Umm...am I missing something?

I found this blog and as I was reading through it I really confused. It is written by a self described Calvinist who is attempting to answer a very poorly written post attacking Calvinism on Facebook.

I am hoping that someone can help me with this post. In case you did not know, I am not a Calvinist. I have done a lot of reading and I think I have a pretty good understanding of the tenets of Calvinism. At least I thought so until I read this article. Please read this article and then take a look at my questions below. Please read the article first so that you are not prejudiced in any way. If you are a Calvinist please forgive the attitude in the original post to which this author is responding.
The Blog

So, my question:

• Is this author saying that his children are elect because He is elect? "The promise of the covenant is to Abraham and his children." This would go against unconditional election would it not?

I do not see how this person can say some of the  things he says. "From these activities and others such as regular attendance at church, you heard over and over again the great promise of salvation. And this was most vividly displayed in your baptism, that signified, among other things, you belonged to God." Is this a part of child baptism beliefs? Does this place them into the elect? Help!

The author also fails to deal with the poorly worded diatribe's complaint about Calvinism. Pointedly, that Elect parents have no way of knowing whether their children are elect. This Non Calvinist and many others have a good deal of trouble understanding how a God who gives us instructions on how to raise our children Eph. 6:4, Deut. 6:6&7, etc. when He knows that the child is or isn't elect.

I personally cannot see a God who deals thus with His children as a God worthy of love or worship. Fear maybe, Love No. And I mean Freddy Kruger fear, not awe and respect fear.

Calvinists do not deal with this issue well. (John Piper did say he was aware that one or more of his children might not have been one of the elect.)

Here is one response I have received many times:
Me: According to Calvinist teaching at least one of my children could be one of the non-elect.
Calvinist: True
Me: I can't accept that. If, according to what I see in the Bible, My son refuses to repent and receive the gift of salvation, my son is in danger of hellfire. But according to Calvinism, my son (if not one of the elect) has no chance of salvation.
Calvinist: (this response I don't understand but i have received it many times) Can you through prayer and teaching save your son?
Me:HUH?

I once heard a Calvinist proponent put it this way. It is true that one of your children is un-elect but you can have the utter confidence that the other if elect is forever safe from Hell.
What possible comfort is this?
 ( I apologize for not being able to find the reference on YouTube. I am sure I know who it was but I am not going to use his name without being able to give a reference.)

POINSETTIA vs.TULIP

I was snooping around online today and ran across this site and I was wondering what anyone else thinks of it. I mean, obviously they got too cute with a flower acrostic but this so precisely says what I have wanted to say in a relatively concise manner.





Here is the first page. It is the page that caught my attention this afternoon.

Here is the second page. I would love if anyone who is a Calvinist would tell me what they think of this chart. Specifically, do you think the Calvinist position is well represented in these bullet points?


Thanks!

Cain You Believe This?

Time to vent a bit more...

I read the story of Cain and Abel today and I am appalled at the way God deceived Cain.

Now the man had relations with his wife Eve, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain, and she said, “I have gotten a manchild with the help of the LORD.” Again, she gave birth to his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of flocks, but Cain a tiller of the ground. So it came about in the course of time that Cain brought an offering to the LORD of the fruit of the ground. Abel, on his part also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of their fat portions. And the LORD had regard for Abel and for his offering; but for Cain and for his offering He had no regard. So Cain became very angry and his countenance fell. Then the LORD said to Cain, “Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen? “If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it.” Cain told Abel his brother. And it came about when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother and killed him. Gen. 4

OK that second sentence was a bit harsh but if I am understanding the TULIP approach to Bible interpretation it really isn't.

According to the Calvinists all of Adam's descendants have a total inability to do what is right. They insist that there is no part of man since the fall that can respond positively to God.

"Let it stand, therefore, as an indubitable truth, which no engines can shake, that the mind of man is so entirely alienated from the righteousness of God, that he cannot conceive, desire, or design anything but what is wicked, distorted, foul, impure and iniquitous; that his heart is so thoroughly envenomed by sin, that it can breathe out nothing but corruption and rottenness; that if some men occasionally make a show of goodness, their mind is ever interwoven with hypocrisy and deceit, their soul inwardly bound with fetters of wickedness."
John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, translated by Henry Beveridge (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans), reprinted 1983, vol. I, p. 291.

The Calvinist says that man cannot respond to God without God first reaching into his soul and regenerating him. Just to make clear that I am not misreading this here is the most vocal of the Calvinist preachers, John Piper: So in the order of causation we have: 1) new birth, 2) faith in Jesus, and 3) the doing of God’s commandments without a sense of burdensomeness...

Man is unable to respond to any command or unction unless God give him said ability. See where I'm going with Cain?

Cain was peeved because his offering was not accepted and his brothers was accepted so he was having a pouting session when God came to him..."Then the LORD said to Cain, “Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen? “If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you," No problem yet but if God properly understood the doctrines of grace He never would have finished this confrontation with "but you must master it.”

Oh No! God doesn't remember that Mankind including Cain is unable to respond until God regenerates Him.

Please understand I am using folly to demonstrate a point. God forgets nothing. God knows His plans and mans limitations. It is precisely because He knows these things that I cannot accept what the Calvinist superimposes on scripture.

God told Cain that he must master the sin that crouching at the door. He laid that responsibility directly at Cain's feet implying that Cain could master that sin. Calvin, Piper, Sproul and the rest of the calvinist camp insist he,as a man totally depraved, could not have mastered it.

So is God telling Cain to do something he is inherently unable to do? If so what does that say about God? 

What I believe: The fall gave man a sin nature but the fall did not remove the image of God from mankind. We are able to see truth when God's Word illumines our hearts and minds. In this case God's word came in first person and Cain had to choose to obey or rebel. In our situation the Word of God comes through the Scriptures that are read or preached. (Acts 8, Phillip and the Ethiopian Eunuch is an example of this.) Once this illumination comes we have a choice we can either reject God and continue to rebel (like Cain) or we can submit to God in repentance and belief and then He does the work of regeneration. 

Mystery Shmystery!

"The Scriptures teach God’s love for the world, His displeasure in judging sinners, His desire for all to hear the gospel and be saved. They also teach that every sinner is incapable yet responsible to believe and will be damned if he does not. Crowning the Scripture’s teaching on this matter is the great truth that God has elected who will believe and saved them before the world began. What mystery!"
This is a quote from Grace To You (Italics mine) 

Using the word MYSTERY is a classic escape hatch for Calvinists. Feeling that they can appeal to the greatness and depth of God's nature they go merrily on their way speaking in circles. The problem is what they end up saying about the God they want so desperately to defend.

Look at the quote again. The author here  says scriptures teach that we are incapable of believing yet responsible for not believing. Huh? How can a man be responsible for doing something he is (according to Calvinist doctrine) completely incapable of doing? If this is true it makes God as capricious as any tyrant ruler we love to root against in movies. 

What if the command was God wants all men to fly like a bird but does not give them wings? Taking the illustration further What if God also said I will only save those who fly like a bird but only gives wings to some? That God would be unlovable and unworthy of worship.

Appealing to mystery does not relieve God of a duplicitous action in requiring an act that we are incapable of performing.

"When God desires all men to be saved, He is being consistent with who He is. In Isaiah 45:22God said, “Turn to Me, and be saved, all the ends of the earth.” Isaiah 55:1 invites “every one who thirsts” to “come to the waters” of salvation. Again, in Ezekiel 18:23, 32 God states very clearly that He does not desire that the wicked should perish, but that they would sincerely repent (cf..Ezek. 33:11). In the New Testament, Peter writes, “The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9)." 
No true biblical theology can teach that God takes pleasure in the damnation of the wicked. Yet though it does not please Him, God will receive glory even in the damnation of unbelievers (cf..Rom. 9:22–23). How His electing grace and predestined purpose can stand beside His love for the world and desire that the gospel be preached to all people, still holding them responsible for their own rejection and condemnation, is a mystery of the divine mind." (Same Article as above)

It is not a mystery it is a contradiction! I am not saying we can understand everything about God. We certainly cannot! But making a contradictory statement about God cannot be swept away with the term mystery. 

Just as an aside point,

"No true biblical theology can teach that God takes pleasure in the damnation of the wicked." I agree! But John Calvin does not agree.

"We say, then, that Scripture clearly proves this much, that God by his eternal and immutable counsel determined once for all those whom it was his pleasure one day to admit to salvation, and those whom, on the other hand, it was his pleasure to doom to destruction." Institutes 3:21:7

Calvin was clear that he felt it was God's pleasure to damn unbelievers for not believing when, according to him and Augustine, they cannot believe. This by the way was not the view of the church for the first 300 years of it's existence. Augustine, influenced by Manichean and Gnostic philosophy, was instrumental in changing the view of soteriology.

Man is certainly incapable of saving himself but if God says He desires all men to come to repentance then we must find in His plan an opportunity for each man to repent. 

An honest examination of scripture reveals a God who has made provision for all humanity through the death of His Son on the cross. The sin of the world was atoned for in that one act of love. (I know, I know. I'll  cover the TULIP "L" another time!) God works through the preaching of His living Word and the ministry of the Holy Spirit to open the hearts and minds of men so that they have to make a willful decision concerning the Gospel. 

Thanks for reading!
Dave

A slave cannot will himself into being free...

OK so I am listening to Mark Driscoll defending his view of predestination and I have to say, he is a very good communicator but his understanding of his own theology is muddled at best. He wants to be a good 'young, restless and reformed' dude but his understanding of the heart of God messes up his Calvinist leanings.

The video is very interesting and reveals the true problem with Calvinism. It runs counter to the Biblical revelation of God's character. As Mark tries to show that God's desire is that all men be saved he (mark) constantly talks about people are going to heaven because they believe in Jesus and they are not going to heaven because they do not believe. All well and good until you realize that a truly Calvinistic position absolutely forbids the free will believing that Mark implies here.

According to the traditional  Calvinist position God has to regenerate a person before they can believe. This view can be found in a multitude of modern and older authors. Sproul, Piper and Kennedy are a view. This view requires that we disregard the normal understanding of 'Believe' and 'faith' and remove any and all human activity.

I use a simple hermeneutic (Method of Bible Interpretation). If the plain sense makes sense seek no other sense. Unfortunately the Calvinist must use  a complicated series of interpretational (I think I made up a word there)  gymnastics so that he can make the Bible say what he wants it to say.

But I'll go down those roads more in the future. I entitled this blog the way I did because Driscoll made this statement in the aforementioned video.

A slave cannot will himself into being free he has to be set free.

I would agree wholeheartedly if he meant the same thing as I do. Here is my view Christ has redeemed me and offers me (and all humanity) freedom from slavery to sin and eternal life with Him. I have the opportunity to accept that gift by faith (Libertarian freewill human choice to believe). If I accept it I am free If I reject it I remain a slave. The offer is real for all people. 

The Calvinist view makes this freedom open to ONLY those whom God has chosen to save and all others are damned. Driscoll says he believes in a single predestination God predestines a finite number known to Him for salvation and passes over the rest)  but in reality God has created people He has no intention of saving and that means they are predestined to Hell. 

Please note* this means that God has given you children that are possibly (and,if you have more than 2 children) quite probably not going to have a chance at salvation. (unconditional election) If there are any Calvinists reading this I usually get this as their response to this argument. "Oh, so  you can save your children?" Of course not! 

But if one of my children (In my understanding of salvation) rejects the offer of salvation it is on them and them alone. The Calvinist view says that if one of my children is not one of the chosen he is going to hell and that is on God. 

Oh boy, I warned you I could get on my hobby horse and really get going and I have done so. Enough for now... I'll try to be more organized in the future!

Introduction-Why this blog?

I am no where near smart enough to call my self a theologian but i do enjoy theology. I read and read but then I find myself with a bunch of ideas and no where to let off the theo-steam pressure that builds up as I read. So I will see if this does the trick.

I am 54 years old and I have been a youth pastor and pastor for more than 25 years. I am not currently  working in a church setting (hence the need for a sounding board like this blog).

Just to let you know I do have a couple of theological hobby horses I like to ride.

• I am a young earth creationist so I can get really worked up about that issue.
• I am not a Calvinist (not fully Arminian either by the way) 

I'll try to keep a balance between these subjects and other theological topics.

If anyone reads this blog please comment as you feel the need to do so.