Audio Link: In Search of Truth

The website In Search of Truth has a 4 part series by Bob Waldron critiquing Calvinism. Here is the direct audio link: Calvinism Series

Waldron is a pastor/professor/missionary who comes from a Church of Christ background (the acapella guys). This is a good series, although I do have a couple of reservations. Here is an overview on each of the four lessons:

1) God's Sovereignty and Total Depravity - Waldron explains the Calvinist concept of Sovereignty - that God "controls" everything, and how this is not a scriptural view. He addresses Total Depravity and refutes it from what I would call a Semi-Pelagian view.

2) Calvinism and TULIP - Waldron gives a little history on John Calvin, and then goes through the 5 points. He represents Calvinism very fairly and doesn't create straw men. He is easy to understand.

3) Neo Calvinism #1 - Waldron argues that modern Calvinists have modified the system to make it seem not as harsh, and as a result are not as consistent as the old school Calvinists. He goes on a couple of tangents unique to the Church of Christ in this lesson (baptism, and complaints about instruments used in worship).

4) Neo Calvinism #2 - This lesson is on the differences between Imputed Righteousness (Calvinist view) and Imparted Righteousness (View of some Arminians). Waldron argues for the Imparted view, and makes some very good points. Imputed Righteousness advocates say salvation "covers" sin, where as Imparted Righteousness advocates say salvation "cleanses" sin.

Who did Jesus die for?

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. -John 3:16-17

Who did Jesus die for? Did he die for everyone as Arminians believe (Universal Atomenent), or did he die for the elect as Calvinists believe (Limited Atonement)?

There is overwhelming evidence in scripture that Jesus died for everyone, And there is little to no evidence in the Bible to support the Limited Atonement view. Out of the five points of TULIP, L is the weakest link. It is a point that consistent Calvinists must argue out of philosophical necessity without the affirmation of scripture. This is no doubt why there are many 4-point Calvinists - people who love the logic and elegance of Monergism, but can't bring themselves to advocate a view that is so contradictory to what the Bible teaches about the extent of Jesus' sacrifice for humanity.

The Bible is clear: Jesus died for everyone. It is a simple truth. Scripture is so clear on the universality of the atonement that it amazes me that anyone who reads the whole Bible can attempt to limit the love and sacrifice of Jesus.

There are no verses in the Bible that specifically state that Jesus died only for the elect. Limited Atonement proponents instead refer to passages that speak of Jesus dying for "His sheep" (John 10:27) or for "His Church" (Eph 5:25). Calvinists argue that if Jesus died for a specific group, that precludes the possibility that He died for everyone. This is a weak argument because it comes from the necessity of the Calvinist system, and ignores the many passages that clearly do state that Jesus died for everyone. The Bible is full of verses that say Jesus died for all (John 1:29, John 3:16, John 4:42, Romans 5:15-18, Col 1:19-20, 1 Tim 2:5-6, 1 Tim. 4:10, Heb. 2:9, 2 Pet 2:1, 1 John 2:2, 1 John 4:14).

We need to look at scripture in context, without imposing an unsupported philosophical system upon it. If we look at the big picture, it becomes absurd to attempt to limit Jesus sacrifice based on the misreading of a verse that mentions a specific entity for whom Jesus died. For an example let's apply the Calvinist's limiting logic to Galatians 2:20 (bold mine):

I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

If we look at the small picture here in this passage, Paul says specifically that "[Jesus] loved me and gave himself for me." Without referring to the overall context of the Bible, one might legitimately argue that Jesus only gave himself to Paul. However, when we look at the big picture we know that this is a false limitation imposed on the verse. Jesus died for more than just Paul, because other verses say he did.

This same truth applies to any verse that states Jesus died for a specific entity. It is necessary to look at the big picture to fully appreciate the sacrifice that Jesus made. It is not adequate to look at one passage that says Jesus died for "Paul" or for "sheep", when other passages clarify and enlarge the context, and clearly state that Jesus did indeed die for all.

We know that Jesus died for the whole world, because the Bible says so. That is an assurance we can build on.

Prayer for a friend

My friend in Christ, Orval Halley, needs the healing hand of God. He's very sick with pancreatic cancer, and will not live much longer unless God heals him.

Halley was my pastor for about 12 years. He has been a blessing to me and my family. He "retired" from his pastorate about 4 years ago to pursue full time missions in the 10-40 window. Pastor Halley is a man who is sold out for the kingdom. He has a commitment to God that I have seen in few other people.

If God places it on your heart, please pray for him and his wife Roberta, and for their extended family. I believe that God has more for him to do in this life.

[update: Pastor Orv went to be with his Father on 5-9-08]

The Hermeneutics Quiz

Here's an interesting quiz that measures how you interpret and apply Scripture.

The Hermeneutics Quiz
by Scot McKnight

Here's my results:
47
"You scored between 20 and 52, meaning you're a conservative on The Hermeneutic Scale."

"The conservative hermeneutic group scores 52 or lower. The strength of this view is its emphasis on the authority, ongoing and normative authority, of all of Scripture. It tends to operate with the line many of us learned in Sunday school: "If the Bible says it, that settles it." Such persons let the Bible challenge them with full force. Literal readings lead to rather literal applications. Most of the time."

Foreknowledge

Foreknowledge means to have knowledge of something before it happens. In scripture there are are references to God's foreknowledge of those who will believe in Jesus. Those whom God foreknows, he also elects to be saved.

The Greek word - proginosko
Proginosko is the word used in the New Testament that today we translate as "to foreknow". It literally means "to know before". The word breaks down like this: Pro (before) ginosko (to know).

We are familiar with this word in English. For example: a doctor will give a prognosis. And someone who makes predictions is called a prognosticator.

The word in its noun or verb form is used several times in the New Testament to explain the foreknowledge of God or of individuals. Here are some passages where the word is used:
Acts 2:23
Acts 26:4-5
Romans 8:29
1 Peter 1:1-2
1 Peter 1:20
2 Peter 3:17

Arminians believe that foreknowledge works like this: God has exhaustive knowledge of the future, thus He "prognosticates" it perfectly. God knows who will believe in Jesus. Those who believe are elected. Election is corporate in scripture (those who believe) as opposed to individual election. The Arminian understanding of foreknowledge is apparent in passages like Romans 8:29 and 1 Peter 1:2

(Bold mine - represents the Greek word for foreknowledge)

Romans 8:28-29: And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose. For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. (NKJV)

1 Peter 1:1-2 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To the pilgrims of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace be multiplied. (NKJV)

Calvinists err in their understanding of foreknowledge, confusing foreknowledge with predestination. They believe that God decrees whatever happens, so foreknowledge is only a byproduct of His decree. In Calvinist thought, foreknowledge is a synonym of election. But Romans 8:29 and 1 Peter 1:2 show instead that God's election is a result of His foreknowledge, not the cause of it.

Another Calvinists interpretation of foreknowledge is "to forelove" instead of "to foreknow". However, there is no justification for this interpretation in the context of the passages in the New Testament.

God is working for the good of those who love Him! He sees everything, he always knows what will happen, and He is always working on the behalf of those who He knows will believe. He is for us!

Audio Link: Apologetics for Christians

Apologetics for Christians has lots of good audio discussion on Arminianism and Calvinism. They have a five part series on Arminianism (mostly dealing with the topic of if it's possible to lose salvation or not - he says no), and a 10 part series on Calvinism.

The site is run by Kelly and Theresa Powers from Winnipeg, Manitoba. They come from a Calvary Chapel and Christian Missionary Alliance background. Kelly describes himself as a "Calminian" who's closer to Arminianism than Calvinism. After listening to him I would describe him as a 4-point Arminian who's perhaps not comfortable with the title. :) I haven't listened to all of his stuff yet, but he seems to have a good theological grasp, and a kind heart. He does like to make fun of James White - but that's perhaps understandable. :)

Anyway, Kelly has an internet broadcast where people talk to him and ask questions. If you have lots of time to listen, he has good stuff to say, but the show does run pretty long.

Audio links located here: Audio Link

Libertarian Free Will

Libertarian free will is the concept that men and angels have the ability to make real choices that have not been pre-determined by God. Arminians believe in free will, while Calvinists generally do not.

The Arminian belief in free will is rooted in our understanding of the goodness of God. We believe in free will not because we are interested in usurping God's authority, but instead because we want to protect God's character. We also recognize that free will comes directly from the hand of God. Man has free will because he is made in the image of God. To the extent that man can make any decision on his own, it's only because God has given man that ability, because it pleases Him to do so.

Calvinists instead believe in determinism (or compatiblism) - that from the beginning God has decreed everything that happens. The problem with determinism is that if God has decreed everything that happens, that would logically make Him responsible for evil. Scripture is very clear that God is not responsible for evil. Evil is a result of the disobedience of men and angels. Logically, if there were no free will, there would be no evil. Calvinists are against the concept of free will because they want to protect the sovereignty of God. They argue that if God is truly sovereign then man can't have the final say. They believe that free will makes man independent of God, and if man is independent of God, then God is not sovereign.

It is helpful to recognize that this issue of free will is a secondary concern for both Arminians and Calvinists, and flows from our understanding of who God is. Disagreement over the issue originates from honorable intentions in both theological systems. Each side wishes to protect an aspect of God's character, and each side believes that the other side's understanding does damage to the character of God. Arminians believe that the goodness of God requires that man have free will in order to explain evil. Calvinists believe that the sovereignty of God requires that there can be no such thing as true free will, or else God is not really in control. Given that backdrop it is important to understand the motivation of Arminians, and that we do affirm the sovereignty of God. However, we define sovereignty in a slightly different way. This enables us to affirm both free will and sovereignty.

A simple definition of sovereignty is: God does what He pleases. Arminians believe that true sovereignty is based on two things: power and authority. God has both, so He is sovereign. Calvinists instead believe that sovereignty is based on three things: power, authority, and intervention. Calvinists believe that if God does not ordain the actions of individuals in every aspect, then He is not sovereign. Arminians believe that since God created man in His image, it does not please Him to micromanage the affairs of man. It instead pleases God to give free will to man, to see if we will obey Him. God still has the ability to intervene when He desires to, and scripture indicates that He often does intervene. Arminians recognize that regardless of His level of intervention, God still has complete power and authority. He gets the last word. Man has the freedom to break God's law, but man does not have the capability of avoiding the consequences of breaking God's law. Thus God is sovereign.

So the key to understanding sovereignty is knowing that God does what He pleases.

It pleases God to give free will to man.

Audio link: Roger Olson discusses Arminian Theology

Reclaiming the Mind Ministries has a number of interviews with different Biblical scholars. One link is an interview with Roger Olson about Arminianism. The broadcast 78 minutes long. Olson gives an easy to understand overview of Arminian Theology.

Link here: Reclaiming the Mind: online live theology

Audio Link: Steve Gregg - Verse by Verse Bible Lectures

A while back I posted a link to Steve Gregg's 9 part series on Calvinism. I have found his work to be fair, humble, and from the heart of a teacher. A reader pointed out that Steve has also done a verse by verse exposition of Romans 9. Here is the link for that series (and much more):

Steve Gregg Verse by Verse Bible Lectures

New Arminian Web Site: Society of Evangelical Arminians

A group of Arminian scholars and laymen have created a new website: www.evangelicalarminians.org.

From the Site:

Welcome to the online home of the Society of Evangelical Arminians (SEA). Our society exists to glorify God by edifying his people, protecting them from error, and fostering the proper representation of our magnificent God to the world by lovingly and respectfully promoting and advancing sound, biblical doctrine and theology in the area of soteriology (the doctrine of salvation). That means teaching and defending Arminianism, the system of theology that we believe most accurately reflects the teaching of the Bible, the very word of God. It also means refuting Calvinism, a system of theology that lies within the pale of basic Christian orthodoxy, but that is at odds with Arminianism on many key points and that we believe seriously errs in its understanding of God, salvation, and the Bible. While we generally accept Calvinists as our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, our passion for the glory, truth, and love of God compels us to stand against what we regard to be their faulty theology. In all of this we desire to conduct ourselves with love and respect for all, including those with whom we disagree.

Our hope is that this website will eventually become a comprehensive guide and resource for Arminianism and the topic of soteriology. Towards that end we will be adding resources in the form of links, articles, and other types of information on an ongoing basis. At the same time, we will be running a blog that will regularly provide thoughts, reflections, and commentary about biblical truth from an Arminian perspective. In line with our goal to provide an abundance of Arminian resources, please remember that the resources provided here, including blog entries, do not necessarily represent SEA's official position on any given issue. That is contained in our statement of faith, to which all members must ascribe.

We hope that you will benefit from this site, and we pray that the Lord will guide you into his truth.

To God be the glory in the Church and in Christ Jesus to all generations forever and ever! Amen!

I'm very excited about this new Arminian resource coming online. There is a definite need for an Arminian presence on the internet - to help those who want to understand what Arminianism's proponents actually teach. It is my belief that Arminian theology best expresses what scripture clearly teaches - God loves the world!

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world , but that the world through Him might be saved. John 3:16-17

Audio Link: Steve Gregg / James White debate

Gregg and White are doing a 5 day simulcast debate on the issue of Calvinism. I haven't listened to any of the series yet. I don't particularly care for White's "strawman" style of debating, but the series should be interesting anyway. If nothing else, it's good to see Gregg get a little more exposure.

Dates of the debate are April 3,4,7,8,9 2008. The audio is available on both of their web sites:

Steve Gregg: The Narrow Path
James White: Alpha and Omega Ministries

Theology and the Slave Trade

I was recently reading the blog Ancient Christian Defender. The author Jnorm888 had a provocative post entitled Was Jonathan Edwards a racist?

It is a well known fact that Edwards was a proponent of slavery, and owned slaves himself. Unlike many contemporary slave owners, Edwards did not will freedom to his slaves upon his death. Due to Edward's position on slavery, there is some division in the African American community today on whether or not he is a person worthy of being honored.

Jnorm's post triggered some questions in my mind: Did the Calvinistic assumptions of Edward's theology contribute to his support of slavery? How did prominent Calvinists of the era approach the issue slavery, and how did prominent Arminians address the issue? Was there a difference in their approaches?

I think a difference can be demonstrated. In short, Calvinists of the era were more likely to support the institution slavery, and Arminians of the era were more likely to support abolitionism. For example (Calvinists) Edwards and Whitfield both supported slavery, while (non-Calvinists) Wesley, Asbury, Wilberforce, and Finney all advocated abolishing slavery.

There were some notable exceptions to the examples above - John Newton (author of "Amazing Grace") was a Calvinist and also an abolitionist. And over time many Calvinists joined the abolitionist movement. In fact Jonathan Edwards Jr fought against slavery. However, it is noteworthy that many of "trail blazing" abolitionists were from Non-Calvinist backgrounds, and argued against slavery using Arminian theological concepts.

When one looks at the two theological systems, this makes sense. Calvinists focus on the sovereignty of God. Part of that focus is a belief that the world is the way it is because God wants it that way. Thus on the issue of slavery a Calvinist might reasonably argue that slavery is ordained by God and gives Him glory.

Arminians focus on the love of God for all. God cares about each and every person. Each person is of great value, because he is created in the image of God. Thus on the issue of slavery one would expect an Arminian to advocate for the freedom of all, because every person is valuable, and every person is loved by God.

We see this Arminian heart in the abolitionist writings of John Wesley. Notice how he used Arminian concepts of God to advocate on behalf of the slave (bold mine):

O thou God of love, thou who art loving to every man, and- whose mercy is over all thy works; thou who art the Father of the spirits of all flesh, and who art rich in mercy unto all; thou who hast mingled of one blood all the nations upon earth; have compassion upon these outcasts of men, who are trodden down as dung upon the earth! Arise, and help these that have no helper, whose blood is spilt upon the ground like water! Are not these also the work of thine own hands, the purchase of thy Son's blood? Stir them up to cry unto thee in the land of their captivity; and let their complaint come up before thee; let it enter into thy ears! Make even those that lead them away captive to pity them, and turn their captivity as the rivers in the south. O burst thou all their chains in sunder; more especially the chains of their sins! Thou Saviour of all, make them free, that they may be free indeed!
(Thoughts upon slavery, 1774)

Notice how Wesley's arguments against slavery flow directly from his Arminian understanding of God:

• God is love
• God has mercy on all
• Jesus "purchased" slaves with his blood
• Jesus is Savior of all
• Jesus wants us to be free
  

Arminian Theology is more friendly to the cause of the downtrodden, and Wesley demonstrates why here. God loves us. We all have value because we are made in the image of God. Jesus died for all. We ought to be free. These assumptions impact how we treat others.

This Arminian friendliness to the downtrodden seems to apply to other issues as well. We can see differing approaches in Calvinist/Arminian theology regarding:

• the value of women
• compassion for the poor
• love for the homosexual
• the death penalty
• prison reform
• reasons for going to war
• the treatment of "heretics"
  
• race issues

There is even a recent example on the issue of race: Apartheid. Apartheid in South Africa is a clear example where Calvinist theology was used as a method to promote racial division. Between 1652 to 1835 a large number of European Calvinists settled in South Africa. They became known as "Afrikaners" or "Boers". They imposed Apartheid upon South Africa, and used their Calvinist theology to justify it. Apartheid was not dismantled until 1994, and then only after great pressure from the international community.

It is my firm belief that Arminian Theology is more friendly to the state of the lost and downtrodden.

May God continue to give us compassion for all. Let us be the salt of the earth. May the world see in our lives the light of Jesus, and praise our Father in heaven. May our understanding of God be a help and hope to the world, instead of a hindrance.

Links of interest:

• Jonathan Edwards' Defense of Slavery
• John Wesley: Thoughts Upon Slavery
• Comparative Thoughts on Race and Slavery of John Wesley and George Whitfield
  
• Afrikaner Calvinism (Wikipedia)

Informative post on Emerging and Emergent Church

C. Michael Patton of "Reclaiming The Mind Ministries" has a very interesting series on the Parchment and Pen blog entitled Would the Real Emerger Please Stand Up?. He explains the difference between Emerging and Emergent. Lots of good info, and he has cool charts like this:

Audio Link: Ergun Caner - Why I Am Predestined Not to Be A Hyper Calvinist

Dr Ergun Caner, president of Liberty Theological Seminary (a Southern Baptist Seminary) speaks on the topic of "Hyper Calvinism", and why he's not a hyper Calvinist. The passage he preaches from is 1 Timothy 2:1-8. Caner defines a hyper-calvinist as one who believes in reprobation, infant damnation, has an apathy towards missions, and is against public invitations to accept Christ.

I'm guessing that Caner is probably a 2 or 3 point Calvinist himself, so he would not consider himself an Arminian. His main beef with Calvinism is no doubt -L- limited atonement.

Dr. Caner is a great speaker, he gets fired up. He has a heart to preach to the lost. If you believe Jesus died for everyone, you will LOVE his message. :)

Audio Link: Thomas Road Baptist Church April 9, 2006

The Minister's Daughter

by John Greenleaf Whittier

In the minister's morning sermon
He had told of the primal fall,
And how thenceforth the wrath of God
Rested on each and all.

And how of His will and pleasure,
All souls, save a chosen few,
Were doomed to the quenchless burning,
And held in the way thereto.

Yet never by faith's unreason
A saintlier soul was tried,
And never the harsh old lesson
A tenderer heart belied.

And, after the painful service
On that pleasant Sabbath day,
He walked with his little daughter
Through the apple-bloom of May.

Sweet in the fresh green meadows
Sparrow and blackbird sung;
Above him their tinted petals
The blossoming orchards hung.

Around on the wonderful glory
The minister looked and smiled;
"How good is the Lord who gives us
These gifts from His hand, my child.

"Behold in the bloom of apples
And the violets in the sward
A hint of the old, lost beauty
Of the Garden of the Lord!"

Then up spake the little maiden,
Treading on snow and pink
"O father! these pretty blossoms
Are very wicked, I think.

"Had there been no Garden of Eden
There never had been a fall;
And if never a tree had blossomed
God would have loved us all."

"Hush, child!" the father answered,
"By His decree man fell;
His ways are in clouds and darkness,
But He doeth all things well.

"And whether by His ordaining
To us cometh good or ill,
Joy or pain, or light or shadow,
We must fear and love Him still."

"Oh, I fear Him!" said the daughter,
"And I try to love Him, too;
But I wish He was good and gentle,
Kind and loving as you."

The minister groaned in spirit
As the tremulous lips of pain
And wide, wet eyes uplifted
Questioned his own in vain.

Bowing his head he pondered
The words of the little one;
Had he erred in his life-long teaching?
Had he wrong to his Master done?

To what grim and dreadful idol
Had he lent the holiest name?
Did his own heart, loving and human,
The God of his worship shame?

And lo! from the bloom and greenness,
From the tender skies above,
And the face of his little daughter,
He read a lesson of love.

No more as the cloudy terror
Of Sinai's mount of law,
But as Christ in the Syrian lilies
The vision of God he saw.

And, as when, in the clefts of Horeb,
Of old was His presence known,
The dread Ineffable Glory
Was Infinite Goodness alone.

Thereafter his hearers noted
In his prayers a tenderer strain,
And never the gospel of hatred
Burned on his lips again.

And the scoffing tongue was prayerful,
And the blinded eyes found sight,
And hearts, as flint aforetime,
Grew soft in his warmth and light.


John Greenleaf Whittier (1807–1892)
American Christian and Abolitionist

Audio Links: Dr. Norman Geisler

Here is a sermon from Dr. Norman Geisler (author of the book Chosen but Free) where he explains why his is not a Calvinist. Geisler is enjoyable to listen to, and he explains the problems with Calvinism in terms that are easily understood by the layman. He gives a number of good analogies.

Geisler take a "moderate" position, so he would likely not describe himself as either a Calvinist or an Arminian. However, he is sympathetic with Arminians on all points except Perseverance of the Saints.

Here is the link: Why I Am Not A 5 Point Calvanist.

Unfortunately the link is in Real Player format, so you can't download it to a portable player.

(Update: Here is an mp3 link on the firefighters.org site.)

Audio Links: Iron Sharpens Iron debate

Iron Sharpens Iron (a Calvinist leaning radio show) is running a five day debate entitled: "The DOCTRINES of SOVEREIGN GRACE: Biblical Truths or Dangerous Fallacies". There are mp3 links available on the site.

Opposing Calvinism is DR. F. LaGARD SMITH author of Troubling Questions For Calvinists .

Defending Calvinism is DR. LAWRENCE W. CARRINO, founding and Senior Pastor of Grace Gospel Church.

No Security in Calvinism

Upon first glance one of the appealing aspects of Calvinism is the doctrine of Eternal Security, or the "P" in TULIP -- "Perseverance of the Saints". This is the concept that if you are one of the elect, you cannot lose your salvation. You will certainly be saved. This concept seems great on the surface, but there are some underlying problems with it.

First, Calvinism discourages the unsaved from seeking God, because Calvinism classifies individuals into one of two categories - the elect, and the non-elect (reprobated). If you believe that you are one of the reprobate you will never seek God's mercy. Why put your trust in a God who has determined to damn you? This error prevents people from trusting in God, because it distorts God's character. If you are one of the reprobate, you are without help and without hope, you CANNOT be saved. Or so says Calvinism.

A second concern: you may think you are saved, but actually be damed. You may have the "false hope" spoken of by Edwards, Calvin, and others. It may seem to you that you are saved, and God may even indicate this to your spirit. But God by his inscrutable council has the right to give you false hope and damn you in the end.

A third concern: This doctrine takes away the joy of the believer - a flip side of the "false hope" doctrine. A believer may actually be saved, but think that he is not. This poor believer spends his life in terror of God's judgment, even though he is covered by the blood of Jesus. The enemy of our souls is more than happy to tell us the lie that God doesn't accept us. Calvinism lends itself to the lies of the enemy, because we all fail God in some way. If we fail God, Calvinism says we must not have ever been a believer in the first place.

Thus in the Calvinist system there is no security. No one can ever really know if he is saved or not.

Calvin says there are two types of call: The general call (which goes to all) and the special call (which goes for the most part to the elect). According to Calvin even those who have received the "special call" might not be saved in the end. Calvin says that it may well be that God is only giving them temporary illumination, and will justly forsake them at a later point because of their ungratefulness (bold mine):

There are two kinds of call. There is the general call, by which God invites all equally to himself through the outward preaching of the word-even those to whom he holds it out as a savor of death, and as the occasion for severer condemnation. The other kind of call is special, which he deigns for the most part to give to the believers alone, while by the inward illumination of his Spirit he causes the preached Word to dwell in their hearts. Yet sometimes he also causes those whom he illumines only for a time to partake of it; then he justly forsakes them on account of their ungratefulness and strikes them with even greater blindness.

So the general call is worthless. It doesn't save save anyone. It only provides the "occasion for severer condemnation". And even the special call provides no security, because God can "justly forsake" those who have received the special call.

Contrast the view of Calvin with what scripture says: The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are Gods children (Romans 8:16). And: if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. (Romans 10:9-10) Scripture teaches that we can be secure. If we believe, we will be saved. And the Holy Spirit testifies to us that this is true.

We can have faith in Jesus, trust that He is good, and trust that He has no hidden agenda. But Calvin says no, you can't trust God. God -could- just be messing with you and will justly forsake you at a later time.

The end result is that the Calvinist has no security because he cannot trust the heart of God, and cannot discern the council of God. The Calvinist can't trust the heart of God because God has a secret agenda. The Calvinist can't discern the council of God, because God might not intend for him to be saved in the end. In fact God may be temporarily illuminating the Calvinist now as "the occasion for severer condemnation" down the road. And this "severer condemnation" is the right of God (so says Calvin).

In conclusion, this Calvinistic doctrine takes away the joy of the Christian, and it takes away the hope of the non-Christian. This system lends itself to the lies of the enemy who wants all to believe that they have no hope, and contradicts scripture which clearly states that God desires all to be saved.

Audio Links: Steve Gregg

I found another excellent site with mp3 audio from a "Non Calvinist" perspective. It's managed by a fellow named Steve Gregg. I had never heard of Gregg until a few weeks ago. Ironically I ran across his name while looking through James White's site. :) Apparently White and Gregg were going to have a debate on Calvinism, but it fell through. Anyway, Gregg is a Christian radio host who broadcasts a show called "The Narrow Path". The show is on a few radio stations in the Oregon/NoCal area. His stuff is very good - scriptural and detailed. If I had a complaint it would be that he is perhaps too thorough. :) He does not call himself an Arminian, but instead a Non-Calvinist. He has a nine part audio series on the problems with Calvinism.

Here is his website: The Narrow Path

Be sure to check out some of his audio links. I have enjoyed them while on my long commute.

Dutch Chocolate, and two ways to read the Bible

There are (at least) two ways to read the Bible. The first way is a typical "Western" way of learning. The Bible is read in a systematically analytical method. The second way is to read it with personal reflection - with the heart, and then prayerfully ask God to speak through his word. Both ways, I believe, are needed. I think though that I overemphasize the first method, and then don't allow God to speak to me through his word.

Here is a neat example of the second method, as taught by Corrie ten Boom (account found online):

The story is told of the time Corrie Ten Boom was to speak to a group of theologians after the war. She first passed out Dutch chocolate to each person there - a real treat in those days. After they had eaten it she said, "No one said anything about the chocolate." Someone protested that they had indeed thanked her for it. She replied, "I meant that none of you asked me how much sugar was in it. Or what kind of chocolate it was. Or the order in which the ingredients were added together. Or the temperature of the mix. Or where it was made. You just took it and ate it." Someone in the audience replied, "And it was excellent." Corrie Ten Boom then continued holding up her Bible, "And in the same way you should read this! Stop analyzing it or you will never be nourished. Pick it up and read the Word of God!

More Corrie ten Boom links:

Common Sense not needed.

Audio from a few of her chats (SermonIndex.net)