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:

A Theological Critique of the New Calvinist Movement

Recently, Kevin DeYoung linked to an article in The Christian Century about the New Calvinist movement.  In the article, Western Theological Seminary Professor J. Todd Billings evaluates the movement’s faithfulness to the broader Reformed tradition.  He believes that “The New Calvinists, with their God-centered message and their focus on dogmatic theology, make a robust contribution to contemporary ecclesial theological conversation.”  As DeYoung notes, Billings briefly highlights some of the ways that the movement has crossed racial boundaries (click here for my thoughts on this development):

Moreover, the New Calvinism displays considerable diversity. African-American rapper Curtis “Voice” Allen is known for his distinctively Calvinist lyrics (“I been exposed to bright lights, the doctrines of grace, I’m elected, imputed perfected . . . Cuz nothing can stop his plan, and as far as the east is from the west more than time zones, man”). The New Calvinists admire not only white Puritans but “black Puritan” voices like Lemuel Haynes and Anthony Carter, who gives an African-American take on the themes of the New Calvinism in On Being Black and Reformed.

At the same time, he believes that the movement focuses too much on TULIP at the expense of the rest of the Reformed theological heritage.  Billings doesn’t believe that TULIP works as a summary of Reformed theology and that wording of “limited atonement” and “irresistible grace” don’t really communicate the Reformed view very well.  See the article for his explanations.  Here are his main critiques:

When Reformed identity is summarized by TULIP, some key elements of the Reformed tradition are lost or distorted.

For example: Reformed theology operates with a catholic and biblical vision. Unlike some Protestants—including some of the New Calvinists—the classical Reformed tradition avoids acting as if the Spirit abandoned the church between the first and the 20th centuries. It believes that the Spirit has been active in the church throughout its history. For the first two centuries of the Reformed tradition in particular, its theologians read extensively from the church fathers and medieval theologians, seeking to discern the Spirit’s work in the past. Major portions of the Reformed confessions draw upon the patristic and medieval Christian teachings on the attributes of God, Christology and the Trinity. On topics like these, the Reformed tradition is catholic.

The Surprising Fingerprints of John Calvin on Pentecostal Theology of the Lord’s Supper, Sanctification, and Polity

Growing up Pentecostal and still considering myself a “neo-Pentecostal” of sorts, I wish to honor Calvin’s influence upon Pentecostal theology in this the year of his 500th birthday. I see his influences mostly in regards to the  Lord’s Supper, Sanctification, and Ecclesiology.

First, in regards to the Lord’s Supper, note the following from “Foundations of Pentecostal Theology” written by Foursquare stalwarts Nathaniel Van Cleave and Guy Duffield:

2. Regarding the nature of the element of The Lord’s Supper, there are four views:

a) Transubstantiation, the view of the Roman Catholic Church. According to this view, the elements, when blessed by the priest, are changed into the actual physical body and blood of Jesus. This view is contradicted by experience, for it has never been shown by any test that the elements are anything but bread and the fruit of the vine. It is also contradicted by logic, for Jesus was still in His physical body when He instituted the ordinance and said of the bread, “this is my body.”

b) Consubstantiation, held by Martin Luther. According to this view, the elements are unchanged, but the actual body and blood of Jesus are “present with” the elements. These views are nowhere upheld by Scripture. Further, they encourage superstition and overemphasize the physical over the spiritual blessings of The Lord’s Supper.

c) The observance of the supper is merely a memorial act that mediates no blessing. This is the other extreme to the Catholic and Lutheran views.

d) The elements, when received by faith, mediate to the believer the spiritual benefits of Christ’s Death, held by Calvin and the majority of the reformers. The elements in themselves are only tokens, but when received by faith, real communion with the Lord is experienced and the benefits of that communion may be mediated. This seems to be the more scriptural view. (See 1 Cor. 10:16; 11:27, 28, 29.)^[1]

You will note that Calvin’s dynamic presence view of the Supper is preferred. This makes Pentecostals more akin to Reformed Sacramentalism than the traditional Baptistic memorial view of the meal. I have always thought Pentecostals to be experientialy more sacramental with regards to baptism and the supper than to most Baptists and I am grateful for this heritage where the meal was received as something sacred and a real “communing” with the Lord.

With regards to the doctrine of sanctification, the early Pentecostal movement was influenced greatly by the Holiness movement and actually held to 3 works of grace: salvation, entire sanctification, and baptism with the Holy Spirit. The Assemblies of God and Foursquare opted to do away with the Holiness view of entire sanctification (Christian perfection) and instead opted for the Calvinistic view of sanctification as being positional in salvation, progressive and imperfect throughout this life, and only complete and entire at the translation of our bodies. While the Wesleyan-Holiness movement emphasized the need for entire sanctification as a second work of grace wrought in a Spiritual crises where the believer yields his body wholly and completely to the Lord, never to commit a sin of commission again, the Pentecostals saw this as unbiblical and I would say was benefited by Calvin and the protestant doctrine of sanctification. I am again grateful for this heritage over-against the Holiness heritage, where I would still be looking for my entire sanctification, only to be quickly disappointed after I thought I got it.

Lastly, with regards to Ecclesiology and Polity, neither Assemblies of God or Foursquare are entirely independent autonomous bodies. In fact, the AOG abides by a modified Presbyterian model, whereas Foursquare abides by a modified Episcopalian model. Calvin is obviously instrumental in popularizing Presbyterian polity and the AOG has been influenced by such.

There are other obvious influences of Calvin in certain aspects of Pentecostalism, but I found these to be interesting.

---

^[1] Duffield, G. P., & Van Cleave, N. M. (1983). Foundations of Pentecostal theology (437–438). Los Angeles, Calif.: L.I.F.E. Bible College.

Trip Lee Repping Christ with 20/20

http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendID=54669583

Trip Lee is tight as always with his lyrics. Click on the link for some audio samples from his new album. Reach Records is doing an amazing work…check out their site http://www.reachrecords.com/index.php

Anyhow, it is great to hear Holy Hip-Hop saturated with God-centered theology. Trip Lee thanks the likes of John Piper, Mark Driscoll, and John MacArthur for his theological growth. Calvinistic theology crunked out is probably something that Calvin and Jonathan Edwards would never have imagined, but anything that spreads a supremacy for God in all things, they would be down with. I am trying to imagine Calvin and Edwards crunking out to Trip Lee, pretty hilarious image. Anyhow…thanks Trip Lee for another great album!!!

Top 10 Reasons Why Calvinists Should Show More Humility

 

It is unfortunate that many Calvinists have established a stereotype of being arrogant, mean, and snobby about their theological convictions. It is for this reason that I do believe a recently converted Calvinist should be locked in a closet for a few months before speaking to anyone or commit themselves to these 10 truths and acknowledge the need for humility in all discourse.

10. John Wesley must have been pretty physically fit from his horseback riding…some even suggest that he rode some 250,000 miles on horseback. This suggests that he was a strong dude. Calvin, on the otherhand, hardly ate, drank lots of wine, and often fasted. In a boxing match, I would humbly have to concede that Wesley would knock Calvin out in the 1st Round.

9. We do believe that we are totally depraved and wicked in our hearts, right? If we therefore believe that we are more deprave than our Arminian counterparts, we should be humbler. We believe that we are worse people than Arminians think of themselves, so be humble.

“Emotional Calvinism” reaching Muslims in Turkey

                    

I was pleased that Christianity Today focused an article on Christianity in Turkey, “Jesus in Turkey” (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/january/12.25.html?start=2). The article notes that Turkey is rich in the Christian tradition as the Apostle Paul planted churches there and such. When it came under Islamic rule in 1453, the percentage of Christians started to decrease. Recently, Turkey has seen a surge of Christian converts and one such pastor who is instrumental in this growth is Turgay Ucal.

This Muslim Turk turned Christian had a heart to reach others in his demographic, recognizing that there was a void of Churches that were able to relate well with such a group. Turgay planted a church, risking his life, and has seen continued growth. Turgay’s church pursued a charismatic style of worship, complemented by an emphasis on systematic theology. Ucal noticed that his Muslim Turks responded well to a systematized approach better than an informal evangelicalism. Essentially, Ical is reaching Muslim Turks with passionate charismatic worship and systematic theology. This approach was dubbed “Emotional Calvinism” in the article.

“Emotional Calvinism”…”Experiential Calvinism”…etc are all phrases that sum well what I long for in American Evangelicalism and piety. I want to seek God with all my heart AND all my mind. Our pursuit of God should involve the totality of our being. I think the Bible and Jesus said something about loving God in such a way. I pray that “Mindless Mysticism” and “Cold Orthodoxy” would collide and converge.

Anyhow, may God continue to work in Turkey!!!

Sovereign Grace Leading and Saving in Philippi

    

 

I was meditating and thinking upon God’s sovereign hand at work in saving all whom He has appointed to salvation. He has decreed the salvation of His beloved adopted children and WILL SEE TO IT IMMUTABLY that all His lost sheep are gathered before the day of His appearing.  Paul’s journey to Philippi is undeniably marked by God’s Sovereign grace. Consider the following passages:

Acts 16:9  And a vision appeared to Paul in the night: a man of Macedonia was standing there, urging him and saying, “Come over to Macedonia and help us.”

Here we see God at work in Sovereignly revealing His will for Paul through a dream. No dream, no trip to Macedonia. God is at work in directing where Paul should go. God is sovereignly guiding and directing His affairs so that He might save those whom He has appointed.

Acts 16:11-12 So, setting sail from Troas, we made a direct voyage to Samothrace, and the following day to Neapolis, (12)and from there to Philippi, which is a leading city of the district of Macedonia and a Roman colony. We remained in this city some days.

This stop in Philippi will prove to be no coincidence or mere R&R. God has souls to save and has sent Paul here to see to it that some lost sheep are found.