Josiah Concept Ministries

Defending the Faith Against Its Detractors

  • Subscribe

  • Catch Me on Twitter

  • Facebook

  • Categories

  • Recent Posts

  • Quick Links

  • SocialVibe


Archive for the ‘Calvinism’ Category

Does God Hate the Non-Elect?

Posted by Cory Tucholski on October 3, 2009

Over at his blog, Rey has posted that God hates the non-elect. Twice.

Rey thinks this because he denies that the default human condition is sinful and thus opposed to God by its very nature. It is not necessary for God to hate us first so that we may hate him; hating God and denying the Creator is only natural to the creation because of the Fall.

Natural man, in his natural state, is opposed to God. That is why he hates God. It is not the converse of 1 John 4:19.

But, when God enlightens us and makes us a new creation, we are then able to love God because he first loved us.

Rey is attacking the hyper-Calvinistic notion that God hates the non-elect. There is much Scriptural evidence that he does, in fact, love all of his creation (Jn 3:16–”For God so loved the world. . .”). The elect he loves more deeply (Rom 8:29–”For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed . . .”). God commands us to love our enemies. Why would he command us to do something that he himself doesn’t already do? Do the wicked not receive blessings from God?

In order to substantiate his position, Rey must show us, either from Scripture or Reformed writings, that God loves only his elect. Scripture shows he takes care of his elect, but both Scripture and natural theology indicate that he loves both the elect and the non-elect.

Why does God elect some and not others? Well, that is a mystery, but it is not random (as Rey repeatedly suggests by comparing election to a lottery).

Posted in Apologetics, Bible Thoughts, Calvinism, Theology | 11 Comments »

Can a Regenerate Christian be Totally Depraved?

Posted by Cory Tucholski on September 23, 2009

Interesting post over at Arminian Perspectives, asking whether or not John Calvin was a regenerate Christian. Apparently, one Calvinist commenter to an earlier post said that Calvin was still totally depraved, which is why he dealt with Servetus the way that he did.

This immediately creates a problem for the Calvinist. What is total depravity? This is the state that an unregenerate, non-Christian is in prior to his conversion. This is the state that most people stay in their entire lives. People love their sin, now more than ever. So, is Calvin a non-Christian, or can the Christian be totally depraved?

I don’t believe that a Christian can be totally depraved. Total depravity represents a state of complete spiritual death (Eph 2:1-3; Rom 7:5). Total depravity means that the person is unable to know or respond to the things of God (Eph 4:18). But the believer is a new creation (2 Cor 5:17), dead to sin and alive in Christ (Rom 6:11). As Arminian Perspectives asks, “How can one be dead in sin and dead to sin at the same time?”

So why did Calvin treat Servetus the way that he did? Moreover, why do Christians sin, seemingly at the same rate as non-Christians? Because, though we are a new creation, we are still not glorified or made perfect. Only in our new and glorified bodies will we unable to sin. The Westminster Confession of Faith sums it up:

This corruption of nature, during this life, does remain in those that are regenerated; and although it be, through Christ, pardoned, and mortified; yet both itself, and all the motions thereof, are truly and properly sin. (VI.5, see 1 Jn 1:8, 10; Rom 7:14, 17-18, 23; Jms 3:2; Prv 20:9; Eccl 7:20)

This sanctification is throughout, in the whole man; yet imperfect in this life, there abiding still some remnants of corruption in every part; whence arises a continual and irreconcilable war, the flesh lusting against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh. (XIII.2)

Posted in Apologetics, Calvinism, Sin, Theology | 7 Comments »

Scriptural Evidence for Irresistable Grace

Posted by Cory Tucholski on September 17, 2009

Read the entire article here.

Many moons ago, I promised to look at Scriptural evidence for irresistible grace. Well, obviously, I’ve been busy since then and haven’t had the time to get around to it. But now I’ve had a few free moments, so I thought I’d post on that very topic.

It may be helpful to review my definition of irresistible grace here.

The Golden Chain of Redemption makes an impressive case for irresistible grace by itself. The same people predestined are also called, justified, and glorified. But the writings of John are where one can find the strongest case for irresistible grace.

Consider Jesus’ words in John 6:36: “All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.” Jesus is saying that everyone given to him by the Father comes to him. It is helpful to remember that Jesus later declares “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him . . .” (6:44) and “. . . no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father” (6:65).

We know that it is the elect that God gives to Jesus, and Jesus says that “Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me . . .” (John 6:45; see also 6:36). Combined with the Golden Chain of Redemption, the case for irresistible grace is very good.

Posted in Calvinism, Theology | 4 Comments »

Is God the Author of Sin in Calvinism?

Posted by Cory Tucholski on September 14, 2009

Frequently, we hear the charge leveled against Calvinism and its insistence on meticulous divine sovereignty that makes God the author of sin. The typical argument goes something like this:

  1. God foreordained all that happens in the world.
  2. Sin is part of this foreordained world.
  3. Therefore, God foreordained sin.
  4. Therefore, God is the author of sin.

Does this argument hold? I don’t think so. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Calvinism, Sin, Theology | 35 Comments »

No Reformed Writers Deny That Salvation is by Faith

Posted by Cory Tucholski on May 25, 2009

Since I haven’t written in a while, I was surprised to find that Rey had posted an entry in his blog, since his posts generally respond to my own. This time, it looks as if things will be the other way around.

Normally, I ignore Rey but this time he has posted something that is such an obvious error that I can’t pass it up. He says that Hebrews 11:6 is proof that Calvinists cannot be saved as long as they are Calvinists. That simply isn’t true, and if Rey did his homework on the Reformed position, he’d know that. Far from disproving Calvinism, this verse actually solidifies the Reformed position!

First of all, faith is a gift from God. Don’t believe me? Check Galatians 5:22-23, which lists the fruits of the Holy Spirit. Those who have the Holy Spirit produce the listed fruits, which are gifts from God. Notice that faith is on that list! Unless God grants you faith, you can’t have it in the first place.

The Reformed position grants that people can seek God, but not apart from his drawing us (Jn 6:44). Those that are seeking God apart from that drawing (the non-elect, in other words) are seeking God for selfish motives. They don’t want to know God, they want the benefits of knowing God. This is not really diligently seeking God.

Regeneration, which precedes salvation and always produces a saving faith, is monergistic (i.e. it is God’s work only, with no human involvement). However, once regenerated, the sanctification process is synergistic (i.e. requires human involvement). This means that the person has a saving faith, and now will diligently seek God (having his heart inclined to God).

So far from disproving the Reformed position, this verse is actually perfectly consistent with it.

Posted in Calvinism, Theology | 5 Comments »

I Can’t Take a Day Off!

Posted by Cory Tucholski on May 16, 2009

It seems I can’t even take a day off from blogging without something major happening. It appears as though I’ve been issued a challenge, and Cardinal Cormack Murphy-O’Connor said that atheists are less than human! More on the Cardinal in another post.

There are three fallacies with the challenge. First, Rey wants to know how Calvinism can be true and Wesley’s words false. When was the last time we assigned infallibility to Wesley? We believe that the Bible only is infallible, therefore Wesley is simply wrong, which brings us to the other two fallacies.

What obligates God to save a sinner in the first place? Arminian theology assumes that everyone starts with an “A” in class and by our sins we move to an “F.” But that isn’t the case. Humankind is born into sin, and we start with an “F.” We have no desire of our own to move to an “A,” and we don’t live our lives with that intention. Natural man, in his natural state, supresses the knowledge of God and tries to live for himself. The wonder of it all is that God saves any of us rebellious, undeserving sinners! Nothing obligates him to do so; he would be just to let us all burn in hell for the sins we commit everyday. But that isn’t what he’s done; instead, he lovingly predestines some to glory. The Bible’s focus is never on the ones that perish, but always on the ones who are saved. That’s where we should keep our eyes: on the ones that God will save.

Which is why Calvinism believes in evangelism as strongly as it does. Since we don’t know who the elect are, we should never lose an opportunity to reach out to someone with the gospel. God might use you to draw one of his elect to himself. Some might ask, as Wesley does, why bother if the elect are already decided? To that I say, turn your Bibles to Judges 3:28, where it is said that the Lord has given the enemy into Ehud’s hands. That doesn’t mean that Ehud and the Israelites simply sat down on the ground and said, “Why bother? God already gave us the enemy.” No, they fought the battle anyway, even knowing the outcome.

With Arminianism, we have no confidence that anyone can be saved. It is up to the reprobate sinner to decide to let Christ into his heart. Apart from that invitation, God can do nothing. Calvinism teaches the opposite. With Calvinism, we have confidence that many will be saved because God promises to save his elect, fully and completely.

Bottom line here is that God acts with and through us, not over and against us. Ehud still had to fight the battle, even though God gave the enemy into his hand. We still have to preach the gospel, because that is the means by which God will bring his elect to himself. We still have to fight the good fight, just like Ehud did. The Israelites saw no contradiction here, and neither should we.

Finally, what necessitates that God love everyone equally? Are you telling me that God loves Christopher Hitchens–a man who wrote a book entitled God is not Great and is outspoken in his rebellion against God–with the same love as a Christian who loves God first in his life and tries to keep his commands? That reduces God’s love to subhuman capacity. Humans are able to love at different levels. God commands it! I’m supposed to love my wife as Christ loved the church. However, I’m not supposed to love my neighbor’s wife that same way. The love I feel for my wife is very different than the love I feel for my daughter. If humans, made in the image of God, are able to love at different levels and intensities, why can’t God? Why can’t God love some of his creations more than others; so much more, that he elects them and saves them for eternal life with him?

Predestination is not a doctrine of hate, despite how Wesley and others see it. Predestination is God’s ultimate expression of love for the sinner. We love him because he first loved us.

Posted in Calvinism, Roman Catholicism, Theology | 17 Comments »

No More Mr. Nice Guy

Posted by Cory Tucholski on May 4, 2009

Rey says:

So, Calvinism teaches that God is the author and finisher of evil, thus making sin no longer sin but transforming it into obedience, and hence Calvinism is the most supremely evil position a person can take in theology.

How many times do I have to respond to this? Read my last post again. Better yet, have someone read it to you. Loudly and slowly. Until it sinks in. Look up any unfamiliar words. Try not to drool on the dictionary that you use for that.

The Westminster Confession of Faith, emphasis my own:

God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.

Read the Scriptural proof of the last point: “nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.” The verses cited are as follows (KJV instead of my beloved ESV):

  • Acts 2:23: Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain.
  • Matthew 17:12: But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them.
  • Acts 4:27-28: For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together,  For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.
  • John 19:11: Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.
  • Proverbs 16:33: The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of the Lord.

Despite the fact that God foreordains all that will come to pass, he is not the author of sin. I don’t see how that can be made any more plain.

According to you, Cory, “What Calvinism does teach is that God has an eternal decree, from the beginning of time, that everything that would happen does happen.” So, your position is really not that man is the author of evil while God merely allows it to go on, but that God decreed each and every instance of evil that has ever happened to happen. You know that you are saying that God is the author and finisher of evil. BUT you also that saying such a thing is evil and blasphemous. Therefore, you try to say it without people realizing it, hoping that you can both convince people that God is the author and finisher of evil and yet also convince them that this isn’t what you are really saying, all at the same time. That is classic Calvinism, “God’s the author of evil, but you didn’t hear it from me, wink wink.”

What a load of crap! You have so failed to deal with the gradations of “foreordain” that your reply is of no value. As any idiot with a tenth-grade reading level can comprehend, I am saying that God allows evil as a negative decree and not as a positive one. Negatively allowing something falls well within the parameters of “foreordaining” the same, without making God the author of said event.

Your real argument is: “I don’t understand how God can decree every event on planet earth from the beginning and still expect us to accept blame for sin, so God has no eternal decree.” Then, you punctuate that argument with “neener neener!” and a raspberry. Next you’ll be asking me to pull your finger.

Posted in Apologetics, Calvinism, Theology | 4 Comments »

Amusing…

Posted by Cory Tucholski on May 3, 2009

No matter how many times I say it, Rey keeps repeating the same error over and over again. So I have decided to write a post that keeps everything pure and simple, so that I (hopefully) won’t have to say this again.

Calvinism does not teach that sovereignty is the same as micromanagement. Calvinism does not teach that God is a Hollywood screenwriter who has written a screenplay that becomes life as we know it. Calvinism does not teach any of that stuff! Yet Rey continues to repeat these same errors over and over again.

What Calvinism does teach is that God has an eternal decree, from the beginning of time, that everything that would happen does happen. This can be either positive or negative, or some shade between.

If this decree is positive, it means that God declares what is going to happen, he purposes it and does it.

If the decree is negative, it means that God allows something to happen. Orthodox Calvinism views evil this way: it isn’t something that God positively does, it is something that he negatively allows for his own unsearchable purpose.

Hyper-Calvinism, on the other hand, does view evil as something that God creates in the life of the sinner. I’m no hyper-Calvinist.

There are many gradations in the action of foreordaining. It can be a positive thing that God purposes and does, or it can be a negative thing that God allows. It may also fall in-between the two extremes in a way that we don’t understand this side of eternity. God either purposefully does something, or purposefully allows something to happen. Either way, he is foreordaining it in a sense, and not micromanaging every detail.

So, please, Rey, stop repeating the error that I’m teaching that God micromanages everything. In fact, I have explicitly written against it in this latest series of posts sparring with you.

Posted in Apologetics, Calvinism, Theology | 2 Comments »

Is Free Will Subject to God’s Sovereignty?

Posted by Cory Tucholski on May 3, 2009

Rey, otherwise known as Beowulf2k8, has leveled more criticism my way. He has two posts, here and here, that criticize my own Reformed view of the Bible. The second was meant as pure sarcasm, and as such I will not be addressing it. The first one I will address after I clarify a few things.

First, Rey did not adequately respond to Genesis 50:20. He said that Joseph was not an oracle of God, so therefore it represents his erroneous opinion of what God is doing in his life. I countered with the fact that Joseph was an oracle of God, evidenced by the fact that he interpreted dreams, and therefore his opinion in this matter would carry some weight. This statement of God meaning someone’s free will evil for the good of all is inconvenient to Rey’s position that God doesn’t influence human free will.

Second, Rey did not respond to the litany of verses that show God does influence human free will. Among others that can be cited, I specifically cited the following verses (emphasis mine):

  • Exodus 4:21: And the LORD said to Moses, “When you go back to Egypt, see that you do before Pharaoh all the miracles that I have put in your power. But I will harden his heart, so that he will not let the people go.”
  • Joshua 11:20: For it was the LORD’s doing  to harden their hearts that they should come against Israel in battle, in order that they should be devoted to destruction and should receive no mercy but be destroyed, just as the LORD commanded Moses.
  • Isaiah 63:17: O LORD, why do you make us wander from your ways
    and harden our heart, so that we fear you not
    ? Return for the sake of your servants, the tribes of your heritage.
  • Romans 9:18: So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

Third, Rey does not contend with the litany of verses cited in favor of God making the decision for Christ for us (emphasis mine):

  • John 1:9-13: The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world.   He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him.  He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him.  But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of a human decision nor of the will of man, but of God.
  • 1Pet. 1:3:   Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, He has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead
  • John 6:44:   “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.
  • John 6:61-65:   Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you?  What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before!  The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.  Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him.  He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him.”
  • Acts 2:45-47: And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need.   And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts,  praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved.
  • Acts 16:13-14: And on the Sabbath day we went outside the gate to the riverside, where we supposed there was a place of prayer, and we sat down and spoke to the women who had come together.   One who heard us was a woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple goods, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul.

Fourth, Rey does nothing with my philosophical discourse on God’s foreordination. Rey merely continues to perpetuate the error that Calvinism teaches that God reduces human beings to puppets. He does this with no evidence from any Calvinist document that allegedly teaches this.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Apologetics, Calvinism, Heresy, Theology | 3 Comments »

Who Has the Higher View of God?

Posted by Cory Tucholski on May 1, 2009

The age-old problem is that if God has an eternal decree, then how is it possible that man has a free will? And yet both are taught in Scripture, so it must be the case that this is somehow true. Rey, also calling himself Beowulf2k8, makes light of this whole issue in a response to a video theologian John Calvin did for me here.

What Rey reveals is a low view of Scripture and a low view of God’s sovereignty. I know that Rey has a low view of Scripture based on this post, in which he claims that the Bible contains a contradiction. Instead of resolving it, Rey gives more weight to James because James wasn’t an adulterer or a murderer (as David quite clearly was). That’s the easy way out. The more difficult way out is to try to figure out what the proper way to understand both texts together would be.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Apologetics, Calvinism, Sin, Theology | 33 Comments »