As they say, “If the shoe fits wear it.”

How many readers… do harm to themselves?

By Philipp Jacob Spener

1635-1705

 “If… they read the Scriptures without sincere prayer and the purpose to obey God, but only to get knowledge, to make a show, and to exercise their curiosity upon them…

If they do not observe what is useful for their edification, but only what they can use for their glory and against others…

If they despise what the Scriptures simply stated and what is easy to comprehend.

If, on the contrary, they take up only difficult passages, about which, about which there is much dispute, in order to discover in them something unusual and to make a show before others.

If they use what they have learned with pride and for their own glory…

If they think they alone are wise, obstinately refuse better instruction, love to quarrel, and receive nothing from others with modesty.”

Taken from…

“The Life You’ve Always Wanted”

John Ortberg

 

ZONDERVAN

A Rather Tricky Form of Carnality

Part 2 

“It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.”

John 6:63

In Part 1, “A Prophetic Warning to the Prophetic Movement,” I addressed the danger of giving too much attention to and placing too much confidence in just anyone who says they are prophesying in the name of the Lord. Without discrediting prophesy all together, I called for believers to be discerning. I further encouraged leaders to take more responsibility for what takes place in the prophetic settings.

An Evangelical Priesthood

Now, here in Part 2, I am making a similar call against placing too much confidence in our current evangelical priests. Yes, we have an evangelical priesthood. In both cases we are doing what we should never do. In both cases we have adopted intermediaries. 

It is easy to take shots at people who say and do flaky things. On the contrary, it is more difficult to call into question those who, in every respect, appear to be well-educated, well-groomed, refined in manners and level-headed.

For instance, Mormons appear refined and level-headed. Millions of otherwise intelligent, thoughtful people follow Mormon teaching. In Mormonism perception becomes the reality. Regrettably, many evangelicals are falling for the same thing and lining up in a similar fashion. They buy the glossy promotional cover without carefully thinking about the content.  Mormonism simply has better packaging than Scientology. Take it from me, Mormonism is “crackers” – as “crackers” as Scientology but somehow they get a free pass.

In order to justify their legitimacy, Mormons go so far as to point to their apparent success – prominent nationally recognized personalities, sophisticated universities and institutions, wealth, numerical growth, etc.,  as clear evidence that what they teach is the product of divine revelation. Of course, this is no evidence at all and to prove my point, I ask them how many people managed to get onto the ark? Thousands, even millions of adherents is no guarantee of truth. In fact, according to scripture, success may indicate the exact opposite ( “wide is the gate”). Perhaps we should be suspicious of some evangelical success stories? Are we enamored by the packaging or the content?

“Churches with the word GRACE in their names are often the most legalistic.”

Harry Hedrick 

Here’s a case in point. I grew up in a very prominent evangelical denomination. If I mention the name, everyone would immediately recognize it. They made the claim that they were, without doubt, the most biblical denomination in the world. Since people I greatly admired made this claim I never questioned the truthfulness of it. I believed this until I left home and discovered that there were countless ways in which they failed to teach the “full counsel of God.” While there were many good things about this group, there were many ways in which other churches and denominations held to truths they had either ignored or missed entirely. I should have had this mind, the whole truth belongs to the whole church and no prophesy of scripture is of any private interpretation (2 Peter 1:20). We have come outside of the camp, bearing His reproach (Hebrews 13:13) and here we have no continuing city (Hebrews 13:14). Our preachers, theologians and denominations belong to us. We do not belong to them (1 Corinthians 3:21-22).

“For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus,”

1 Timothy 2:5 

“Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up on behalf of one against the other.”

1 Corinthians 4:6 

Understanding the following may take an exercise of making very fine distinctions – or a high level of discernment.  

In the whole of the Bible the word “flesh” is mentioned four hundred twenty times in about four different ways. The earliest and most often use has to do with all living men and animals, re: the body itself. It continues to be used in the same way in the New Testament but predominately we now have the introduction of the idea of the human nature without divine influence and prone to sin. Flesh (sarx) in this sense is called carnality.

Paul gives us a nice, tidy list of carnality in Galatians 5:18-21. You know what these fleshly acts are. Perhaps you have memorized the list. In case you have forgotten, here it is… 

“Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like;”

Galatians 5:19-21

This sums it up. Or does it? The text indicates that it is not as exhaustive as it could be. Look at how it concludes, “…and the like.” We do however get the idea of what the “and the like” is, don’t we? We are left to fill this in for ourselves. Add to this list all of the nasty business you can think of and that constitutes what we may call, “the works of the flesh.” The text seems to indicate that carnality (fleshliness) is the out working of the ego or the assertion of self. The assertion of self always results in the sins of the flesh. Bad behavior and the out working of evil activity are rather easy to identify so we don’t have to analyze this reference to the flesh hardly at all. We all get it.

This is what disturbs me! “Flesh”, as Paul understands it “flesh” moves beyond this list and shows up in other, less identifiable ways. I have friends involved in religion of the flesh and they don’t have a clue. When I read scripture and survey the present spiritual landscape, I see “flesh” as something more pervasive. It shows up in the most polished settings – even among the most groomed spokespersons for the Christian faith.

Theological elitists are the masters of a carnal faith. 

When Paul says in Philippians 3:3, “For we are the circumcision, who worship God in the Spirit, rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh…,”

Here, Paul is not referring to either the human body or acts of unethical or immoral behavior. 

“Our virtues are but splendid sins.”

St. Augustine

What do you think Augustine meant? He meant the same thing that Paul meant. Paul had already explained his philosophy by renouncing confidence in human ancestry, national legacy, social position, religious devotion, physical strength, intellectual skill, eloquence, ability, educational achievement or professional notoriety. All of this influence becomes meaningless when facing the cross of Christ. As tricky as it is, this confidence in status is as much the flesh and carnality as is bad behavior and the out working of evil activity. Here in Paul’s own words, is what he calls flesh and carnality.

“…though I also might have confidence in the flesh. If anyone else thinks he may have confidence in the flesh, I more so:  circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews; concerning the law, a Pharisees, concerning zeal, persecuting the church; concerning the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.

But what things were gain to me, these I have counted loss for Christ. Yet indeed I also count all things loss for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as rubbish, that I may gain Christ and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith;  that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death,if, by any means, I may attain to the resurrection from the dead.”

Philippians 3:4-11 

What makes God mad?

I have often thought, “What were those occurrences that seem to have aggravated God the most?” I haven’t compiled a thorough list and in the interest of time I will provide just a couple of incidences of the many and all of them was of a similar kind. God was clearly annoyed when Israel complained and murmured, particularly when they questioned his ability to provide meat in the wilderness. Again, he wasn’t pleased with the Tower of Babel or when David numbered Israel. Many incidents of God’s displeasure had to do with God’s people doubting him and taking things upon themselves. God is displeased when any man thinks he can go it alone.

Unfortunately, this is American evangelicalism. Along with the Pharisees, western evangelicals have made the claim, “We have Abraham as our father.” Here’s a bit of news for you, God “can raise up children of Abraham from stones,” so we dare not make the same mistake of thinking too much of ourselves as the Pharisees did. 

“Without faith it is impossible to please Him.”

Hebrews 11:6a 

Early in scripture we see God admonishing His people for putting confidence in the “arm of the flesh” or trusting in the strength of horses or chariots rather than the power of the living God.

We see this surface again in the New Testament, when in Paul’s First Epistle to Corinth he warns them about trusting in human wisdom or philosophy. Paul is not telling them to be stupid. He does say that “Knowledge puffs up” – makes folks self-confident – arrogant. God always resists the proud. Human cleverness, intellect or eloquence will not be the means by which the kingdom advances so, dear brethren, as good as it is, don’t put too much confidence in it. After all, “The kingdom does not come in word (intellectual gymnastics and philosophical speculation) but in power.” Though we know this, there is a part of the western church that doesn’t seem to believe it. They have seemingly come to the conclusion that God moves through intellectual refinement.

A friend of mine who has an earned Ph.D. once said this to me, “A Ph.D. doesn’t prove how intelligent anybody is. It just lets us know how long they’ve spent in school.” May I add that a Ph.D. – for that matter, all theological education – doesn’t certify a persons’ spirituality, orthodoxy or ministry effectiveness either. In fact, it has often been the case that just the opposite proves to be true. The more education a person has had results in them being less spiritual, orthodox or capable of ministry. We are immediately suspicious of those who do not have formal theological training. Why? Why shouldn’t it be the other way around?

Another friend, a career missionary added this, “I have never seen a Ph.D. cast out a demon.” This may not be one hundred percent true but I can concur that often class attendance or academic achievement does not seem to enhance one’s spiritual authority when real power encounters are required.

These then are two equally dangerous errors. There is on one side of the church an over spiritualization and anti-intellectual mood and in the other over confidence in academic skill, formal ministry preparation and this posture often spawns a suspicion of the spiritual.

I might call this mood, “Evangelical Gnosticism.” This is the notion that spiritual sensitivity cannot be trusted. “The heart is deceitful above all things and who can know it?” For this side of the church, the kingdom does come in words. The more a person knows about Greek, theology, scripture – the more books they have read, written or names they can drop, etc. – the more spiritual he or she becomes. Friends, this is just christening the Gnostic heresy and making it acceptable. Knowledge may enhance spirituality but it is not the means of gaining it.

We clearly see that Paul ran up against this same spirit in Corinth.

“And my speech and my preaching were not with persuasive words of human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power,” that your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.”

1 Corinthians 2:4-5 

It is this writers’ view that seminaries are responsible for more heresy, speculation and theological confusion than all of the amassed, uneducated country bumpkins combined. Those preachers who make up sentences with double negatives can be easily dismissed but not so when someone has a masterful command of language and academic credentials to go with it.    

Recently, I have been reading in Joshua and referring to James Montgomery Boice’s little commentary by the same name. He points out that, in strictly human and/or as   military strategy, Joshua did a foolish thing when, as soon as he crossed the Jordan, he commanded the circumcision of all of his men. God had a good reason for disabling, immobilizing and leaving the troops defenseless for at least three to five days. He wanted them to clearly understand that the battle was the Lord’s and that confidence in human strength would only end in defeat as it did when they went up against Ai.

The quest to gain acceptance with the secular world?

Perhaps this is why the American church with all of its seminaries, PhD’s., billions of dollars invested in buildings, technology and so forth is so pathetically weak and ineffective. With all of their knowing I doubt if our theological halls have figured this much out. Those who write most of the books we read have never fought a skirmish in their spiritual lives. They are as, John the Baptist called them, “those that wear fine raiment and live in King’s palaces.” Rarely will we find a hair or a comma out-of-place.

Then there are the followers who think to themselves, “Oh, if I just claim this truth, I will be a spiritual giant like Dr. This ‘n That.” I personally tire of the constant reference to this author or that pastor. In many respects some of these people have been elevated to almost demigod status. Perhaps it is only in America that we have this luxury of having our own personality cults. I have friends who hang upon these priests to breath or type their next word. See there, just like the world, we have our celebrities too. Is this a form of idolatry?

How they love their scrolls and books. This was the problem with the Pharisee’s and the scribes. They were masters of academic detail. In fact, they were so fastidious regarding the Torah and zealous toward academic excellence they adopted the rabbinical commentaries (Talmud) with the same vigor. These were the seminarians, the PhD’s.  They were devoted to jot and tittle. They had it figured out how things must be. As we say, “They had their ducks all lined up in a neat row.” Everything was measured by rightly dividing the word of God. It all boils down to an accurate exegete of the past. “Does any prophet come out of Galilee?” They built their houses of cards, sat back in admiration but then God blew it down. He (Jesus) arrived as a surprise package. Is this why the last to recognize a move of God are those in seminaries and church hierarchies?

It didn’t take long before the emerging infant church had their minds made up as well. In less than a decade they had it figured out how things ought to go. That was until Cornelius’ house when God blew all of the neatly stacked cards across the gentile world.

We have placed too much confidence in this form of flesh and thus have established a new evangelical priesthood

This same attitude has found its’ way into the twenty-first century. There is a side of the western evangelical church that thinks this way. Without ample evidence, they have decided that the gifts are not for today. These have all ended with the Apostles. We no longer need the gifts because we now have the completed canon and we can rely on our exegetical skills. Leave this business to the professionals.

These folks, like the Pharisee’s admire academic certainty. They don’t like any coloring outside of the lines.

For me, this represents a carnality of another kind.

It reeks of the high-mindedness of Corinth, doesn’t it? Does this surprise you that someone might call this carnality? Nevertheless, for me it amounts to a sinful trust in the flesh. The flesh will prevail and save the day. We don’t need power when accurate exegete will suffice. Well, let’s see if exegesis bears this out. I ask you, what is Paul saying here in these passages? What constitutes and who were the “puffed up?”

“Now some are puffed up, as though I were not coming to you. But I will come to you shortly, if the Lord wills, and I will know, not the word of those who are puffed up, but the power. For the kingdom of God is not in word but in power.”

1 Corinthians 4:19-20 

This is the same Paul who was touted as one of the greatest intellects of the ancient world. This is the Paul who also wrote, “Study to show thyself approved.” Study all you like but avoid placing any confidence in it. This is one of the prevalent contemporary errors that we must be on guard against. I am not being anti-intellectual. After all, I am a Bible teacher and apologists so not opposed to learning all that we can. What I am opposing here is the carnal pride that comes with anyone claiming they or their group have arrived at the full council of God. “We see but through a glass darkly.”   

Vance Havner, that great country preacher from Jugtown, North Carolina (I’m serious, it was Jugtown) said, “I have never yet heard a sermon that I got nothing out of it.  But, I’ve had some mighty close calls.”

I will not be as charitable as Havner. I have sat through some sermons that were down-right content less in one of two different respects. Some were so eisogetic, esoteric and ethereal I gave up on the premise right early. There were others so impressively intellectual, academic and ponderous that I didn’t want to encourage the speaker in his powerless, self infatuation.

Whether apocryphal or not, it has been often told that somebody once told John Bunyan that he had preached a delightful sermon.

 “You are too late,” said John, “the devil told me that before I left the pulpit.”

The problem is not education or those who have it. The problem for me is the false assumption that those who do have it are somehow more insightful, spiritual or gifted than the rest of the church. There is evidenced far too much false humility. I am afraid that too many popular evangelicals have been too busy with self promotion and pretending that all they do is for the glory of God.  Perhaps they would do well (as would their followers) if they took leave off the reading of their press clippings and cease from seeking the media limelight.

“Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.  For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily;and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power.”

Colossians 2:8-10

 

A bondage of another kind

Intellectual Legalism

“Walking in the light of men rather than the light of God.”

Strong doctrinal opinion can be as seductive and dangerous  as heresy. When we think of legalism, what comes to mind are certain extra-biblical restrictions concerning dress, form or behavior. There is, however, another less identifiable but perhaps more acceptable form of legalism. Many people have been promised liberty (a special truth or experience) only to find that they have been brought into the bondage of men.

There are certain doctrinal persuasions that are so strongly held that though they are not cultic they have managed to essentially accomplish the same thing – mind control.

Cults restrict exposure and association. Cults must separate and isolate their adherents from materials and all others who think differently. The fact is, there are some Christian groups which operate in a similar way.

This is one of my present concerns. There is a term which describes this sort of isolationism. This is called “theological provincialism.” The idea of “provincialism” concerns itself with a lack of perspective. The cultural application has to do with those who might live on an island or inhabit a region in a remote area of the world. These people are cut off from everyone but their own kind. Geographic circumstances forces everyone to think the same. People in these situations are forced to inbreed. In very real terms this is what happened to groups like the Quakers, Shakers and Amish. They moved onto their islands, destroyed their bridges and boats then established religious enclaves of a solitary nature. These groups, as well as others, have separated themselves but one does not have to become a monk, move into a monastery or take a vow of silence. One need not move to a rural area, grow beards, dress in black and dispense with motorized vehicles to accomplish the same purpose.

There are many identifiable groups which already do this. They are restricted from association and exposure from all theological perspectives but one. Let me name a few so the reader can see more clearly what I mean, The Church of Christ, certain Plymouth Brethren, Independent Baptists, Seventh Day Adventists, United Pentecostals. All of these groups, and I could name more, are elitists in their theological ideologies.

“The problem with seduction is it seduces.”

This statement may sound rather trite until one thinks about it. The entire point of seduction is that one does not know they have been seduced. In saying this, I doubt if those readers who need to hear this the most will even hear it. They will suppose that this must be about someone else. They might take offence at the suggestion that they have tacitly surrendered their minds and souls to the safe keeping of others.  They will say, “Well, certainly this is not me. I am free to read, consider and think as I want. I am not involved in a mind control group! I can leave anytime that I like!” A seduced person – a person who has misplaced their security -cannot leave anytime they like. Let me correct myself, they can, but they won’t. Like cultists they are not free as they have given themselves to others as their prophets and priests. They no longer rely on the Holy Spirit and Scripture but upon others as interpreters of truth.

Cults formally describe for their adherents what they can and cannot read, should and should not believe. Cultists are emphatically told that views contrary to or oppose their doctrinal interpretations are devil inspired and are heretical. Every cult separates itself from all other groups by claiming orthodoxy.  They assure their followers that they have come into a deeper light through the promise of a greater truth or experience. In fact, while being in complete error, Jehovah’s Witnesses  refer to faithfulness as, “walking in the truth.” Within a cult there is not the subtlety one might find in Christian groups.

With this in mind, I am seeing many others, even Christians that should know better by now, unwittingly overcome by the same spirit of seduction. In their desperation for spiritual reality some have gone after almost anything that glitters. For some it has been outrageous Pentecostalism, prophets that kick, giggle or jerk and for others they have been seduced by clever words and lofty intellectualism, but it is all the same.

Years ago, a Christian friend went off to Ohio to visit the “Glory Barn” in Ohio. It only took him one weekend to be seduced by the teaching of Hobart Freeman. He was so convinced that he bought three-hundred sixty audio tapes and brought them back to Canada. Weekend after weekend he drove off with his family to Ohio. He soon disassociated himself from other believers, pulled together a little group from a variety of area churches and in a short time would only hear Hobart Freeman and his associate teachers. Most interestingly, while Hobart Freeman was a cult leader himself, he had written one of the standard books on cults entitled, “Every Wind of Doctrine.” “The problem with seduction is, it seduces.”

This, to the reader might seem extreme. They might even say, “I would never fall for that!” Yet, everyday, many have and are. Though, unlike the cults which limit exposure and thereby determine what one can read or hear, other mind control groups accomplish the same thing in more sophisticated ways. They slowly, but just as effectively, move their adherents onto the island through endorsements. Once a person becomes convinced that certain preachers, academics, writers of books and blogs have a theological edge on truth – once they give themselves over to certain philosophical perspectives - they begin to clear their book shelves of all other views which might conflict with this or that particular theology.  There are certain writers and thinkers that are acceptable and others that are not. Ask any one of these folks for a list of books they might recommend and one can predict the titles and authors. When I read these authors (and I do), I know who they will quote. They will quote one another and thus we are shipped off to the theological provincialism of “circular reasoning.” The eye does say to the hand I have no need of thee. I can be almost certain and have rarely been disappointed in my expectations. They will only reference those in their own stream of thought. This is legalism and theological provincialism.

While my friends have been promised greater truth and liberty they are in reality brought into a smaller world where their thoughts are controlled and it is no wonder that they cannot (will not) leave as their prophets have spoken. Every opinion is constantly and emphatically supported by everything they come into contact with.

This is seduction and those who have succumbed to it have no means by which to see it. They have slipped into a prophetic movement whereby the prophet(s) speaks the only truth there is. Making it even more convincing are the amassed degrees, the media exposure, books they have authored, the conferences where-in they were keynote speakers, the smoothness of speech, the flawless grammar, spelling and punctuation. In spite of these handsome credentials it amounts to nothing more than mind-control and theological legalism. Every thought has been taken captive by men rather than Christ.

In this sense, people can depart from the faith and not even be aware of it.

Take time to read this small book on detecting spiritual imbalance in Christian groups. Read ”A Larger Place” by Jeanne Hedrick by clicking the link below…    http://alargerplace.wordpress.com/

Is Calvin’s God Desirable?

When one reads books or blogs by Calvinists, the authors will almost always argue that we should not trust our hearts but go with our heads instead. In spite of the fact that Christianity is a “hearty” religion we are told to prefer a scientific, analytical approach.  We should remain detached, dispassionate, forensic as we consider the nature and character of God.

Okay, then… let’s go with our heads.  

There are many “heady” non-Calvinists books and blogs but Calvinists have their collective minds made up already (compartmentalism) and will pay no attention to anything non-Calvinists will say. Non-Calvinists are the devil’s instruments and heretics at best. Calvinists are as intellectually isolated and head strong as are Jehovah’s Witnesses and in many respects very similar in their approach to theological reasoning. Jehovah’s Witnesses start with their conclusion. They begin with preconceived assumptions about God and all of the exegesis is opinionated based upon that conclusion.

The ultra-sectarian Calvinist conclusion is simply this, God’s sovereignty and man’s free-will can be only viewed in one way and it’s their way. They view sovereignty as a scale with man (free-will) on one side and God (sovereignty) on the other. With this priory assumption, it stands to reason that if man has any authentic will then it tips the scale and God is not 100%%, completely sovereign and therefore not sovereign at all.

Non-Calvinist sovereignty and yes, there is one…

The non-Calvinist views sovereignty much differently. He or she sees sovereignty as an all encompassing circle (God and sovereignty) with men as dots within that circle, free to make real decisions. Man’s decisions will in no way alter God’s sovereignty or the outcome of history. God is big enough to handle real individual freedom. The decisions that we read about in scripture were real struggles of faith in real time. They were not simply pre-scripted (robotic) incidents.

Because of these totally different views, non-Calvinists and Calvinists fail to communicate. If we can’t agree on the nature of big things then it is doubtful that we should come to agreement on the small. There is no point then of arguing minutia. *There is no point in examining each usage of the words predestination, ordination, election, calling and their various forms.

*(I encourage the reader to do this as you will find that most of the time the words in their contexts have nothing to do with fore-ordination.)

One only need to type into their Google search engine, “Calvinism Refuted,” and they will have plenty of chemistry to read, if this is what one is  interested in. Every verse, parable and context has been exegeted using every “heady” resource available.  Literally thousands of pages have been devoted to academically opposing T-U-L-I-P. If any are interested in these sites then I am happy to supply the reader with more than they will care about. They will find verse by verse exegetes where context and Greek are relied upon for specific textual analysis. (Here is your opportunity to observe people going mad as they attempt to invent the perpetual motion machine,  “Predestination and Free Will: Four Views of Divine Sovereignty and Human Freedom“ by David Basinger and Randall Basinger from Amazon).

This book (above) is just more of five hundred years of hair splitting division with no resolution. Why? Because there is no resolution to be had. For me, this is nauseating enough without every Tom, Dick and Harry adding their two cents worth. This is why I have chosen to write in the chatty, quippy way as I do. If you are like me, you tire of reading complicated, and I must say, boring intellectual contortions that one must endure in order to get to the bottom of this issue if it were ever possible, which, by the way, it is not.

Speculative philosophies that include such hard to pronounce (let alone keep straight in one’s mind) terminology and definitions like  supralapsanarianism and infralapsanarianism are probably not worth a pedestrian’s time and effort. Because of this, I do with ultra-sectarianism the same as I do with the cultist. I ignore the specific details and ask the big over-arching questions that need to be asked.

I will confess that I do not like Calvinism because it makes God so undesirable.

There is a popular website entitled, “Desiring God” which serves to tout the message and person of John Piper and the Gnostic mysteries of Calvinism. When I have thought deeply about the implications of Calvinism I come to the conclusion that Calvin’s God is not desirable and sad to say, neither have been his adherents. The axiom, “Whatever a man attaches himself to is what he ultimately becomes,” in this case seems to pan out.

Okay, you do not have to be smart in order to understand the implications of Calvin’s sovereignty. 

Perhaps you have read the earlier entry entitled “Calvinism is Theological Determinism (Fatalism),” October 10, 2009 where I made it clear that everything is caused and there is only one cause in the universe. There are no chances, no choices and no changes. In other words, God does not nor cannot allow anything.

Think with me here.

What does this mean? Though I do not necessarily support every point of Arminius’ theology, it is on the following position that we most agree. If there is absolutely no free-will in the universe – no will which can rival the will of God - then God is the cause of every evil. 

Human kind will be held responsible for what they had no part (willful volition) in doing. Men are told not to kill and then caused to kill and then personally held accountable for murder. This does not only apply to individual wickedness but God becomes the cause of every pestilence, disease, natural disaster – every earthquake, tornado, hurricane and tsunami. There are absolutely no accidents, everything that happens is ultimately an “act of God.” Let your imagination run as wild as you like. I wish that I could make this philosophically work out some other way but I would have to manipulate logic in order to do what cannot be done.

 The devil and the angels did not rebel of his or their own willfulness. Adam and Eve were disobedient and sinned because God caused them to disobey an instruction that meant virtually nothing in the real sense. Every good and evil act is initiated by God. Get this, the slaughter of the innocents, the holocaust, abortion, mass murder, every despot  - Ghenghis Khan, Joseph Stalin, Aldolf Hitler, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, the September 11^th terrorists – are all automated by God for some ultimate, noble purpose. 

Apparently, the Calvinist God is more than willing to do what He advises us never to do, use the ignoble in order to accomplish the noble.  God can do this if He likes. After all, He is God but I just don’t see this in the revelation of His overall character. God can neither lie nor perpetuate a lie. He is not both good and evil at one and the same time.  To make God out to be like this, is to make Him the author of good and evil. God becomes two-faced (See: Hindu Dualism). A manipulative, untrustworthy and unpredictible God is not desirable.

All evil in the universe is ultimately the work of God. 

Some Calvinists will lay claim to this while others try to wiggle out of it. They will claim that man is still culpable even though a man has no means in which to prevent his own actions. Some men are hard wired by God for evil purposes while others for noble. Now let’s don’t think about this. Once we have arrived at this point, darkness becomes light, sour and sweet are alike, evil for good, vice for virtue and justice has lost it’s definition. Let’s then, just all agree that God has no problem with looking upon evil regardless of what the scripture says,

“Thou that art of purer eyes than to behold evil, and that canst not look on perverseness, wherefore lookest thou upon them that deal treacherously, and holdest thy peace when the wicked swalloweth up the man that is more righteous than he…”  Habakkuk 1:13

The truth is, the Calvinist God is not only comfortable with sin, he turns out to be responsible for it. Jehovah becomes a God of contradiction.

I invite the reader to take a fresh look at Matthew 17:14-21 where they will see the desirable Jesus in battle with the demonic world. Jesus, here in this passage, does not say, “Oh well, tough luck, this evil that has come upon you is the will of my Father.” Nope, he apparently thinks that this incident is not God’s will and explains to the boy’s father that the disciples were ineffective because this deliverence requires more than a word casually spoken. Change is possible. Circumstances can change. This situation required the application of prayer and fasting to be successful. It seems, from this passage, that there is some part men should play (prayer and fasting) in altering the spiritual climate. This story doesn’t appear to be fatalistic to me. How about you? 

________________________

At this point the author expects the Calvinist to play his Judas and the crucifixion of Christ trump card.

Jesus offered himself as a sin offering and Judas, “the son of perdition” was predestined to a task . The non-Calvinists accepts election to task and has equally challenging “trump card” scriptures which appear to support the non-Calvinist view. All of this was foreknown before the foundation of the world by God but this author does not accept, on the basis of Scripture, that God caused the death of His own Son. Jesus struggled in Gethsemane. He was tested in all ways as we are but did not surrender to sin. “Father, if it be Thy will, deliver me from this cup,” but in the end, “not my will but thine be done.” ”He offered Himself up for us all” – “for the joy set before him.”

 

How Calvinism Should Breed Insecurity

Do you remember when Uncle Ricco, Napoleon Dynamite and Kip were all sitting together on the couch watching Ricco’s lame quarterbacking videos? Annoyed, Napoleon cynically speaks up and says, “This is pretty much the worst video of all time.” To this over statement Kip responds, ‘Napoleon, like anybody could ever know that?” It was a moment of truth, wasn’t it? No one could know whether this was the worst video ever made or not. In order to know this sort of thing a person would at least have to have exhaustive knowledge in two different respects. First, they would have to have an all encompassing aesthetic sensibility. Additionally, they would have to have viewed and know, when it came to all videos ever made, what is infinitely good and bad. This is infinite information that no one has.

Perseverance of the Saints…

You may be wondering what this has to do with Calvinism, election, predestination and the fifth point of T-U-L-I-P, “Perseverance of the Saints?” 

When it comes to the infinite, there are some things just too much for a finite mind to know. In previous entries, I have written (and quoted Calvin himself) about sovereignty and election. Over and over, I have only repeated Calvin telling the reader that God in eternity past specifically and particularly chose each and every individual who would be regenerated and this is done before they have ever been born into this present world. My point being that all men are basically born hopeless from the beginning. People enter existence already condemned or saved and Christ did not die for ALL men  but only for those whom God has preselected. This concept is called “Particular Election.”  

Further, and Calvinists will agree with me here, all of those who are Elected by God will never be lost. This is called by some, “Once saved, always saved” but the real language is “Perseverance of the Saints.” 

Here’s the deal. 

It would be impossible for anyone, even the most ardent Calvinist to know for certain that they are among the Elect. They could think that they are among the Elect but they could not know for absolutely certain that they are among the chosen.

Jehovah’s Witnesses have the same problem in knowing whether or not they are in the heavenly 144,000.

Muslim’s are never sure that Allah will admit them to Paradise, unless of course, they go out and blow themselves up in the name of Islam.

Now get what I am saying here. I am not saying that no Calvinists are Elect. I am just saying that it would be presumptuous to say so. Of course, when they do say so, they say so for the same reason that a Pentecostal or a Wesleyan says so. They have the witness of the Spirit (Romans 8:9 and 16) that they are a child of God and this has nothing to do with skills in debating the finer points of Romans 9,  Ephesians 2 or T-U-L-I-P.  

It is here that I want to do what no person who wants to be taken seriously should ever do. I want to argue from the position of particularity. In other words, I intend to resort to specific, personal experience and examples. In fact, I will perhaps set myself up as some sort of judge but not having the advantage of exhaustive knowledge of the mind of God or any person I am about to refer to.

For twelve years I taught a three credit course entitled, “Sovereignty and Free-Will” at a Minneapolis area college not more than twenty minutes from John Piper’s, Bethlehem Baptist Church. Because of this, I wound up having a number of hard-shell and objectionable Calvinists (they prefer to be called Reform but a rose by any other name is still a rose) in my classroom. In all, I would suspect that, over the years, I had about ten of those students. I really can’t imagine what they thought. They thought that the class was up for grabs and anyone’s opinion was as good as anyone else’s. They perhaps supposed that anything goes but this wouldn’t be true at Bethlehem Baptist now would it? Of course not. We have, as does Bethlehem Baptist, what might be called a “School of Thought.” We thought in a certain way and objected to other ways of thinking. That was our prerogative as it is Bethlehem Baptists prerogative and my expectation that, should I attend there, I will be subjected to Reform doctrine, otherwise called Calvinism.

Now here’s where I do what I should not do. Of those ten students, all experts at Calvinism, I can only think of one that has not now left the faith, presently living an immoral life, dropped out of ministry, or was expelled for insubordination. So far, of the ten, only one has seemed to persevere. Fortunately, the last chapter may not have been written yet and these prodigals may yet be restored. Perhaps they are Elect in spite of the poor performance? Who knows? At this point a good Calvinist would have two choices. They could either say, “They probably weren’t saved in the first place” or “Performance has nothing to do with whether a person will persevere or not. The appearance of external morality or the seeming evidence of faith is no indicator of whether a person is (Elect) saved or not. There need not be any evidence of regeneration or transformation.” I take no exception to this as this, according to grace, is possible but not ideal.

 “For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;” (Titus 2:11-13) 

 Here is my point.

For the longest time these students were convinced that they were among the Elect. In those same classrooms there were all sorts of denominations represented and it is true that not all of the other five hundred or more appear to have persevered. Still, none of these students were as adamant about persevering and arguing for it with as much conviction as the Calvinists in the room who overall, and almost to a person, have not done well. Knowledge of Election is no guarantee of Election, now is it?

There are others that become enamored with the tenants of Calvinism. They are busy learning axiom’s and theorems, memorizing minute details on how to defend their doctrines, staying up late at night pouring over Romans and Ephesians, reading ponderous books by Westminster PhD’s and honing their new found skills on their friends and family members. Is it possible that they engage themselves in this way, day after day, night after night, month after month and year after year and after having diligently learning all about every nuance of Calvinism, and at the precise moment they draw their last breath learn that all of this was a colossal waste of time and they were never regenerate in the first place? Well yes, and I think that this will undoubtedly be the case of some. Spiritually speaking, some have never brought up a drop of life-giving water from their own spiritual wells. Oh well, so be it, “che sara, sara.” Their heads are full but their hearts empty and their spirits are still dead in sin. “The flesh, it profiteth nothing” and “knowledge puffeth up.”

Calvinists are simply parrots all in the same cage.

Worldwide, Jehovah’s Witnesses are doing similarly each Thursday evening at their Theocratic Meetings. Are they committed to what they believe? You bet they are! Are they sincere? You bet they are! Are they Elect? Not on your life! Do they think they are! You bet they do!

Sadly, Mormon’s couldn’t possibly know if they are Elect or not (except the witness of the Spirit) and neither can a Calvinist. Do Mormon’s think they have the witness of the Spirit? Just ask them and they will tell you about their subjective, “Burning in the bosom,” as they call it.

I believe that a recipe for losing one’s assurance is to become a Calvinist and go about wondering whether you have it or not. It is much easier to take God at His word and believe what He says, “for “WHOEVER WILL CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED “ (Romans 10:13), “that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation” (Romans 10:9-10),  “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” They said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household” (Acts 16: 30b-31), “The one who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself; the one who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has given concerning His Son. And the testimony is this,that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life. These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life (1 John 5:10-13).“ 

Calvinism is Theological Determinism (Fatalism)

How hard is this to understand?

Muslim’s, Buddhists, first year philosophy students, my twelve year-old grandson – they all get it. Still there remain some who do not take clear definitions for what they are. Fatalism means ALL is caused. There is no choice, no chance and no change in the universe. Once more, let me give you the textbook definitions of determinism and fatalism.

Determinism

“From the Latin de plus terminus, “end.”  In philosophy, the idea that all that happens is casually fixed and cannot happen any other way; the belief that all events in the universe, including human actions, are controlled by previous conditions.  Many forms of Calvinism are variations of theological determinism.”

Fatalism

“From the Latin fatim, meaning ‘that which the god’s ordain to happen.’  The belief that God, because He is all knowing and all-powerful, foresees and causes according to His divine foreknowledge every event in a person’s life and in the universe.  These events must occur; they cannot happen.  When God’s sovereignty is taken to be so wooden, the resulting fatalism is devastating to evangelism, missions, and ultimately to the nature of God and human beings created in His image.”

High Sovereignty (Calvinism) is theological determinism and theological determinism is fatalism. They all are the same thing by different names.

The raw facts of the matter… 

If you have been praying for your parents, your children or your next door neighbor you can stop right now as their eternity is pre-determined. Any and all excercise whereby you beseech God on behalf of another for any reason is a waste of one’s time. God’s pre-determined will has decided everything in advance.

Anyone who attempts to cajole you by offering some twisted explanation about God working through the means of prayer (or preaching) has not been honest. What is decided in the pre-determined will of God is decided and nothing we do by vain effort and futile works of the flesh will make one iota of difference in the ultimate outcome.

I invite the reader(s) to refer to the entry,  ”An Oxymoron – Calvinist Evangelism.”

More evidence of sectarian (Should I say, “Calvinist”?) mind control

Suddenly, I’m having a run of readership on this article!

Come on. This is just an opinion, for something really challenging, try “Is Calvin’s God Desireable?”

John Calvin was not called the “Pope of Geneva” for no reason…

Last week, on our way up to Canada, my wife, Jeanne and I rode along singing the great hymns of the church. When I say “great hymns of the church” I don’t mean Gregorian chants, Bach, Mendelssohn or Handle. I mean the kind of songs you can find in almost any hymnal of any denomination or independent church in the  Christian world. Even though a majority of churches have shifted to contemporary chorouses for common worship there still remains a living memory of hymns and gospel songs that have served the worldwide Church for as much as five centuries or more. I am thinking of composers like Charles Wesley, Issac Watts, Francis Havergal, P.P. Bliss, Fanny Crosby and songs like, “He Hideth My Soul,” Be Still, My Soul,” “Amazing Grace,” Blessed Assurance,” “Have Thine Own Way, Lord,” “O, For a Thousand Tongues” and so forth.

It suddenly occured to me that those going over to ”Reformed / Calvinist” churches, for the most part, stop singing the songs and choruses that the rest of us have sung and continue sing. They suddenly start singing the Psalms without accompaniment. I wondered why.

Now, I suppose if you were to ask them they will offer some rather noble reason like, “Singing scripture is more scriptural,” or perhaps “Singing the Psalms glorifies God.” I hope that this is an honest answer but down deep I just don’t think it is.

Another similar sectarian  mind-control scenario… 

When we were first converted we were exposed to the Plymouth Brethren or Christian Brethren as they are otherwise called. They didn’t sing the Southern Baptist songs that I grew up on either. Regrettably, they and we sang out of the “Little Flock Hymnbook.” A quick run through the authors of the songs contained therein and one realizes that, unless he or she has been a lifetime PB’er, they have never heard of a single one of these people or the hymns they have written. No matter how unsingable and unedifying these melodies were, we plodded through them week after week.  These weren’t necessarily bad hymnologically or poorly composed songs, it’s just that well, no one new to the PB’s knew any of them and this meant an incredible learning curve until we caught on. I’m not sure that we ever did like those hymns at all. To this day, I am not able to recall a single one of the tunes or lyrics and for me, none turned out to be particularly endearing. Fortunately for us, our group was eventually oustracized from the tight fellowship circle and our little Open Brethren group switched to singing the old favorites and the then more current stuff from the likes of Keith Green and Honeytree, YEAH!!! Once the door was slightly ajar, in came those pesky guitars and banjo’s along with a good amount of toe tapping and joy filled, even rather rowdy singing.

Getting it Right. Nomenclature and almost everything else…

Truth is, we had to learn a lot of other things like how to talk right. In most evangelical churches folks can simply ask questions like,”Are you saved?” or  ’When did you get saved” or “Are you born-again?” But this is not true in the Plymouth Brethren. No sir, you show yourself to be a novice if you didn’t ask the question in this way, “Are you the Lord’s? or “When did you become the Lord’s?”  This is just but one example of how our first experiences into the Christian world were slightly skewed. Almost over night we seemed to have had to learn special handshakes. Looking back, it all projected a rather Masonic Lodge sort of mystery about it. This was mystery that made us special and separated us from those other half-hearted, half-witted believers that just didn’t understand what New Testament Christianity was really all about.

Of course, we didn’t have a seminary trained pastor. We shunned seminaries as the spawn of the devil himself. While other groups (those nasty denominations) did it the worldly way we did it according to the Scriptures and “examined those who served among us.”  We never used any title for anyone, not Reverend (certainly not Reverend since only God was to be revered), nor did we call anyone Pastor or even Elder So in So. Terminology like Dr. This and That was from the pit of hell. Oh, we never actually said this outloud for anyone to hear, but this is what we were taught and sub-consciously believed.

We were trained in other separationists “new speak” nomenclature as well. We learned never to refer to ourselves as “going to church”.  No one ever went to church. We went to “meeting” or “assembly.” You couldn’t possibly go to church because you were The Church. Through distinctions of this nature we could detect the “Us’s” from the “Them’s” and  ”Innie’s” from the “Outie’s.”

Then there was this business whereby we again set ourselves further apart by not being a denomination. We didn’t have some sign over our door announcing ourselves as Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians or any non-biblical, man made, institutional name. No sir! “We gather to the Name of The Lord Jesus Christ each Lord’s Day at 10 A.M.. Lord Willing“  We always had to add the “Lord Willing” part. This is what OUR sign (even though a sign is less than New Testament, we had one) said and to us, at that time, it made all of the sense in the world. In many ways, this still makes sense to me. Yet, once I came off of the theologically provincial PB island I discovered that we weren’t really “Gathered to the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ” at all and were just as sectarian, and perhaps even more so, than everyone else. I still wonder how I ever got to these hard-headed convictions. It was a slow process and it took ten years to free myself from three years of PB indoctrination.

It didn’t stop there. We were persuaded to only consider PB interpretations of Scripture. After all, our commentarialists were not in it for themselves. They weren’t writing to obtain large book contracts or to advance a denomination, but were writing their little books for the sake of truth and the ”glory of God.” They were humble servants of God and did not even sign their names but rather used initials to indicate who the authors of various publications were. We insiders all knew what C.M. stood for (Charles McIntosh)  but he was a secret to everyone else. All of this was most likely false humility, but at the time this struck me as incredibly GODLY.  Though we weren’t told what to read we found ourselves clearing our shelves of both secular and what appeared to be,  unacceptable teaching from those of other doctrinal persuasions.  Many opted to read only the Schofield Reference Bible and often spent more time with Mr. Schofield’s ponderings and wanderings than with the scriptures themselves.

In the interest of time and your attention span, I will just list the ways in which the Plymouth Brethren turn out to be more Christian than the rest of you. I copy these directly from Wikipedia so you can look them up for yourselves if you happen to be more intrigued by this subject than you should be.

3.1 Avoidance of traditional symbols

3.2 Fellowship, not membership

3.3 No clergy

3.4 Weekly “Remembrance” meeting

3.5 Other Sunday meetings

3.6 Low-key offerings taken

3.7 No salaried ministry

3.8 Separate roles of men and women

3.9 Cessationist

I have said all of this to say the following…

Were the Plymouth Brethren right? Well, yes, I think in many ways they were and are. Was all of this biblical? No doubt and in some ways I still prefer PB elements to that of the contemporary “Big Box” churches.

Plymouth Brethren eccesiology is something but it is not everything.  

After more than thirty five years of ministry I can still see the many ways in which the Plymouth Brethren have recaptured New Testament patterns of ecclesiology and worship. Yet, there remains a problem. I have come to believe that, like other ultra secrtarian, separationists, isolationists groups one of the real motivations for all of this indoctrination is the control of their adherents and the proselytism of new ones. I think exactly the same of Calvinism. It is about theological manipulation, power and domination. 

We, as Plymouth Brethren, were advised to “…come outside of the camp, bearing His reproach,” to “…come out from among them and be ye separate,” and on and on it went. After all, this sounds right doesn’t it? Some Plymouth Brethren will go so far as to not even have a sandwich with a person outside of their fellowship group. It’s in the Bible, isn’t it? Yet, in my mind the real reason for separation was theological domination, ie: “mind control.” This isn’t exactly cultic. You are free to go anytime you like but unknown to you, your security has been misplaced and in some sort of way you have wandered into a kind of intellectual legalism. You can but you cannot go anytime you like. You have moved on to a very small island and have destroyed both your boats and your bridges. One has been promised freedom and liberty but in fact, he or she have become the merchandise of men and fallen into a bondage that they may never or have a great deal of difficulty recovering from.

Now back to Calvinist mind-control isolationism…

This is how I see the doctrines of many sectarian groups. This is how regard the Calvinist  / Reform churches. This is why I think they take away the hymnbook and sing the Psalms. They know full-well that ninety percent of the songs in most hymnals found in the pew racks of most churches in the world could not, in good conscience, be sung by a Five-Point Calvinist because the inherent hymnology offers free grace to free men. They certainly wouldn’t want  anyone thinking about anything other than T-U-L-I-P.

Generally, you will not see TULIP Calvinists, or for that matter, Seventh Adventists, United Pentecostals, Church of Christ, Independent Baptists and other fundamentalist congregations supporting city-wide, multi-church events. They will be involved in some events but only if they can be the head and not the tail. Shouldn’t this raise a red flag? Likely not, if one has already been dominated and under the spell of mind-control theologies and/or practices. Ultra-secretarianism is not exactly a cult but it is toxic-Christianity and dangerous to the kingdom of God.

All of this mind-control is accomplished through the guise of honoring God through right belief, doctrine, behavior or practice.

For more on this subject see… “A Mind Control Reality Check”

A “from the Gut” Response to a Reader’s Question

Here is a  question from one of my readers. Read it then see my, “off of the top” response.

“…Just one quick question…if I believe in Christ and therefore “choose” to believe then is that a work since I’m having to believe. I never considered that but the more I’ve read from Calvinism’s view I’m seeing that can certainly be viewed as I’m elected because I selected Christ therefore leading to a “works” based salvation. I don’t know…it’s a little fuzzy and I could use a bit of clarification. I know salvation has nothing to do with me but then how do I reconcile that if I accept Christ I’m saved and if I reject Christ I’m not saved, which is what I do believe, but then how’s that nothing in and of me?

Thanks so much.

Your Friend In Christ,

_______________________________

My response went something like this…

In the Gospel sense, believe is the same as put confidence in.  God instructed the Israelites through Moses to look upon the serpent on the pole and be saved (Numbers 21, John 3). This is not a natural reaction when surrounded by serpents (especially a deadly serpent that can kill with a single bite). The human tendency would be to do one of three things, run, get up on something higher or go down swinging – stomping snakes (sin). You’ll remember that at least 3,000 rejected the offer and by disbelief perished. 

The unlikely, but saving action would be taking God’s instruction seriously, turning your eyes upward and away from self-dependency and, by faith (“belief in action”), trusting in Christ to do the work on your behalf (“being made sin for us… the just for the unjust that He might bring us to God”) and do what human effort (church attendance, ritual, good works) cannot do. This is how James argues for the definition of faith. We prove and demonstrate what we believe by our actions based upon that belief. This is why, as unbiblical as they are, some instituted altar calls. Jesus and the early church used public baptism  (a pretty all-or-nothing altar call) – in many cases a death sentence. See: my entry, “The Fallacy of Calvinism at First Glance.”

The thief on the cross could not offer anything to procure his salvation. He simply had to call out for mercy with confidence that Jesus, even while nailed up, dying on a cross, had the authority and power to provide it. Sometimes people can only see their own unrighteousness when compared to the glory and holiness of Jesus and this may bring about a hearty repentance – a repentance unto salvation.

It is said of the prodigal that he looked around at his situation and circumstances caused him to come to his senses, ie: “he came to himself” Luke 15:17. He thought, even if I am a slave in my father’s house, I will not be turned away and will be treated better than this. I will humble myself, admit that I have sinned by returning home. Sometimes people look at the condition of their sin, where it has taken them, have the same thought (“I’m in a pickle! I need to do something about this!”) as the thief on the cross. This may bring about what some have called an awakening followed by conviction, resulting in a hearty repentance. 

All of this is absolutely the opposite of works and self-confidence. Belief has nothing to do with works. It is a declaration of  the end of one’s self and expresses confidence in Christ alone… Christ plus nothing!

I can stuff you in a rain barrel, nail the lid on tightly over your head and everything you need to go to heaven is in that rain barrel. This doesn’t sound like works to me.  

Calvinists will make faith (belief in action) into a work.

Belief is just the opposite. Belief in the work of Christ alone is what separates Christianity from all other religious systems. This is contrary to religion (salvation by works or human effort). Religion requires that one manipulate the spirits, appease the God’s in one way or another.  

By contrast, the Bible says,

“What shall we do that we might work the works of God? … This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.”  It appears there is at least one work required.

“Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” “

Look unto Him all ye ends of the earth and be ye saved.”

“And ye shall seek me and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart.”

“But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.”  

Why should God seem to reward seeking? Isn’t that a work? Why should God reward any activity of man? Simply because believing and seeking is opposite to the very nature of man.

God does not reward the sun for shining. Why? Because the sun is doing what God made it to do.  But when you say all of this to a disciple of Calvin and point to scripture like these above and a hundred others, they will deny what they see and begin to extrapolate, dismantle and reconstruct to suit their speculative philosophy. They will resort to linguistic and intellectual gymnastics.  They will now say, “Yes, yes, okay, but where did faith come from in the first place? Unh? Unh?”  

To this, reply, “You know what, I don’t know and I don’t care. All I know is, once I was blind but now I see. I just did not call God a liar and took Him at his word and when I was twelve years old, I believed, trusted and called out, I was forgiven of my sin and I walked away a new creature in Christ Jesus. I have the inner witness that I am a child of God. I am in love with God through Christ and God’s love displayed for me through the cross. I don’t care a bit about the science of your soteriology.

I only can think that it would not be possible for anyone to know if they were elect or not. Aside from the subjective witness of the Spirit of God, no one could have a drop of confidence that they are among the elect. I will not allow you and your doctrine to rob me of my liberty and certainty.

Frankly, I don’t think that you are among the elect. Oh, well, that’s what I think. You may know Hebrew and Greek but I’m not certain that you know the living God. You have reduced God to a chemistry textbook while I have him in a love letter. It’s a romance – more like art than science.

Let’s say that in the end you are right and predestination and election is the truth. I doubt if it is, but say it is, who will care? Perhaps only those who thought they were elect and weren’t or those who thought they weren’t elect and are. Some will care for the better and some for the worse. For me, I simply believe what the scripture has said and took God at His offer of free grace, “These things I have written to you who believe (put confidence in) in the name (authority) of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life.” 1 John 5:13.

I’m sorry, but I just can’t live with the “Iffy-ness” of Calvinism. Calvinist election is not as secure as God’s “whosoever “ and “all “ – and “all” means “all”- the kind of “all” that everyone on the planet seems to understand.

Calvinism deals with the philosophy of salvation; the intricate what’s, how’s, who’s, when’s and why’s of soteriology. That’s nice, but it is not a biblical approach. Here’s the scriptural confidence. I was lost at sea and from somewhere came a life preserver. I didn’t care a straw on how it got there or what it was anchored to, or how well it was fastened at the other end. I just grabbed it and it held.

Perhaps you have heard the Blondin tightrope walking incident? Well, I was one who trusted Christ enough to get into the wheel barrel. You know what? He has promised to carry me across and he will. You are boring me with your articulate but cold, dispassionate chatter.”  

“But the righteousness based on faith speaks as follows: “DO NOT SAY IN YOUR HEART, ‘WHO WILL ASCEND INTO HEAVEN?’ (that is, to bring Christ down),  or ‘WHO WILL DESCEND INTO THE ABYSS?’ (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead).”  But what does it say? “THE WORD IS NEAR YOU, IN YOUR MOUTH AND IN YOUR HEART”–that is, the word of faith which we are preaching,  that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;  for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.”  Romans 10:6-10

Though I don’t suggest that anyone deduce their theology from Christmas greeting cards or hymns, you might sing to him, “I Know in Whom I Have Believed.” from the old Broadman Hymnal.

Here’s the deal. Calvinists have made God and the Bible too small. If the Bible simply gave us nothing but predestination and foreordination verses and context then I wouldn’t even type another word and no one else would either. I think that this is enough for today. Yes?

One more thing…

It could be that prdestination is true. I don’t think that it is, but it could be. For every verse where a Calvinist might demonstrate their concept of sovereignty there might be five or ten that indicate otherwise. I am not trying to get anyone’s agreement with my view of sovereignty. I don’t have an exact model in mind. In fact, Calvinists can believe as they please on this subject, especially when believing as they do, should they be right, changes nothing anyway. What I most hope to do is challenge their sophomorical smugness about the subject. I oppose their “cock-sureness.” Does anyone really believe that with such arrogant certainty, measly human beings, confined to a finite intellect can exhaustively figure how the infinite God does anything He does? He has not given us enough information whereby we might bring Him down to our puny level. “Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.”

A Mind Control Reality Check

The Church is a river, not a reservoir.

We all know that cults control what their adherents are exposed to. For instance, a Jehovah’s Witness is not allowed to read Trinitarian literature. Just try giving a JW a tract and they will immediately reject it as “demonically inspired.” Mormonism, Scientology, Unification (Moonies), just won’t allow their adherents to believe anything they like and remain in good standing with the organization. For this reason, those who join these groups are told what they can and cannot read, see, hear and trust. When beliefs pop-up that do not fit, the cult immediately goes to work dispelling any evidence that opposes their theological propositions. Often the apologetic provided seems, to a rational mind, incomprehensible.  

Those who have worked in de-programming know that the number one challenge is ridding a cultist of his or her misplaced confidence. Their reliance on the authority of the prophet, Joseph Smith or the teacher, Charles Taze Russell and the Watchtower is superior to the Spirit and the Word of God. Everything must be interpreted through a demogog of one kind or another. Doctrinal isolation – being deprived of other points of view is key to the indoctrination process. Mind control requires the constant and steady drumbeat of a prescribed dogma. This should be no surprise. We expect this from a cult.

Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be free indeed.

 John 8:36

21Therefore let no man glory in men. For all things are your’s; 22Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are your’s; 23And Christ’s; and Christ is God’s.

1 Corinthians 3:21-23

Sectarianism is the evidence of Spiritual immaturity and carnality…

I see evidences of predestination but because I do not see overwhelming evidence of it. I am, by default, a non-Calvinist.

I have read widely and enjoy authors from a wide variety of theological perspectives. I challenge almost any ordinary Christian to have read more sermons by C.H. Spurgeon than I have. Though Spurgeon didn’t always preach or write like a Calvinist should ( I intend a future blog entry on examples of this), he claimed to be one and I like him. Then I have enjoyed other Calvinists like, John Piper, R.C. Sproul, James White (some subjects more than others), John McArthur but I also like John Wesley, C. S. Lewis, John Stott, Calvin Miller, Ravi Zacharias, Chuck Colson, Howard Hendricks, Philip Yancey, Chuck Swindoll, Max Lucado, A.W. Tozer and on and on it goes. I confess to even have read, Benny Hinn’s, “Good Morning, Holy Spirit.” As they say, “Sometimes I have to just eat the chicken and spit out the bones.”

It is my opinion that this wide exposure to theological thinking helps one to have a more balanced view of the “Faith of our fathers” or, let me put it another way, “the faith once delivered to the Saints.”

Some of my email and blog comment indicates that not all of my readers feel similarly.

Those who only see things from one perspective make me just a little nervous. John Calvin finished his massive (and I must say brilliant), “Institutes of the Christian Religion” by the time he was twenty-seven and by the end of his life he said that he wouldn’t have changed a thing. Should this bother anyone?  It’s an amazing person that has it all figured out (especially something so incredible as the sovereignty of God) by the time he or she is but twenty-seven years of age. Quoting Bob Dylan from “My Back Pages,” Ahhh, but I was so much older then, I’m younger than that now.”

I thank God for Luther’s justification by faith alone and for the Menno Simons and the Mennonites in reclaiming the importance of the Word of God. When carnality was rampant in the church, there was John Wesley, “a brand plucked from the fire” who felt elect to the task of “restoring holiness in the land.” Then, just at the right time, just when the church needed someone to step up and reach out to the poor and suffering, God gave us William and Catherine Booth and the Salvation Army was born. Even though, sometimes over the top, I like the Pentecostals welcoming the Holy Spirit back into the worship services.

Perhaps you don’t appreciate all of these influences as I do? Why not? Though no theological stream is crystal clear, do you value the Christian Missionary Alliance, the Southern Baptists, the Lutheran witness in the world or is every group but your group under suspicion? Have you and your group become the sole arbiter of Christian orthodoxy? Uh, oh.   

I am suspicious, and you should be as well, when Christian groups or leaders have only one point of view. This happens you know. I have run into sects who bang the drum in a certain way and they expect their adherents to fall in line. There is no room for the non-conformists – the person who asks the honest question or questions authority. These groups generally isolate their people from others and in the name of truth or doctrinal purity exert power through a certain kind of mind control. I could name these groups but I’m pretty sure that you have your own list. One of the problems with indoctrination and mind control is most often those who are the victim of this toxicity are the least aware that it has happened to them. They have become the proverbial, “frog in the kettle.”

”…knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation…

2 Peter 1:20

Perhaps you see what I might be getting at? Let me resort to quoting the great philosopher, Oscar (it may have been Grover) of Sesame Street, “One of these things is not like the other? One of these things does not belong… ”  Being able to make fine distinctions is a primary test of intelligence.

See an earlier blog entry: “Hyper-Calvinism.”

An Oxymoron – Calvinist Evangelism?

I have a young friend who has gone over to the other side and almost overnight he has become an expert at everything to do with the doctrine of Grace and the subject of soteriology. What he means by Grace and what I mean are two different things. He means “Sovereign Grace” (predestination and particular or specific election) while I mean something different. I mean what the Bible teaches…  

 11 For the grace of God has been revealed, bringing salvation to all people. 12 And we are instructed to turn from godless living and sinful pleasures. We should live in this evil world with wisdom, righteousness, and devotion to God, 13 while we look forward with hope to that wonderful day when the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, will be revealed. 14 He gave his life to free us from every kind of sin, to cleanse us, and to make us his very own people, totally committed to doing good deeds.                                                                                   Titus 2:11-14

He recently wrote me the following, “At one point you seem to be arguing that being a Calvinist means that your (sic) passive and lazy whereas Arminians (*For the purpose of clarity I am not an Arminian except by default. I am a non-Calvinist.) are go-getters.  This is simply untrue and any (sic) virtually any Calvinist resource could have corrected you on this matter.  God uses means to achieve his ends and so we act.”  He wrote me much more than this but for my purpose this will do.

My objection has nothing to do with Calvinists being lazy.

I do not need the help of an agent of Calvinism to know full well that they have been and are presently engaged in evangelism. They do not persuade and in most cases shun any kind of altar call or invite a decision but they are involved in preaching the gospel. In fact, historically they were on the vanguard of the advancement of the gospel throughout the world and though now they spend an inordinate amount time on evangelizing the evangelized to Calvinism they are still active in both evangelism and missions. Here’s my problem? I just cannot figure out why. For me, on their part this activity is a redundant absurdity.

My objection is simply this – they do not have to be involved in evangelism.

When asked why they do evangelism they will give two reasons. The first reason is legitimate but based upon their soteriology and view of sovereignty, the second is not.

Reason 1. 

We are commanded to preach the gospel and in obedience, we do it.

Reason 2.  

In reaching the elect God has chosen the means of preaching. We do not know who the elect are.

This may shock my Calvinists readers but preaching is not the means of election. The sovereign, predetermined will of God IS the only means of election. Preaching is meaningless. Evangelism is absolutely immaterial and unnecessary. People can do evangelism all they like but it has nothing to do with the ultimate outcome of a single persons’ eternal whereabouts. Insist and disagree all you like, it will not change a thing as Mr. Calvin has painted himself into his own corner.

Double  Predestination is the foregone conclusion.

This isn’t particularly complicated. Now let’s look at Calvin’s own words one more time and see if I am not right. Please tell us if the elect are not the elect no matter what. Tell all of us how preaching will change what has been decided in eternity past.

People are either saved or doomed and hopeless from the beginning. There is no way around it. It should not require a Ph.D. in logic to understand this. It could not have been made more clear. The elect are the elect and the damned are the damned. I suggest that folks who fatalistically believe in preordination – who don’t believe that prayer and preaching changes things, should just stay at home.

“Predestination we call the eternal decree of God by which He hath determined in Himself what He would have to become of every individual of mankind.  For they are not all created with a similar destiny; but eternal life is foreordained for some, and eternal damnation for others…  We assert that, by an eternal and immutable counsel, God hath once for all determined whom He would admit to salvation and whom He would condemn to destruction.  We affirm that this counsel, as far as it concerns the elect, is founded on His gratuitous mercy, totally irrespective of human merit: but that to those whom He devotes to condemnation, the gate of life is closed by a just and irreprehensible, but incomprehensible judgment.”

A comprehensive statement that incorporates the various elements of the Doctrine of Election into one concise paragraph.

 John Calvin                  

The Institutes of the Christian Religion II xxi. 4, and xxi. 7.

Based on Calvin’s position statement, I am sorry to further report that God has misled us and he turns out to be a respecter of persons after all. Since missions and evangelism have nothing to do with the final outcome we are left with a problem. From what is observable to the eye and perhaps supported by statistical analysis, God appears to prefer Americans to Sri Lankans and South Carolinian’s to Vermonters. He does not really want a “multitude which no one could number, of all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues.” Along with God, we should be satisfied with a smidgen of well-heeled folks from Grand Rapids, Minneapolis and Louisville.

 The Bible declares, “So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God”  (Romans 10:17). But according to the tenants of Calvinism this is not true. Faith cometh by the predetermined will of God. Hearing is the outcome of faith and not the other way round. God must first set a man alive before the man can hear and thus have any kind of faith.

I’d like to be wrong but I don’t think I am.

4 Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance? 5 But in accordance with your hardness and your impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, 6 who “will render to each one according to his deeds”…

Romans 2:4-6

How hard is this to understand? I shouldn’t think anyone requires the twists and turns of a Calvinist interpretation to figure this out. If a simple man can’t get it, it isn’t worth having. Man is culpable from the get go. In the end, a man’s lostness is not and will not be God’s fault. (I haven’t the time to explain how Calvinists wiggle out of this knot.) He has stretched out His hand all the day long and through the hardness of men’s hearts (God resisteth the proud) God’s goodness has been rejected. For this reason men will justifyably experience the wrath of God.

Calvinists: Please do not instruct me on the finer points of how you handle culpability. I already know what they are. Your explanation is entirely too convoluted. Thanks.