Archive for the ‘Salvation’ Category

Pluralism, Inclusivism, and Exclusivism: Which Is It?

Posted: April 18, 2013 in Salvation
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
3

Have you ever been witnessing or just discussing religion with someone who responded with these objections to your view that salvation is exclusively through Christ? (These objections are from part one on chapter one in Keller).

 “All major religions are equally valid and basically teach the same thing.”

“Each religion sees part of spiritual truth, but none can see the whole truth.”

“Religious belief is too culturally and historically conditioned to be ‘truth.’”

“It is arrogant to insist your religion is right and to convert others to it.”

The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life reported in December that 52% of American Christians surveyed believe that people from some non-Christian faith can be saved.

A staggering one out of two does not believe that salvation is exclusively through Jesus Christ.

In an interview with USA Today, Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, said “that much of this confusion can be traced to the superficiality that marks far too many evangelical pulpits. The disappearance of doctrinal understanding and evangelical demonstration can be traced directly to the decline in expository preaching and doctrinal instruction. A loss of evangelistic and missionary commitment can be fully expected as a direct result of this confusion or repudiation of the Gospel.”

There are several versions of this rejection of Jesus Christ as the only way to salvation. The first version is pluralism which teaches that every person is going to heaven no matter what he believes. Pluralism says there are many paths to God who may be called either Buddha, Allah, Jehovah, or Jesus. An example of pluralism is Oprah Winfrey.

Oprah grew up in a Baptist church where she developed her speaking abilities. She now holds five one hour-long services a week with an audience of 10 million. What is her message? Jesus Christ is not the only way to Heaven. One clip in The Church of Oprah video shows Oprah blatantly denying Jesus as the only way to God.

“How can there be only one way to heaven or to God?” Oprah asked her audience in a previously taped show.

One woman in the audience asked, “What about Jesus?”

Oprah defiantly answered, “What about Jesus?…There couldn’t possibly be one way.”

That may be the gospel of Oprah, but that is not the Gospel of John. Jesus said that there is only one path to heaven in John 14:6 and He is that path: “I am the (not a) way, the (not a) truth, and the (not a) life, no man comes to the Father, but by me.” This statement in the Gospel of John is significant since John wrote the Gospel to tell people who Jesus is the Son of God and believing in him you can be saved (20:31). Either Jesus is the Son of God and the only way of salvation as he said in John 14:6 or he is a liar.

The apostles followed the example of Christ in preached exclusivity: Acts 4:12 “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name [not Buddha, Mohammed, nor Moses] under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.”

In addition to pluralism there is inclusivism which is not as board as pluralism. Inclusivism teaches that people are saved because of the death and grace of Christ, but people from other religions will be saved who never heard of Jesus “through no fault of their own.”

One form of inclusivism (sometimes called accessibility) states that salvation is through nature or general revelation. This is the view of Terrance L. Tiessen:

“All who have ever been saved, who are now being saved, or who ever will be saved, are saved because Jesus Christ died and rose again for them…. Nevertheless, God does not require a faith that would be impossible for anyone by virtue of their ignorance. In the Day of Judgment, God will hold all people accountable for their response to the revelation that was made available to them, and only for that revelation. God may graciously save some who do not believe in Jesus as Savior if they are ignorant of him through no fault of their own.”

Does God save people who have only general revelation from nature and not the special revelation of the death, burial, and resurrection Jesus Christ? Paul answers that question in Romans 1:20: “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and deity: so that they are without excuse.” If a person dies without hearing and responding to the special revelation of the gospel that person is without excuse. Instead of general revelation being sufficient to save if someone has never heard of Christ, general revelation is sufficient only to condemn.

Tiessen continues, “All people meet Jesus Christ personally at the moment of death, and they respond to him in a manner consistent with the response they had been giving to God and His revelation during their lifetime. At that moment, those who had received forms of revelation less complete than the gospel but who had responded in faith, by a work of the Holy Spirit, will joyfully find in Christ the fulfillment of all their hopes and longings” (Terrance L. Tiessen, Who Can Be Saved? Reassessing Salvation in Christ and World Religious, Downers Grove, IVP. 2004, 478).

Can people be saved after death? In Luke 16:26, Jesus told the story of the rich man in Hell. The rich man in Hell asked Abraham to send Lazarus to dip his finger in water and just put one drop of water on his tongue. Abraham responded: “Between me and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from here to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from there.” There is no purgatory, postmortem like second chance.

Some are agnostic about the fate of those who die never having heard the special revelation of the gospel.

John Stott, the famous British pastor and widely read author, expressed his agnosticism: “The fact is that God, alongside the most solemn warnings about our responsibility to respond to the gospel, has not revealed how he will deal with those who have never heard it” (David Edwards and John Stott, Evangelical Essentials: A Liberal-Evangelical Dialogue, Downers Grove, IVP, 1988, 327).

Both Spencer Burke and Brian McLaren also totally repudiate Jesus’ claim to be the exclusive “way, the truth, and the life.”

The Scriptures have declared with certainty the eternal future of those who are not reached with the gospel. Romans 3:23 says that “all have sinned” because they were born sinners (Romans 5:12). The result of those who die in this universal sin condition (including those who never heard) is eternal separation from God (Romans 6:23a); unless that sinner places faith in Christ and receives the gift of eternal salvation (Romans 6:23b). How can sinners be saved by faith in Christ? Not by nature’s outstretched hand pointing to a higher power. Someone has to give them gospel (Romans 10:13-15). If you have any doubts about this subject take the time to carefully read and study these verses.

Because Paul believed his inspired by God Words in Romans 10:13-15, he traveled on three missionary journeys in Acts. Paul did not qualify these verses in Romans 10:13-15 saying, “If you missionaries cannot make it to the field, don’t worry about it all religions are equal or at death they can receive Christ.” Pluralism and inclusivism are not the Scriptural views on salvation.

Kevin DeYoung at The Gospel Coalition makes another important point: I am not saying that unbelievers are punished because they did not put faith in a Jesus they never heard of. This may sound like the opposite of exclusivism, but it’s not. This is actually a crucial point that exclusivists and their opponents often miss. Those who never hear the gospel are not punished for not knowing Jesus. Not knowing Jesus results in punishment, but sin is the grounds for punishment. Those who do not put faith in Christ are punished for being sinners. They are punished in the next life for turning the truth of general revelation into a lie (Rom. 1:18-25). They have broken God’s law, and anyone guilty of even one violation is accountable for the whole law (James 2:10). Those with no knowledge of Christ will be judged less severely because they had less light, though that judgment will still be far from painless (Matt. 11:20-24). Our only hope in life and in death is that we are not our own but belong body and soul to our faithful Savior Jesus Christ.

Exclusivism is the clear teaching of Scripture. There is only one way of salvation, and that is exclusively through faith in Christ. Does this mean that the person who has never heard the gospel is without hope?

While general revelation is insufficient to save it does point to God as Psalm 19:1 says: “The heavens declare the glory of God.” If a person responds to the light in nature, because God is just, He will give more light or make sure the gospel gets to that person.

Cornelius is an example in Acts 10. Inclusivists believe that Cornelius was a believer before Peter preached the gospel to him. They say that 10:2 describes him as “devout.” Also, inclusivism is heard in 10:34-35, when Peter preached that “God is no respecter of persons: but in every nation he that fears him, and works righteousness, is accepted with him.” This is John Sanders’ view: “Cornelius was already a saved believer before Peter arrived but he was not a Christian believer” (John Sanders, No Other Name: An Investigation into the Destiny of the Unevangelized, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1992, 254).

This conclusion is incorrect for several reasons. First, in Acts 2:5, Luke describes the Dispersion Jews who were in Jerusalem for the Feast of Pentecost as “devout.” After Peter preached, 3000 of them got saved. “Devout” as used by Luke only means a person is religious. Also, after Peter preached the gospel to Cornelius and the Gentiles were saved, Peter returned to Jerusalem and related this ground breaking event to the Jewish leaders. He recounted how the angel told Cornelius that a man named Peter would come to his house and he “shall tell you words, whereby you and all your house shall be saved” (11:14). The angel used the future tense about Cornelius’ salvation. When Peter arrived at Cornelius’ house, Cornelius was not saved; when Peter left, Cornelius was. So Cornelius was not saved apart from or before he heard the gospel.

When Peter preached that God is no respecter of persons and that “in every nation” God accepts persons, Peter was referring to examples like Cornelius. Peter did not mean every person in every nation is accepted by God no matter his religion. In Acts 4:12, Peter said Jesus is the only way. Cornelius is an example of a person who responded to the light he had in general revelation and God in His justice and fairness gave him more light (the special revelation of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ). There is hope for those who have never heard. God providently leads missionaries or believers here in America to those responding to the insufficient light of general revelation to give them the sufficient light of the special revelation of the gospel.

God is not only just and fair but God is love. God’s concern for the lost has been demonstrated when He gave His Son to die for the sins of all people, including those who have not heard. “It is not His will that any should perish but that all should come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9). The love of God and the death of Christ are inclusive of all sinners. His salvation is exclusive for only those who receive Christ as Savior.

Assurance of Salvation

Posted: April 17, 2013 in Salvation
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
0

Tony Evans says, “A great spiritual malady permeates the church of Jesus Christ today” (Totally Saved, page 145). Evans calls this spiritual disease ADD: Assurance Deficit Disorder. Many good people lack assurance of salvation.

When someone comes to me who is not sure about his/her salvation, I respond in one of two ways:

1. If I don’t think the person is saved, I tell him how to be saved and help lead him to Christ.

2. If I think the doubting person is saved but is lacking assurance, I ask him to read 1st John over and over again. John wrote his first Epistle to help believers with assurance according to 5:13. John uses the word “know” 39 times in First John. The word “know”  is found over 700 times in Scripture but the word “guess” is not found once.

Theologians teach the doctrine of preservation of the saints. More commonly it is called “Eternal Security.” The Bible, however, calls this truth “Eternal life” as in 5:10-11.

But there is a Difference between Eternal Security and Assurance of Salvation

The Gospel of John was written so sinners would believe Jesus is the eternal Son of God and possess eternal life (20:31). John wrote his First Epistle so believers who are already eternally saved would also enjoy assurance of their eternal life (5:13).

A. It is possible, therefore, for a believer to enjoy eternal life and but not assurance of salvation. Tim Challies quotes Don Whitney’s six examples of doubts with which Christians struggle.

There are many examples:

1) John the Baptist in prison sent his disciples to ask Jesus, “Are you the one that should come or do we look for another” (Matthew 11:2-3).

2) Doubting Thomas on resurrection Sunday said, “except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe” (John 20:25).

3) G. C. Morgan quit preaching for two years because of doubts.

4) Believers who suffer ill-health or nervous disorders. Sometimes women going through the change of life and men going through mid-life crisis doubt their salvation.

5) Believers who had no great emotional experience at conversion. I had a very emotional conversion but one of teachers at BJU, Dr. Robert Bell saved at age 3 did not. But he was just as much saved as I was because salvation is not based on feelings but faith.

6) Believers brought up in false teachings find it difficult not to let that false teaching cause doubts. John addresses false teaching in 3:7 and 4:1. Some teach that if you sin you lose salvation.You can be saved today and lost tomorrow, they say. One day you are a Peter and the next day you are a Judas. Read John in 1:8-9. What about those who were raised in church and once believed the truth but now disavowed the truth? John says they were never believers to begin with in 2:19. Also in 2:15, if they forsake God for the world they were never believers. Paul would have agreed with John when he wrote, “Demas has forsaken me having loved this present world.”

7) Believers living out of fellowship with God. John writes about fellowship in 1:7. But if we are out of fellowship our sins are not cleansed and our communion is broken and it is like being unsaved as far as the blessings of God in our life are concerned. For example, our prayers are not answered just like the unsaved do not have their prayers answered (Psalm 66:18). About the carnal Corinthians, Paul said, “are you not carnal, and walk like men (unsaved men) (1 Corinthians 3:3). Bill Slick has a great article at CARM on assurance of salvation and he discusses this point.

B. It is also possible for people to have assurance (a false assurance) of salvation but not eternal life. John Piper addresses this issue in The Agonizing Problem of Assurance of Salvation. 

It was this possibility that caused Jesus to rebuke the religious people of His day (John 5:39-40). They are like the foolish man who built his house on the sand. Some church members have built their lives on the sinking sands of church membership and good works.

Charles Spurgeon heard a preacher spiritualize the text in Leviticus 11:16. He was preaching truth just from the wrong passage: “The owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind.” The preacher said that the owl is a very small bird when plucked; he only looks big because he wears so many feathers, so many professors are all feathers, and if you could take away their boastful professions there would be very little left of them” (Lectures to My Students, page 107).

There are Three Tests or Evidences in First John for Assurance of Salvation

1. The Moral Test: Do I obey Christ and live righteously (2:3-6)?

2. The Social Test: Do I love one another because I love God (2:7-11)?

3. The Doctrinal Test: Do I believe Jesus is God’s Son (2:18-27)?

John repeats these three tests, but this time he expands on them.

1. Moral Test: Do I obey Christ and live righteously (2:28-3:10)?

2. Social Test: Do I love one another because I love God (3:11-18)?

3. Doctrinal Test: Do I believe Jesus is God’s Son (4:1-6)?

The last repetition of the three evidences give the order in which they occur in ours.

1. The Doctrinal Test: Do I believe Jesus is God’s Son (5:1a)?

We must believe that Christ was incarnate (4:1-3). We must believe that Christ is God (4:15). We know this because we know God’s Word (5:13).

In 5:1, John says faith Christ produces the irreversible new birth. That should give us assurance. Just as physical birth is irreversible so is spiritual birth. Nicodemus asked Jesus, “How can a man when he is old be born again? Can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb and be born? Jesus replied, “No, that which is born of the flesh is flesh and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.”

Bill Maher, the atheist comedian, was debating Bill O’Reilly about Christianity and they both got it wrong. Bill Maher said he could not believe in a God who put people to death for working on Sunday in the Old Testament. The Law dealt with the Sabbath not Sunday(Exodus 31:14). Bill O’Reilly said most of the Old Testament was not literal. Have we studied God’s Word so that we could answer these men?

George Whitfield, the great British evangelist, was speaking to a man about his salvation. He asked him, “Sir, what do you believe? “I believe what my church believes” the man replied. “And what does your church believe?” “The same thing I believe.” “And what do both of you believe?” the preacher inquired again. “We both believe the same thing” was the only replied he could get.

2. The Social Test: Do I love one another because I love God (5:1b-2a)?

A. Love for God is the first evidence of salvation (5:1a).

When someone makes a profession of faith, I don’t ask them, “Do you feel saved?” but “Do you love the Lord now?” Before salvation we feared the thought of standing before God at the judgment. Look at the change salvation brings according to 4:17-18. Now with Fanny Crosby we can sing “I want to see Him and look upon His face and sing the story ‘Saved by Grace.’”

B. Love for God results in love for God’s people or family (5:1b-2a).

Do you love Christians (3:14)? Would you rather be with believers or sinners (2:19)? Every church service is like a family reunion.

 3. The Moral Test: Do I obey Christ and live righteously (5:2c-3)?

Believers do not live in sin because they love God (5:2c-3). This gives us assurance.

In John’s first statement of the Moral test in 2:3-6, he said Christ life on earth at His first coming was our example: “He that says he abides in him ought himself also so to walk even as He walked” (2:6).

In John’s expanded second statement of the Moral test in 2:28-3:10, he said Christ’s second coming should motivate us to live holy lives. There are two potential responses to Christ’s future return in 2:28-29: confidence if we have passed the Moral test or shame if we have not passed the moral test. The coming of Christ should encourage us to live righteously (3:1-3).

In 1937, the famous Golden Gate bridge was completed. At that time it was the world’s longest suspension bridge. The entire project cost the U. S. government $77,000,000. During the process of constructing the first section of the bridge, very few safety devices were used, resulting in 23 accident as workers fell helplessly into the waters far below. The toll was so significant, something had to done before the second section was built. An ingenious plan was arranged. The largest safety net in the world (it alone cost $100,000) was made out os stout manila cordage and stretched out beneath the work crews. It prove to be an excellent investment in view of the fact that it saved the lives of a least ten men who fell into it without injury. Furthermore, the work went 25 percent faster, since the workers were relieved from the fear of falling to their deaths. God has stretched out beneath the believer His everlasting arms (Chuck Swindoll).

Do you have these evidences of salvation in your life? If so, take these proofs of salvation and help someone else who is struggling.

New Calvinists: What Do They Believe? Part 2

Posted: September 15, 2012 in Salvation
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
0

There are major differences when it comes to Christian liberty in New Calvinism. Both Mohler and MacArthur have expressed concern over matters of personal conduct and church ministries that include alcohol. MacArthur voiced his insights in a series of blog posts about the weaknesses of what he calls the Young, Restless, and Reformed New Calvinism. These posts have drawn much criticism from some in New Calvinism.

In his post, Beer, Bohemianism, and True Christian Liberty, MacArthur wrote:

If everything you know about Christian living came from blogs and websites in the young-and-restless district of the Reformed community, you might have the impression that beer is the principal symbol of Christian liberty.

For some who self-identify as “Young, Restless, and Reformed,” it seems beer is a more popular topic for study and discussion than the doctrine of predestination. They devote whole websites to the celebration of brewed beverages. They earnestly assure one another “that most good theological discussion has historically been done in pubs and drinking places.” They therefore love to meet for “open dialog on faith and culture” wherever beer is served—or better yet, right at the brewery. The connoisseurs among them serve their own brands and even offer lessons in how to make home brew.

It’s clear that beer-loving passion is a prominent badge of identity for many in the YRR movement. Apparentlybeer is also an essential element in the missional strategy. Mixing booze with ministry is often touted as anecessary means of penetrating western youth culture, and conversely, abstinence is deemed a “sin” to be repented of.

After all, in a culture where cool is everything, what could be a better lubricant for one’s testimony than a frosty pint?

Of course, beer is by no means the only token of cultural savvy frequently associated with young-and-restless religion. All kinds of activities deemed vices by mothers everywhere have been adopted as badges of Calvinist identity and thus “redeemed”: tobacco, tattoos, gambling, mixed martial arts, profane language, and lots of explicit talk about sex.

Cast a disapproving eye at any of those activities, and you are likely to be swarmed by restless reformers denouncing legalism and wanting to debate whether it’s a “sin” to drink wine or smoke a cigar. But without even raising the question of whether this or that specific activity is acceptable, indifferent, or out-and-out evil, we surely ought to be able to say that controlled substances and other symbols of secular society’s seamy side arenot what the church of Jesus Christ ought to wish to be known for. In fact, until fairly recently, no credible believer in the entire church age would ever have suggested that so many features evoking the ambiance of a pool hall or a casino could also be suitable insignia for the people of God.

It is puerile and irresponsible for any pastor to encourage the recreational use of intoxicants—especially in church-sponsored activities. The ravages of alcoholism and drug abuse in our culture are too well known, and no symbol of sin’s bondage is more seductive or more oppressive than booze. I have ministered to hundreds of people over the years who have been delivered from alcohol addiction. Many of them wage a daily battle with fleshly desires made a thousand times more potent because of that addiction. The last thing I would ever want to do is be the cause of stumbling for one of them.

Besides, deliberately cultivating an appetite for beer or a reputation for loving liquor is not merely bad missional strategy and a bad testimony; it is fraught with deadly spiritual dangers. The damage is clearly evident in places where the strategy has been touted. Darrin Patrick, who helped pioneer “Theology at the Bottleworks,”acknowledges the gravity of the problem:

As I coach and mentor church planters and pastors, I am shocked at the number of them who are either addicted or headed toward addiction to alcohol. Increasingly, the same is true with prescription drugs. One pastor I know could not relax without several beers after work and could not sleep without the aid of a sleeping pill. [Church Planter (Wheaton: Crossway, 2010), 51]

In biblical times, wine was necessary for health reasons. The risk of amoebae and parasites in drinking water could be significantly reduced or eliminated by mixing the water with a little wine (1 Timothy 5:23). The result was a greatly diluted wine that had virtually no potential for making anyone drunk. Purified tap water and refrigeration make even that use of wine unnecessary today.

Contrary to the current mythology, abstinence is no sin—least of all for someone devoted to ministry (Leviticus 10:9; Proverbs 31:4; Luke 1:15). It is, of course, a sin to give one’s mind over to the influence of alcohol or to bedeck one’s reputation with deliberate symbols of debauchery. As a matter of fact, drunkenness and debauchery are the very antithesis of Spirit-filled sanctification (Ephesians 5:18)—and men who indulge in them are not qualified to be spiritual leaders.

Yes, I realize Jesus Himself was referred to by His enemies as “a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners” (Matthew 11:19). But He was none of the things that expression implied—nor did He seek such a reputation.

He was indeed “a friend of tax collectors and sinners” in the sense that He specialized in lifting them up out of the miry clay and setting their feet on a rock. But He did not adopt or encourage their lifestyle. He did not embrace their values or employ expletives borrowed from their vocabulary in order to win their admiration or gain membership in their fraternity. He confronted their wickedness and rebuked their sins as boldly as He preached against the errors of the Pharisees (Matthew 18:7-9).

Note, too, that He ate and drank with Pharisees (Luke 7:36) as readily as He ate and drank with publicans. The only significant difference was that the typical tax collector was more inclined to confess his own desperate need for divine forgiveness than the average self-righteous Pharisee (Mark 2:16-17; Luke 18:1-14).

But there is no suggestion in Scripture that Jesus purposely assumed the look and lifestyle of a publican in order to gain acceptance in a godless subculture. He didn’t.

This tendency to emblazon oneself with symbols of carnal indulgence as if they were valid badges of spiritual identity is one of the more troubling aspects of the YRR movement’s trademark restlessness. It is wrong-headed, carnal, and immature to imagine that bad-boy behavior makes good missional strategy. The image of beer-drinking Bohemianism does nothing to advance the cause of Christ’s kingdom.

Slapping the label “incarnational” on strategies such as this doesn’t alter their true nature. They have more in common with Lot, who pitched his tent toward Sodom, than with Jesus, who is “holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens” (Hebrews 7:26).

Real Christian liberty is not about flouting taboos and offending conventional notions of propriety. The liberty in which we stand begins with full indemnity from the law’s threats and condemnation—meaning we are at peace with God (Romans 5:1; 8:1). Christian liberty also removes the restrictions of the law’s ceremonial commandments (Colossians 2:16-17)—freeing us from asceticism, superstition, sensuality, and “human precepts and teachings” (vv. 18-23).

But sober-minded self-control and maturity are virtues commanded and commended by Scripture; these are not manmade rules or legalistic standards. As a matter of fact, one of the main qualifications for both deacons and elders in the church is that they cannot be given to much wine. In other words, they are to be known for their sobriety, not for their consumption of beer.

It should not take a doctor of divinity to notice that Scripture consistently celebrates virtues such as self-control, sober-mindedness, purity of heart, the restraint of our fleshly lusts, and similar fruits of the Holy Spirit’s sanctifying work in our lives. Surely these are what we ought hold in highest esteem, model in our daily lives, and honor on our websites, rather than trying so hard to impress the world with unfettered indulgence in the very things that hold so many unbelievers in bondage.

New Calvinists: What Do They Believe? Part First

Posted: September 11, 2012 in Salvation
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
0

Time Magazine listed New Calvinism as one of the 10 Ideas Changing the World Right Now. In the article, David Van Biema said, “Calvinism is back.”

Before Time’s article, Collin Hansen in 2006 wrote an article in Christianity Today and alerted us to New Calvinism. The article Young, Restless, Reformed later expanded into a book. In the article, Hansen wrote, “Calvinism is making a comeback—and shaking up the church.”

Whatever New Calvinists believe, according to Time, they are impacting the world and according to Christianity Today, evangelicalism.

Mark Driscoll responded to Time’s article with his Four Ways ‘New Calvinism” is so Powerful. Driscoll drew four contrasts between New and Old Calvinism:

  1. Old Calvinism was fundamental or liberal and separated from or syncretized with culture. New Calvinism is missional and seeks to create and redeem culture.
  2. Old Calvinism fled from the cities. New Calvinism is flooding into cities.
  3. Old Calvinism was cessationistic and fearful of the presence and power of the Holy Spirit. New Calvinism is continuationist and joyful in the presence and power of the Holy Spirit.
  4. Old Calvinism was fearful and suspicious of other Christians and burned bridges. New Calvinism loves all Christians and builds bridges between them.

There was some pushback to Driscoll’s four contrasts. James Grant responded with his post: Driscoll’s Confusion on “Old Calvinism.” Grant, a Calvinist, rebuts each of Driscoll’s summaries of Old Calvinism. In response, Driscoll walked back some of his generalizations in his Long Live the Dead Guys Week post. James Grant, however, doesn’t think Driscoll erased the confusion: The problem is that Driscoll still didn’t really clarify anything or admit that he created some of the false dichotomy.

From a discussion between two traditional Reformed confessionalists, Kevin DeYoung and Ligion Duncan, and a Southern Baptist theologian, Albert Mohler, we learn that New Calvinism is an eclectic doctrinal mix. New Calvinism is TULIP, Charismatic, Theistic evolution, etc.

The Gospel Coaltion (TGC) is a national network for the New Calvinists movement. New Calvinists like, John Piper, Tim Keller, Matt Chandler, Mark Driscoll, Al Mohler, and John MacArthur are regular contributors. Again, the word eclectic, comes to mind. MacArthur is a pre-tribulational dispensationalist and the rest are not. MacArthur and Mohler are cessationists and the rest are not. Driscoll goes so far as to call cessationalism worldly and akin to Deism.

What ties them all together is TULIP. As far as the Fundamentals of the faith are concerned, they are on the same doctrinal page.

John MacArthur, who is thankful for much in New Calvinism, said that New Calvinism is a “very encouraging trend: large numbers of young people (college age and younger) are discovering the doctrines of grace, embracing a more biblical and Christ-centered worldview, and beginning to delve more deeply into serious theology than most 20th-century evangelicals were prone to do. In short, Calvinism, not postmodernism, seems to be capturing the hearts of Christian young people.”

MacArthur, however, has expressed in a series of blog posts serious concern about the weaknesses of what he calls the Young, Restless, and Reformed New Calvinism. These posts drew criticism from some in New Calvinism. In Part 2, we will listen to MacArthur’s concerns.

New Calvinism, Where Did New Calvinism Come From? Part 2

Posted: September 10, 2012 in Salvation
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
0

In this post, we will listen to three New Calvinists describe in their opinion what is the origin of the New Calvinism: Mark Dever, Justin Taylor, and Tim Challies.

Mark Dever in his one of his post on “Where did all these Calvinists come from?” made this observation, “But on the whole, the early and mid-20th-century was a desert time for Reformed theology in the broader English-speaking evangelical America.” Hence the question, “Why has there been a resurgence of reformed evangelicals or the new calvinists?”

Mark Dever answers that query in his series at 9 Marks called “Where did all these Calvinists come from?” About his series he explains that “The purpose of this series of posts is simply to address the question–why? And I mean that not in a theological sense (our God is sovereign, or because people read their BIbles) but in an historical sense.  As a trained historian, I know that suggesting causation among historians is a bit like alchemy among chemists. But it’s just too interesting for me to pass up!!

I intend to suggest these sources in a roughly chronological order, wondering, if there were so few self-conscious Calvinists in the 1950′s how’d we get so many of them today?”

Justin Taylor provided the series as a table of content of links which is easy to access.

  1. Charles H. Spurgeon
  2. D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones
  3. The Banner of Truth Trust
  4. Evangelism Explosion
  5. The inerrancy controversy
  6. Presbyterian Church in America (PCA)
  7. J. I. Packer
  8. John MacArthur and R. C. Sproul
  9. John Piper
  10. The rise of secularism and decline of Christian nominalism

This is an informative read and and helpful history of the reformed influence.

Justin Taylor has added these sources for where the new Calvinism came from.

Tim Challies added another source for New Calvinism not mentioned by either Dever or Taylor.

The Internet has allowed people to find community based on common interest—a new kind of community that transcends any geographic boundary. It used to be that people of common interest could only find others who shared their interests within a limited geographic area. The Internet has forever changed this and this is true in any field, whether it pertains to vocation, hobby, sports, religion or anything else. As web sites began to spring up, and then individual blogs and then group blogs and then YouTube channels and Facebook pages and Twitter feeds, people began to discover that there were others like them, people who believed roughly the same things or who had roughly the same interests. Where there may have been only a small number of enthusiasts in a single town or city, the Internet brought together enthusiasts from hundreds and thousands of cities and towns. These people could now congregate online with those who shared their interests.

The New Calvinism is no exception. While the theological seeds had been planted in previous years and decades, the movement was awaiting a catalyst that would allow the isolated individuals to coalesce into a movement. The catalyst in this case was the Internet and social media.

The New Calvinism is a distinctly twenty-first century, digital-era development. It is the Internet in general, and social media in particular, that first tied the movement together and that have since drawn people in. Where there may have been only five or six Calvinists in a church of several hundred, when they went online they found a whole community of people who believed just what they believed. This dispelled much of the sense of isolation and gave them a corporate identity. People have often remarked that the Christian blogosphere is dominated by Calvinists and I believe this is exactly why—because in those early days of blogging it was the outliers who were looking for community they did not have in their local church fellowships.

Over time there was an inevitable shift so that the Internet was no longer merely tying together those who had long held to Calvinistic doctrine, but it also became the medium through which others were introduced to this stream of theology. What at first simply tied people together now drew new people in.

Thus this movement has not been carried by magazines or radio or televangelists—not primarily. Rather, it has been carried by the new media, the videos and blogs and podcasts. It has been carried by books that have been reviewed on blogs and purchased online. Through it all, the Internet has played a critical role. It has provided the forums for introducing people to this theology, for discussing the parameters of the movement, for reacting to the challenges that have come at it from outside and from inside.

The Protestant Reformation depended upon a medium that was able to disseminate its ideas; this came in the form of the printing press. With the advent of movable type, books and treatises could be printed in mass quantities and distributed widely, quickly and efficiently. Without confusing the impact and importance of the two movements, I believe it is safe to say that the New Calvinism was awaiting the Internet, the medium through which isolated pockets would be drawn together into a whole.

Where did the New Calvinism come from? It came from all the sources that Dever and Taylor identified, and inevitably some they have overlooked. And it came through and in some ways because of the Internet.

In my next few posts, I want to explore not only what New Calvinists believe but some of the negative influences of a movement some are calling (not in a positive sense) the Young, Restless, and the Reformed (YRR). Some of the negative effects of some of the New Calvinism are a belief in continuationism and not cessationism (this includes God speaking new revelation to New Calvinists) and an in your face approach to Christian liberty especially with alcohol. For example, Mark Driscoll calls abstinence from alcohol sin and cessationalism worldly and akin to Deism.

New Calvinism: Where did New Calvinism Come From? Part 1

Posted: September 8, 2012 in Salvation
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
0

This video discusses my topic in my next two posts: Where did New Calvinism come from. Dave Miller is the editor of the Southern Baptist Voice (SBC Voices) and as a Southern Baptist, Miller was greatly offended by Mohler’s comments on the video from Together for the Gospel called, “DeYoung, Duncan, Mohler: What’s New about the New Calvinism?”. In the dialogue, Mohler implied that Non-Calvinists are non-theological, not committed to the Gospel, etc. Here is Miller’s response:

I am a fan of Dr. Al Mohler! I am glad he is one of our leaders.

I am constantly amazed at Dr. Mohler’s ability to articulate his positions. His statement on homosexuality at the SBC Annual Meeting this year was one of the best, most concise and biblical statements of a Christian approach to the subject I’ve ever heard. I’ve seen Dr. Mohler on national programs and always have been impressed at his ability to express unpopular biblical ideas in a persuasive way. When he speaks, I listen.  And usually I think he hits it out of the park!

In a video from 2010 that has recently been making the blog circuit, Dr. Mohler swung and missed. He is articulate and persuasive again.  But what he said was unwise, unkind and unhelpful to the future of the SBC. The video is from Together for the Gospel and is called, “DeYoung, Duncan, Mohler: What’s New about the New Calvinism?”  The key section starts at 6:25 of that video.

Al Mohler has every right to be a Calvinist and to advocate Calvinism. In fact, the Abstract of Principles at SBTS requires him to be such. No one should question his right to promote his beliefs. Calvinism is within the boundaries of the BF&M 2000 and is historically evident in SBC Life. But the statement he made in that T4G video is destructive to the promotion of unity in the SBC. Here is a transcript of his words on that video.

There’s another aspect of this, and that is, where else are they gonna go? I mean, what options are there? If you’re a theologically minded, deeply convictional young evangelical, if you’re committed to the gospel and you want to see the nations rejoice in the name of Christ, if you want to see gospel-built and structured and committed churches, your theology is just gonna end up basically being Reformed, basically being something like this New Calvinism or you’re gonna have to invent some other label for what’s just gonna be the same thing. There just are not options out there. And that’s something that I think frustrates some people. But when I am asked about the New Calvinism, I will say just basically, where else are they gonna go? Who else is gonna answer the questions? Where else will they find the resources they need? And where else are they gonna connect? This is a generation that understands, they want to say the same thing Paul said. They want to stand with the Apostles. They want to stand with old, dead people. And they know they are going to have to if they are going to preach and teach the truth.

Dr. Mohler has the right to believe and advocate Calvinism. But it is not right when he denigrates all non-Calvinists as his does here. His words are disrespectful and demeaning to those who do not share the Reformed or Calvinistic perspective. I have heard the wailings from my Calvinist circles when our views were demeaned and misrepresented by anti-Calvinists. But, my fellow Calvinists, can you understand how offensive these words are to anyone who does not share Calvinist soteriology?

  • Non-Calvinists are not theologically-minded? Deeply convictional? Committed to the gospel?  Want to see the nations rejoice in Christ?
  • Non-Calvinists do not want to see gospel-built, structured and committed churches?  The only churches that are real, valid gospel churches are Calvinistic?
  • There are no (presumably reasonable, biblical) options out there?
  • Non-Calvinists have no answers and no resources to offer?
  • Non-Calvinists do not preach and teach the truth or stand with Paul and Apostles?

I’ve listened to the whole discussion (almost 13 minutes long) and it is hard for me to see a context under which we can argue that Mohler’s quote is not insulting to non-Calvinists.  If he has corrected, revised or expanded on these comments since this year-old video, I would love to see that quote.  If he has apologized, wonderful.  But this kind of statement is divisive and destructive.

Mark Dever wrote that Non-Calvinists used to wrongly belittle Calvinists for not being evangelistic and that Calvinism would kill churches. It seems now that some think, like Dave Miller, that Calvinists are denigrating non-calvinists with similar accustations.

Two TGC founders, pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church, Tim Keller and Trinity Evangelical Divinity School professor D.A. Carson, do not like the label, New Calvinism. These two men, who most would tag as New Calvinists, expressed to World Magazine, a more inclusive approach than Mohler:

“We’re not defining it in a way that unnecessarily makes people feel excluded,” Keller told me. “There are just too many folks who we know are with us who may not use exactly the same terms or labels. . . . Why should anybody have to label themselves to be a part of this? It’s Reformed, and people who are traditionally Reformed recognize it as Reformed. And yet we’ve got people who say, ‘I’m not a Calvinist,’ but still sign on to it because it’s just what they see the Bible teaching.”

In my next post, I will explore (on a more positive note) what Mark Dever, Justin Taylor, and Tim Challies say about the origin of New Calvinism.

New Calvinism, Part 1

Posted: September 7, 2012 in Salvation
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
0

The Baptist Press posted an article, Statement on Calvinism Draws Approval, Criticism, about the controversy fomenting in the SBC over the New Calvinism that continues to suck up more and more oxygen. The article by Michael Foust reported on the push back by a group of Southern Baptist leaders referring to themselves as “the traditional Southern Baptist.”

Foust wrote: ”A group of current and former Southern Baptist leaders has signed a statement affirming what they call the ‘traditional Southern Baptist’ understanding of the doctrine of salvation, with the goal of drawing a distinction with the beliefs of ‘New Calvinism.’

The statement was posted May 31 at SBCToday.com and includes a preamble and 10 articles, along with signatures from two entity presidents (Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary’s Paige Patterson and New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary’s Chuck Kelley), five state executive directors (Georgia’s Bob White, Florida’s John Sullivan, Mississippi’s Jim Futral, Louisiana’s David Hankins, Alaska’s Mike Procter), and in addition to Patterson, five other former SBC presidents (Bailey Smith, Jimmy Draper, Jerry Vines, Morris Chapman and Bobby Welch).

The document was titled, ‘A Statement of the Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God’s Plan of Salvation.’

‘For the most part, Southern Baptists have been glad to relegate disagreements over Calvinism to secondary status along with other important but ‘non-essential’ theological matters,” the document reads in the preamble. ‘The Southern Baptist majority has fellowshipped happily with its Calvinist brethren while kindly resisting Calvinism itself. And, to their credit, most Southern Baptist Calvinists have not demanded the adoption of their view as the standard. We would be fine if this consensus continued, but some New Calvinists seem to be pushing for a radical alteration of this long-standing arrangement.’”

This is not a new war in the SBC, just another skirmish. Collin Hansen wrote back in 2006 in Christianity Today about the Young, Restless, Reformed making a comeback in the SBC.

Hansen stated that “the most provocative comments in the SBC may belong to Steve Lemke, provost of New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. In April 2005, he presented a paper on ‘The Future of Southern Baptists as Evangelicals.’ Lemke warned, ‘I believe that [Calvinism] is potentially the most explosive and divisive issue facing us in the near future. It has already been an issue that has split literally dozens of churches, and it holds the potential to split the entire convention.’

Lemke noted that Calvinism has periodically waxed and waned among Southern Baptists. ‘However, the number of Calvinist faculty dramatically increased [starting in the 1980s and] over the next 20 years.’ Lemke and many others explained to me that Calvinists like Mohler earned leadership roles during the SBC’s inerrancy battles due to their reliably conservative theology. Their academic and biblical rigor suited them for seminary positions. Now, Lemke said, their influence has made the “newest generation of Southern Baptist ministers … the most Calvinist we have had in several generations.’

Lemke doubts that Calvinism has yet reached its high-water mark in the SBC. But he is no fan of this trend. Baptism and membership figures, he said, show that the Calvinist churches of the SBC’s Founders Ministries lack commitment to evangelism. According to Lemke, the problem only makes sense, given their emphasis on God’s sovereign election.

‘For many people, if they’re convinced that God has already elected those who will be elect … I don’t see how humanly speaking that can’t temper your passion, because you know you’re not that crucial to the process,’ Lemke explained.”

My interest is not so much with the family feud within the SBC as much as understanding New Calvinism. The impact of New Calvinism in the SBC is just one arena. The numbers of the New Calvinists have increased in schools like Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. In my ensuing posts, I want to answer some questions: Who are the New Calvinists?, How are they different from the Old Calvinists? What do they believe? Why are they multiplying? Is this just another passing evangelical fad like the Emerging Church?

  

John Piper Challenges N. T. Wright on the New Persepective of Paul

Posted: February 21, 2012 in Salvation
Tags: , , , , ,
0

N. T. Wright is probably the most prominent and influential of the New Perspective theologians. Nicholas Thomas Wright is a British New Testament scholar and the Anglican Bishop of Durham, England.

For that reason, John Piper wrote his book, The Future of Justification: A Response to N. T. Wright, exposing the errors of the New Perspective on Paul.

Here is Piper’s brief  summary of the issue: (At this link you can download a PDF of Piper’s book)

N.T. Wright, a world-renowned New Testament scholar and bishop of Durham in the Church of England, has spent years studying the apostle Paul’s writings and has offered a “fresh perspective” on Paul’s theology. Among his conclusions are that “the discussions of justification in much of the history of the church—certainly since Augustine—got off on the wrong foot, at least in terms of understanding Paul—and they have stayed there ever since.”

Steve Chalke, church leader in England, has read N. T. Wright. N. T. Wright admits that Steve Chalke, in his controversial book, The Lost Message of Jesus,  in which he denies the propitiation of Christ,  “embarrassingly at times—the book follows quite closely several of the lines of thought I have myself advanced, though giving them a good deal more energy through shrewd use of anecdote and illustration” (N. T. Wright in a 2007 Internet post quoted by Piper on page 49 in The Future of Justification). What is ironic is that N. T. Wright has written strongly in favor of the propitiation of Christ. Here is a sample:

The idea of punishment as part of atonement is itself deeply controversial; horrified rejection of the mere suggestion has led on the part of some to an unwillingness to discern any reference to Isaiah 40-55 in Paul. But it is exactly that idea that Paul states, clearly and unambiguously, in Romans 8:3, when he says that God “condemned sin in the flesh”—i.e. the flesh of Jesus. Dealing with wrath or punishment is propitiation; with sin, expiation. You propitiate a person who is angry, you expiate a sin, crime” (N. T. Wright, The Letter to the Romans, 475-476).

John Piper makes this appraisal of further comments that Wright makes on the same page that seems to contradict his other statements about penal substitution. “In view of this assertion that God propitiated the anger of God, it is mystifying that Wright would construct the following sentence in this context: ‘It should go without saying that this in no way implies, what the start of the verse has already ruled out, that God is an angry malevolent tyrant who demands someone’s death, or someone’s blood, and is indifferent as to whose it is’ (The Letter to the Romans, 476).”

Piper responds to Wright’s mystifying statement. “What is subtle and misleading about this sentence is that it starts with the denial of pejorative things about God and then ends up denying, with no distinction, things that Wright himself has affirmed. The sentence is written in such a way as to make Wright’s own true view almost unrecognizable. What is to be denied and what is not? Is God angry: Yes. Is he malevolent: No. Is he a tyrant? No (too many false connotations), but he is certainly totally in charge. Does he demand someone’s death? Yes. Blood? Yes. Is he indifferent as to whose it is? No. This is not a helpful way to explain what one thinks. It seems to me that he undercuts with this sentence the force of what he has spent great effort defending from the text of Romans” (John Piper, The Future of Justification, 52).

Perhaps Chalke was influenced by Wrights mystifying statements that contradicted his other true beliefs about the propitiatory death of Christ. What is even more damaging to Wright’s view on the propitiation of Christ was the blurb that he wrote in Chalke’s book endorsing the book, The Lost Message of Jesus. Here is Wright’s endorsement: “Steve Chalke’s new book is rooted in good scholarship, but its clear, punchy style makes it accessible to anyone and everyone. Its message is stark and exciting: Jesus of Nazareth was far more challenging in his own day, and remains far more relevant to ours, than the church has dared to believe, let alone preach.”

 It was in The Lost Message of Jesus that Chalke wrote, “The cross isn’t a form of cosmic child abuse—a vengeful Father, punishing his Son for an offence he has not even committed. Understandably, both people inside and outside of the Church have found this twisted version of events morally dubious and a huge barrier to faith. Deeper than that, however, is that such a concept stands in total contradiction to the statement: God is love. If the cross is a personal act of violence perpetrated by God towards humankind but borne by his Son, then it makes a mockery of Jesus’ own teaching to love our enemies and to refuse to repay evil with evil ” (Steve Chalke and Alan Mann, The Lost Message of Jesus, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2003, 182-183).

Can we reconcile penal substitution and the love of God? The apostle John did in 1 John 4:10.

Piper is justified in his rebuttal of Wright’s confusing denial of propitiation and even more confusing endorsement of Chalke’s denial of penal substitution.

Why I Am Not a Five or Six or Seven Point Calvinist! (Part 2)

Posted: January 30, 2012 in Salvation
Tags: , , , , , ,
15

It is at this point that another debates fares up: What constitutes a hyper-Calvinist? Is a person a hyper or strict Calvinist because he believes 5 to 7 points of Calvinism or because of what he practices i.e., he refuses to preach the gospel to all sinners because Christ only died for the elect.

Tim Challies sites as an example of a hyper-Calvinism, the confession of The Gospel Standard Aid and Poor Relief Societies:

XXXIII Therefore, that for ministers in the present day to address unconverted persons, or indiscriminately all in a mixed congregation, calling upon them savingly to repent, believe, and receive Christ, or perform any other acts dependent upon the new creative power of the Holy Ghost, is, on the one hand, to imply creature power, and, on the other, to deny the doctrine of special redemption.

Tim Challies contends that hyper-Calvinism is this belief and practice that the gospel should not be freely offered to all. Tim Challies does not believe double predestination constitutes hyper-Calvinism. Phil Johnson agrees with Challies.

Phil Johnson warns against hyper-Calvinism:

I wrote and posted this article because I am concerned about some subtle trends that seem to signal a rising tide of hyper-Calvinism, especially within the ranks of young Calvinists and the newly Reformed. I have seen these trends in numerous Reformed theological forums on the Internet, including mailing lists, Web sites, and Usenet forums.

Lest anyone wonder where my own convictions lie, I am a Calvinist. I am a five-point Calvinist, affirming without reservation the Canons of the Synod of Dordt. And when I speak of hyper-Calvinism, I am not using the term as a careless pejorative. I’m not an Arminian who labels all Calvinism “hyper.” When I employ the term, I am using it in its historical sense.

History teaches us that hyper-Calvinism is as much a threat to true Calvinism as Arminianism is. Virtually every revival of true Calvinism since the Puritan era has been hijacked, crippled, or ultimately killed by hyper-Calvinist influences. Modern Calvinists would do well to be on guard against the influence of these deadly trends.

Johnson identifies what he considers dangerous about hyper-Calvinism: 

  1. Denies that the gospel call applies to all who hear, OR
  2. Denies that faith is the duty of every sinner, OR
  3. Denies that the gospel makes any “offer” of Christ, salvation, or mercy to the non-elect (or denies that the offer of divine mercy is free and universal), OR
  4. Denies that there is such a thing as “common grace,” OR
  5. Denies that God has any sort of love for the non-elect.

Phil says, “Hyper-Calvinism simply stated, is a doctrine that emphasizes divine sovereignty to the exclusion of human responsibility.”

I agree that hyper-Calvinism, not all forms of Calvinism, undermines evangelism but so does double predestination if not just theorically advocated. How can a believer legtimately offer the gospel to a sinner if God has already predetermined his/her damnation?

We now examine our second text on unconditional election.

2 Thessalonians 2:13, 14

As you are turning to 2 Thessalonians stop at 1 Thessalonians 1:4, where Paul first mentions, in writing, election to the Thessalonians. Remember from Acts 17, that the Thessalonians were new converts and yet, Paul is not hesitant to discuss the doctrine of election with them. Now let’s look at 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14:

  • Who chose us? “God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation” (v. 13).
  • When did God chose us? Not at salvation, but from eternity past.
  • Whom did God chose? Not just Jews, but Gentiles at Thessalonica.
  • How was God’s choice applied? There are three means that God uses.

How is salvation applied?

1. Believers must witness (v. 14)

Objection to Unconditional Election: “Election discourages believers from witnessing.”

It did not discourage the apostle Paul. The Lord used this doctrine to encourage Paul to witness when Paul was at Corinth as recorded in Acts 18:9-11. Read Romans 10:14, 15, where Paul stresses the necessity of believers witnessing.

2.  In addition to believers witnessing, the Holy Spirit must convict.

In 2 Thessalonians 2:13, Paul mentions not only God the Father choosing, but the Spirit sanctifying or setting us apart for salvation. Peter mentions all three Persons in 1 Peter 1:2 and their involvement in our salvation and mentions the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit as does Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2:13. We call this setting apart by the Holy Spirit before salvation the conviction of the Holy Spirit as predicted by Christ in John 16:8-11.

The Holy Spirit must convict and draw because sinners are unable to come to Christ unaided (1 Corinthians 2:14).

3. Not only must believers witness the gospel, and the Holy Spirit convict sinners of rejecting Christ, but sinners must believe. . .“and belief of the truth” (2 Thess. 2:13).

Objection to Unconditional Election: “This truth robs the sinner of his responsibility to believe.”

Not with Paul. Paul told the Philippian jailor that he must “Believe on the Lord Jesus” (Acts 16:31). God’s choice is of grace not of our works. “Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace” (Romans 11:5, 6). Faith is not a work of man according to Romans 4:5.

Objection to Unconditional Election: “The decree of election means a decree of reprobation.”

Strict Calvinism does teach reprobation or double predestination. A. A. Hodge links reprobation with limited atonement.

“It is purely unthinkable that the same mind that sovereignly predestinated the elect to salvation and the rest of mankind to the punishment of their sins should, at the same time, make a great sacrifice for the sake of removing legal obstacles out of the way of those from whose paths is decreed other obstacles shall not be removed” (Archibald Alexander Hodge, The Atonement, Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1953, p. 414).

Robert Lightner rebuts this kind of logic with the truth of preterition.

The Bible nowhere teaches the predestination of the lost to Hell. That is a human deduction, quite common among strict Calvinist, from the fact that God has predestinated some to salvation. God does not take the responsibility for men going to Hell. He did not predetermine that they should go there; He merely passed by them and left them in their lost estate for which they are responsible (Robert Lightner, The Death Christ Died, Des Plaines: Regular Baptist Press, 1967, p. 99). Dr. Hoyle Bowman disagrees with Lightner on preterition.

Concerning preterition, Dr. Bowman states: This is not a Biblical word. It is a theological word which would indicate that the nonelect are simply passed by. This is a theological surmise based on the reasoning that since the elect will be saved then the nonelect obviously must be passed over. The reasoning and the position is correct but the Bible does not state that the nonelect are passed by. Rather, to the contrary, the Scriptures indiscriminatingly and distributively invite all men to heed the gospel, though all do not have the same of equal chance to hear it. The Bible is clear as to why men are passed by (Dr. Hoyle Bowman, A Case for Unlimited Atonement, Winston/Salem: Piedmont International University, n.d. p. 9).

Sinners go to Hell because they chose to do so by rejecting the gospel not because God has predetermined them to hell: “He that believes on him is not condemned: but he that believes not is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God” (John 3:18).

“He that believes on the Son has everlasting life: and he that believes not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abides on him (John 3:36).

Sinners condemn themselves to Hell. “Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels” (Mt. 25:41). Read also Ezekiel 33:11. The Bible does not teach reprobation but retribution for rejection of Christ as Savior.

The Bible truth of  unconditional election is always balanced with human responsibility.

1. We should pray that God would raise up laborers (Mt. 9:36-38). We can become the answer to our prayer and witness to the people for whom we are praying.

2. We should pray for the salvation of the lost (Rom. 9:1-3; 10:1). One way to pray for the lost is to pray for an opportunity to witness (Col 4:3) and then boldness to witness when God opens the door (Eph 6:19).

3. We should witness to the lost (Acts 1:8). The sovereignty of God never cancels out the human responsibility of the believer to pray, go, and witness to the unsaved nor the sinner to believe the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Why I Am Not a Five or Six or Seven Point Calvinist! (Part 1)

Posted: January 30, 2012 in Salvation
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
17

Here is how Matt Perman, director of strategy at Desiring God in Minneapolis, MN., describes what Piper means when he describes himself as a “seven point Calvinist:”

When John Piper says he is a “seven point Calvinist,” he does so half jokingly and half seriously. Historically, there are five points of Calvinism, not seven. Piper isn’t seeking to add two more points, but is simply calling attention to his belief in the traditional five points (total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints) in a way that also points toward two additional “Calvinistic” truths that follow from them: double predestination and the best-of-all-possible worlds.

The “sixth” point, double predestination, is simply the flip side of unconditional election. Just as God chooses whom He will save without regard to any distinctives in the person (Ephesians 1:5-6; Acts 13:48; Revelation 17:8), so also he decides whom He will not save without regard to any distinctives in the individual (John 10:26; 12:37-40; Romans 9:11-18;1 Peter 2:7-8).

1 Peter 2:8 seems to be the verse that would appear to most substantiate double predestination. Thomas Constable’s explanation of 1 Peter 2:8 at bible.org refutes double predestination:

“‘In the immediate context it is not so much a question of how Christian believers perceive Christ as of how God (in contrast to ‘people generally’) perceives him, and of how God consequently vindicates both Christ and his followers.’[73]

To what does God appoint those who stumbled, unbelief or the stumbling that results from unbelief? In the Greek text the antecedent of “to this” (eis ho) is the main verb “stumble” (proskoptousi), as it is in the English text. “Are disobedient” (apeithountes) is a participle that is subordinate to the main verb. Therefore we would expect “to this” to refer to the main verb “stumble” rather than to the subordinate participle “are disobedient.” God appoints those who stumble to stumble because they do not believe. Their disobedience is not what God has ordained, but the penalty of their disobedience is (cf. Acts 2:23; Rom. 11:8, 11, 30-32).[74]

The doctrine of “double predestination” is that God foreordains some people to damnation just as He foreordains some to salvation. This has seemed to some Bible students to be the logical conclusion we should draw because of what Scripture says about the election of believers (e.g., Rom. 9; Eph. 1). However this is not a scriptural revelation. The Bible always places the responsibility for the destiny of the lost on them for not believing rather than on God for foreordaining (e.g., John 1:12; 3:36; 5:24; 6:47; Rom. 1—3).

“. . . the point of 1 Peter 2:6-8 is to demonstrate the honored status believers have because of their relationship with Christ.”[75]

Unconditional election is the Biblical view, but double predestination is not the flip side to unconditional election.

I want to now examine two Scriptural texts (Ephesians 1:3-6; 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14) that teach unconditional election and present objections raised concerning this docrtine and also address why unconditional election does not demand double predestination.

Ephesians 1:3-6

1. Who chose? God chose us before we chose him.

“God’s election was before the foundation of the world. He did not choose us only after we chose Him (Eph. 1:4)” (Charles Ryrie, Basic Theology, Colorado Springs: Victor Books, 1997, p. 314).

2. Whom did He chose? Two views.

Corporate Election. Did God only choose a group? This is the view of Dan Esterline, as quoted by Ryrie, “What did God choose before the foundation of the world? The church. Not individuals, but the body of Christ” (p. 311). Individuals are not elected until they are believers in Christ, says this view.

Another representative of the corporate view is Clark Pinnock. “Christ is the chosen One in and through whom in corporate solidarity with Him the church is selected to be God’s own. Not one is ever chosen on his own, that is, outside of Christ, or apart from incorporation into the church” (Clark Pinnock, gen. ed., The Grace of God, the Will of Man, Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing company, 1989, p. 228).

Individual, Pretemporal Election. This is the preferable view. Ryrie believes that “election emphasizes God’s free choice of individuals to salvation. When Paul uses the verb he uses it in the middle voice, indicating that God’s choice was made freely and for His own purposes (Eph. 1:4). Election is unconditional and individual” (p. 312).

3. When did he choose us?

Not at Salvation. Pretemporal, that is, “before the foundation of the world” (Eph. 1:4). “But we are bound to give thanks always to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation” (2 Thess. 2:13).

4. Why did he choose?

To produce holy living, “That we should be holy and without blame before him in love” (Eph. 1:4).

Objection to Unconditional Election: “It tends to immorality, by representing men’s salvation as independent of their own obedience.”

After Strong raises this common objection, he answers it.

“Salvation is not independent of our obedience” (A. H. Strong, Systematic Theology). 1 Peter 1:2 says that obedience is necessary for salvation. “Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ.” We obey what Scriptures tells us do in order to be saved: believe on the Lord Jesus Christ as our Savior (Acts 16:31).

Moreover, election will make us holy. Nothing under the gracious influence of the Holy Spirit can make a Christian more holy than the thought that he is chosen. “Shall I sin,” he says, “after God hath chosen me? Shall I transgress after such love? Shall I go astray after so much lovingkindness and tender mercy? Nay, my God; since thou hast chosen me, I will love thee, I will live to thee” (Spurgeon, p. 29, 30).

In my next post we will consider if hyper-Calvinism includes or excludes double predestination or just the absence of evangelism.


Older Entries