More Correspondence with Calvary Chapel Missions/Church Plant Director, George Bryson

George Bryson wrote the following:

THE GOSPEL
ACCORDING TO
JAMES WHITE
OR
THE “REFORMED” DOCTRINES
OF
DOOM AND GLOOM

The First Point

The first side (the positive side) of the first point of Calvinism is that if you are one of those elected for salvation you will one day (in this life) inevitably be born again before the final judgment. When you are born again you will be given a new nature. As your old nature was an unbelieving nature so your new nature will be a believing nature. Here is how it unfolds. As a new born child of God you will (as a result of your new birth) believe in Jesus Christ. Because (and when) you believe in Jesus Christ you will be declared righteous and be guaranteed a place among the resurrection of the just-and at that time glorified for all eternity.

The second side (the negative or doom and gloom side) of the first point is that if you are not one of the elect, you will not and cannot born again. Here is how it unfolds. Because you are not born again and will forever be stuck with your unbelieving nature you will not and cannot believe in Jesus Christ. Because you cannot believe in Jesus Christ in your unregenerate condition, you will not be justified. If you are not justified you will eventually be raised with the unjust, and finally be sentenced to everlasting shame and torment. This to is according to God’s sovereign will and good pleasure.

The Second Point

The first side (the positive side) of the second point of Calvinism is that if God has chosen you for salvation He did so unconditionally. You do not have to believe to become chosen for salvation but you were chosen and created for salvation and so you believe as a result of being elected and created for salvation.

The second side (the negative or doom and gloom side) of the second point is that if God has not chosen you for salvation,-meaning He has chosen you for damnation-He did so unconditionally. You were chosen, decreed, and created for damnation. You cannot believe and are therefore damned for your unbelief because this is according to God’s sovereign will and for His glory and good pleasure.

The Third Point

The first side (the positive side) of the third point of Calvinism is that if you were chosen and created for salvation, Christ died for your sins so that the eternal decree for salvation would have an historical provision for salvation.

The second side (the negative or doom and gloom side) of the third point of Calvinism is that if you were not chosen and created for salvation-meaning you were chosen and created for damnation- Christ did not die for your sins because an eternal decree for damnation needs no historical provision for salvation.

The Fourth Point

The first side (the positive side) of the fourth doctrine is that if you were chosen and created for salvation, God will irresistibly draw or efficaciously call you (applying saving grace to your life and circumstance) to Himself, first giving you a new life, which in turn brings with it a new nature, which is a believing nature, resulting in your certain and immediate justification and eventual and everlasting glorification.

The second side (the negative and doom and gloom side) of the fourth doctrine is that if you were not chosen and created for salvation-meaning that you were chosen and created for damnation-you will not be irresistibly drawn, efficaciously called, and no saving grace will be extended to you, which means you will not and cannot be born again, which in turn means you cannot have faith in Christ and thereby be justified in this life or ultimately glorified in the next life. Instead you will suffer the torments of the everlasting lake of fire in accordance with the sovereign will of God because this is according to His good pleasure.

The Fifth Point

The first side (the positive side) of the fifth point of Calvinism is that if you were chosen and created for salvation, the new nature you receive when you are born again, and the saving faith that comes with that new nature, and the justification that immediately follows faith insures that you will live (however imperfectly) a sanctified, holy, or righteous life in faith (practically speaking) for the most part, from the time of your regeneration until the time of your glorification. This perseverance in sanctification, holiness, or righteousness in faith, while not perfect is inevitable for the truly born again and will be to the end of this life for the elect. It is not as though the elect should not fail to persevere (for the most part) but they cannot do so. If therefore a person appeared to be a saint earlier in life, but failed to persevere in faith and righteousness until the end of life, it proves he was never a saint or never born again, never had faith in Christ, and never had a holy and righteous life in faith to persevere in.

The second side (the negative and doom side) of the third point is that if you are not elect and created for salvation-meaning you are elect and chosen for damnation-you cannot be born again, have faith in Christ, live a holy or righteous life in faith for even one day, much less to the end of your life. Because God is sovereign and can do as He pleases with His creatures, God is free to mislead a person into thinking they are one of the elect, help them live much like the elect, but at the judgment reveal that they were convinced by God that they were one of the elect even though they were not. No matter how convinced someone is in thinking he is one of the elect, assurance of salvation and eternal life is impossible to secure. How could anyone know for certain that they will persevere to the end proving they were elect without actually having persevered to the end.
After many years (actually decades) of studying the Calvinist doctrines of grace, I am convinced that the best refutation of the five points of Calvinism is an accurate and honest explanation of the five points of Calvinism. Unfortunately most new converts to Calvinism are not aware of the flip side to the five points of Calvinism early on. Those who introduce Calvinism to the non-Calvinist believe that the new believer is not ready for the meatier stuff of Reformed theology. That, they say, should come only later when they can handle it. They reason that the positive side of each point is like simple arithmetic. The negative side is more like algebra or some other more complicated, difficult and higher form of math.

The truth is this; the negative side is not more difficult to understand for the new convert to Calvinism, it is more difficult to accept. The positive side seems more palatable whereas the negative side is difficult to swallow and some even choke on it. Full disclosure, early on and sometimes even later on, is a major hindrance to those committed to winning the non-Calvinist over to Calvinism. Admittedly, sometimes proponents of Calvinism do not lay it all out on the table because they themselves have not turned the coin over to see what is on the other side. Sometimes they ignore it. Sometimes they deny it. They are on the Reformed road and are trying to get others to join them. However, they have not gone very far and sometimes do not choose to go but a few blocks down the Reformed road. Some would like to believe that each of the five points of Calvinism are only five points of grace. It is too much (for them) to think that these five points also represent a very hard and harsh message of doom and gloom. In fact, John Piper happily concedes that:

The “Doctrines of Grace” (Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace, Perseverance of the saints) are the warp and woof of the biblical gospel cherished by so many saints for centuries.

I responded as follows:

George, thanks again for chiming in on my blog. I just want to say in short that you are not representing the “Confessionally Reformed” tradition fairly. You may have met some obnoxious “5 pointers” and I can almost guarantee you that most have not actually read Calvin’s Institutes, nor the Confessional tradition that emanated from him (Belgic Confession, Canons of Dordt, Heidelberg Catechism). Calvin, along with the confessions, are very pastoral and present the doctrines of Scripture in a clear, yet necessarily nuanced form with regards to some doctrines that transcend our full ability to comprehend. Here’s an example from the Belgic Confession (emphasis mine):

Article 13: The Doctrine of God’s Providence

We believe that this good God, after he created all things, did not abandon them to chance or fortune but leads and governs them according to his holy will, in such a way that nothing happens in this world without his orderly arrangement.
Yet God is not the author of, nor can he be charged with, the sin that occurs. For his power and goodness are so great and incomprehensible that he arranges and does his work very well and justly even when the devils and wicked men act unjustly.

We do not wish to inquire with undue curiosity into what he does that surpasses human understanding and is beyond our ability to comprehend. But in all humility and reverence we adore the just judgments of God, which are hidden from us, being content to be Christ’s disciples, so as to learn only what he shows us in his Word, without going beyond those limits.This doctrine gives us unspeakable comfort since it teaches us that nothing can happen to us by chance but only by the arrangement of our gracious heavenly Father. He watches over us with fatherly care, keeping all creatures under his control, so that not one of the hairs on our heads (for they are all numbered) nor even a little bird can fall to the ground^20 without the will of our Father.

In this thought we rest, knowing that he holds in check the devils and all our enemies, who cannot hurt us without his permission and will.

George, on a personal note, I really wish you and CC would stop attacking Calvinism. I am meeting more and more former CC folks who have left because they were ostracized after claiming to like guys like John MacArthur, John Piper, and C.H. Spurgeon. It has gotten ridiculous out there. Do you seriously wish to continue to attack the Calvinistic understanding of God that MacArthur, Piper, Spurgeon, and the historical Church has held? Stop proclaiming that you are neutral on the Calvin-Arminian debate if you are going to continue to attack Calvinism and run very Godly pastors and “members” out of your churches and missions support because they share such convictions. I have met exCC folks who said that they would have remained in the fellowship with their Calvinisitic convictions if they weren’t attacked so vigorously. One gentleman told me that he was receiving correspondence from his CC friends about attending our church, whereas the concern was that we were heretical almost on the level of Mormonisn and JW. This is sad and I think you are partly responsible, unless of course you truly think we are borderline heretics, which means you should do everyone a service and tell all the CC bookstores to stop selling Tozer, MacArthur, Piper, Spurgeon, etc. My convictions are hardly any different from Spurgeon and yet his works are sold in most CC bookstores, whereas some CC members think that we as a church are almost heretical. Would you say the same about Spurgeon and his congregation? Consistency would definitely help, not only for your CC folks, but also for the church universal.

Grace and Peace…Rick

Book Review of David VanDrunen’s “Living in God’s Two Kingdoms: A Biblical Vision for Christianity and Culture”

Living in God’s Two Kingdoms: A Biblical Vision for Christianity and Culture

Copyright © 2010 by David VanDrunen

Published by Crossway Books

PRELIMS: This book was provided by Crossway for my personal review.

First off, Dr. VanDrunen is a credible author on the points in which he engages. He is a studied scholar in the realm of divinity and law. Such background is necessary for the topic in which he engages. Secondly, this book is much needed in the “Evangelical” world today as the church struggles and flounders through the murky issues of Christian engagement of culture, politics, etc. Lastly, VanDrunen approaches this work from the rich heritage of the “Two-Kingdom” theory you will find in Augustine, Luther, Calvin (although open to debate), and many contemporary Reformed thinkers.

THE GOOD:

VanDrunen establishes a historical understanding of the issues of how God rules in the world generally and in the Church specifically. He is well aware of Niebuhr’s work on “Christ and Culture” and establishes the framework of the debate judiciously. Before making an inductive thesis in support of the “Two-Kingdom” perspective, he engages critically in modern distortions of the Christians obligation to the world: N.T. Wright and the Emergent Church. His criticisms are insightful and helpful. Read the book for the nitty gritty.

I commend VanDrunen’s covenantal redemptive-historical framework throughout the book. He deals specifically with the covenant with Adam and how it consisted of his tending the garden (priestly duties), as well as governing the land (kingly duties). If Adam and his righteous progeny had succeeded, eternal bliss and rest would have followed, meaning that the “Creation Mandate” had a goal in view. Adam and Eve weren’t to perpetually bear children and work the land forever and ever as the last climatic act in their God-given charge. The priestly duties would have brought about consummated holiness in destroying the serpent and partaking of the tree of life, while the kingly duties would have brought earth under perfect subjection and thus a perfect consummate rest from labor. VanDrunen dedicates an entire chapter in elaborating upon these themes because the rest of the book makes no sense apart from this framework.  VanDruned then dedicates an entire chapter to exactly how Jesus has and will fulfill these charges given to Adam. VanDrunen states the following:

Before the second Adam no one accomplished the task of the first Adam, and after the second Adam no one needs to accomplish it. The last Adam has completed it once and for all. Christians will attain the original destiny of life in the world-to-come, but we do so not by picking up the task where Adam left off but by resting entirely on the work of Jesus Christ, the last Adam who accomplished the task perfectly.

 How did Christ accomplish Adam’s original task perfectly? Jesus did not personally fill the earth with his descendants or exercise dominion over all creatures in his human nature during his earthly ministry. But as considered in chapter 2, Adam was to have his entire obedience in the entire world determined through a particular test in a particular location. So it was for the last Adam. Like the first Adam, the Lord Jesus was confronted by the devil who tried to entice Christ to obey him, and King Jesus resisted the devil and conquered him (Matt. 4:1–11; Col. 2:15; Heb. 2:14). Like the first Adam, the Lord Jesus was called to priestly service, and Christ the Great High Priest purified God’s holy dwelling and opened the way for human beings back into his presence (Heb. 9:11–28; 10:19–22). Like the first Adam, the Lord Jesus was to enter God’s royal rest in the world-to- come upon finishing his work perfectly, and this is precisely what Christ did, entering into heaven itself, taking his seat at God’s right hand, ministering in the heavenly tabernacle, and securing our place in the world-to-come (Heb. 1:3; 4:14–16; 7:23–28).

This is absolutely essential for issues of Christianity and culture! If Christ is the last Adam, then we are not new Adams. To under- stand our own cultural work as picking up and finishing Adam’s original task is, however unwittingly, to compromise the sufficiency of Christ’s work. Christ perfectly atoned for all our sins, and hence we have no sins left to atone personally. Likewise, Christ perfectly sustained a time of testing similar to Adam’s: he achieved the new creation through his flawless obedience in this world. He has left nothing yet to be accomplished. God indeed calls Christians to suf fer and to pursue cultural tasks obediently through our lives. But to think that our sufferings contribute to atoning for sin or that our cultural obedience contributes to building the new creation is to compromise the all-sufficient work of Christ.

VanDrunen even pulls out the exclamation mark in reference to how important understanding the work of Christ is for determining our own obligations as a Christian.  We are now heavenly citizens who taste the world to come, but do not in any way bring it about. He states:

Humanistic Conservatism

Doug Wilson, reflecting on Glenn Beck’s novel The Overton Window and Beck’s view of humanity:

Our problem is humanism, and we cannot effectively counter radical leftist humanism with apparently milder right wing forms of it. The humanist believes that mankind is basically good and, going back to Socrates, the explanation for evil is ignorance. If man is basically good, where does all this evil come from? It has to come from ignorance, and the solution to ignorance is education. The solution to the political pathologies we see in Washington today is to get involved and “get informed.” But the biblical answer is repentance, and repentance all the way down. Our solution is not to get angry at what “they” are doing to us, but rather to be grieved at what we have done to ourselves. One of the basic things we have done in this regard is flatter ourselves — and Beck’s approach here is part of the problem.

Wilson’s not anti-Beck; in fact, he liked the book.  At least in the sense that so much (liberal and conservative) activism is about the egregious harm committed by some outside force against the innocent common people, Wilson echoes James Hunter’s critique of our political culture.

What a find.. 3 great debates!

I stumbled across this site that has  three GREAT debates on it.
1. The classic Dr. Greg Bahnsen vs Dr. Gorden Stein debate on the existence of God. Where Dr. Bahnsen masterfully employs the Transcendental argument.
2. The John Macarthur vs R.C Sproul debate (more competing presentations) on infant baptism.
3. James White vs Bart Ehrman “Misquoting Jesus” the reliability of the New Testament.

Download them asap, these things tend to disappear on the net. Drag this link address to your address bar.

http://www.tonybartolucci.com/briefcase.htm

The Nicodemus Objection

Over on Facebook, Pastor Rick wrote:

…if there was continuity in the constituting [of] God’s covenant people, Jesus would never have told Nicodemus that he must be born again. How dare Jesus be so pietistic as to tell a respected “covenant” member that he needs to be born again.

He echoes a question I once asked: why would Jesus tell Nicodemus that he must be born again if he was already in the covenant by circumcision?

Someone pointed out to me that “…Jesus is not talking about individual regeneration in John 3. Rather, he is talking about the need for a new Israel, a new humanity. Nicodemus needs to follow Jesus into the new world through death and resurrection. Being baptized will unite him with the disciples of Jesus, with those who are following Jesus into a new world.”

James Jordan puts it this way:

Nicodemus is brilliant. He says to Jesus, “You jest, surely. How many times have we been born again? the Flood, Sinai, Elijah, Cyrus. But it has never taken. You would have to back into mother’s womb and start over.”

“Yep,” says Jesus. “And watch me do it.”

Sure enough, Nicodemus is there when Jesus is buried back into mother’s womb. I’m certain Nicodemus knew Jesus would rise again, born anew from the soil. Maybe the disciples had doubts, but Nicodemus knew.

In union with Jesus’ resurrection we are all born anew from mother’s womb.

He also points out that John describes the tomb as a virgin:

19.41 Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb in which no one had yet been laid.

(Genesis 24.16 The young woman was very attractive in appearance, a maiden whom no man had known.)

Put this together with Luke’s record of Jesus vs. Sadducees on resurrection where he says that one becomes a son of God by being a son of the resurrection, and Peter’s sermon in Acts 2 about the “birth pangs” of death being unable to stop Jesus, the use of Psalm 2 (“today I have begotten you”) in the preaching of the resurrection of Jesus in Acts, the title “firstborn of the death,” Romans all over the place….

Jennifer Knapp, Larry King, Ted Haggard, and Bob Botsford = Painful Television

I watched Larry King Live on Friday night and was pretty disappointed with just about everything I was hearing, even from “Evangelicals” Ted Haggard and Bob Botsford. Here’s a summary of what disappointed me:

1. Jen Knapp – She is obviously still conflicted from her body language. It was unclear if she actually viewed her behavior as sinful, but justified within a framework of “we’re all sinners” or if she actually thought her lifestyle was commendable within a Biblical framework. She sounded unsure about Scriptural warrant as she repeatedly said that the Bible was written in Greek and subject to various interpretations. She didn’t make a case for her lifestyle from Scripture other than to say that there are some who understand the text in a way that would permit homosexual behavior. I was also disappointed with the privatization of the faith in her references, “My faith”, “My journey”, etc.
2. Larry King – He was obviously bent on viewing her lifestyle as something that she is inclined towards. He even reasoned that if God is all-powerful, then our inclinations must be consistent with His will. Bob Botsford had a great opportunity to respond to this faulty epistemology, but he failed to connect with this soft toss (more on that later). King was picking and choosing from the Judeo-Christian worldview to validate certain actions, while condemning others…yet another opportunity for Botsford to respond too.
3. Ted Haggard – He kept reaffirming that God is love and the Bible is all about having a personal relationship with Jesus. He even said that since Knapp and Botsford are on their separate journeys, and that they are equally saved by grace, they should not be criticizing one another. With Haggard also privatizing the faith, he was essentially an unwitting ally to Knapp in the conversation. This over-privatizing of the faith explains why Haggard felt that he was mishandled by his church’s board and the Foursquare denomination when his own mis-discretions became public. He apparently thought that church discipline was “unloving” and incompatible with love towards those in sin. If Ted Haggard thought he was “saved” during his escapades, then he must feel himself in a bind to denunciate Jen Knapp’s actions so long as she professes to be a Christian. He is making a category error in the role of Church discipline in connection with assurance of salvation. His ecclesiology seems pretty whack, doesn’t even sound like he would discipline Jen Knapp. Weird stuff.
4. Bob Botsford – He is an Evangelical pastor who had a Bible with him, but seemed very uncomfortable to be there and very ill-prepared in the apologetics of pulling down strongholds. He is a learned man, based on his website, but seems as if he has never been trained in epistemology and critiquing post-modern thought and moral relativity. It is great to quote the Bible over and over again, but at some point you need to be able to show the inconsistency and foolishness of the opposition by denying them many of their presuppositions that guide their thoughts and questions. He failed to do that. He should have asked Jen Knapp and Larry King if they have any sexual ethics and what such is based on. He should have asked them if they supported pedophiles, incestuous intercourse, bestiality, and rape. If they said no to any of those scenarios, they should have been asked to give a defense for what authority their denunciations are based on. They would have been revealed as inconsistent and morally bankrupt, as the real hypocrites in the discussion. He had so many opportunities to challenge the uncertain exegesis of Jen Knapp, the selective epistemology of Larry King, and the doubletalk of Ted Haggard, but failed. I was screaming for Al Mohler, Greg Koukl, or even John MacArthur to show up on set and make a respectable defense of the Evangelical faith, but such was not the case.

In closing, this was painful to watch. I do pray for Jen Knapp and have many of her songs on my Ipod. The only plus I take from the show was that she was very conflicted within and she was hardly honest when she said that she is happier than she has ever been. That is absolutely not true. I pray that she would turn in repentance before she is totally given over by God to her obstinate heart.

Marvin Olasky on Working for Justice

You may have heard about the Glenn Beck-Jim Wallis debate recently.  Beck told people to leave their churches if their clergy supported “social justice”; Wallis said that Beck had attacked a fundamental part of Christian teaching and should be shunned like Howard Stern.  To be frank, nothing that I read about the debate suggested that the important issues were being deeply engaged with.  It seemed much more about scoring points.

Marvin Olasky, on the other hand, had some good comments about it.  He has spent quite a bit of time approaching issues of poverty and justice from a conservative theological and political perspective.  He debated Wallis in March, and afterward wrote this about Christian engagement with the famously malleable term “social justice.”  The third point, which I’ve highlighted in bold, is really important, I think.

Is Brian McLaren “Whoring” the Gospel?

Tim Challies seems to think so in his recent review of McLaren’s book, “A New Kind of Christianity”. Check out his blogpost here. A couple excerpts:

It would take more time than I’d be willing to give it to offer a point-by-point explanation of what responses McLaren proposes for each of the ten questions or to document the ramifications of his new theology. He denies the Fall, he denies original sin, he denies human depravity, he denies hell. And that is just in the first few pages. Needless to say, all of this leads him to a radically unbiblical view of the cross and the purpose and work of Jesus. Though he insists that he considers the Bible “inspired” (though certainly not in a traditional sense) he also says that most Christians have read it wrong, having viewed it as a kind of constitution in which God gives Spirit-breathed, inerrant revelation of himself. “I’m recommending we read the Bible as an inspired library. This inspired library preserves, presents, and inspires an ongoing vigorous conversation with and about God, a living and vital civil argument into which we are all invited and through which God is revealed.” After all, “revelation doesn’t simply happen in statements. It happens in conversations and arguments that take place within and among communities of people who share the same essential questions across generations. Revelation accumulates in the relationships, interactions, and interplay between statements.”

What does the Bible accomplish then? What does it teach us about God? “Scripture faithfully reveals the evolution of our ancestors’ best attempts to communicate their successive best understandings of God. As human capacity grows to conceive of a higher and wiser view of God, each new vision is faithfully preserved in Scripture like fossils in layers of sediment.” The Bible is an ongoing conversation about God’s character in which humans come to progressively more accurate understandings of who he is. There is no reason to think that any of them actually had it right. His reinterpretations of Job and Romans are a sight to behold, so muddled and so fabricated that they become absolutely nonsensical. There is a deliberate ignorance at work here.

Challies holds no punches in the following words:

Here, in A New Kind of Christianity it’s as if McLaren is screaming “I hate God!” at the top of his lungs. And swarms of Christians are looking at him with admiration and saying, “See how that guy loves God?” I don’t know what McLaren could do to make the situation more clear. In fact, his book is nearly indistinguishable from many of the de-conversion narratives that are all the rage today. Compare it with Bart Ehrman’s God’s Problem and you’ll see many of the same arguments and the same misgivings; you’ll find, though, that Ehrman is at least more honest. He at least has the integrity to walk away from faith altogether rather than reinventing God in his own image.

McLaren says he would prefer atheism over belief in the God so many of us see in Scripture. Well, he is not far off. This new kind of Extreme Makeover: God Edition Christianity is no Christianity at all. It is not a faith made in the image of Jesus Christ, but a faith made in the image of a man who despises God and who is hell-bent on dragging others along with him as he becomes his own god.

As Winston turned up the light, he saw that prostitute for what she really was. Here McLaren turns up the light and we see what his faith, what his Christianity, really is. We see it in all its toothless, caked-on horror. This new kind of Christianity is simply paganism behind a thick coating of false humility and biblical language. It is an expression of rebellion against God far more than it is a pursuit of new intimacy with the Creator.

And like Orwell’s whore, many will go to this book seeking intimacy with God only to content themselves with rebellion against him. For each is satisfying in its own way.

My Angst with Dispensational Defiance of Rejecting an Apostolic Hermeneutic of the Old Testament

The cited material comes from Robert L. Thomas’ volume, “Understanding Spiritual Gifts”. Thomas (1999:141), who is an able exegete and professor at the Master’s Seminary, evidences nonetheless a priori commitment to a systematic paradigm that influences, in my estimation, a reading of certain texts, namely Joel 2:28:

Prophets in the future will minister to people of Israel and the world at large during the seventieth week of Daniel, after the rapture of the church (Joel 2:28). They will not be the prophets described in relation to the gifts of the Spirit bestowed on members of the body of Christ because the church will no longer be on earth during that period.

Thomas’ dispensational paradigm won’t allow him to see any application of Joel 2:28 to the church, even in the face of Peter’s application of such to the “Church”. While Dispensationals will respond by stating that Peter’s application of Joel was only applicable for the nation of Israel, this ignores the fact that Peter offers the same promised Spirit to those “afar off”, to all who would repent and be baptized. 3000 Jews repented on the day of Pentecost, so one can’t say that the Joeline promise was pulled from the table because of Israel’s rejection. Israel’s acceptance opens the door for the same promise to extend outward to include even Gentile believers, which was the great scandal of the Gospel. While I admit that Peter may have been speaking better than he knew, it is clear for me, that according to Luke’s recounting the Joeline promise was distributed to Gentiles and would continue to be dispensed upon all who turn to Christ in repentance.

For Thomas to run roughshod over Peter’s application and state so clearly that Joel’s application is relegated only to Daniel’s seventieth week to a specific number of prophets who are mainly ministering to the Jewish nation is a rejection of the expansion of this promise to the New Covenant. It is a reading of Joel that ignores the fact that Peter applied it in a way that contradicts a priori hermeneutical conviction that Joel must apply to ethnic Jews and within a brief appointed time in God’s eschatological theme. Dispensationals wish to deal with the OT on its own terms, which is commendable, but almost treat the Apostolic hermeneutic of the OT as erroneous and an inconvenience. Do these Dispensationals really understand the OT better than Jesus and the Apostles?

Thomas (1999:134) also argues against the application of Joel 2:28-29 to the current New Covenant era based on the fact that not “all” prophesy:

Based on Numbers 11:29 and Joel 2:28-29, the expectation of all God’s people was that everyone would prophesy, but God has appointed only a limited number to be prophets. The idea that Christians should seek the gift as thought it were available to all is misleading if it is available only to a restricted number of Christians.

I agree that not all prophesy, but hardly see that as proof that Joel is not being fulfilled. It is like saying that the New Covenant promises of salvation being extended to all people isn’t literally being fulfilled because not all people are saved. Should we dare claim the promises to people and encourage them to seek salvation knowing that not all are saved? Thomas is presuming that to be faithful to Joel’s promise, all of God’s people must prophesy. The irony is that most Dispensationals don’t even believe that all will prophesy when Joel is fulfilled in Daniel’s seventieth week. Thomas thinks that, “The idea that Christians should seek the gift as thought it were available to all is misleading if it is available only to a restricted number of Christians.” Well, apparently Paul had no problem encouraging the Christian community to desire prophecy (1 Cor. 14:5). Peter presumed that the collective Christian community was endowed with “charismata”, including speaking gifts (1 PT 4:10-11).

If Thomas thinks it erroneous for Christians to be so mistaken as to dare seek prophecy, he stands in contradiction to Paul and Peter. Paul and Peter apparently didn’t share Thomas’ exegesis and theology on this point. Prophecy is not only available to the Christian community, but they are actually encouraged to seek it. While not all will prophesy, this is hardly proof against the fulfillment of Joel 2:28-29, which Peter seem convinced was the best explanation for the observed behavior on Pentecost. Who are we to believe in this matter? I would encourage Thomas and dispensational to stop accusing folks like me of altering the literal meaning of “all” in Joel 2:28-29 when there is Apostolic precedent that the text wasn’t understood, nor applied in that manner.

As much as I disagree with a Covenantal view of Joel’s application within the New Covenant, they at least view Pentecost itself as fulfillment of Joel 2:28-29. While they restrict the fulfillment to Pentecost, they prove more faithful to Peter than the Dispensationals do.

George Bryson and I Continue Our Dialogue on Calvinism

Rick,

“By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of those ends, we say that he has been predestined to life or death.” (John Calvin).

As you are aware, not all Reformed or Calvinist websites are “equal”. Some who claim to be Calvinists do not agree with what Calvin said when he said that some people were create for eternal damnation. What about those on this web
site?

“created for” “eternal damnation”

George Bryson

My response is as follows:

Mr. Bryson,

I would need to write a book in response to that question. Let’s just say that GOD is sovereign, that He chose to create the world as we now know it, fully aware of everything that would come to pass (including the knowledge of those who would reject Him and suffer His wrath) and yet He still chose to create as He did. I do not believe there are limitations on God’s involvement with creation. There are times where He chooses to be passive (though it is according to His will, and His agency is less involved) and times when His agency is interventionist in nature. He can frustrate the kings, raises up leaders, pulls down leaders, is able to kill (Ananias and Sapphira) whenever and whoever He pleases.

Since I believe that God was not constrained and bound to create the world as we know it, and that He freely chose to create the world as we know it, then people being damned is well within His providential counsel. I believe that He could have created a world with no hell, He could have destroyed the Serpent before creation of the world, He could have given Adam no prohibitions, He could have done a lot of things. Such speculation isn’t helpful when we think in constant hypotheticals, but it does show us that God either created freely, or in constrained fashion, or He really didn’t know what was to come to pass and is either voluntarily bound from seeing the future (open theism) or necessarily bound from seeing free acts in the future (process theology). Even non-Calvinists who assert God’s exhaustive foreknowledge, if they believe God was free to create otherwise while hypothetically looking at different outcomes, still must deal with the fact that God created with the knowledge that some would suffer damnation and chose not to create otherwise.

You can say all you want about a person’s damnation being wholly their choice, which I agree with, but the mere fact that they even exist is according to God’s will, unless you’re a deist and deny to God the freedom over even who comes into existence. Anyhow, I don’t think that a person who asserts God’s exhaustive foreknowledge can conveniently pass off eternal wrath to Calvinists. This is why an increasing number of “Arminian” theologians have adopted a middle knowledge position, open theism, process theology, and some forms bordering on deism. You can’t avoid the very things you disagree with in Calvinism if you yourself believe that God foreknew the rejection of many people who would suffer wrath…that he could have created otherwise a world in which there was no potential for sin (which will be realized in New Heavens and Earth); but still chose to create as He did; with suffering, evil, and wrath included. It is what it is and I tremble before this Sovereign God, shut my lips against any accusation, “Why did you make me this way? Why did you crate the world as you did? etc etc etc”. Paul warns us from giving counsel to God or questioning His providential wisdom in all things.

Whether you believe that God is more or less active in the reprobation of sinners is somewhat besides the point if you still believe that God freely chose what we now know, fully aware of everything that would come to pass. If you reserve the right to God to have changed the outcome as we know it, then you are “Calvinistic”. We can bicker over supralapsarianism and infralapsarianism, or whether God actively condemns the sinner, or merely passes over the sinner and is more active in the redemption of the elect, but I think such discussions are somewhat vain if the intent is to somehow exclude reprobation from God’s eternal purposes. If the concern is more directed towards understanding God’s disposition and heart in the matter, then that would be a discussion perhaps worth having. Let me know what your intent was in asking my understanding of Calvin’s quote. Thanks.

Brother in Christ,

Rick Hogaboam, Pastor, Sovereign Grace Fellowship of Nampa (ID)

P.S.

For blog readers, George Bryson is the director for the Calvary Chapel Church Planting Mission Ministry and I am grateful for his service to the Kingdom and pray for God’s blessing upon their ministry.

George Bryson Responds to Calvinism and Endued Blogger Matthew Masiewicz

You never know what will occur in the blogosphere. It is definitely encouraging when someone reads the blog and takes the time to offer some comments. Author George Bryosn responded to Matt’s blog, “4 Reasons Why I Dislike Hyper-Calvinism More than Arminianism“. Mr. Bryson has authored a couple books, that he mentions in his comments, on Calvinism from an Arminian perspective. I personally recall reading his “5 Points of Calvinism” booklet in my Calvary Chapel days and soon realized that  Calvary Chapel wasn’t as neutral as they claimed to be when my Calvinism would not suit my desires to pursue ministry in Calvary Chapel while I was attending Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa School of Ministry and interned at Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa. I still wonder why they had us read Spurgeon, Bunyan, Lloyd-Jones, MacArthur, brought in Allistair Begg for a conference, if we students weren’t allowed to have any of their “Calvinistic” doctrine . Enough autobiography, here are Mr. Bryson’s kind feedback:

Dear Matthew

I appreciate the respectful tone in which you point out the differences between hyper-Calvinism and what some have referred to as hypo-Calvinism. This approach has shown to be more effective in generating light and less likely to produce heat. If you read either one of my books-The Five Points of Calvinism-Weighed and Found Wanting and The Dark Side of Calvinism you should have noticed that I do not confuse the two but clearly differentiate between them. Some mainstream Calvinists have chosen to use the views of the more extreme Calvinists to duck questions about what Calvin taught and historic and mainstream Calvinism teaches explicitly or implicitly. There is a reason Doug Wilson says that my representation of Calvinism is both fair and accurate. It is fair and accurate. The main reason that so many Calvinists take offense at my books (once they have read them) is that I have this nasty habit of quoting mainstream Calvinists and Calvin himself at length-to insure context. When I ask a Calvinist to point what it is I say that Sproul, Piper, MacArthur, White, Packer, Boice (etc) say that they do not agree with or that they do not agree that they said it, I am usually met with a blank stare. If you do not agree with what I say Calvinism teaches you do not agree with Calvinism. Both books are on line and free. Have a great day. In Christ, George

I’m sure Matt will have some sort of response. Stay tuned.

Brit Hume Stands by His Words

Here is the latest clip from Hume, explaining his rationale behind suggesting that Tiger Woods’ should turn to Christ. I have a ton of thoughts that I wish to offer, but will simply redact myself in stating that Hume acknowledges that he was trying to be less offensive by initially referring to the “Christian faith” rather that the name “Jesus Christ”, and that it still invites the same reaction of hostility. Hume said that “all hell breaks loose” when one invokes the name of Christ. Knowing that Hume knows this and yet proceeded with such words suggests to me that Hume is willing to suffer reproach for his comments.

I also want to mention that it is far more freeing to me as a listener to hear political commentators, etc, publicly acknowledge their convictions. Even if I disagree with such convictions, I think there is much more credibility to commentary that is acknowledged within a system of some sorts.

There is a double-standard in the media that has long needed to be exposed for what it is. I have watched “news” where people have offered their convictions in opposition to driving SUV’s because it is contributing to global warming, opposition to wearing leather or eating meat because it causes the death of an animal, promotion of animal rights, etc. Why is it that  when someone is critical of a religious conviction, they get grilled for it, but it is seemingly okay to attack people for eating animals. Rather than shutting both down, I want the megaphone to get louder and broader about matters of faith and action. I want PETA to explain why they decry Obama killing a fly, but are seemingly okay with puncturing an infant’s brain in the womb of the mother. And if there is a Buddhist who thinks that their faith offers redemption, I want them to explain it. If there is a hedonistic atheist who thinks that morals are relative and that Tiger is better off single and sleeping around with how many ever consenting women he wishes and that we should shut up about it, let them speak up and make their appeals.

Religion should not be off limits in the free market of ideas. Let it abound, let the masses listen, let the masses discuss, let them decide. And if they hate Brit Hume, then let them. I am not decrying so much the fact that people hate Hume mentioning Jesus, I expect that. What I hate is this awkward deference of religion as being personal and something that should remain private in the public sphere. We can disagree, get outraged, protest, whatever…but let us disagree with what people say while also reserving their right to say it. I guess if your opinion even extends to saying that “Hume shouldn’t have said…”, then there will not be agreement on the parameters of dialogue in the public sphere, however do acknowledge the inconsistency of decrying my eating of animals and yet ruling foul my comments about your philosophical/religious convictions.

We are seemingly moving closer to a society that would punish Hume for “hate speech” and pro-lifers for decrying the murdering of babies, but seemingly hold in high esteem the free speech of atheists who decry the Christian faith as the source of all evils and how things would be better if Christianity ceased to exist.  Keith Olberman can scrutinize Christian “nut jobs”, but Brit Hume cseemingly can’t scrutinize Buddhism and suggest Christianity as a better alternative for redemption?

4 Reasons Why I Dislike Hyper-Calvinism more than Arminianism

Today I was pondering evangelism because I’m going to be teaching on the subject soon. I was thinking of my upbringing  which was basically Arminian,  I grew up at Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa. I am happy to say that saw much fruit from that place. I was introduced to Jesus, taught the importance of scripture and encouraged to follow Jesus. I was saved in THAT context.  I do have some problems with some of their methodology, but not to their commitment and veal. Unfortunately this denomination has been vocal lately against the Doctrines of Grace through their radio and print media. George Bryson and Chuck Smith in particular are actively warning people about Calvinism. Yet, what they describe is inevitably Hyper-Calvinism. But as a Calvinist I feel I must correct their misunderstanding while at the same time stand against the caricture that they are presenting. I infact like Arminianism better than Hyper-Calvinism, here is why.

Reason 1. Hyper-Calvinism mostly denies the well mean offer of the Gospel. Many Hyper-Calvinists only see the Gospel call as simply heaping hotter into their future in Hell.While I disagree with the Arminian on the nature and extent of the Atonement I will happily embrace the notion that God’s gospel call is a sincere plea and command for sinners to repent and believe. This is a tenant of historical Calvinism. We call all men to repent and believe in Jesus and declare that God will save all who turn to His Son in faith.

Reason 2. Many Hyper-Calvinists deny God’s common grace. They say that any good shown to the non elect merely is a by-product of His love for His chosen and will ultimately add to their condemnation. This is pure nonsense. God over and over points to His care for all people as proof of his goodness and love. The very fact that God doesn’t eternally condemn us the moment we sin is proof enough. While I would disagree with the Arminian that God MUST love every person in the same way without distinction such as is a common theme with both Dave Hunt and George Bryson, I would agree that God loves all people.

Reason 3. Hyper-Calvinists lack evangelistic  fervor. True Calvinism drives missions with passion, knowing that God will advance His Kingdom and call out His elect from all nations for His glory.  Arminians likewise seek the salvation of the lost to which I say amen. I much rather hear an Arminian leaning gospel than none at all.

Reason 4. Hyper-Calvinism is the caricature that true Calvinism is portrayed as. When someone asks me if I am a Calvinist I am almost afraid to answer. Usually I ask “What do you mean by the term Calvinist”? The answer I get more often than not is some form of Hyper-Calvinism. They say that Calvinists don’t love the lost, evangelize, are mean-spirited, etc. Unfortunately most Arminians don’t care to differentiate.

It is my sincere hope that Calvary Chapel would at least learn enough about Reformed people to see that we are not the monster in the closet that they think.

My critique of the Hunt vs Pipa debate on the Atonement

Well, today I listened to the Hunt vs Pipa debate on the atonement. Let me say that I grew up in Calvary Chapel circles, so Dave Hunt is very familiar to me obviously. I have great respect toword him for exposing many dangers facing the Church. Unfortnately he lables Calvinism as a dangerous doctrine and is actively attacking it through radio, print and lectures. His opponent for this debate is Dr. Joseph Pipa. This was my first time listening to Dr Pipa and I was very impressed with the clarity which  he presented Particular Redemption. He presented a strong positive position from scripture and defanged common objections with a spirit of charity. Dave Hunt seemed more interested is attacking the whole system of Calvinism rather than sticking to the topic. He did not present a positive case for Unlimited Atonement other than quoting a few verses such as John 3:16 without any exegesis. He constantly confused definitions such as “Salvation” and “Regeneration” making them completely synonymous. I was left wondering if it was a willing bait and switch or if he really doesn’t know that regeneration is a  part of salvation, but not the sum total of it. He did not interact with Dr Pipa’s arguments at all other than to dismiss them. Over all I thought that Mr. Hunt lost that debate badly. Now, I know you may be thinking that I am only saying that because I agree theologically with Dr. Pipa. Well, I am Calvinist to be sure and I was rooting for my team without doubt. But I do have a history of honestly critiquing debates even if my guy doesn’t do well. For example, I thought that the Jehovah’s Witness apologist Greg Stafford soundly handled himself against an unprepared Robert Bowman, and I took heat for publicly saying so. But Judge the Hunt vs Pipa debate for yourself. Here are the links, part 1&2. Highlight and drag links to you address bar.

Catholic Idolatry

Mark Horne has a helpful post on why he is not a Roman Catholic. An excerpt:

1. Idolatry is a huge sin and praying through icons (whether 3d or 2d) is idolatry.  I cannot possibly engage in such a practice, allow anyone in my guardianship to do so, or excuse such a thing, without falling into rank unbelief.
2. Necromancy is almost as huge a sin and praying to the departed saints is necromancy.  See #1 above.  People raised thinking bigamy is Christian may be true Christians, but people who know better are living in sin and without hope of eternal life unless they repent of such behavior.
3. The way some Roman Catholic constituencies provide ministry opportunities for defectors from Protestantism is, of course, tempting–but it can hardly count as anything more than thirty pieces of silver if #1 and #2 hold.  If one must be marginalized and impoverished in the Protestant world due to sectarian sins, well, God has called many Christians and their families to far worse martyrdoms.
4. Claiming unity can be achieved by everyone else joining one’s own denomination is exactly the sect spirit that is so loathsome in many Protestant groups, and it gains no more attractiveness in Rome.

While Mark’s honesty will offend many who justify idolatry by appealing to John of Damascus, we have an opposite example in the Internet Monk’s interview with Bryan Cross, someone who has made that plunge into idolatry. I don’t know why these issues are never raised in these ecumenical interviews. Many Protestants still seem to assume that justification is the core issue between us and Rome, while in fact idolatry is and always has been one of the central concerns of the Reformation, if one that is often ignored today.