Tony preaching at Chapel Ridge Stittsville/Kanata, Ontario.

We were recently in Ottawa, Canada for Chapel Ridge’s 25th Anniversary Celebration, the church we began. I was asked to preach evangelistically on Sunday morning. This video, though not high quality, is perhaps the clearest and most concise gospel message I have ever preached. It, I think, makes understood for all the difference between attainment and atonement. I have used Romans 10:1-4; 4:16 as my texts. Perhaps it will be informative and useful to you as you share the gospel with your friends and relatives. If you have friends that might benefit from the content then please forward the link. The message is around 45 minutes long but there is plenty of humor to keep people watching for that length of time.    

http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/2237779/highlight/19612

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.”

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).“ 

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.”

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.

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”

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…

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.”

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.

THOSE WHO OPPOSE HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOR ARE HOMOPHOBIC!

Often accused of  being homophobic, many Christians cave in and  have never carefully thought about how they might answer to the charge of homophobia. This short essay is designed to help them get their answer straight without defensiveness or hostility.

Think with me for a minute…

Would the same individuals who are opposed to homosexual practices also be opposed to heterosexual adultery? If they are, does this objection make these people “adulterophobic”? If a person opposes pornography are they necessarily “pornophobic”? The same might be true of opposition to incest, prostitution, pedophilia, bestiality, or divorce. Those who are opposed to homosexuality are the same people who are also opposed to all of the other previously mentioned activities. Why is objection to homosexuality singled out and labeled as “homophobia”?

Do these people really suffer from a phobia in the same way that people have a fear of snakes or flying?

Homosexuals claim that homosexuality is their “natural” sexual orientation. Because of this, they claim that homosexuality should be culturally and morally accepted as their “sexual orientation.”

Suppose a group of people feel sexually excited by the prospect of an incest relationship, should incest be declared normative?  Perhaps others are inclined toward preferring children to adults. Let’s say that some enjoy sex with animals rather than people.  What then?  Should society accommodate every sexual disposition simply because a group of people insist that it is “natural”?

Natural? Um…

Is homosexuality “natural” in the vast majority of species (lesbian cows, gay roosters)? What would a gay/lesbian farmer think if he (or she) came out the door one morning and discovered that the cows were all over in a corner ignoring the bull? Would they exclaim, “Yikes! Somethun’ ain’t normal!” You bet they would. We’d have a problem worse than global warming or swine flu.   

Is the sexual apparatus naturally suited to heterosexual or homosexual relationships? Duh???  

Those who oppose approving of homosexuality as a “natural” expression of sexuality (alternate lifestyle) are the very same people who oppose heterosexual adultery as “natural” sexual behavior. They are the same people who oppose heterosexuals having sexual relations outside of a monogamous marriage.

Suppose a married man (or woman) feels that it is “natural” (and, believe me, it sure seems that way) to have sexual relations with any person that he or she chooses, should society simply surrender and say, “Well, if it feels good, do it? Let’s just call it ‘natural’ (normal) behavior.” The fact is that no one can prevent any person from doing whatever pops into his or her head. Individuals are never denied their “free choice.”  What society can do, however, is not commend a person’s behavior as being personally, morally or socially beneficial.

By the way, society does have rules governing marriage. One cannot marry his sister, his first cousin or girls under the age of sixteen or in some states, eighteen. So far, they are not allowed to marry two people or ten at the same time. For the apparent good of society, limits are imposed on what people are permitted to do when it comes to marriage. Homosexuals are not necessarily singled out for discrimination.

Even in democracies, there is a danger in pandering to polls. History will tell you that majorities do not always know best when it comes to law making or governance. Assume, over a period of time, a majority of citizens comes to believe that any group of people, ethnic or otherwise are less than socially beneficial? This is what happened in 1937. It would not be safe for any minority to live in this kind of world.

What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

By the way, Christians who oppose homosexuality do find adultery and fornication between heterosexuals equally as offensive as homosexual behavior. Christian churches regularly discipline their members for improper heterosexual behavior. Churches are expected to have a moral vision and without it they simply become another civic club.

Is it possible that those involved in a hedonistic “free-sex” lifestyle (by the way, sex is never free) are… “moralophobic” or “Christophobic” more than those who oppose homosexuality are “homophobic”?

Should sexual restraint be viewed as something socially harmful? One should ask himself, “Has unbridled sexual activity (The Playboy philosophy) generated a stronger social fabric or has it left behind, in its wake, broken hearts, health, and homes?”

What if there really is a “homophobia”?

Now, I know that this piece of literature does not express a politically correct, culturally acceptable position. I know that this statement may not make friends. Still, knowing the unpopularity of my position, I write this argument. If I despise homosexuals, why would I bother about this issue?

While I can’t speak for everyone, I can speak for myself and say that I am willing to take the risk of being alienated in the hope that I can gain the attention of homosexuals and those who support homosexuality as an “alternative lifestyle.”

The Temporal /  Physical Concern…

First of all, if I had a fear of homosexuality or a hatred of homosexuals, I would ignore them rather than attempt to challenge them. By ignoring them I might be demonstrating a hope that they, as a group, might succumb to AIDS. Instead, I wish the opposite, that not one person would permit a fleeting moment of sexual promiscuity to result in the death of anyone.

The Transcendent / Spiritual Concern…

Second, I write this believing that there is a final accountability. As a Christian I must come at this from a biblical perspective.

The Bible says,

“Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God?

Do not be deceived.

Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.

And such were some of you…”

TRANSLATION:

“You used to do these things but you don’t do them anymore.” I Corinthians 6:9-11a

It says the same thing in Greek

I don’t like these verses any better than you do. Why? Because, outside of God’s grace and help, I too, would find myself a candidate for this list along with everyone else. Notice that sexual sins are listed right alongside other kinds of sins. Heterosexual fornication and adultery are not treated any differently than homosexuality or sodomy.

For one minute put aside the fact that you don’t believe the Bible… and ask yourself the question, “What if I did believe what this passage says, what would I do?”

Well, if you cared one bit about the homosexual, the thief, and the drunkard, then you would just have to warn them that if they don’t repent, then they will not “inherit the kingdom of God.” If this is true, then caring about them as people requires taking a risk in telling them! Telling them is an act of love rather than one of condemnation.