Tag: Calvinist

Calling all Brethren of Christian Clarity Review, come in please, over.

dit dit dit dahhhh    dit dit dit dahhhh    dit dit dit dahhhh

CQ CQ CQ (that’s ham radio jargon for, “Anyone listening on this frequency?”)

CQ CQ CQ Brethren of Christian Clarity Review, come in please – over.

CQ CQ CQ Brethren of Christian Clarity Review, this is Martin’s Mercurial Musings, come in please – over.

Hmmm.  No response.  The Rev Timothy Elder, an honorably retired Presbyterian minister in the Gulf Coast Presbytery and blogger at Christian Clarity Review has claimed to be God’s messenger to the brethren regarding “created speech”.  Yet, could it be that there are no Christian Clarity Review brethren?  In other words, is Tim a “fellowship of one” without the benefit and blessings of being a part of a body of believers?

I rather doubt Tim has saved his most vitriolic “created speech” for me even if I had a bit of fun when I wrote this post – a take-off on Keith Olbermann’s “Worst Person in the World”.  Tim obviously has a sharp mind and appears well learned in Christian doctrine and church history.  I’ve always thought that the good news of the Christian faith brought about unity.  However, that’s not what I see in Tim’s writings.  Sadly, it’s hard for me to see where the love of God is revealed in Tim’s writings.

So, what’s the purpose of these posts pertaining to Tim Elder at Christian Clarity Review?  Frankly, I’m hard-pressed to believe the vitriolic “created speech” Tim spits out exemplifies the love of God and I don’t understand the motivation for Tim to write the things he does.  To that end, I’m told that light is the best disinfectant.  And so, it’s my hope that by bringing the light of day to Tim’s writings, others who are perhaps in a better position to evaluate the truth (or lack thereof) regarding Tim’s writings would do just that.

dit dit dit dahhhh    dit dit dit dahhhh    dit dit dit dahhhh

CQ CQ CQ

CQ CQ CQ Brethren of Christian Clarity Review, come in please – over.

CQ CQ CQ Brethren of Christian Clarity Review, this is Martin’s Mercurial Musings, come in please – over.

Award Accepted from Christian Clarity Review: Worst Arminian in the World!

I hereby congratulate myself on the just-created weekly award of – drumroll, please – “Worst Arminian in the World“.  I am beholden to none other than Tim Elder at Christian Clarity Review for this great honor.  This first competition was keen.  Up for consideration were ‘bdrex’, ‘Bill’ and myself for commenting on Tim’s post that Arminians Are Not Christians.

Tim said of me:

  • Another wicked soul pops in for a chat.
  • The unforgivable sin is your default piety in particular Bob.
  • You, like so many, are deceived that if you don’t make up a new ‘meaning’ from the text other than what it says as Word of God as Creating Speech/Jesus Christ, then you’re only a baby Christian.
  • You sin happily and forcefully and call it being pious.
  • That the spirit that now works in the sons of disobedience now works in you is plain.
  • You heard the same Word of God I did and the effect it had on you was to harden your heart and make you a vessel of wrath.
  • You enjoy lying against God.
  • You are all very polite as you supposedly ‘choose’ your various positions.
  • There are literally thousands of blogs on which Lucifer is welcome. This isn’t one of them.
  • You should surely be hired by any [A]rminian witch as their PR person.
  • Your lies are always disguised as sombre [sic] wishes for fair discourse while accusing those who point out your lies of being mean spirited asses who do everything they do, supposedly like you, on purpose.
  • It isn’t that I don’t understand. It’s that I do and I overtly don’t want the emotional common sense friendship or discourse of hardened sinners in addition to being blessed by God to not have to hear it.
  • You can’t choose to believe what God is Saying through me as truth. No one has that ability.

Tim, I can think of no one more qualified than you to present these weekly awards.  We’ll all be anxiously awaiting the next Worst Arminian in the World!

To be considered for this award, prospective entrants must read any post on Tim’s blog and do one of the following:

  • Make a comment
  • Ask a question
  • Challenge a premise
  • Simply not understand various things such as created speech, et al

Now don’t be shy.  Hurry and submit your comments and questions to Tim’s blog.

Oh yes, mention my name or, better yet, link to this blog and you’ll be a shoe-in for Worst Arminian in the World.  Not only that, but you’ll also receive my warmest personal regards.

Best of luck to one and all in becomming the next Worst Arminian in the World!!!


A Calvinist Spanking of Yours Truly from Christian Clarity Review?

A rather pathetic title for a hissy-fit between a Calvinist named Timothy Elder Jr at Christian Clarity Review and one who doesn’t subscribe to the TULIP doctrines of Calvinism – me.  In the large scheme of things, this really is much ado about nothing.  Honestly, what new thoughts or arguments could possibly come forth between the centuries-old debate between Calvinists and Arminians?  From my perspective, both sides have considerable biblical “ammunition” and can lob verse after verse to effectively press either Calvinist or Arminian doctrine.  This on-going debate is somewhat distressing to me if only because there appears to be such divergence of opinion between the two camps with both sides often justifying their positions using the same Scriptures.  By and large, it’s been easier of late to not take part in the debate – at least not to the degree I used to.  Perhaps I got a little bruised and worn out and have, at least for now, decided to premise my Christian faith on the Arminian side if for no other reason that I am more comfortable with what I understand to be the nature and character of God as viewed from an Arminian perspective.

But now, back into the fray.  There was a recent post on Christian Clarity Review entitled; Arminians are not Christians.  Nice to know, I guess.  But I adamently disagree.

‘bdrex’ and ‘Bill’ initially posed some questions to CCR and things escalated quickly.  It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize Tim doesn’t appreciate any challenges to his views.  I got into the fray a little later.  And too, I admit to a little venting in what I was told would be my last posting to CCR.  But ultimately, I have to ask my Calvinist friends; is Christian Clarity Review someone who accurately represents Calvinist doctrine and thought?

Anyway, for those interested, here’s my last comment to Christian Clarity Review and his subsequent response:

Dear Tim,

I regret your request for me to no longer comment on your blog.  I’ve done my best to be open, candid, honest and respectful when posing questions, responding or otherwise commenting on CCR.  I’ve tried to do likewise when you have commented on my blog.   But I will honor your request.

For my last comments on your blog,  I thought of providing a list of what I believe to be justifiable arguments against Calvinism and attempt to show where (I believe) verses you reference do not support the contentions you make.  But what’s the point?  I’ve concluded that you’re going to believe what you will irrespective of illogical thought and misapplied scriptures.  If nothing else, I’ve come to understand that that if something isn’t hyper-Calvinistic in nature, you’ll naturally be against it irrespective of the many scriptural references appearing to support Arminian thought.  If ever someone desires to see a Hyper-Calvinist in action – you are the real deal, Tim.

Your responses in this post to bdrex and Bill were fascinating.  I’m admittedly slow, but I finally realized you aren’t able to tolerate challenges to your theology.  If someone doesn’t agree with you, out pours some verbiage condemning the questioner or equating them to Lucifer followed by hate-filled speech (spoken as if you were the Holy Ghost Himself) with a taken-out-of-context verse or two.

You’ve clearly studied a lot of church history and tenants of the Christian faith.  But for what purpose?  Where, Tim, is the fruit in your life?  Where can one find in your life the love and compassion that Jesus exhibited?  Why is there such anger and contempt within you?  Where is the joy that Jesus wants all believers to experience and in which he promises to make complete?  Why is there no apparent laughter and (oh dear, should I actually use this word – yes!) the “gaiety” in your life?

Can anyone, who questions your understanding on any matter of Christian thought and faith not be labeled a heretic sent straight from Lucifer?  Apparently not and yet, as you have previously said to me, Lucifer has intentionally deceived me (at God’s command, no less).  So, applying your logic gleaned from our previous conversations – any and everything that has ever happened or ever will happen is as a direct result of God’s intentional will and command?  If your answer is ‘yes’, then would you please answer this question: if there’s no free-will, why are you not praising God for (I’m using your words, here) the world being “inundated with homosexuality, whoredoms [sic], abortion, and false religion”?  I can only surmise that as a logical extension of your hyper-Calvinistic thoughts and logic, God desired, designed and implemented all that is antithetical towards Christianity and therefore to Himself.  To God be the glory, right?  So, why do I not hear a great big ‘halleluiah’ from you?  Why are you not thankful that God has sent me to your blog?  After all, am I not (according to your logic) visiting CCR as a direct result of God’s intentional will and command?  You should be praising God that I’m conversing with you for after all, I am one of the few who’re willing to do so.  Oh, wait, that’s right, God has already determined that you’re to despise anything that is contrary to hyper-Calvinism.  Sorry, Tim, but the most elementary reading of Scripture and the simplest application of logic brings down your house of ‘faith-cards’.  Your theology doesn’t hold up on its own merits.  It’s only with a heavy dose of hate and vile do you make believe and otherwise fool yourself that you are one of God’s chosen few.  Sad.

Bill asked you for source material within Christian literature compliant with the theological concept of created speech.  Honestly, it didn’t take hardly any time at all to find sources (http://christianbookreviews.net/?p=43#more-43) that, well, have an exceedingly different perspective of The Two Babylons – one of the books you referenced and which I presume to be a foundation of your faith.  This review states:

“As is commonly the case with fundamentalists, the truth did not get in the way of a good conspiracy theory.  Weaving an absurd tale reminiscent of other types of conspiratorial drivel, Woodrow (like Hislop before him) combined incredibly bad scholarship, paranoid delusions, and pure bigotry in an unseemly concoction lacking even a rudimentary understanding of historical developments within the Church.  This is where one would expect it to end – another entry in the “antichrist of the month” sweepstakes spoon fed to those who do have neither the knowledge nor the discernment to see past the smokescreen of their insulated belief system.”

Ouch!  Sorry, but your blog posts appear to be the epitome of this review, Tim.

Before I go, can we agree that there must be consistency throughout Scripture and that doctrine can’t be built on only a given verse.  Rather, doctrine that is true is reflected uniformly throughout all of the Bible.  With regard to individual election, then, using your beloved KJV, I would welcome an explanation of how you rectify the following verses:

(John 6:44) No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day

(Titus 2:11) For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men

Do you see the apparent conflict with personal election?  No one can come to Jesus unless the Father draws him and yet God’s grace which brings salvation has appeared to all men.  I could present my $0.02 worth, but again, what’s the point?  However, if you ask nicely, I’d be pleased to answer that apparent contradiction.

Paraphrasing, you’ve stated that God has enlightened you with an understanding of non-creating speech and that you’re responsible for passing this knowledge on to the “brethren”.  You are then God’s enlightened messenger who’s the only person on earth that has received this revelation?  Perhaps you’re in good company for if a Christian has difficulty understanding the concept of created speech and can’t find biblical justification for that belief system, how can one be sure that Timothy Elder Jr. isn’t the origin of a created speech cult in much the same way that a Jehovah Witnesses will follow Charles Russell, Mormons follow Joseph Smith, Seventh-Day Adventists follow Ellen G. White, Christian Scientists follow Mary Eddy Baker or Scientologists follow Armstrong and Hubbard, etc.?  Pity, perhaps Walter Martin was died too soon to include you in his book, Kingdom of the Cults.

If you care, feel free to respond to some questions I’d hoped to delve further with you over time.  Per your request, unless you give me permission, I won’t respond.  But please, fire away:

  • Did God plan every evil act and every sin that anyone would have ever committed?
  • Did God predestine Adam and Eve to sin?
  • Did God plan and bring about the rebellion of Satan who was once the angel of light, Lucifer?
  • Did God originate sin?  With regard to this question, I don’t doubt that God planned and has “elected” (I’m guessing my definition of “elect” is different than yours) much within our human existence.  God may have allowed sin.  But I’m hard-pressed to find any Scriptural evidence that sin originated with God.  Please, show me where.
  • Has God truly chosen to make you such a wretched creature?  I don’t personally think so.  Rather, I believe you have exceeded your wildest expectations and have become all that you are of your own volition.

Congratulations!  You’re now done with me.  Perhaps you’d like to celebrate and go share your faith with someone?  I’m sorry, I forgot; outreach to a hyper-Calvinist is pointless.

Well, enjoy your life, Tim.  I know I enjoy mine.  I do wish you all the best and will welcome the opportunity to discuss anything further with you should you decide to do so.  You know where I can be reached.

Sincerely,

Bob

If you’ve read this far, you may be interested in Tim’s response to my last comment:

1. “I regret your request for me to no longer comment on your blog”.  It wasn’t a request.  Don’t change your username and go for it again. Not saying you’ve already done it.  If you post again I’ll delete it.

2. You should surely be hired by any arminian witch as their PR person.  Your lies are always disguised as sombre wishes for fair discourse while accusing those who point out your lies of being mean spirited asses who do everything they do, supposedly like you, on purpose.  I get the point.  I really do.  You love me in what you call love –but I, as the Big Meanie, won’t love you back by succumbing to your lies.  It isn’t that I don’t understand.  It’s that I do and I overtly don’t want the emotional common sense friendship or discourse of hardened sinners in addition to being blessed by God to not have to hear it.

You can’t choose to believe what God is Saying through me as truth.  No one has that ability.  I don’t speak as if you could and to pretend that is exactly why I speak is to lie to my face and to call me a liar, no matter that you think to have done so in some perfect emotional paradigm some onlookers will automatically be forced to think is politeness because they share your deceptions.

Proverbs 14: 7  Go from the presence of a foolish man, when thou perceivest not in him the lips of knowledge.

Proverbs 6: 12-15  A man of Belial, a wicked person, is he that goeth about with a perverse mouth; he winketh with his eyes, he speaketh with his feet, he teacheth with his fingers; deceits are in his heart; he deviseth mischief at all times, he soweth discords.  Therefore shall his calamity come suddenly: in a moment shall he be broken, and without remedy.

In the Name of Jesus Christ, Amen

Final thought – I truly have enjoyed the back-and-forth exchanges with many Calvinists on this blog as well as those with whom I associate personally.  Perhaps the ‘chemist’ within me needs to have a hypothesis, or in this case a premise of my belief, and then to go about determining whether or not the hypothesis is correct.  And I have truly struggled with determining where the truth lies within the  Calvinist-Arminian debate.  And that will probably continue for some time.  However, Tim may be the first person I would consider a hyper-Calvinist.  If I follow what I believe to be the natural outcome of Calvinist doctrine, it quickly leads me to someone who would espouse the views of Timothy.  I hope I’m wrong on that point.   And to that end, I would appreciate Calvinist’s comments to help identify the error – whether with me or with Tim.  (John 8:32)

Sincerely,

Bob

Trying to Understand Calvinist Thought & Logic Related to the Will of God

This post came about from comments written by myself and two others elsewhere on this blog.  For the sake of clarity and to keep a post on a given topic, I’ve decided to bring those references and comments under a new post.

My previous post on “Calvinitus” was an attempt to show my struggle with Calvinist doctrines infusing themselves and otherwise coloring (maybe blinding?) my perception of God.  However, after recently watching an old movie about Lou Gehrig, Pride of the Yankees (1942), it occurred to me that perhaps Calvinists also struggle with the reality of their own doctrines – particularly unconditional election.

Most people probably associate Lou Gehrig with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), often referred to as “Lou Gehrig’s Disease”.  ALS is an insidious progressive neurodegenerative disease affecting the nerve cells in the brain and the spinal cord for which there’s currently no cure.  I have no idea as to what Lou Gehrig’s religious beliefs were.  If I may, however, let’s assume Lou Gehrig was an ardent Calvinist.  There’s a scene from the movie, where Lou Gehrig learns that he has ALS, which goes something like this:

Lou: Give it to me straight, doc.  Is it three strikes?

Doc: Yes, Lou, I’m afraid so.

Lou: Well, I’ve learned something over my life.  You can’t change the call of the umpire.

Calvinists I know believe that God ordains all things.  That being true, then Lou Gehrig’s “Calvinist” example is one of humbling accepting God’s will when he’s diagnosed with ALS because of his realization that “you can’t change the call of [God]”.  Lou further exemplifies his submission to God’s will when he says during his retirement speech, “I consider myself to be the luckiest man on the face of the earth.”

It was interesting, then to find a story (here) where a Calvinist man goes to visit his grandfather in a hospital.  Also present at the hospital are his grandmother and a Eucharist minister.  The Calvinist man is upset that the Eucharist minister is offering his grandparents feel-good prayers, pseudo-repentance and communion.  The Calvinist man was struck by the wretchedness, hostility, false assurance and blasphemy of the Eucharist minister’s actions and his grandparents attitudes toward God.  The story continues that later, and without success, the Calvinist man tries to convey the gospel message to his grandfather.

It surprises me that Calvinists appear blinded by the logic inherent within their own doctrines.  According to the doctrines of total depravity and unconditional election, God determines who will be saved and conversely who will be eternally lost.  Therefore, why is this Calvinist man dismayed at his grandparents or the Eucharist minister?  God hasn’t elected them.  They’re toast.  The Calvinist man understands that no witnessing, no praying, nothing the Calvinist man could do is going to change what God has sovereignty decreed.  As such, I submit that the Calvinist man’s frustrations towards his grandparents and the Eucharist minister are misdirected.  Consider:

  • The Calvinist man believes God has predetermined the decisions his grandparents have made.
  • God, however, has not chosen to save the Calvinist man’s grandparents.
  • The Calvinist man is dismayed that his grandparents are not elect.
  • And, the Calvinist man realizes that because God is in control, there’s nothing he can do.
  • As such aren’t those feelings of loss and separation related to his grandparent’s eternal destiny directly attributable to God’s sovereignty in the matter?
  • The grief the Calvinist man displays would seem (to me at least) to indicate a desire for God to change the inevitable outcome.
  • Therefore, the Calvinist man is in reality opposed to God’s will in this matter.  And if we’re not in favor of some act or condition, then by definition we’re opposed to that very same thing.

What I don’t see from the Calvinist man in this story is the humility exhibited by Lou Gehrig.  Wouldn’t the Calvinist man, if he truly believes in his doctrines, say something to the effect of, “I thank God for his sovereignty and for having blessed me with the greatest grandparents on the face of the earth.  I hope and pray that God may change my grandparent’s attitudes toward himself.  But I willingly accept God’s sovereign will and know that even my grandparent’s eternal separation will bring glory to God if only through his perfect wrath.”

That’s just a story some might argue.  Fair enough – but I think it ties in well to an MSNBC news story (here) of a young Calvinist pastor, Matt Chandler, currently undergoing treatments for brain cancer.  After reading the story, here are the comments I made to my good friend and ardent Calvinist, Mike:

Is there not something incongruous between Matt’s statements versus his actions as related to Calvinist thought and logic regarding the will of God?

“Lord, you gave [me cancer] for a reason.”

[Matt] is praying that God will heal him.

Whatever happens, [Matt] says, is God’s will, and God has his reasons.

As I understand Matt’s statements, he’s as much saying that God ordained him to contract brain cancer.  However, according to Matt, that doesn’t mean waiting for fate to occur.  Rather, it means fighting for his life, and to that end, Matt is undergoing surgery, radiation and chemotherapy.  I hope this question doesn’t come across as belittling.  However, if Matt truly believes God gave him cancer, then why doesn’t Matt have the faith to accept the cancer along with the significant potential of him dying and leaving behind his wife and two young daughters?

From reading the article, I sense Matt believes that God could cure him without all the standard fare of cancer treatments?  Yet, Matt appears to have decided that it’s best to undergo all of the treatments.  Isn’t Matt in essence saying, “Dear Lord, I know that if it’s your will to cure me, I’ll be healed.  No if’s, ands, or or’s about it.  Now, please don’t be angry at my lack of faith – but just in case, I’ll start all these different treatment options because maybe, just maybe, it’s your will that I’ll be healed through one of them.  Okay?”

Honestly, this seems to be more of the thought process Gideon used.  In this case, Matt seems to be hedging his “faith-bet” by putting down sheepskins of surgery, radiation and chemotherapy in order to ensure that all the bases are covered – and all the options for God to use are available .  Is Matt showing his faith?  Or, is Matt showing his desire to live irrespective of what God may have ordained?

With regret, I say that this appears to be somewhat of a false-faith. All the Calvinists know I emphatically emphasize God’s sovereignty and his being in control of everything in our lives.  And yet, when confronting an obvious life-or-death situation such as cancer, I’ve NEVER known anyone who was willing to sit back, praise God for the cancer (or any other serious or life-altering disease) they contracted, and look forward to their death.  Granted, I’ve only known of a few people who’ve dealt with cancer and the like.  But irrespective of the situation or circumstance, no one I know (Calvinists or not) simply allows “God’s will” to occur.  Everyone employs some subtle theological argument that “maybe, just maybe I had better play it safe in case God might be leading in ‘this’ direction.”

By definition then (at least as I see it), this Calvinist pastor is fighting God’s will and in essence trying to wrest control of the end results from God (most likely his death from cancer) by undergoing treatments.  So, I’m curious as to what you think: is Matt is trying to take control away from and/or otherwise alter the sovereign will of God?

Is There Such a Thing As Calvinitis?

I think I have a condition.  I think it’s called Calvinitis.  Hopefully it’s not contagious.   Calvinitis is the inability to read something without becoming cynical of what is actually being said.  Below is a recent letter from our pastor inviting the congregation to participate in small group discussions related to “Extravagant with Love and Abundant in Grace”.  To help my Calvinists friends better understand this condition, I’ve taken the liberty of imparting “Calvinisticals” – a term I just now invented.  Calvinisticals infuse the inherent Calvinist logic and thought that may not be obvious to the majority of Calvinists and non-Calvinists unaffected by Calvinitis.

The word “prodigal” certainly describes the younger son [whom God hated from the beginning of time] who recklessly spent his entire inheritance [because he was unable to choose to follow God] in the blink of an eye [because God willed it to be in order that his perfect wrath might be exalted].  However, in another sense, the word “prodigal” also describes our God [who demonstrates the extent of his love by saving those (the elect) whom he chooses] who is extravagant with love [so long as he has elected you], who is abundant in grace [so long as he has elected you], and who spent everything to make us a part of his family [so long as he has elected you] again [well, provided that you’re part of those contained within the limited atonement of Christ’s blood for the remission of your sins].

We’ve all heard the story of the Prodigal Son before [unless God hasn’t until now ordained that you would even want to be in church].  However, as you join us on this five week sermon [because God’s irresistible grace will overcome all resistance for not wanting to join us on Sunday mornings] and small group series you will find this story come to life in ways that you have never seen before [because God called you into communion with himself and will continue with you in faith until the rapture – or whatever].  To get the most out of this series we [through the blessings of the holy spirit who allows truth to be seen] encourage you to participate in the small group experience [because God controls everything and there’s no free choice in the matter].  If you are not currently in a small group [perhaps as a result of God intentionally keeping you isolated], we have 11 different small groups [that God has specially put into place for us] that are just waiting for you to join them [unless, of course, you’re already doomed].  No matter where you are on your faith journey [it’s because God wants you right where you are to teach you something], this study will challenge and encourage [only so far as God gives you encouragement] you [so that God will be glorified].

Extravagant with Love and Abundant in Grace – [So Long as You’re Elected]

Calvinist Thought Seasoned with Christian Clarity

A recent blog post (here) started with the comment:

  • Quick: for the preservation of history, count all the Calvinists in Haiti that are looting or how many are in government there.”  Note: A previous post from this site regarding the earthquake in Haiti is (here).

Upon seeing this, my “Calvinometer” radar detector turned “on”.  There’s something about the wording and the overall tone in these posts that strikes me as, well, harsh.  A question came to mind: could the basis for this mindset and interpretation of scripture emanate from the Calvinist doctrine of unconditional election wherein:

  • God intentionally deceives some into a lie.
  • God hasn’t chosen someone to be saved.
  • Therefore, that non-elected person is not worthy of an elected person’s time and effort.
  • Therefore, that non-elected person should just go away, die, and be done with so that those whom God will have with him for all eternity can get about the Lord’s heavenly business and blessings.

I commented on these posts from Christian Clarity Review in essence asking:

  • What’s the point of “piling on” the misery that many Haitians are currently experiencing?
  • How is the love of God portrayed within these posts?
  • Have you no heart to ache for people – even if you believe God brings about calamity?
  • Where in the New Testament does Jesus turns away his love and compassion from the hurting and suffering?

The response I received was, well, surprising.  Regrettably, I misidentified Timothy (my sincere apologies to Charles) in my initial comments to his post on the Haitian earthquake.  Nevertheless, here are some Christian Clarity Review responses to my comments and questions:

  • [Christ haters] [don’t want] to hear God caused the earthquake in Haiti.
  • True Christianity is not at all about picking Christianity over other religions [as one] can’t decide to do so.
  • Jesus Christ went 40 days without food or water.  Moses as well.  [One] gets the impression that a few days without food are a cause for worry and a health-crisis.
  • [The earthquake] is the honesty of what happens to those who hate Jesus Christ and have made open, unapologetic pacts with Satan.
  • You post for political and theological pretense.
  • God sent Haiti the earthquake.  Before that He sent them a deception
  • You want to cover over what God has done.
  • The lie of free will is your bread and butter [and always sucking off your soul].
  • You are a fake Christian and have the spirit of Balaam.
  • I read your response Bozo.
  • [Your] phrasing of etiquette [is] surely a shield to hide the fact you’ve lied about Christ.
  • You put up the emotional shield as if that were a standard part of God’s discourse.
  • I’m absolutely certain God has deceived you.
  • You’ve received more truth than most people [and] have subtly laughed it off.
  • You preach a different gospel in the guise of searching for the pure one.

I don’t doubt that Timothy’s abject starkness and callousness is heart-felt.  I’m not sure why – maybe it’s his mother’s fault!  And I don’t doubt that I may have “tweaked” him with my questions and comments.  But where does Jesus respond to hurting and suffering people in need of a savior in such a way as Timothy does?

First of all, my apologies to Bozo.  I did watch him as a child and can fully attest to everyone that I’m not Bozo.

Timothy stated that God has “sent me a deception” and therefore, it’s impossible for me to see the truth because I have no free-will in this matter.  Yet, Timothy’s responses to posts on this blog (here) and (here) would seem to have indicated that (at least at one time) he thought that there was a potential for me to see the truth (at least the truth as he portends it)?  As such, is Timothy really convinced that God intentionally deceived me?  I don’t think he is.

There were a number of scripture verses Timothy used to justify his stated beliefs.  My understanding of those verses in context is, well, different.  Perhaps I’ll provide my understanding to those verses in the comment section of this post.

So, what is one who admittedly struggles with Calvinism in general and the concept of unconditional election in particular to think about what is contained within Christian Clarity Review?  The truth is, not much.  I have personally experienced a lot of love and grace from proponents of Calvinism (CH, NM, MB, PP, WC and many others).  I am ever grateful to those who will walk alongside, explain, and even question my foundations of faith.  I don’t think I’m elect but (sorry, Timothy) I do believe I am saved (Rom 10:10).  Based on my own ’empirical’ evidence, Timothy’s opinions, writings and ad hock attacks represent a very small percentage of Calvinists.  Still, might there be a logical extension for one to ‘discover’ election and ‘create’ the Calvinist-oriented views as expressed within Christian Clarity Review?  I hope not – but how else is Timothy’s perception explained?  Perhaps those with affinity towards Calvinism are in a better position to state (what I believe to be) the error of Timothy’s approach and methodologies he uses in defending his faith.

Seminaries in the Business of Election

Irrespective of my struggle with Calvinistic thought, I couldn’t help but enjoy a bit of levity when I came across a seminary with “elected faculty”. 

http://www.sebts.edu/academics/faculty/default.aspx

Scroll down the list to find the “appointed faculty”. 

Who knows why, but my kids’ Dr. Seuss book on Sneetches comes to mind – something about those with stars on their bellies and those without stars on their bellies and tying all that in to the doctrine of election.  Whatever. 

Feel free to comment on ‘theme’ verses.  Here are a couple that came to my mind:

  • John 15:16  I [president of SEBTS] have elected you to [teach] at SEBTS and produce [lectures] that will last
  • Heb 9:27  For you’ve been appointed once to [teach] and then to die [or maybe receive job offer]

Calvinism or Arminianism: Of Which Flock Are Ewe? (John 10:26-27)

So far as I can tell – all things Calvinist have to go through election and to that end, I’m hoping to bring a little more clarity (at least to my mind) regarding my struggles with Calvinistic thought in general and unconditional election in particular.  In comments to a previous post, my good friend and ardent Calvinist Mike generalized Calvinist thoughts in asking, “Why do some believe and others reject Jesus?”  He then offered the following thoughts as a basis for argument:

  • Nobody wants to receive Jesus’ offer.  There’s a greater love where God not only offers the gift to everyone, he also removes the rebellious heart of some and replaces it with a heart that loves him above all things.
  • The reason why believers love Jesus is only because God, through the Holy Spirit, has graciously given believers a heart that wants him.  If this hadn’t happened, then no one would believe because no one would want Jesus.
  • But why do some not believe?  John 10:26 answers it explicitly.  The reason some do not believe is “because they are not part of the flock” (unconditional election).
  • John 3:16 means that God loves everyone in the world and that he wants everyone to be saved and offers salvation to everyone.  Why doesn’t God save everyone?  Because they don’t believe?
  • Why do some believe while others don’t?  The Calvinist thanks God for giving them the faith to believe, while the Arminian (logically) must give thanks to themself for believing.
  • Who ultimately gets credit for my salvation?  The Calvinist says that God offers the gift to everyone, but that he also does more and grants belief to some.  The Arminian says that God offers the gift to everyone – and that’s it.  Belief is up to us.
  • If God really wants everyone to be saved, then why did he make salvation conditional?  Why did God make belief a criteria?  Why doesn’t John 3:16 read, “For God so loved the world that he gave his only son, so that everyone will have eternal life regardless of what they believe”?  What’s the Arminian answer to this?  If God wants everyone to be saved, then why doesn’t he just save everyone?  Is it really because of free will?  He would rather give us free will than save us from hell?  To me, this seems to be at least as big of a problem for the Arminian as it is for the Calvinist.

With all due respect to my good friend, I’m sympathetic to the arguments that apart from free will there can be no love.  Perhaps I’ll expound on that later.  But for now I’d like to toss out my $0.02 worth regarding Jesus’ words in John 10:26-27 that we either [are] or [are not] his sheep.  As I understand Calvinist thought, one doesn’t believe because he isn’t [Jesus’] sheep.  However, what is fascinating to me about this passage in John is what follows – the unbelieving Jews (vs 24) wanted to stone Jesus for blasphemy (vs 31, 33).  Jesus continues to “engage” with the unbelieving Jews (vs 34-38) and at one point says to them (vs 38) that the unbelieving Jews should believe the miracles Jesus has previously done (and no doubt the unbelieving Jews had witnessed) so they could know that Jesus is the son of God.  What immediately comes to mind is that Jesus continued to reach out to the unbelieving Jews.  Did Jesus understand that the unbelieving Jew’s eternal destiny was forever sealed at that moment?  Perhaps not.  Again, as I’ve stated before, this would have been a great opportunity for Jesus to explain TULIP and show the dichotomy of an elect person versus one ready to heave a stone at Jesus.  But Jesus didn’t do that.

Most who know me know that I’m not one to spend much time in the Old Testament.  Still, the story of God testing Abraham (Gen 22) comes to mind.  In vs 12, as Abraham was about to sacrifice his son, an angel interferes and says to Abraham, “Now I know that that you fear God.”  Apparently old Abe had listened to (what I presume to be) the Holy Spirit and was rewarded (vs 17-18).  Is it any different in New Testament times?  Did not the Holy Spirit move within people or otherwise prepare hearts?  Looking back at John chapter 10, Jesus vacated the premises (vs 40).  And notice what happens, many people said, “Though John never performed a miraculous sign, all that John said about [Jesus] was true.”  And many then believed (vs 42).  I sense that the Holy Spirit was moving amongst people in essence preparing their hearts for the messiah.  Those who accepted by faith were rewarded with eternal life.  Those that rejected faith or would otherwise continue to live by the law were eternally lost.  That some hearts were receptive to Christ and other not leads me to conclude that we do have free will.

In conclusion and so far as I can tell, Jesus isn’t implying in John 10:26-27 that God had already determined who would be his sheep.  At least there’s no indicating that one’s eternal fate was sealed before any one had been born.  As I read it, when Jesus spoke those words, there were some who already believed and some non-believers within his immediate vicinity.

Okay, how then would this thinking work for a particular verse that I struggle with regarding Calvinistic arguments?  Acts 13:48 [And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed.]  The conclusion seems rather succinct – one’s eternal destiny is determined by God.  For whatever reason, God chooses to save some and God allows others to perish.  However, Paul and Barnabas had first approached the Jews.  It was only after the Jews rejected faith did Paul et. al. reach out to the Gentiles.  As Paul said (vs 47), “I have made you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth.”  Although I don’t see it written as such, I’m hard-pressed not to believe that the Holy Spirit was moving amongst those that Paul et. al. would preach to and [all who were going to believe] believed.

Perhaps my arguments are not as strong as I would like them to be.  But frankly, and at least for now, I find it easier to accept that God does indeed allow us free will in choosing our eternal destiny.


John 3:16 doesn’t say “whoever believes”?

I was referred to this video for a Calvinist perspective that John 3:16 is more accurately interpreted “all who believe” instead of “whoever believes”.

After watching the video, I’m not so sure that John 3:16 is best translated “all who believe”.  I’m certainly not a linguist – and, for better or worse, have no interest in incorporating Greek or Hebrew into my own Bible study.  However, at some point we have to trust that those who put together the various translations we have at our disposal did so with honesty, integrity and a keen awareness of language and culture.  In doing a quick comparison of some versions, not one of them infer “all who believe”.

NIV – whoever believes

NASB – whoever believes

NLT – everyone who believes

KJ – whosoever believeth

NCV – whoever believes

ASV – whosoever believeth

ESV – whoever believes

Why is this?  How is it that so many biblical translators over the course of centuries have determined that the best wording or phrase for John 3:16 is ‘whoever’ and not ‘all who believe’?

Dr. White referred to John 6:44 as justification for an ‘all who believe’ interpretation for John 3:16.  From a non-Calvinist perspective, I admit to finding the wording in John 6:44 a little troubling.  Moreover, I can certainly understand Calvinist thought that due to being dead to sin, no one can bring himself to God unless God first gives His grace to whose whom he’s elected.  However, in John chapter six – a little before and a little after verse 44 (i.e. vs 40, 45, 47 & 51 in particular) it seems apparent that ANYONE who believes shall be saved.  Jesus makes no distinction as to the elect and the non-elect.  Wouldn’t this have been an opportune time for Jesus to explain TULIP?  But so far as I read here, he doesn’t.  John 6:25-59 is a discussion between Jesus and unbelieving Jews who happen to know of Jesus (vs 42) and who were struggling to understand how this “boy” they knew is now the messiah.  To that end, those unbelieving Jews were perhaps troubled with previous statements Jesus had made with regard to not having the love of God in their hearts (John 5:42).  Jesus continued in John 5:43 that [the Jews] did not accept [Christ].  I presume this to mean that many (but certainly not all) Jews had rejected Christ’s offer of forgiveness through faith and instead were holding on tight to the law for their justification.  Again, Jesus did not explain TULIP and tell the elect to rejoice and explain to the non-elect that their eternal destiny is sealed and too bad.  The overriding principle that I see from verses such as John 3:16 & 2 Pet 3:9 is that God indeed reaches out to everyone and desires that everyone be saved and no one to perish.  Yes, we’re dead in our sins and without Christ’s forgiveness – which must be individually received, we’re toast.  To their eternal peril, the majority of people have chosen to reject Christ.  And that’s the point – they have made a choice.  So, in the middle of all this is John 6:44 – no one comes to [Jesus] unless he’s “drawn” by God?  Again, I admit to finding this phrase a little troubling.  But could it be that there are some translational aspects involved in which a Greek to English translation doesn’t accurately convey the thought that the Holy Spirit is moving within people and works to bring about a desire to seek forgiveness of sins?  Hmmm, perhaps that concept is elsewhere in scripture?  Still, for the aforementioned reasons, I’m not convinced that John 3:16 states ‘all who believe’ and I don’t see that John 6:44 is as solid of a foundation for unconditional election as Calvinists would believe.