Free People > Free Will

This is a great although brief treatment of the idea of "free will" from John Piper, Is God Sovereign Over My Free Will?. The key paragraph in his podcast comes here:

So instead of speaking of the will as free or not, I prefer to speak of people as free or not, because that is the way the Bible does. “For freedom Christ has set us free,” Paul says in Galatians 5:1. Christians are free from the bondage to sin and from the oppressive demand of having to perform our own salvation.

A lot of people get all in a twist over the idea of God messing with "mai free will!" but I have long felt that the truer description is not "free will" but "free people". The sovereign grace of God frees people from slavery to sin (Romans 6:17-18), meaning not that He overrides their "free will" but rather than He frees them from sin so that they have a true free will. Someone who is a slave to sin, dead in sin and trespass cannot have a "free will" because they are bound by sin. It is only when God supernaturally frees them from sin that they are free people who are free to follow Christ. Here is the link to the podcast, and you can read the transcript in the link above.

An inevitable schism?

A storm is brewing in the Southern Baptist Convention. Not a storm over women pastors or gay marriage or evolution or Biblical inerrancy. This storm is over the centuries old debate about Calvinism. It has been coming for a long time, and like many major engagements it has had a series of skirmishes leading up to the main event. As someone who used to be part of Southern Baptists churches and church life, I watch these events from afar with a mixture of fascination and sadness. Many peripheral players have been poking at this issue for a decade or more but recently a shot across the bow has prompted a more serious response and a path that I am afraid only ends one way .

Recently a manifesto of sort was published by a number of well known and respected Southern Baptist leaders, men like Malcolm Yarnell, Paige Patterson and Jerry Vines as well as other characters like Emir Caner, brother of disgraced former anti-Calvinist crusader Ergun Caner. The manifesto is rather grandiosely titled A Statement of Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God's Plan of Salvation and is really just a statement of why Southern Baptists have allegedly traditionally understood God's plan of salvation in a way that is, well it is not Calvinist.

The responses have been fast and furious. Nothing is quite like a bunch of Calvinists who feel disenfranchised responding on the internet! Of those responses, two stand out. Tom Ascol of Founders Ministry has been putting a comprehensive response together and Al Mohler weighed in this morning with a sober piece that warns of the danger of creating theological traibalism within a group, a warning that he rightly applies to both Calvinst and non-Calvinist alike. These are important issues to be sure but not issues that should divide us from one another and distract from our common mission.

Unfortunately I don't see this as a friendly debate. There are lines being drawn and words being said that cannot be undone. As someone who is more clearly sympathetic with the Calvinist camp and as someone who has been a part of the SBC, I have long felt there is something of a witch hunt going on.  In my opinion the instigators have almost always been on the non-Calvinist side. I don't think I have heard any Reformed Southern Baptists pushing to drive non-Calvinists out of the convention or muzzle them but plenty of that talk coming from the Arminian side.  I think I somewhat understand why. As the "Conservative Resurgence" wound down and Southern Baptists found themselves with a Bible everyone affirmed, it wasn't long before issues of interpretation started springing up. While more old school capital "S" Southern Baptists are generally Arminian at best, the younger men coming up are more and more Reformed, thanks in large part to the influence of Al Mohler at Southern Seminary and other notable leaders like John Piper and John MacArthur. There is a disconnect between the young, enthusiastic and zealous (often overly so) Calvinists who are filling the clerical ranks in the SBC and the more traditional older men who sit in the positions of power and the pulpits of the biggest and most prosperous churches.  This conflict I believe can only end one way, ultimately a functional if not a overt split of the Southern Baptist Convention followed by unseemly squabbling over the vast wealth of the SBC.

As a sideline observer I watch this with a great deal of sadness and headshaking. When you look at the vast resources of the SBC in terms of seminaries, local churches, academic powerhouses, money and most of all people and think about those resources being used to start and refute a pogrom of purging over an admittedly important theological issue but one that does not rise to the level of the Gospel, it is nothing short of tragic. When people bemoan the powerlessness and the irrelevance of the church in America, events like this are Exhibit A. The lost among us are really not interested in the doctrine of God's sovereignty in salvation or man's free will. They are watching us and what they see all too often are a people who fight and squabble and split and hate one another . When the world looks at us, they certainly aren't seeing Jesus and they likewise don't see anything they are interested in learning more about. Who can blame them? It is not the foolishness of the cross they reject, it is the pride and foolishness of man that they reject and rightly so.

There was a time not too long ago that I would have been out on the electronic front lines waving the banner for Reformed theology, smiting Arminians with righteous fury. Those days are past and I repent of the pride that drove that attitude. I make no apology for affirming what I firmly believe is the clear witness of Scripture of the sovereign election, predestinating, effectual calling and keeping of the elect. I also make no apology to others who affirm these truths when I say I would rather stand side by side in the work of ministry to help the poor and reach the lost with an Arminian than sit around talking theology with a Calvinist who agrees with me safely surrounded by the walls of a "church".  My voice holds no weight in the Southern Baptist Convention but I plead with my brothers who do have a voice to stop the infighting before it goes too far. The SBC has plenty of issues and problems but a divided SBC is not going to improve our witness to a lost and dying world in desperate need to hear about the Lamb who was slain and rose again. Brothers I humbly ask you to step back from the brink before it is too late.

We have no right to sit in judgment of God

I haven't blogged about Reformed theology in a long time. I kind of beat it to death. That doesn't mean I don't pay attention to stuff. I was checking out the blog from Peter Kirk, a Brit that wrote an interesting guest post for Alan Knox. He linked on his blog to a different post by Roger Olson wherein Roger seems ambivalent about whether universalism is really a heresy or at least if it is a heresy, it is kind of a mild one (i.e. that every single person is saved, in direct contrast to some of the most explicit Biblical langauage on a topic on can find on any topic) but Roger is sure that Calvinism is a heresy, at least if one actually believes it. Here is part of what he wrote...

Someone once asked me whether I would still worship God if somehow I became convinced the Calvinist view of God is correct. I had to say no. Sheer power is not worthy of worship. Only power controlled by love is worthy of worship.

Well, that sounds dandy. No Scripture to back it up mind you, but lovely to our ears. What about sheer power coupled with love? What Olson is promoting is "love" that is divorced from power. God is either impotent to save whosoever He wishes or doesn't care enough to do so for fear of being labelled "unfair" or worse being referred to as "monstrous" by one of His creatures. That is so grotesquely inaccurate a portrayal of Calvinism that it hardly deserves notice.

Peter wrote a response, in a head scratchingly titled post: Better a universalist than a Calvinist

Indeed. Universalism born from optimistic hope may be unrealistic but it is not a serious heresy. Believing in a God who condemns most people to everlasting torment without offering to them the grace they would need to be saved is a serious heresy because it turns the God of love into a monster. Like Olson, I could never worship a God like that.

So universalism which directly contradicts the overall teaching of the Bible and the explicit teaching of Christ, a heresy that has been universally condemned by the church for 2000 years, is preferable to Calvinism, which has been held by Christians in some form for centuries and which has ample Biblical support? Which is more "monstrous", that God elected a certain people out of the mass of humanity lost in sin to effectually save and passed over the rest? Or that He really, really wants to save everyone but leaves the eternal fate of billions of people in the hands of sinful humans, knowing full well that billions of people will live and die and never hear the Gospel and be lost all in the name of "free will" and fairness? How is that just?

Both Peter and Roger make the same categorical error. We don't worship God because we find Him acceptable to our sensibilities. Our worship of God is a result of who He is, based on His acceptance of us in His Son, not on His acceptability to our sinful and limited notions of fairness. That any human, and especially a born again Christian, would stand in front of God and dictate the terms of our worship to Him makes me shudder.

Did God sit on the shore of the Red Sea hoping His people would decide to flee Egypt and that the Pharaoh wouldn't pursue them?

Did God sit around hoping Saul would have a change of heart and stop persecuting Christians?

I am not going to spend a lot more time extolling Calvinism. I think there are more important things to worry about and I am uninterested in convincing people of it. I do however question those who both misrepresent Calvinism and make it an issue of heresy, thus painting people like me and millions of other brothers and sisters in Christ as heretics.

Paul was a Calvinist

I thought I would throw out an intentionally inflammatory title just to spice things up. I am tired and cranky this morning while I am writing this so I am feeling blogo-cheeky. I also haven’t had a good old fashioned Calvinist rant in a while, so here goes.

I know that title seems silly on its face since Paul lived and died almost fifteen centuries before Calvin was even born. What I meant is that I am asserting that Paul would in essence affirm the doctrines we call Calvinism.

What do I base that assertion on?

First, Paul’s doctrinal statements in Ephesians and Romans especially are unmistakable in their presentation of a God who predestines, elects, effectually calls, regenerate and preserves a select remnant of lost mankind and Paul is equally clear on the lostness and utter inability and complete lack of desire on the part of unregenerate man to even look for Christ, much less make a decision for or “ask Jesus into your heart”. Paul would affirm Calvinism because Calvinism draws as its foundation the teachings of Christ as well as the writings of Paul.

Second and perhaps even more importantly is the account of Saul’s conversion in Acts 9:

But Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest and asked him for letters to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any belonging to the Way, men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem. Now as he went on his way, he approached Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. And falling to the ground he heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?” And he said, “Who are you, Lord?” And he said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. But rise and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do.” The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one. Saul rose from the ground, and although his eyes were opened, he saw nothing. So they led him by the hand and brought him into Damascus. And for three days he was without sight, and neither ate nor drank. (Acts 9:1-9)

What is on display here? God’s sovereign grace or man’s free will? Paul is an especially delicious example because he assumed that he already was doing God’s will. He was a highly educated and fervent Jew. He was not “making a decision for Christ”, just the opposite he was persecuting Christ (Note that Christ said Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting ME?). As anyone who was leading an atheistic life or following a false religion knows, the intrusion of Christ into your life is the sweetest, most wonderful thing that can happen to you but it is also jarring and unexpected. If you are a kid in a Christian home, it is kind of expected that at some point you will come to Christ. You are surrounded by “God-talk”, grow up in church, hear the Bible read. Christ is comfortable because He is at least academically familiar to you. For the radical unbeliever, finding Christ inserting Himself into your life is a world altering event. I am not saying that it is not for a “church kid” but it is doubly so for those who rejected God or followed a false god.

So my point? Just that those who have a problem with Calvinism have a problem with Paul and with Christ Himself. Not the various traditions that have grown up around the Reformed movement but the actual doctrines of Calvinism itself. It is easy to confuse the baggage of Reformed denominational traditions with the doctrines of grace known as Calvinism. There is a small but vocal minority of people in the church who use Calvinism as a straw man to conquer and who decry both Calvinism as heresy and its adherents as heretics. What Paul experienced and what he wrote are far more in line with what Calvin wrote and what Calvinists believe than the man centered doctrines of Arminianism and decisional regeneration popular in the church today. If I have to choose between the followers of Jacob Arminius and the apostle Paul, I am picking Paul 100 times out of 100.

He who hates his brother is a murderer

I don’t spend tons of time addressing people who try to debunk Reformed theology anymore. I used to leap into the fray at any chance, but it has lost most of its appeal to me. Many times I came across as arrogant and angry, and on the flip side I found few people really interested in debating the issue. Then I came across a post today by a guy in Kansas, Dave Noffsinger of Northwest Baptist Church in Leavenworth, Kansas, and for some reason it just rubbed me wrong. What is missing, no surprise, is any sort of attempt to engage either the text of Scripture or the arguments of Christians who hold to Calvinism. This is nothing more than a run of the mill hit piece on Calvinism, full of broad and baseless assertions and empty accusations. But what set this apart from other misrepresentations of Calvinism was this:

I am an enemy of the doctrinal teachings of John Calvin or any that line up with his heresy.

Now that just crosses a line. Perhaps he meant something else, but it certainly appears that he means that he is an enemy of anyone who holds to Calvinism. That covers a lot of ground and a lot of Christians. Using “heresy” is kind of the nuclear option in discourse and it is a charge one should use sparingly and carefully. Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, was a heretic. Michael Servetus, who denied the doctrine of the Trinity was a heretic (which doesn’t excuse his being burned at the stake). People who preach the health, wealth and prosperity “gospel” are heretics because they proclaim a different gospel. I would say that Arminians by and large, while they are dead wrong, are not heretics. Their doctrine of man and of salvation are faulty but where they proclaim the risen Christ and faith in Him as the only hope of salvation, apart from works, they are not heretics. I have come very close to crossing the line and at least implying that they were heretics and for that I repent of my sinful attitude.

The Bible minces no words when it comes to this. The mark of a disciple of Christ, how people know we are His, is that we love one another (John 13:35). For those who do not love their brother, John has some strong and troubling words:

Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him. (1Jn 3:15)

If you don’t love your brother, you are essentially a murderer. Declaring a brother to be your enemy is tantamount to hating him, and that is an awfully serious issue. Casually declaring not one man but a multitude of your brothers to be your enemy and heretics is something to repent of.

Let those of us who proclaim and love the doctrines of God’s sovereign grace admit that we bring some of this upon ourselves with our speech and conduct toward those who are not in agreement. All too often we are far too eager to kick sand in the face of Arminians and in doing so we can be cruel, mocking and spiteful. Nevertheless, the failings of some (myself included) and the overstatement of others is not cause for us to draw lines in the sand and declare those on one side to be enemies when brothers disagree.

Again, where my speech has been cruel and angry, I repent of that sinful behavior. If Mr. Noffsinger is indeed a follower of Christ, as his brother I call upon him to repent of his slander toward those who he should love. I hope someday that he will be with me in the presence of our Savior, and arguments like this will have faded away into irrelevance. I don’t expect to be “proven right” in eternity, I full expect to be so filled with the glory of Christ that being “right” will mean nothing to me. Here and now as we wait for Christ to come, our words to one another need to be gentle and loving, not hateful.

(Hat Tip: Jeff Peterson Jeff does an excellent job dismantling this post by Dave Noffsinger)

Who is Pelagius?

The name of Pelagius is often invoked to describe people with errant theology, and has been so overused in many circles (esp. the Reformed) and blurred to the point of becoming synonymous with semi-Pelagianism and garden variety Arminianism. But how much do you really know about Pelagius? Did you know he was British? That he was fairly renowned for his piety? Since theologians like to invoke him, it is probably a good idea to know who were are talking about. There is a great intro to Pelagius, arch-enemy of Augustine, on the latest White Horse Inn. Find out more about one of the earliest heretic and how he still influences the church today. In fact, even though the early church denied his doctrines of man's ability to choose righteousness, it can be fairly argued that while he lost that battle he is winning the war in the contemporary church (even though Christ wins in the end of course) When you listen to this discussion, a lot of what you hear from postmodern, emergent pulpits starts to make more sense and you can see where the heresy all feeds from.

For even more fun, you can watch a video that goes along with this episode on YouTube and see why these brothers have faces that were made for the radio!

Kickin' over straw men...

Tom Ascol at Founders Ministries pointed out an article by Dr. Elmer Towns of Liberty University, an article that asks the question:

WHAT SHOULD SOUTHERN BAPTIST DO WITH CALVINIST?

(His spelling, not mine)

Set aside for the moment the question of what makes Elmer Towns an authoritative voice for what Southern Baptists should or should not do. The entire article is a litany of pejoratives, unsubstantiated claims, self-important declarations and not an ounce of interaction with arguments made by Calvinists or the Scriptures. What we are treated to instead:

- We have the Calvin wasn’t a Baptist, so a Baptist shouldn’t be a Calvinist argument. Along with that we have the I am a Calvinist, just not a five point Calvinist. I would argue that if you reject one of the tenets of Calvinism, typically limited atonement, you kind of abandon the whole thing. I began to wonder if Dr. Towns is familair at all with Calvinism.

- Then, predictably, we get the Servetus issue that everyone from Arminians to cultists raise as an objection to Calvinism. Calvinism is NOT ABOUT CALVIN! If we reject every writing that comes from the hand of a sinner, we better start throwing out lots of books, starting with anything that Elmer Towns wrote. Dr. Towns and I and Calvin are all three different in lots of ways, but we are the same in one way: we are all three sinners.

- Tons of anecdotal “evidence” and blanket, unsubstantiated statements heavily peppered with pejoratives.

- The assumption that his years of teaching theology give him a insight over and above that of far more accomplished scholars. He proudly notes: “I’ve taught systematic theology since 1958 ”. Well, all that tells me is that he has managed to be wrong after half a century of teaching theology, and that hardly is a point in his favor!

- Spurgeon. It kills me how Arminians try to claim Spurgeon for themselves, even when the recognize that he was a Calvinist! Or maybe he was just a poor Calvinist who didn’t really believe it. But I guarantee this, get an Arminian Baptist going and he will always grab two figures out of history: Servetus and Spurgeon.

- What I find really troubling is the way that he makes his substantive arguments in the form of footnotes, whereas the main body is nothing but empty assertions. I also like how he uses the textbook that he wrote as a reference. That is like me referring to a blog post as a citation in another blog post, and assuming it is authoritative. Check out this scholarly footnote:

16 For those who want to carefully study Calvinism, I invite them to look at Theology for Today by Elmer Towns (Fort Worth: Harcourt College Publishers, 2001). In this volume I study the weaknesses of Calvinism, pointing out that I am a Calvinist. I examine the weaknesses of each of the five points of TULIP. The next chapter I discuss the weaknesses of Arminianism. At other places in this volume I discuss the weaknesses of the Covenant or Reformed view of theology. Since I am a dispensationalist, I discuss the weaknesses of baptism by sprinkling, and I examine the strength of baptism by immersion. Before one is quick to judge this paper, I would invite them to a full study of Calvinism from someone’s perspective that is not blinded by the limitations of Calvinism.

So anyone who disagrees with Towns or writes something contrary to Towns is “blinded by the limitations of Calvinism”. Only Dr. Towns has it all figured out, over and above men like Spurgeon and Albert Mohler and John MacArthur. I wonder if Mark Dever and Albert Mohler even realize how blinded they are by their Calvinism. He even speaks of himself in the third person!

The level of writing and scholarship expressed is embarrassing from a man who takes pains to point out that “I’ve taught systematic theology since 1958 ”. One would think that someone so quickly top throw his credentials around would at least live up to the expectations for one who holds those honors. He fails entirely to interact with Calvinism on a scriptural basis, but rather merely passes judgment on what the entire Southern Baptist Convention should do, which is ironic since it is so clear that many, if not most, of the founders of the Southern Baptist Convention were Calvinistic. The arrogance of his presumptive statements about what is or is not acceptable from churches that hold to Calvinism is incredible.

As his paper draws to a close, Dr. Towns resorts to clumsy attempts at being clever through the images of the TULIP acrostic of Calvinism.

Most of the time five point Calvinists are described by tulip, a lovely flower that grows from a single bulb in the ground. A tulip shares its beauty and aroma. But often five-point Calvinism is like the dandelion; beautiful in its yellow and black flower, but no dandelion ever stands alone like a tulip. Rather dandelions spread their seeds across the entire lawn, blown about by the winds of fads and self-examination. And what more do we know about dandelions, they kill the surrounding grass and as they spread across a beautiful lawn, they can destroy an entire lawn. I have often said that in a theological institution, every spring the dandelions come up. By that I am referring to young Calvinistic enthusiasts who suddenly feel they know systematic theology better than their professors. Over the years many have attempted to engage me, debate me and even convert me. If I have the time, I am usually gracious and take them to lunch. I discuss the whole plan of God with them, including the nature of God, the nature of regeneration, dispensationalism, and the mysteries of God that no human can explain. Usually my five point enthusiast wants to talk about five or six words they find in Scripture. I grant them that these words verify their narrow point of view; but there is much more scripture than just these five or six words. We arrive at true Bible doctrine when we look at all of the Biblical text.

Perhaps the reason that Calvinism spreads is that when people get away from the trite arguments of Arminianism, decisional regeneration, sensationalistic dispensation theology and start to dig into the Bible, what they find is not a few random verses supporting Calvinism but the totality of the Biblical record being one of man’s inability and God’s sovereignty. Calvinism is spread not because it is popular, because it is abhorrent to the heart of man, but through a study of the Bible that gets beyond the superficial and digs into the deeper things of God. The theology espoused by Towns, muddled though it is,

So Dr. Towns manages (after fifty years of teaching theology remember) to allegedly beat up on new seminary students who espouse Calvinism. I wonder how many debates he has held with mature Christians who hold to the Doctrines of Grace? After the Ergun Caner, Dean of Liberty Theological Seminary ducked and weaved to avoid debating James White and Tom Ascol on Calvinism, I suspect that Dr. Towns debating prowess is confined to verbal sparring with 22 year olds. Safe in the halls of academia, Dr. Towns is free to make blanket, unsubstantiated assertions and debate first years seminarians.

The dangerous world of junk email

You have to be careful checking into your bulk email folder. Nestled amongst spam for Irish lottery winners and cheap pharmaceuticals, I came across an even more odious email. The subject line of the email said it all....

The Fruit of Cain Multiplied: The Murderer John Calvin

WOW! So I read the text of the email, being a glutton for punishment...

The following paper will be of interest and pertinence to you for possibly several reasons among many. It has been our great honor to discern and identify the error and spirit of John Calvin, whose rule is yet propagated in the hearts of men with evil consequences for all. The Lord Jesus Christ has visited us with the Light of His countenance to put an end to this evil, justifying His servants whom Calvin murdered, and His Name in the sight of all.

The Fruit of Cain Multiplied: The Murderer John Calvin

Show me whom you follow, and I will know what manner of person you are or will become. If you do not know whom you are following, don't you think it is time to find out how and where you are being led? Do you think you will altogether escape the consequences because ignorant? Think again. You already suffer them.

John Calvin was one of the most vicious of wolves ever to pose as a lamb of God. His supremely self-righteous spirit lives on in those who lionize and follow him, even unbeknownst to themselves. Truly, "that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God."

Paul Cohen & Victor Hafichuk

http://www.thepathoftruth.com/

Spurred on by some morbid fascination, I went to the webpage. Who knew that I had the blood of martyred saints throughout the ages on my hands! And who knew that heretic Michael Servetus is one of God's saints and servants, while John Calvin is not! The entire article really deals strictly with Calvin and Servetus. Mr. Cohen rather cavalierly claims the ability to refute Calvin's doctrines, but makes no real attempt to do so in his treatise (and given the juvenile quality of their writings, I doubt he could even articulate what Calvin taught much less refute it).

Aside from any discussion of doctrines, by this criterion alone John Calvin was a false prophet of the first order. How do we know? Because he condoned and excused, when not initiating it himself, the persecution and murder of those who opposed his doctrines and position. These are not the good fruits of a man of God.

We need not even prove the falsehood of Calvin’s doctrines to identify him as preeminent among the many false teachers professing Christ, though we can do that too. What the Lord gave us in this one simple directive is more than sufficient for judging this man by his fruits. One such as Calvin who kills others because they differ with his beliefs is a murderer.

Two issues jump out at me, one with whether complicity with the killing of Servetus makes Calvin a non-Christian and the other with whether or not the failings of Calvin the man negate the teachings of Calvin the theologian.

On the first. True, Servetus was a heretic and was killed and Calvin was in part at fault. It is also true that Servetus was a heretic who denied the Trinity. Calvin was right that Servetus held to a false philosophy but was wrong to have any part in his death. Does that mean that he is cut off from Christ? Are there any Christians who have committed sins, including murder? You better believe it. I seem to remember a fellow, a man after God's heart, who had a man killed so he could have his wife. Was David not a believer?

On the second, holding to Calvinism does NOT mean slavishly following Calvin in everything he taught or believed. I think that Calvin was completely wrong about infant baptism. Does that mean I am not a Calvinist? Hardly. We follow Christ and the teachings of the Bible, and Calvinism as a system is the system that best compiles and systematizes the various doctrines of the Bible into a coherent system. We follow Calvinism not because of Calvin, but because of Christ. Are there Christians who do not buy into Calvinism? Sure, and that doesn't mean that they aren't Christians.

Mr. Cohen and associates seem to paint with a pretty broad brush across the spectrum of Christianity in their list of false teachers, ranging from men like John Piper and Billy Graham to Rick Warren and Benny Hinn. Like so many groups, it seems that anyone who doesn't walk in lockstep with them falls into the false teacher category. I mean, John Piper is a false teacher? And the reason given that Piper is a false teacher in the subtly titled "Piping a Most Hideous Melody"? Because he teaches the doctrine of an eternal, real hell which is a radical idea held by...well every Christian for the last two thousand years.

I will now give you something specific to read there, after having had a chance to look over the site you sent me, www.desiringgod.org.

What did I find? A desert, a nuclear waste desert. I see the kind of death and destruction that only man can perform. I know this seems like hyperbole to you, exaggerating something you do not even believe to be true in the first place. You have found inspiration at John’s site, a little oasis perhaps. I do know, however, that truth can be found everywhere in men’s churches and religious works, and that it is the subtle and hidden error lacing the truth in those things that kills, as when Satan tempted Eve with lies couched in godly terms.

One of the biggest and worst lies ever told in man-made Christianity, one that John Piper subscribes to and teaches, is that there is a place of interminable torment and punishment for sinners. Men think to find this doctrine in the Bible, but while it is something the carnal man would wish on others, it is surely not something God has ever said or that ever entered into His mind. He made creation as an act of His love. He so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son for it. We are His, bought and paid for by His blood. Would you make something in your own image, let us say conceive a son, knowing and purposing in advance that you would be consigning a sentient being, your very own flesh and blood, to torment that will never cease? What did Jesus say on the cross? “Father, burn them all in hell forever”? Or did He say, “Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do”? Do you think His prayer was heard and honored? Jesus said that the Father always hears Him because He does that which pleases the Father.

Mr. Cohen and company apparently subscribe into a doctrine of eventual universalism, that all men will eventually be saved, that hell in only temporary. That is one of their many un-Biblical beliefs that they list that comes dangerously close to cult territory (they even try to respond to the question of whether they are a cult, and their response does little to deflect that question)

The Good News is not that everyone gets into heaven without exception, but that in a world of men doomed by their own rebellion and sin Jesus Christ came to save some from eternal hell and give them eternal life. Universalism is any form does violence to the mercy and grace of Christ and His effectual sacrifice for His sheep.

The webpage of "The Path of Truth" is a disturbing look into the world of those who claim "secret" knowledge of the things of God, in direct contradiction to the teachings of the Bible. Everyone who holds to a view that doesn't jive with this "secret" knowledge is of necessity a heretic and false teacher. I pray that Mr. Cohen and Mr. Hafichuk and their followers come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ, repent of their false condemnation of Christians and humbly submit to Jesus Christ as Lord.

Beware the emails in your spam file, they are probably there for a reason.

How's come Kalvinists kant not reed?

I must be a glutton for punishment. On the No Greater Joy ministries webpage, I came across a series of "expositions" on the book of Romans, by Mr. Michael Pearl. Just for fun (or abuse), I downloaded his sermon on Romans 9. Most Arminians/semi-Pelagians would just as soon skip over Romans 9 because they can't handle it, but Mr. Pearl decided to get after it and the results are to be expected. The word we are looking for is eisegesis, as Mr. Pearl puts on his semi-Pelagian reading spectacles and proceeds to run roughshod over the plain teaching of the text, teachings that are clear in context of both the surrounding text in the book of Romans, as well as the entire Biblical record. These teachings make clear the absolute sovereignty of God over the universe as a whole, and salvation of individuals in particular. But the sinner doesn't like to hear that they are not responsible, even in part, for their own salvation.

At about 25 minutes into this disjointed "sermon", Mr. Pearl muses: "I am beginning to wonder if a Calvinist can even read". Well, in response to that, I am a Calvinist and it is generally agreed by those who know me that I can indeed read. I have been doing so since I was a wee lad, and I even know a bunch of the big words. I suppose it is possible that great scholars and prolific writers like Edwards, Spurgeon, Owens, Hodge, Luther, Calvin, Sproul, Piper all were secretly illiterate and used ghost writers. Perhaps it is more likely that Pearl is merely being juvenile here in front of an audience that either doesn't know enough or is sufficiently complacent intellectually to let these sorts of playground accusations slide by without questioning him.

Whenever someone throws the term "heresy" out as cavalierly as Michael Pearl does, you have to be a bit suspicious of their motives and the strength of their argument. When they get personal and nasty, double that suspicion. There are lots of teachers who casts doubts on anyone's ability to interpret the Bible other than their own (see Perrysburg's own semi-Pelagian Jonathan Modene). I won't use the C word here, but anyone who claims that he, and he alone, understands the great teachings of the Bible (especially when those teachings contradict the teachings of great men of Christ throughout the centuries), ought be viewed as highly suspect. Plenty of "churches" require people to be baptized only by them, to read only a certain translation of the Bible (no shocker here that Pearl is apparently a KJV-Only guy), that the only teachings that should be followed are their own.

Those he does express some measure of admiration for, like Spurgeon, he completely misrepresents or flat out doesn't understand. I am pretty self-confident, but I also realize that I do not have a monopoly on understanding God's truths and that all of us can benefit from reading and studying the works of other God honoring men, today and throughout history. One can only hope that Mr. Pearl can set aside his own preconceptions to the extent that he is able to see the marvelous soveriegnity of God. That is a far greater comfort to man than the Arminian notion that we are at least partners, if not authors, of our own salvation.

Funny stuff

Well it would be funny if it weren't so ignorant. My wife came across a CD at the No Greater Joy website titled: "Sinful Natures". Looks like the entire point of the three CD set of talks by Michael Pearl is a diatribe against Calvinism. One ought not expect a reasoned, well thought out exposition from these CDs, given this description of the set:

These messages answer some of the ridiculous teachings of an ancient heresy sometimes called "Calvinism." For too long, Reformed theology has robbed the church of the power of God. The petals fall off of Calvin's tulip when it is held to the light of the Scripture. Contains three messages: Bondage of the Will, Sinful Nature and Answering Verses on Sinful Nature.

Really, can you be a bit more over the top? Do the teachings of alleged heretics rob God's church, the same church that the gates of hell will not prevail against, of it's power? If so, that is a pretty weak excuse for a church. I would ask Mr. Pearl if he considers the teachings of men like Charles Spurgeon, Martin Luther and Jonathan Edwards to be "ridiculous" and "heresy", but given his prior evidence of knowing almost nothing about what Spurgeon belived, that seems a waste of time. Mr. Pearl apparently holds to some sort of odd semi-Pelagian, man centered doctrines. That is a shame, but even worse is his peddling of CDs like these that contain gross misrepresentations and errors.

Creeping Calvinism...

Christianity Today has put out some decent articles on the reawakening of Calvinism among Evangelicals, including Young, Restless and Reformed, a great look at the trend toward Reformed theology among younger Christians. Their latest article is not one of them. Titled TULIP Blooming, the focus is on the growing concern among many old school, Arminian Southern Baptist leaders about the rise of Calvinism in the SBC, especially in our seminaries. The article is too short and very shallow. If you can't do justice to a subject, you ought not bring it up. The opening story is priceless:

The pastor of First Baptist Church in Pauls Valley, Oklahoma, for 27 years, Joe Elam only encountered Calvinism once during his ministry—and it left a bitter taste in his mouth.

Though forbidden to do so, a former youth pastor at his church secretly taught predestination to teens, Elam said, sowing seeds of lingering division among several families.

"It was a wake-up call for us," said Elam, who recently led the Arbuckle Baptist Association to adopt a motion calling on the Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma to rebuke Reformed theology. It sent copies of the motion to all members of the Southern Baptist Convention's executive committee.

"We would like to see Southern Baptists become aware that [their] money is being used to teach Calvinism in our seminaries," Elam said.

I love the tone, secretly teaching predestination as if the unnamed youth pastor were starting some cabal of young Calvinists, meeting in secret in the dark of the night, wearing black robes and chanting in dungeons lit with candles. Talk about overreaction! (I especially like that he was "forbidden" to teach predestination. Imagine forbidding someone in a pastoral role from teaching a Biblical doctrine!)

Timmy Brister responded to this assertion in the article by Southern Baptist President Frank Page:

"The totality of history shows the vast majority of Baptists have not been [Calvinists], so why go back to the founders?" Page said. "I think we need to go back to the Bible."

Clearly that is not accurate. Those who insist that Calvinism is derived strictly from R.C. Sproul books and John Piper sermons, rather than the Bible, are either painfully ignorant or willfully and maliciously misrepresenting Calvinism. I am not sure which possibility is more disturbing in Frank Page's case. Brister makes a great point in this statement:

Of course, with Page’s argument, we are led to believe that what the Founders of the SBC believed and taught was something contrary to the Bible. As a president of the SBC, I find it remarkable that our top figure would state that our convention adhered to doctrines not founded in Scripture. Now it is apparent to all that Dr. Page has had trouble with TULIP, and that is fine if he disagrees or has differences (though I think his arguments are presumptuous and problematic). However, having trouble with TULIP should not thereby constitute trouble with Baptist history.

Precisely! To suggest that Calvinism is not based on Biblical theology (you may disagree with the conclusions, but you can't deny it's basis in Scripture), or denying that the founding fathers of the SBC were largely Reformed (as demonstrated in airtight citation by Founders Ministry) or that it leads to anti-missionary fervor (tell that to the father of modern missions and Calvinist William Carey) is ignorant. The biggest obstacle to honest discussions among Evangelicals about soteriology is the refusal by Arminians to move past empty assertions and strawmen and get down to Scripture. For Page to suggest we get back to the Bible is great advice, but not if you are dealing with presumptions that leave no room for dialogue. I came to Reformed theology not because I was brainwashed by Al Mohler and John MacArthur, but in reading the Word of God. Through the Bible my stubborn insistence on my own autonomy in salvation was shattered by the overwhelming weight of Scripture that God is Sovereign, and I am not.

Ergun Caner, sole arbiter of being a "real" Baptist

Dr. Caner posted a blog entry about Liberty University reinserting the name "Baptist" into the seminary name. I am an on again, off again student in the Distance Learning program of the seminary and I didn't know the name had been dropped...

In an era when denominational identification is anathema, the Liberty Theological Seminary has retrofitted its name to the Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary. The irony is the man who lead the seminary to take Baptist out of the name is also the one who lobbied to reinsert it, the President of the Seminary, Dr. Ergun Mehmet Caner.

But as is normal with Dr. Caner, he can't avoid taking shots at the evil Calvinist hordes pretending to be Baptists!

“However, since 2004, much as changed, both here at Liberty University and in the Southern Baptist Convention. Too many schools have Baptist in their name but not in their doctrine. Some have drifted into liberalism and cultural relativism; still others remain orthodox, but have drifted toward non-Baptist reformed doctrine and cultural isolationism. For us, this was our line in the sand. We want to build bridges to a lost world without burning the bridges of our doctrinal heritage. We are putting Baptist back in our name, and taking back a term that has been misused.“We want to train students from across the evangelical spectrum, in the classic Baptistic stance of our Anabaptist tradition and Sandy Creek revivalistic heritage. These doctrines include:

• The inerrancy of Scripture

• General atonement

• Free church polity and pastoral authority

• Missions obsession

• Imminent return of Christ

It just made sense, following the vision of our founder and the new chancellor, to proudly state that we are Baptist with a capital “B.” Since 1525, the word Baptist has meant something and it still does at Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary.”

I guess what "it means" is that anyone who doesn't hold to Arminian general atonement just isn't Baptist enough for Dr. Caner. It should have been clear from the title of the blog post "Liberty Baptist Seminary and “Building Bridges” that Caner was freaked out by the recent Building Bridges Conference and the idea, the horror!, that good, authentic Arminian Baptists would speak civilly and attempt to build bridges with the unwashed hordes of Calvinist pseudo-Baptists! I imagine he wrote each of the Arminian speakers and suspended their status as real Baptists for six months.

I would ask if that means that Dr. Caner doesn't believe that Charles Spurgeon was an authentic Calvinist, but having listened to his lectures in a History of Baptists course I realize that like Michael Pearl and so many others, Dr. Caner refuses to recognize that Spurgeon even was a Calvinist. Dr. Caner's quest has so infected his thinking that he refuses to even consider Reformed Baptists to be "real" baptists.

No greater confusion

One of the most misrepresented figures in Christian history is Charles Spurgeon. Everyone wants to claim him for their camp, and often at the expense of truth. The latest, and perhaps one of the most mind-boggling claims that Spurgeon was not a Calvinist comes from the pen of self-described homeschool pioneer Michael Pearl of No Great Joy ministries (Note the bearded guy on the left is Michael Pearl, the bearded guy on the right is Charles Spurgeon). My wife owns their flagship book, , and we get their newsletter on a regular basis. I noticed some time ago that in their "bible study" books is one with this dandy title: The Other Side of Calvinism. Guess what that other side is. That's right: Mike Pearl states, "This is the best book exposing the heresies of Calvinism. If you are a Bible believer concerned about TRUTH, this is a "must-read." . That of course set me off, rabid Calvinist heretic that I am. Calvinism must really be bad, after all he spelled truth in all capital letters! So imagine my, and apparently a few other peoples surprise when Michael Pearl put an article in his magazine that quoted Spurgeon, quite positively in fact. Apparently someone else did, and sent in this question to the Pearls:

I’m writing to ask, “Where is the consistency?” Your newsletter regularly promotes the book, The Other Side of Calvinism. It’s proclaimed to be “...the best book exposing the heresies of Calvinism....” Yet, in your Nov-Dec 2007 newsletter, you have an article featuring Charles Spurgeon, one of the biggest Calvinists of all time. So, where is the consistency? If Calvinism is a heresy, then Spurgeon is a heretic. Yes, or no?

Seems like a simple question. If Calvinism is heresy and Spurgeon is a Calvinist, then ergo Charles Spurgeon is a heretic. But no, Mr. Pearl is about to launch an explanation of why Charles Spurgeon, arch-Calvinist, is indeed not a Calvinist but rather "He teaches the same gospel that is taught by so-called Arminians, like Wesley and Finney." . I am not sure how Spurgeon would react to being lumped in with Wesley and a heretic like Finney, but I am guessing not positively. (If you doubt that Finney was a rank heretic, read this). That claim, made by many Christians especially Baptists (like Ergun Caner) is amusing but patently false. Spurgeon note only held to Calvinist doctrines, but he proudly described himself as one.

Rather than an honest "Yes, Charles Spurgeon is a Calvinist heretic", we get some bobbing and weaving, and avoiding truth with sweeping generalizations. I certainly am not going to defend Charles Spurgeon's Calvinism here. His writings speak for themselves, and I suspect that if Mr. Pearl has read Spurgeon at all, it has been pretty selectively. After all, Spurgeon is the guy who wrote a lengthy discourse titled A defense of Calvinism. It is certain, while there are different flavors of Calvinism for sure, that Spurgeon would be welcome in any Reformed church in America's pulpit (nor would Paul be turned away, despite Mr. Pearl's assertion to the contrary).

This whole affair should come as no surprise. Mr. Pearl holds to some tell-tale erroneous beliefs, as evidenced by their apparent King James Onlyism...

SCRIPTURE: We believe the sixty-six books of the King James Version, nothing added or deleted, constitute the whole of Scripture "given by inspiration of God" to English speaking people (2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:20-21).

Let that settle in a second. Most Christian confession hold to the literal nature of the 66 books of the Bible as inerrant, but when they throw a particular translation in, that should set off warning bells. In his somewhat paranoid rant against those who are out to get him, he describes Jacob Arminius as "too Calvinstic" for his tastes.

Arminius was just a backslidden Calvinist who tried to modify Calvinism. He is too Calvinistic for me. So my detractors will have to find someone far more to the right if they want to identify me with some historical position.

Huh? You might never hear that again, Arminius was too Calvinistic for me.

Some of what the Pearl's put out on parenting, Biblical roles in marriage and homeschooling is useful, but as I have often told my wife, when someone has such an egregious lack discernment about vital doctrines of the Church, I view everything they say with some suspicion.

What really concerns me is that the No Greater Joy materials and newsletter make it to a huge number of homeschool homes, and that those Christian parents who homeschool (and likely never hear an accurate depiction of the doctrines of grace in their church), will assume that Michael Pearl is accurate because he is "one of us". I stand side by side with Mr. Pearl where it comes to matters of homeschooling and some aspects of Christian parenting, but when it comes to soteriology, Michael Pearl sides with far too many men in the church who have held to aberrant views of salvation.

Building Bridges Conference

The audio files for the Building Bridges Conference are slowly being added to the Lifeway page here. They have been, so far that I have listened, gracious on both sides

One of the most interesting things I heard was the intro report by Ed Stetzer in which he pointed out that there is a strong trend towards Calvinism among recent SBC seminary graduates. The graph above is mind boggling. Only 10% of all SBC pastors identify themselves as five point Calvinists, but almost 30% of recent graduates (since 1999) identify themselves as five pointers, and the more recent the grad, the higher the percentage. More data and the research methodology can be found here, but some other interesting factoids:

• Calvinists tend to pastor churches with a lower weekly attendance (Is it because Calvinists run into more opposition in being called to larger churches, or is it because Calvinists have higher standards for who is a member and who is baptized? The why is not answered)
• Calvinist pastors report sharing the Gospel with others outside of church services at a slightly higher rate than their non-Calvinist counterparts.
• While the churches are smaller, Calvinist pastored churches has a baptism rate similar to non-Calvinist pastored churches.

What does all of that data mean? That despite the strawmen used to falsely portray and attack Reformed Baptists, most of those who are both Calvinist and Southern Baptist take very seriously not just theology but also evangelism.

I listened to part of David Dockery's talk, and he was pretty funny. One of his jokes was a Jeff Foxworthy-esque one about those unsure of whether or not they are a Calvinist (paraphrasing here...)

If you have a son named John, whether named after Calvin, Knox, Edwards or Piper, you might be a Calvinist.

If you think the axis of error runs through Pelagius, Arminius and Finney, you might be a Calvinist.

If you think that a psalter is not the thing sitting next to the pepper shaker, you might be a Calvinist

If you didn’t laugh at any of these jokes, you might be a Calvinist!

One of the most encouraging things about the whole conference was not that minds were changed or that any new material was presented, but that the issue of Calvinism was spoken about by both proponents and opponents in a Biblically sound, Christ honoring way and that the recognition was there that theological discussion in the SBC is a positive thing, and the goal is not to convert the world to Calvinism but to win the world for Christ. If we can have more frank, honest, peaceful discussion it will only further the cause of the Great Commission and strengthen the SBC for the future. Those who seek to run Calvinists out of the SBC threaten the future of the Convention. Those who embrace theirs brothers in spite of difference of doctrine are the ones who truly see the future of the SBC.

Using tragedy to score theological points

In one of the most misguided attacks on Calvinism I have ever read, Dr. Roger Olson, professor of theology at Baylor's George W. Truett Theological Seminary, creates such a caricature of Calvinism that it becomes unrecognizable to it's adherents. In doing so, he exposes his own Arminianism that has led to what can only be described as an "open-theism" view that is misguided at best and heretical at worst. Speaking about Calvinism and John Piper in particular regarding the collapse of the bridge in Minneapolis and the accompanying deaths.

This theology is sweeping up thousands of impressionable young Christians. It provides a seemingly simple answer to the problem of evil. Even what we call evil is planned and rendered certain by God because it is necessary for a greater good.

But wait. What about God's character? Is God, then, the author of evil? Most Calvinists don't want to say it. But logic seems to demand it. If God plans something and renders it certain, how is he not culpable for it? Here is where things get murky.

Some Calvinists will say he's not guilty because he has a good intention for the event -- to bring good out of it, but the Bible expressly forbids doing evil for the sake of good.

Many conservative Christians wince at the idea that God is limited. But what if God limits himself so that much of what happens in the world is due to human finitude and fallenness? What if God is in charge but not in control? What if God wishes that things could be otherwise and someday will make all things perfect?

That seems more like the God of the Bible than the all-determining deity of Calvinism.

I love the line: "This theology is sweeping up thousands of impressionable young Christians. " Poor, impressionable young Christians, being encouraged to place God in His rightful place as Lord of Creation. How tragic that our young people are developing a high opinion of God and reading His Word for what it says!

How in the world is it more comforting to think of God this way? At least if you see God as sovereign, you can rest assured that despite not always understanding everything, you know that God is ultimately in control. In Dr. Olson's world, God is a victim of His own creation, unable or worse, unwilling to exert control over it in fear that in doing so He would somehow impact or diminish man's vaunted "free-will". God has so limited Himself that He is helpless to intervene in the affairs of the world He created for His pleasure or the lives of His creatures made in the express image of Himself. It is Dr. Olson, not John Piper, that has created a idolatrous god of his own imagination that stands directly opposed to the God of the Bible.

Dr. Olson further states:

In this world, because of our ignorance and sinfulness, really bad things sometimes happen and people do really evil and wicked things. Not because God secretly plans and prods them, but because God has said to fallen, sinful people, "OK, not my will then, but thine be done -- for now."

And God says, "Pray because sometimes I can intervene to stop innocent suffering when people pray; that's one of my self-limitations. I don't want to do it all myself; I want your involvement and partnership in making this a better world."

Funny, but I don't recall reading anything like that in the Bible. Oh that's right, that is because the Bible says no such thing! When God "says" something, it appears in His Word. How dare Dr. Olson presume to put his own thoughts out there as God's Word!

No shocker here, a number of Reformed folks have made excellent, well-reasoned responses to these scurrilous charges by Dr. Olson, see Tim Ascol's here and Steve Hays here. What is a shame is that we have to waste time responding to such inane charges, capped off by this statement that exhibits Dr. Olson's utter misunderstanding of Reformed doctrines: The God of Calvinism scares me; I'm not sure how to distinguish him from the devil. I am sure Dr. Olson cannot distinguish Him because he worship a god of his own sinners imagination. Think again of the implication of that statement, as pointed out by the good folks at Monergism.com. Dr. Olson states that he believes that Calvinists worship a being indistinguishable from the devil. We certainly can and should disagree heartily with one another, but that crosses a serious line of discourse that shows how intellectually shallow Dr. Olson is, which should be a source of extreme embarrassment for Baylor Univerisity.

Arminianism is SOOO 1990’s….

There are two new blog entries that deal with the same basic issue, that is the renewed interest in Reformed theology in the church. One is from the Reformed Baptist Fellowship titled “I was a Calvinist when Calvinism wasn’t cool” and another from Mark Dever on the 9 Marks blog “Where did all these Calvinists come from?” . Both examine the underlying causes beneath the obvious rise of Calvinism all across the spectrum of churches.

Like many others I attribute the renewed interest to the ready availability of the writings of giants of Reformed theology. No longer are the works of Spurgeon or Edwards relegated to old personal libraries or seminaries but are right there at the click of a mouse to anyone who is interested (which is why I also believe that mormonism is slowly losing it’s grip in North America and growing overseas as the truth of mormonism is available outside of scandal mongers like Ed Decker of The Godmakers fame). Arminianism cannot stand the test of comparison when facing Reformed theology, either Biblically or logically, so the more lay members can examine the apologetics for themselves, the more obvious it becomes that Reformed theology wins the day. But for all that, for which God be praised, there are potential stumbling blocks that I see.

There are two dangers inherent in the renewed interest in Reformed theology…

One, that Reformed theology will become faddish, the latest “in” thing in Christianity, becoming a new form of legalism. Being able to pull out the “Calvinist” card will show that one is a "serious" Christian, and a lack of that credential will lead to disdain. Reformed theology MUST be driven by conviction from Scripture and not because our favorite authors or pastors are proponents of it.

Two that those of a “mature” standing Reformed theology will disdain as Johnnie-come-lately’s in the Reformed camp those newly minted Calvinists (some of this is already apparent in the relation between credo and paedo baptists, what some have called the pat on the head treatment Baptists receive frequently from those of the Presbyterian/Reformed camp). There is already too much "will the real Calvinists please stand up" on the blogosphere, "more Reformed than thou" attitudes that add to the Reformed doctrines other issues.

The church has a responsibility to make sure that along with the rise in Reformed theology that we retain the humility and perspective that should be a natural part of Calvinism, but too often is not...