My heart is heavy within me. My soul is vexed. Oh, that the loftiness of my Calvinistic brothers and sisters would be humbled. Oh, that they would represent the spirit which our theology demands. But such is not often found.

I have written on this before, but I feel I must lodge my complaint once again.

I see less Christ-like character in many Calvinistic brethren than I do in just about any other tradition in Christianity.

Maybe it is the internet. Yeah, that must be it. The “Internet Calvinists.” The more I read online, the more my countenance is lowered in shame. I don’t find this type of stuff anywhere else. Who are these “Internet Calvinists”? They need to calm down.

Quick notice: Calvinists: Don’t send me any more emails talking about the “heresy” of Arminianism. I don’t get excited. Don’t forward me any more videos that dramatize the departure of Arminian theology. I won’t ride that bus. If you do, with sadness, I will just delete them. Not because of the message telling me “Ten Reasons Arminians Have a Different Gospel,” but because the message you give when you forward this kind of stuff.

Calm down. Back up. Take ten. Find an Arminian friend and see if they don’t love the same Lord. Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to

The Credo House of Theology is well on the way. Get the latest updates here.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

As many of you know, my family and I moved to Norman, Oklahoma, a year and a half ago primarily due to my mother’s illness. Previously, we lived in Frisco, Texas, where I was a pastor at Stonebriar Community Church for six years. We all loved the church. We loved the people, the commitment to the preaching of God’s word, and the reverence for certain traditions. Oh, and did I mention grace?! That is why I went there in the first place – grace! Rarely (and sadly) do you find a passionate commitment to the word of God and a attitude of grace. This situation gives forth to energy. Call it the power of God, the movement of the Holy Spirit, or whatever you will according to your tradition, but the church was alive. I wanted to be there every day. I miss it greatly.

Grace and truth. The two most important elements in my hierarchy of looking for a church.

Notice, to the surprise of many, I did not list “perfect theology” as a criteria. I did not even say theology that I am always comfortable with (since there is no perfect theology). At Stonebriar, I had it all. Just about everything Chuck taught, I agreed with. If not, I loved the man so much that I would bend myself to agree with him! (At least for that Sunday.) Of course, Chuck is a pastor more than a professional theologian. But he was committed to sound theology and he is a Calvinist! (a four pointer at least). Oh the depths and riches of reformed preaching! The power, the hope, the pride that can be taken when God’s sovereignty is preached in such a way.

However, today I do not go to a Calvinistic church. In fact, I am at an Arminian church. In fact (again), I am a regular teacher at a church that is both Arminian and Egalitarian. In fact (last time), last week I had to call the pastor that I am under to ask if it was okay for me to teach on “Women in the Church,” a topic in a current series I am on. This church is called Crossings Community Church and it is part of the Church of God, Anderson (not the charismatic Church of God you may be thinking of).

Let me briefly define a few terms before we move on (I will get in trouble if I don’t. If you already know these “big” words, move on. If not, learn them! – its not that hard):

Calvinist: One who believes in the doctrines of grace most traditionally defined by the TULIP acronym. The most controversial of the doctrines are Unconditional Election: the belief that God elects some individuals to salvation and not other based upon his sovereign will; Limited Atonement: the belief that Christ’s death only paid for the sins of the elect; Irresistible Grace: the belief that when God’s saving grace is presented to the elect, it is always effective (i.e. they will not ever reject it); and Perseverance of the Saints: the belief that those who are saved (the elect) will persevere and cannot “lose” their salvation.

Arminian: One who denies all of the Calvinistic doctrines of grace except the first, Total Depravity. The Arminian will opt for a belief in “Conditional” election: the belief that God’s predestination is based on the foreseen faith of the individual; “Resistible” grace: the belief that God’s saving grace can be rejected by anyone; “Unlimited” atonement: the belief that Christ’s death paid for the sins of every individual; and the belief that a truly saved person and fall from or “lose” their salvation.

Complementarianism: Belief in essential equality, but functional hierarchy in the sexes. This hierarchy is by God’s design and is not due to the fall. Man is to be the leader in the church and home. Women are not to be in positions of authority over man in the church or home, but are honored due to their role in the same way as men.

Egalitarianism: Belief in the essential and functional equality of the sexes. All role distinctions which imply leadership belonging to the man is due to the fall, not by God’s design. Therefore, women can serve in positions of authority over man in both the church and the home. Role is assigned by individual giftedness, not gender.

So . . . Why does this Calvinistic Complementarian go to an Arminian Egalitarian church? Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

Shortly after I posted my recent blog entitled “The Coming Evangelical Collapse?” Time Magazine featured as its cover story an article entitled “10 Ideas Changing the World Right Now.” (Number three on Time’s list, was “The New Calvinism.”) On the surface, this appears to be a blatant contradiction to the thesis of The Christian Science Monitor article concerning “The Coming Evangelical Collapse.” As strange as it may seem I would suggest is that it is not.

The reasons for this are several-fold. Evangelicalism as it has manifested itself in America, and as a subculture has historically been a tradition that is “heavenly minded.” Its roots are sunk deeply into pietistic spirituality arising from a post-Reformation reaction to cold doctrinal orthodoxy within confessional Lutheranism in Germany, as opposed to what can legitimately be called a Reformed or Puritan spirituality/worldview.

As such, evangelicalism has historically had a tremendous problem in being involved in “the world.” During the 19^th century as revivalism was institutionalized in America, spiritual life was privatized and became unrelated to other areas of life. (What mattered was “my personal relationship with God/Jesus.” etc., gone were larger senses of responsibility to community and society.) In a real sense what happened in 19th century American Protestantism mirrored the emerging liberal theology in Germany which saw truth as derived from the feelings (German: Gefeuhl) as opposed to having a rational undergirding.

The divide between the sacred and the secular realm of existence that had characterized Roman Catholic Christianity throughout the Medieval period and, which had been rejected by the Reformers of the 16^th century was reintroduced into the larger American evangelical psyche.

In the Reformation and the following Puritan era there had been a very healthy integration of the spiritual with all other areas of life, because God the Reformed/Calvinistic tradition had pronounced creation/ material order very good. (Leland Ryken has demonstrated the vital embrace of the created order by the Puritans in his excellent and very accessible study work Worldly Saints: the Puritans as They Really Were). As the nineteenth century progressed, Protestantism, which at this point was in some sense evangelical, progressively withdrew from cultural engagement in the world and society and abandoned that realm to the rising tide of secular studies and perspectives. American historian Richard Hofstadter notes that 19^th century American evangelicals: Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

Perseverance of the Saints

From Theological Word of the Day. Subscribe and get a new word every weekday.

The doctrine, often associated with Calvinism and first articulated by Saint Augustine, which holds that those who are truly elect of God will persevere in belief until final redemption. This doctrine is sometimes used synonymously with “Eternal Security” and “Once-saved-always-saved,” but advocates would prefer a certain nuance, believing that the emphasis is upon the perseverance of the believers faith as a means or evidence of their security which is ultimately brought about by the God’s grace. In other words, there is a type of faith that does not persevere and there is a type that does (Mark 4:3-20). This doctrine is accepted by Reformed Protestants, but rejected by Arminians, Roman Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox, all who believe that I once saved believer can lose their salvation.

Read a history of the Doctrine of Perseverance of the Saints.

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

Believing in the sovereignty of God is not an option of yes, no, or maybe within the Christian context. If the Bible is our authoritative guide, one must believe that God is sovereign. It is not unlike the issue of predestination. That God predestines people to salvation is not up for debate, what is up for debate is what it means that God predestines.

Both Calvinists and Arminians agree that God is sovereign, but they will often disagree as to what this means.

Here are the four primary options:

1. Meticulous sovereignty: God is the instrumental cause behind every action and reaction there has ever been. In other words, you chose white socks instead of the black socks because God caused it to happen. You have an itch on your eyebrow right now because God is actively causing it. In other words, every molecule that bounces into another is a result of God active agency in being the first and instrumental cause to the action.

This position holds little or no tension with regards to the human will and the divine will.

God is actively controlling everything.

Adherents: Hyper-Calvinists and some Calvinists

2. Providential sovereignty: While God is bringing about his will in everything (Eph 1:11), his will is not the instrumental cause of all that happens. God’s will plays a providential role in “causing” all things. In other words, all that happens happens because God did in some sense will it, but secondary causes are usually the instrumental cause behind the action. In the case of your socks, you chose them because you decided to, but it was also part of God’s will. God allows evil as it is part of his imperfect will to bring about a perfect end, but he is not the instrumental cause of evil. Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

It must be said at the outset that this blog is in no way meant for me to put an essential dividing line of demarcation concerning the issues that are of secondary importance. It is no secret to most that I hold strongly to the Reformed doctrines of grace. But it is equally no secret that I have deep respect for the godly character and scholarship of many of the Arminian persuasion that believe differently than I. It is continually my hope and desire that robust and strong theological conversation can take place in an atmosphere of mutual respect and trustworthy representation. Having said that (and in that vein), I wanted to discuss one of the reasons why I am not an Arminian.

Prevenient grace is a doctrine held by those who are theologically identified as Arminian. Prevenient grace literally means “grace that comes before.” Prevenient grace is the Arminian answer to the Calvinistic doctrine of “Irresistible” grace.

Let me back up.

Both Calvinists and Arminians believe that people are born sinful. Both agree that all people are born with an inherent disposition of antagonism toward God. Both Calvinists and Arminians reject what is know as “Pelagianism.” Pelagius, a fifth-century British monk, taught that people are born neutral, neither good nor bad. Pelagius believed that people sin as a result of example, not nature. Augustine, the primary opponent of Pelagius, responded by teaching that people are not born neutral, but with a corrupted nature. People sin because it is in their nature to sin; they are predisposed, bent, or inclined to sin from birth. Both Calvinists and Arminians agree with Augustine believing the Scriptures to teach that people are born with a totally corrupt spiritual nature, making their disposition toward God perpetually antagonistic. Therefore, according to both sides, people are absolutely helpless without God’s gracious, undeserved intervention. This is an important mischaracterization of Arminian theology that adherents to my position fail to realize. Arminians believe in the doctrine of total depravity just as strongly as Calvinists. Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

One of the dozens of reasons I am a Calvinist has to do with the tension that is allowed within the Calvinistic system that is not allowed in other options. You see, the issues of Calvinism primarily center on one issue: predestination. While the sovereignty of God has its place, it does not ultimately determine where one lands. An Arminian can believe that God is sovereign to a similar degree as a Calvinist. But an Arminian cannot believe in predestination the same way as Calvinists.

Both Calvinists and Arminians believe in predestination. In other words, whether or not God predestines people is not the issue. All Bible believing Christians believe this doctrine. The issue has to do with the basis of this predestining.

The Calvinist says that God’s predestination has no founding in the predestined in any sense. God did not choose people based on any merit, intrinsic or foreseen. This is called unconditional predestination because there are no conditions in man that need to be met. It does not mean that God did not have any reason for choosing some and not others, but that the reason is not found in us. Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

Labels are a postmodern taboo. This is understandable. Once you are labeled something, you live under the presumptions of the system that has been typified by others. This representation may or may not be accurate. Unfortunately, the inaccuracies inevitably rule the label.

Republican: War lover. Does not care about the environment. Apathetic to social issues.

Democrat: Liberal. Godless. Weak. Immoral.

Roman Catholic: Worships Mary. Ignorant.

Evangelical: Fundamentalist. Gay hater. Supports the killing of abortion doctors. Republican (see above).

Baptist: Can’t drink, dance, or smoke. Prideful.

Dispensationalist: Believes in two ways of salvation, one for the Old Testament and one for the new. Cares only about eschatology.

DTS Grads: Dispensationalist (see above).

OU Sooners: The best ever. Supernatural. Incredible. (Oh, wait . . . this is all true)

Emerging church: Cursing. Compromise doctrine. Nose rings. Disrespectful.

Arminian: Humanistic. Denies God’s sovereignty. Pelagian.

Calvinist: Follower of a man. Believes God hates the non-elect. Denies free will. Denies responsibility. Believes God created evil. Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

In his book Almighty Over All (Baker, 1999), R.C. Sproul Jr. makes some controversial statements—ones that appear to be sub-biblical. What tipped me off to this was hearing a paper presentation at a conference in April in New Orleans. R.C. Sproul Jr. was being quoted, and I shocked at what I heard. Though the paper presentation came from a reliable source (Dr. Ken Keathley of Southeastern Seminary in Wake Forest), I wanted be like the Bereans of Acts 17 and check out Sproul Jr.’s work myself—especially if I wanted to offer some reflections on this topic.

As I assumed, upon further investigation, Keathley’s assessment was correct: Sproul Jr. has simply taken Calvinism way too far. His father R.C. Sproul Sr., also a Calvinist, has been much more tentative and modest about the question of sin’s starting point; he basically concludes that this is a mysterious matter, stopping well short of attributing the origin of evil to God:

Herein lies the problem. Before a person can commit an act of sin he must first have a desire to perform that act. The Bible tells us that evil actions flow from evil desires. But the presence of an evil desire is already sin. We sin because we are sinners. We were born with a sin nature. We are fallen creatures. But Adam and Eve were not created fallen. They had no sin nature. They were good creatures with a free will. Yet they chose to sin. Why? I don’t know. Nor have I found anyone yet who does know (Chosen by God [1986], p. 30).

Sproul Sr. allows for a libertarian understanding of free will in Eden, which itself is a departure from Calvinism proper. But let that pass.

Sproul Jr., however, wants to get to the bottom of the matter and weigh in on what he takes to be the source of evil: God! Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

Earlier this summer, Brian Burgess, our Minister of Outreach, taught a two-part series on “Things God Never Said About Evangelism.” He did an outstanding job and I encourage you to listen to his remarks from both messages. In last night’s Equipping University, we learned that one of the things God never said is “Since I am sovereign, I don’t need your help in evangelism.” Of course, this raised a few issues and probably not a few hackles. One question was asked early and any reformed theologian worth his salt knows exactly which question it was:  “Well, if God is sovereign and He has already chosen who will be saved, then why should I bother to witness?”

When Brian and I discussed this over lunch prior to the class, I told him that no orthodox believer is really going to think God ever said such a thing. Now, a hyper-Calvinist will believe that ridiculous statement but Hyper-calvinism is not Christian. By the way, a hyper-Calvinist is not a Calvinist who really believes the doctrines of Calvinism. With that in mind, we must note that believers will fall into different categories as to WHY they think God would never utter that sentence. Some would say that God is sovereign but has freely “given up” (not the best choice of words) part of that sovereignty to ensure that man engages Him of man’s own libertarian free will. I, on the other hand, would reject that sentence because while God is sovereign He gives up none of it. Yet that same extensive sovereignty in no way interferes with that fact that man is responsible for his sins. Let these three statements be true: God is sovereign in all of salvation, man is responsible, and Christians are to witness and pray. Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

There are many words and concepts in theology that suffer from misunderstanding, mis-characterization, and misinformation. “Predestination,” “Calvinism,” “Total Depravity,” “Inerrancy,” and “Complementarianism”, just to name a few that I personally have to deal with. Proponents are more often than not on the defensive, having to explain again and again why it is they don’t mean what people think they mean.

The concept of “free will” suffers no less with regard to this misunderstanding. Does a person have free will? Well, what do you mean by “free will”? This must always be asked.

Do you mean:

1. That a person is not forced from the outside to make a choice?
2. That a person is responsible for his or her choices?
3. That a person is the active agent in a choice made?
4. That a person is free to do whatever they desire?
5. That a person has the ability to choose contrary to their nature (who they are)?

Calvinists, such as myself, do believe in free will and we don’t believe in free will. It just depends on what you mean. Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

(Thanks to Reforming and CMM for their help in the comment of the last post.)

Top ten reasons why the Reformed Theologian did not cross the road:

10. A woman already crossed, and he would be in sin if he followed

9. The road is not safe if it wasn’t built between 1500-1700 AD

8. He believes that “road crossing” has ceased

7. The crossing guard was only helping people cross from one side, so he suspiciously thought he was denying double pre-destination

6. Romans 9 says nothing about crossing roads

5. The “Walk” sign was gender neutral

4. The road was called Tiber Ave

3. John Wesley said that God’s prevenient grace would pave the way, but he had to take the steps himself

2. He wasn’t elected to cross before the foundation of the road

1. Piper said that God is most glorified when we are most satisfied where we are

Now we just need one for Evangelicals, Fundamentalist, and Arminians. Care to take a stab?

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

I am working on a manuscript designed to recognize John Calvin’s 500th birthday coming up July 10, 2009. Its a historical and contemporary study of opinions on this most influential man.

As a Reformed Christian, I owe a lot to Old JC, but the honest truth is: I have a love-hate relationship with the man. For the most part, he was a kindly gentleman who did a lot of good things. But he also set the stage for a theological worldview that many people perceive to be far more negative and mean-spirited than the Way of Christ permits.

Now, I know many of you will say that the stage was set by Paul, by Augustine, by Luther and others. But Calvin had a huge role in promoting and disseminating the Calvinist theological worldview.

And, why didnt he step in and stop the burning of Servetus? Sure, he was a man of his times. He lived and died before the Enlightenment. But so did Katherine Zell who raged against those at Geneva who burned the poor Servetus at the stake. Today none of us would give a nod to aid in the burning of a heretic. Its hard to comprehend the mind of one who would. Its hard for many of us to comprehend John Calvin.

So, Im asking you, my readers, to weigh in on this. Do you love him or hate him? I want to collect some wonderfully quotable sentences and paragraphsnot pages of materialthat I can include in my manuscript (with your permission, of course). I would also like you to share any quotes or opinions of him you have from others, particularly historical or contemporary folks whose names wed recognize. Contact relatives and friendsmaybe your pastor or priest. Invite them to weigh in on this controversial topic.

Calvin was anything but a funny guy, but please share any humor that comes to mind. I tried my hand at this in an effort to give a touch of humor to that awful ordeal: sizzling Servetus at the steakwell, medium, or rare? No, I wont stoop that low. Rather, I paraphrase a little nursery rhyme that begins with an allusion to the Heidelberg Catechism that all good Calvinists study from childhood:

Heidel diddle diddle,
The catechism and the Bible
Old Calvin jumped over the flames.
Servetus scowled to see such sport,
Simultaneously dissed and mooned!

Help me out, you all. Give me some good stuff on JC.

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

It must be said at the outset that this blog is in no way meant for me to put an essential line of demarcation concerning the issues of Calvinism and Arminianism. It is no secret to most that I hold strongly to the Reformed doctrines of grace. But it is equally no secret that I have deep respect for the godly character and scholarship of many of the Arminian persuasion that believe differently than I. It is my prayer that this post may serve as a place where robust and strong theological conversation can take place in an atmosphere of mutual respect and trustworthy representation. Having said that, I thought it time for me to blog a few thoughts on the Arminian doctrine of Prevenient grace.

Prevenient grace is a doctrine held by those who are theologically identified as Arminian. Prevenient grace literally means “grace that comes before.” Prevenient grace is the Arminian answer to the Calvinistic doctrine of Irresistible grace. It is important to note at the outset that both Calvinists and Arminians believe that people are born sinful. To make this a little more clear, both sides agree that all people are born with an inherent disposition of antagonism toward God. Both Calvinists and Arminians reject what is know as Pelagianism. Pelagius, a fifth-century British monk, taught that people are born neutral, neither good nor bad. Pelagius believed that people sin as a result of example, not nature. Augustine, the primary opponent of Pelagius, responded by teaching that people are not born neutral, but with a corrupted nature. People sin because it is in their nature to sin; they are predisposed to sin. Both Calvinists and Arminians agree with Augustine believing the Scriptures to teach that people are born with a totally corrupt spiritual nature, making their disposition toward God perpetually antagonistic. Therefore, according to both sides, people are absolutely helpless without God’s gracious, undeserved intervention. This is an important mischaracterization of Arminian theology that adherents to my position fail to realize. Arminians believe in the doctrine of total depravity just as strongly as Calvinists.

This adherence to total depravity makes the Arminian doctrine of Prevenient grace necessary. A former Wesleyan theology professor of mine who believed in Prevenient grace once called it the “ingenious doctrine.” Why? Because according to Arminians it allows them to hold to the biblical and orthodox position of total depravity, yet also allows true free will. You see, according to Calvinists such as myself, if people are in such desperate condition, being inclined toward enmity with God from birth, and unable to change their condition on their own (as a leopard cannot change its spots – Jer. 13:23), having no “free will” to choose against this depraved nature, then the only way to answer the question, How is anyone saved? is to answer that the will of God saves them. In other words, if our will could not change our disposition, then God must have changed our will for us. Up to this point, both Calvinists and Arminians could agree. But the Calvinist will say that God’s intervention is radical. In our depraved state, God comes into our lives and opens our eyes to His beauty. This intervention happens by means of saving or “irresistible” grace. In our helpless and angry position, while shaking our fists at God, God sovereignly and autonomously regenerates us. Once regenerated, we trust and love the Lord because our nature has been transformed by Him. Therefore, God is the only one to credit for our salvation seeing as how we did not play a part in its genesis (this is sometimes referred to as monergism). But, according to Calvinists, God does not give this gift of saving grace to all people, only the elect. Otherwise, all would be saved.

How do Arminians deal with our depraved condition? Well, they reject the Calvinistic doctrine of “irresistible” grace believing that it does violence to the necessary freedom that must exist for God to have a true loving relationship with man. But something, nevertheless, must make belief possible. In comes Prevenient grace. This is an enabling grace that comes to the aid of all people so that their disposition can be made capable of receiving the Gospel. It does not save them as the Calvinist doctrine of irresistible grace, but it makes the savable. In essence, Prevenient grace restores people to a state of ability. As Adam before the fall was not predisposed toward sin, being able to make a true free will decision, so people, once affected by Prevenient grace are brought dispositionally to Garden of Eden type conditions. God’s grace comes to the aid of all fallen sinners restoring freedom of the will. Now, it is up to the individual to make an unbiased choice for or against God. Voila! With the doctrine of Prevenient grace, total depravity and true freedom can be harmonized. Ingenious, right? Not exactly.

I agree with Calvinist commentator and theologian Tom Schreiner that “Prevenient grace is attractive because it solves so many problems [for the Arminian] . . .” but I also believe that it creates more problems than it solves. I am going to briefly list the two major problems that I see with the doctrine of Prevenient grace, but I, as always, want to remind you that there are many great men in the history of the church and in contemporary Evangelical philosophy and theology that do not see things the way I do. I encourage you to seek out their position from them in addition to reading my analysis.

1. Lack of Scripture: The biggest issue that Calvinists have traditionally had with the doctrine of Prevenient grace is its lack of biblical support. Tom Schreiner’s quote above is incomplete; it concludes with this, “. . . but it should be rejected because it cannot be exegetically vindicated.” While Prevenient grace may solve problems and allow Arminians to hold to an orthodox understanding of depravity, the biblical support for the doctrine is very difficult to find. Most Arminians would agree that direct and explicit support from Scripture is not there, but they would say that the concept is necessitated from other explicit teachings. Most importantly, God commands and desires that all people are to repent of their sin (Acts 17:30, 2 Pet. 3:9, et al) and holds them responsible if they do not. This assumes that “all people” have this ability, otherwise God’s desire is hopeless and His command is useless. While there may be some mystery in the fact that God desires the salvation of all and commands all to repent, this does not necessitate nor justify, in my opinion, the insertion of a fairy complected and even more mysterious doctrine of Prevenient grace. In other words, it could be conceded that God commands all people to repent because sin is at issue. People have violated God’s law. This necessitates God to act as God in accordance with His righteous character and reveal the violation of sin, even to those who have no ability to change on their own. In this case, God’s command is true and genuine. Even if no one were to respond, their sin is made manifest and God’s righteousness is exposed through God’s command. It can also be conceded that God does truly desire the repentance of all people, even if people do not have the ability to repent. God’s desire in this case is mysteriously not going to be an active agent in bringing about the salvation of some. Why? I don’t know. But my ignorance in this matter does not justify the implication of Prevenient grace. God can passively desire things that He does not actively will to come about.

2. It does not really solve any problems: Lets assume that we could overcome the difficulties of the lack of Scriptural support of Prevenient grace. Let’s say that I give the Arminians the benefit of the doubt and say that it is possible to interpret the biblical data in such a way that all people receive an enablement that neutralizes their antagonistic disposition toward God. God then would come to each person sometime in their lives and graciously restore their will to the point that they don’t have any predisposed inclination toward rejection or acceptance of the Gospel. What would this look like? First, this “balancing the scales” of the will makes any choice, good or bad, for God or against, impossible. Why? Because each person would be suspended in a state of perpetual indecisiveness. They would have no reason for choosing A rather than B. If there is no reason to choose one over the other, then all choices, if they were made, would be completely arbitrary. You see, we make choices according to who we are. If “free will” of the Arminian variety is going to be responsible for making the choice, and this will is neutralized by Prevenient grace, then there is nothing compelling you (character, upbringing, disposition, the Holy Spirit, genetics, etc.) to make any decision whatsoever. Who you are, the primary factor behind every choice, is taken away. There is no “you” to make the choice. It is arbitrary. It does not solve the “loving relationship”problem to say that God is pleased to have a relationship based upon the arbitrary decisions of people. Therefore, in order to hold to the doctrine of Prevenient grace, one is left with either perpetual indecisiveness or an arbitrary choice. Neither of which solves any problems.

Not only this, but lets do the math. Prevenient grace neutralizes the will, making the will completely unbiased toward good or evil. Therefore, this restored “free will” has a fifty-fifty shot of making the right choice. Right? This must be. The scales are completely balanced once God’s Prevenient grace has come upon a person. What would you expect to see if this were the case? Well, I can flip a coin and pretty much expect that the coin would land on heads just as many times as tails. The same should be the case with salvation. You should expect that just as many people to trust the Lord as those that don’t. But just a cursory look through Scripture tells us that this is not the case. For the most part the number of unbelievers has been dramatically higher than that of believers. Take the time of the flood for instance. How is it that out of millions of people (probably much more), there was only one who was found to be righteous? That would be like me flipping a coin a million (or more) times and it landing on tails 999,999 times and only landing on heads once. Impossible. Christ even explicitly said that there will be and always have been many more people who don’t believe than those that do (Matt. 7:14). How can this be if Prevenient grace created a situation of equal opportunity for all people? It can’t.

Now I don’t want to be accused of building a straw man here so I will attempt to represent how Arminians would respond to this. They would say that the contributing factors that influence people’s freedom are those in the outside world. As the snake came from the outside and influenced Adam’s otherwise neutral will, so also outside influences such as culture and family influence people’s will. Therefore, in the time of Noah, the reason why there was only one righteous person on the earth is because the culture had become so corrupt that God could not be found. This is why God destroyed everyone with the flood. This makes some sense, but in reality it simply re-introduces the same problem that Arminians are desperately attempting to avoid – divine unconditional election.

Let me explain. If outside influences play such a large role in influencing Prevenient-grace-restored-people in their choice for or against God, doesn’t that make God the determining factor in whether they are saved or not? If you had a choice, knowing that outside influences were going to play such a big role in the decisions you make, would you want to be born to a family of believers who teach and live the Gospel in a culture of believers that do the same, or would you rather be placed in a committed Muslim home in a Muslim country where the Gospel is unable to give a testimony of God? In other words, would you rather be placed in a Garden with the snake or without the snake? Of course you would say you want to be placed in the environment where the outside influences for belief in God would be most prominently exemplified. Why? Because you have a better chance. Maybe the odds are not perfect, but they would still be much better. Let’s face it, if you were in the preflood world at the time of Noah, as nice a person as you are today, I seriously doubt that you would have followed Noah rather than the rest of the world.

The problem is that you do not decide where you live or when you will be born. You do not determine your outside influences, God does.

Acts 17:26 ²⁶ And He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation.

This passage tells us that God determines the outside influences that are the ultimate influence, the determining factor, in our choice. God chose where you would be born, when, and to what family you would belong. Therefore, God’s sovereign unconditional choice is still the ultimate and determining cause in our salvation. This is the very problem that Arminians seek to avoid with the doctrine of Prevenient grace.

If Arminians were to respond by saying that God gives more grace to those in the most depraved conditions, this would not explain why it is that people in cultures and families that are godly have a higher percentage of believers. We are back to flipping the coin. It does not work either way.

In conclusion, I don’t believe that there is a reason for Prevenient grace outside of a prejudiced view of what some believe must be in order for the truth to be palatable. Since it really does not solve any problems, it is, in my opinion, superfluous and misguided. Even if it may seem more palatable to say that all people have equal opportunity to accept the Gospel, the palatability of a doctrine does not determine its veracity. This is why I reject the doctrine of Prevenient Grace.

As always, I do hope and pray that I have represented the position fairly and accurately. Any comments are welcome.

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

Believing in the sovereignty of God is not an option of yes, no, or maybe within the Christian context. If the Bible is our authoritative guide, one must believe that God is sovereign. It is not unlike the issue of predestination. That God predestines people to salvation is not up for debate, what is up for debate is what it means that God predestines.

Both Calvinists and Arminians agree that God is sovereign, but they will often disagree as to what this means.

Here are the four primary options:

1. Meticulous sovereignty: God is the instrumental cause behind every action and reaction there has ever been. In other words, you chose white socks instead of the black socks because God caused it to happen. You have an itch on your eyebrow right now because God is actively causing it. In other words, every molecule that bounces into another is a result of God active agency in being the first and instrumental cause to the action.

This position holds little or no tension with regards to the human will and the divine will.

God is actively controlling everything.

Adherents: Hyper-Calvinists and some Calvinists

2. Providential sovereignty: While God is bringing about his will in everything (Eph 1:11), his will is not the instrumental cause of all that happens. God’s will plays a providential role in “causing” all things. In other words, all that happens happens because God did in some sense will it, but secondary causes are usually the instrumental cause behind the action. In the case of your socks, you chose them because you decided to, but it was also part of God’s will. God allows evil as it is part of his imperfect will to bring about a perfect end, but he is not the instrumental cause of evil.

This position holds much tension with regards to human will and divine will.

God is in control of everything.

Adherents: Calvinists and some Arminians

3. Providential oversight: Here God’s sovereignty is more of an oversight. He has a general plan, but is not married to the details. When necessary, God will intervene in the affairs of humanity to bring about his purpose, but this does not necessarily involve an intimate engagement with all that happens. God does not care what color socks you pick unless it somehow effects his meta plan.

This position holds much tension with regards to human will and divine will.

God could control everything, but only controls some things.

Adherents: Arminians and some Calvinists

4. Influential oversight: Here God’s sovereignty is self-limited. God could control things, but to preserve human freedom, he will not intervene in the affairs of men to the degree that the human will is decisively bent in one direction or another. He is hopeful that his influence will be persuasive to change a person’s heart or to guide them to his will, but is not sure if this will happen. Being all-wise, however, God will make strategic moves in people’s lives that will manipulate the situation to his advantage.

This position holds little or no tension with regards to the human will and the divine will.

God could control everything, but decides only to influence.

Adherents: Open Theist Arminians and some Arminians

Here are some charts that might help.

This first one is God’s relationship to evil. Please note: the definitions below are that of emphasis, not necessarily exclusivity—there will be overlap with some of the concepts.

I write this for many reason:

1. To give the spectrum of belief with regard to the issue of divine sovereignty.

2. To clear up some misconceptions about both Calvinists and Arminians. Most Arminians see Calvinists as only associated with number 1 (meticulous sovereignty). As well, most Calvinists see Arminians as associated necessarily with number 4 (influential sovereignty). To do this is to construct many possible straw-men representations.

Notice, according to my argument, an Arminian holding to number 2 can actually hold to a stronger view of divine sovereignty than a Calvinist holding to number 3 (although this is not typical). If that does not confuse your categories, I don’t know what will!

3. To create some new charts!

Where do you stand?

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

I have someone who is very close to me who will not be broken. I don’t really know how I desire him to be broken, but conversations with him are always very frustrating. Maybe I want to crack his head open and see what is inside, to gaze where only God can see . . . I don’t know. What I want to know is Does he really know Christ? My heart says “I hope” but my mind says “It can’t be.”

If you were to look at the life of this friend—his entire life—you would not suspect that he has ever broached the throne room of God. You would not expect that he has ever humbly bowed at the cross, understanding his own condition or the power of its shadow. I have never seen him read his Bible and I have never heard him honor Christ with his words. His life is one of constant pursuit of what the world has to offer and it completely controls his emotional state. Comforting him with spiritual talk is useless as you will get the gaze of ridicule and quickly share in the humility of having your conversation cut short by awkward silence.

Yet, when push comes to shove, this guy will give you his testimony. Every once in a while he will tell you why you don’t need to be worried about his spiritual condition. He will confidently tell you of the time when he was twelve years old and walked the aisle at Church to accept the Gospel. Once his tale is complete, he has exhausted his ability to have a spiritual conversation and the awkward silence ensues.

Is this guy saved? Can it be that he truly walked the aisle so long ago and has not flexed a spiritual muscle since? Why is he so secure in his salvation?

The only comfort I ever received concerning his spirituality was a list of verses on a small piece of paper hanging in his office. The heading of the paper read “The Security of the Believer.” On it were all references to those passages that teach “once-saved-always-saved.” This unqualified doctrine was something that he was taught immediately after his saving experience. This is what he banked on.

I have changed quite a bit over the years with regards to this doctrine. Don’t start squirming fellow Calvinists, there are not many things I believe in stronger than the security of the believer. But there are some who do need to squirm.

I am going to tell the “Parable of the Race.” You may have heard it before, but I am going to modify it quite a bit for our purpose.

“In a town of boredom called Mundane, there was a great announcement. It was the announcement of a race. A great race that all could enter. A race that would rescue them from boredom. Most people did not believe that such an event would be held in Mundane so they scoffed. Others immediately prepared with great enthusiasm and joy.

Both the scoffers and the enthusiasts arrived at the appointed place on the day of the race. The scoffers sat and watched while the others prepared to run by stretching and making sure their shoes were tied. They lined up looking ahead with the intensity, fear, and excitement that accompanied such an event.

The gun sounded and off they went. Yet something very curious and unexplainable happened. They all stopped running after they had passed the starting line. Not only this, but they acted very peculiar. One person fell on his knees crying, thanking God that he crossed the starting line. Others gave each other high fives and hugs shouting, “Hooray, we are now race runners, we are now race runners.” Some shook hands and congratulated each other. One group relaxed and complemented one another on how well they crossed the starting line. Five or six others all gathered together and formed a prayer circle. They prayed that others would cross the starting line as they had.

Many others wanted to experience this joy so they decided to start the race as well. They were immediately stopped by the well-wishers who had started before them. They decided to stay as well. After a few days, there were people handing out pamphlets along with a certificate to all those who crossed the starting line. The pamphlet told them that once they had started the race they were guaranteed to finish. The certificate was to recognize their achievement in finishing the race even before they finished.

After a month or so, there were so many who had crossed the starting line that they decided to build a town right there. They called this town “Starting Line.”

The spectators were confused. “I thought a race had to be finished,” they said to one another. They interviewed the people of Starting Line. “Why did you start the race and not continue?” they would ask. This made the people of Starting Line very uncomfortable. They would immediately show their certificate saying that they were guaranteed to finish. When people would encourage them to run the rest of the race, they would be ridiculed for not trusting God. They were called legalists and were accused of trusting too much in their own ability to finish the race.

Finally, many in the crowd became fed up with those in Starting Line and began to run the race without them.”

This parable illustrates a problem that we have in the church today. There are many people who are very comfortable in their profession of faith they made so long ago. So comfortable are these people that they never make any further moves in their walk with God. Like my friend, they rely upon the “once-saved-always-saved” doctrine that they were taught immediately upon conversion.

I don’t have a problem with teaching once-saved-aways-saved, but I would qualify it a great deal. Let me be plain and clear. The doctrine of God’s grace is radical. It is absolutely radical. It is unbelievably radical. God gives us an unspeakable gift free of charge. We don’t owe God anything for it. Neither is it on lay-away. In fact, it would be very offensive to God for us to even try to pay for it. It is priceless. Yet this gift, from a human point of view, is received by faith. Faith is the evidence of our salvation. It is the instrumental cause of our salvation. Faith is the evidence that we have entered into the race. But what we fail to emphasize is often more destructive to the Christian faith than not telling the Gospel at all. We fail to tell people that there is a false kind of faith. There is a faith that crosses the starting line, but never completes the race. Their is a faith that does not save.

Paul encourages the Corinthians:

“Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you– unless indeed you fail the test?” (2 Cor. 13:5)

The author of Hebrews says:

“Therefore, while the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us fear lest any of you should seem to have failed to reach it.” (Heb. 4:1)

In Revelation, it is only those who overcome who are promised eternal life:

“He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.” (Rev. 2:7; emphasis mine)

James speaks about a faith that does not save:

“What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him?” (Jam. 2:14)

Remember in the parable of the soils in Matthew 13, there are three types of seeds that sprout (start the race), but only one truly takes root (finishes the race).

I believe that once a person is truly saved, he or she will never lose that salvation. John 10:28 is all I need for this. Yet I think we need to warn people that not all faith is true faith.

If you have crossed the starting line, great! Bravo, hooray, and congrats. But, from a human point of view, this is no guarantee that you will cross the finish line. The doctrine is not called “Once-Saved-Always-Saved,” but “Perseverance of the Saints.” Both need to be balanced. We all need to question whether or not our faith is the kind of faith that saves. We do a great disservice to the Gospel to make it a priority to immediately alleviate any anxiety or doubt of salvation in those who profess faith. We may be giving them a false sense of security that they will take to their grave. This may be what happens to my friend. I fear the worst. On the day of judgment they will say “Lord, Lord, didn’t I cross the starting line? Wasn’t I a race runner?” He will respond, “Depart from me. I never knew you.”

There is a healthy tension concerning our salvation that should follow us our entire Christian walk.

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

You may be surprised to know that my series of blogs this week was inspired by Roger Olson, a man I respect very deeply. Although I don’t agree with him on many theological issues concerning salvation and theology proper, his scholarship, winsome writing style, and clarity about the importance of understanding theology irenically and historically have deeply impacted my thought and general approach to theological issues. Olson is a professor of theology at Truitt Theological Seminary. I use his textbook Mosaic of Christian Belief in The Theology Program. We had him as a guest on Converse with Scholars just a few months ago to discuss his book on Arminian theology. The primary reason why I appreciate Olson is because he often represents balance and calmness in theological issues. If you are in my profession, these traits are hard to find.

This is why I was surprised to read his response to John Piper about Minnesota bridge collapse. I did not find the Olson that I have come to know and love. Their was hardly an irenic word on the page. It was as if he had never heard of Calvinism’s belief in the sovereignty of God. His comments were defensive and very emotionally charged. Granted, he is an Arminian who does not agree with the tendencies in Calvinism to see God as one who is in charge of all things, even the most atrocious events of evil. This is understandable. While I disagree with Olson on this issue, it is not this disagreement that encouraged me to write the “Do ____ _____ and I have the Same God?” series. It was Olson’s implication that the God of Calvinism (my God) and the God of Arminianism (his God) might be different. Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

Labels are a postmodern taboo. This is understandable. Once you are labeled something, you live under the presumptions of the system that has been typified by others. This representation may or may not be accurate. Unfortunately, the inaccuracies inevitably rule the label.

Republican: War lover. Does not care about the environment. Apathetic to social issues.

Democrat: Liberal. Godless. Weak. Immoral.

Roman Catholic: Worships Mary. Ignorant.

Evangelical: Fundamentalist. Gay hater. Supports the killing of abortion doctors. Republican (see above).

Baptist: Can’t drink, dance, or smoke. Prideful.

Dispensationalist: Believes in two ways of salvation, one for the Old Testament and one for the new. Cares only about eschatology.

DTS Grads: Dispensationalist (see above).

OU Sooners: The best ever. Supernatural. Incredible. (Oh, wait . . . this is all true)

Emerging church: Cursing. Compromise doctrine. Nose rings. Disrespectful. 

Arminian: Humanistic. Denies God’s sovereignty. Pelagian.

Calvinist: Follower of a man. Believes God hates the non-elect. Denies free will. Denies responsibility. Believes God created evil. Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

Since the blog “The Day I Became a Calvinist“ is way too long, I thought that I would take a very good question concerning the tension that Calvinism allows and post it along with my answer here. I guess it is Calvinism week here at Parchment and Pen!

_____________________________________ 

Michael . . . Please explain the statement, “The point is that Calvinism is the only system that allows tension.”

How does Calvinism allow for tension? I am trying, I just cannot see it.

I do see both sides of the issue and really appreciate why people struggle and fall out on both sides trying very hard to stay true to the text. Yet, I still cannot understand how Calvinism allows for tension. 

___________________________

My answer: 

Calvinism is the only system that can allow for tension. I am not saying that all Calvinists do. Some, for example, will deny God’s universal love to resolve the tension concerning God’s love and His unconditional election. But the most respectable Calvinists that I know of do not. Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

Since the blog “The Day I Became a Calvinist“ is way too long, I thought that I would take a very good question concerning the tension that Calvinism allows and post it along with my answer here. I guess it is Calvinism week here at Parchment and Pen!

_____________________________________ 

Michael . . . Please explain the statement, “The point is that Calvinism is the only system that allows tension.”

How does Calvinism allow for tension?  I am trying, I just cannot see it.

I do see both sides of the issue and really appreciate why people struggle and fall out on both sides trying very hard to stay true to the text.  Yet, I still cannot understand how Calvinism allows for tension. 

___________________________

My answer: 

Calvinism is the only system that can allow for tension. I am not saying that all Calvinists do. Some, for example, will deny God’s universal love to resolve the tension concerning God’s love and His unconditional election. But the most respectable Calvinists that I know of do not.

Arminianism, as a theological system, solves the tension once and for all by saying that God loves everyone, therefore, He could not have unconditionally elected only some. For this reason, they will define election in a conditional sense. He must have elected all "in Christ" or His election must be based upon foreknowledge. Either way, conditional election is a necessary part of the Arminian system. Therefore, tension does not exist.

My point is that Calvinism does not have this “problem.” It is important to understand that a denial of God’s universal love is not a necessary component of Calvinism (even though some do). Neither is a denial of universal atonement. One can be a Calvinist and believe that Christ’s atonement has universal application, whether it be ontological (four point Calvinists), potential (Calvin himself), or some nuanced practical (John Piper).

In the end, you can be a Calvinist who affirms both unconditional election and God’s universal love, atonement, and desire for none to be lost. I know it sounds contradictory, but this is my point. Calvinism allows for this tension. John Piper, Tom Schriener, and Michael Horton, and other contemporary Calvinists, including myself, believe that God loves all people, does not want any to perish, but has only elected some. We must live with this tension.

Tension does not make the view right, but it does evidence, to me, exegetical integrity. It is like text criticism. When people are comparing manuscripts that don’t agree, the temptation is to go with the reading that resolves any tension. But good text critics know that this lacks integrity. That is why one of the basic principles of text criticism is “The harder reading is usually the best.” Usually is the key word. While Calvinism allows for “the harder interpretation,” it does not mean that it is the correct one. But one must take this into consideration.

Arminians, because of their absolute and necessary denial of unconditional individual election, have alleviated their system of such problems. In other words, they go with the reading that resolves any apparent conflict—theological or emotional. My own thoughts are that their system is, to some degree, as it is defended today, a product of the enlightenment. Why? Because they can’t live with the unresolved tension. Either God loves all people and has conditionally elected everyone, or God does not love all people and has only unconditionally elected those He loves.

It is the same thing with Jehovah’s Witnesses with regards to the doctrine of the Trinity (although, not the same level with regards to orthodoxy). JWs cannot live with the tension of their being one God and three persons. Therefore, they deny the persons to resolve this tension. The problem is that they have to deny clear biblical teaching to do so.

There are five main things that I think serve as illustrations as to how I believe the Christian faith, properly grounded in Scripture, must live with tension (though not contradiction):

1. Creation ex nihilo (out of nothing). How can something come from nothing?
2. Trinity. How can God be one and three?
3. Incarnation. How can an eternal timeless God become man?
3. Hypostatic Union. How can one person have two complete natures, God and man?
3. Election. How can God have elected only some but love all?

Each time these issues are resolved, I believe that more than likely you have embraced a false doctrine of some sort and to some degree. Therefore, don’t try to resolve it. Just live with the tension.

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!