The New Calvinism and the New Community

Last week I gave the “Gaffin Lecture on Theology, Culture, and Mission” at Westminster Seminary. This was a high honor because of the esteem I have both for Richard Gaffin and the school. Gaffin’s book, By Faith, Not By Sight, which just appeared in a new edition, came at a time when I needed help and encouragement in dealing with the New Perspective on Paul.

The topic I chose to address was “The New Calvinism and the New Community: The Doctrines of Grace and the Meaning of Race.” There were five reasons I went this direction:

First, the lecture is called “On Theology, Culture, and Mission.” With this topic I was able to embrace all three.    Continue at John Piper

  

One for All, or All for Naught? Limited Atonement

The next installment of our little TULIP series on Calvinism is the big L.

This is the boogieman doctrine of Limited Atonement. What is the debate? The issues is usually phrased this way:  “For whom did Christ die, the whole world, or specifically for those who would believe?”

If option A, the whole world, then why are some people in Hell? if option B, only believers, what about the verses that talk about Jesus loving the world? You can see what even some Calvinists disavow this letter, leaving them as diminutive “four-pointers” whose gardens bloom with tu_ips.

Put another way, “Did Jesus die to potentially save everyone or did he die to actually save some?”

John Calvin articulated that the Bible teaches clearly that Christ’s death effectually accomplishes salvation for those he chose to save. His sparring partner Jacobus Arminius said Christ’s death potentially provides salvation for everyone, but not effectually for anyone. If you were to illustrate this on a napkin for someone you might try this…    Continue at Clint Archer

Despicable Me? The Doctrine of Total Depravity

Hamlet is William Shakespeare’s psychological tour de force, which deals with some of the deepest philosophical and anthropological questions in life. What is man? Are we innately good, or evil? What drives us? What curbs us? What is the reason for us to be or not to be? These are the questions the pensive Danish prince Hamlet muses about throughout the haunting story.

The play touches on one of the enduring debates in psychology—whether humans are born with a good nature or an evil one.

Many popular Oprah-esque paradigms today surmise that the reason people do bad things– the reason for the crime rate, the genocide, the atrocities we see on the pages of history– is because people have been infected with evil by their environment. In fact, they warn that viewing yourself as innately evil is harmful to your self-esteem.

The solutions proffered to cleanse the human stain of violence and wickedness, is a concoction of better education systems, a more stable economy, improved healthcare and welfare for the poor, etc.   Continue at Clint Archer

Anti-Calvinist No More: I Repented

I grew up attending a Church of God of Prophecy in Sparta, TN with my parents and three sisters. My parents still attend Shiloh Church of God of Prophecy today. My dad is a deacon, and my mom has taught Sunday school and Children’s Church. It’s a small family church, made up of my aunts, uncles, cousins, and other believers. I first heard God’s word and understood His grace and love for me in Christ at this church. Members of this small church loved me. Some of my fondest memories of observing the genuine constant repentance and faith in Christ of Christians originated here.

When I was fifteen years of age, I started attending another church, a Southern Baptist church with a friend. I publicly repented of my sin and trusted in Christ at a youth lock-in when I was 17 years of age. I had heard the gospel for years, but I had never grasped the concept of salvation by grace through faith alone in Christ alone. My good works could not save me. I needed God to save me. I surrendered to preach a year later when I was 18 years of age. This church put me through an internship, and they ordained me once another church was willing to call me into pastoral ministry in an official capacity.   Continue at Jared Moore

Understanding 1 John 2:2

From the archives on this blog (from October 2005) by Rev. John Samson

Many of you know something of my struggle in coming to understand and appreciate the doctrines of grace. One of the biggest hurdles I encountered was my traditional understanding of 1 John 2:2. For a long time, it acted much like a roadblock in my thinking, preventing me from believing what I now consider to be the clear and consistent teaching of scripture. 

How are we to understand the verse then?

Let me start by affirming that scripture is explicit in saying that Jesus died:

for God's people ("He was cut off out of the land of the living, stricken for the transgression of My people" - Isaiah 53:8; "He shall save His people from their sins" - Matt. 1:21);

for His sheep ("I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep." - John 10:11 - note that Jesus categorically states that some are not His sheep - "but you do not believe because you are not My sheep." - John 10:26)

for His friends ("Greater love has no one than this, that someone lays down his life for his friends. You are My friends if you do what I command you." - John 15:13-14;

for the Church ("... the church of God, which He obtained with His own blood." - Acts 20:28; "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her, that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her..." - Eph. 5:25, 26).  Continue at John Samson

IMAGE

Did Jesus Die to Save Everyone?

The doctrine of definite atonement is nothing if not controversial. That Jesus died to rescue his bride is a precious truth, one all Christians embrace. But the suggestion he didn't die to rescue everyone—well, that doesn't prompt so many hugs. TULIP's middle petal has a particular tendency to provoke muted embarrassment or yawning indifference, if not visceral rejection. Some say it's more logical than biblical. Others say it's too esoteric to be important, or too unloving to be true.

But what if, when properly understood, this difficult doctrine turns out to be not a source of embarrassment but a resource for joy? From Heaven He Came and Sought Her: Definite Atonement in Historical, Biblical, Theological, and Pastoral Perspective (Crossway) [Website | Twitter] is a towering new tome making the case that definite atonement is not only historically reputable and biblically faithful, but also practically and pastorally glorious. With contributions (and endorsements) from a sterling array of pastors and scholars, this is a volume that deserves serious engagement—regardless of where you lean or land.

I talked with editors David and Jonathan Gibson about "4-pointers," evangelism, whether they oversell their case, and more. Also, be on the lookout for reviews from Jason Duesing (tomorrow) and Robert Yarbrough (Monday).    Continue at Matt Smethurst

Allowing Romans 9 to Speak for Itself

As the Apostle Paul transitions into what we now call Romans 9 we should recall that there were no chapter and verse divisions in the original text. He is not starting a new theme but answering the question … if (or rather, since) God has an elect people who can never be separated from the love of God (which is what Romans 8 has just stated), what happened with the Jews? Weren’t they God’s elect people too? 

History records that most of the Jews failed to recognize their own Messiah when He came… How can what Paul has written be true if God’s own people failed to receive Messiah when He came (and therefore are unsaved - Romans 10:1)? Hasn’t God’s promise failed to materialize for these people? What about the Jews Paul?

Paul was no ivory tower academician who had merely great intellectual acumen but no heart felt concern for people. Paul had a very real sympathy and compassion for his fellow countrymen and if it were possible (which of course it was not) he would have forfeited his own salvation if it would mean that his own people would be redeemed. He felt the issue very deeply. 

Romans 9:1 I am speaking the truth in Christ—I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit— 2 that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh.

 

The Jews had unique privileges which were enjoyed by no other people on earth. Paul lists eight distinct and unique benefits:

4 They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. 5 To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.    Continue at John Samson

New Course on Calvinism from John Piper

The Bible gives us a glorious vision of God’s sovereignty in saving sinners. “Calvinism” is a kind of nickname for this Christian body of doctrine on salvation that so appropriately humbles humanity and so magnificently exalts divine grace.

In a new eight-hour course on Calvinism, or “the doctrines of grace,” John Piper walks through the historical “five points,” digging into text after text of Scripture and responding to many of the most common questions.

“The doctrines of grace,” Piper explains, “give the lowest view of the saved person as utterly depraved and hopeless in himself, and the highest view of the saved person as individually chosen and loved and purchased at infinite cost.”

These truths expose our desperate neediness, such that the subtlest form of boasting in ourselves becomes ridiculous. And at the same time, they highlight the grace of God such that we marvel with the apostle Paul, “To him be glory forever” (Romans 11:36).

Stream or download the entire seminar in six parts:   Continue at John Piper

IMAGE

DOCTRINES OF GRACE – CATEGORIZED SCRIPTURE LIST

God has recently given us the opportunity to discuss some theological issues with other Christians who believe differently than we do on a number of points, most notably the doctrines of grace. In such a circumstance, given the overwhelming supply of scriptural evidence that comes to bear on the topic, it seemed to me that the best approach would be a simple categorized scripture list: the fact that the entire paper would be scriptures, with the exception of a few brief explanatory notes, would underscore the truth that this is God's own word and teaching; and the fact that it would be categorized would facilitate the ready comparison of scripture with scripture so as to lead one to a full-orbed understanding of the biblical teaching. Although I found a few good scripture lists of that nature available online, none of them was laid out in quite the progression that I was looking for, and so I developed my own. I'm posting it here with just the scripture references. Below, for your convenience I have provided a condensed version and a full version of the study. The study is also available in print from Monergism Books. Continue at Monergism

For Those Perplexed by Sovereign Election

“You are perplexed by the doctrine of God’s sovereignty and election. I wonder that any man believing in a God should be perplexed by these. For if there be a God, a ‘King, eternal, immortal, and invisible,’ he cannot but be sovereign,—and he cannot but do according to his own will, and choose according to his own purpose. You may dislike these doctrines, but you can only get rid of them by denying altogether the existence of an infinitely wise, glorious, and powerful Being. God would not be God were he not thus absolutely sovereign in his present doings and his eternal prearrangements.

But how would it rid you of your perplexities to get quit of sovereignty and election? Suppose these were set aside, you still remain the same depraved and helpless being as before. The truth is, that the sinner’s real difficulty lies neither in sovereignty nor election, but in his own depravity. If the removal of these ‘hard doctrines’ (as some call them) would lessen his own sinfulness, or make him more able to believe and repent, the hardship would be at their door; but if not, then these doctrines are no hindrance at all. If it be God’s sovereignty that is keeping him from coming to Christ, the sinner has serious matter of complaint against the doctrine. But if it be his own depravity, is it not foolish to be objecting to a truth that has never thrown one single straw of a hindrance in the way of his return to God? Election has helped many a soul to heaven; but never yet hindered one. Depravity is the hindrance; election is God’s way of overcoming that hindrance. And if that hindrance is not overcome in all, but only in some, who shall find fault? Was God bound to overcome it in all? Was he bound to bring every man to Christ, and to pluck every brand from the burning? Do not blame God for that which belongs solely to yourself; nor be troubled about His sovereignty when the real cause of trouble is your own desperately wicked heart.”

- Horatius Bonar (1808-1889)
taken from: God’s Way of Peace, 1878.

HT:  Eric T. Young

The Gospel Shines Brighter Through the Lens of the Doctrines of Grace

When Charles Spurgeon burst onto the scene in the mid-nineteenth century, he appeared heralding the doctrines of sovereign grace. At that time, Calvinism was no longer the dominant theology in England, as it had been in Puritan times. Instead, the doctrines of grace were becoming obscured from public view, cast aside as dusty and archaic relics of primitive sixteenth-century Europe. Victorian England had come of age, it was supposed, and its philosophers championed the autonomy of man, not the sovereignty of God. The teaching of the Reformation had all but faded from the evangelical scene.

But rather than becoming infatuated with the current theological fads, Spurgeon chose to stay true to the old paths, those laid out in Scripture long ago, including the teachings of sovereign grace. He said: “It is no novelty, then, that I am preaching; no new doctrine. I love to proclaim these strong old doctrines, that are called by nickname Calvinism, but which are surely and verily the revealed truth of God as it is in Christ Jesus.” For Spurgeon, preaching the Bible meant preaching Calvinism. As he saw it, a robust Calvinism was the need of the hour.

 

These transcendent truths—total depravity, unconditional election, definite atonement, irresistible grace, and preserving grace—sharpened Spurgeon’s gospel focus. He declared:

There is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified unless we preach what is nowadays called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the Gospel and nothing else. I do not believe that we preach the Gospel unless we preach the sovereignty of God in His dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah, nor do I think we can preach the Gospel unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the cross; nor can I comprehend the Gospel which allows saints to fall away after they are called.   Continue at Nathan W. Bingham

Spiritual Dyslexia

Chapter 19 of my new book “Twelve What Abouts…”

Dyslexia warps reality; the consequences of which can be catastrophic. It is something that causes great hardship to multitudes in our day. People with normal, or even above normal, intelligence suffer from dyslexia as the brain reverses numbers, letters or words. It is a huge learning handicap and, in severe cases, can greatly limit education and employment opportunities. 

For those unfamiliar with the problem, imagine having the word “GOD” written clearly in front of you and yet your brain interprets the information as “DOG,” as the first and last letters of the word are transposed. I am sure you will agree that there is a vast chasm of difference inherent in this misinterpretation. My heart truly goes out to those who have to go through life having to combat dyslexia.

Moving from the physical to the spiritual realm, I believe multitudes of Christians suffer from what I would call “spiritual dyslexia.” It’s a phrase I heard some years ago and found it to be a striking one. Theologians don’t use this language of course. They would be much more comfortable describing this concept as “the noetic effects of sin,” which is the simple recognition that since the Fall of Adam, all of mankind’s faculties have been negatively affected, including his mind. In simple terms, we just don’t think now as clearly and precisely as we would have done if there had been no Fall. 

According to 1 Corinthians 13, this side of glory, we only see through a glass darkly. One day, we will all comprehend things exactly (as much as finite minds can grasp the infinite). Yet right now, we all have our traditions and blind spots. If we knew exactly where we were wrong, we would change our viewpoint immediately. But the point is that we do not see these things until God the Holy Spirit enlightens us and overcomes the effects of our depravity.  Continue at John Samson

Evangelism and the Extent of the Atonement

At the time in my spiritual life when I began to embrace the doctrines of grace, the one that was hardest to swallow was the L in our beloved TULIP acronym: limited atonement—or perhaps better stated (though ruining the acronym): particular redemption, or definite atonement. To make a long story short, I eventually came to see that the doctrine was biblical. Both the intent and extent of the atonement was divinely ordained to infallibly secure the salvation of all those whom the Father had chosen from before the foundation of the world (John 6:39; 10:11, 14–15; Ac 20:28; Eph 5:25). Jesus’ death didn’t simply make salvation possible, and then leave the appropriation of the cross’s benefits to the sovereign will of the sinner. No, it actually purchased the salvation of God’s elect (1Pet 2:24; Rev 5:9).

Interestingly, one of my chief objections to the doctrine wasn’t so much on textual or exegetical grounds. It was that it contradicted the way I had always heard the Gospel preached in evangelism. All around me, I heard the Gospel preached as if it was merely: “Jesus died for you, so you should believe in Him.” Evangelism boiled down to telling people that Jesus died specifically for them, and that, if He loved them so much that He would die for them, the least they could do was live for Him.  Continue at Mike Riccardi

The Amish, A Mullet, and Total Depravity

Straight from the headlines, an Amish community in rural Ohio recently suffered a series of attacks in which members of the Amish community had their homes invaded. Men and women had their hair forcibly cut, men having their beards shorn, a great indignity for Amish men.

Startlingly, the criminals were fellow Amish. The attackers, led by a man named Sam Mullet, were a disenfranchised group, upset at a local bishop’s decision not to excommunicate several others who they felt had broken community laws. To commemorate their attacks, they are said to have taken pictures of those whom they assaulted. A great irony in these attacks is that The Amish way of life is intended to protect its members from the sinful influences of the outside world. (There is also something incredibly ironic about a movement to cut people’s hair being led by a man named “Mullet”.) Unfortunately, this way of living fails to account for the fact that sinful influence can never be escaped because we are all corrupt. No matter where we go, as long as we are there, sin will be there too.

The Biblical doctrine of Total Depravity, one of the doctrines collectively known as the “Doctrines of Grace,” states that the basic nature of man is corrupt, that he is inclined toward evil, and that he is unable to do anything that merits God’s favor because he is unwilling. Total depravity is ultimately oriented toward God and sometimes expressed toward others.

Theologian Lorraine Boettner says it well:  Keep Reading >>>

IMAGE

Ex- Word of Faith Christian Finally Develops a High View of God and is Declared Apostate!

When I came across the doctrines of grace I was utterly humbled. I was deep into word of faith and prosperity theology and the cross and gospel were a distant memory. My eyes were refocused but today I would like to feature a testimony that has been a blessing. Speaking about refocusing our eyes there’s no one who has been sounding the alarm louder than Holly D. Dye of Refocusing Our Eyes. You see….

For the last 2 years, [Holly says] since leaving the Word of Faith movement, there have been erroneous assumptions, by people of that camp, that I have left the Faith. However, nothing could be further from the truth. If anything, I have become more solidified in Christian truths and more passionate in my service to God than ever before. I trust that through this 2-part article, God would grant me the ability to “make a defense to those who have asked a reason for the hope that is in me and that I may be able to do it with gentleness and respect” (1 Pet. 3.15).

In this discourse, I have no intention of “sowing strife”, as is commonly asserted by WoF[1] leadership toward those who resist their teaching. Although it is certain, offense will surely come, I will attempt, by the grace of God, to present my beliefs within the landscape of scripture and by the brush of simple reasoning.

“To maintain pure truth in the church, we should be ready to make any sacrifice, to hazard peace, to risk dissension and run the chance of division.” – J.C. Ryle

What Happened?   Find out HERE

Scriptures On The Doctrines Of Grace

Scriptures On The Doctrines Of Grace

Who Saves Whom?

‘God casts His vote; Satan casts his, but you must cast the deciding ballot’?

 

The touchstone question in the running debate between Jesus and the Pharisees, Paul and the Judaizers, Augustine and Pelagius, the Dominicans and the Franciscans, the Reformers and the medieval Roman Catholic church, and the Calvinists and Arminians is this: Who saves whom? 

In this article I want to offer some brief scriptural responses to the common objections concerning the doctrine of election. If one does not believe in the doctrine of unconditional election, it is impossible to have a high doctrine of grace. As Luther told Erasmus, ignorance of this great truth is in a real sense ignorance of the Christian gospel. ‘For when the works and power of God are unknown in this way, I cannot worship, praise, thank, and serve God, since I do not know how much I ought to attribute to myself and how much to God.’ This distinction is essential, he added, ‘if we want to live a godly life.’ Further, ‘If we do not know these things, we shall know nothing at all of things Christian and shall be worse than any heathen.’1 As Luther pointed out in his debate with Erasmus, this issue of free will and election is essential in maintaining the doctrine of justification by eliminating any element of human decision or effort as a foothold for merit. Therefore, let’s take a brief survey of the biblical support for this important doctrine by considering one of the principal passages: Romans chapter nine.   Continue Reading...

IMAGE

The true Calvinist

This post is a little “off the beaten path” but in view of recent observations and discussions, even with some of you, I am posting this excerpt from a chapter called, “The True Calvinist” in Boice and Ryken’s, The Doctrines of Grace: Rediscovering the Evangelical Gospel. If anyone is looking for a good overview on the topic, this book is an excellent resource.

I am not ashamed to say that Reformed Theology and The Doctrines of Grace (or Calvinism)  have put me on the most solid theological footing ever. The more I see the purity of these doctrines woven throughout the pages of my Bible, the more I proclaim with Paul, “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God” (Ephesians 2:8). 

I have also come to see, now more than ever before, that the unadulterated Gospel message — that is, the preaching of “Jesus Christ and him crucified” (1 Corinthians 2:2) will always be the object of great scorn and antagonism. The Gospel is always under attack and the Bride of Christ will always stand (but also prevail!) against tremendous opposition. This is every bit as true today as it was in the days of the early church. Keep Reading>>>

Encouragement to Christians Who Fail in Obedience

“For encouragement to regenerate persons. Though you fail in your obedience, and cannot keep the moral law exactly, yet be not discouraged.

What comfort may be given to a regenerate person under the failures and imperfections of his obedience?

That a believer is not under the covenant of works, but under the covenant of grace. The covenant of works requires perfect, personal, perpetual obedience; but in the covenant of grace, God will make some abatements; he will accept less than he required in the covenant of works. (1) In the covenant of works God required perfection of degrees; in the covenant of grace he accepts perfection of parts. There he required perfect working, here he accepts sincere believing. In the covenant of works, God required us to live without sin; in the covenant of grace he accepts of our combat with sin. (2) Though a Christian cannot, in his own person, perform all God’s commandments; yet Christ, as his Surety, and in his stead, has fulfilled the law for him: and God accepts of Christ’s obedience, which is perfect, to satisfy for that obedience which is imperfect. Christ being made a curse for believers, all the curses of the law have their sting pulled out. (3) Though a Christian cannot keep the commands of God to satisfaction, yet he may to approbation. Continue Reading>>>

A Few Thoughts on Total Depravity

In my last post I explained my intention to blog through my studies on the Doctrines of Grace. It’s been a few days and I thought I’d share a few thoughts, ideas, quotes, etc from my studies thus far on Total Depravity. These are very random and some items might be overlapping.

1. Genesis 3. This is where it all starts. It is impossible to understand total depravity without understanding first what really happened in Genesis 3. If you do not understand what happened here and what the consequences were for human nature and all of humanity going forward, you cannot fully comprehend the biblical doctrine of total depravity. Adam sinned. Adam died. We all die in Adam.

2. This is not so much related to total depravity but we see in Genesis, as clear as day, God’s divine order of male headship. There is no getting around this. Eve takes the fruit but God comes looking for Adam. Problem in the marriage? Problem in the church? He’s coming for the man. This makes me want to help my husband any way that I can and it compels me to pray for my brothers. 

3. Apart from the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit, man is not well nor is he sick; he is dead. How we view human nature, as a consequence of the fall, has everything to do with how we view our salvation. Prior to my salvation, I didn’t just need a little gospel medicine. I was dead in my transgressions and only God could make me alive. Continue Reading>>>