Calvinism hater Beowulf2k8 has graced this blog with his anti-Reformed rhetoric. He attacked this post. I think that the comment and his post here speaks for itself, and I won’t answer it directly. Instead, in a few days look for a post defending original sin. That should suffice as a response.

In the meantime, I wanted to answer this post, where Beowulf makes the following claim:

Now that Obama is the President Elect and will be President, the god of Calvinism can finally be satiated with a never ending pile of dead babies to send to hell for no fault of their own. That’s assuming that Obama can get his filibuster proof Democrat Congress to pass pro-abortion laws (which is a given).

I say this not so much to criticize Obama or the Democrat party. I’m not interested in politics today. I say this only to point out what sort of false god the Calvinists serve.

Calvinists teach a god who takes pleasure in broiling innocent infants in hell. Infants who have committed no sin. But their god takes pleasure in roasting them for Adam’s sin.

This is wholly false. Of infants, the Westminster Confession of Faith teaches:

Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit, who works when, and where, and how He pleases: so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word. (10.3)

I don’t happen to like the phraseology, because it indicates that some infants might still go to hell. But it could also mean that all infants are elect and therefore go to heaven. I like to think of it that way. And perhaps that is what really happens, we will never know this side of heaven. The Bible is silent on what happens to infants.

All people are sinners by nature. God elects some to salvation and others he passes over for damnation. Beowulf uses that as an excuse to hate God as he has revealed himself, and instead fashions an idol. The idol he worships is more comfortable for him; this idol doesn’t condemn deserving people.

What Beowulf is doing is taking an extreme situation–the condemning of infants–and using it to argue by outrage. It is uncomfortable for us to think that infants would be condemned to hell. But isn’t it uncomfortable to think that anyone would be condemned to hell? Is Beowulf perhaps betraying this thought?

In any case, Calvinism doesn’t teach that infants are condemned to hell automatically. And Calvinism definitely doesn’t teach that God takes pleasure in the condemnation of sinners–young or old. Scripture reveals otherwise, as Beowulf himself points out.

Beowulf is confusing Calvinism with hyper-Calvinism. Hyper-Calvinism teaches that God hates the reprobate (non-elect). While “hate” is mentioned in some texts (Rom 9:13), it is the Greek word miseo, which actually means “to love less.” God is merely stating that he has no covenant relationship with Esau. As an extension, God has no covenant relationship with the non-elect, but that doesn’t mean that he hates them in the traditional sense of that word. John 3:16, among other texts, is crystal clear–“For God so loved the world. . . .”

If Beowulf believes I am in error, he is welcome to comment on this entry or post it on his own blog. If he can prove me wrong by the traditional documents of the Reformed faith (such as the Westminster Confession or the Baptist Confession), then he is more than welcome to do so.

Read the entire article here.

I’ve posted much on the topic of predestination lately. I have posted a general definition here, on its definite nature according to the counsel of God’s will here, and finally on the two-edged sword of double predestination here. The two primary objections to predestination are the hyper-Calvinist error of double predestination, and the modernist error of assuming our free will is greater than God’s will.

I have already considered the hyper-Calvinist error in my post on double predestination. Briefly, it assumes that God actively chooses to send one group of people to heaven and one group to hell. It sees God’s as taking a positive action on both sides of the coin–that He actively works sin in the reprobate’s life in order to send that person to hell while actively working good things in the elect’s life to send that person to heaven. No such action is necessary. God merely “passes over” the nonelect and takes no further action in that person’s life. That person will condemn himself to hell. Reprobation, therefore, is a negative action on God’s part.

The other error with predestination is more of a modern error. Modern theologies tend to place a greater emphasis on the human free will than the divine free will. This type of error assumes that our free will decisions can somehow limit God’s actions. Viewed correctly, we derive our free will from God’s decree. We are free, to be sure, but God is more free than we are.

The Westminster Confession of Faith spends a chapter on human free will. Chapter IX, paragraph 1 states “God has endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that is neither forced, nor, by any absolute necessity of nature, determined good, or evil.” Paragraph 2 expounds on this will: “Man, in his state of innocency, had freedom, and power to will and to do that which was good and well pleasing to God; but yet, mutably, so that he might fall from it.”

Paragraph 3 reads:

Man, by his fall into a state of sin, has wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation: so as, a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto. (emphasis added)

It is important to remember that, according to the confession, man “has wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation” (Rom 5:6, 8:7; cf. Jn 15:5). It is in this statement that we find no contradiction with John 3:16 or similar passages:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. (emphasis added)

Put together with “Man . . . has wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation,” we understand, finally, that apart from God’s grace, no one is going to believe in Him. This highlights our total dependence on God, which is something that modern theologies either downplay or forget altogether. Modern theologies would have God dependent upon man.

My own pastor has been teaching against predestination for several Sunday school sessions.  Regrettably, I have been unable to attend.  This past Sunday, he used 2 Peter 3:9 as the bullet proof text against predestination.  This verse reads:

The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.

The problem is that, based on the teaching that man’s will is now wholly unable to will and do any good, no one is going to reach that repentance that God desires us to reach.

In sum, it is easy to attack predestination when it is isolated from the rest of what Calvinism teaches.  But when one considers that systematic theology as a whole (the way that it is meant to be considered), it is much harder to put a hole in it.  At one point, it is easy.  But when considering all five points of Calvinism, the system becomes a unified theology that is the best way to understand Scripture.

Read the entire article here.

My church attendance has been absolutely lousy. Normally, I work an opening shift on Sunday–which means that I go in at 6:00 am and I’m off at 4:00 pm. This is not a good Sunday work schedule for a church goer, since it means that I’m working right through the service.

This Sunday, however, I worked the opposite shift. My family and I arrived a little early, and Sunday School was still in session. Pastor Steve has been talking on predestination, one of my favorite topics, and I can’t attend because of my crazy work schedule. I have done two previous posts on the topic–one with a general definition and one speculating on God’s criteria for it.

The snippet of Sunday School I heard as I passed by the doors to the sanctuary this morning was the pastor arguing against this point based on Bible verses such as 2 Peter 3:9. The logic chain is this:

1. God wills that all will come to repentance (2 Pet 3:9)
2. Predestination requires that God choose some for heaven and others for hell
3. Therefore, predestination isn’t Biblical

Pastor Steve, however, has misunderstood Reformed theology. He assumes correctly that predestination is double.  However, he assumes further that both sides are positive actions on the part of God.  This is not so. God does not work to create unbelief in these people so they go to hell; rather these people condemn themselves through their sinful actions.

No one on planet earth deserves to go to heaven by God’s holy standards.  We all deserve punishment in hell. The foundation of unconditional election is the total depravity of mankind. Recall that man is utterly unable to will and do good–and that without God’s effectual calling, we are in such bondage to sin that we are dead in that sin (Eph 2:1-3). Recall also that no one seeks after God, there are none who do good, not even one (Rom 3:9-26). Our condition is not fixable by our own power; only the grace of God can fix this dilemma.

Absent God, we are dead in sin and will only be able to will and do evil. Eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge has corrupted the human will irrecoverably–this is the price that we all pay for Adam’s transgression.

With this, I know that my pastor would agree. He has said as much in many worship services. But he seems obsessed with the idea that human free will is somehow pleasing to God. This is not the case, by the clear teaching of the Bible. Human free will can only will and do evil, unless God steps in and changes it for us. We will never invite Him to do that, according to the Bible. That’s total depravity. So He has predestined some of us, and effectually calls those people to His service.

This much I’ve explained in my previous posts. What Pastor Steve misunderstands in the idea of a double predestination is that God somehow positively elects people to both heaven and hell. According to the Bible, that we all deserve hell. We have condemned ourselves to that fate with no help from God. The active will of God is selecting some humans to save from the inferno. Passively, he allows others to suffer that fate.

To assume that God elects some to heaven and effectually calls those people while electing others to hell and actively working to ensure that fate is hyper-Calvinism.  R.C. Sproul called it equal ultimacy, and rightly labeled it “scary.”  The truth is that God merely “passes over” some of humanity, leaving them to their own devices without His grace.  And that can only lead them to one place.

The point, however, is that God doesn’t actively choose some to heaven and actively send others to hell. We all deserve hell, but God, in His mercy, is choosing to rescue some of us in Christ. It is the reprobate who are getting what they deserve, and the elect who are getting what they don’t deserve.

A reader with the pseudonym Edge7 left a comment in regard to the brief section on the Limited Atonement in this post. This assumes that verses like 1 Timothy 2:3, 5 and 1 John 2:2 confound the Calvinist position that the Atonement saves only the elect. These verses, combined with John 3:16, seem to indicate that Christ died for all men.

I had no intent to write at length about the Limited Atonement. My friend TurretinFan already has an excellent post here, but that post only mentions verses such as those above in passing. So I will add some thoughts about the above verses and their use of “all.” Specifically, I will talk about the contextual limitations of the word “all.” An appropriate subtitle for this piece could be, “When ‘all’ doesn’t mean ‘all.'”

“All” in the case of these verses refer to “all of the elect.” Can I prove that? No. But I have already provided a logical defense of the Limited Atonement, which I will repeat. And I can provide examples from the Bible where “all” doesn’t really mean “all,” but is instead defined by a contextual limitation. Taken together, along with my friend TurretinFan’s article, I believe that will provide a convincing case for the Limited Atonement.

First, a universal atonement is logically flawed. If Christ’s sacrifice paid for all of the sins of mankind, then no one is going to Hell, ever. But we know that this is not the case. Some may say that Christ’s atonement is universal in its scope but only effectual for believers. I might be inclined to agree with that idea. The problem is that, even with this view, the atonement is still limited. It still doesn’t cover the sins of unbelievers.

Another way to look at atonement is in light of the Unforgivable Sin. This is not recognizing the very work of God when you have enough knowledge to do so. Put another way, it is rejecting God’s grace–or unbelief in Christ. Perhaps the atonement is universal except for this one sin. But, you see, even then it is still limited.  It still only covers the sins of people who believe in Christ.
Anyway you try to slice it, the atonement is limited.

What about the verses, such as those mentioned above, that seem to preach a universal atonement?  According to Got Questions Ministries:

How can we understand the paradox that occurs because the Bible teaches God intends that only the elect will be saved, yet on the other hand the Bible also unequivocally declares that God freely and sincerely offers salvation to everyone who will believe? (Ezekiel 33:11; Isaiah 45:22; 55:1; Matthew 11:28; 23:37; 2 Peter 3:9; Revelation 22:17) The solution to this paradox is simply an acknowledgment of all that the Bible teaches. 1) The call of the Gospel is universal in the sense that anybody that hears it and believes in it will be saved. 2) Because they are dead in their trespasses and sin, no one will believe the Gospel and respond in faith unless God first makes those who are dead in their trespasses and sins alive (Ephesians 2:1-5). The Bible teaches that “whosoever believes” will have eternal life and then explains why some believe and some don’t.

Many people will further argue that “all” always means “all.”  So it is necessary to look at some other uses of the word “all” in the gospels to see if “all” means “all,” always.

First, when the devil tempted Jesus in the wilderness, he “took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory” (Mt 4:8).  So, the devil showed Jesus every kingdom in the entire world?  Not even from the world’s tallest mountain could a person see every single kingdom in the entire world.  So “all” in this case doesn’t mean “all.”  No Christian should have a problem with that interpretation.

Second, we see in Mark 13:23 Jesus tells His disciples “I told you all things beforehand.”  Is Jesus indeed referring to “all things,” such as expanding pi to the nth digit and the inner workings of a supercomputer?  Or is He narrowing the context slightly, to the signs at the end of the age, of which He was just speaking?  I think even the most hardcore biblical literalist will agree that Jesus limits “all things” to the end of the age.

In Luke 1:3, the historian notes to Theophilus that he has followed “all things closely for some time past.”  Does “all things” in this verse mean that Luke is following every event that ever happened in the first century, or is the context limited again to things that Jesus has done?  Again, even a biblical literalist can agree with my interpretation that “all things” means “all things related to Christ” in this passage.

It is my contention that the same contextual limitations have been placed on phrases like “all” and “the world” when they refer to salvation.  In those verses, like the ones above, “all” doesn’t really mean “all,” it means “all of the elect” or “all of the believers.”  The Atonement, which could have been universal if that was what God had intended, is limited only to the elect, both logically and biblically.

Only by ripping verses like John 3:16 away from the rest of the teachings of Scripture could a person arrive at a universal atonement.  When considered together with the rest of the passages that teach about the atonement, the contextual limitation of “all” becomes quite apparent.

Now I should note that there are several passages in which any theologian will tell you that “all things” means “all things, everywhere, and always.”  For example, among other verses, John 3:35 says that “The Father loves the Son and has given all things into his hand.”  This would, indeed, mean everything in the world.  However, this is made clear by other passages of Scripture, in both the Old and the New Testaments, that everything on this planet will be under the Lordship of the Son.  We are not reading passages such as those in a vacuum, so why read passages like John 3:16 apart from everything else Scripture says about salvation?

Read the entire article here.

I think that an obvious objection to predestination is that the election is, by its nature, unconditional. Most people take that to mean random or arbitrary. If that were so, then it logically leads to fatalism. You then end up with the following thought process:

Why go and preach the gospel as we are charged to do if God has already picked us out? Too many scriptural contradictions my friend. GOD IS NOT THE AUTHOR OF CONFUSION. How many times must I point that out?

But predestination is anything but random or arbitrary. Glenn Miller has an excellent article that addresses the same topic here from a neutral perspective. I will use one of Miller’s quotes that come from a Calvinist perspective to illustrate the point that, according to Reformed theology, this predestination is anything but arbitrary. “Particular election is thus and so far not absolute, as though it were arbitrary: it rather has its moral ground (inconceivable of course to man) in God’s essentiality,” quotes Miller. Cross referencing this:

Although no cause outside God can be given on man’s side, as we warned you earlier, why this man rather than that is elect or reprobate, as Isaac rather than Ishmael, Jacob than Esau, since in themselves they were both equals and equally unworthy of election: still we must not think that on His side God had no reasons or causes for doing– – since the divine will always conspires with His wisdom and does nothing without reason or rashly; although these reasons and causes have not been revealed to us, and accordingly they neither ought to nor can be probed by us apart from His will.-And it is this also which the chief doctors of the Reformed Church are often repelling from themselves, when they are reproached with setting up here some absolute will of God. Firstly they say it is not absolute, because it includes means by which the appointed end is achieved ; next because God also does not lack just reasons for having acted thus or thus, although these are hidden from us. Thus CALVINUS says (De occults Dei proved. P-1013 statim in initio) : ” Although for me God’s will is the supreme cause, yet I everywhere teach, that where in His counsels and works no cause is apparent, it is yet hidden with Him, so that He has decreed nothing save justly and wisely. Therefore the triflings of the Scholastics on absolute power I not only repudiate but also detest, because they separate His righteousness from His rule.”

Finally:

This will or this decree of His we never sever from righteousness and true right reason, and as always most orderly, although we believe it to be inscrutable even for the very angels ; and accordingly we admire and adore it and refuse to recognise any other absolute will in God. (Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics: Set Out and Illustrated from the Sources, Baker: 1950, p. 165)

Miller concludes:

This is very, very far from a cold, detached, arbitrary election of individuals…In the Reformed system–according to their classic documents–this decree of God in eternity past is characterized by reason, wisdom, justice, righteousness, non-rashness, and ‘gratuitous love towards us’…

What this means for our study is this: the Reformed doctrine of ‘unconditional election’ is NOT even close to being the same as ‘unCAUSED election’ or ‘ARBITRARY election’ . It affirms only that the causes/reasons are not grounded in the deeds of humans in time. There ARE reasons and causes, and these are wise, just, righteous–and unrevealed.

Ultimately, predestination is rooted in God’s love, which I stated in the previous article on this topic. Remember, we love because He first loved us (1 Jn 4:19).

This leads us to speculate on what the reasons for election might possibly be.  First, I believe that they are not grounded in what the elect person himself does or does not do.  But, that doesn’t eliminate the intriguing possibility that it may be grounded in what others do.  For example, God may choose someone on the basis of that person encountering a believer’s evangelism.  He may also choose someone on the basis of the prayers of others.

Why evangelize?  The reasons for election, as well as the elect themselves, are unrevealed to us.  God may choose someone on the basis of your act of evangelism toward that person.  I think that this is a reasonable proposition and a very good reason to continue efforts at evangelism.