasure and the glory of His name, saved Daddy and gave him kingdom work to do, and has allowed us to keep him for so many years. We are blessed beyond our worth.

Daddy's life can be summed up in this statement:

He loved the Lord, he loved his wife, he loved his children and grandchildren, and he loved his work.

That is a life that has been well lived!

Monergism vs. Synergism – Part 2

2011-07-19T16:00:00.000-04:00

Download a free PDF of this article

Monergism in John's Gospel

In the first article in this series, I defined and illustrated both Monergism and Synergism. In this article, I will look at the Apostle John's affirmation of Monergism in his Gospel. In a third article, I will present an edited transcript of a sermon that I preached on the subject. In a fourth article, I will look at each views inherent implications to the Great Commission.

In his record of the early church, Luke shows that God demands repentance from all mankind.

Acts 17:30-31

³⁰ Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, ³¹ because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.

While both Monergism and Synergism recognize the necessity of repentance, they differ on the ability of man to obey the command. The monergistic view denies that man in his unregenerate state has the ability to obey, while the synergistic view affirms that man does have that ability.

1 Corinthians 2:13-14

¹³ These things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. ¹⁴ But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

In a sermon titled Man's Natural Blindness In Things Of Religion,¹ Jonathan Edwards affirms the monergistic view regarding man's spiritual blindness, while noting an effect of his blindness:

They are vastly deceived about their own righteousness. They think their affections and performances lovely to God, which are indeed hateful to him. They think their tears, reformations, and prayers, sufficient to make atonement for their sins, when indeed if all the angels in heaven should offer themselves in sacrifice to God, it would not be sufficient to atone for one of their sins. They think their prayers and works, and religious doings a sufficient price to purchase God's favor and eternal glory. When, as they perform them, they do nothing but merit hell.

They are greatly deceived about their strength. They think they are able to mend their own hearts, and work some good principles in themselves. When they can do no more towards it, than a dead corpse does towards raising itself to life. They vainly flatter themselves, they are able to come to Christ, when they are not. They are greatly deceived about the stability of their own hearts. They foolishly think their own intentions and resolutions of what good they will do hereafter, to be depended on. When indeed there is no dependence at all to be had on them.

In a sermon titled Human Inability, Charles H. Spurgeon also affirms the monergistic view. He writes that man's inability:

…lies deep in his nature. Through the fall, and through our own sin, the nature of man has become so debased, and depraved, and corrupt, that it is impossible for him to come to Christ without the assistance of God the Holy Spirit.

We declare, upon Scriptural authority, that the human will is so desperately set on mischief, so depraved, and so inclined to everything that is evil, and so disinclined to everything that is good, that without the powerful, supernatural, irresistible influence of the Holy Spirit, no human will ever be constrained towards Christ.

In his booklet titled Hyper-Calvinism: A False Doctrine, John R. Rice affirms the synergistic view:

Now the doctrine that all are sinful, incapable of being saved or doing good without God's help, is true. But it is certainly not true that some never could repent, that God leaves some intentionally without light or calling. Consider these Scriptures:

a. "God… now commandeth all men everywhere to repent." (Acts 17:30) Can anyone accuse God of commanding people to do what He has made it impossible for them to do?

Notice his insistence that the command to repent must necessarily imply ability.

In the fall of 2008, Jerry Vines preached at the John 3:16 Conference. Reporting on his sermon, Baptist Press News wrote:

"In Scripture God commands men to believe," Vines said, asserting that God would not command people to do what they cannot do.

Here again we see the synergistic view insisting that God's commands imply ability on the part of natural man.

The passages in John's Gospel that we will look at briefly can easily be divided into CAUSE and EFFECT. We will note that all of the passages that speak to the CAUSE of believing show that God is that cause, which is what Monergism affirms. All of the passages that show the EFFECT of believing neither affirm nor deny either view, as neither view disputes the notion that all who believe will be saved.

Where the difference between the views appears is that synergism, because of the insistence on natural ability, will see CAUSE in the passages that show EFFECT. Others have written entire books on some of the passages we will consider, so this will not be an exhaustive look at each passage.

John 1:12-13

¹² But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: ¹³ who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

John affirms that those who received Christ, whom he also describes as those who believe on the name of Christ, are given the right to become children of God, and that their spiritual birth precedes the receiving and believing. Not only does John affirm that God is the sole cause of spiritual birth, he also denies that the wills of both flesh and man cause that birth.

John 3:3-8

³ Jesus answered and said to him, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." ⁴ Nicodemus said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?" ⁵ Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. ⁶ That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. ⁷ Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.' ⁸ The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit."

In this conversation with Nicodemus, Jesus declares in verse 6 that the flesh cannot give birth to the spirit, and uses two illustrations that are compatible with the monergistic view. In verse 3 he uses birth, and in verse 8 he uses wind, illustrating that the cause of each is external to the recipient. The baby does not cause his own birth, nor does the individual who is enjoying the breeze cause the breeze to blow.

John 3:14-18

¹⁴ And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, ¹⁵ that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. ¹⁶ For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. ¹⁷ For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. ¹⁸ He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

This is a favorite passage of the Synergistic view because (as was noted earlier) that view insists that unregenerate man has the ability to respond in belief. What the passage actually shows, though, is a contrast between the believer and the unbeliever, with John showing that the believer does not face condemnation, while the unbeliever does not escape condemnation.

John 3:36

He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.

John affirms the words of Jesus from verse 18 - eternal life is the effect of believing, while condemnation is the effect of not believing.

John 4:13-14

¹³ Jesus answered and said to her, "Whoever drinks of this water will thirst again, ¹⁴ but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst. But the water that I shall give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life."

John explains that only those who drink the water Jesus provides will have their thirst quenched.

John 5:21-25

²¹ For as the Father raises the dead and gives life to them, even so the Son gives life to whom He will. ²² For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to the Son, ²³ that all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him. ²⁴ Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life. ²⁵ Most assuredly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God; and those who hear will live.

In verse 21, John repeats what he stated in 1:13 - the cause of life is the will of Son. He further shows in verse 24 that the effect of belief is not only escape from condemnation, but the benefit of eternal life.

John 5:40

But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.

Jesus clearly states that the unregenerate are NOT willing to come to Him.

John 6:35-37

³⁵ And Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst. ³⁶ But I said to you that you have seen Me and yet do not believe. ³⁷ All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out."

Shortly after explaining that the unregenerate are unwilling to come (in 5:40), Jesus tells the people that if they will come, and will believe, they will have their hunger and thirst satisfied. He then states that all whom the Father gives will come. There is a process: the Father gives to the Son, those who are given come to the Son, the Son in turn receives them, and they will never be cast out by the Son.

John 6:38-40

³⁸ For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. ³⁹ This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day. ⁴⁰ And 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.

Jesus continues to explain that the will of His Father is that none of those given to the Son will be lost, but will be raised up at the last day, and that those given by the Father, will see and believe the Son, with eternal life being the effect of their belief.

The repetition of the "raised up" phrase indicates that the ones given by the Father to the Son in verse 37-39 are the same who see the Son and believe in verse 40. Their believing is caused by the Father's giving of them to the Son.

John 6:44-45

⁴⁴ No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. ⁴⁵ It is written in the prophets, 'And they shall all be taught by God.' Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.

Jesus explains that there are those that have not been given to the Son, by stating, in verse 44, that they cannot come without the Father having drawn them. Jesus repeats his "raised up" phrase, showing that those drawn by the Father are the same that are given to the Son and that believe on the Son. The Father not only gives people to the Son, He also draws them to the Son with the effect that they believe and have eternal life. Verse 45 shows that the hearing and learning from the Father is the cause for the coming to Jesus.

John 6:47-51

⁴⁷ Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life. ⁴⁸ I am the bread of life. ⁴⁹ Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and are dead. ⁵⁰ This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that one may eat of it and not die. ⁵¹ I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world.

In verse 47, we see that the effect of believing in Christ is eternal life. Following that we note that Jesus refers to Himself as the bread of life, and that the effect of eating is eternal life.

John 6:63-66

⁶³ "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. ⁶⁴ But 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. ⁶⁵ 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." ⁶⁶ From that time many of His disciples went back and walked with Him no more.

Jesus, in verse 63, repeats what He said in 3:6, that the flesh cannot produce spiritual life; then in verse 64 He notes that some to whom He is speaking do not believe. In verse 65 He gives the reason they do not come to Him: it has not been granted by the Father. Clearly Jesus is showing that the ability to believe and come to Him is caused by the Father.

John 7:37-38

³⁷ On the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, "If anyone thirsts, let him come to Me and drink. ³⁸ He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water."

Jesus invites those who are thirsty to come to Him and drink; living water will then flow from them. The Synergist view insists that man in his unregenerate state is aware of his hunger and thirst, and is capable of deciding to believe on Christ. Yet in the previous chapter, Jesus has already established that ability to come is granted by the Father and only to those whom the Father wills to grant it.

John 8:12

Then Jesus spoke to them again, saying, "I am the light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life."

Jesus refers to Himself as light: those who follow Him will not walk blindly.

John 8:21-24

²¹ Then Jesus said to them again, "I am going away, and you will seek Me, and will die in your sin. Where I go you cannot come." ²² So the Jews said, "Will He kill Himself, because He says, 'Where I go you cannot come'?" ²³ And He said to them, "You are from beneath; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. ²⁴ Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins."

Jesus repeats what He stated in chapter 3: the effect of unbelief is death in sin.

John 8:42-43

⁴² Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and came from God; nor have I come of Myself, but He sent Me. ⁴³ Why do you not understand My speech? Because you are not able to listen to My word."

Jesus shows that love for Him is the effect of being a child of the Father, while also pointing out their lack of ability to listen with understanding.

John 8:47

He who is of God hears God's words; therefore you do not hear, because you are not of God.

Hearing is the effect of being "of God."

John 10:4

And when he brings out his own sheep, he goes before them; and the sheep follow him, for they know his voice.

In the first 30 verses of chapter 10, Jesus refers to Himself as the good shepherd and shows His care for His sheep. Here we note the effect of being a sheep: they recognize their shepherd's voice and follow.

John 10:9

I am the door. If anyone enters by Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture.

Security and provision are effects of entering the fold through Jesus, who declares Himself to be the door.

John 10:16

And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd.

The fold is not limited to just the present hearers; there are others who will also hear the shepherd's voice.

John 10:26-30

²⁶ But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you. ²⁷ My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. ²⁸ And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. ²⁹ My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father's hand. ³⁰ I and My Father are one."

The reason these do not believe is because they do not belong to the shepherd. The synergistic view insists that belief is the cause of one becoming a sheep, but Jesus here is teaching the opposite, that belief is the effect of one becoming a sheep, with eternal life the result.

John 11
The first 40 verses tell the story of the death and resurrection of Lazarus. In a previous article, titled Regeneration Precedes Faith, I dealt with this story more fully. Suffice it to say that Lazarus did not have the ability to raise himself to life. Had it not been for Jesus commanding him to come out of the tomb, he would have stayed dead. This command of Jesus was the sole cause of his being restored to life. The story perfectly represents the monergistic view, that God alone, without man aiding Him, brings the spiritually dead to spiritual life.

John 12:32

And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself.

The Synergist approach to this verse presupposes that the word all means "all men without exception," rather than referring to Gentiles as well as Jews. That approach then reads that presupposition back into John 6:44, which also contains the word "draw."

In his booklet Why I Disagree With All 5 Points of Calvinism, Curtis Hutson, a former editor of the Sword of the Lord newspaper, writes:

Some Calvinists use John 6:44 in an effort to prove total inability. Here the Bible says, "No man can come to me except the Father which hath sent me draw him... " But the Bible makes it plain in John 12:32 that Christ will draw all men unto Himself. Here the Bible says, "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me."

All men are drawn to Christ, but not all men will trust Christ as Saviour. Every man will make his own decision to trust Christ or to reject Him.

The problem here is that Hutson has left off the end of John 6:44 - "raise him up at the last day." If the all in this passage means "all men without exception," then John in 6:44 teaches universalism - that "all men without exception" will be raised up to eternal life at the last day, an idea that I am sure Hutson would reject.

John 12:39-40

³⁹ Therefore they could not believe, because Isaiah said again: ⁴⁰ "He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, Lest they should see with their eyes, Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, So that I should heal them."

John quotes Isaiah 6:10 in observing that the reason for unbelief is because God blinded the eyes and hardened the hearts of the people.

John 12:46-48

⁴⁶ I have come as a light into the world, that whoever believes in Me should not abide in darkness. ⁴⁷ And if anyone hears My words and does not believe, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world. ⁴⁸ He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him - the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day.

The effect of believing in Jesus is leaving the darkness for the light, while the effect of rejection of Jesus is judgment.

John 17:1-3

¹ Jesus spoke these words, lifted up His eyes to heaven, and said: "Father, the hour has come. Glorify Your Son, that Your Son also may glorify You, ² as You have given Him authority over all flesh, that He should give eternal life to as many as You have given Him. ³ And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent."

In this chapter, we have the prayer of Jesus before his arrest; it is an exclusive prayer for those whom the Father has given to Him. In these verses we observe that God the Father has given to His Son the authority to extend eternal life to all those whom the Father gave to the Son.

John 17:6

I have manifested Your name to the men whom You have given Me out of the world. They were Yours, You gave them to Me, and they have kept Your word.

Some individuals belonged to God, and those are the ones He gave to the Son.

John 17:9-10

⁹ I pray for them. I do not pray for the world but for those whom You have given Me, for they are Yours. ¹⁰ And all Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine, and I am glorified in them.

Those belonging to the Father also belong to the Son.

John 17:20

I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word;

There are others who will believe.

John 17:24

Father, I desire that they also whom You gave Me may be with Me where I am, that they may behold My glory which You have given Me; for You loved Me before the foundation of the world.

Notice the continued reference to those given to Christ by the Father.

John 20:30-31

³⁰ And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; ³¹ but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.

In John's statement of his purpose for writing his Gospel, he affirms that the effect of believing in Christ is life, a theme that runs throughout the Gospel.

In all of the passages I have presented, we have either seen the cause for belief, or the effect of that belief. All of the passages that reference cause affirm the monergistic view of God as the sole cause for belief. All of the passages that reference effect establish eternal life as that effect.

How Sweet And Awesome Is The Place
Isaac Watts / Gioachino Antonio Rossini © Public Domain

How sweet and awesome is this place
With Christ within the doors
While everlasting love displays
The choicest of her stores

Here every bowel of our God
With soft compassion rolls
Here peace and pardon bought with blood
Is food for dying souls

While all our hearts and all our songs
Join to admire the feast
Each of us cry with thankful tongues
Lord why was I a guest

Why was I made to hear Thy voice
And enter while there's room
When thousands make a wretched choice
And rather starve than come

'Twas the same love that spread the feast
That sweetly drew us in
Else we had still refused to taste
And perished in our sin

Pity the nations O our God
Constrain the earth to come
Send Thy victorious Word abroad
And bring the strangers home

We long to see Thy churches full
That all the chosen race
May with one voice and heart and soul
Sing Thy redeeming grace

¹ Edwards preached another sermon titled Men Naturally Are God's Enemies, that also shows man's inability.

Scripture taken from the New King James Version.
Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc.
Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer:
Links in this article are provided solely for information purposes,
and do not in any way imply full and complete endorsement.

Monergism vs. Synergism - Part 1

2010-10-30T11:30:00.009-04:00

Download a free PDF of this article

Augustinianism, Pelagianism, and Semi-Pelagianism

In 1914, B.B. Warfield gave a series of lectures at Princeton. The lectures were later compiled into a book; The Plan of Salvation¹. In the section titled Autosoterism, Warfield states:

There are fundamentally only two doctrines of salvation: that salvation is from God, and that salvation is from ourselves. The former is the doctrine of common Christianity; the latter is the doctrine of universal heathenism.

These two doctrines of salvation are known as Monergism and Synergism. In this article, I will attempt to define and illustrate each view; in a subsequent article, I will look at the Apostle John's affirmation of Monergism in his Gospel. In a third article, I will present an edited transcript of a sermon that I preached on the topic; in a fourth article, I will look at each views inherent implications to the Great Commission.

Definitions

Theopedia defines Monergism as "the belief that the Holy Spirit is the only agent who effects the regeneration of Christians "; and defines Synergism as "essentially the view that God and humanity work together, each contributing their part to accomplish salvation in and for the individual."

Got Questions Ministries (in an article titled Monergism vs. synergism - which view is correct?) provides a similar definition of both terms:

Monergism, which comes from a compound word in Greek that means "to work alone," is the view that God alone effects our salvation.

Synergism, which also comes from a compound Greek word meaning "to work together," is the view that God works together with us in effecting salvation.

John Hendryx (in his article titled Monergism vs. Synergism) writes:

Synergism is the doctrine that the act of being born again is achieved through a combination of human will and divine grace.

Hendryx also notes:

Synergists believe that faith itself, a principle standing independent and autonomous of God's action of grace, is something the natural man must add or contribute toward the price of his salvation.

In contrast, he shows that Monergism teaches:

Salvation is entirely a work of God… man can contribute nothing toward the price of his salvation and that one is saved wholly and unconditionally by grace through faith.

J.I. Packer, in his introductory essay to John Owen's Death of Death², gives further explanation of the difference between the two salvation views. He writes:

Now, here are two coherent interpretations of the biblical gospel, which stand in evident opposition to each other. The difference between them is not primarily one of emphasis, but of content. One proclaims a God who saves; the other speaks of a God Who enables man to save himself.

One makes salvation depend on the work of God, the other on a work of man; one regards faith as part of God's gift of salvation, the other as man's own contribution to salvation; one gives all the glory of saving believers to God, the other divides the praise between God, Who, so to speak, built the machinery of salvation, and man, who by believing operated it. [4]

The conflict between these two views is not new. It has existed for close to 1600 years of church history. Let us take a journey to the 5th century and look at the contention between Augustinianism, Pelagianism, and Semi-Pelagianism. Each of these views approached man's participation in salvation differently.

Augustinianism - Salvation accomplished by God alone
Pelagianism - Salvation accomplished by man alone
Semi-Pelagianism - Salvation accomplished by God and man working together

The divergent views are sourced in their presuppositions regarding the effect of the sin of Adam on man's spiritual nature and the condition of his heart. In my understanding it has helped to define the views in their approach to the spiritual deadness of man.

Augustinianism - the completely-dead view
Pelagianism - the not-dead view
Semi-Pelagianism - the mostly-dead view

Augustinianism

The Augustinian view declares that Adam's sin has brought spiritual incapacitation to mankind. Man not only cannot but will not do anything that is pleasing to God. In presenting the completely-dead view, Theopedia shows Augustinianism affirming:

Due to the corruption of human nature in the Fall, one's will is not free, but rather a slave to sin. As such, every person is born sinful and justly under the condemnation of God. In order for a person to be delivered from this dreadful state (i.e. saved), God must intervene.

In his Outlines of Theology, A.A. Hodge, with regard to original sin, notes: "every man brings into the world with him a nature already so corrupt, that it can do nothing but sin."

Philip Schaff, who devotes a fair number of pages in his History of the Christian Church³ to a discussion of the divergent views, writes:

To understand Augustine's doctrine of the fall of man, we must remember, first of all, that he starts with the idea of the organic unity of the human race, and with the profound parallel of Paul between the first and the second Adam; that he views the first man not merely as an individual, but at the same time as the progenitor and representative of the whole race, standing to natural mankind in the same relation as that of Christ to redeemed and regenerate mankind. [824]

Pelagianism

In contrast to Augustinianism, the Pelagian view affirms that Adam's disobedience only affected him, and that individuals are born with the innocence with which Adam was created. Man therefore has the capability to choose whether or not to follow in Adam's disobedience.

In presenting the not-dead view, Theopedia shows Pelagianism teaching:

That man has an unimpaired moral ability to choose that which is spiritually good and possesses the free will, ability, and capacity to do that which is spiritually good. This resulted in a gospel of salvation based on human works. Man could choose to follow the precepts of God and then follow those precepts because he had the power within himself to do so.

Warfield notes:

The Pelagian scheme therefore embraces the following points. God has endowed man with an inalienable freedom of will, by virtue of which he is fully able to do all that can be required of him. To this great gift God has added the gifts of the law and the gospel to illuminate the way of righteousness and to persuade man to walk in it; and even the gift of Christ to supply an expiation for past sins for all who will do righteousness, and especially to set a good example. Those who, under these inducements and in the power of their ineradicable freedom, turn from their sins and do righteousness, will be accepted by the righteous God and rewarded according to their deeds.

Schaff contrasts Pelagianism with Augustinianism and notes:

The soul of the Pelagian system is human freedom; the soul of the Augustinian is divine grace. Pelagius starts from the natural man, and works up, by his own exertions, to righteousness and holiness. Augustine despairs of the moral sufficiency of man, and derives the new life and all power for good from the creative grace of God. The one system proceeds from the liberty of choice to legalistic piety; the other from the bondage of sin to the evangelical liberty of the children of God. [787]

He adds:

The one loves to admire the dignity and strength of man; the other loses itself in adoration of the glory and omnipotence of God. The one flatters natural pride, the other is a gospel for penitent publicans and sinners. [788]

R.C. Sproul (in an article titled, Augustine and Pelagius) writes:

Pelagius recoiled in horror at the idea that a divine gift (grace) is necessary to perform what God commands. For Pelagius and his followers responsibility always implies ability. If man has the moral responsibility to obey the law of God, he must also have the moral ability to do it.

Dave Noffsinger (in an article titled Calvinism Illustrated) affirms the Pelagian view in the following illustration:

I chose from birth to love my younger daughter because I thought it was my right as the father and chose to hate my eldest daughter because of that same right. Neither child had done anything right or wrong but because of my sovereign will I simply chose to hate one and to love the other.

Because of this choice, I would send the eldest out into the world and cut her completely from my will and fellowship while lavishing both gifts and love upon the younger daughter. I choose to never to have anything else to do with the eldest while holding the younger in the highest esteem.

As a matter of fact, I even decided to see the eldest (who has done nothing to me) suffer eternal punishment of the most horrible kind because of this hatred.

I tell everyone now that I am really a loving father: both kind and generous.

In his first and third points, he declares the innocence of his children; as a result, he concludes that choosing one of the innocents over the other is "ungodly." My comment on that post which, not surprisingly, has never appeared:

Your illustration fails at this point:
3 As a matter of fact, I even decided to see the eldest (who has done nothing to me) suffer eternal punishment...
The truth is that all men have NOT "done nothing." We have freely and willfully turned our backs on God, rejected Him, and hated Him.

We should be amazed that He has offered mercy and grace to any of His enemies, when He was in no way obligated to do so.

Michael S. Horton (in his article titled Pelagianism: The Religion of Natural Man) points out that "Pelagianism was condemned by more church councils than any other heresy in history."

Semi-Pelagianism

In an attempt at maintaining the natural ability of man to choose, while at the same time denying his innocence, Semi-Pelagianism insists that spiritual deadness does not incapacitate.

In presenting the mostly-dead view, Theopedia shows Semi-Pelagianism "aimed at a compromise between Pelagianism and Augustinianism." The article notes, with regard to man, that his "nature is neither good nor bad, but injured." Man therefore is in need of God's grace, but retains the ability "to decide whether he wants God's grace."

Got Question Ministries (in an article titled What are Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism?) notes:

Semi-Pelagianism essentially teaches that humanity is tainted by sin, but not to the extent that we cannot cooperate with God's grace on our own. Semi-Pelagianism is, in essence, partial depravity as opposed to total depravity.

Schaff observes that Semi-Pelagianism, while attempting to reconcile the above views,

Rejects the Pelagian doctrine of the moral roundness of man, but rejects also the Augustinian doctrine of the entire corruption and bondage of the natural man, and substitutes the idea of a diseased or crippled state of the voluntary power. [858]

In introducing his readers to John Cassian, whom Schaff describes as the "head of the Semi-Pelagian party," Schaff notes that Cassian taught:

That the divine image and human freedom were not annihilated, but only weakened, by the fall; in other words, that man is sick, but not dead, that he cannot indeed help himself, but that he can desire the help of a physician, and either accept or refuse it when offered, and that he must cooperate with the grace of God in his salvation. [861]

Shelton Smith, President of Sword Of The Lord Publishers and Editor of their newspaper, in an article titled The Case Against Calvinism⁴, affirms the Semi-Pelagian view when he writes:

Calvin's total-depravity teaching did not properly represent the condition of unsaved men. When the Bible describes the sinful condition of man, there is no question that he is depraved and totally so. Man is not inherently good; he is by nature a sinner.

But man's total depravity must not be defined as total inability. The fact is that God has made arrangements for our salvation, and He is "not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." (II Pet. 3:9).

So a man is totally depraved (a sinner), but he can come to Christ if he will do so. He has the ability to come to Christ - he can if he will.

Schaff, in summarizing the 3 views, uses the terms Monergism and Synergism to define each.

The Greek church adhered to her undeveloped synergism, which coordinates the human will and divine grace as factors in the work of conversion; the Latin church, under the influence of Augustine, advanced to the system of a divine monergism, which gives God all the glory, and makes freedom itself a result of grace; while Pelagianism, on the contrary, represented the principle of a human monergism, which ascribes the chief merit of conversion to man, and reduces grace to a mere external auxiliary. [786]

The View of Scripture

My pastor is quite fond of saying, "What does the text say?" After all, one's theology must be defined by Scripture, and not Scripture defined by one's theology. In Genesis 3:8, we learn that after their sin our first parents "hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden." We might well refer to this event as the first game of hide and seek; notice that it was the man who hid and God sought. In Romans, the Apostle Paul establishes that all mankind follow doggedly in their footsteps.

Romans 3:9-18

⁹ What then? Are we better than they? Not at all. For we have previously charged both Jews and Greeks that they are all under sin. ¹⁰ As it is written: "There is none righteous, no, not one; ¹¹ There is none who understands; There is none who seeks after God. ¹² They have all turned aside; They have together become unprofitable; There is none who does good, no, not one." ¹³ "Their throat is an open tomb; With their tongues they have practiced deceit"; "The poison of asps is under their lips"; ¹⁴ "Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness." ¹⁵ "Their feet are swift to shed blood; ¹⁶ Destruction and misery are in their ways; ¹⁷ And the way of peace they have not known." ¹⁸ "There is no fear of God before their eyes."

This passage presents man in his natural state, completely without the ability or even desire to seek God. Paul goes on to show how the person described above becomes reconciled to God.

Romans 5:6-8

⁶ For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. ⁷ For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. ⁸ But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

Old Ship of Zion

In the synergistic view, the old ship of Zion is sailing along with enough life preservers for all who are floundering in the ocean. God offers to throw a life preserver to each swimmer, but only if they are willing to grab it. They must, with their last ounce of strength, reach for the life preserver so that they may be pulled into the ship. God may not jump into the ocean, as that would violate the sovereignty of the swimmer. In the monergistic view, the ocean is full of rotting corpses, and God does in fact jump into the water, breathe life into the corpse, and give the individual not only the desire but also the strength to climb into the ship.

My brother, commenting on the previous illustration, wrote the following in a recent email:

When I think of what God has to do in regeneration the picture in mind is the one from the movie "Titanic" where the one rescue boat that came back to check for survivors found all the frozen, floating bodies, and no matter how hard he blew his whistle, none of the bodies came to life (only the one person who was still alive responded). Synergism assumes that dead corpses can be moved by appeal. If we shout loud enough or long enough or use the right degree of urgency the dead will come to life of their own free will. But we know that you can only nudge a dead body - if you push it hard enough, it will certainly move, but it cannot come to life and move by itself apart from a miracle of grace. (Eph. 2:1)

Synergism, in whatever form it takes, has man capable of participating with God in his salvation. Strange Baptist Fire (in a post titled Your Election Ballot) shows a tract from some years ago. The tract is in the form of a ballot, with God, Satan, and man each casting a vote on the issue of man's salvation. They write:

Thus salvation is ultimately decided by a work of our own. Also note that God's vote carries no more weight than does Satan's nor man's. This approach, popular among Protestants of many denominations, including ours, is a misrepresentation of God's revealed truth in His word. It elevates fallen, darkened, stone-hearted man, and essentially takes God off of His throne, giving Him no greater sovereignty than the rest of us. We may as well then say with atheist William Henley, "I am the master of my fate; I am the captain of my soul."

The Monergistic view of salvation most accurately reflects the Scripture. Sadly, as the previous quote shows, most evangelism today presupposes the synergistic view.

My Lord I Did Not Choose You
A. Sullivan / Josiah Conder © Public Domain

My Lord I did not choose You
For that could never be
My heart would still refuse You
Had You not chosen me

You took the sin that stained me
You cleansed me made me new
Of old You have ordained me
That I should live in You

Unless Your grace had called me
And taught my opening mind
The world would have enthralled me
To heavenly glories blind

My heart knows none above You
For Your rich grace I thirst
I know that if I love You
You must have loved me first

¹ Warfield, B.B. The Plan of Salvation. (General Books LLC, 2009).
² John Owen, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ. (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust).
³ Schaff, Philip. History of the Christian Church. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers), 1996. Vol. 3 of 8.
⁴ Sword of the Lord. 27 September 2010.

Scripture taken from the New King James Version.
Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc.
Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer:
Links in this article are provided solely for information purposes,
and do not in any way imply full and complete endorsement.

Comment Moderation

2010-07-16T10:30:00.003-04:00

On one hand, I have little respect for those who comment anonymously. If I am unwilling to affix my name to something I have written, then it probably should not be written!

On the other hand, I welcome comments from anyone who is willing to take the time to read my posts and interact with my writing. I don't like having my comments removed by the owners of other blogs, and am unwilling to restrict commenting solely to those who agree with the positions I hold.

So how do I reconcile a dislike for anonymous commenting with a desire to let commenters challenge my writing?

Blogger provides only 4 options with regard to comments:

Anyone - includes Anonymous Users

Registered Users - includes OpenID

Users with Google Accounts

Only members of this blog

Since my blog began I have used the first option, as it is the least restrictive to commenters. Beginning today, I am going to try something new. I will continue to allow anyone to comment, but will begin to moderate comments. Anonymous comments will, most often, be deleted. Exceptions will be based solely on the substance of the comment, and that solely at my discretion.

Facebook Theological Discussion

2010-06-16T15:10:00.005-04:00

A missionary friend of mine recently posted 2 status updates on Facebook (FB). Both my brother and I commented on the updates, but my friend deleted all but 1 of my comments. In this article, I am posting my friends original status updates, followed by my comments and the comments of 2 other posters. I have removed any references that would identify any of the individuals.

Here are the 2 original posts by my friend:

Post 1 Missionary:

...is never amazed at the mental gymnastics that hyper-cavinists will use to prove the 'doctrine' of limited atonement. BTW, did you ever notice that those spewing the doctrine of hyper-calvinism consider themselves to be part of the elect along with their kids and grandkids....Let's go out and share the gospel!!!

Post 2 Missionary:

...is pretty sure that 'whosoever' means 'whosover' no matter whoever you are...the only condition is believe!!

Here is my 1st comment in which I quoted from John 3:

2 groups of people contrasted

¹⁶ For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. ¹⁷ For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. ¹⁸ He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

This passage shows a contrast between 2 groups of people; those who believe and those who do not. The believing ones have everlasting life because God's wrath on them has been satisfied by Christ. The non-believing ones are condemned because God's wrath on them has not been satisfied by Christ. If their debt had been paid there would no longer be a debt for them to pay. John Owen rightly stated: "…is it probable that God calls any to a second payment, and requires satisfaction of them for whom, by his own acknowledgement, Christ hath made that which is full and sufficient.

All believers affirm a limited atonement. The disagreement concerns the WHOM that is responsible for the limit, whether it is God or man. I, a monergist, affirm that God limits the atonement to those who believe and for those, and only for those, it is a full and complete atonement. The synergist affirms that man limits the atonement by his acceptance or rejection of Christ. That view posits an atonement that Christ did not fully and completely accomplish, as it necessitates a contribution on the part of man.

p.s. The "doctrine" of a limited atonement is not what distinguishes "hypers" from "regular" Calvinists.

Here is my 2nd comment in which I quoted from John 6:

John 3 does not speak to the issue of who has the capability to believe and Romans 3 establishes that no one does. John 6 shows that those who believe do so solely because belief has been granted by the Father.

⁶⁴ But 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. ⁶⁵ 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."

Here is the response to my 1st comment by a 3rd party:

The statement that "All believers affirm a limited atonement" is not accurate. At the very least, it makes obedience to the great commission paralyzingly confusing.

Here is my response to the above comment, and is the only comment of mine that was not deleted from the FB thread.

In what way?

The 3rd party did not respond to my question.

Here is the response to my 1st comment by my friend's wife:

If I really beieved in limited atonement and that God elected some to Heaven (and in doing so some to Hell) I would pack my bags today and head home to my children and grandchildren. I could be better served investing my time in them if all who are the elect [natives of the country they serve] will be saved in the end anyway.

I responded to her comment but did not save the text of my reply. The following is a synopsis of what I wrote:

God uses MEANS to save His elect, and the proclamation of the Gospel is that means. Isaiah 52:7 shows that the feet of those who bring the good news of the Gospel are beautiful.

p.s. the McKillop boys are 5 point Calvinists, but we are not, nor do we know, any 'hypers.'

I exchanged emails about the FB post with my pastor, Tom Fillinger, who blogs at The Text Says. With his permission, I here include a portion of his email to me:

In the first place, there is no "whosoever" in the text to begin with.

The text says:

outos gar egapesen o theos ton kosmon oste ton uion ton monogene edoken ina pas o pisteuon eis auton me apoletai all eche zoen aionion

The highlighted phrase is a present active participle correctly translated "the believing ones". The ina clause preceding this participle expresses PURPOSE. God did what He did for the express purpose that "the believing ones" would not perish but have eternal life. That is about as particular as it gets!!

Update - Friday, June 18, 2010 10:00AM

I posted a link to this article in 1 of the original FB posts. My friend responded to that post, and I, in return, responded to his post. Here are those 2 posts:

Missionary's post:

Don't miss the point! We need more obedience to the great commission, not more discussion...

My post:

The difference between the limited and the unlimited atonement guys is not primarily obedience. It is the different approach each group takes to evangelism.

Synergists posit that God and man both contribute to salvation, God doing everything He can, but leaving it all up to man to make a decision. The focus then of synergistic evangelism is on the response, and the success or failure of Gospel proclamation is determined by decisions.

Monergists posit that God alone does all in saving sinners. He is author, finisher, and everything between. The focus of monergistic evangelism is on the presentation, as Paul in 1 Cor. 1 shows that Gospel proclamation is the MEANS by which the Holy Spirit saves those who believe. Monergists, for the most part, are opposed to altar calls, not because they don't want sinners to come to faith, but because the Holy Spirit does not need our help in accomplishing his work.

It is ironic that many synergistic Gospel presentations end with a monergistic prayer! The preaching declares that it is up to man to respond, but the prayer asks God to work in people's hearts. I also don't understand why a synergist would pray for someone's salvation, since in that view God has done all He can do, and has left the final decision up to man.

Theology DOES matter!

Here are some resources that speak to the issues raised in this article:

Hyper-Calvinism

What is Hyper-Calvinism?

What is hyper-Calvinism and is it Biblical?

A Primer on Hyper-Calvinism

Calvinism, Hyper-Calvinism, & Arminianism

Danger of Hyper-Calvinism

The above article references a John R. Rice book on Hyper-Calvinism. The link provided is obsolete. This appears to be the book he references:

Hyper-Calvinism: A False Doctrine

Limited Atonement

Monergism Search - a number of articles linked here

John 3:16 (Limited Atonement)

The Calvinism of Charles Haddon Spurgeon: Limited Atonement or Particular Redemption

Disclaimer:
Links in this article are provided solely for information purposes,
and do not in any way imply full and complete endorsement.

Regeneration Precedes Faith

2010-02-02T20:00:00.006-05:00

Download a free PDF of this article

Introduction

In 1986, Tyndale House Publishers released R.C. Sproul's Chosen By God. In 1999, Bethany House Publishers released Norman Geisler's Chosen But Free, which, while not stating such, appears to be a refutation of Sproul's work. In 2000, Calvary Press Publishing released The Potter's Freedom, James White's response to Geisler's work. Sproul wrote the foreword for The Potter's Freedom. In 2001, Geisler released a second edition of Chosen But Free, and responded to White in an addendum (Appendix 13). White responded to Geisler through an article on his website, titled A Most Disappointing Response.

Chosen By God

In Chosen by God, Sproul writes:

The cure for spiritual death is the creation of spiritual life in our souls by God the Holy Spirit. (112)

He then quotes Ephesians 2:1-10 and explains:

What is here called quickening or being made alive is what is elsewhere called rebirth or regeneration. The term regeneration, as the word suggests, indicates a "generating again." To generate means to cause to happen or to begin. We think of the first book of the Bible, the book of beginnings, which is called Genesis. The prefix re means simply "again." Therefore the word regeneration means to begin something again. It is the new beginning of life that we are concerned with here, the beginning of spiritual life. (113)

He gives further explanation by showing:

It is the beginning of new life but it is not the total sum of the new life. It is the crucial point of transition from spiritual death to spiritual life. (117)

When God regenerates a human soul, when he makes us spiritually alive, we make choices. We believe. We have faith. We cling to Christ. God does not believe for us. (118)

In regeneration, God changes our hearts. He gives us a new disposition, a new inclination. He plants a desire for Christ in our hearts. We can never trust Christ for our salvation unless we first desire him. That is why we said earlier that regeneration precedes faith. (118)

The process of salvation as expressed by Sproul is:

Regeneration - Faith - Salvation

Chosen But Free

Geisler, in Why Blame Me?, Chapter 2 of Chosen But Free, writes:

Indeed, one response to the problem of divine sovereignty and human responsibility is that of extreme Calvinism. (19)

The footnote associated with the above sentence reads:

We use the term "extreme" rather than "hyper" since hyper-Calvinism is used by some to designate a more radical view known as "superlapsarianism," which entails double predestination…

Nonetheless, we call them "extreme" Calvinists because they are more extreme than John Calvin himself (see appendix 2) and to distinguish them from moderate Calvinists (see chapter 7)

Not only does Geisler make the mistake of referring to supra-lapsarianism as super-lapsarianism, he also creates two brand new categories of Calvinists: the extreme and the moderate.

In his foreword to The Potter's Freedom, Sproul responds:

Apart from mislabeling his own views, Geisler makes a spirited defense of historic Arminianism, and in the process seeks to paint historic Calvinism as not only "extreme," but false. (15)

Geisler's asks the question, Is Regeneration Prior to Faith?, in Appendix 10 of his work:

A fundamental pillar in the extreme Calvinists' view is the belief that regeneration is logically prior to faith. That is, we are saved in order to believe; we do not believe in order to be saved. (235)

The Appendix is broken into two sections:

Verses offered by extreme Calvinists in support of their view
Verses that demonstrate that faith is prior to salvation

Notice here that Geisler is using the terms regeneration and salvation synonymously. As such, his process of salvation can be expressed thusly:

Faith - Salvation/Regeneration

The confusion over the issue of regeneration preceding faith arises from the different understanding and usage of the term regeneration. Geisler and other non-Calvinists use their own definition of the term to critique Calvinism, expressing their understanding of the Calvinist process of salvation thusly:

Salvation - Faith

My purpose in writing this article is to show that regeneration, as it is understood by Calvinists, must precede faith. To that end, we will first look at the Canons of Dordt, specifically the section presenting man's spiritual depravity. Following that, we will see from the writing and preaching of selected Calvinists that they affirm the idea of regeneration preceding faith. This article will conclude with a look at the story of the raising of Lazarus from John 11. In my opinion, it is one of the best illustrations of regeneration preceding faith.

The Canons of Dordt

The Third and Fourth Main Points of Doctrine are subtitled, Human Corruption, Conversion to God, and the Way It Occurs.

Article 3: Total Inability
Therefore, all people are conceived in sin and are born children of wrath, unfit for any saving good, inclined to evil, dead in their sins, and slaves to sin; without the grace of the regenerating Holy Spirit they are neither willing nor able to return to God, to reform their distorted nature, or even to dispose themselves to such reform.

Article 12: Regeneration a Supernatural Work
And this is the regeneration, the new creation, the raising from the dead, and the making alive so clearly proclaimed in the Scriptures, which God works in us without our help. But this certainly does not happen only by outward teaching, by moral persuasion, or by such a way of working that, after God has done his work, it remains in man's power whether or not to be reborn or converted. Rather, it is an entirely supernatural work, one that is at the same time most powerful and most pleasing, a marvelous, hidden, and inexpressible work, which is not lesser than or inferior in power to that of creation or of raising the dead, as Scripture (inspired by the author of this work) teaches. As a result, all those in whose hearts God works in this marvelous way are certainly, unfailingly, and effectively reborn and do actually believe. And then the will, now renewed, is not only activated and motivated by God but in being activated by God is also itself active. For this reason, man himself, by that grace which he has received, is also rightly said to believe and to repent.

Article 16: Regeneration's Effect
However, just as by the fall man did not cease to be man, endowed with intellect and will, and just as sin, which has spread through the whole human race, did not abolish the nature of the human race but distorted and spiritually killed it, so also this divine grace of regeneration does not act in people as if they were blocks and stones; nor does it abolish the will and its properties or coerce a reluctant will by force, but spiritually revives, heals, reforms, and - in a manner at once pleasing and powerful - bends it back. As a result, a ready and sincere obedience of the Spirit now begins to prevail where before the rebellion and resistance of the flesh were completely dominant. It is in this that the true and spiritual restoration and freedom of our will consists. Thus, if the marvelous Maker of every good thing were not dealing with us, man would have no hope of getting up from his fall by his free choice, by which he plunged himself into ruin when still standing upright.

Rejection of the errors - IV
Who teach that unregenerate man is not strictly or totally dead in his sins or deprived of all capacity for spiritual good but is able to hunger and thirst for righteousness or life and to offer the sacrifice of a broken and contrite spirit which is pleasing to God.

For these views are opposed to the plain testimonies of Scripture: You were dead in your transgressions and sins (Eph. 2:1, 5); The imagination of the thoughts of man's heart is only evil all the time (Gen. 6:5; 8:21). Besides, to hunger and thirst for deliverance from misery and for life, and to offer God the sacrifice of a broken spirit is characteristic only of the regenerate and of those called blessed (Ps. 51:17; Matt. 5:6).

The Canons here, in that which they affirm and reject, show that the first work of salvation is a work of the Holy Spirit, without which no one would or could be saved. Ezekiel 36:26 describes regeneration as the act of God giving "a new heart, and a new spirit," while at the same time removing "the heart of stone from your flesh."

Calvinists affirmation of regeneration preceding faith

Abraham Kuyper shows that "the word 'regeneration' is used in [both] a limited sense, and in a more extended sense." He writes:

It is used in the limited sense when it denotes exclusively God's act of quickening, which is the first divine act whereby God translates us from death into life, from the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of His dear Son. In this sense regeneration is the starting point.

A.A. Hodge explains the narrowing of the word's usage to refer to the opening stage of salvation:

In the development of Protestant theology the term has been still further narrowed: first, to express the opening stage of this subjective work as distinguished from its continuance in sanctification; and then, since the seventeenth century, to express the initial divine act in this opening stage itself, as distinguished from the broader term conversion, which includes, along with the act of God, revivifying man, also the act of man in turning to God.

In Regeneration, Chapter 29 of Hodge's Outlines of Theology, he uses a question and answer format:

Question 11
What is the difference between regeneration and conversion?

Answer
The term conversion is often used in a wide sense as including both the change of nature and the exercise of that nature as changed. When distinguished from regeneration, however, conversion signifies the first exercise of the new disposition implanted in regeneration, i.e., in freely turning unto God.

Regeneration is God's act; conversion is ours. Regeneration is the implantation of a gracious principle; conversion is the exercise of that principle. Regeneration is never a matter of direct consciousness to the subject of it; conversion always is such to the agent of it. Regeneration is a single act, complete in itself; and never repeated; conversion, as the beginning of holy living, is the commencement of a series, constant, endless, and progressive.

John Bunyan, in what is reported to be his final sermon, shows from John 1:13 that regeneration is indeed the first necessity for salvation:

Suppose it be the gospel, he cannot see it before he be brought into a state of regeneration. Believing is the consequence of the new birth; 'not of blood, nor of the will of man, but of God.'

…as soon as he has raised you out of the dark dungeon of sin, you cannot but cry to God, What must I do to be saved? As soon as ever God had touched the jailer, he cries out, 'Men and brethren, what must I do to be saved?'

James P. Boyce was the first president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (Louisville, KY). In Regeneration and Conversion, Chapter 32 of his Abstract of Systematic Theology, he writes:

At the outset of a discussion of these two subjects we are met by the question, whether they are not one and the same thing. They are unquestionably so intimately associated that it is difficult to separate them and point out the distinctions between them. The Scriptures connect the two under the one idea of the new birth, and teach that not only is regeneration an absolute essential in each conversion, but that in every intelligent responsible soul conversion invariably accompanies regeneration. It is not strange, therefore, that they are often confounded. Yet, after all, the Scriptures also teach that regeneration is the work of God, changing the heart of man by his sovereign will, while conversion is the act of man turning towards God with the new inclination thus given to his heart. (373)

The relation of regeneration to conversion will, therefore, appear to be one of invariable antecedence. (380)

C.H. Spurgeon preached a sermon in 1871 titled Faith and Regeneration. With 1 John 5:1 as his text, he stated it in this manner:

There never was a grain of such faith as this in the world, except in a regenerate soul, and there never will be while the world standeth. It is so according to the text, and if we had no other testimony this one passage would be quite enough to prove it. "Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God."

To believe in Jesus is a better indicator of regeneration than anything else, and in no case did it ever mislead. Faith in the living God and his Son Jesus Christ is always the result of the new birth, and can never exist except in the regenerate. Whoever has faith is a saved man.

John Piper, in a sermon titled Regeneration, Faith, Love: In That Order, used the same passage as Spurgeon, and showed that "…regeneration is the cause of faith":

That's plain in 1 John 5:1: "Everyone who believes [that is, has faith] that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God." Having been born of God results in our believing. Our believing is the immediate evidence of God's begetting.

What is common to all of the above Calvinists is their affirmation that regeneration is a necessary prerequisite to faith and thus salvation.

The Raising of Lazarus

John 11:38-44
³⁸Then Jesus, deeply moved again, came to the tomb. It was a cave, and a stone lay against it. ³⁹Jesus said, "Take away the stone." Martha, the sister of the dead man, said to him, "Lord, by this time there will be an odor, for he has been dead four days." ⁴⁰Jesus said to her, "Did I not tell you that if you believed you would see the glory of God?" ⁴¹So they took away the stone. And Jesus lifted up his eyes and said, "Father, I thank you that you have heard me. ⁴²I knew that you always hear me, but I said this on account of the people standing around, that they may believe that you sent me." ⁴³When he had said these things, he cried out with a loud voice, "Lazarus, come out." ⁴⁴The man who had died came out, his hands and feet bound with linen strips, and his face wrapped with a cloth. Jesus said to them, "Unbind him, and let him go."

There are three distinct phases in the raising of Lazarus. I believe that they show, in a physical manner, that which happens spiritually in salvation. The three correspond to Calvinism's process of salvation: Regeneration - Faith - Salvation. We will look at: Lazarus in the grave, Lazarus leaving the grave, and Lazarus unbound.

Lazarus in the grave
It has always fascinated me to read that Jesus, after finding out that Lazarus was sick, did not immediately rush to him, but stayed where he was. He arrives in Bethany four days after the death and burial, enough time for the body to be in a state of decay, which Martha notes in verse 39. Jesus requests the stone be removed and commands Lazarus to "come forth." The Scripture does not give any detail about what happens inside the tomb in the interval between the command of Jesus to Lazarus and Lazarus' obedience to that command.

But Lazarus is dead, and therefore has no inherent ability to revive himself. In order for him to come to life, a force external to him, and which is able to overcome death, must work on his behalf. That force is clearly the life-giving command of God, in the person of Jesus. The command causes a halt to the physical decay, even reversing it, so that moments later when he is unbound, there is no evidence of the sickness that caused his death. Jesus does not do partial resurrections! Lazarus is restored to full health while still inside the tomb. But, it is not enough for him to stay in his tomb; the miracle is not yet complete.

The spiritual application is unmistakable. The unregenerate are spiritually dead, and have no ability to effect their spiritual resurrection. The Holy Spirit effects the resurrection, the restored birth, the regeneration. He does that by means of the word of God proclaimed. Those who are given new life by the Holy Spirit do not choose to stay in their spiritual graves. They freely and willingly leave their tombs. We see then that regeneration, the coming to life of the spiritually dead, must be a first cause. It is a cause that is external to the individual, accomplished without the aid of the individual.

White, in The Potter's Freedom, explains:

On the level of spiritual capacity the unregenerate man is just like Lazarus: dead, bound, incapable of "self-resurrection." It would be patently absurd to demand that Jesus first ask Lazarus for "permission" to raise him to spiritual life. Corpses are not known for engaging in a great deal of conversation. No, before Lazarus can respond to Christ's command to come forth, something must happen. Corpses do not obey commands, corpses do not move. Jesus changed Lazarus' condition first: Lazarus' heart was made new; his mind revitalized. Blood began once again to course through his veins. What was once dead is now alive, and can now hear the voice of his beloved Lord. "Come forth!" (284)

Lazarus leaving the grave
Now that Lazarus has been restored to life, he does the only logical thing - he obeys the command to leave the tomb! Dead men who are brought to life have no desire to remain in their tombs. It is significant to note that no one goes into the tomb to carry Lazarus out. He is not dragged against his will from his tomb. He comes out of the tomb under his own power, but would not have had that power had he not been made alive by the command of Jesus. He exercises faith! It is unthinkable to imagine that he could have struggled with the decision to stay in the tomb or come out. The command was irresistible on two counts: first, it was Jesus who issued the command, and death was powerless against his command; and second, an alive Lazarus would never choose the grave over being restored to his loved ones. But the miracle is not yet complete, for Lazarus is still wearing his grave clothes.

Here again, the spiritual application is obvious. Those who have been brought to life always respond by exercising faith. Also, they do it most willingly and freely. Regeneration is the cause, while faith is the effect.

Lazarus unbound
In addition to the command to Lazarus, Jesus also issues a command to those present, the community of the living. They are given instructions to "unbind" him. Once that is accomplished he can begin his life again. The miracle of resurrection is complete, but the process of living his resurrected life is just beginning.

The spiritual application is clear. My pastor constantly references the need for Christian community, and it is that community that assists the resurrected one. The miracle of salvation does not end with our exit from our spiritual grave; it is just beginning. We now live and grow within the community of the resurrected, where each contributes to the other.

Conclusion

Regeneration precedes faith and is the cause of faith. Those regenerated always and without fail exercise faith, and exercised faith is salvation. Let each of us who has been regenerated give praise to God for the mercy and grace he has shown in raising us to spiritual life.

All scripture quotations are English Standard Version
unless otherwise noted.

Disclaimer:
Links in this article are provided solely for information purposes,
and do not in any way imply full and complete endorsement.

Sign, Sign, Everywhere A Sign

2009-08-27T13:00:00.003-04:00

When we travel to my parents' home in southeastern Missouri, we pass this sign in a front yard:

Recently, I was traveling in central Florida and came across this billboard:

It reads, "Lonely? Confused? Angry? Depressed? Jesus is Still the Answer."

When I was driving to church recently, I spotted a vanity plate with the words, "Try Him."

I suppose the purpose for these signs is evangelistic. They offer Jesus as the solver of emotional, financial, health-related and other needs. But that is not how the Scriptures present Jesus. His suffering and death on the cross were not to keep us from being lonely, not to eliminate our confusion, not to keep us from getting angry, and surely not to keep us from being depressed. These signs proclaim a false Gospel, that of Moralistic Therapeutic Deism, a term coined by Christian Smith. He, along with Melinda Lundquist Denton, researched the spiritual lives of U.S. teenagers for a book they co-authored. They listed five creeds of the religion:

A god exists who created and orders the world and watches over human life on earth.
God wants people to be good, nice, and fair to each other, as taught in the Bible and by most world religions.
The central goal of life is to be happy and to feel good about one-self.
God does not need to be particularly involved in one's life except when he is needed to resolve a problem.
Good people go to heaven when they die.

Damon Linker, in an article for the New Republic, writes:

Theologically speaking, this watered-down, anemic, insipid form of Judeo-Christianity is pretty repulsive. But politically speaking, it's perfect: thoroughly anodyne, inoffensive, tolerant. And that makes it perfectly suited to serve as the civil religion of the highly differentiated twenty-first century United States.

Al Mohler, in an article for the Christian Post, states:

Smith and his colleagues recognize that the deity behind Moralistic Therapeutic Deism is very much like the deistic God of the 18th-century philosophers. This is not the God who thunders from the mountain, nor a God who will serve as judge. This undemanding deity is more interested in solving our problems and in making people happy.

This radical transformation of Christian theology and Christian belief replaces the sovereignty of God with the sovereignty of the self. In this therapeutic age, human problems are reduced to pathologies in need of a treatment plan. Sin is simply excluded from the picture, and doctrines as central as the wrath and justice of God are discarded as out of step with the times and unhelpful to the project of self-actualization.

In an article for his blog, Mohler notes:

…the God in whom many of these teenagers believe bears virtually no resemblance to the God of the Bible.

Gene Edward Veith, in an article for World Magazine, writes:

It is not just teenagers who are moralistic therapeutic deists. This describes the beliefs of many adults too, and even what is taught in many supposedly evangelical churches.

Lane Chaplin concludes a blog post with:

…we've effectively proven that the 5 points of Moralistic, Therapeutic, Deism, are not only not taught in Scripture, they are the antithesis of Scripture.

Clearly this new religion is a man-centered religion, as opposed to the God-centered religion of the Scriptures. The message of the Bible is that Jesus suffered the eternal wrath of God for those sinners upon whom God had chosen to lavish his grace.

Ephesians 1:3-10
³ Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, ⁴ even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love ⁵ he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, ⁶ to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. ⁷ In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, ⁸ which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight ⁹ making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ ¹⁰ as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.

Jesus' purpose in suffering the separation from God that he endured on the cross was not to solve people's emotional problems. The Scripture makes no promise that believers will be emotionally healthy people. A brief look at four individuals will not only show their emotional struggle, but will also show the blessings they received as a result of that struggle.

King David is a perfect example of a man with serious emotional issues. You don't have to read very far in the Psalms to see that he was a man who frequently found himself in deep emotional distress.

In Psalm 13 he writes:

¹ How long, O LORD? Will you forget me forever? How long will you hide your face from me? ² How long must I take counsel in my soul and have sorrow in my heart all the day? How long shall my enemy be exalted over me?

The first 21 verses of Psalm 22 are an anguished cry to God where David begs not to be forsaken by Him. In verse 14 we hear the cry of a depressed and lonely individual:

I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint; my heart is like wax; it is melted within my breast…

Job is a man who is spoken of as: "…blameless and upright, one who feared God and turned away from evil" (Job 1:1). Not only did Job lose all of his material wealth, but he also lost all of his children, when the house they were in collapsed upon them. I cannot begin to imagine his heartache over his loss!

John Bunyan, the author of Pilgrim's Progress, was imprisoned for 12 years for the crime of preaching. In the account of his life, recorded in Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinners, he writes of his emotional turmoil:

327. But notwithstanding these helps, I found myself a man and compassed with infirmities; the parting with my wife and poor children, hath often been to me in this place, as the pulling the flesh from the bones, and that not only because I am somewhat too fond of these great mercies, but also because I should have often brought to my mind the many hardships, miseries, and wants that my poor family was like to meet with, should I be taken from them, especially my poor blind child, who lay nearer my heart than all besides: Oh! the thoughts of the hardship I thought my poor blind one might go under, would break my heart to pieces.

328. Poor child! thought I, what sorrow art thou like to have for thy portion in this world! Thou must be beaten, must beg, suffer hunger, cold, nakedness, and a thousand calamities, though I cannot now endure the wind should blow upon thee. But yet recalling myself, thought I, I must venture you all with God, though it goeth to the quick to leave you: Oh! I saw in this condition I was as a man who was pulling down his house upon the head of his wife and children; yet, thought I, I must do it, I must do it: and now I thought on those two milch kine that were to carry the ark of God into another country, and to leave their calves behind them.
1 Samuel 6:10-12.

Michael Patton recently posted an article on his blog titled, "Uncle, Lord!" He begins by writing: "God is really starting to get on my nerves." The entire post is about loneliness, confusion, anger, and depression.

As we noted earlier, Jesus came to satisfy the wrath of God for sinners. Man comes to Jesus in repentance and faith, seeking a savior. Evangelistic outreach that concentrates on that as its message, offers hope for sinners. Though there is no guarantee in Scripture that one's emotional struggles will be eliminated, the process of maturing in faith should lessen the impact of those struggles for a believer. In the case of the men spoken of above, the testimony each one gives is how much closer they cling to the Lord as a result of their struggle.

In the final 10 verses of Psalm 22, David rejoices that God does not despise the suffering of those who love Him. In Job 42:1-6, we observe that when Job saw God for who He was, Job saw himself for whom he was, and came to repentance. Bunyan, in the closing section of his account, speaks of the comfort that came as a direct result of his struggle:

339. Now was my heart full of comfort; for I hoped it was sincere: I would not have been without this trial for much; I am comforted every time I think of it, and I hope I shall bless God for ever, for the teaching I have had by it. Many more of the dealings towards me I might relate, But these out of the spoils won in battle I have dedicated to maintain the house of God. 1 Chronicles 26:27.

Patton ends his article with thankfulness for his struggle:

But, know this: I am broken before the Lord. Cracked, bruised, and sometimes crying inside, I have the joy of insufficiency. I have the confidence of inadequacy. I have the hope of lacking in everything.

I suppose there is no better place to be. Broken before the Lord. Like a child in the womb of a mother, I am in his womb. No viability on my own. I have no reason to rise up before him and salute myself. He sees to that.

How much worse would it be if I had the ease that I waste my time and energy longing for? How much worse it would be were I to wave my white flag and life cease to fire. Would I stay at his side? Probably not.

How many believers have been encouraged in their personal struggle by reading the Psalms, by reading Job, by reading Pilgrim's Progress, and now by reading Patton's article? Jesus doesn't take our problems away if we "try" him. No, He provides grace and mercy for us to go through the problems, and thus be an encouragement to those who will follow us. These are the results of coming to Christ in repentance and faith, and this is a message worth sharing.

All scripture quotations are English Standard Version
unless otherwise noted.

Disclaimer:
Links in this article are provided solely for information purposes,
and do not in any way imply full and complete endorsement.

Free Piano Music by Dave Mincy

2009-08-19T07:40:00.000-04:00

<a href="http://davemincy.bandcamp.com/album/a-place-of-quiet-rest">Near to the Heart of God by Dave Mincy</a>

An Examination of Tulip: The Five Points of Calvinism

2009-05-14T22:30:00.002-04:00

While unpacking some boxes of books recently I came across a small, 23-page booklet titled, An Examination of Tulip: The "Five Points" of Calvinism!, authored by Robert L. Sumner. The booklet was published by Biblical Evangelism Press, Brownsburg, Indiana, with a copyright date on the inside cover of 1972. The booklet is available through Sumner's website.

I do not recall where I acquired the booklet, nor do I recall having read it previously. As I read through it, I found much to disagree with; my purpose in this article is to critique the arguments Sumner puts forward in his examination of Calvinism.

The booklet is divided into four sections with a short introduction and conclusion. The sections are titled:

1. What are the "Five Points" of Calvinism? (pages 4-11)
2. How Does This Position Effect Evangelism? (pages 11-12)
3. What Is Wrong With the "Five-Point" Position? (pages 12-19)
4. The "Five Points" Effect on Other Doctrines (pages 19-22)

He begins the second paragraph of his introduction by writing:

Those who hold to five-point Calvinism teach that God, in a sense, really doesn't want all men to be saved or to come unto the knowledge of his truth. (3)

and ends the paragraph with the following:

…what they teach amounts to His actually wanting the majority of souls to perish in Hell eternally. (3)

Sumner's objection here is a fairly common objection to Calvinism. What is fascinating to me is that I have never heard or read any Calvinist who would agree with Sumner's representation of Calvinism. Charles Spurgeon, in his Defense of Calvinism, answers the first statement:

Some persons love the doctrine of universal atonement because they say, "It is so beautiful. It is a lovely idea that Christ should have died for all men; it commends itself," they say, "to the instincts of humanity; there is something in it full of joy and beauty."

...If the doctrine be true, that He died for all men, then He died for some who were in hell before He came into this world…

...Once again, if it was Christ's intention to save all men, how deplorably has He been disappointed…

...That seems to me a conception a thousand times more repulsive than any of those consequences which are said to be associated with the Calvinistic and Christian doctrine of special and particular redemption. To think that my Saviour died for men who were or are in hell, seems a supposition too horrible for me to entertain. To imagine for a moment that He was the Substitute for all the sons of men, and that God, having first punished the Substitute, afterwards punished the sinners themselves, seems to conflict with all my ideas of Divine justice. That Christ should offer an atonement and satisfaction for the sins of all men, and that afterwards some of those very men should be punished for the sins for which Christ had already atoned, appears to me to be the most monstrous iniquity that could ever have been imputed to Saturn, to Janus, to the goddess of the Thugs, or to the most diabolical heathen deities. God forbid that we should ever think thus of Jehovah, the just and wise and good!

In the same article, Spurgeon spoke to the issue of the number of the elect:

Think of the numbers upon whom God has bestowed His grace already. Think of the countless hosts in Heaven: if thou wert introduced there to-day, thou wouldst find it as easy to tell the stars, or the sands of the sea, as to count the multitudes that are before the throne even now. They have come from the East, and from the West, from the North, and from the South, and they are sitting down with Abraham, and with Isaac, and with Jacob in the Kingdom of God; and beside those in Heaven, think of the saved ones on earth. Blessed be God, His elect on earth are to be counted by millions, I believe, and the days are coming, brighter days than these, when there shall be multitudes upon multitudes brought to know the Saviour, and to rejoice in Him. The Father's love is not for a few only, but for an exceeding great company. "A great multitude, which no man could number," will be found in Heaven. A man can reckon up to very high figures; set to work your Newtons, your mightiest calculators, and they can count great numbers, but God and God alone can tell the multitude of His redeemed. I believe there will be more in Heaven than in hell. If anyone asks me why I think so, I answer, because Christ, in everything, is to "have the pre-eminence," and I cannot conceive how He could have the pre-eminence if there are to be more in the dominions of Satan than in Paradise. Moreover, I have never read that there is to be in hell a great multitude, which no man could number.

Loraine Boettner, in his book The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination (also available here), discusses the same objection:

When the doctrine of Election is mentioned many people immediately assume that this means that the great majority of mankind will be lost. But why should any one draw that conclusion? God is free in election to choose as many as He pleases, and we believe that He who is infinitely merciful and benevolent and holy will elect the great majority to life. There is no good reason why He should be limited to only a few. We are told that Christ is to have the preeminence in all things, and we do not believe that the Devil will be permitted to emerge victor even in numbers. (130)

And further:

There is, however, a very common practice among Arminian writers to represent Calvinists as tending to consign to everlasting misery a large portion of the human race whom they would admit to the enjoyment of heaven. It is a mere caricature of Calvinism to represent it as based on the principle that the saved will be a mere handful, or only a few brands plucked from the burning. (131)

...In answer to those who are inclined to say, "According to this doctrine God alone can save the soul; there will be few saved," we can reply that they might as well reason, "Since God alone can create stars, there can be but few stars." The objection is not well taken. The doctrine of Election taken in itself tells us nothing about what the ultimate ratio shall be. The only limit set is that not all will be saved. (131)

In the opening paragraph of Section 1 Sumner, in an attempt to be "objective, not objectionable, (4)" states:

Opponents usually describe it as hyper-Calvinism, a term which greatly agitates the advocates of five-pointism because "hyper" means "to go beyond the ordinary or norm." While we feel "hyper-Calvinism" is an honest and fair appraisal, since it goes beyond the position of Calvin himself, we will refrain from using the term here. (4)

The Canons of Dordt define Calvinism, not John Calvin's specific writings. Furthermore even though the term "hyper" may be defined in the manner Sumner does, when that term is prefixed to Calvinism it actually has a distinct meaning and Calvinists are as much opposed to hyper-Calvinism as they are opposed to Arminianism.

In a Reformed Perspectives Magazine article titled, What is Hyper-Calvinism?, Jim Ellis writes:

Hyper-Calvinism is a term of derision that today is often used to negatively label anyone with a strong theological view of God's sovereignty in the affairs of men. A legitimate understanding of hyper-Calvinism, in its technical sense, appears to be lost today. It seems as if anyone to the right of one's own theological position is fair game to be labeled a hyper-Calvinist.

...They [the hyper-Calvinists], like the Arminians, mistakenly assume that if it is the duty (responsibility) of fallen man to believe and God indeed calls him to believe, then he must have the natural ability to do so. The Arminian conclusion is that man has a free will and Christ has made an atonement for all alike. The hyper-Calvinist, based on the same assumption, concludes that it is not the duty of fallen man and that God in the gospel does not indiscriminately offer Christ to all men alike; that is in reference to the "outward call" of the Gospel. Thus, in trying to protect the Calvinist doctrines of total depravity and particular redemption (a noble endeavor), the hyper-Calvinist has thrown out the baby with the bath water; namely, the universal call to faith to all who hear the gospel, reprobate and elect alike.

Ellis ends his article by stating that:

...I hope it is clear that hyper-Calvinism is not to be considered a legitimate form of Calvinism, for it is not. By the same token, however, it should also be clear that honest theological discussion should refrain from labeling legitimate variations within orthodox Calvinism as "Hyper-Calvinism."

Phil Johnson, in his Primer on Hyper-Calvinism, defines it as:

…a doctrine that emphasizes divine sovereignty to the exclusion of human responsibility. To call it "hyper-Calvinism" is something of a misnomer. It is actually a rejection of historic Calvinism. Hyper-Calvinism entails a denial of what is taught in both Scripture and the major Calvinistic creeds, substituting instead an imbalanced and unbiblical notion of divine sovereignty.

Due to the fact that Sumner does not distinguish between Historic Calvinism and hyper-Calvinism, some of his arguments against Calvinism are actually arguments against hyper-Calvinism.

What are the "Five Points" of Calvinism?

Total Depravity

To the fact of man's total and complete depravity, as stated in Sacred Scripture, we heartily concur. Man is completely corrupt from the crown of his head to the soles of his feet. (4)

…we readily acknowledge also that man's depravity is such that he cannot and does not initiate any move towards God and redemption on his own. (4)

His statements so far are in complete accord with Calvinism. It is in the next paragraph that Sumner sides with the Arminians, though I am fairly confident he would reject the label.

The Word of God teaches that while man is totally depraved and totally unable to help himself, our Lord draws every man sufficiently and enlightens every man as much as necessary for that individual to make a decision of his own free will. (4)

…It is certainly true that no sinner can come to Christ unless drawn by the Spirit of God; but the blessed Holy Spirit draws every man (John 12:32), giving man enough light so that he is, as Romans 1:20 says, "without excuse." (5)

Jeff Paton, in his article on Prevenient Grace, shows that:

The Spirit is given to all men as the fruit of atonement, and grace works in all, works toward salvation. This holds good of all without exception, has held good since the beginning. It holds good of the unconverted before conversion, of those who never are converted, of the heathen who have never heard of Christ. Anticipating human desire and effort (hence called prevenient grace), it checks and counteracts sin, inspires and fosters good inclination, and allures to the search for more grace. This universal divine working is the source of moral good and beauty in the irreligious. When welcomed and followed up, it passes into saving grace.

J.C. Thibodaux, in an article titled Prevenient Grace and Libertarian Free Will, wrote:

This grace which can overcome the innate sinful desires of men and allow them to receive the gospel message and believe in Christ as Savior is sometimes called 'preventing grace' or 'prevenient grace;' literally, grace that precedes our faith and conversion. This is a prime tenet of Arminianism and has been so since its early days as a theological system.

In John 6:35-44 we read of the Father giving and drawing the elect to His Son:

³⁵ Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. ³⁶ But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. ³⁷ All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. ³⁸ For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. ³⁹ And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. ⁴⁰ For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day."

⁴¹ So the Jews grumbled about him, because he said, "I am the bread that came down from heaven." ⁴² They said, "Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, 'I have come down from heaven'?" ⁴³ Jesus answered them, "Do not grumble among yourselves. ⁴⁴ 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 passage shows that not every individual is drawn by the Spirit, because if they were, every individual would be saved. Verses 39, 40, and 44 all speak of raising up on the last day. Those who are given by the Father in verse 37 are those who look on the Son and believe in verse 40, and are those drawn by the Father in verse 44. No one can be drawn by the Father and yet not come to the Son, and all those drawn will come to the Son and will never be cast out.

Unconditional Election

The "U" in Tulip stands for "unconditional election." By this is meant that the decision which determines the individual's destiny is wholly and entirely God's decision, not in the slightest degree that of the sinner. (5)

…This kind of theology simply makes a taunting of the Savior's charge to the people of His day; "Ye will not come to me, that ye might have life" (John 5:40). According to the philosophy of five-point Calvinism, it is not that these sinners would not, but rather that they could not. (6)

When one's theology begins with the idea that man is capable of responding to the call to repent, it logically must conclude that God in some way prohibits certain individuals from responding. The idea Sumner presents is that there are individuals who have a real desire to be saved and they cannot be saved solely because God has not elected them.

Since Calvinism affirms that unregenerate man will not respond to God's call to repent, God must do everything with regard to salvation. God's work begins with regeneration, wherein he removes the "heart of stone" and replaces it with a "heart of flesh" (Ezekiel 36:26). This work of God is accomplished by means of the preached Gospel.

Lazarus is a great example in the physical realm of what God does in the spiritual realm. Lazarus, being dead, had no awareness of his deadness, and his physical body was decaying in the grave. The command of Jesus to "come out" (John 11:43) included with it the regeneration of his physically dead body. Upon coming to life he leaves the darkness of the cave and joins the living.

Spiritually dead men have no capacity to regenerate themselves. As the Holy Spirit, through the preaching of the Gospel, opens their hearts, unstops their deaf ears, and gives sight to their blind eyes, they repent and trust Christ. God is in no way obligated to save any and that, in His mercy and grace He saves many, does not make him unjust in not saving all.

…How deadening five-point Calvinism is to evangelism (6)

Here is where Sumner confuses Calvinism with hyper-Calvinism. Calvinists on the whole reject the kind of evangelism that affirms something along the lines of God-loves-you-and-has-a-wonderful-plan-for-your-life. Sadly, much of what passes for evangelism in our day results in many professors of salvation, but few who actually live a "new creation" life (2 Corinthians 5:17).

Limited Atonement

The "L" stands for "Limited Atonement." By this the five-point Calvinist means that Jesus Christ only died at Calvary for the elect - none of the billions of non-elect was included in the provision through the shedding of His blood. (7)

…They argue that if Christ died for all, then, unless His work was a failure, all must be forgiven and taken to Heaven. (7)

…In the dictionary of the "tulip" man, "world" does not mean world; "all" does not mean all; "whosoever" does not mean whosoever; and a brand new language must be understood which, in turn, makes the Bible a hopeless mass of confusion for the average reader - even though he be a child of God. (8)

This is an all-too-common charge against Calvinism, which is answered simply by showing that the immediate context will always determine who is included in the words world, all, and whosoever. James White, in his book The Potter's Freedom, commenting on John 12:32 - "And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself (NASB)." - states that:

Reformed exegetes believe that "all men" refers to Jews and Gentiles, not to every individual person, and the context points this direction. (164)

The Second Head of Doctrine of the Canons of Dordt deals specifically with the death of Christ and redemption of man.

Article 3
The death of the Son of God is the only and most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sin, and is of infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world.

Article 6
And whereas many who are called by the gospel do not repent nor believe in Christ, but perish in unbelief, this is not owing to any defect or insufficiency in the sacrifice offered by Christ upon the cross, but is wholly to be imputed to themselves.

Article 8
For this was the sovereign counsel, and most gracious will and purpose of God the Father, that the quickening and saving efficacy of the most precious death of His Son should extend to all the elect, for bestowing upon them alone the gift of justifying faith, thereby to bring them infallibly to salvation: that is, it was the will of God, that Christ by the blood of the cross, whereby He confirmed the new covenant, should effectually redeem out of every people, tribe, nation, and language, all those, and those only, who were from eternity chosen to salvation and given to Him by the Father; that He should confer upon them faith, which together with all the other saving gifts of the Holy Spirit, He purchased for them by His death; should purge them from all sin, both original and actual, whether committed before or after believing; and having faithfully preserved them even to the end, should at last bring them free from every spot and blemish to the enjoyment of glory in His own presence forever.

Roger Nicole, in his article The Case for Definite Atonement, shows that:

The doctrine is not concerned with the intrinsic value of the sacrifice of Christ. It is freely granted by all parties to the controversy, and specifically by the Reformed, that the death of our Lord, by virtue of His divine nature, is of infinite worth and therefore amply sufficient to redeem all mankind, all angels and the whole world, even a thousand worlds besides, if He had so intended. Rather the point at issue here concerns the chief purpose of the Father in sending the Son and the chief intention of Christ in laying down His life in sacrifice.

…The point at issue here is simply this, whether the Father is sending the Son and the Son in offering Himself did intend to, provide salvation for all men and every man, or whether they intended to secure the salvation of all those and those only who will in fact be redeemed.

In the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, Chapter 8, Section 5, we read:

The Lord Jesus, by His perfect obedience and sacrifice of Himself which He, through the eternal Spirit, once offered up to God, has fully satisfied the justice of God, has procured reconciliation, and has purchased an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of Heaven for all those whom the Father has given to Him.

On Monday, May 4, 2009, Lee Shelton posted an article on his blog titled Let's Rap About Limited Atonement. It contains a YouTube video by Shai Linne. The lyrics are available through Shai's blog, Lyrical Theology.

Irresistible Grace

Proponents mean by this expression that God's grace, when presented by the Holy Spirit, is of such a nature that it is impossible for the sinner to resist or refuse. (9)

…the five-point Calvinist has invented two calls. One is described as a "general" call, which every sinner is able to hear, and the other is supposed to be an "effectual" call, which only the elect can hear. (9)

Once again, we look to the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, Chapter 10, Section 1, where we read that:

Those whom God has predestinated to life, He is pleased in His appointed and accepted time to effectually call by His Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death which they are in by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ. He enlightens their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God. He takes away their heart of stone and gives to them a heart of flesh. He renews their wills, and by His almighty power, causes them to desire and pursue that which is good. He effectually draws them to Jesus Christ, yet in such a way that they come absolutely freely, being made willing by His grace.

With regards to Lazarus, it must be noted that Lazarus was incapable of resisting the command of Christ to "come out." After all, it was God in the person of Jesus Christ who issued the command. But if he could have resisted the command, would he have? The answer must be an empathic no! The command included regeneration, and he would not have freely chosen to remain in the tomb with the dead. The command was that which he could freely and eagerly obey.

Some who reject Calvinism mistakenly speak of individuals who desire to come to repentance but cannot, because God has not elected them. Then there are others whom God has elected, but have no desire for repentance and God must forcibly bring them to salvation. That is a preposterous notion! All men who come in repentance to Christ come absolutely freely and willingly, because the Holy Spirit has regenerated their hearts. Praise be to God for His mercy and grace in granting repentance and faith to multitudes from every tribe, tongue, and nation!

Perseverance of the Saints

By this the five-point Calvinist means that the saints are eternally secure in Christ and that once in grace, they are always in grace. This is truly in accord with scriptural teaching, although the terminology here is most unfortunate. As ones who magnify God's grace, surely five-point Calvinist should know that it is not the saints who persevere, but the blessed Holy Spirit. It is His "holding out," not that of the saints! (10)

Gise J. Van Baren, in Chapter 5 of The Five Points of Calvinism, discusses the Perseverance of the Saints.

When one speaks of the perseverance of the saints, there is one element that renders this perseverance of the saints absolutely sure, an element which may never be forgotten. One always perseveres because he is preserved by the living God - and there is no other possible reason for perseverance.

…This truth of the perseverance and preservation of the saints is exactly the truth which is an incentive to the child of God to walk in all godliness and holiness before God. That is a fact. No child of God would ever say that he can sin as he pleases - for he will be preserved anyway. One who says that he may sin as he will is no Christian and gives no evidence of Christ's work in his heart. The Spirit just does not work that way.

The article on Perseverance on the website A Puritan's Mind explains that:

Perseverance of the saints teaches that once God has renewed the heart of a sinner through the application of the redemption wrought by Christ upon the cross, he will continue to be saved and show forth the fruits of that salvation. The sinner perseveres because of Christ, but he continually shows himself as one who has been changed by Christ.

How Does This Position Effect Evangelism?

Here is where Sumner confuses Calvinism with Hyper-Calvinism.

Why waste time, spend money and expend labor for something you cannot change? (11)

…Five-point Calvinism curtails missions, wrecks revivalism and destroys personal soul winning! And if those who hold the "tulip" position are right, why should we get excited about evangelism. (11)

…The whole idea of individual responsibility in soul winning is annihilated in the "tulip" view. (11)

In an article titled Calvinism and Evangelism, Bill Welzien writes:

Many people think that "Calvinist evangelist" is an oxymoron. What do you think? Can someone be seriously Calvinistic and at the same time seriously evangelistic?

…The Calvinist believes that every last one of those who were chosen in Christ before time will by the end of time be brought to saving faith and a vital relationship with God through the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ!

At this point, the non-Calvinist infers that the impetus and urgency to proclaim the gospel is gone, or diminished at best. After all, if God knows who is going to be saved, and if he will save his elect no matter what, why waste our time evangelizing?

But it is important to recognize that the God of the Bible ordains not only the end (salvation) but also the means to the end (the proclamation of the gospel).

…Does Calvinism take the wind out of the sails of evangelism? Properly understood and sincerely believed, it does exactly the opposite. Believing that God has a sovereign plan to bring all his elect to himself actually encourages evangelism.

What Is Wrong With the "Five-Point" Position?

In this section Sumner looks at five New Testament passages that are "used by the five-point Calvinist," and shows "how they have been taken out of context." Those passages are: Romans 9:10-13; John 15:15-16; 2 Timothy 2:9-10; 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14; and Romans 8:28-31.

With regard to the Romans 9 passage, Sumner states:

…the whole issue is a national issue, which pertains to governments, not a personal matter dealing with the salvation of individuals.

I wish Sumner had not stopped with verse 13!

Romans 9:14-18

¹⁴ What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! ¹⁵ For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." ¹⁶ So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. ¹⁷ For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." ¹⁸ So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, in his commentary on Romans, has this to say about the passage:

…why is it interesting to note the way in which the Apostle presents this difficulty, this objection, that arises in the minds of certain people? It is because the very form in which he puts the objection helps us to decide whether our exposition up to date has been the wrong one, because it is quite clear that the objection with which the Apostle is going to deal is one which arises as a direct result of what he has been saying; and as I have indicated, if our exposition of what has gone before does not lead to this objection, then of necessity it has been wrong. (139)

…There are those who say that the Apostle, in this whole section from verse 6 onwards, is really dealing with the problem not of individual salvation but of nations - that his only interest is in the position of the Jews as a nation. (140)

…No, what the Apostle is saying from verse 6 to verse 13 is that God, of His own eternal and sovereign will in the carrying out of His own great and eternal purpose, chooses some to salvation and rejects others. That is the conclusion at which we have arrived. That is the only conclusion that leads to this particular difficulty, this charge that people feel in their hearts against God. (144)

James Montgomery Boice, in his commentary on the passage, shows that:

All human beings deserve hell, not heaven. We are not talking about whether all actually end up in hell or whether only some end up in hell and some in heaven. We are talking about what all deserve, and what they deserve is condemnation.

…Deserving is based upon what people have done. Mercy has nothing to do with what people have done but is something that finds its source in the will of God only. (1070)

The "Five Points" Effect on Other Doctrines

In truth and in fact, "tulip" views of election have a deadly detrimental effect on a number of other important Bible truths. (19)

In this section Sumner lists two: prayer and "the biblical teaching regarding training children. (19)" Regarding prayer Sumner declares:

If five-point Calvinism teaching be true, why pray for the lost? Since the matter would have already been arbitrarily settled in eternity past, prayer could not have any possible effect whatsoever on an individual's conversion. (19)

John Piper, in an article titled The Sovereignty of God and Prayer, shows that:

The implicit argument here is that if prayer is to be possible at all man must have the power of self-determination. That is, all man's decisions must ultimately belong to himself, not God. For otherwise he is determined by God and all his decisions are really fixed in God's eternal counsel.

…What I am saying is that it is not the doctrine of God's sovereignty which thwarts prayer for the conversion of sinners. On the contrary, it is the unbiblical notion of self-determination which would consistently put an end to all prayers for the lost. Prayer is a request that God do something. But the only thing God can do to save a lost sinner is to overcome his resistance to God.

…Only the person who rejects human self-determination can consistently pray for God to save the lost.

As to the training of children Sumner, quoting Proverbs 22:6 - Train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it. - states that:

…when parents train their children in obedience to Christ and His Word, God has an obligation to save them, help them live victoriously, and take them to heaven when they die. (20)

I would disagree with Sumner about God's obligation. If the children he is referring to do not come in personal repentance, trusting Christ for their salvation, God is in no way obligated to make an exception for them because of the training of their parents.

The remainder of the booklet has a few personal illustrations that I found distasteful. They seemed to be told in a manner that gave prominence to the writer, at the expense of the other party in the illustration.

Sumner closes the booklet by encouraging believers to "…get busy reaching sinners, (23)" which is commendable. We should all heed that encouragement, whether we affirm or reject Calvinism.

All scripture quotations are from the
English Standard Version, unless otherwise noted.

Disclaimer:
Links in this article are provided solely for information purposes,
and do not in any way imply full and complete endorsement.