Calvinism goes to the dogs

Sometimes when you play too rough with the Calvinists, in pointing out the obvious flaws of their theology, such as their ridiculous concept of John 3:16 in that it means, "For God so loved the world of the elect," or how obvious of a contradiction it is to affirm that God is the "ordainer of evil" but not the "author of sin," or simply by labeling a Calvinist as a "double-talking, logic-dodger," the Calvinist will notoriously retreat into the niceties of Calvinism, such as by claiming that they merely believe in the "Doctrines of Grace." Now doesn't that sound nice? One thing about Calvinists is that they are pretty good at slick marketing, not preferring the title of "Calvinist," but instead favoring the concocted title of "Reformed Theology" and the "Doctrines of Grace." It's almost humorous when a Calvinist is pinned down, that they trot out the badge and shield of the man-made term, "We believe in the Doctrines of Grace!" Yes, "Halt! We believe in something good!" But do they realize that it spells out an acronym of DOG? The slick marketers over at "Calvinism Headquarters" really dropped the ball on this one, or perhaps it's God's inside joke that Calvinism is a dog. Really, at best, the DOG is the doctrines of "Limited Grace" (i.e. Limited Atonement), while at worst the doctrines of a Caste System, and Calvinist do not like their theology compared to a Caste System at all, but that's really what it is. And really, regarding the latter, nowhere is it found among the prophets or apostles the expression of gratitude in thanking God over having been chosen to be born into an upper caste of Election. Instead, Christian gratitude is expressed in giving thanks to God for the gift of His Son, Jesus. What prophet or apostle ever said, "Thank you God for allowing me to be born into the upper caste of Election instead of the lower caste of non-elect Reprobates!" Where's that in Scripture?

Calvinist, John MacArthur, states: “We are chosen unto salvation. We are chosen to belong to Him. When you look at your salvation, then thank God. Thank God! Because you are a Christian because He chose you. I don’t understand the mystery of that. That’s just what the word of God teaches. That is the most humbling doctrine in all of Scripture. I take no credit, not even credit for my faith. It all came from Him. He chose me. He selected people to be made holy in order to be with Him forever. Why he selected me, I will never know. I’m no better than anyone else. I’m worse than many. But He chose me.” (Understanding Election)

But that's just what a Calvinist reasons. Notice the following:

Luke 18:9-14 states: “And He also told this parable to some people who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and viewed others with contempt: ‘Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood and was praying this to himself: “God, I thank You that I am not like other people: swindlers, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I pay tithes of all that I get.” But the tax collector, standing some distance away, was even unwilling to lift up his eyes to heaven, but was beating his breast, saying, “God, be merciful to me, the sinner!” I tell you, this man went to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted.’”

The Calvinist prescribing to the DOG could say with the Pharisees, "Yes, thank you God for letting me be born as a priviledged member of the Upper Caste of God's eternally elect sheep, instead of being born into the Lower Caste of God's non-elect eternal Reprobates."

What does the Gospel include?

1st Corinthians 15:1-5 states: "Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve."

Can you identify the elements of Paul's definition of the Gospel? First of all, Paul states that it's something which they "received" and were "saved." He adds that Jesus was "buried" and that He was "raised on the third day." Do you notice anything else significant about his definition? Notice that Paul adds that his Gospel message to the formerly lost Corinthians had included mentioning that "Christ died for our sins." "Oh," but the Calvinist says, "Paul is speaking to Christians." But regardless of who he is speaking to, Paul is defining what the Gospel comprised, back when he had spoken it to them when they were lost. And notice that Paul didn't say, "Christ died for sin." Of course, Jesus did die for sin. But Paul makes it personal.

Unless there are many Gospels, which no Calvinist espouses, Paul defined what the ONE Gospel included, which is the fact that "Christ died for our sins." Now that doesn't mean, "just my sin." To be clear, "our sins" means your sins and mine, speaker + audience. That's the impact of "our." It is a mutual inclusion. I'm trying to make this as plain as possible. Paul's Gospel obliterates Limited Atonement. Paul told lost people that Jesus died for them. Paul recalls that this was the Gospel when he had preached to them.

One Calvinist responds: "First Corinthians was written by a Christian, namely Paul, to Christians. So Christ died for 'OUR' sins means 'OUR.' Not theirs, don't add to the gospel."

"Our sins" is inclusive. It means your sins and mine. The speaker includes himself together with the lost audience that he had preached the Gospel to, and who received it and were saved. Is this really Calculus? Is this really hard to understand? Or is the problem, not necessary a factor of intelligence, but of cultic indoctrination, which refuses to see the light? You could tell a cultist that 1+1=2, but they will try to argue that it somehow really means 1.5 or 3. It's like you cannot make it simple or plain enough, and that's because logic and reason are not the problem. A culticly indoctrinated person can reconcile anything, such as spinning John 3:16 to mean, "For God so loved the world of the elect." For that person, no amount of logic will work. Their mind is shot. They cannot engage in reason. They will only engage in spin and obfuscation.

Arminius & the Doctrines of Grace

The impression that one might get of the Calvinist's "Doctrines of Grace" is that it is graceful, or has the appearance of being kind. The problem is that it is really the Doctrines of "Limited" Grace, or worse yet, something that Jacob Arminius had described:

Jacob Arminius stated: "It represents God as decreeing something for a particular end [or purpose] which neither is nor can be good...", in that "...God wishes to subject his creature to misery..." which is "...repugnant to the Goodness of God...", such that "...he wills the greatest evil to his creatures, and that from all eternity he has preordained that evil for them, or predetermined to impart it to them, even before he resolved to bestow upon them any portion of good...", which in other words, "...it was preordained that man should be formed vicious and should commit sin, that is, that he should neither know God, love, worship, nor serve him...." (Arminius Speaks, pp.40-42)

(This will tie in nicely to the next Blog series on "Why I am NOT a Calvinist," in which I will cite dozens of reasons and their corresponding explanations, and also what I feel would make the Calvinist's own list as to why they are not Arminians, and my corresponding thoughts.)

Most Calvinists that I know, speak of coming into a belief in the "Doctrines of Grace" as something which they entered "kicking and screaming." (I do not care for that title since it implies a monopoly on grace. Calvinists excel at marketing. Calvinists own the term "Reformed" as well. They also own Sovereignty, Providence, Predestination, ect.) That bothers me because Arminians teach all those things as well, though from a different perspective, which Arminians feel is a more biblical perspective, though Calvinists disagree, but the point is that although many have BECOME Calvinists kicking and screaming, Arminius instead had LEFT Calvinism kicking and screaming. Arminius spoke highly of John Calvin and his Institutes, although I don't think that he had the same opinion of other Calvinists of his day, especially of the mindset of Beza. But the point is that the Calvinist concept of God predeterming evil, appears to have been a powerful motivation for Jacob Arminius to abandon his Calvinism, and of course I believe that is a good thing, but what is the one major concern whenever someone leaves one particular theology? Holdover Theology. You see this sometimes when a person leaves the Jehovah's Witnesses, and has a skewed understanding of the divine nature of Christ. So as I read and study Arminius' writings in Arminius Speaks, the one thing that I will be cautious to look for, is to beware of theological baggage or holdover theology.

Calvinism & Satanism

I'm not saying that the two are identical, but there's something that I ran across that had me thinking about it, and I want to share with you a particular quote by R.C. Sproul. (My next two posts will address a list of reasons of, "Why I am NOT a Calvinist" and then followed with a book review of "Arminius Speaks" by editor, John Wagner.

R.C. Sproul writes: "The Calvinist view of predestination teaches that God actively intervenes in the lives of the elect to make absolutely sure that they are saved. Of course the rest are invited to Christ and given an 'opportunity' to be saved if they want to. But Calvinism assumes that without the intervention of God no one will ever want Christ. Left to themselves, no one will ever choose Christ." (Chosen By God, p.34)

Wouldn't Satan agree, and build on to that by adding, "...and they will surely curse You to Your face." I would imagine God's response to R.C. Sproul would be the same response that He gave to Satan, "Have you considered my servant Job?" (Job 1:8; 2:3) It seems that R.C. Sproul is perpetuating Satan's contention against God. I realize that he's coming at it from a different angle, but it still seems to be the same basic point that Satan raised, in that God is unwanted and undesired. Obviously, Job didn't feel that way, and I don't either, and Sproul doesn't either, but Sproul merely attributes that to an irresistible, spiritual brainwashing, not of his own choosing, and worse yet, the opposite of what his choosing would otherwise be. Satan needs to admit that he's wrong, and Sproul needs to stop agreeing with him!

Now I want to clear some things up. 1) I disagree with R.C. Sproul's definition of the elect. I believe that the elect are the elect "in Christ" meaning actual Christians, exclusively (meaning, not the perceived would-be's, but the actuals). 2) How can someone be given the "opportunity" (his words) to be saved, if Jesus never died for them? In other words, "Repent because...oh wait. Nevermind. I don't know for sure that Jesus died for you. Instead..."Repent!...just in case Jesus died for you." Is this the "opportunity" and invitation that R.C. Sproul had in mind? R.C. Sproul needs to explain how you can offer someone a Savior that never died for them. That's why some Calvinists insist that the Gospel is not an "offer" but a command, which only those who are born into the alleged, elected Upper Caste will receive. 3) If Satan believed that Irresistible Grace was real, then why did he challenge God by saying concerning Job, "If You put forth Your hand and touch all that he has" (Job 1:11) and "put forth Your hand now, and touch his bone and his flesh, he will curse You to Your face" (Job 2:5)? Because if Satan believed that Irresistible Grace was real, then his real challenge should have been, "Put forth your hand and remove the Irresistible Grace..." Now if Irresistible Grace is real, and if Satan didn't know it, then Augustine must have really burst his bubble! In reality, though, Determinism is Satan's product, as taught to Socrates and perpetuated by the Platonists, Neo-Platonists, Gnostics and Augustinian Predestinationists.

R.C. Sproul adds: "Non-Reformed views of predestination assume that every fallen person is left with the capacity to choose Christ. Man is not viewed as being so fallen that it requires the direct intervention of God to the degree that Calvinism asserts." (Chosen by God, p.34)

The last phrase is key, in which Sproul has Irresistible Grace in mind. Obviously, Arminianism does view man as being "fallen" and requiring the "intervention of God." That's called "Prevenient Grace," and it appears in many forms, whether you're talking about the faith producing, power of the Gospel (Romans 1:16, 10:17), or the individual goading of the Holy Spirit upon the unregenerate heart of Saul of Tarsus. (Acts 26:14) But the point that I wanted to make is that Sproul is discounting Prevenient Grace as something that man is "left with," rather than something that man is being "given." Yes, God intervenes, since God is giving something to enable him, rather than simply leaving man helpless and hopeless, as Common Grace might imply. Once you view Prevenient Grace as something positive that God does to enable man to receive His free gift of grace, you'll no longer see man as being "left" (as in, left behind), as Sproul had characterized it. This makes sense because Sproul doesn't believe in Prevenient Grace, period. He said so: "The $64,000 question is, 'Does the Bible teach such a doctrine of Prevenient grace? If so, where?" (Chosen by God, p.125) The odd thing is that, not only is it all over Scripture, as I've cited just a few verses already, the fact is that he too must believe in Prevenient Grace, since he affirms the preceding grace of "Irresistible Grace." Prevenient Grace is simply the divine intervention of God that precedes and enables people to receive the invitation of the free gift of Christ, primarily by taking the blinders off, so that man can see the truth, both of himself and of God, and the reality of where he stands before God. The issue isn't whether Prevenient Grace is taught in the Bible, but how Calvinists believe it differently from Arminians, in terms that the former believes that it is an irresistible preceding grace, whereas the latter believes that it is resistible. But that there is a preceding grace, neither side disagrees.

Next up is the "Why I am NOT a Calvinist" post. SEA helped put together a list of reasons why not to be a Calvinist, and I want to share it.

Deterministic Calvinism vs. Independent Thought

Calvinist, James White, writes: “How God can know future events, for example, and yet not determine them, is an important point….” (Debating Calvinism, p.163)

Based upon this example, in which White is simply being consistent with other Deterministic Calvinists, he concludes that God is incapable of knowing an undetermined future, and therefore, for God to be omniscient and all-knowing, no future could be left undetermined, or better yet, unscripted. So in other words, God must predetermine everything in order to possess omniscience over anything, and thus one single undetermined, independent thought by an independent agent, would thereby nullify the omniscience of God, and hence if free will did somehow exist, as the Determinist's logic goes, God would lack the capacity to know it, and since we know that God does not lack omniscience, free will must not exist. The problem, of course, is that the entire conclusion rests upon the blind presumption and circular reasoning that God lacks the capacity to know an unscripted event, which is odd, because God is eternal and unbounded by time, however, exposing the faulty Calvinist understanding of God's eternal nature is not the issue that I have in mind here. I'd like to instead focus on the Deterministic concept which proposes that there can be no such thing as independent thought, because, in the absence of independent thought, key Calvinist defenses are forfeited!, such as Compatibilism and Free Moral Agency. Otherwise, (1) if there is no such thing as independent thought, then what is God acting in compatibility with? (2) If there is no such thing as independent thought, what is "free" in Free Moral Agency? Wouldn't they just be "an agent"? The result is that you'd have just one will in the universe, and one will only, and that being the will of the Determiner, Scripter and Author of all wills, and no one else would possess a will, if they had no independent thoughts of their own.

Calvinist, James White, writes: “Let us lay aside this canard once for all (and with it a large portion of the arguments presented thus far): Man has a will.” (Debating Calvinism, p.347)

So James White, in a debate with Dave Hunt, insisted that man does have a will, but (3) what kind of will exists without independent thought?

Calvinist, James White, writes: “Unregenerate man's will is, according to the Lord Jesus Himself, enslaved to sin (John 8:34), but it is still a will. It acts upon the desires presented to it by the fallen and corrupt nature of all those who are in Adam.” (Debating Calvinism, p.347)

But if there is no independent thought, then how is it a will, or at least, a will of their own? That's the whole idea of a will. If there is no such thing as independent thought, then they are solely acting upon the "will of another," that is, the will of the Determiner, Scripter and Author of all wills.

There would only be a logical basis for God to Compatibilistically "cause" or "determine" certain events, such as Calvary, if God acts upon independent thoughts from His own. Otherwise, (4) if there is no such thing as independent thought, wouldn't all of our sin and resistance to God, merely be God giving Himself a hard time through us? Moreover, concerning the Devil, (5) if the Devil possessed no capacity for independent thought, then every unimaginably evil thought of the Devil's, in his entire existence, would actually be the thoughts of Who? Even worse, if such a thing is possible, and maybe this is, (6) if there is no such thing as independent thought, then it was the Father who spat in His own Son's face: "Then they spat in His face and beat Him with their fists; and others slapped Him, and said, 'Prophesy to us, You Christ; who is the one who hit You?'" (Matthew 26:67-68)

Ray Comfort on Conversion

Ray Confort of the "Way of the Master" series, has written a book on how to know that God exists, and in it, he presents an illustration on conversion. The context is on how Christianity is differentiated from other religions, and here is the quote:

Ray Comfort illustrates: “You are standing on the edge of a 10,000-foot drop. You have to jump. Your heart is thumping in your chest. Why? Because you know that the law of gravity will kill you when you jump. Someone offers you the original Mona Lisa. You push it aside. Another person passes you the keys to a brand new Lamborghini. You let them drop to the floor. Someone else tries to put ten million dollars into your hands. You push the hand away, and stand there in horror at your impending fate. Suddenly, you hear a voice say, ‘Here’s a parachute!’ Which one of those four people is going to hold the most credibility in your eyes? It’s the one who held up the parachute! Again, it is your knowledge of the law of gravity and your fear of the jump that turns you toward the good news of the parachute. In the same way, knowledge of what God’s moral Law will do to you on the Day of Judgment produces a fear that makes the gospel unspeakably good news! It solves your predicament of God’s wrath.” (How to Know God Exists, pp.97-98)

Yes it does solve the predicament, and God promises eternal life to whoever believes. The late pastor, Adrian Rogers, once commented that if you repent of your sin, and God does not receive you, and does not forgive your sin and does not make you Born Again, then I will close my Bible forever and never preach again. But He will save you! Do it today. Today is the day of salvation. That was Adrian Rogers' message. When you turn to Him, you will be confirmed and sealed. This is what the Gospel is. Yes, people do love their sin, but they also fear Judgment, as the living and active Gospel makes the fear of Judgment a gnawing reality. (see Acts 2:37, John 16:8, Acts 26:14) Fear is a game-changer. The Holy Spirit's intervention is a game-changer. The very fact that God intervenes at all, proves that no one is simply "left to their free will." God is in the middle of it, but how God intervenes, is a question that Calvinists and Arminians continue to argue about it.

Prevenient Grace taught by John Calvin?

In terms of Total Depravity, the Calvinist says that the solution to man’s depraved nature is divine intervention. Arminians couldn’t agree more! It’s how God intervenes, that separates Calvinists from Arminians. Does God’s intervention include full blown regeneration, with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit? Or, does God reserve full blown regeneration for the believer in Christ? Based upon Eph. 1:13, I contend for the latter, but I don’t doubt that a Calvinist can provide their own slant on that verse, as even Calvin himself had, by imagining a two-fold application of the Holy Spirit. So if God does not intervene with full blown regeneration, how else could He possibly bring the unregenerate, dead rebel sinner to a place where they are able to receive His free gift of grace? How, exactly, does Prevenient Grace work? I like how Paul described it at Acts 26:14. Now, before Calvinists say that it is 100%, absolutely impossible for God to be able to bring an unregenerate, dead rebel sinner to a point where they can receive His free gift of grace, they ought to consider something that John Calvin suggested. Calvin postulated how some people can live a life of thinking that they are one of the exclusive, Calvinistically elect, when yet they would later go on to fall away from the faith, and prove that they were not one of the Calvinistically elect after all. Here is what Calvin reasons:

John Calvin explains: “Let no one think that those [who] fall away...were of the predestined, called according to the purpose and truly sons of the promise. For those who appear to live piously may be called sons of God; but since they will eventually live impiously and die in that impiety, God does call them sons in His foreknowledge. There are sons of God who do not yet appear so to us, but now do so to God; and there are those who, on account of some arrogated or temporal grace, are called so by us, but are not so to God.” (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p.66, emphasis mine)

What kind of grace was that again? That arrogated grace sounds like a non-regenerative, Prevenient Grace? No?

Calvin adds: “Yet sometimes he also causes those whom he illumines only for a time to partake of it; then he justly forsakes them on account of their ungratefulness and strikes them with even greater blindness.” (Institutes of Christian Religion, 3.24.8, emphasis mine)

“Illumes only for a time.” What kind of arrogated illumination is that? That sounds a lot like Prevenient Grace. Surely it’s not regeneration, since regeneration and the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit is apparently reserved only for the Calvinistically elect. So is John Calvin showing that an unregenerate, dead rebel sinner can be illumed with an arrogated grace which allows him, for a time, to overcome Total Depravity? So even though they suffer from Total Depravity, by God’s power, and without full blown regeneration, God has the power to breach their Total Depravity, and bring them to a place of illumination.

So what if God should “illume” someone with such an “arrogated grace” so that a person could be brought to the point where they are able to receive Christ’s free gift of grace, and thus as a converted believer, receive the regeneration and indwelling that is alone reserved in Christ, as Arminianism proposes? Ultimately, it seems like John Calvin has opened up a logical door to Arminian, Prevenient Grace. No? To me, it looks that John Calvin has proposed a way in which God could breach an unregenerate, dead rebel sinner's Total Depravity, through an arrogated illumination.

James White debates Catholic, Robert Sungenis

In the youtube clip, Calvinist James White is debating with Catholic theologian, Robert Sungenis. Obviously there are things upon which we all agree, such as the Deity of Christ and the bodily resurrection, and we wouldn’t want to toss those theologies out, simply because they are held by Catholics as well. So we wouldn’t want to throw out the doctrine of an Unlimited Atonement, simply because it is also held by Catholics. What perplexes me is the fact that James White cites Revelation 5:9 in defense of his logic, which doesn’t seem to add up. Revelation 5:9 states: “And they sang a new song, saying, ‘Worthy are You to take the book and to break its seals; for You were slain, and purchased for God with Your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation.’” I suppose that a Calvinist would infer that the “men” purchased are the elect men, and the elect men are drawn from the base pool of the whole world, that is, people from “every tribe and tongue and people and nation.” It would seem that this is simply a euphemism for the whole world. Certainly the Calvinists do believe that the Calvinistically elect are indeed drawn from the base pool of the whole world. Well, at 1st John 2:1-2, it is precisely this world that has a propitiation. By James White’s reasoning, though, this would necessarily entail Universalism, because everyone who HAS a propitiation, must therefore BE propitiated. However, this is a forced conclusion, because if you consider the analogy of Numbers 21:6-9, should we infer that every snake victim was necessarily propitiated, simply by virtue of having the propitiation of the serpent on the standard? Of course, that is verifiably false, since God stated that the only ones who receive the benefits of the propitiation, are those who actually look upon the standard. Similarly, then, everyone in the world, that is, people from every tribe and tongue and people and nation, HAVE a propitiation, but are not necessarily propitiated unless or until they actually look upon Christ in faith, and only then receive the benefits of the propitiation, which includes eternal life. This is fairly straight-forward, and it shows that both Revelation 5:9 and 1st John 2:1-2 are in agreement that the base pool of the whole world is what is in focus.

I Bless God

"I Bless God"

--By Richard Coords Sr.


Bless the Lord, O my soul, and all that is within me, bless His Holy Name.

I bless the Arms of God that reached out to me during times of loneliness and despair.

I bless the Artistry of God for the beauty in nature and in every sunrise and sunset.

I bless the Authority of God that makes Him the great and undeniable, “I AM”.

I bless the Breath of God that gave life to all living creatures great and small.

I bless the Brightness of God that outshines the blinding brilliance of the sun.

I bless the Closeness of God that He regards me as His friend.

I bless the Compassion of God that looks beyond my faults as He continually cares for me.

I bless the Creativity of God for all creatures that walk, run, crawl, hop, swim, leap, jump, and fly.

I bless the Cross of Christ that assures the promise of eternal life to every believer.

I bless the Desire of God in that He wants me to be at one with Him forever.

I bless the Ears of God that listen and hear me and know my voice.

I bless the Existence of God that gives me absolute assurance of eternal security.

I bless the Eyes of God that look upon my heart and not my outward appearance.

I bless the Face of God that smiles upon me when I appreciate Him and give Him thanks.

I bless the Faithfulness of Christ that He will never leave me nor forsake me.

I bless the Fatherhood of God that leads me and teaches me and calls me His own.

I bless the Favor of God that provides all of my needs according to His unlimited riches.

I bless the Feet of Christ that walked on water and climbed the lonely hill to Calvary.

I bless the Foreknowledge of God that He knew me before I was even born.

I bless the Fragrance of God that is more pleasing than all the many flowers He created.

I bless the Friendship of Christ that keeps Him closer to me than a brother.

I bless the Generosity of God that He gave His only Son as payment for my sin.

I bless the Genius of God that architected the enormous and yet intricately balanced universe.

I bless the Glory of God that is more awesome and beautiful than every precious gem.

I bless the Goodness of God in that He is my provider and meets every one of my needs.

I bless the Grace of God that offers forgiveness for all sin even to those who despise Him.

I bless the Hands of God that formed man in His own image out of the dust of the ground.

I bless the Heart of God that will love me unconditionally forever.

I bless the Holiness of God as He is worshipped by men and angels everywhere, day and night.

I bless the Honesty of God that exposes my weaknesses and enables me to become stronger.

I bless the Hope of God that all would repent so that none need ever perish.

I bless the Humility of Christ that allowed Him to be a friend to blind and lame beggars.

I bless the Humor of God that provides me with the ability to enjoy laughter, even at myself.

I bless the Intellect of God that is the reason and purpose for my own human intellect.

I bless the Judgment of God that He counts my faith in Him as righteousness.

I bless the Kindness of God that He forgives my sins and remembers them no more.

I bless the Kingdom of God that will never be overthrown or defeated.

I bless the Kingship of God that He alone is worthy to be the Ruler of heaven and earth.

I bless the Laughter of God that is evoked when the plans of the unrighteous fail miserably.

I bless the Leadership of God as He leads me in the path of righteousness for His name sake.

I bless the Liberty of the Holy Spirit that allows me to be free from man made religious laws and rules.

I bless the Light of God that shines so brightly in a world filled with darkness.

I bless the Lips of God that can only speak Truth and that spoke entire galaxies into existence.

I bless the Love of God that is boundless, unconditional, and free to all who are willing to receive it.

I bless the Mercy of God that offers forgiveness that endures forever.

I bless the Might of God that controls the weather and the tides and the planets within their orbit.

I bless the Mind of God that designed a perfect plan for fallen man’s redemption.

I bless the Mouth of God that utters words of blessings, encouragement, and forgiveness.

I bless the Nail Scared hands and feet of Christ that bore the weight of all my sin.

I bless the Name of God that is above every name in heaven and on earth.

I bless the Nearness of God that He hears me every time I speak His name.

I bless the Nostrils of Christ that endured the stench of Golgotha as He hung upon a cross.

I bless the Omnipotence of God as I live under the might of His invincible power.

I bless the Omnipresence of God in that neither time nor distance confines Him.

I bless the Omniscience of God in that He alone is all knowing.

I bless the Patience of God in that He never ceases being a caring and loving Father.

I bless the Peace of God that provides comfort to me that surpasses all human understanding.

I bless the Perseverance of God in that He never slumbers nor sleeps.

I bless the Power of God that created the universe with its exponential billions of shining stars.

I bless the Presence of God in that He is never far from any one of us.

I bless the Promises of God that whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

I bless the Righteousness of God in that every knee will bow before Him.

I bless the Side of Christ that poured forth water and the blood that atoned for my sin.

I bless the Son of God who loved me and gave Himself for me while I was an enemy of God.

I bless the Soul of God that is the essence of boundless loving kindness forever and ever.

I bless the Sovereignty of God in that His word is and will forever be the final and everlasting word.

I bless the Spirit of God that teaches me, comforts me, and brings me liberty and peace.

I bless the Tenderness of God that planned that nursing babies would be held in their mother’s arms.

I bless the Thoughts of God that are more precious and higher than my thoughts will ever be.

I bless the Throne of God as He reigns from everlasting to everlasting without end.

I bless the Timing of God that is so perfect He can always be relied upon in time of need.

I bless the Touch of God that heals the sick, makes the lame walk and gives sight to the blind.

I bless the Truth of God that guarantees that He will always do that which He says He will do.

I bless the Understanding of God in that He knew I could never atone for my own sin.

I bless the Versatility of God that created the eagle, the dove, the lion, and the lamb.

I bless the Voice of God that one day will with a shout, call us to reign with Him forever.

I bless the Warmth of God that comforts me in a world that can be cold and uncaring.

I bless the Watchfulness of God that saw my hopeless condition and had pity on me.

I bless the Wealth of God in that He is the rightful owner of everything that exists.

I bless the Will of God that in everything I should give Him all thanks and honor.

I bless the Wisdom of God that He desires that I seek after His righteousness to obtain His wisdom.

I bless the Word of God that is from everlasting to everlasting and sharper than a two edged sword.

Bless the Lord, O my soul, and all that is within me, bless His Holy Name.

Review of "Calvinism in the Las Vegas Airport"

The motivation for this book is an attempt to recognize the way in which Calvinism connects with non-Calvinists, and why those who are Calvinists, do not run away in horror, but zealously embrace its theology. Author, Richard Mouw, recognizes that Calvinism does not always come across well, and best observes this in a movie entitled, Hardcore, in which a Calvinist elder, Jake, explains his TULIP theology to a curious lost woman in a Las Vegas airport, Niki, who in response to an explanation of TULIP Calvinism, exclaims: “I thought I was ****ed up.” (p.13)

Mouw writes: “I have been thinking about writing this book ever since I saw the film Hardcore. A movie with a title like that will not strike most folks as an obvious source of inspiration for some reflections on how to be a Calvinist in the twenty-first century, so I had better explain myself.” (p.11)

(The now Atheist director of Hardcore was raised as a Christian and graduated from Calvin College.)

Mouw writes: “I don’t recommend Hardcore for people seeking spiritual edification. But there is one scene in the film that I have regularly pondered in my own theological reflections. Jake Van Dorn, a pious Calvinist elder played by George C. Scott, is sitting in the Las Vegas airport with a thoroughly pagan young woman named Niki. Jake's teenage daughter has run away to California and gotten involved in the pornography business, and he has set out to find her. His initial efforts thus far have failed, but he has managed to enlist the help of Niki, a young prostitute who knows his daughter. They have just followed a lead in Las Vegas, but having discovered that the wayward daughter is no longer there, they are moving on in their search. ” (p.12)

Mouw writes: “There is no question in my mind that Jake’s Hardcore conversation with Niki was a disaster. You don’t respond to Niki’s curiosity about religion with a mini-lecture about TULIP. But how do you respond?” (p.103)

Mouw laments that he wished the Calvinist character would have been portrayed more charitably, with instead, a “relational evangelism” (p.108), as opposed to just laying out a dry TULIP theology and just surmising that if God chooses to give her an irresistible grace, she will convert.

Mouw explains: “If anything like this is true of Niki’s story, then the worst thing for a Calvinist to do would be to begin by telling her she is a horrible sinner who must repent and straighten out her ways. And that would be the message conveyed by beginning with TULIP, which could easily send her the message that she is a horrible person who may already have been rejected by God from the very foundations of the world. To be sure, her patterns of behavior are grounded in her rebellion against the living God. But in this case that rebellion has produced a life in which there is much loneliness and pain. Rather than going straight to the rebellion, it is a good thing to identify the loneliness and pain in the deep places of her life. Instead of hitting Niki directly with the ‘high Calvinism’ of the TULIP doctrines, I would rather have her hear a compassionate word.” (p.109)

In support, Mouw cites Charles Spurgeon’s use of Invitations (p.46) and sympathetic pleas with the lost. (p.109)

Mouw is very open and honest, which makes the book pleasant to read. Mouw does not defer to Hard Determinism in order to resolve the origin of evil, and instead, frequently differs to Arminian-friendly words such as divine “patience” (p.69) and divine “permission” (p.51), that is, God’s permission of evil events, as opposed to immutably causing them (pp.50-51). As opposed to the idea that prayer changes nothing, but only brings us in line with God, Mouw argues that prayer “is doing something. It is petitioning the Ruler of the universe. It is making our case in the Final Court of Appeals.” (p.61) “We can complain to God rather vigorously about the things we have a hard time accepting.” (p.51) One area in which Mouw gets in trouble is by suggesting that those who perish, do so when they reject God’s “offer” of salvation (p.85), which makes no sense in light of his defense of the “L” in TULIP, which stands for “Limited Atonement.” (p.40) In other words, if Jesus didn’t die for all, but only for a limited number of a pre-selected “elect,” then exactly what is He offering everyone else? Some Calvinists resolve this by insisting that God never “offers” salvation, but simply commands repentance, and those who do so (by Election with Irresistible Grace), receive the benefits of repentance.

I admire Mouw’s perspective on labels. He does not believe in slick marketing by calling himself, “Reformed,” but agrees to the label, “Calvinist,” for distinction's sake. (pp.18-19). I also appreciate the way Mouw is candid about his confusion over apparently conflicting passages in Scripture, as it pertains to Calvinism and Arminianism: “I simply live with both sets of texts, refusing to resolve the tension between what looks like conflicting themes. This is not an altogether comfortable position for me. I would like to be much clearer on the subject, but I really do not know how to proceed further. I can honestly say I’ve made the effort.” (p.42)

It’s always easier to speak with someone who is honest about his own reservations. Nothing is uglier than pride. I recall two Calvinists having a discussion over “problem verses” related to Calvinism, and the one Calvinist insisted, “We have no problem verses.” The other Calvinist insisted that the other was simply in denial. Again, pride is ugly, and Mouw demonstrates strong character.

Mouw is not shy about pointing out the negative stereotypes of Calvinism: “They see this emphasis of God’s sovereign control over all things as encouraging a passive, fatalistic spirit.” (p.51) “There is no denying that a belief that we are predestined to eternal life can lead to a deterministic, even fatalistic, understanding of the Christian life. If it is God who does the choosing, then we may be tempted to think that our own choosing, our own responding to God, is a charade. It is all preprogrammed. But Calvinist theologians go out of their way to deny this implication.” (p.66) “The idea of Election has often been wedded to a belief in a remnant, a faithful minority—tied to a sense that God has bypassed the vast majority of the human race and bestowed his saving mercies on a small number. Often this perspective seems to be worn as a badge of honor—as though Calvinists have a right to take pride in the fact that God has chosen them over most other members of the human race.” (p.84) “Calvinists have certainly not stood out in the Christian community as especially pure people when it comes to the way they behave. They have frequently been intolerant, sometimes to the point of taking abusive and violent action toward people with whom they have disagreed. They have often promoted racist policies. And the fact that they have often defended these things by appealing directly to Calvinist teachings suggests that at least something in these patterns may be due to some weakness in the Calvinist perspective itself.” (pp.114-115) “But I also see tendencies in my own Calvinism that make me nervous. Christians who specialize in free-will-centered theologies, for example, typically do a much better job at evangelism than Calvinists do.” (p.119)

Mouw encourages tolerance and acceptance of non-Calvinist Christians when he states: “Rather than insisting that only Calvinists are genuine Christians, I prefer to think that Calvinism best captures experiences and concerns that are at work in the lives of everyone who knows what it’s like to plead for divine mercy out of a recognition of our own unworthiness.” (p.118)

However, if there was one thing that bothered me, it was the attempt to bring all Christians under the general banner of Calvinism. For instance, Mouw favorably presents the notion that all true Christians are Calvinists when they are on their knees in prayer, because they are depending on the mercy of God. I would argue that all true Christians are Arminians when they are on their knees in prayer, because they are petitioning God to change something, which something, Determinism says was immutably predetermined and can never be changed. Calvinists sometimes explain this as “the means,” but that is only providing a tiny bit of wiggle-room. The reality is that prayer defies fatalism. So you can argue it both ways, but I nevertheless cringe at the comments of some Calvinists who try to be charitable towards Arminians by suggesting that all Arminians who are genuine Christians are Calvinists whether they realize it or not, or that some day they will be convinced of Calvinism. What if we turned it around and said, “all Calvinists who are true Christians are Arminians whether they realize it or not”? Would any Calvinist find that to be charitable? Mouw recites the views of one Calvinist: “He was making a much more charitable point, namely, that all true Christians are, whether they know it or not, Calvinists at heart. A person, he says, ‘may not call himself a Calvinist; he may even resent being called by this name’—but that’s what he is ‘in the final analysis’ if he ‘lives in utter dependence upon God.’” (p.113) What if I said that all true Christians are, whether they know it or not, Arminians at heart, if in the final analysis, they believe that their sin is displeasing to God? Rather than Calvinists counting Arminians as Calvinists, it is better to maintain the distinctions, and simply find unity under the general banner of “Christian,” who likewise maintain the centrality of the Gospel, in the death, burial and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ, with there being life in His name.