Thursday, April 24, 2008

John 3:16 Conference

On November 6 and 7, 2008, former Pastor of First Baptist Downtown Jacksonville, Jerry Vines, is going to participate in a conference which will respond to 5-Point Calvinism.
"Did Jesus die on the cross for every person? Are believers eternally secure? Can grace be resisted? These and many other questions will be addressed. This conference is not going to be a "Let's bash the Calvinists" conference. This conference is going to be a biblical and theological assessment of and response to 5-point Calvinism. It will be helpful for lay people as well as preachers."

For those who know, Jerry Vines also produced a DVD on Calvinism entitled, "A Baptist and his Election" http://www.jerryvines.com/Detail.bok?no=73

Sunday, April 20, 2008

The power of the Gospel

What impact does the dynamite power of the Gospel have upon the unregenerate heart?

I've been told that it is "truth" preached to dead people, that is, spiritually dead people. However, my question remains. What impact does the Gospel "truth" have upon the unregenerate heart? I'm not asking what the Gospel is. I'm asking what it does. It seems to me that the inevitable conclusion of Calvinism is that due to the deadness of man in sin, that the living and active, faith-producing Gospel has absolutely no impact upon the unregenerate heart, unless it is accompanied by an Irresistible Grace. If so, then why do we talk about the dynamite power of the living and active Gospel? Why don't we instead talk about the dynamite power of the living and active Irresistible Grace, without which, the Gospel is otherwise dead and dormant?

Saturday, April 19, 2008

Expelled

"Expelled" is a fascinating documentary, regarding a dangerous level of intolerance within the scientific community concerning dissention against the official party line, and that being, the Theory of Evolution. To get at the heart of the matter, what is going on in the scientific community concerning Evolution is nothing new. It is the same thing that has been going on for eons, in nearly all walks of life. It is politics. The atheistic, anti-Christian establishment has its own fraternity and it's own political establishment, and detractors are treated as a threat to its power. The great fear is that "Intelligent Design" [ID] is nothing more than a front for "Creationism" and getting prayer back in school, by the dreaded "Right Wing," and thus all who support ID, must be ferreted out and silenced. The fear is that the same political strength currently wielded by the Evolution Camp will someday swing back against themselves, and of course "true science will suffer," or more importantly, their fraternity will suffer. The fact is that scientists are supposed to ask questions, and they are supposed to test theories, rather than suppress them. That's why this is a controversy, not over science, but age old politics.

Politics, however, is nothing new to the religious community either. Consider the Inquisition. Even in the Calvinism vs. Arminianism controversy, politics raises its ugly head. Simply consider the events surrounding the regime of John Calvin in Geneva. Simply consider the Synod of Dort, and the brutal repression of Arminians, and the loss of Pastorships, homes, property, as well as banishment and execution, specifically the beheading of Van Olden-Barnevelt. Additionally, look at the brutal persecution of the Anabaptists. In non-Calvinist churches, often there is great fear that Calvinists will creep in, and attempt one of their own special "Reformations," which is really a church split. By comparison, in Calvinist churches, "Arminianism" is considered the great Boogeyman. In the recent "Building Bridges" conference, Jeff Noeblet condemned the Arminian presentation of the Gospel as "wicked." Even Calvinist preacher, Charles Spurgeon, taught that Calvinism is merely a "nickname for the Gospel," and that Arminianism is "heresy." What bothers me is that sometimes the same braggadocio and bluff & bluster committed by the Evolutionist community, sounds eerily similar to the tone heard within the Calvinist community. This is why I do not like to fight over Calvinism and Arminianism. I would rather deal with the matter graciously, and on a theoretical level, as an in-house debate with Christians, rather than as a bitter political rivalry. Passions need to be held in check, for fear of establishing the same Gestapo mentality as with the Evolutionist fraternity. These are the parallels which ran through my mind, as I watched "Expelled." I certainly recommend it.

Answers in Genesis weighs in with their review: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/04/18/dr-dawkins-tear-down-this-wall

Saturday, April 5, 2008

The Irrelevance of the Total Depravity Argument

To summarize......the Total Depravity issue becomes a moot point IF God intervenes, and thus diverting the discussion to the following pivotal question: "To what degree does God intervene in the lives of depraved men?" Once you consider that God does intervene, that then must become the focal point of the discussion.

Consider the following quote from Calvinist, Erwin Lutzer: “Arminianism said man was sick; Calvinism said man was dead. If he is only sick, common grace might help him to recover by enabling him to make a right choice. But if he is spiritually dead, he needs the Give of Life to make the choice for him….” (The Doctrines That Divide, p.180)

1) What is this "Common Grace" that Lutzer refers too? Often, Calvinists will cite an example of "Common Grace" from the verse stating that God the Father provides rain for the just and the unjust, and hence is a grace that is supplied indiscriminately to all men.

2) Lutzer infers that Arminianism teaches that "Common Grace" might help a spiritually "sick" person to repent of their sins? However, Arminianism teaches that "Prevenient Grace" (which is a preceding grace), enables people to make a "one way or the other" decision.

It becomes apparent that the real nature of the debate becomes this: "When God intervenes, does He do so with 'Irresistible Grace' or with 'Prevenient Grace'?" You can talk about Total Depravity all you wish, but IF God intervenes with an enabling grace, then the logical result is that Total Depravity becomes a moot point.

Consider the example of Saul of Tarsus, to whom Jesus said that he was kicking against the goads, according to Acts 26:14: "'And when we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew dialect, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads."'" What was the goading and who is doing it? Was it something being done by the Holy Spirit? If so, then we would need to discuss the nature of this divine intervention. What about John 16:8, which states: "And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment." Again, this touches upon the nature of divine intervention. John 1:9 states: "There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man." Again, how so, and to what degree? These become the relevant questions.

To conclude, you can talk about Total Depravity all you wish, but until you discuss the nature of God's intervention, you will be missing the point. However, if you said, "It's the extent of Total Depravity that necesitates an Irresistible Grace, then you would be assuming a certain limit to God's intervention, insomuch as assuming that God's intervention could not overcome it. The real question is this: Could God intervene in the lives of men, in such a way, so as to enable them to make a "one way or another" decision, and would that overthrow God's sovereignty? To the Calvinist, it will be assumed that such would indeed overthrow His sovereignty because the Calvinist has declared a rigid monopoly on the definition of "sovereignty." Furthermore, the Calvinist is a dedicated Fatalist, thus making the entire discussion moot anyway. However, for those who are not Fatalists (i.e. Theistic Fatalism), then the nature of God's intervention must be brought to the forefront of the debate.

How does a Calvinist typically address this matter? By making the aforementioned assumption, while doing a bit of a Sleight-of-hand. In other words, the Calvinist will say, "Because man is so depraved, God must...." That's the slide-of-hand. The assumption made by the Calvinist has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with man's inability but God's inability to overcome it, apart from Preemptive Regeneration, insomuch that Calvinism alleges that God is required to make a man preemptively Born Again in order to repent, believe and become saved. Calvinists have thus assumed an artificial cap on God's power, which begs the following question: If the debate isn't about whether God is big or small enough in order to overcome Total Depravity apart from Preemptive New Birth, but is merely about the nature of God's chosen method of operations or aseity, is God big enough or powerful enough, so that if He had chosen, He could bring a depraved person to the point where they could receive His grace, apart from Preemptive New Birth? This question will definitively address my allegation against Calvinism, and if a Calvinist answers in the affirmative, then they have created a logical possibility for Arminianism.

Wednesday, December 26, 2007

God is For you

As I listen to the theology presented by Job, his friends and God, I carefully watch to see what might be construed as either Calvinistic or Arminian. After all, how could there be so much talk of theology, without anything distinctively Arminian or Calvinistic? Sure, Job despaired of being destined to doom: “Why is life given to those with no future, those destined by God to live in distress? I cannot eat for sighing; my groans pour out like water. What I always feared has happened to me. What I dreaded has come to be. I have no peace, no quietness. I have no rest; instead, only trouble comes.” (Job 3:23-26, NLT) Yet, there does not appear, by my own estimation, to be anything clearly teaching TULIP Calvinism. However, what I did find was that Job longed to have a neutral umpire hear his case, so that he could stand before God and state his case without fear: “My life passes more swiftly than a runner. It flees away, filled with tragedy. It disappears like a swift boat, like an eagle that swoops down on its prey. If I decided to forget my complaints, if I decided to end my sadness and be cheerful, I would dread all the pain he would send. For I know you will not hold me innocent, O God. Whatever happens, I will be found guilty. So what's the use of trying? Even if I were to wash myself with soap and cleanse my hands with lye to make them absolutely clean, you would plunge me into a muddy ditch, and I would be so filthy my own clothing would hate me. God is not a mortal like me, so I cannot argue with him or take him to trial. If only there were a mediator who could bring us together, but there is none. The mediator could make God stop beating me, and I would no longer live in terror of his punishment. Then I could speak to him without fear, but I cannot do that in my own strength.” (Job 9:25-35) The mistake of Job, that we can all learn from, is that God is not against us. God is for us. Sure, we indeed have an accuser, but God is the One who defends us from our accuser, and it was God who defended Job, as being a “blameless” man, foremost in all of the world. (Job 2:3)

Saturday, December 22, 2007

Suggestion Box

Examiningcalvinism.com is a Verse by Verse answer to Calvinism.
Please feel free to offer constructive feedback, but please limit it to something related to the subject matter linked above, rather than just a general theological impression. So if you feel that certain key points were overlooked in the linked articles, or that better questions could have been posed, or if you have additional quotes that you would like included for discussion, please feel free to provide them here, so that I may incorporate them.

Sincerely,

Richard Coords

Friday, December 21, 2007

Facing a Certain Eternity

Through the website, I was contacted by a Christian woman, who shared a remarkable testimony about her husband, who was saved in prison, just this past April. I recommend that you check it out. I encouraged her to put his testimony online, for others to be edified by. His photos are available upon request, in tract-form.

http://www.facingacertaineternity.com/

God bless, and have a merry Christmas!

Saturday, November 17, 2007

Dr. Jerry Vines on Calvinism in the SBC

Having just watched the DVD by Dr. Jerry Vines, "Calvinism: A Baptist and his Election," I can say that this was a fun addition to the debate. I felt that Vines hit a home run. From the onset, he admitted that he was neither a Calvinist, nor an Arminian, and then gave his reasons as to why. For those who are Calvinists, and perhaps taken offense to anything that he had to say, don't feel defensive. He does not need to be condemned. Instead, listen to what he has to say, and consider all of his reservations. Sometimes in the Calvinism vs. Arminianism debate, we feel that we must defeat the other side, or else...who knows what...certainly something terriby dreadful will happen if we do not conquer the "other" side, and thus we march on in the debate, wielding our proof-texts like battle-hardened warriors, ready to defeat the heretics. Over time, and making my own share of mistakes, I've learned that it doesn't need to be this way.

Jerry Vines asks: “If you’re Born Again before faith, what does faith accomplish?” (Calvinism: A Baptist and his Election)

That's a fair question. In his message, he shares many of his reservations with Calvinism, and he also shares his own personal experiences with Calvinists. This was a very enjoyable message, and well delivered. Simply listen to what he has to say, and listen to him speak from his heart.

Now I would like to offer two objections. One is minor and the other is a little more significant. The minor issue is that he indicated that Jacob Arminius and the Remonstrants had taught that you could lose your salvation, which is actually not true. The Remonstrance clearly states that they took a neutral position on the matter of Eternal Security, which was likely a compromise in order to ease tensions within their own group, in order to maintain unity and focus on confronting the more significant challenges posed by Calvinism. The second concern is that Dr. Vines embraced the Calvinist doctrine of Unconditional Election. Though Calvinists may be a diverse group, it is this one doctrine that unites all Calvinists. The problem is that once you go down the path of Unconditional Election, the rest of Calvinism must logically come with it, in one form or another. Calvinist, Charles Spurgeon, once prayed: “Lord, hasten to bring in all Thine elect—and then elect some more.” (An Intimate Interlude) However, when you consider the eternal aspect of Election, according to Ephesians 1:4 and 2nd Timothy 1:9, such a statement seems logically absurd, which just goes to show that when you embrace the “U” in TULIP (with the possible exception of “L”, Limited Atonement), trying to reject the rest of TULIP will succeed only in making you into a salmon in the hands of a hungry bear, as a determined Calvinist will theologically pick your bones clean. For if you embrace Unconditional Election, obviously only the “elect” in such a system, can be saved, and thus the rest of humanity has to have Total Inability to one degree or another, while the predetermined “elect” must ultimately be saved, which can only lead to an Irresistible Grace, to one degree or another. Logically speaking, there is simply no way around it. For once you start down that path, there is no turning back, until you reach all of its logical conclusions.

Tuesday, November 13, 2007

John Goodwin's "Redemption Redeemed"

This is a very challenging book to read, due to the Old English style of writing. Nevertheless, the Puritan, John Goodwin, a contemporary of Jacob Arminius, did a fantastic job in defending the doctrine of an Unlimited Atonement, as well as explaining Election in Christ and also Conditional Security. Although I am persuaded by Eternal Security, Goodwin does a fine job in defending the Conditional Security viewpoint.

Goodwin is a tremendous and tireless Bible expositor. As a quote hunter for the verse by verse discussions on my website, "Redemption Redeemed" has proven to be a treasure trove. I am greatful to the editor, John Wagner, for bringing the wisdom of John Goodwin to our generation.

I've quoted Goodwin in a number of verses on the website. If you have reviewed Goodwin's book, and would like to recommend additional quotes from him, please do so.

These are the confirmed places that I have quoted him. There are likely to be a few more as well, which I simply don’t recall.

Matthew 22:2:
http://www.examiningcalvinism.com/files/Gospels/Matthew22_2.html
John 3:16:
http://www.examiningcalvinism.com/files/Gospels/John3_16.html
John 6:44:
http://www.examiningcalvinism.com/files/Gospels/John6_44.html
John 17:2:
http://www.examiningcalvinism.com/files/Gospels/John17_2.html
1Tim 2:4:
http://www.examiningcalvinism.com/files/Paul/1Tim2_4.html