Tommy Flint (1934-2017), guitarist extraordinaire – RIP

February 8, 2017 1 comment

tommy-flintJust received news that Tommy Flint, 82,  has passed away in Nashville TN. As a high tribute to his gentle and humble ways, Tommy could well be one of the best known guitarists that no one ever heard of. He performed with all the top notch players, wrote dozens of guitar instructional books and I was fortunate enough to have had Tommy as my first guitar teacher from 1967-68 when I was in junior high school. He taught out of Broadripple Music Store in Indianapolis IN. Tommy took me through three Mel Bay books over the ~2yrs I took lessons from him. He also helped my parents choose a Gibson Melody Maker that was given to me as a Christmas present. Tommy was a phenomenal teacher helping me establish a good foundation in reading music and general guitar technique. He also taught me to play great tunes like Pipeline, Wipeout and Walk Don’t Run. Unfortunately at the time, I had no idea who Tommy was. Nor did I  understand just how great of a player he was. Once in a while, though, after tuning up my guitar prior to a lesson, he’d “let loose” with some little riff. Wide eyed, I’d watch and ask him to teach me that. He’s smile and as much say something to the effect that I wasn’t quite ready for that but that if I kept practicing, I’d get there soon enough.   

I saw a published book of his around 1990 at a music store in Minneapolis. Fond memories rushed back. I bought the book and shortly thereafter sent a letter to the publisher along with a recently completed demo tape. Within a month Tommy graciously responded with a hand-written letter (that I still have). He was delighted that I still played and complimented me on my playing. It was 1999 at the Chet Atkins Appreciation Convention in Nashville TN when I got a chance to meet up with Tommy. I don’t think he remembered me as a fledgling student. However, he did remember the letter  and the tape I’d sent. Gracious as ever, we talked for quite a while. It was only then that I truly appreciated how blessed I was to have had him for a teacher. Rest in peace, my friend. You have inspired legions of people with your musical talents and passion for all things guitar. Truly, it’s a sad day in the world of guitar thumb-pickers.

 

Limited Atonement?

February 4, 2017 Leave a comment

atonement-lambCalvinists claim something called limited atonement – the reconciliation of God and “the elect” through the sacrificial death of Christ on the cross. Calvinists deny that Christ’s atonement was for everyone. If atonement was for everyone, then everyone would be saved – or so the argument goes. And, of course, not everyone is saved so therefore Calvinists argue that Christ’s atonement was only for the elect. I don’t make that connection myself. But this makes me wonder – is atonement given to the elect person while they’re still in a reprobate condition? I mean, at what point is the elect person actually saved? Before the creation of the world? Or at the moment the elect person confesses their sin? Hence, if I follow the logic, it would seem that salvation is given to the Calvinist before any expression of faith.  

So, if one is saved before any expression of faith, then why did God find it necessary to nail himself on a cross and ultimately die? For heaven’s sake (pun intended), if God decrees those who’re saved, then why couldn’t God have killed off, oh say, a spotted owl or some endangered species and call that sacrifice good enough? Animal sacrifice was good enough in Old Testament times. So, why did God, when feeling it necessary to develop a new covenant and bring Jews and Gentiles into fellowship through faith, feel it necessary to sacrifice himself for our sins? Why not continue with the OT practice of killing off an animal and make whatever required adjustments God deemed necessary for the remission of our sins? I’m not sure, but there has to be something exceedingly unique and otherwise sublime about God sending and sacrificing himself.

This, therefore, makes me think that atonement, in and of itself, does not bring about forgiveness of sins. Again, if I’m understanding Calvinist doctrines correctly, atonement is of no value until one steps out of the “reprobate condition” and is thereby given an “elect status”. Atonement, therefore, in and of itself is not effectual in that atonement is not (per Webster) “successful in producing a desired or intended result”. Atonement, then, would only bring about the possibility of the forgiveness of sins. In and of itself, atonement can’t (or at least doesn’t) bring about forgiveness.

This makes me further wonder, can the Calvinist’s concepts of total depravity of everyone and the inherent inability to seek God be defended scripturally given that both the OT and NT are replete with people responding to God’s initiatives. On his Facebook page, Pastor Bob Hadley phrases the question as to God’s sovereignty by asking, “How powerful can [God] be if He cannot speak to the unregenerate? The statement, one cannot be responsible if one is not response-able deserves thought.”

Furthermore, Bob George (author of Classic Christianity), talks about how the same sun which melts wax also hardens clay wherein God’s grace either brings about humility of spirit or the hardening of one’s heart (as a manifestation of pride?). If that is true, then it seems self-evident that we, as individuals are “responders” to God’s grace and mercy. And, if we are responders – as is apparent if only because some accept God’s grace while others don’t, then it only seems logical that individuals indeed have free-will in accepting or rejecting God’s grace.

Simply put, I reject the Calvinist’s claim of limited atonement and believe God saves those who repent. God isn’t the one deciding who repents. Scripture is clear, God wants none to perish. I bet there’s a verse to that effect.

 

If Predestination Is True . . .

January 27, 2017 Leave a comment

jerry-edmonI like the insight Jerry Edmon offers with regard to the Calvinist’s understanding of predestination wherein:

If predestination is true, one is either eternally saved or eternally damned before birth.

If predestination is true, then the concept of choice is a cruel deception.

If predestination is true, then the thought of being a free moral agent is simply a pretense.

If predestination is true, then reaching out to the non-elect is nothing more than an exercise in religious recital.

If predestination is true, then the sharing of the gospel by the elect can only stir up false hope within the reprobate.

If predestination is true, then why bother sharing God’s love unless it is just some misdirected sadistic tease to those who can never have eternal life?

If predestination is true, then preaching the gospel only dangles a mirage about the river of life to those dying of thirst who’re not able to partake of its stream.

If predestination is true, then the term “whosoever” from John 3:16 is a lie.

Edmon goes on to discuss two passages addressing predestination and how Calvinists have taken predestination out of context. According to Edmon:

[Romans 8:29-30 and Ephesians 1:3-14] specifically refer to a people group, not to individual people. What we see here is that God determined that he was going to have a people for himself, a Body. It is preplanned and predestined to happen. But it is misguided to take from these passages to suggest that [God] had selected [certain] “individuals to be saved” and [certain] “individuals to be lost”. God determined beforehand that those who believe in Christ will be adopted into his family and conformed to his Son. I believe in predestination as a people group. We are all called, but not as an individual. Individual predestination is misguided. We must individually hear the gospel and believe its message. We must appreciate the true condition of the fallen state of man and the plan of redemption that God provided for us if we will receive His precious gift. While it is true that man cannot come to God except he be drawn, that man still has to exercise his own independent choice to receive God’s invitation.

 

“Source Material” Confidence

January 26, 2017 Leave a comment

or-gateThat Calvinism and Arminianism emanate from the same “source material” (i.e. the Bible) has always been problematic to me. Readers of this blog know that I find Calvinism to be, well, distasteful to the notion of a loving creator. Arminianism just seems, well, more pleasant and believable – at least within the context of how I understand and relate to God. But the question that comes to mind is perhaps best framed within a logical argument:

if A=true, then ~A=false

So, if Calvinism is true, then Arminianism is false.

The converse is also correct wherein if Calvinism is false, then Arminianism is true.

By definition, or at least as I see it, Calvinism and Arminianism can’t both be right.

This infers that any logical deductions we make are valid as a function of the accuracy of the “source material”. Calvinism and Arminianism, in my opinion, cannot logically coexist. But being more comfortable with Arminian doctrine and therefore gravitating towards Arminianism doesn’t make it right. What if, however, the “source material” on which both Calvinism and Arminianism depend is not sufficient to adequately support either contention? Does this imply anything with regard to the inherent contradictions (that I see) between the respective doctrines?

Is it possible that incorrect theological positions have been construed because of the wide latitude within Biblical interpretation and no obvious way to Biblically eliminate the tension between Calvinism and Arminianism? Or, might the “source material” not be sufficiently “robust” to build the respective theological bases of Calvinism or Arminianism?

If Calvinism and Arminianism are in fact contradictory (which I believe is true) and logically exclude each other (which I also believe is true), it must be concluded only one of the two theological positions can be true. Or, since Calvinistic and Arminian positions are contradictory (i.e. matters related to God’s versus man’s role in salvation), and since both are developed from the same “source material”, then maybe it must be deduced that neither Calvinism nor Arminianism are correct if only because they present two different conclusions from the same “source material”.

Hmmm. I’m getting lost in my own arguments. Here’s the bottom line: what if we conclude that the “source material” supports contradictory answers? Are we then able to have sufficient confidence in the validity of that “source material”?

Another $0.02 Comment Regarding Unconditional Election

January 23, 2017 Leave a comment

two-centsFundamental to the reservations I have regarding Reformed doctrine is the concept of unconditional election. Perhaps I’m deluding myself, but I think I can adequately refute the Calvinist’s notion of election. For instance, Eph 1:4 is a popular verse used by Calvinists.

“In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will,”

The obvious question for me – what’s God’s purpose? Well, looking at the entire passage, several things “pop” out:

vs 4 (God determining that we would be holy and blameless in his sight)

vs 5 (God determining that we would be adopted as his sons through Christ)

vs 9 (the “mystery” of his will)

vs 10 (that will is to be pout into effect when the times will have reached their fulfillment)

vs 11 (God accomplishing his plan and replaces the law with faith)

As I see it, then, Paul’s explanation of “the mystery” relates to God doing away with “the law” thereby enabling both Jews and Gentiles to be made holy through God’s own sacrifice of himself by faith. To which, I see nothing within this passage supporting Calvinistic fatalism as to God predestining or otherwise “choosing” (i.e. electing) a very select few for salvation.

On the contrary, I see God’s desire for everyone to come into fellowship with him. Through Christ. By faith. But, I suspect that other’s “mileage” may differ. Please feel free to comment.

 

 

So, This Is Where I’ve Landed

January 23, 2017 Leave a comment

boat-landingIt’s been several months since leaving the church I had attended for ~12 years. Part of me thought that I would do more reading and studying during this absence. But I haven’t. In truth, I’m no closer to resolving questions I have regarding the nature and character of God. Whether it should be or not, the concept of unconditional election within Calvinistic doctrine is a huge stumbling block. That so many adhere to this doctrine just baffles me. If anything, what seems to make the most sense regarding Christian faith is contained within the Apostle’s Creed.

I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.

I believe in Jesus Christ, God’s only Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried.

He descended to the dead.

On the third day he rose again.

He ascended into heaven.

He is seated at the right hand of the Father and he will come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting.

Seems rather black and white. Which is, frankly, how I view my faith – rather matter of fact. And not much else. Perhaps it’s enough.

It’s for His Glory, of Course

January 23, 2017 Leave a comment

tiny-feet

I’ve certainly had my fair share of discussions and disagreements with Calvinists. As often as not, or at least within my limited sphere, I seem to encounter Calvinists who’re adamant that it’s God, “for his glory,” who has worked out EVERYTHING (including the free-will actions of people) per his [God’s] own sovereign will. Suffice it to say that I find much about this position troubling if only because there are literally hundreds of verses in which there are, for lack of a better word – suggestions regarding how we should go about decision making. For instance:

–        The multitude of verses in the book of Proverbs

–        Consider, too, how Paul went about making decisions (my interpretation)

·   Phil 2:25 (I think it’s a good idea)

·   1 Cor 16:3-4 (If it seems the right thing to do)

·   Acts 6:1-7 (We need to do something about this)

·   Acts 15:24-29 (Believers got together, debated, decided, and acted)

Irrespective, this is how the one recent discussion went:

(Me) You’re stating that EVERYTHING is prescribed and otherwise ordained by God.

(CF – Calvinist Friend) Yes.

(Me) Then, if that’s true, you would agree that God brought about legalized abortion?

(CF) Well, we can’t think in God’s terms. We don’t have perfect understanding. Things that may not seem right to us make perfect sense to God.

(Me) Okay, I understand. But you would agree that all of mankind since Adam and Eve have been born with a sin nature?

(CF) Sure. That’s what total depravity is all about. None of us have it within us to live a sinless life much less even seek out a holy God. It’s God who has to put the desire to understand our sin nature much less bring us to faith in Christ to save us.

(Me) Fair enough. However, in spite of a sin nature, you would agree that unborn children have not yet sinned.

(CF) Well, I’m not sure that I understand your point.

(Me) Well, my point is that Jesus dying on a cross – his atonement for our sins is pointless.

(CF) Come again.

(Me) What I understand from your Calvinistic doctrine is that God intentionally destroys those who’ve never sinned.

(CF) Now wait a minute. I wouldn’t ever state that Jesus’ dying, his atonement for his elect, was for nothing. He knows his sheep. And we know him. He died to give us hope and eternal life. Also, your point that God destroys those who’ve never sinned is missing a particular detail.

(Me) Which is?

(CF) God has already chosen the elect – as it were from the foundation of the world. That is, God has already decided who he’ll reveal himself to. Those are the ones who Jesus died for. In addition, God, being able to see into the future because he’s not constrained by time, can know without a doubt which of those unborn children will never sin. It’s a safe bet that the number of unborn children who’ll never sin is zero. So, I don’t think it’s fair to state that God destroys those who’ve never sinned.

(Me) Fairness is God destroying those who’ve never sinned. Got it!

(CF) Sounds like you just don’t like having God in control.

(Me) No, I simply see too much in the Bible where it appears that God has provided us with principles on how we should go about making wise decisions. I think God gives us freedom and subsequently allows us to experience the blessings or consequences of those decisions.

(CF) I don’t trust in man. I trust in God.

The conversation more or less ended here. Sometimes when I think I have a significant point and toss it out, it often comes back as a contorted, albeit, logical explanation. Perhaps ‘dumping’ the abortion question into our little debate was unfair. But sometimes, when trying to understand something, it often seems reasonable to quickly take an argument to its logical conclusion. I don’t disagree that my Calvinist friend (more or less) effectively blunted my challenge. I don’t, however, find his argument persuasive if only because I can’t for a moment imagine a holy God bringing about a violent and abhorrent action upon an unborn child – whether that child was destined to sin or not. Maybe if I have another opportunity I’ll ask my Calvinist friend if he has ever voted for or against abortion laws. But, I guess that’s where I’ll have to leave it for now.