A Defense of Moderate Calvinism

Following are excerpts of some excellent thoughts that were recently shared by David Ponter in a thread on Terry Tiessen's blog. David does a nice job of laying out the Moderate Calvinist reasoning here. We recognize that there are various types of Calvinists in the world. My convictions are decidedly moderate, but I have found immense value in learning from higher and lower Calvinists, too. I've even found the occasional hyper-Calvinist or Arminian whose Biblical admonitions stir my heart and lead me to Christ. I try not to pick (too many) fights. However, if you want to know what makes us Moderate Calvinists tick, the following is a great summary. David writes:

If I may, you say: 

"I also agree that “four point” Calvinism is incoherent. In the three middle points of TULIP, we find the economy of the Trinity in salvation summed up – the Father elects, the Son redeems, and the Holy Spirit efficaciously applies the Son’s work. To assert that the Father has chosen particular people from before he created the world and that the Holy Spirit effects salvation in the hearts and lives of these people, but then to suggest that the Son died with the intention of saving everyone (not just those whom the Father gave to him [Jn 17:9]) seriously disrupts the unity of purpose within the Trinity." 

David: That seems to be a common objection to moderate-classic Calvinism, but it flows from a misunderstanding. If you lock your thinking into 5 points or 4 points then such misreading may result. The error lies in thinking that TULIP mirrors the 5 points of Dort. The L in Tulip focuses on a negation: “Christ did not die for such and such,” or “he only died for such and such.” In Dort, however, the focus is only on efficacy: Christ especually died for such and such. Dort makes no pronouncement against any other sense in which it may be said that Christ died for all. Indeed, quite a few of the delegates held to a classic Augustinian and medieval position that Christ died for all men as to the satisfaction, sustaining a universal sufficiency, but for the elect as to efficacy and intent to actually save. When folk are locked into 5 or 4 point thinking, this classic-moderate view of Calvinism looks contradictory, as it appears that 4 point Calvinism denies that Christ died for any one especially and effectually. Classic-moderate Calvinism held that the extent of the satisfaction is universal, but the intent to apply is limited to the elect. 

The other problem comes from the fact that 5 point thinking argues that the classic position posits conflict within the Trinity. This would be a strange thing for any Banner of Truth or John Murray Type calvinist to claim, as its “in kind” the very objection the Hoeksemians urged against the free offer and God’s revealed desire that all men be saved. The standard hyper objection is how could the Father desire the salvation of all, when the Son only died to make salvation possible for the elect alone, etc. The evangelical Calvinist response is to rightly posit the twofold aspect of God’s will. By secret will and intention, The whole Trinity determines to save the elect alone. By revealed will intention, the whole Trinity, however, also desires the salvation of all men, and that a way of salvation be made possible for all. Of course, under the terms of 5 point TULIP thinking that last idea is problematic. And so in the same way, the classic-moderate Calvinist says that God by secret intention designed the effectual and unconditional salvation of the elect, and also the whole Trinity by revealed will intention, also designed that the satisfaction of Christ truly be of such a nature that it is a universally sufficient satisfaction for all, thereby properly grounding the offer. 

Or stated another way, Curt Daniel sums up the answer to your objection: 

“Then there is the argument from the Trinity. It is argued that if Christ died for all men equally, then there would be conflict within the Trinity. The Father chose only some and the Spirit regenerates only some, so how could the Son die for all men in general? Actually, this argument needs refinement. There are general and particular aspects about the work of each member of the Trinity. The Father loves all men as creatures, but gives special love only to the elect. The Spirit calls all men, but efficaciously calls only the elect. Similarly, the Son died for all men, but died in a special manner for the elect. We must keep the balance with each of these. If, on the one hand, we believe only in a strictly Limited Atonement, then we can easily back into a strictly particular work of the Father and the Spirit. The result is Hyper-Calvinism, rejecting both Common Grace and the universal Free Offer of the Gospel. On the other hand, if the atonement is strictly universal, then there would be disparity. The tendency would be towards Arminianism – the result would be to reject election and the special calling of the Spirit.” Curt Daniel, The History and Theology of Calvinism (Good Books, 2003), 371.

____________________________________________________________________

Let us try this question: “for whose sins was Christ punished?” 

The standard TULIP answer is: “for the sins of the elect alone.” 

The classic-moderate Calvinist answer is: “for the sins of all men, all mankind.” 

Once we have that question on the table, we can being to identify the proper entailments. In terms of the TULIP position, the very nature of the satisfaction is limited, as well as its intent. So extent and intent are coterminous. 

In classic-moderate Calvinism, the extent is unlimited and universal, but the intent (to effectually apply) is limited. 

Dort only affirms this proposition against the Arminians: there is an effectual intent to apply the satisfaction which is limited to the elect. This proposition is affirmed by all classic-moderate Calvinists of all wings,whether Davenantian, or Amyraldian, Baxterian, or the Calamy variety; all forms of what literature calls hypothetical universalism. The same statement, tho understood as having different consequences and connections, is also understood by TULIP proponents. 

Further, a limited satisfaction for the sins of the elect only, cannot ground a universal sufficiency. It can only ground a hypothetical sufficiency. As Owen, Witsius, Turretin and co, note, on the terms of limited satisfaction, it can only be said that the satisfaction is of such an infinite internal or intrinsic value, that had God elected more, it *would* *have* *been* sufficient for them too. When the classic proponents of limited satisfaction (Owen, et al) define the sufficiency of the death of Christ, they can only do so by using ‘conditional contrary-to-fact subjunctives.’ “If Paul had been paying attention, he would have seen the speeding car…” The meaning is, he didnt see the speeding car. With me so far? 

The classic-moderate Calvinist says that the satisfaction is actually sufficient for all exactly because Christ was punished for all human sin, the sins of all. He sustained a perfect satisfaction for the sins of all mankind. Thus extent is universal. However, contrary to Arminianism, intent is limited. Dort itself does not speak to the extent question, it is neutral. It only speaks to the intent question. The modern TULIP, however, speaks to extent as well as intent: as did Owen and others of that school within the broader Reformed movements.

The standard TULIP answer to the question above is to reply: If it were the case that Christ was punished for the sins of all men, then all men must be saved, because God cannot demand a second punishment for sin from the person for whom Christ has already suffered. This argument dates back to Perkins (at least), but was made popular by Owen; the double payment argument which under-girds his famous trilemma: ‘Christ either suffered for all the sins of some men, all the sins of all men, or all the sins of some men…’ etc. The double payment argument, however, has been refuted by men like Polhil down to C Hodge and Dabney and Shedd. 

Historically, in terms of those first and second generation Reformers which we can access in extant translations, in all of them, with one or two possible exception, affirmed an unlimited satisfaction for all human sin. Names such as Musculus, Luther, Bullinger, Zwingli, Gualther, Cranmer, Ridley, even Calvin. I know this will touch some buttons for you, but it is actually not that hard to document: http://calvinandcalvinism.com/?page_id=7147

Did you notice the implicit, yet Biblically grounded, paradoxes in David's argument? Notice, also, that affirming these Moderate Calvinist paradoxes has a long and prestigious precedent in the history of Reformed theology. High Calvinists are true Calvinists . . . but so are moderates. Studying the differences can be very beneficial, providing one is not pugnacious or arrogant about his own conclusions.

GOD'S FREE AND SINCERE OFFER: Calvin on Isaiah 65:1-6

2. I have stretched out my hands. He accuses the Jews, and complains of their ingratitude and rebellion; and in this manner he proves that there is no reason why they should say that the Lord does them wrong if he bestow his grace on others. The Jews conducted themselves proudly and insolently toward God, as if they had been elected through their own merit. On account of their ingratitude and insolence the Lord rejects them as unworthy, and complains that to no purpose did he "stretch out his hands" to draw and bring them back to him.
 
By "the stretching out of the hands" he means the daily invitation. There are various ways in which the Lord "stretches out his hands to us;" for he draws us to him, either effectually or by the word. In this passage it must relate chiefly to the word. The Lord never speaks to us without at the same time "stretching out his hand" to join us to himself, or without causing us to feel, on the other hand, that he is near to us. He even embraces us, and shews the anxiety of a father, so that, if we do not comply with his invitation, it must be owing entirely to our own fault. The heinousness of the guilt is greatly aggravated by long continuance, that, during a long succession of ages, God did not cease to send one Prophet after another, and even, as he says elsewhere, to rise early in the morning and continue the same care till the evening. (Jer 7:13, 11:7, 35:14).
 
To a rebellious people. First, he calls them "rebellious" or disobedient, but immediately afterwards he declares what is the nature of that rebellion, namely, that the people walk after their own thoughts. Nothing is more displeasing to God than for men to be αὐθάδης "self-willed," (2 Pe 2:10); that is, devoted to their own inclinations; for he commands us to surrender our own judgment, that we may be capable of receiving the true doctrine. The Lord therefore testifies that it was not owing to him that he did not retain and continue to exercise towards them his wonted favor, but that they alienated themselves through their own madness, because they chose to abide by their own natural inclinations rather than to follow God as their leader.
 
Having pointed out the cause of this rejection, we must come to the calling of the Gentiles, who succeeded in the room of the Jews; for that is undoubtedly the subject treated in the first verse. The Lord had long ago foretold it by Moses, so that they ought not to have thought that there was anything new in this prediction.

"They have provoked me by that which is not God; they have moved me to anger by their vanities; and I also will provoke them by that which is not a people, by a foolish nation I will enrage them." (De 32:21).

Finally, the Prophet now threatens the same thing which was afterwards foretold by Christ when that blinding was at hand.

"The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and shall be given to a nation which shall bring forth fruit." (Mt 21:43).

1. To them that asked not. {1} When he says that God manifested himself "to them that asked not," he shews that the Gentiles were anticipated by the grace of God, and that they brought no merit or excellence as an inducement to God to give it to them. This obviously agrees with that passage which we quoted, in which Moses calls them "a foolish nation." (De 32:21). Thus, under a universal type, he describes what is the nature of men before the Lord anticipates them by his mercy; for they neither call on the Lord, nor seek him, nor think about him. And this passage ought to be carefully observed, in order to establish the certainty of our calling, which may be said to be the key that opens to us the kingdom of heaven; for by means of it peace and repose are given to our consciences, which would always be in doubt and uncertainty if they did not rest on such testimonies. We see, therefore, that it did not happen accidentally or suddenly that we were called by God and reckoned to be his people; for it had been predicted long before in many passages. From this passage Paul earnestly contends for the calling of the Gentiles, and says that Isaiah boldly exclaims and affirms that the Gentiles have been called by God, because he spoke more clearly and loudly than the circumstances of his own time required. Here we see, therefore, that we were called by an eternal purpose of God long before the event happened.
 
Behold I, behold I. By repeating these words twice, he confirms still more the declaration that God hath manifested himself in so friendly a manner to foreign and heathen nations, that they do not doubt that he dwells in the midst of them. And, indeed, that sudden change needed to be confirmed, because it was difficult to be believed; although by that very novelty the Prophet intended to magnify the unexpected grace of God. The meaning may be thus summed up: "When the Lord shall have offered himself to the Gentiles, and they shall have been joined to the holy family of Abraham, there will be some Church in the world, after the Jews have been driven out." Now we see that all that is here predicted by the Prophet was fulfilled by the Gospel, by which the Lord actually offered and manifested himself to foreign nations. Whenever, therefore, this voice of the Gospel is sounded in our ears, or when we record the word of the Lord, let us know that the Lord is present, and offers himself, that we may know him familiarly, and may call on him boldly and with assured confidence.
 
[Underlining and bolding added]
______________________________________________________________
 
NOTES:
  
Calvin incorporates Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, and the Effectual Call throughout these comments. He places affirmations of those doctrines alongside affirmations of the Gospel Offer, God's love for the reprobate, and His desire to save them. He does not view these truths as contradictory, but places them side by side. Why are so many of today's Calvinists unwilling to do the same?
 
Note how explicitly and emphatically Calvin speaks of God's sincere, desirous offer and invitation. Even when God's call is general and not effectual, Calvin says God's desire is "to join us to himself." Context shows the "us" here is fallen humanity, not just the elect. He even goes so far as to say God "embraces" the ones who reject Him. Calvin clearly believed that God calls the reprobate, loves the reprobate, and desires to save the reprobate (while at the same time not choosing to save them).
 
Calvin reasons that nothing on God's part prevents the reprobate from returning to Him. All the fault lies with the one who rejects God's call. The fact that God did not "decree" or foreordain their repentance in the secret counsel of His will is a separate issue. Calvin has no problem saying "they chose" to abandon God, while at the same time exhorting his readers not to follow their example.

Monday Morning Humor

Kevin DeYoung is in the habit of posting something funny on Mondays. So I decided to give it a try this week just for fun. But this one is a double header. 
 
First, we have an amazing song extolling the wonders of "free will" (actually, this is probably more sad than funny, but something about the song makes you want to laugh involuntarily). Please choose to watch this video.
 

 
I'm glad you chose to watch it.
 
Next, we have this great video entitled, "John Piper Preaches Against Calvinism." It really is a great video. The only thing funny about it is the title. It's funny that someone thinks this is preaching against Calvinism. I was really expecting something more or less un-Calvinistic, but instead there was just this . . .
 

 
There you have it! A clear contradiction of everything he's ever preached in the past!
 
Choose to have a great Monday, friends.

Business Theory or Theology?

I've been studying about Project Management applications in business and found an uncanny parallel between the traditional five steps in the life cycle of a project and the 5 points of Calvinism.


Project Management Steps:

1.  Initiate
2.  Plan
3. Execute
4. Control
5. Closure

The "5 Points" as God's "Project":

1. God initiates everything (including salvation, because we are totally depraved sinners)
2. Unconditional Election is God's plan to save
3. Particular Redemption is the execution of the plan
4. In the Effectual Call, He guides the outcome of the plan
5. The saints Persevere because God Preserves them, bringing the plan to perfect completion

See the parallels? God IS the greatest of all Project Managers.

Ephesians 1:11-12 In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory.
Ephesians 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
Romans 8:28-30 And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

UPDATE: Ralph Petersen's insightful comments on this post can be read HERE. 

The General and Particular Aspects of the Atonement - Curt Daniel

Following are some quotes from Dr. Daniel's September 2010 sermon on Limited Atonement.

CURT DANIEL - LIMITED ATONEMENT (CLICK TO LISTEN)

"There is a general aspect of the atonement of Christ for all. Now, even the best Calvinist theologians will admit, yes, there is a general aspect to the atonement before we look at the particular aspect. For example, because of Christ's work on the cross there is a delay of judgment for sinners. Think about that. We deserve to be punished, we deserve to be hauled in before God's bar of judgment long ago. The fact that we are still alive here on earth is due to the work of Christ on the cross. In the same way, the fact that we are not in hell right now. There has been a stay of execution - not a pardon - but a stay of execution because of Christ's work that has delayed judgment and hell for people now. Even for those that will end up in hell, the delay right now whereby God is pleading with them is due to the work of Christ. It's a temporary reprieve."

"... there is common grace. There is a general love of God. Jesus talked about the bounties of health, family, friends, happiness. Rain falling on the just and on the unjust, common grace, the bounties and beauties of creation - all flow to us through the cross. And Christ has purchased those for everybody, elect and non-elect, sinners and saints, and for everybody."

"... there is a free offer of the Gospel that can go out to all . . . the atonement of Christ has provided more than enough for everybody, and He sends Christians out with the free offer: 'Come, for all things are now ready.'"

"Now some scholars will say that this universal aspect of the atonement can be seen in verses such as John 3:16, 'the world,' I John 2:2, 'the whole world,' II Cor. 5:14, 'all,' and other ones, and I see that there is some truth in what they are saying."

"Because Jesus Christ is God and not simply man, what He did on the cross has infinite value and universal sufficiency. Now, the theologians have come up with a formula for this. Now I want to say it and then repeat it, because you might miss it, but it's very important. All that Jesus did on the cross would have been necessary for the salvation of only one person. One person committing only one sin would still require an infinite payment to the Father. However, Jesus would not have had to suffer more even if there had been a million times as many human beings to be saved, because Jesus made an infinite satisfaction to the Father. And that would have been required if there had been only one person or if there had been ten million times as many people as there have been in human history. So however many there are to be saved, Christ paid a sufficient amount for everybody because His atonement had infinite value. It's not that if one more person had to be saved Christ would have had to suffer more or die a second time. It's finished. He paid an infinite price, and in that sense you can say it has general implications for everybody."

"Jesus Christ died in a special way only for those that God had elected to salvation. This does not deny the general aspect . . . some have put it like this: in the general aspect Christ did some things for everybody, but in this aspect He did everything for some people - those that He had chosen."

"... human beings are unable to save themselves, but God has chosen some people to be saved, and because they have been chosen Christ did something especially for them. Now, this does not deny a general aspect of the atonement. It's concentrating on a special aspect that guarantees their salvation. That's why it's sometimes called particular redemption, for the elect in particular. It's limited in scope, not in value. It has a specific purpose for them. There is a general purpose, but there is a specific purpose."

"... although it's provided for all in one general sense, it's guaranteed for the elect in a special way. Now, as I said before, the special aspect or intent of the atonement is sometimes misunderstood. And so the theologians will compare Scripture and Scripture, and the formula that has generally emerged is something like this: Christ's death is sufficient for all, but it is efficient only for those that have been chosen, and those are the two aspects . . . By the way, you can see that 'for all, but especially for some' even in Scripture. I Timothy 4:10 says that Jesus is, quote, the Savior of all mankind, especially of those that believe."

The Three Points of Common Grace (Plus One More)

Psalm 145:8-9 The LORD is gracious and merciful, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love. The LORD is good to all, and his mercy is over all that he has made.

Psalm 145:15-17 The eyes of all look to you, and you give them their food in due season. You open your hand; you satisfy the desire of every living thing. The LORD is  righteous in all his ways and kind in all his works.

The doctrine of Common Grace is an essential, yet often overlooked, facet of Calvinistic theology. Sure, you know the 5 Points of Calvinism, but can you recite (and defend) the three points of Common Grace?

Many Arminians - even informed, studious ones - do not realize that orthodox Reformed thinking includes and incorporates some of their most cherished Biblical convictions. Conversely, some Calvinists mistakenly believe the concept of Common Grace is contradictory to the TULIP and should therefore be opposed. I will now endeavor to demonstrate the falsity of that idea, and then go one step further - showing how Common Grace and the TULIP form essential balancing paradoxes without creating contradictions. Common Grace is the fertile soil in which the TULIP was meant to grow.

Traditionally, the doctrine of Common Grace as been summarized in these 3 points:

1. God loves all people

This means God providentially cares for, patiently forbears, and benevolently extends grace toward each and every living person. He does not merely express His justice by hating the non-elect for their rebellion, but also shows His love for them as His special creation in generously giving them an abundance of undeserved kindnesses.

However, their continued rejection of Him will eventually lead to their separation from His love and a total abandonment to His justice.

PARADOX

Just Condemnation of Sinners   <++++++++++>        Pervasive Love for Sinners

This is the Counterbalance to Total Depravity

2. God desires the salvation of all people

This means God would take pleasure in the salvation of each and every living person, and does not directly oppose it. He does not actively reprobate the non-elect, but allows them to follow their heart's desire to their own destruction.

In His wise counsels He has chosen not to save every person, but to allow the non-elect to follow the path of their own choosing.

PARADOX

Election of Some Sinners    <++++++++++>  Desire to Save All Sinners

This is the Counterbalance to Unconditional Election

3. God freely offers the Gospel to all people

This means God extends mercy to each and every living person by way of the preaching of the Gospel. He does not exclude any sinner from the call to faith.

Yet He allows the non-elect to resist His grace and reject His offer of salvation.

PARADOX

Universal Call of the Gospel   <++++++++++>    Effectual Call of the Gospel

This is the Counterbalance to Irresistible Grace

I would add this fourth point . . .

4. Christ's blood is a sufficient atonement for all the sins of all people

This means the potency of the atonement is infinite, and powerful enough to save each and every living person. God does not limit the sin-bearing nature of Christ's work to the elect alone, but provides limitless expiatory power through an incomprehensibly precious sacrifice.

Still, He applies the redeeming, propitiatory, and reconciling effects of Christ's sacrifice to the elect only.

PARADOX

Sufficient for All             <++++++++++>    Efficient for the Elect

Point Four is the Counterbalance to Particular Redemption (which says the application of the saving effect of the atonement is limited to the elect).

NOTE: Nothing in the 3 Points of Common Grace (or my proposed 4th Point) actually contradicts the 5 Points of Calvinism. Nothing here militates against monergistic regeneration. No mitigation of divine sovereignty is entailed in these tenets. These Four Points are neither antithetical to historic Calvinism, nor are they opposed to Biblical teaching. Rather, they accommodate our minds to the wide range of Biblical teaching. The balancing points are paradoxical because they appear at first to contradict, but they are not inexplicable if we will put ourselves to the task of reasoning with Scripture.

Some Calvinists maintain that the Fourth Point undermines the integrity of the TULIP. They call advocates of the Fourth Point "inconsistent" Calvinists (a more proper term would be "Moderate" Calvinist). But can you see how the 5 Points of Calvinism plus the 3 Points of Common Grace logically lead to the Fourth Point? Far from dismantling the TULIP, the universal sufficiency of the atonement provides a solid basis on which the traditional Three Points of  Common Grace can be integrated with it.

I plan to write more on Particular Redemption and the extent of the atonement in the near future, God willing.

A Song Calvinists and Arminians Can Sing Together

This song was written by Samuel Rodigast in 1675, and is often sung at my church. The song has obvious Calvinistic overtones, and is also very encouraging as an example of surrendering to the sovereign will of God. After a careful reading I think even my Arminian friends should be able to heartily agree with every line and phrase of this song. Do you think so?

Here are the lyrics:

Whate'er My God Ordains Is Right

Whate’er my God ordains is right, Holy His will abideth.

I will be still whate’er He does, And follow where He guideth.

He is my God, Though dark my road.

He holds me that I shall not fall Wherefore to Him I leave it all

Whate’er my God ordains is right, He never will deceive me

He leads me by the proper path, I know He will not leave me

I take, content, What He hath sent

His hand can turn my griefs away And patiently I wait His day

Whate’er my God ordains is right, Though now this cup in drinking

May bitter seem to my faint heart, I take it all unshrinking

My God is true, Each morn anew

Sweet comfort yet shall fill my heart And pain and sorrow shall depart

Whate’er my God ordains is right, Here shall my stand be taken

Though sorrow, need, or death be mine, Yet I am not forsaken

My Father’s care Is round me there

He holds me that I shall not fall And so to Him I leave it all

©1998 David Braud Music.

Video:

See Indelible Grace Music for more great old hymns with updated tunes.

Evangelical Apostasy: Two Oddities Recently Observed

Do you remember the visions of World War 3 that terrified us back in the 80's? We were afraid that one of the two superpowers would foolishly or accidentally press a button that would trigger the end of the world. Movies depicted small bands of renegades surviving out in the countryside, while masses of people in the cities languished under the damaging effects of radiation, and all of the cockroaches were somehow left unscathed. Creepy stuff.


America's present religious landscape is approximately equivalent to those predicted post-nuclear fallout scenarios. We are living in a day when thermonuclear warheads of false doctrine have hit their targets and exploded, obliterating entire denominations and sending showers of toxic theological debris in all directions. Masses of unbelievers have swept into buildings that are falsely labeled as Christian churches, not realizing they are only sliding deeper into the abyss of destruction by doing so. They won't hear the Gospel in there. But they really haven't come in to be converted, anyway. They have come to enjoy the plush theater seating, to watch entertaining talk-show style "messages" designed to build their self-esteem, to hear rock, rap and hip-hop "worship" concerts that are completely secular and devoid of Gospel content, to learn how a big person named "God" can give them a better life, to re-imagine and re-invent Christian faith, and to be comforted and coddled in their unconverted state. They have come for a weekly "worship experience" that does not center on the person and work of Jesus Christ or the Biblical Gospel of a blood-stained cross and empty tomb calling sinners to repentance and faith. The fleshly desires and cravings of the unregenerate now determine the agenda for many institutions that call themselves churches. It is a day of rampant, pervasive, dizzying apostasy.


Following are two true examples of this phenomenon from online services I saw this week (although these might seem similar to the fictitious satire I sometimes serve up, I assure you I did not make these up).

Become a Better Goat?

A leader from "Potential Church" in Cooper City, Florida recently shared a message at the weekend "experience" in which he encouraged everyone in his audience to set their goals high and try to become the, er, "GOAT." That stands for  "Greatest of All Time." Yes, you read that correctly. You have the potential to become the GOAT (yes, you!). The irony of a potential church calling its members to become better goats is just too much. Apparently it IS all about YOU (I mean, "ME"). Here's a prescription for Potential Church: hang fluorescent pink banners all over your building with the opening line of Rick Warren's Purpose Driven Life emblazoned on them. Then, buy cases of the book, tear the first page out of every copy, and hand out just that page to everyone who attends your weekend "experience." This would be shocking, but potentially useful. The remaining portions of the books could be put into a capsule and shot into outer space.

Common Sense Salvation?

The pastor of Calvary Christian Center in Ormond Beach, Florida (it's one of the largest churches in the Assembly of God denomination, and is located almost directly across the street from Roy Hargrave's Riverbend Church) recently shared a message called, "The God Who Changes His Mind," in which he attempted to use a Biblical anthropopathism to wrench the scepter of sovereignty right out of God's hand. While trying to define and refute the "Reformists," (who believe in the "5 pillars of Calvinism" !?), he actually said, "I happen to believe that God chose everybody . . . He's chosen the whole world, but you know what, there are some of us in here today who had the sense enough to turn around and choose him back!" Yes, that is a direct quote, and you read it correctly. We had the SENSE ENOUGH to turn around and choose Him back! We are so amazingly smart and sufficient! Now you, too, can enjoy salvation via your own sensibility and remain completely free from the humbling side effects of needing to be saved by grace.

These were just two haphazard sparks of absurdity which were observed as they shot out of the flaming ball of heresy that is currently rolling across North America.


Getting angry about the alarming spread of apostasy won't do much good. Becoming a heresy hunter won't really help. Yes, we should thank God for folks like Chris Rosebrough (curator of the Museum of Idolatry) and support their efforts. Exposing lies is somewhat useful, but ultimately it will be tireless proclamation of the Truth that God uses to change hearts (I know Chris would agree). God only saves sinners one way: by the preaching of the Gospel. God only regenerates where the Gospel is proclaimed. So in this era of spiritual radiation and doctrinal fallout, let us faithfully proclaim the Gospel without ceasing, and without wavering - and let us put our hope in the God who regenerates and sanctifies all who by grace believe!


Also, let us never forget that God has preserved His own regenerate people, even within denominations and institutions that are falling over the edge doctrinally. We must be careful not to broad brush and sweep away the righteous with the reprobate. God will judge everything at the proper time, and judgment will begin with the household of God.

Why I am a Bad Calvinist - Conclusion

A Calvinist is a person who knows he is bad, and knows Christ is good. It's that simple.

In this series I have endeavored to show how a Biblical understanding of human depravity leads directly and necessarily toward a theological viewpoint which exalts the grace and mercy of God, maximally glorifies Him, and gladly rejoices in His exhaustive, meticulous, comprehensive, detailed, enveloping, all-encompassing sovereignty over all things - including the salvation of individual sinners. The five parts coincide with the 5 points of Calvinism.

The trouble with some Calvinists is they have forgotten they are bad. A "good" Calvinist (indeed, a "good" Christian of any sort) has a short shelf life and spoils immediately. Bad Christians, on the other hand, never stop repenting and never stop receiving more of Christ and grace. And when Christ's work in us is complete, we will be fully restored from all the effects of the fall - better than if it had never happened.

Soli Deo Gloria!
Solus Christus!
Sola Gratia!