"You Talking To Me Willis?"

"Hyper-Calvinist!" How often have we heard this charge from Arminians launched against Calvinists that delight in the doctrines of grace. It has become the typical point of assault from many of our Arminian brothers that do not really know what Calvinism is; they seem to think that if they just tack the pejorative "hyper" onto Calvinism then everyone will flee from it. It would be interesting  to know what they actually think Calvinism is since they understand Calvinism to be "hyper-Calvinism?"

Then there are quasi Arminians that seem to understand the major role Calvinists have played in the history of the church for the Gospel's sake and want to lay claim to such heritage while rejecting the doctrines or re-defining them. Norm Geisler and his "moderate Calvinism" which is nothing more than Arminianism with a different jacket on. One cannot deny the grace of God in unconditional election and still be any kind of Calvinist! There is nothing moderate about it, since it is not Calvinism.

Then there are many Calvinists that are quick put that jacket ("hyper-Calvinist") on others Calvinists that may differ from them on issues like "common grace" (which I whole heartedly believe) and the "well-meant offer" (which I do not believe). I've heard Dr. David Engelsma, Dr. Herman Hoeksema, Dr. James White and Dr. John Gerstner, Robert Reymond all wrongly labeled "hyper- Calvinist" because they all reject the "well-meant offer."

I am not going to explain all those issues nor what real hyper-Calvinism is since this particular article is aimed at those that have some knowledge of these matters. My point is that while labels are a good thing let's be careful on knowing what the label means and that it correctly fits the people we are labeling. So much confusion can occur when wrong real labels are put on the wrong people.

At this moment I wish allow Dr. David Engelsma speak on the subject in dealing specifically with the nonsensical label of Calvinism with "hyper-Calvinism" from well noted Arminian John. R. Rice in his error and very confused slanderous book Predestined to Hell? No! Engelsma writes:

In most cases the charge "hyper-Calvinism" is nothing but a deceptive attack on Calvinism itself. Someone hates Calvinism or the uncompromising, consistent defense of Calvinism. Yet he hesitates to attack Calvinism openly and forthrightly. Therefore he disguises his attack as an attack on "hyper-Calvinism" and "hyper-Calvinists."

There is no need to refute Rice's arguments against Calvinism nor to expose his defense of Arminianism from Scripture, although a lover of the Reformed faith is sorely tempted to do this in order to lay bare the utter poverty of modern Arminianism. Rice blunders around in the Bible, as Luther said of Ersamus, the way a pig roots about in a sack of feed.

It serves our purpose to stress two things regarding the war cry "hyper-Calvinism" that become plain from such works as those of Rice. First the charge "hyper-Calvinism" masks an attack on Calvinism. Rice is an Arminian and a Pelgian. He admits to holding that every man's salvation depends on the choice of his own free will. This is Arminianism. He also maintains that men only potentially died in Adam and that the natural man who has nothing more than the testimony of God in creation may be saved  by this natural light. This is sheer Pelagianism.*

Be leery of the often tossed allegation of "hyper Calvinist" or "hyper Calvinism." Hyper Calvinism is certainly real and heretical but should never be tossed around lightly.

Soli Deo Gloria!


* David J. Engelsma, Hyper-Calvinism & The Call of the Gospel (Grand Rapids, MI.: Reformed Free Publishing Association, 1994), p. 9-12

No My Arminian Brethren The Real Monstrosity Is...

Obviously I'm really pushing this book. Here's why:

Let’s begin by considering the logic of the doctrine. Some claim that definite atonement is a monstrosity of Calvinistic logic. In reality, both Arminianism and Calvinism are self-consistent logical systems.

 If human beings are capable of responding to God’s grace on their own, and if election means only God’s acceptance of those He foresees will turn to Him, then the only atonement that is necessary is one that permits God to forgive those who so respond (Arminianism). But if, on the other hand, fallen human beings are in bondage to their sinful nature, incapable of understanding spiritual things, submitting to God’s Law, or doing anything pleasing to Him; and if election is truly a matter of God’s unconditional choice—if, in short, God has given a people to His Son—then we would expect an atonement that actually saves the lost (Calvinism). From the point of view of a Calvinistic understanding of the Scriptures, it is the Arminian atonement that seems a monstrosity, because it promises fallen men and women no power to raise them from their spiritual death. If a woman were lying at the bottom of a deep well, with no strength to climb out, it would not comfort her much to hear somebody at the top shouting, “Good news! There is nothing to prevent me giving you a hand once you get to the top!” From the Calvinist perspective, the help offered by an Arminian atonement is worthless.

 The Calvinist atonement, in contrast, is one that actually saves the lost. Jesus’ death satisfied the claims of divine justice against the sins of the elect and purchased for them all that is required for their salvation: effectual calling, faith, justification, sanctification, and eventual glorification with Christ in heaven. All these blessings of salvation flow to them from the Cross. Christ has paid for their sins. He has descended to the very bottom of the well on their behalf, and He will by no means fail to rescue them. “And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day” (John 6:39).

 From the Calvinist point of view, it is Arminianism that presents logical impossibilities. Arminianism tells us that Jesus died for multitudes that will never be saved, including millions who never so much as heard of Him. It tells us that in the case of those who are lost, the death of Jesus, represented in Scripture as an act whereby He took upon Himself the punishment that should have been ours (Isa. 53:5), was ineffective. Christ has suffered once for their sins, but they will now have to suffer for those same sins in hell.*

“I have manifested your name to the people whom you gave me out of the world. Yours they were, and you gave them to me, and they have kept your word. Now they know that everything that you have given me is from you. For I have given them the words that you gave me, and they have received them and have come to know in truth that I came from you; and they have believed that you sent me. I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours. All mine are yours, and yours are mine, and I am glorified in them (Jn 17:6–10 emphasis mine).

Soli Deo Gloria!

For His Glory,
Fernando


*Clotfelter, David (2004-10-01). Sinners in the Hands of a Good God: Reconciling Divine Judgment and Mercy (p. 164-165). Moody Publishers. Kindle Edition.

Let's Do This...Again- Calvinism Vs. Arminianism

Does it really matter you ask? It most certainly does. Of course not in the matter of one's standing in Christ. That is to say that both Calvinists and Arminians are Christians (of course there are unsaved Calvinists just as there are unsaved Arminians). We are brothers and sisters in Christ and that is why this converstaion or debate really matters. In the spirit of brotherly love we owe it to one another to discuss these soteriological issues (the study of salvation) because it relates to our sanctification. It matters for our growth in Christ and for His glory. We both cannot be right and whoever is wrong has some serious corrections to make in their theology.

I normally do not like to identify myself as a Calvinist. Not because I am embarrassed of the title or because it makes me look like I'm "following a man." But chiefly because it is so misunderstood from my Arminian brethren. I spend more time correcting the false views presented concerning my position. I recently had a two hour conversation with an Arminian brother that took me to task because he said Calvinists believe that man does not a have a will. After twenty minutes of his attacking a conclusion built off of a faulty premise, I finally interrupted and let him know that I believe man has a will. He looked confused so I explained to him that man has a will but that Calvinists hold that it is in bondage to sin and will remain in bondage unless the grace of God, through the working of the Holy Spirit, breathes life into Him so that He can repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ to be saved.

He then asked if the Holy Spirit works in everyone this way. I responded "no" with reference to Romans 9:13 and he then proceeded to resume taking me to task for saying man has no will. What a mass of confusion! It was obvious that in his theology, as with most Arminians, that "free-will" is the hinge on which the relationship between God and man hangs. And to deny libertarian "free-will" is, in their theological framework, synonymous with saying man has no will. The view is that the Holy Spirit "enlightens" everyone equally and it is up to the individual to exercise their "free-will" to receive or reject Christ ("prevenient grace").

 Of course they will deny that "free-will" is central to their theology. They maintain that Christ is central. Here we have no disagreement. But when pressed we see that "free-will" is indeed vital to their understanding of how Christ redeems man in the application of His work. Does He of His own sovereignty, love, mercy and grace redeem those that the Father sent Him for- choosing them out of His own love and for His own purpose and glory, for his own pleasure and out of His own will ( Jn. 17:1-10) or does the Father simply look down time and see who is going to respond to Him and then send Christ for everyone with the understanding that all who choose Him will be His elect? The former is the Calvinist position while the latter is the Arminian. And it makes a great difference which position you take. One side clearly gives man some credit for his own salvation.

How so you ask? If, as the Arminian contends, the Holy Spirit enlightens everyone the same so that anyone whom wishes to exercise their "free-will" to believe- what is the basis for why one person receives Christ and another rejects Him. Was one smarter? More "moral?" Spiritually sensitive? What makes them differ? The Arminian cannot point to God, specifically the Holy Spirit, because He allegedly (according to them) has given the same kind of "prevenient grace" to everyone. So the difference cannot be said, from the Arminian, to be with God but with man. This, however, flies in complete contradiction to numerous biblical passages but specifically with:

But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved—and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast (Eph 2:4–9 emphasis mine). 

For the Arminian view point to work, "free-will" (in some sense and however they wish to get fancy in describing it) is central to man's salvation. Some are bold and honest enough to admit it but others not so much. And all one needs to do in order to see this is taken them to passages like John 6:37, "All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out" and John 6:44, "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day;" watch how they smuggle in the idea of man's choice or "free-will" when those passages are utterly devoid of any mention of it. The emphasis is not on man's "choosing" but on God's choice. In the first passage all that the Father gives to Christ will come to Christ. There is no "but only if they receive Him." No, they will receive Him because the Father has given them to the Son. So if the Arminian view point is correct- that the Holy Spirit enlightens everyone and draws everyone- then all people will be saved. Of course thankfully they will be grossly inconsistent in their hermeneutic and repudiate any Universalism since it is nowhere found in Scripture. But for them to get around passages like John 6:37 and 6:44 they must insert a "but" with some argument for man's choosing or rejecting ("free-will").

The same thing applies to John 6:44. The same him that is drawn by the Father in the first part of the verse is the same him in the last part of the verse who will raised on the last day. If the Father draws everyone as the Arminian argues, then everyone will be raised at the last day and that, again, is Universalism. Praise the Lord that they will be inconsistent and reject any form of it.

David Clotfelter states it even better:

The Bible says that “Salvation comes from the LORD” (Jonah 2:9 NIV), but Arminianism, even if unwittingly, says, “Salvation is partly from the Lord and partly from the exercise of human freedom.” The Bible says, “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast” (Eph. 2:8–9), but Arminianism says, “It is chiefly by grace that we have been saved, but not entirely; and we may very appropriately assume credit for the faith through which we receive salvation since it is an act of our own free will.”

 Again, I do not claim that Arminians actually make such statements, but neither do I see how they can logically avoid them. If God’s choice of me rests ultimately upon His foreknowledge of my choice of Him, then it is just and right for me to take credit for my salvation and to view myself as in some way superior to the person who makes a decision not to believe. Maybe I am smarter than my friends who haven’t believed, or maybe I am more virtuous; one way or the other, it is by my own freedom that I differ from those others, and it would be false modesty to refuse to boast. Yet what Christian wants to boast in this way? Arminianism may square with ordinary human notions of justice, but it doesn’t square with the Christian understanding of divine grace.*

Furthermore, it is hard to see that divine election really means anything at all on Arminian principles, which makes it difficult to understand why the New Testament devotes so much attention to it. If “God chose us” really just means “God foresaw that we would choose him,” then why should the Bible even bother to speak of God’s choosing?

 Let me illustrate the point with two texts of Scripture. First, look at 1 Corinthians 1:26–31:

 For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. He is the source of your life in Christ Jesus, whom God made our wisdom and our righteousness and sanctification and redemption. Therefore, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.”

 At least on the face of it, this passage is about God’s exercise of His prerogative to choose whom He will. He has deliberately chosen people who may be considered weak or foolish in order to shame those who are strong, so that no one may boast before Him. Therefore, the Christians in Corinth should recognize that it is by God’s grace that they are in Christ, and they should boast only in Him. On this reading, the passage sets up a relationship of opposition between God’s election on the one hand and human boasting on the other. The Corinthians must not boast, not only because the initiative in their election lay with God, but also because their election is, if anything, a sign of their lowliness and weakness.

 If Arminianism is correct, however, and God simply chooses those who choose Him, then it seems that we have to radically reinterpret the passage. In this case, what Paul is really saying is that the weak and foolish chose God (as He of course foreknew they would), while the wise and strong did not. Though apparently about God’s prerogative to choose whom He will, the passage actually is a discussion of human choices. But if this is so, then what is the point of the discussion? And how does the reference to God’s choosing counteract the tendency of the Corinthians to boast? A Corinthian Christian might, I suppose, say something like this: “Well, perhaps my decision to believe in Christ is in one sense a sign of my ‘weakness’ or ‘foolishness,’ but in another and much deeper sense it is evidence of my superiority. The ‘wise’ ones of the world may look down on me, but I have chosen the better path and have thereby shown that it is they who are the fools.” But this leaves the Christian boasting in himself, which is the very thing Paul is trying to avoid! Surely the Calvinist understanding of the passage is the more logical one.*

Yes my friends this is a discussion worth having. God's greater glory and our growth in Him is at stake!

If you have ten minutes or so give this video your time.

Soli Deo Gloria!

For His Glory,
Fernando


*Clotfelter, David (2004-10-01). Sinners in the Hands of a Good God: Reconciling Divine Judgment and Mercy (p. 116-18). Moody Publishers. Kindle Edition.

Refuting Arminian Arguments: On God's Foreknowledge

"God looks down the corridors of time, saw who would choose Him based on their free-will, and chose only those who would choose Him"


This a very common argument coming from our Arminian brothers. And it would be true, if we were maybe using Webster's dictionary in order to derive what the word "foreknowledge" means. But we are called to be theologians, and theologians derive what theological words mean from SCRIPTURE. Is this not also the fault of the Arminian when it comes to the word "world"? A presumption that world means every single person alive, when clearly that is not the case (e.g, John 3:17, John 17:9, John 7:4). We ought to let scripture speak for itself, and place aside our comfortable traditions, that get us accepted to the tables and meetings of men. According to our Ariminan brethren, foreknowledge simply means God has knowledge of what free creatures will do (How God knows for certain what they will do, if they are free, is a question they still have to answer). Certainly He does have such knowledge, since He decreed the future as such. But when Scripture uses the word foreknowledge, it means more than cognition.


Foreknowledge in the Old-Testament 


There is no use of the word foreknowledge in the O.T. But what we do have is to "know". Again, jumping to our presuppositions, we would assume that to know just means to acknowledge or have knowledge of, but this is not the way the word is used in scripture. To know (as with foreknowledge), denotes God's intimate love with His people, in a saving sense.

Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, " I have gotten a man with the help of the Lord"- (Gen 4:1, ESV)

The Lord said to Moses, " I will also do this thing of which you have spoken; for you have found favor in My sight and I have known you by name." - (Exodus 33:17, NASB)

You have been rebellious against the Lord from the day I knew you- (Deuteronomy 9:24 NASB)

For the Lord knows the way of the righteous, But the way of the wicked will perish (Psalm 1:6 NASB)

Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations- (Jeremiah 1:5 NASB)

You only have I known of all the families of the earth; therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities- (Amos 3:2 NASB)


Foreknowledge in the New-Testament


The word to know is also used in the in N.T- the same way as the old. Here are some examples, and then we'll look at the term Foreknowledge:


" Then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.'- (Matthew 7:23 NASB)

I am the good shepherd, and I know My own and My own know me, - (John 10:14 NASB)

But if anyone loves God, he is known by Him- (1 Cor 8:3 NASB)

..The Lord knows those who are His..(2 Timothy 2:19 NASB)

It is obvious by the verses above, that to know (or when it says God knew), means more than simple cognition. Rather, it implies by its usage, that to know denotes to love, to regard with favor, or to appoint. Further, when we look at verses such as Acts 2:23, Romans 8:29, Romans 11:2 and 1 Peter 1:2 it is people that are foreknown, not what they will do. To further complicate the problem- If God looks down the corridors of time, He would not "foresee" people believing in Him. Why? Because no one believes in God apart from God's work (of electing, quickening, etc). And what if God looked down the corridors of time and elected those who would choose Him? Well, what would be the point of election? Why would God elect those whom He knows will already elect Him? What's the point? The reality of that matter is that God predestines those whom He foreknows. And this foreknowledge is not based on some foreseen faith in individuals; it is based on the good pleasure of God (Ephesians 1:9).

Your salvation is like a chain that extends back into eternity and forward into eternity. It is an unbreakable chain. Wherever you look on this chain, you find links of iron forged by God himself. - John Piper

In Christ, Awretchsaved