Home » Posts tagged 'John Calvin'
Tag Archives: John Calvin
A New Alternative List to the Points of Calvinism
When I listen to a presentation of the points of Calvinism, very often my mind goes to alternative scriptural points to replace them. I think of what the Bible says about the point and I can’t agree with it. Usually I go into a hearing of Calvinist teaching with a desire to agree and believe. Actual scripture gets in the way of my agreeing and believing with the points of Calvinism.
Scripture Challenges Calvinism
Not Biblical
Sure, the points of Calvinism persuade Calvinists. They claim it’s scripture that does it. I don’t see it in scripture, even with my trying to become as persuaded. Calvinism doesn’t do it for me.
What I want to do with this piece is to say aloud what I’m thinking when I hear Calvinism presented. I can’t write everything on it. Hopefully what I’ll do is write down the kind of content I’m thinking when someone espouses Calvinism. My opinion is that Calvinists have their Calvinistic position to defend, much like someone from some religion tries to protect his religion when confronted with scripture. I await presentations that just expose scripture, not read into it.
When I say, the points of Calvinism, I mean what people call, the five points of Calvinism, also known by the acronym, TULIP. All five points of Calvinism interconnect, depend on each other and feed off of each other. I understand when someone says he is one, two, three, or four point, if not five point. To take less than five, someone disconnects one or more from the group. Because of this interconnection, I reject all five points.
Calvinism Unnecessary
I get how someone could question my rejecting every point, since two of them especially make some sense scripturally if taken out of the context of all five points as a group. I mean “total depravity” and “perseverance of the saints.” I could explain those two as the truth, but I don’t believe that Calvinists would agree with that explanation. I’d rather just reject all five points and start over from scratch.
God won’t judge me for not agreeing with a point of Calvin. It’s more important that any one of us believe what God said in His Word about the doctrine of salvation.
Calvinists sometimes attack those who disagree with their position, representing them as not believing certain biblical doctrines. They can easily turn their foes into people who don’t believe in God’s sovereignty or who do believe in some form of salvation by works. I deny these charges. Calvinists often allow these points to define them. The points become consuming and weave into many other of their other doctrines. They often treat those who reject Calvinism as irretrievably messed up in their beliefs.
What should someone make of the points of Calvinism?
TOTAL DEPRAVITY
The Calvinists at Ligonier Ministries say this:
When it comes to total depravity, the inability of which we speak is first and foremost moral inability. In our fallenness, though we have a will and can discern the good, we lack the ability to choose rightly, to exercise our wills in the proper direction of absolute dependence on God and submission to His will.
Total Inability
Total depravity sounds scriptural. The two terms seem right, so what’s wrong? By total depravity though, Calvinists mean, as you can read above, “total inability.”
“Total inability” doesn’t bother me either. It comes down to what Calvinists say about total depravity and then total inability.
Personally I won’t use the words “total inability” because I know Calvinists use them. They are not words from scripture. However, I read lines in the Bible that say the equivalent of total inability. I even like the two words as a description of a lost man’s condition. When Calvinists use those words, they are taking them much further than scripture.
The argument for Calvinists says that men are unable to respond to God for salvation. Men are dead and since they’re dead, they don’t have the capacity at all to receive Jesus Christ. Everything so far I agree with, so what’s the problem? Where Calvinists get into trouble here is their solution to man’s deadness and his inability to respond.
Regeneration Precedes Faith
Many Calvinists teach that God must intervene in the way of regenerating a man so that he then can respond. People have called this, “regeneration precedes faith.” This is not how scripture reads about the doctrine of regeneration. The Bible is clear and plain in many places that the opposite is true. Faith precedes regeneration.
It’s true that men cannot respond. They are dead and they cannot seek after God. Naturally they do not. Something Calvinists get right here is that God must do something to allow or cause someone to believe in Him. Men don’t just on their own stir up their desire to believe in Jesus Christ. God does make the first movement toward man and that’s what scripture teaches. Without God’s working, no one could believe in Jesus Christ.
The other points of Calvinism also describe what Calvinists think of total depravity. A man is so unable to respond to God that God must intervene in the way of what Calvinists call “irresistible grace.” God apparently works in an irresistible way for a man to receive Jesus Christ. These two ideas go together in Calvinism, total depravity and irresistible grace. If God’s grace is irresistible, then also God must unconditionally choose whom He will save and whom He won’t.
God Uses Revelation
The way scripture reads is that even though man is unable to respond to salvation and can’t believe on His own, God does work in his life .God does initiate salvation. Man cannot believe in Jesus Christ without God’s initiation and without His enabling. What God uses is His revelation. He uses man’s conscience, His own providence in history, and the Word of God that is written in man’s heart.
If a person will respond to the general revelation of God, we see in scripture that God ensures he will also get His special revelation, which is God’s Word. Every man is without excuse regarding salvation, because God and His grace appear to all men. Through God’s working through His Word in men’s hearts, they can then respond and receive Jesus Christ. Most do not believe, but the ability from God is available to every man through God’s revelation in order to believe.
An illustration of the power of God that enables a dead man to receive Jesus Christ is Jesus’ raising of Lazarus from the dead. The Word of God is powerful, so the words, Come forth, allowed Lazarus to rise. It allowed for Lazarus to come. This also fits with what Paul wrote in Romans 10:17 that faith comes by hearing the Word of God. Not everyone who hears the Word of God will believe. Yet, a man can believe because of the Word of God.
Salvation Is Of the LORD
You can embrace man’s inability and deadness. It’s true. This does not require a solution of irresistible grace and unconditional election. Jonah was right when he said, “Salvation is of the LORD” (Jonah 2:9). Salvation centers on God. This Calvinistic view of inability does not square with scripture. It is unnecessary for giving God the credit for salvation. I would contend that what scripture actually says is what gives God glory, not an exaggeration or manipulation of what God said.
Evangelists need to preach the Word of God as their spiritual weapon to pull down strongholds (2 Cor 10:3-5). They partly do that because of the inability and deadness of their audience. True preachers proclaim what God said. That’s all that will work for the salvation of men’s souls. It’s like what Paul wrote to Timothy in 2 Timothy 3:15:
And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
The Holy Scriptures are able to make thee wise unto salvation, not some mystical regeneration that precedes faith.
Spiritual Emptiness and Bankruptcy
The deadness that Ephesians 2:1 and 5 address might parallel to physical deadness. Someone dead can’t hear. I’ve noticed that when I’ve attended funerals. Men should not turn spiritual death into something so dead that not even the Word of God is powerful enough to allow the dead man to respond unto salvation. Scripture is the way, not an invented mystical and extra-scriptural experience.
God is sovereign. He does it His way. His way is not a novel innovation, which is what this regeneration-precedes-faith is.
Let’s just call it “spiritual deadness,” “spiritual blindness,” or even “spiritually empty or bankrupt” in fitting with Matthew 5:3. I’m fine with “total depravity,” but knowing what Calvinists mean by that, I won’t use those words. This is part of starting from scratch. Everyone sins and falls short of the glory of God. God’s revelation also reaches to those lost souls enabling everyone also to believe, not just those predetermined to do so.
More to Come
THE MOOD IS NOT THE PROBLEM IN MOSCOW, IDAHO (part two)
Over a decade ago I read a book by Douglas Wilson, that described a philosophy for his writing, represented in the title: A Serrated Edge. His and the Moscow, Idaho mood is portrayed by a serrated edge and the use of satire. Let me again announce that I accept Wilsonian written serration. It’s more interesting at least and sometimes more effective writing. Someone else once said, “The pen is mightier than the sword.” Maybe for Wilson, “His pen is equally mighty to a serrated knife.” Many of the targets of Wilson’s writings deserve their serration from his satirical analysis.
Strict Adherence to the Westminster Confession of Faith on Baptism
Douglas Wilson and his posse in Moscow, Idaho get attention with the style or mood of their writing and other operations. A focus on mood neglects serious problems, most notably their confusion on the gospel. Wilson and Moscow are strong adherents to the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF), which says this (Article 28):
Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ . . . . to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life.
Furthermore, the WCF says (Article 28) that “by the right use of this ordinance the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants).” That is all salvific language applied to baptism. Wilson takes this very seriously in his view and preaching of salvation.
John Calvin, the Protestant and Reformed Forefather
Calvin’s Institutes
From what I read of Wilson, he does not believe that baptism guarantees future salvation for the one baptized. Neither does any Roman Catholic. Roman Catholics would say faith is necessary for salvation. They would reject “faith alone.” To clarify his position, Wilson wrote: “Baptism is an effectual means of salvation to worthy receivers.” John Calvin, whose theology Wilson follows, wrote (Institutes, 4:17:1, 4:15:3, 4):
God, regenerating us in baptism, ingrafts us into the fellowship of his Church, and makes us his by adoption . . . whatever time we are baptized, we are washed and purified . . . forgiveness, which at our first regeneration we receive by baptism alone . . . forgiveness has reference to baptism.
Calvin’s “Antidote” to the Council of Trent
Calvin also published (1547 Antidote to the Council of Trent, Reply to the 1st Decree of the 5th Session):
We assert that the whole guilt of sin is taken away in baptism, so that the remains of sin still existing are not imputed. That this may be more clear, let my readers call to mind that there is a twofold grace in baptism, for therein both remission of sins and regeneration are offered to us. We teach that full remission is made . . . by baptism . . . the guilt is effaced [and] it is null in regard to imputation. Nothing is plainer than this doctrine.
In the same publication Calvin continued:
We, too [as do the Catholics], acknowledge that the use of baptism is necessary—that no one may omit it from either neglect or contempt. In this way we by no means make it free (optional). And not only do we strictly bind the faithful to the observance of it, but we also maintain that it is the ordinary instrument of God in washing and renewing us; in short, in communicating to us salvation. The only exception we make is, that the hand of God must not be tied down to the instrument. He may of himself accomplish salvation. For when an opportunity for baptism is wanting, the promise of God alone is amply sufficient.
Wilson doesn’t distinguish himself from the teaching of his spiritual father, Calvin.
Thomas Ross’s Statement
Thomas Ross wrote in his book, Heaven Only for the Baptized?:
Those who think that infant baptism was the instrument of their receiving forgiveness, those who think that they received the sacrament as confirmation and evidence that they were already regenerated in the womb, and those who think they had water applied to them in infancy as evidence that they were certain to be regenerated in the future unless they consciously rejected the “sacrament” and its efficacy are underneath a terrible spiritual delusion. They will certainly be damned unless they recognize that their unbiblical religious ceremony did nothing beneficial for them, admit they are still lost, and then repent and believe the gospel.
With the Protestant or Reformed Catholics, this very serious problem relates to what Paul writes about adding circumcision to grace in Galatians 5:1-6. The Protestant or Reformed Catholics see infant sprinkling as New Testament circumcision. This does not proceed from the Bible, but from allegorization of scripture and tradition.
Galatians
The Galatians added circumcision to grace, which was enough for Paul to say in Galatians 5:2-4:
Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.
No one should come close to what the Galatians did. Paul uses very strong language, saying, “Christ shall profit you nothing” and more. This is how they perverted the gospel to the degree that Paul wrote in 1:6-9 that it was “another gospel.” Those who preached it, he said, “let them be accursed.”
Infant Sprinkling and John Gill
Wilson wrote a defense on infant sprinkling, To a Thousand Generations: Infant Baptism – Covenant Mercy For the People of God. He wrote: “we must be content with nothing less than a clear biblical case requiring infant baptism” (p. 9). And yet, not one verse in scripture mentions infant baptism or sprinkling. Consider what 17th century English Baptist preacher or pastor John Gill wrote about infant sprinkling:
The Paedobaptists are ever restless and uneasy, endeavoring to maintain and support, if possible, their unscriptural practice of infant-baptism; though it is no other than a pillar of popery; that by which Antichrist has spread his baneful influence over many nations; is the basis of national churches and worldly establishments; that which unites the church and world, and keeps them together; nor can there be a full separation of the one from the other, nor a thorough reformation in religion; until it is wholly removed: and though it has so long and largely obtained, and still does obtain;
I believe with a firm and unshaken faith, that the time is hastening on, when infant-baptism will be no more practiced in the world; when churches will be formed on the same plan they were in the times of the apostles; when gospel-doctrine and discipline will be restored to their primitive luster and purity; when the ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Supper will be administered as they were first delivered, clear of all present corruption and superstition.
Cultural Stands Don’t Undo These Problems
Wilson may take a position closer to the Protestant or Reformed Catholics than his contemporary Reformed fellows do. He could argue that he is more consistent than them with the doctrine and practice. I respect the teaching of Wilson on many cultural issues. He helps on cultural and social ones. These are attractive to many evangelicals and even professing Baptists, their not hearing this in their own churches. Those, however, cannot undo the problems with the unscriptural doctrine I’m addressing. However, the Moscow troubles don’t end with infant sprinkling.
More to Come
Done. Yes, But…. (Part Two)
Part One [Also a Previous Post I Forgot I Wrote]
Two Religions in the World?
A common modern aphorism, very catchy, you will read from many sources: “There are only two religions in the world.” Men say they are “do” and “done.” That’s what Cary Schmidt says in his book, Done. He’s not the only one or even the first one to say it.
I googled “only two religions in the world” and got 41,900 hits. Then I searched google books and the first find was a book in 1884, The Life of John Calvin, by T. Lawson. Lawson indicates the division between eighteen your old Calvin and his cousin, Olivetan. This takes this language at least to the 16th century. Lawson writes:
“There are two religions in the world,” we hear Olivetan saying. “In the one class invented by men, man saves himself by ceremonies and good works: the other is that one religion which is revealed in the Bible, and which teaches men to look for salvation solely from the free grace of God.”
At the start of the next chapter, Lawson distinguishes the two religions as “Human Authority or Divine Revelation.” That’s different than “Do” and “Done” and is a little broader, if one would divide everything into two categories only.
More Than Two Religions
I disagree with the two religion adage. Someone could divide into “do” and “done,” but not two religions. Free gracers would agree with Olivetan and Schmidt. Jude called their false gospel (Jude 1:4), “turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.” This turns religions into at least three different categories, instead of two.
Someone might slot Schmidt into a third category. A person may say it’s just a lacking or wrong definition of “done.” Schmidt would say he is “done.” Someone taking his identical position might agree that he’s done too. According to scripture it’s only done, however, if a person repents and believes in Jesus Christ. If not, it isn’t done yet. He’s not doing for salvation, but neither is he done.
Dividing all religious categories into “human invention” and “divine revelation,” I can agree with that. That’s not how men like Schmidt and others categorize it though. It’s just “do” and “done.” I get the problem between do and done: human effort versus divine grace. Those two contradict each other. But people then also pervert or corrupt grace. They turn grace into something less than saving grace.
Excluding Repentance and Lordship of Christ
Schmidt in his book excludes repentance and lordship of Christ. I would contend that Schmidt’s faith isn’t even true faith. He constructs different prerequisites for salvation, putting the emphasis on a prayer, asking for salvation. This falls short of saving faith. It’s either intellectual or emotional, fitting into a stony ground type of faith (Matthew 13:5-6). It almost might be worldly, where the world swallows up a shallow faith (Matthew 13:7-8).
Part of the attraction of Schmidt’s idea of “done,” which I would call human invention, is someone doesn’t count the cost or give up anything. He can go on his sweet way. Sure, God does everything. A person doesn’t even really believe in Jesus Christ and God still does everything. This really is the broad road that Jesus talks about in Matthew 7:13-14.
No-repentance goes very nicely with American revivalism and evangelicalism. I especially say American, because it relies heavily on fleshly allure and marketing. Barnum and Bailey style. Even the very tidy, Done, goes along with that sentiment. It markets “done” especially to a people that want to keep going the same direction, yet receiving heaven in the end. It’s a very short book for an easy or even easier believism.
Spreading Around the World
The densely marketed Christianity from America reverses truths of scripture. It makes worship palatable and pleasurable to the worshiper. It orchestrates feelings and entertains. The purveyors calculate almost every aspect of the church experience for the attendee. In that way, this is “doing.” The professionals “do” church for those attending, starting with a fleshly or mystical reason to come. So much of everything is a show for churches like these.
In many locations around the globe, this other false religion which I address in this post generates a greater bad influence than the “do” religion. It blinds people especially in a more affluent world. They want a stimulating and thrilling religion that is done for them. Its advocates get the life they want on earth plus eternal life. They really also form or envision a Jesus of their own choosing.
We don’t have two religions in the world. More than two exist. More than three do too. I don’t know how many there are, but “do” and “done” aren’t all of them.
James White and His Troublesome Deterministic View of God
One of the features of the White and Ross debate was an attack afterwards on Thomas Ross by White followers, because he would not “answer” questions of White. I disagree. Ross answered all of White’s questions. He just didn’t like Ross’s answers. When I watched the White and Van Kleeck debate, White wouldn’t answer Van Kleeck’s questions, really not answer them.
A recent episode of Soteriology 101 with Leighton Flowers popped up on my phone. I’m not a subscriber. The title was “Popular Calvinist Makes a Stunning Admission,” and I could see the Calvinist was James White on the cover. So, as click bait, that worked for me. I had to see what the “stunning admission” from White was.
The Determination by God of All Moral Evil?
The main theme of Flowers’s podcast was the determination by God of all moral evil. Flowers doesn’t believe it, but he quoted Calvin as believing it. He explained the effect of this belief. If this is God, people reject Him because they don’t think He’s good. The Calvinist answers that God is right, these things are just beyond our full comprehension. Here’s the quote by Calvin that says this exact thing:
But how it was ordained by the foreknowledge and decree of God what man’s future was without God being the author and approver of transgression, is clearly a secret so much excelling the insight of the human mind, that I am not ashamed to confess ignorance.
Flowers says that Calvin is saying, “I don’t know how God is good with my view of determinism, just that I know that He is.” Something like that. He’s accepting God decrees moral evil, yet He’s still good, because God is good.
People like myself say, “God does not decree or determine moral evil.” If someone says that God does that, we say, “No, He doesn’t.” We might quote James 1:13:
Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man.
Guillaume Bignon
White has endorsed the book by French Calvinist, Guillaume Bignon, Excusing Sinners and Blaming God: A Calvinist Assessment of Determinism, Moral Responsibility, and Divine Involvement in Evil. In a recent interview, Bignon says:
Determinism is not the thesis that some things are determined. It’s the view that all things are determined.
Bignon is asked, Did God determine then for other theologians, like Muller, to disagree with you? He answers, “Yes,” because God determined everything. In his Institutes of the Christian Religion (Book 1, Chapter 16, Paragraph 3), Calvin said:
Creatures are so governed by the secret counsel of God, that nothing happens but what he knowingly and willingly decreed.
Did God Decree a Rape?
Calvin taught that God destined the will of every man to do whatever man did and does. In his debate with George Bryson, Bryson asks White this:
When a child is raped, is God responsible? Did he decree that rape?
Based on the understanding White and his fans hold for answering a question, White would not answer Bryson’s question. He did answer it, but he would not say, yes or no, until pinned down by the moderator. When White asks a “yes or no” question, he and his followers expect a yes or a no. They don’t hold that standard for White, as seen in the Van Kleeck debate, but also in his answer to Bryson. White answered:
If he didn’t, then that rape is an element of meaningless evil that has no purpose.
Hank Hanegraaff is the moderator and he asks White, “So what is your answer then?” In other words, White wouldn’t answer the question. No problem for White fans. This is James White. Whatever he says will count as an answer.
White then says to Hanegraaff, “I’m trying to go to scripture,” to which Hanegraaff replies, “What is the answer to the question that he just asked?” And so finally White does answer the question. To the question of, “When a child is raped, is God responsible? Did he decree that rape?” James White answers:
Yes, because, if not, then it is meaningless and purposeless. And though God knew it was going to happen, he created without a purpose. That means God brought the evil into existence, knowing it was going to exist, but for no purpose, no redemption, nothing positive, nothing good.
God Does Not Decree or Determine Moral Evil or the Rape of a Child
White, Hanegraaff, and Bryson say much more in this debate (which was in 2003), but White point blank says that God determined evil, even the determination of a rape of a child. This was the stunning admission by the Calvinist, James White.
Is this true about God? No. It perverts a scriptural view of the sovereignty of God. God is sovereign, but sovereignty means He is also sovereign over His sovereignty. The word sovereignty isn’t in the Bible, but the doctrine is there. However, we should allow God to define what His sovereignty is. God allows or causes everything that happens. I don’t agree with Calvin’s, Bignon’s, or White’s view of God’s sovereignty. It doesn’t match up with what God says about Himself in scripture.
Someone asked Flowers, if God determines all moral evil, can God still be a good God? I don’t want to answer that question. I think, it isn’t God though. This is just a hypothetical that could quote me as saying that God isn’t a good God. God is a good God though. If that was God, which it isn’t, then He would not be good. I don’t see a God, who would determine or decree moral evil, as being good. God allows evil. He doesn’t determine or decree it.
If you say, like White, that God determines or decrees everything, then you also, like White does, must say that God determines or decrees evil, including the rape of a child. Scripture does not teach this kind of determinism. God determines things, it’s true, but not moral evil.
Recent Comments