Fast forward to 11am.

I pulled up to the house. I knew exactly where it was. I did not even need a map. It was about two miles away from where my parents used to live. The house was festooned with Christmas decor. It was a modest home near a pond. My parking job was sloppy, partly due to the fact that I was undecided as to whether I was staying, and partly because I had to park in a cul-de-sac. The same thought went through my mind that had gone through it for the last twelve hours: He is going to think you are a nut. You cannot just walk up to someone’s house that you don’t know and expect to talk to them. Are you a stalker? However, I countered this with a classic: Michael, you are probably the only one crazy enough to do something like this, so it will work.

I saw no distinctive marks that would make me believe this was his house. Nothing on the mail box (and I certainly was not going to check the mail – though I did think about it for a second). No door mat that said, “Welcome to the Odens’ Home.” I still was not even sure if this was his home. All I had was an internet search, done the night before, which led me here. The conclusions of Google are not something to be relied upon, so I was ready to apologize for knocking on the wrong door.

You see: a few days ago someone came to the Credo House in Edmond, Oklahoma (where I work), and said something astonishing: “Did you know Thomas Oden lives in Oklahoma City now?” Now, for those of you who know me, you know that this is something that I, if anyone, should  have known. “No he doesn’t!” I responded, with some degree of theological authority mixed with some degree of “what-if?” excitement. “Yeah, he does,” came the response. I thought about countering with, “Yeah, right. Then why hasn’t he been here?” – as if that would have sealed the deal regarding this person’s obvious lack of knowledge. You must understand: Thomas Oden is a heavyweight in my field. He is a theologian of theologians. His stature is such that one would think he was a dead theologian. A vapor? A myth? A dark knight? Someone who would not really exist but for all the theology books I have at Credo which have his name printed on them. Sure, he is the greatest living Arminian theologian. Sure, he is the creator of “paleo-orthodoxy.” Sure, he is the general editor of the Ancient Christian Commentary Series (ACC) that is yet to be completed. Sure, I am a Calvinist. Sure, I believe in “progressive orthodoxy.” Sure, I cancelled my subscription to the ACC. But I still admire and respect this man quite a bit. He is a living hero. Why wouldn’t he have come by the Credo House? Surely he has heard of it! After all, he is trying to get Protestants to find greater roots in the early church fathers. He is the living Protestant father of the Patristics. And the Credo House has the Cappadocian bar which enshrines the early Eastern Fathers. The Credo House is his type of place. Surely he does not live in Oklahoma City. “But wait,” I thought. “Maybe he has been here and I did not know it?”

That Tuesday night I decided to do some research. Sure enough, there were enough sources on the internet that said he retired from Drew University and moved back home to Oklahoma! Try as I might, I could not find an email or a phone number. I sent an email to the only address I found, which was returned the moment I sent it with the dreaded “undeliverable message” tag in the subject line. The only address I found connected to Thomas Oden and Oklahoma was a business address that led me to this house just down the street from my parents’ old house.

There I was. As giddy as the first day I went to “Discover Dallas” at Dallas Theological Seminary in ’95 (or was it ’94?) and saw Chuck Swindoll. Chuck came to the table I was sitting at with a friend and said, “These guys look kinda artsy.” My friend and I have fought since that day about who he was calling “artsy.” Due to its possible association with being feminine, I have continually insisted it was him and not me! Anyway, I rang the doorbell. A lady answered within about four seconds, which did not give me the time to consider the “well-I-tried” excuse.

“Can I help you?”

“Yeah, is this Thomas Oden’s house?”

“Yes it is.”

“Is he here?”

“Is he expecting you?”

“Uhhh, no.” (I wanted to say something else that justified my being there, but I could not think of anything so I left it at that)

“May I tell him who is here?”

“Yeah. I am Michael Patton.” (As if that would have any relevance to her or him!)

She left and came back about thirty seconds later. All I could think was that there was no way I was going to get past this step in the Thomas-Oden-Visiting process.

She returned and said, “How do you spell your last name?”

“P-A-T-T-O-N” (I knew that the right spelling of my last name would not contribute anything to my cause, but I obliged anyway.)

Before she left I tried something tricky. I have only used this twice since being in ministry, because there were only two other times I thought it might help me gain ground. One time was when I got pulled over for speeding. I told the cop, “I am in ministry.” Let’s just say I will never do that again and leave it at that. The other was when I was visiting a friend in a psych unit at a hospital. It got me in.

“Oh, and I am in ministry,” I said.

“Oh, ok.”

She came back about fifteen seconds later and said, “Come on in.”

Are you kidding? It worked!

At this point I was not even sure if it was THE Thomas Oden whose house I was invading for no reason. However, the moment I walked in, I knew I was at the right place. The hallway to the kitchen (where I was being led) was lined with books. Theological books! Many books I recognized. Many I did not. The ones I did not recognize were going into a mental list called, “Books I have to have simply because Thomas Oden has them.”

She led me to a seat at the kitchen table. She informed me that Thomas would be out in just a bit. By this time, I realized she was a maid or nurse. She was very kind. We had some small talk. I don’t remember what I said. All I know is that I was doing my best to convince her that I was not a psycho and that she was not irresponsible to let me in.

Finally Thomas Oden came around the corner. His look was both welcoming and a slight bit confused. Who wouldn’t be? I held my Justification Reader in my hand as I introduced myself. Why Justification Reader? For three very intentional reasons: 1) It was a sufficiently obscure Oden work for me to think he would believe I must really know about him to have this book with me. Had I used his more popular Systematic Theology, I might have looked more like a groupie. Why? I don’t know now, but I had it worked out in my mind then (#sleepdeprived). 2) It contained the most hard evidence that I had actually read it, cover to cover. There were underlines in every chapter (unlike others, where the first three chapters are underlined and then nothing for the rest of the book – a telltale sign that I started the book and got bored with it). 3) Just in case I could not think of any reason for being there when he asked the dreaded, “Why are you here?”, at least I could say (as pitiful as it is), “Can you sign my book?”

He immediately invited me into his den. I sat down and we began to talk. He was everything you would hope someone like him would be. He was very articulate. Gracious as can be (as if that is not obvious, since I had not been kicked out of the house yet). I don’t ever even remember having to give an excuse as to why I was there. He just began to ask me about myself. In my nervous condition, I did some name dropping. “Um, yes, after I was a pastor for five years at Chuck Swindoll’s church, I came back home…” They were all clumsy, but he was kind nonetheless. He was excited about me being involved with Swindoll and asked some questions about him. And since I am also a Swindoll stalker, I was able to answer (probably better than Chuck could have himself!). There was a bit of deception that I am not proud of. I made it sound like I was friends with Roger Olson. After all, he is an Arminian and I did have Olson on Converse with Scholars five years ago! Sigh . . . He will probably call Olson and say, “Guess who stopped by the other day? Your friend Michael Patton!” To which Olson will respond, “Who?” D’oh!! Oh well, we are all sinners and Oden knows this. Besides, Olson may know of me from my blog!

We talked for about ten minutes. I became increasingly comfortable. He could obviously tell I was a nervous fan, but he handled me well. I told him all about the Credo House. I think I even said (as I tried to impress him) that he could get free lattes for life! Oh well. I am the President of Credo House Ministries. I can do that kind of stuff. He asked me if I wanted him to sign the book I brought. After asking me what my name was again, he signed his book. Then he walked me back into the kitchen as he went and got a book. He said that he had some homework for me. What? I thought to myself? I am now like…like…a legitimate Oden student? A fleeting thought came to my mind, that he wanted me to come back over and over again to discuss theology. It would be like a personal mentorship or something! We would be best of friends. I might even consider becoming Arminian just for this. Okay, back to reality. . .  He then gave me a book. It was a new copy of his revised Systematic Theology. Wait, a signed copy of his revised Systematic Theology! How cool was that?

As it was time for me to go (he had an appointment he had to get to), I thought seriously about hugging him and saying something stupid like, “May the Lord bless you for the work you do for the kingdom.” I kept revising the wording of my benediction so many times in my mind that, thankfully, it was too late and awkward for me to either try to hug or give the benediction. (I was stuck on the word “kingdom” for some reason.) Who was I to bless him anyway?

I walked out to my car and drove away. I thought about who to call and tell this unbelievable story to. However, the choices were few. Who, besides me, gets this excited over something like this? So I called Tim Kimberley and Carrie Hunter, my two coworkers. We all laughed at how excited this Calvinist was to meet an Arminian statesman. But that is just who I am. Oden is a hero of mine and (oh no, here we go) “May the Lord bless him for the work he has done for the kingdom.”

That was my meeting with Thomas Oden. I will let you all know if he takes advantage of his free lifetime supply of coffee at the Credo House (I hope he does).Similar Posts:

• My Twenty Year Voyage into Theology
• Is Arminianism Cooperative Justification?
• Misinterpreting God? An Example of the Often Confusing Voice of Experience
• "Will God Protect My Kids?" – What Am I Supposed to Say
• Update on family

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

Democrat: Liberal. Godless. Weak. Immoral. Baby-killers.

Roman Catholic: Worships Mary. Drones. 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 Christianity: 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.

Unfortunately, there are reasons why people have stereotypical assumptions about systems, and the reasons are often valid. Not because the system itself demands it (although this is sometimes the case), but because of two things: 1) There will always be those radical outspoken representatives who live for the spotlight and focus upon non-essentials within the system, thereby giving outsiders a skewed perspective of what the system is all about; 2) There are those outside the system who seek to distort the “opponent” by creating straw-man arguments.

It is the first about which I would like to speak. Specifically, I would like to speak with regards to Calvinism (since I am a Calvinist). There are many out there who call themselves Calvinists who make very bad Calvinists. In other words, the way they portray their own system lacks understanding and perspective concerning the system.

When I am around some Calvinists, I often want to become an Arminian! There are many reasons I say this, but first and foremost is that many Calvinists lack balance. They act as if the doctrines of grace are the only issues in theology. It does not matter what you are talking about, with these people it somehow always turns into a discussion about the importance of Calvinism. Further, they will strongly demean any who disagrees with Calvinism to the point where they deny them the grace that is so irresistible in their own system. In other words, there are many Calvinists who act like Calvinism is the central core of the Gospel. With this attitude of smugness, arrogance, and disrespect demonstrated by so many, who would want to be a Calvinist?

I will be the first to admit that there are many who are not Calvinists who love the Lord more, are smarter, and who live the Christian life better than myself (none of which is a great feat ). Who can deny the scholarship of the likes of men like Roger Olson, Thomas Oden, Paul Copan, J.P. Moreland, Gregory Boyd, I. Howard Marshall, and Scott McKnight? I can personally attest to the Christian character of Paul Copan and J.P. Moreland. They demand my respect even if we disagree.

Unfortunately, in some Calvinists’ zeal to proclaim the sovereignty of God, they present a very unbalanced portrayal of Calvinism. They often fail to give proper credence to the love of God and the responsibility of man. Now, to be fair, I don’t know of many respected Calvinist scholars who do so, but I have found this tendency continually among the laity and lay teachers. Progressing mightily in the triumph of the glory of God, they often make God so sovereign that He must, by virtue of their definition of sovereignty, be the author of all things, including evil. Now, I do recognize that Zwingli and Beza, who are part of magisterial Calvinism, did go this direction, but this is certainly not a necessary belief for Calvinists. In fact, some Calvinists, such as myself, would say that making God directly responsible for evil is such a way does not dignify His sovereignty, but, frankly, borders on blasphemy.

Further, there are many Calvinists who will deny the title Calvinism to any who don’t believe as they do on the non-essential elements of Calvinism. These non-essential elements of Calvinism include double predestination (retributionism), an affirmation of meticulous sovereignty, the absolute and unqualified denial of man’s free will and responsibility, a belief that God hates the non-elect, a demand to see the atonement as limited in the way that they believe it to be limited, and a firm adherence to supralapsarianism. Some even deny that we have the responsibility to share the Gospel. Their circle becomes so thin, it is no wonder that pride abounds. They become the elect within the elect!

I remember a Calvinist who owned a local bookstore where I used to study. Every time I entered the door, he would start nagging me about some non-essential issues of Calvinism. His primary argument was that I was not really a Calvinist because I believed that God, in spite of His unconditional election, still loved the non-elect. This was the discussion every time. I came to the point where I thought that he was not going to welcome me in the doors any longer because I did not agree that God hated the non-elect. The last words I remember saying to him were, “What does God want us to do with our enemies?” He said, “Love them.” I asked, “Do you think God would expect us to do something that He Himself cannot do?” He did not respond.

I am a Calvinist. I am a five-point Calvinist. I don’t mind being labeled as such. But sadly, I have to greatly qualify what I mean by this so people don’t label me according to the massive misrepresentation of Calvinism by some Calvinists.

In short, it is sad to say, but I would rather go to a party with a humble Arminian than some passionate Calvinists. While I don’t know how someone can be “against Calvinism” I do know how they can be against Calvinists. Calvinists sometimes make the worst Calvinists.Similar Posts:

• Calvinists often make the worst Calvinists
• Some Misconceptions about Calvinism
• Why Calvinism is the Least Rational Option
• Ten Myths About Calvinism
• Tension in Calvinism – tension in the Christian faith

Let me begin by explaining libertarian freedom, and the reason why most Calvinists deny the concept. (Just scroll to the end if you already know what libertarian freedom is.)

Libertarian Freedom

Libertarian Freedom is often described as “the power of contrary choice.” In other words, the one who believes in libertarian freedom believes that in any given circumstance, when a choice is made, the chooser had the “power” or ability to choose differently. For example, even though this blog is already written, I could have chosen not to write it.

That seems self-evident and rather intuitive as our days are made up of the sum total of all our choices. We make thousands of conscious and unconscious decisions every day in which there are multiple options present. As well, we hold people accountable for their choices because we assume that they could have done otherwise. We tell our children to clean up their room. If they disobey, we discipline them, believing that they had the power of contrary choice (i.e. they could have obeyed!).

As easy as this concept is to accept from a very practical standpoint, from both a philosophical and theological point of view, it is hardly so cut and dry. If you ask me whether a person has the power of contrary choice, I would answer “no.”

Hang with me. The basic argument would be this. Any given choice that a person makes is not made in a vacuum. In other words, none of our choices are birthed out of neutrality. It is a person who makes the choice, not some innocent bystander called “free will.” By the time any given choice is made, the person making the choice will already be, by nature, predisposed to make that choice. This does not mean that the outcome is determined by an outside agency (determinism) nor does it mean that the choice in inevitable (fatalism), but that it is self-determined. Simply put, a person’s nature makes up who they are. Who they are determines their choice. Therefore, people always choose according to who they are at the moment. There is no “power” of contrary choice, for we cannot identify what or who this “power” might be.

Arminians such as Roger Olson believe that when we reject God, we do so out of a neutralized will (total depravity + previenient grace).

Calvinists such as myself believe that when we reject God, we do so out of a fallen will (total depravity).

Think about all that goes into making who you are. We are born in the fallen line of Adam. Spiritually speaking, we have an inborn inclination toward sin. All of our being is infected with sin. This is called “total depravity.” Every aspect of our being is infected with sin, even if we don’t act it out to a maximal degree.

But even if this were not the case—even if total depravity were a false doctrine—libertarian freedom would still be untenable for humans. Not only are you who you are because of your identification with a fallen human race, but notice all these factors that you did not choose that go into the setup for any given “free will” decision made:

• You did not choose when you were to be born.
• You did not choose where you were to be born.
• You did not choose your parents.
• You did not choose your influences early in your life.
• You did not choose whether you were to be male or female.
• You did not choose your genetics.
• You did not choose your temperament.
• You did not choose your looks.
• You did not choose your body type.
• You did not choose your physical abilities.

All of these factors play an influential role in who you are at the time of any given decision. Yes, your choice is free, but it has you behind it. Therefore, you are free to choose according to you from whom you are not able to free yourself!

Now, I must reveal something here once again that might surprise many of you. This view is held by both Calvinists and Arminians alike. Neither position believes that a person can choose against their nature. However, Arminians (such as Olson) differ from Calvinists in that they believe in the doctrine of “prevenient grace,” which essentially neutralizes the will so that the inclination toward sin—the antagonism toward God—is relieved and the person can make a neutral decision.

However, we still have some massive difficulties. Here are a few:

A neutralized will amounts to your absence from the choice itself.

Changing the nature of a person so that their predispositions are neutral does not really help. We are back to the question What does a neutralized will look like? Does it erase all of the you behind the choice? If you are neutralized and liberated from you, then who is making the choice? How can you be held responsible for a choice that you did not really make, whether good or bad?

A neutralized will amounts to perpetual indecision.

Think about this, if a person had true libertarian freedom, where there were no coercive forces, personal or divine, that influenced the decision, would a choice ever be made? If you have no reason to choose A or B, then neither would ever be chosen. Ronald Nash illustrates this by presenting a dog who has true libertarian freedom trying to decide between two bowls of dog food. He says that the dog would end up dying of starvation. Why? Because he would never have any reason to choose one over the other. It is like a balanced scale, it will never tilt to the right or the left unless the weight (influence) on one side is greater than the other. Then, no matter how little weight (influence) is added to a balanced scale, it will always choose accordingly.

A neutralized will amounts to arbitrary decisions, for which one cannot be held responsible.

For the sake of argument, let’s say that libertarian choice could be made. Let’s say that the dog did choose one food bowl over the other. In a truly libertarian sense, this decision cannot have influences of any kind. Any decision without influences is arbitrary. It would be like flipping a coin. I chose A rather than B, not because of who I am, but for no reason at all. It just turned out that way. But this option is clearly outside a biblical worldview of responsibility and judgment. Therefore, in my opinion, the outcome for the fight for true libertarian free will comes at the expense of true responsibility!

Bottom line:  while I believe people have free will, I don’t believe people have libertarian free will. We make the choices we make because of who we are. We are responsible for these choices. God will judge each person accordingly with a righteous judgment.

Is there tension? Absolutely. We hold in tension our belief in God’s sovereignty, determining who we are, when we live, where we will live, who our parents will be, our DNA, etc. and human responsibility. While this might seem uncomfortable, I believe that it is not only the best biblical option, but the only philosophical option outside of fatalism, and we don’t want to go there.

Acts 17:26-28
“From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. 27 God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. 28 ‘For in him we live and move and have our being.”

Does God have libertarian freedom?

Now we come to the question of the hour. Roger Olson asks, in essence, Does God have libertarian freedom?

You see, pantheism believes that God (an impersonal being) created the world out of necessity. He did not make a choice, much less a libertarian free choice. But Christians are not pantheists. We do not believe that God was compelled to create the universe, but did so out of his own freedom. In other words, he could have chosen not to make the universe. Therefore if you are a Christian, no matter what tradition you are from, I think you must believe that God has the power of contrary choice. God has true freedom in a way that we don’t.

However, this does not mean we believe that God has the ability to choose against his nature. Roger Olson asks, “Is God the prisoner of his own wisdom (or of anything)?” “Prisoner” is loaded term. I could load it another way: “Is God faithful to his own wisdom (or to anything)?” The answer must be qualified.

God’s wisdom cannot be separated from who he is. We call this the doctrine of simplicity. God is a simple being. No, this does not mean that he is easy to figure out. It means that God is not composed of parts. It means that God is one. It means that God is indivisible. We cannot separate God’s wisdom from his nature. Though we often distinguish between God’s attributes in ways that imply separation, we need to be careful. God is righteous. God is love. God is holy. God is wise. But these are not separate attributes, as if the sum total of them define his being or essence. They are all who he is. He is wise-loving-holy-righteous. They are the same in essence.

Therefore, when we ask if God is a “prisoner” to his wisdom (or any one of his attributes), it is like asking “Is God a prisoner to who he is?” The answer is an unqualified “yes.” If he is not, then all of Christianity is in jeopardy and our salvation is contingent upon God’s submission to outside principles such as wisdom and faithfulness. But God is wisdom. God is faithful. His very nature defines these concepts. God could no more act unwise or unfaithful then he could cease to be God. God is who he is, eternally and immutably (unchangeably).

So when we talk about libertarian freedom with regard to God, we must distinguish between two aspects of it:

1. Could God have chosen differently than he chose (say in making the universe)? Yes. God, being transcendent to cause and effect relationships—being beyond time—does not have any prior causes to his actions. He has no parents, events, or culture which influences any decision. All his actions are birthed out of the “eternal now” and are, therefore, truly free. We are not pantheists. We are theists. God’s transcendent nature necessitates a freedom that we don’t experience.

2. Can God act against his own nature? No. God always acts according to who he is. By definition, God will always remain faithful to himself. 2 Timothy 2:13 puts it this way: “He cannot deny himself.” He is righteous and will always act accordingly when justice is on the table. God is love and will always act in accordance with his love. God is wise and cannot ever make an unwise choice. Therefore, when the choice involves God choosing or not choosing in accordance with his character, he will always choose according to who he is.

Was the creation of the universe necessitated out of his character? No. God did not have to create this universe. He did not have to create me. He did not have to choose you for salvation. He did not have to send his Son to die for us. These are true free will decisions.

So, I am willing to say that God has a qualified libertarian freedom: God has the power of contrary choice so long as it is not contrary to his nature.

While I don’t think that this is a “soft-ball” question, I do think it is something that Calvinists can answer with some degree of confidence. Understanding God’s decisions in relation to his eternality is inscrutable. We can only explain what must be. Now, if I were asked where Satan’s decision to rebel came from, I would have no satisfying answer as a Calvinist.

That is the best I’ve got, Dr. Olson. Love your stuff.Similar Posts:

• A Calvinist’s Understanding of “Free-Will”
• Why I Reject the Arminian Doctrine of Prevenient Grace
• Why Calvinism is the Least Rational Option
• Some Misconceptions about Calvinism
• Do Roger Olson and I Worship the Same God?

Summary: During this broadcasts the hosts discuss issues surrounding misconceptions of Calvinism.

Other ways to get TUP:

• Theology Unplugged Page
  
• RSS
  
• iTunes
  

Similar Posts:

• Theology Unplugged: Invitation to Calvinism – Part 12
• Theology Unplugged: Invitation to Calvinism – Part 13
• Theology Unplugged: Invitation to Calvinism – Part 11
• Theology Unplugged: Invitation to Calvinism – Part 6
• Theology Unplugged: An Invitation to Calvinism – Part 5

Summary: During this broadcasts the hosts discuss issues surrounding the fifth point of the TULIP: Perseverance of the Saints.

Other ways to get TUP:

• Theology Unplugged Page
• RSS
• iTunes

Similar Posts:

• Theology Unplugged: Invitation to Calvinism – Part 12
• Theology Unplugged: Invitation to Calvinism – Part 11
• Theology Unplugged: Invitation to Calvinism – Part 14
• Theology Unplugged: Invitation to Calvinism – Part 6
• Theology Unplugged: An Invitation to Calvinism – Part 5

Summary: During this broadcasts the hosts discuss issues surrounding the fifth point of the TULIP: Perseverance of the Saints.

Other ways to get TUP:

• Theology Unplugged Page
• RSS
• iTunes

Similar Posts:

• Theology Unplugged: Invitation to Calvinism – Part 13
• Theology Unplugged: Invitation to Calvinism – Part 11
• Theology Unplugged: Invitation to Calvinism – Part 14
• Theology Unplugged: Invitation to Calvinism – Part 6
• Theology Unplugged: An Invitation to Calvinism – Part 5

Summary: During this broadcasts the hosts discuss issues surrounding the forth point and fifth point of the TULIP: Irresistible Grace and Perseverance of the Saints.

Other ways to get TUP:

• Theology Unplugged Page
• RSS
• iTunes

Similar Posts:

• Theology Unplugged: Invitation to Calvinism – Part 12
• Theology Unplugged: Invitation to Calvinism – Part 13
• Theology Unplugged: Invitation to Calvinism – Part 14
• Theology Unplugged: Invitation to Calvinism – Part 6
• Theology Unplugged: An Invitation to Calvinism – Part 5

Summary: During this broadcasts the hosts discuss the third point in the TULIP acronym: Limited Atonement.

Other ways to get TUP:

• Theology Unplugged Page
• RSS
• iTunes

Similar Posts:

• Theology Unplugged: An Invitation to Calvinism – Part 5
• Theology Unplugged: Invitation to Calvinism – Part 6
• Theology Unplugged: Invitation to Calvinism – Part 12
• Theology Unplugged: Invitation to Calvinism – Part 13
• Theology Unplugged: Invitation to Calvinism – Part 11

My concern here is that this young lady has made the mistake that many people, both professing Christians and non-Christians alike, often make. They make decisions based on what they think either is or is not the secret, decretive will of God. But Scripture forbids us to do this. All of our decisions and evaluations are to be made based on the revealed and moral will of God, namely, the will of God made clear to us in Scripture. The secret and decretive will of God is precisely that, secret, and therefore cannot be known apart from an explicit revelation in the Word. The revealed will of God is that this young lady repent and believe the gospel. There is no way she could ever know if she is among the elect except by believing the gospel. There is no way she could ever know that she is among the non-elect except by dying in unbelief. It is really quite easy for her to overcome her fear of being among the non-elect: repent and believe the gospel! If she does, Jesus says he will in no way ever cast her out. If she says, “But how can I believe the gospel if I’m among the non-elect?” The answer again is, “Believe the gospel and thereby know that you are among the elect.” Those who are non-elect ultimately don’t care one way or the other. They so despise Christ and the gospel that they don’t live in fear they are non-elect. This leads me to suspect that this young lady is under the convicting work of the Spirit and that the Spirit has already unveiled to her heart the beauty of Christ and the hope of the gospel. She is struggling to make sense of it all and has allowed herself to be led into despair on the basis of her “knowledge” of something that by definition can’t be known. So, again, the mistake that creates numerous unanswerable problems for her is basing her decisions and letting her feelings and fears be governed by something God has refused to reveal. I would say to her, “Put all your fears to rest and know this for sure, if you will but repent and believe the gospel of Jesus Christ you will be finally and forever forgiven and saved.”

- Sam Storms

Similar Posts:

• For those of you interested in the issues of Calvinism and Arminianism
• Calvinism and the Divine Decrees – Correcting a Misunderstanding
• Some Misconceptions about Calvinism
• Why Do I (A Calvinist) Go to An Arminian Church?
• Bucer, Evangelism and Unconditional Election

Summary: During this broadcasts the hosts discuss the second point in the TULIP acronym: Unconditional Election.

Other ways to get TUP:

• Theology Unplugged Page
• RSS
• iTunes

Similar Posts:

• Theology Unplugged: An Invitation to Calvinism – Part 5
• Theology Unplugged: An Invitation to Calvinism – Part 9
• Theology Unplugged: Invitation to Calvinism – Part 12
• Theology Unplugged: Invitation to Calvinism – Part 13
• Theology Unplugged: Invitation to Calvinism – Part 11