Free will?

Does God ever invade the wills of men? If He can and does, then what does this say about so-called "Free will?" Maybe we aren't as free as we might think? Consider:

“YHWH said, ‘Who will entice Ahab to go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?’ And one said this while another said that. “Then a spirit came forward and stood before YHWH and said, ‘I will entice him.’ “YHWH said to him, ‘How?’ And he said, ‘I will go out and be a deceiving spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’ Then He said, ‘You are to entice him and also prevail. Go and do so.’ “Now therefore, behold, YHWH has put a deceiving spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets; and YHWH has proclaimed disaster against you.”
(1 Kings 22:20–23)

“So Hushai said to Absalom, “This time the advice that Ahithophel has given is not good.” Moreover, Hushai said, “You know your father and his men, that they are mighty men and they are fierce, like a bear robbed of her cubs in the field. And your father is an expert in warfare, and will not spend the night with the people. “Behold, he has now hidden himself in one of the caves or in another place; and it will be when he falls on them at the first attack, that whoever hears it will say, ‘There has been a slaughter among the people who follow Absalom.’ “And even the one who is valiant, whose heart is like the heart of a lion, will completely lose heart; for all Israel knows that your father is a mighty man and those who are with him are valiant men. “But I counsel that all Israel be surely gathered to you, from Dan even to Beersheba, as the sand that is by the sea in abundance, and that you personally go into battle. “So we shall come to him in one of the places where he can be found, and we will fall on him as the dew falls on the ground; and of him and of all the men who are with him, not even one will be left. “If he withdraws into a city, then all Israel shall bring ropes to that city, and we will drag it into the valley until not even a small stone is found there.” Then Absalom and all the men of Israel said, “The counsel of Hushai the Archite is better than the counsel of Ahithophel.” For YHWH had ordained to thwart the good counsel of Ahithophel, so that YHWH might bring calamity on Absalom.”
(2 Samuel 17:7–14)

“The young men who grew up with him spoke to him, saying, “Thus you shall say to this people who spoke to you, saying, ‘Your father made our yoke heavy, now you make it lighter for us!’ But you shall speak to them, ‘My little finger is thicker than my father’s loins! ‘Whereas my father loaded you with a heavy yoke, I will add to your yoke; my father disciplined you with whips, but I will discipline you with scorpions.’”
Then Jeroboam and all the people came to Rehoboam on the third day as the king had directed, saying, “Return to me on the third day.” The king answered the people harshly, for he forsook the advice of the elders which they had given him, and he spoke to them according to the advice of the young men, saying, “My father made your yoke heavy, but I will add to your yoke; my father disciplined you with whips, but I will discipline you with scorpions.” So the king did not listen to the people; for it was a turn of events from YHWH, that He might establish His word, which YHWH spoke through Ahijah the Shilonite to Jeroboam the son of Nebat.”
(1 Kings 12:10–15)

Making sense of calamity by Calvin

Book I chapter 17.1

We must use modesty, not as it were compelling God to render an account, but so revering his hidden judgements as to account his will the best of all reasons. When the sky is overcast with dense clouds, and a violent tempest arises, the darkness which is presented to our eye, and the thunder which strikes our ears, and stupefies all our senses with terror, make us imagine that every thing is thrown into confusion, though in the firmament itself all continues quiet and serene. In the same way, when the tumultuous aspect of human affairs unfits us for judging, we should still hold, that God, in the pure light of his justice and wisdom, keeps all these commotions in due subordination, and conducts them to their proper end. And certainly in this matter many display monstrous infatuation, presuming to subject the works of God to their calculation, and discuss his secret counsels, as well as to pass a precipitate judgement on things unknown, and that with greater license than on the doings of mortal men. What can be more preposterous than to show modesty toward our equals, and choose rather to suspend our judgement than incur the blame of rashness, while we petulantly insult the hidden judgements of God, judgements which it becomes us to look up to and revere.

John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (trans. Henry Beveridge; Accordance electronic ed. Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1845), n.p.

Warning passages

In Scripture, there are all sorts of warning passages which seem to indicate that a true believer in Christ can forfeit eternal life. Though there are many that could be cited, this one is pretty strong:

““Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit, He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit, He prunes it so that it may bear more fruit.“You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you.“Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide in Me.”
(John 15:2–4 NASB)

Can one who is "in Christ," a person that produced good fruit, be "taken away" due to the fact that his works (or lack thereof) showed that he is no longer a follower of Christ? This verse would seem to indicate such.

But could there be another option? Is it possible that these warning passages serve a means to an end? In other words, the "ends" being the promise of eternal life (John 5:24) and the "means" being the warnings that unless you are bearing proper fruit (John 15:2-4), you will be "taken away" from Christ. Some might argue that this is not a possibility, given the explicit warnings in passages like these. If this argument is made, then one wonders what to make of the following:

““Yet now I urge you to keep up your courage, for there will be no loss of life among you, but only of the ship. “For this very night an angel of the God to whom I belong and whom I serve stood before me, saying, ‘Do not be afraid, Paul; you must stand before Caesar; and behold, God has granted you all those who are sailing with you.’ “Therefore, keep up your courage, men, for I believe God that it will turn out exactly as I have been told.”
(Acts 27:22–25 NASB)

Here, Paul provides a promise to those aboard the ship: they will not die. Consider the parallel:

““Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.”
(John 5:24 NASB)

"Yet now I urge you to keep up your courage, for there will be no loss of life among you...for I believe God that it will turn out exactly as I have been told." (Acts 27:22, 25 NASB)

Here, we have one spiritual promise and one material promise. The parallel is that both guarantee something.

However, in the Acts 27 account, there is something else we need to be mindful of:

“Paul said to the centurion and to the soldiers, “Unless these men remain in the ship, you yourselves cannot be saved.””
(Acts 27:31 NASB)

Why would Paul issue such a warning after he guaranteed that they would be safe? What seems to be the only option here is that this warning is simply a means to an end. That is, the guarantee is qualified with a warning. Thus, in this case, the warning is not even a possibility, but simply an affirmation of what would happen if these men leave the ship.

Could the same apply to the spiritual? Could it be that the warnings are not as much a reality as they are the means by which God sovereignly preserves the elect?

Calvinism and Hell

Recently, Justin Brierely of Unbelievable Radio hosted an interaction between Dr. James White and Roger and Faith Forester on the subjects of Calvinism and Hell. James White defended the Calvinist and Eternal Torment positions and the Foresters defended Arminianism and Conditionalism/Annihilationism positions. I think anyone interested in these subjects will find the interactions to be useful.

Listen to the discussion of Calvinism and Predestination HERE

Listen to the discussion of Hell HERE

Also, I highly recommend Justin Brierley's show, as it regularly hosts debates and interactions on some very interesting topics. You can podcast his show HERE

Did John Calvin really put Servedus to death for denying the Trinity?

I'm not the type that is really keen on following men. Furthermore, i'm not too big on defining my Scriptural positions by identifying myself with a man. However, I think we can all benefit from what men of old have researched, regardless of how good or bad they were as people. I would consider John Calvin to be one of these men. It would be difficult to imagine how, given any theological position, one could not learn from such works as the Institutes of the Christian Religion. Nonetheless, for years it has been argued that not only was Calvin a sorry excuse for a human being, but we shouldn't seek to learn from such a man. All of this for the fact that he had the Trinity-denying Michael Servedus burned at the stake.

In the vast, vast majority of instances in which Servedus is brought up (as if this would ever have any bearing on whether my theological position is true or false), you only hear one part of the story: Calvin killed Servedus. And that's it.

Say what you will about John Calvin. Think of him as the worst human being in history. Honestly, I could care less what one thinks about Calvin. But please consider all of the facts before coming to the conclusion that every Christian should throw the Institutes in the fireplace.

In THIS CLIP, James White provides the facts that are often left out.

(ht: James Swan)

What kind of Calvinist are you?

Or you may just be an arminian? But regardless, many are unaware of the differences (though they are slight) within the Reformed camp. Some Calvinists are a little more "stiff" than others. Recently, I came across this blog which devotes itself to pretty much all aspects of Calvinism and illustrating the differences between the various historical positions.. In particular, this chart laid out an excellent comparison between the positions within Calvinism. Whether you are a staunch Arminian (the "historical" Arminian, that is) or the hyper-Calvinist, I think you will find this chart to be very helpful in distinguishing your position from others. Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Evangelicals, or whoever; i'd love to know your positions in each of these categories. I'll share mine, but please note that i'm simply describing, not defending, my position on each of these in this post. If you'd like more information on my perspective on something, feel free to inquire in the comment section.

God's Love: God has the freedom to love or not love whomever He wishes. Furthermore, He has the freedom to exercise varying degrees of love to whomever He pleases. For instance, God can have a special form of love (which I refer to as "salvific love") that He reserves only for the elect, while implementing another form of love (which I refer to as "common love") for everyone else. This is "love" in the sense that God allows the non-elect to stay alive though they deserve death. But in addition, God blesses the non-elect with prosperity and health, though they do not deserve it. This places me in the "high Calvinist" camp, although it may have hyper-Calvinist leanings. The only difference is, I believe God loves the non-elect in more ways than merely wanting to preserve them. If this weren't true, we wouldn't see wicked men prospering.

God's Will: I believe that God wills only the salvation of the elect. This is where I disagree with a large number of Reformed folks. I simply see no evidence in the Scriptures where God wants every single man, woman, and child (past, present, and future) to be saved. The difficulty in distinguishing this position is that words like "desire" and "wills" must be carefully defined and qualified. That is, historic Calvinists have always been careful to distinguish between the two wills of God; the prescriptive will (e.g. God commands all men not to murder, lie, and steal), and the sovereign or secret will (i.e. what God decrees to come to pass). Where I differ from most Calvinists is that I don't believe that God "desires all men to be saved" within His prescriptive will. Obviously, there are strong arguments from both sides of this. But most Calvinists, if not all, will agree that God's desire to save the non-elect is not within His sovereign decree.

God's Grace: I believe that God gives "common" grace to all (preserving them, allowing them to prosper, etc.), but "effectual" grace to some (grace that blesses them with the gift of repentance, being born again, etc.).

Gospel Offers: I believe that the gospel should be indiscriminately offered to all. And I mean "offered" in the loosest sense of the word. That is, I will unashamedly proclaim to all men that if they repent of their sins and believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, then they will be saved. Keep in mind, this is to be strictly distinguished with the Arminian position which proclaims the "God loves you and wants you to come to Him. Each of you has the ability and capacity within yourselves to turn away from your sins and turn to him. All you have to do is make that choice." But as far as showing discrimination with the gospel offer, the hyper-Calvinist is the only position which does so.

Christ's Death: This is the one where the most controversy lies, but I honestly can't see why. Here is my position: Christ's death is sufficient for all (i.e. there's enough to go around if God so chooses), but applied to some. I see absolutely no rhyme or reason to even begin to suggest that Christ's death is applied to all, that is to say, that everyone receives all the benefits of the atonement. So basically, I believe that as long as one fulfills all the requirements for salvation (repentance, belief, etc.), then the atonement will be applied to them.

Sufficiency: This kinda overlaps with the last one. So i'll state it as the chart does, "Christ's death is extrinsically sufficient for the elect (i.e. applied to only the elect), but only intrinsically sufficient (i.e. of infinite value) for the rest."

Human Ability: I'm not completely certain as to what the chart means by "natural" ability and "moral" ability. If what they mean by "natural" is that all men are capable of making at least a false proclamation of their belief, then I agree. But I don't think for one second that all men have the natural capacity within themselves to repent and believe. I don't know which terms I would have used to describe otherwise. But the point is, I believe that without the Holy Spirit's divine intervention, I don't believe than a son of Adam has the ability within himself to truly repent and come to Christ.

Responsibility: I believe that all men are responsible to repent and believe. But just keep in mind that I don't believe that any man has the ability or capacity to do so without the Holy Spirit's divine intervention.

So I suppose that, according to the chart, i'm a "high Calvinist" with "hyper-Calvinist" leanings. But I completely reject any association with hyper-Calvinists, as they take the most extreme viewpoint on most of these issues; in particular, the gospel offer.

I'd love to hear your thoughts! If you are a blogger, you should do a similar post on your own blog and link it in the comment section here.

James White critiques Ergun Caner's sermon against Calvinism

I've been meaning to do some videos explaining Calvinism, but haven't been able to. Its pretty difficult being in New York as there are not many places where I can make video blogs in a quite environment. Furthermore, I have pretty much no resources at hand. But recently, I found this video where someone with way too much time on their hands synced the video of one of Ergun Caner's sermons with the audio where James White critiques. Although Dr. Caner isn't exactly the best that the Arminian side has to offer, many of his objections are common. Chances are, if you are an Arminian, your questions and objection to Calvinism will be answered. If not, leave a comment or shoot me an email and i'll answer your question the best I can.

I think everyone can benefit from watching this, especially those who are interested in investigating Calvinism.

Thoughts from Job

We all know the story of Job. But have you ever thought to look at it from these various angles?

Then YHWH said to Satan, "Behold, all that he has is in your power, only do not put forth your hand on him." (Job 1:12)

Here, YHWH is giving Satan permission do ruin Job's life, as long as he doesn't touch him. Of course, in Job 2:6, Satan is allowed to take away his health, as long as he didn't kill him. Clearly, we can determine that all these terrible things happening to Job are the result of Satan's actions, right?

"The oxen were plowing and the donkeys feeding beside them, and the Sabeans attacked and took them" (Job 1:14-15) "The Chaldeans formed three bands and made a raid on the camels and took them and slew the servants with the edge of the sword." (Job 1:17)

Here, the Sabeans and Chaldeans raided and destroyed Job's possessions. Clearly, we can determine that all these terrible things happening to Job are the result of the Sabean's and Chaldean's actions, right?

"YHWH gave and YHWH has taken away. Blessed be the name of YHWH."

Here, YHWH is given credit for giving Job everything that was destroyed. And He is also given credit for taking all these things away. Clearly, we can determine that all these terrible things happening to Job are the result of God's actions, right?

If God, Satan, and the Sabeans/Chaldeans are all credited for the terrible things that happened to Job, who are we to blame for these evil action? All three? Just one? Or perhaps two?

Questions about Calvinism

About a week ago, one of my readers asked me a question:

I've been reading more about Calvinism since your last blog and have noticed a bit of a theme of pre-destination. I realize that there are probably many different views on this even within and between Calvinists, but it does seem to be there to some extent within all five points. I was wondering what your feelings in particular are towards pre-destination?

I was going to do a video to answer this, but i've been getting a lot of questions from people lately in regards to Calvinism. Most people have no idea what it is. And quite honestly, Calvinism isn't exactly my number one priority as of late. But I do think it is an important issue; something that everyone should have some sort of understanding of. This is not to say that everyone should have to read the writings of Arminius or Calvin. But this issue has everything to do with how and why a person gets saved. Is God in control of salvation or isn't he? Did Jesus die on the cross for all men, or a particular group? Who is responsible for the evil in this world? Questions like these are extremely important, but they are still peripheral issues that Christians should not divide over. We should debate these issues rigorously, but with respect to one another.

With that said, i'm going to do a videoblog series on predestination/Calvinism. I'm not sure when i'll start this, because i've got a few other projects underway. But hopefully soon!

Must one be a Calvinist to be saved? A response to Chance

I just noticed that I called him "Chase" a few times. Sorry!!