A good book on Calvinism

[leeweiland]

Hello all,

I do not get the opportunity to visit this chat room very often, but I am reading a very good presentation of Calvinism and thought that I would pass it on. The book is called "The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination" by Loraine Boettner. I have found the arguements very convincing, something that as a long time Arminian, I never thought I would say/write. The book not only presents the "five points of Calvinism" in a calm tone, but also addresses each of them from the Scriptural and philosophical point of view. There is also a section addressing common objections to this aspect of Reformed theology, and even a section contrasting Calvinism with Islam, which is a comparison that I have heard Arminians make before (I have also made this comparison in debates with Calvinists).

One other website that I have found invaluable on this issue is from the late Dr. Greg Bahnsen, called Covenant Media Foundation. There are a multitude of free articles on subjects ranging from theonomic ethics to apologetics to theology. He has several articles dealing with the subjects of particular atonement and God's foreknowledge that I found edifying and challenging. I had been reading some of Bahnsen's books on postmillenialism and theonomy when I came across his treatment of the atonement, and this is what lead me to re-examine what I think on this issue and why.

For your consideration....

God bless,
David Stewart

[_Steve]

Thanks, David. I wouldn't mind having a look at the material, when I get a chance. God bless you.

[leeweiland]

Steve,

You know, Greg Bahnsen was well known among Christians for his skill in the area of apologetics. He was involved in several debates with atheists that are available for purchase, but that can also be accessed for free on the internet. I do not have the web address in front of me, but if you google "Greg Bahnsen" and "Edward Tabash" or "Gordon Stein" you can find them. I think you, in particular, would enjoy these debates, not only because of your interest in preaching the gospel, but because Bahnsen was a pupil of the late Cornelius Van Til, who is thought of as the father of presuppositional apologetics. Van Til was not the first Christian to ever propose this approach (I believe Anselm did many centuries before him), but few have written as much as he did on this topic. It is a different approach than classical apologetics or use of the teological arguement, but it incorporates the use of evidence and arguements from design as part of a philosophical framework that challenges the very basis by which unbelievers view the world, process data, and how they think they know what they know.

I read Van Til's "Christian Apologetics" about 4 months ago, and I am re-reading it now. I can honestly say that this is one of the few books that God has used to truly change my life, and not just modify my beliefs or practices. I think Bahnsen's strength in following Van Til's approach is due to him not only be a theologian but also having a PhD in philosophy. Bahnsen really understood the nuts and bolts of this approach and how to apply it to consistently to any debate with unbelievers. He was not a scientist, for example, but could debate any scientist by simply discussing their use of the inductive principle and how their athiest philosophy cannot give an account of it. As Van Til put it "Unbelievers can count, and often count better than God's people, but they can not give an account of their counting".

I would not recommend performing a web search on presuppositional apologetics, because many of the descriptions are more caricature than a true description, but I think the users of this forum would be edified to see another approach by which God has easily "made foolish the wisdom of this world". God has left us evidence upon evidence to offer the gainsayer, but even more fundamentally, the skeptic must secretly borrow capital from the Christian worldview in order to make intelligible sense of the world around him, whether in discussing morality, practicing mathematics and science, or using logic.

Van Til and Bahnsen were Reformed, but the reader does not have to be a Calvinist to use this form of apologetics or to enjoy these debates/books.

[Guest]

David, I have Boettner's book and have read it. No doubt it is a great presentation of that viewpoint. I suggest you read some material that more than refutes the conviincing sounding arguments he makes. Some great books that expose the flaws of the types of arguments Boettner and others use are :

GRACE, FAITH AND FREEWILL by Robert Picirrilli
THE QUEST FOR TRUTH by F. Leroy Forlines
BEYOND CALVINISM AND ARMNIANISM by C. Gordon Olson(He is a one-pointer and abandones his logical, inductive approach he lays out when it comes to defending OSAS. It is GREAT until he comes to that point, and suddenly, he stops being objective and becomes an apologist for a false doctrine, but otherwise a great gbook against Calvinism with some original material)
WHY I AM NOT A CALVINIST by Walls and Dongell
ELECT IN THE SON by Robert Shank

Picirrilli's book is great andd answers many of the points from Boettner. But I recommend reading all of the above. God bless


As for Bahnsen, he is a great debater against Atheism, but his Theonomy and Postmillenialism is simply ridiculous and totally unScriptural. It is amazing how people can be so Scriptural and logical on one subject, and then totally toss out that approach when it comes to another. I still cannot figure out why some people are that way. It is an enigma.

[leeweiland]

Sola Scriptura,

Actually, I have read several books in favor of Arminianism, though only one of the books you recommended. Before changing my views, I had been an Arminian since my conversion as a child, so over the span of my life I have spent approximately 25 years in Arminian churches, reading Arminian books, and thinking of God in Arminian terms when it came to issues such as salvation and man's will. Robert Shank's books "Life in the Son" and "Elect in the Son" are excellent defenses of Arminianism, though I now find them unconvincing. However, I have given Arminianism plenty of time to be considered and I genuinely held that belief rather than always having been a Calvinist trying to understand what makes an Arminian think the way they do. I studied the subject as thoroughly as I could because I considered it to be central to one's view of God, and therefore I committed to know the pertinent Scriptures well. I enjoyed debating Calvinists back then because I thought they could be easily handled by bringing up what I then coonsidered to be the tough (or embarrasing) philosophical questions they faced. I will have to eat those words, now.

Interestingly, I became convinced Arminianism was in error before I read Boettner's book. My daughter, 4.5 years old, asked me how the death of Jesus so many years ago would provide forgiveness of my sins today. I realized that I did not have a well developed doctrine of Christ's atonement. I began reading more on the subject and reviewing the theories that have been held by Christians over the history of the church. I am now convinced that the only theory that the Scripture supports is the penal subsitutionary view. I do not visit this forum very often, and I am very busy with my job, so I cannot post a long, detailed defense of why I think this. However, the implications for a subsitutionary atonement prove too much for Arminian theology, I think. A ransom was actually paid on the cross, and atonement actually obtained according to Hebrews 9. This either means that all are forgiven if Christ died for all, or that only those for whom Christ died are forgiven, but I do not think the language of Scripture and the concept of the atonement in Scripture allow for Christ dying for all but only some being saved.

In terms of theonomy, it is hard to respond to your post because it is more autobiographical than anything else. Apparently you think theonomy is "ridiculous"; I know the feeling, because so did I at one time. Which books have you read on it?

What standard of ethics should people use if not God's? That is really the question here. If you do not think that the laws of God are authoritative, with important and careful New Testament guidance and regulation for their application, then what set of laws or standards should we use? Theonomy does not teach that people are saved by keeping the law, or that the laws that the New Testament abrogates (such as those that are symbolic of Christ) must be kept, but rather those laws that are not specifically abrogated by the New Testament are thus still binding. Our culture may be different from that of the Old Testament period, and the form those laws take may also change, but the ethical standard has not changed because the law is an expression of the immutable character and nature of God. How God feels about murder, rape, adultery, and other sins has not changed, though many Christians seem to think so. People who have committed these sins can all find forgiveness in Christ, but that would not change whether these sins do not also constitute a matter for the civil magistrate as well. Additionally, the law is holy, just, and good, and a lamp to the path of the righteous. It offers more than just penology; it shows us how to live. In fact, as Christians, Christ has written the law of God on our hearts, from which Jesus said come forth all of the issues of life!

Men like Gentry and Bahnsen have myriad audio files and books and can articulate this and argue this much better than I can. I encourage anyone who reads my post and is interested in really understanding what theonomy is to go to a primary source and investigate these matters directly. On the web, there is too much caricature and slander to come away with a true understanding of what theonomic ethics entail.

Personally, I think Ken Gentry and Greg Bahnsen provide very good defenses for their theonomic position, but I understand how you might feel differently. I used to say the same thing that you did in your post, but in my case I found that I really did not know what I was resisting because I had been misinformed about what theonomic Christians really believe. If you have not read these books already, I would humbly recommend "Theonomy in Christian Ethics" and "Theonomy and its Critics", both by Bahnsen. Another book I liked was by Ken Gentry called "He Shall Have Dominion", which is a defense of theonomic postmillenialism. I have them and am reading them, and I believe they are level headed, fair treatments of the most common arguements against theonomy.

One last thing - the truth of a subject is not tied to the debating skills or character of those who hold that view. I am not much for making heroes out of theologians. However, I think it is interesting that while Bahnsen was alive, Christians who were outspoken against theonomy were only so behind his back. Bahnsen was supposed to debate Meredith Kline on theonomy, but Kline would only agree if Bahnsen was not allowed to respond to his statements or cross examine him! Bahnsen was invited to Liberty University in Virginia to speak on theonomy; none of his critics from the school came to publicly question him, but the day he was leaving he saw a poster advertising a seminar against theonomy, to start the day after he left. I think his critics prove that you can't beat something with nothing. They may not like theonomy, they may be embarrased that they look too old fashioned or radical to say that the law should be followed today in our technologically advanced by morally decadent society, but sifting past the rhetoric, you will find that they have no biblical alternative to offer in its place. Man will be ruled by law, either God's law or his own autonomous and rebellious law, whether in the form of false religion or statism. But to be sure, somebody's law will rule.

If not God's law, then what standard?

[Guest]

Hi David,

I am now convinced that the only theory that the Scripture supports is the penal subsitutionary view. I do not visit this forum very often, and I am very busy with my job, so I cannot post a long, detailed defense of why I think this. However, the implications for a subsitutionary atonement prove too much for Arminian theology, I think. A ransom was actually paid on the cross, and atonement actually obtained according to Hebrews 9. This either means that all are forgiven if Christ died for all, or that only those for whom Christ died are forgiven, but I do not think the language of Scripture and the concept of the atonement in Scripture allow for Christ dying for all but only some being saved.

I think I agree that if a strict penal substitutionary atonement is held to, that either universalism, or limited atonement are the logical conclusions. I feel that limited atonement would be the more biblical of the two.

However, I find the arugments of Calivinists to get around the plain statements of Christ's having died for the whole world, strained at best. There are scriptures that Arminians have to strain on a bit too, don't get me wrong. That's why I am not totally convinced one way or the other.

At this point, I am content to believe that Christ died for the whole world, (1Jn2:2), God desires that all men come to repentance, (2Pet. 3:9), He doesn't want anyone to perish, (Ez. 33:11), and that all who believe in Him will be saved. All of these points are biblical, which cannot be denied (for they are simply using the language of those verses). How that works out in a particular atonement theory or soteriology...I don't know. I am not convinced by Calvinist arguments on any of these points. So far anyway, I am certainly not done studying this subject!!

All of the major theories make at least some sense, but don't do justice to every aspect of the Lord's death. Penal substitution included. I just don't know exactly how it all works at this point.

Robert Shank's books "Life in the Son" and "Elect in the Son" are excellent defenses of Arminianism, though I now find them unconvincing.

Wow. Life in the Son is pretty heavy. Is there a Calvinist book that refutes it that you know of?

As for Greg Bahnsen. I think that everyone should check him out whether or not you are reformed. He was a brilliant Christian thinker. Anything he has done is worth checking out. I especially recommend "Van Til's Apologetic; a Reading and Analysis". Great stuff!

God bless,

[leeweiland]

Derek,

It is an uncharacteristically slow evening, so I actually have time to respond. I appreciated your post.

I do not know of a book that was written to refute Robert Shank's works in particular. Of all of the books I have read on Arminianism, I think Robert Shank's books are the most academic treatment of the subject from that view, at least that I have encountered. Unfortunately, the Arminian books that are flying out of the publishing houses today are increasingly more of the "open theism" camp, which I believe to be heretical. I realize that there are people who post on this site, and much more frequently than I do, who hold to that view. I am not trying to ratchet up the tone of our discussion, but I say this to make my own position clearer to you. I think Boettner's book is very well written and he answered most of my questions and objections concerning the Reformed view of God and man in salvation. John Owens has written even more scholarly works on this issue, but the wording is somewhat older and can be difficult to work through.

When I was an Arminian, I thought the weakest arguements for Calvinism were regarding limited atonement. Ironically, that is the subject that convinced me I was in error regarding how man is saved. Yes, there are a lot of verses talking about salvation in terms of "the world" and "all men". I believe that in most cases, these words are used to correct the mistaken Jewish notion that salvation was not for the Gentiles (see Acts 10 and Peter's discussion with God to see how pervasive this notion was in the Jewish Christian mind, even among the apostles in the early part of their ministry). I believe that these verses are intended to show that Christ died for all men without distinction, but that does not mean that He died for all without exception. Consider if you will 2 Cor. 5:19 which says, "God was in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself". If the referent of "world" in this verse were taken to be every single individual, then that verse teaches that Christ's work was to the effect of reconciling every man to God (i.e. universal salvation) -- which I believe is clearly unscriptural.

When we speak of Christ dying "for" someone, we are referring to the "substitutionary" atonement. We mean that Christ died in the place of the sinner, bearing his penalty for him. Since the price of sin has been actually paid by the Savior, those for whom He laid down His life cannot hereafter be punished for their sins. The punishment has already been borne by their Substitute. "Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God" - 1 Peter 3:18. The Bible decisively teaches in Hebrews 9:12 that the atoning work of Christ was a matter of securing redemption, rather than simply making redemption possible. "He entered the Most Holy Place once for all by His own blood, having obtained eternal redemption." Christ accomplished our redemption. He actually delivered us from the curse of sin.

Therefore, if Christ actually died "for" each and every person who lives, then the penalty of their sins has been laid upon the Savior as their Substitute -- and nobody may be justly sent to hell for those sins anymore. Those who teach that Jesus died for every single individual must eventually give up either the substitutionary nature of the atonement, the doctrine of everlasting punishment, or the justice of God.

It is a deep discussion, I know, but everybody who recognizes that there will be people who are not saved on the day of judgment must admit that the atonement is "limited" in some fashion.

One either limits the effect of Christ's redeeming sacrifice, or one limits the scope of that sacrifice. If we say that Christ died for each and every person in the world (unlimited scope), yet not everyone is saved, then we of necessity have limited the effect of Christ's work. It does not actually save some for whom He died, but only makes salvation possible for all. This is a "limited" atonement. It is like a very wide bridge, but one which does not take us completely from one side to the other.

On the other hand, by saying that the effect of Christ's redeeming sacrifice is unlimited -- that is, that it actually accomplishes the salvation of all those for whom it was intended -- we will necessarily limit the scope of that redeeming work. Christ is then said to have died for those who are actually saved, rather than for those who spurn and reject Him. This makes the bridge of salvation narrower, but it is a bridge which takes us completely from one side to the other.

So it is all a matter of how one chooses to "limit" the atonement.

I will close with a quote from J. Gresham Machen:

It is surprising that they regard the doctrine of a universal atonement as being a comforting doctrine. In reality it is a very gloomy doctrine indeed. . .. But a universal atonement without a universal salvation is a cold, gloomy doctrine indeed. To say that Christ died for all men alike and that then not all men are saved, to say that Christ died for humanity simply in the mass, and that the choice of those who out of that mass are saved depends upon the greater receptivity of some as compared to others – that is a doctrine that takes from the gospel much of its sweetness and its joy. From the cold universalism of that Arminian creed we turn ever again with a new thankfulness to the warm and tender individualism of our Reformed Faith, which we believe to be in accord with God’s holy word. Thank God we can say every one, as we contemplate Christ upon the cross, not just: “He died for the mass of humanity, and how glad I am that I am amid that mass,” but “He loved me and gave Himself for me, my name was written from all eternity upon His heart, and when He hung and suffered there on the Cross he thought of me, even me, as one for whom in His grace He was willing to die (God Transcendent and Other Sermons, p. 136).

I could not say it better myself.

[Guest]

“He loved me and gave Himself for me, my name was written from all eternity upon His heart, and when He hung and suffered there on the Cross he thought of me, even me, as one for whom in His grace He was willing to die (God Transcendent and Other Sermons, p. 136).

But you can never know you are one of the elect until you have perservered to the end. Calvin said there were those who would think of themselves as being among the elect though predestined to be lost.

Consider Jesus, looking down on Jerusalem and weeping over sinners who would not repent. Was He ignorant of Calvinism or were His tears merely an act in some pageant? I have never had a Calvinist explain this yet.

Think of this. A parent with several small children, contemplating the Calvinist doctrine, realizes some of his children are likely to be predestined to hell. How could he be so blessed that they are all elect? Not likely. And how can he know? He can not know. No matter how hard he tries to bring them all up to believe in and love the Lord, some of them are surely without hope from the day they were born; no, even from before they were even conceived! If only he could know which of his children were not elect, he would do all he could to bring them happiness in this life - that will be the only happiness they will ever know, for an awful fate irrevocably awaits them, predestined from before they were born. Doomed before they even knew right from wrong.

And Machen thinks

It is surprising that they regard the doctrine of a universal atonement as being a comforting doctrine. In reality it is a very gloomy doctrine indeed. . .. But a universal atonement without a universal salvation is a cold, gloomy doctrine indeed.

If the Arminian doctrine is "cold, gloomy" Calvinism is enough to drive a person to despair, as it has done to many honest seekers after God. This is well documented.

[leeweiland]

Homer,

The Bible does not support your assertion that a person cannot know whether they are elect until death. I have heard this stated before, but "let God be found true and every man a liar". Paul said to "test yourselves to see whether you are in the faith" and we are also told to "work out our salvation with fear and trembling". Paul tells us that he wishes us to know "the height and depth and width of God's love for us" and he praised God for certain peoples' "faith unto salvation". Clearly, the Biblical logic contradicts your conclusion that if you are a Calvinist you cannot know whether you are saved until the end.

By the way, how would the Arminian handle this? If you answer "Because I can choose to believe" then why do you think some stop believing? What makes you so different, so much more faithful, so much more receptive than these others who died on the side of the road? Pride comes before a fall, brother, and it is nothing but pride to say "I can believe or not, and I will always choose to believe as my own assurance of salvation in the future". Trusting in ourselves, and that is what an Arminian must do if he believes that he generates and supplies and maintains his own faith, that is what he must do ultimately. I realize many will object to my framing it this way, but I believe this criticism is accurate. You can say "God helps replenish me" but ultimately it is your choice, your input, your strength that is required - otherwise, you'd be a Calvinist. In the end, there is something you must do that others choose not to, and God is unwilling or unable to help you in this final and determinative decision. That is the definition of trusting in yourself, since you complete the steps leading up to salvation of your alleged own "free" volition.

Calvinism does not teach that most of our children will not be saved. Your example exposes fallacious reasoning. The fact that God chooses who is saved does not preclude him from saving all of my children. In fact, Reformed doctrine incorporates a covenant theology and covenant view to our dealings with God. Rather than a rugged individualism, Reformed doctrine encourages us to remember God's promises in the Old Testament to godly parents that if they train up a child in the way they should go, they will not depart from that path. Further, many Calvinists are postmillenial, and believe that in the future most people will turn to Christ. This is not based on God's "best guess", but the fact that He has predetermined to do so, which gives us as believer true assurance of
this coming to pass. Calvinism is not doom and gloom. We are told that God's election is based on "his good pleasure", rather than ours. I think we all need to take a step back here and realize that we were made for God' pleasure, and that He can do as He pleases with the "pots" that He has made. We have no right to deny this. And better His good pleasure, since He is Good, than unregenerate man's choices which are never good.

How would an Arminian handle the idea of children remaining unsaved? If God knew they would die unsaved, why not prevent them the misery and just not create them? The notion that He had to create them free in order to have love is atrocious. The Bible never defines love as being dependent on libertarian free will, and further, this would make the essence of love the lack of restraint. So do I not love my daughter if I restrain her from playing in the street?

Does God know what my children will decide? If He does, then could they choose otherwise? Or is He unaware of their choices, and then He graudally learns what they will do? Or do we need to throw out God's foreknowledge in order to have a concept of justice with God that is more to our palate? Some of the same questions Arminians ask Calvinists, they themsleves must answer. The future of our children is uncertain for all parents, but Calvinism declares that it is well known to God. If it were murky or uncertain with Him, then we would really be in despair! Whatever the outcome, the cup that comes to me and my offspring comes from the Lord by His decree, and since we know that He alone is Good and Wise, who cannot drink from that cup? Who can say it is unjust with God? Better to drink with God than the blind fate.

Calvin did not teach this uncertainty either in knowing we are His. He did teach that only those who persevere to the end would be saved, but he did not teach that our perseverance was the condition for our salvation, but rather, the same God who effectually called us out of darkness and into His marvelous light would be faithful to complete His work in us. Jesus is the Good Shepherd, and how good He really is that he is 100% successful in bringing each of His sheep safely home. That is the assurance of my salvation, rather than my own strength. I fear that the shepherd of the Arminian is more like the hireling, who somehow allows or is unable to prevent the sheep from being eaten by the wolves. Who is really more loving, I ask? This Shepherd, or the God of Calvinism who knows and numbers the sheep by name and never loses a one?

In terms of unbelievers thinking they are saved, yes, there are those who are self-deceived. Have you ever met a Mormon who thought he/she was saved? Or a Jehovah's Witness? Or any other member of a false system? They all have some assurance they are in the right place, but are they? People can deceive themselves, yet Paul says that on some level, all of the lost understand their self deception, because Romans 1 teaches us that God's attributes are clearly seen even from nature so that all are without excuse. It is the fact that "they suppress the truth in unrighteousness" that makes them inexcusable. I think you are implying that Calvinism teaches that God lies to people, making them think they are saved when they are really in for the biggest surprise of their life. The Bible however does not support this, nor does any Calvinist creed or Calvinist that I have ever spoken with.

Your description of humans in their natural state is not Bibilical, I fear. In your example, you speak as if people are born morally neutral and are never given a real chance to be saved. The God of Calvinism is the meanie who takes the innocent children from the loving parents to satisfy his sadistic pleasures on them. That is not the God of the Bible and is not the God of the Reformed Christian.

First, salvation is by grace, which means that it is not owed to anyone. Let that sink in for a moment before saying "I believe that too". If you believe that, then how can you argue that Calvinism cannot be true if God chooses some and not others? God does not owe a single one of us an opportunity to be saved, and the mere fact that He does save some is more than any of us deserve. Second, people are not born neutral or good or interested in spiritual things or worthy of salvation or with any leverage with God. Rather, they are born wicked. All that are born of woman are declared "abominable and corrupt", to whose nature iniquity alone is attractive (Job 15:14-16). We are born apostates from the womb, and as soon as we are born we go astray, speaking lies (Ps. 58:3). We are shapen in iniquity, and conceived in sin (Ps. 51:5).

If the Bible says that God chose us "to be in Christ from before the foundation of the world" (Eph 1:4-5), who among us has the right to question God? Do any of us know the mind of God, that we may be His counselors? If we start questioning God about the fairness or wisdom of His decisions, then we will end up like Job. Job did not understand why he was suffering; he did not see a "good reason" for his situation, and he did not think it was fair. He demanded a session with God. He got it, and ended up with his hand over his mouth saying "I cannot contend with the Almighty".

Homer, lots of Calvinists have responded to Matthew 23, but the real issue here is not one of exegesis, it is an epistemic question. I believe at the heart of your objections, based on your post, that the real problem you have with Calvinism is that it doesn't make sense to you. I would never fault someone for wanting to be logical, but all of us, myself included, have imperfect and limited minds. There are things that God has said are his "hidden counsels" which have not been given to us to understand, perhaps because we can't. Do we sit in judgment of these portions of Scripture with man's reason as the arbiter of truth, saying to God "I will believe this if it makes sense to me".

How do you pick which mysteries you will believe, Homer? Does it make sense to you that God has never had a beginning? Or that he will have no end? Or how about the concept that God can speak matter into existence? Or how about the Trinity? Do you accept these ideas as being Biblical? If so, is it because you fully understand them, or because you understand that God is not a liar or incorrect on any issue that He expounds on, and that some things about God must be accepted because He said so.

This is not a cop-out answer; it is the answer God gave through Paul in Romans 9. Paul anticipated your question, because it is the typical Arminian objection to the Biblical understanding of predestination and election. How does He find fault, for who has resisted His will? Is that not what you are asking? Paul's answer shows that not even he understands exactly how God's foreordination and man's will interact on a complete scale, but Paul does know his place as a created being and says "But who are you o' man to reply against God. Shall the thing formed say to to Him who formed it 'Why have You made me thus?'" If Paul had an Arminian understanding of election, then the answer to his anticipated question would have been, "God elects based on people's choices." In fact, Paul would never have anticipated this kind of question if he taught a conditional election. Rather, it is his previous statements about God choosing some and not others before they were born and before they could do good or evil (an unconditional election) that generates the detractor's question.

I believe the Bible asserts that people really make decisions AND that God foreordains all things (He works all things according to the counsel of His will - Eph 1:11). Can I explain that? No, and neither could Paul. Does the Bible teach this? Yes, absolutely. Rather than assume that this is impossible, I should humbly stop and ask myself what is wrong with my thinking and not God's way of reasoning. I don't want to end up like Job with my hand over my mouth.

Your last comment is simply silly, and I think it shows the real reason why many people (including me for many, many years) find Calvinism unconvincing. It is not because a Biblical case cannot be made for it, but rather because people do not like the message. Different people have their reasons. Mine was that I felt that it made life an illusion, where my choices were not "real". How wrong I was. If you want to know of someone who has greatly benefited from Calvinism, you are corresponding with him right now. Or you can ask my wife or my daughter. Still not convinced? Do you enjoy your American freedom? Try reading the writings of our founding fathers, and see that not only were Calvinists among the bravest patriots who died defending our God-given freedom, but that our current judicial system and the building of our once great republic was largely based on Calvin's teachings and his view of government. How many people did Jonathan Edwards and John Owens lead to salvation? How about Martin Luther taking a stand for salvation by grace alone?

You said that you had documentation that Calvinism was detrimental to a Christian's faith-please provide that documentation in your next post. Since what's good for the goose is good for the gander, what do you think of the latest contribution to the church from radical, logically consistent Arminianism, known as open theism? What kind of despair do you think will be generated from believing in a god who is just as surprised as the disciples when Jesus was crucified? How would you counsel a grieving widow if you believe that God did not know beforehand the actions of the murderer who took her husband's life?

Open theism is the logically inescapable conclusion when radically free will is made the sine qua non of our theology. I do not see the added comfort of needing to bring my own faith to the cross or believing in a god who either loosely controls or barely knows the future better than his own creation.

[_Steve]

Hi David,

I may expand on this post when I get a extra few minutes freed up. However, I wanted to give you my initial reaction to your arguments.

First, you are very good at repeating the standard Calvist rhetoric. It surprises me that you are able to do this, in view of the fact that you have read, as you say, many Arminian books (any good one will point out the errors in the eisegetical approach behind this Calvinist proof texting). Also, I know that you have heard my lectures on Calvinism, in which I raise every point that you have made and I exegete the relevant passages, showing why the Calvinist interpretation must ignore context and import meanings not found in the biblical passages.

If you find my expositions flawed, I do not object. Every person is entitled to think for himself and be convinced by whatever arguments convince him. What surprises me, is that you simply restate the same points I have thoroughly answered, but you don't attempt to refute my answers. It is as if you are arguing Calvinism in a vacuum (as some who post here do), when in fact, you surely must remember that the points you have made have been long-since debunked.

Again, if you don't think that my explanations of the relevant texts are convincing, could you, perhaps, give some counter-arguments that would show that Calvinists are seeing these verses properly in their context, rather than just repeating the same arguments without attempting to provide a better exegesis?

I wanted to say something about your belief that Arminianism fosters pride in our salvation. I have not observed this. I have seldom found Arminians who give any of the credit for their salvation to themselves. It may seem that the ideas of Calvinism would be more suited to engender humility, but for some reason, the Calvinist writers and advocates with whom I have come into contact seem not to have reaped this particular benefit from their theology.

It is a very proud thing, for example, to credit oneself with personal knowledge of what motivates every non-Calvinist. Not only is it proud, but it seems somewhat silly. If I believe that I will enjoy a more desirable fate than will an unbeliever, and I believe that this difference has something to do with the respective choices that he and I made, where is the pride in this? Pride is an attitude, not a theological belief.

There is no occasion of pride in this. If a man is sent to the electric chair for his crimes, and I, who did not choose to commit those crimes, am blessed to live out my life and die a natural and peaceful death, there is no question in my mind but that this man's decisions resulted in a different fate than did mine. However, whenever I hear of such an execution, I feel pity for the fellow who went the other direction (and for his victims). The sinful attitude of pride for not having been a murderer, like the condemned man was, never even suggests itself to my mind.

Now suppose that I and another man are both hanging from a branch over the side of a cliff, and you offer us both of your hands to rescue us. If I choose to accept your assistance, and my companion, out of some irrational grudge that he holds toward you, refuses your assistance and falls to his death, does my decision to accept your assistance give me occasion for pride? Help me out with this. I have never seen the logic in such a suggestion.

I think we all seem to assume other people are motivated as we ourselves are. When the Calvinist accuses the Arminian of proud self-reliance, I wonder if it is because that Calvinist sees such tendencies in himself and projects them upon others. You seem to admit that you had this kind of pride in you when you were an Arminian. Maybe you are projecting?

I believe that Mother Theresa was genuinely humble (at least she gave far more evidence of being humble than did, say, John Owen, in his polemical writings). Yet she was no Calvinist. She did the things she did out of compassion for others. While she may not have assumed that every act she performed was irresistibly ordained by God's sovereign decree to occur, there is no rational reason to accuse her of pride.

You also say that your main reason for having previously been an Arminian was that you did not wish to give up the idea that you were in control of your own decisions. I will take your word for it, but I have never observed or assumed that such a motive rests in the hearts of Arminians I have known, and such a motive certainly plays no part in my rejection of Calvinism. I have chosen my beliefs based upon my best possible exegesis of every relevant passage of scripture. If this is not how you reached your original Arminian views, perhaps you tend to choose your theological positions on a different basis than that upon which I am choosing mine. Is it possible that this also applies to your choice to embrace Calvinism?

Many times, over the past three decades, I have read, in Calvinist books, all the arguments you have given above (in fact, they were essentially verbatim, as I recall). Every argument you made—including the ones which require a misquotation of scripture to make their point (like Eph.1:4-5)—is made by every Calvinist author. Many years ago, I made for myself a list of every argument used in Calvinist literature and set about to answer them conscientiously, one-by-one, in my lecture series, "God's Sovereignty and Man's Salvation,"—which I am sure you have heard.

Here is what I would like for you to do for us here, when and if the time may present itself...

Please show how Romans 9 can be reasonably argued to be about one person being elected for eternal salvation, and another person elected for eternal damnation. I cannot see any basis, in context, for importing these foreign elements into Paul's discussion.

Please explain why one should see the statement that Christ "obtained eternal redemption" as necessitating that this redemption has been applied to all for whom it was intended (the same author said that Jesus "tasted death for every man"—Heb.2:9—which hardly sounds like a statement directed to the Jew/Gentile controversy). A non-Calvinist approach can make sense of both of this author's statements. Calvinism must choose one and make embarrassing modifications to the other.

You did not endeavor to answer Homer on Matthew 23:37. You only have said that many Calvinists have addressed it. True. But they have not addressed it as if we can learn anything about theology from it. They bring the inflexible grid of their theology to the passage. They notice that the verse does not fit the grid, and so, rather than allowing the words of Jesus to modify their system of belief, they say it is a "mystery" (as you yourself said).

Are we really allowed to do this? Does the adoption of a theology that glorifies God require that we do not permit His own Son to add anything to our understanding of the matter?

You compared this to the "mystery" of the trinity or of God's eternal existence. However, there is no true analogy here. We reach our conclusions on the trinity and eternal existence of God by synthesizing every relevant biblical text on the subjects, and concluding that there are some things about the godhead for which we can find no earthly analogy, and which, therefore, call for a humility that says, "I don't know how this works."

Calvinism does not do any such thing, when discussing sovereignty and human freedom. Calvinism cannot and does not take every relevant passage at face value. It takes, perhaps fifty verses of scripture and molds them into a theological system (which resembles the earlier Manicheianism of the man who invented the system). It then is forced to face-off against hundreds of verses that speak of God's anger about man's choices, His disappointment with the way things turn out in the short run, His love for all men and His desire that those who are lost would instead be saved, etc. Instead of giving a reasonable explanation of how it is these verses can be true while accepting Calvinist presuppositions, most authors do what Calvin himself did, and say, "It is a great mystery."

However, once you disabuse yourself of the Manicheian/Calvinist presuppositions, you find that there is no need to play the "mystery" card any longer. One can explain every Calvinist proof text exegetically in its context and still take the great mass of biblical data that Calvinism cannot deal with at face value.

David, I don't mind your being a Calvinist. My concern is your lack of exegetical argumentation. It gets you nowhere simply to quote a verse that tells us "the wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies" (Ps.58:3), unless you can also show that a fair exegesis of this verse has any bearing upon your argument for "total depravity." The verse, after all, is speaking about "the wicked" (not necessarily the generality of all humanity). It also uses hyperbole, and does not literally speak of the birth condition (since no one has ever emerged from the womb "speaking lies").

All of the Calvinist proof-texts that make sweeping statements about human depravity fail to meet the test of universality. After all, as even Calvinists believe, "the elect" are excepted from all such descriptions (though the verses do not mention that exception). If there is any unmentioned exception (e.g., the elect), there might reasonably be others, so that their universality is hyperbolic.

Many of the favorite verses about "total depravity" are, in their contexts, speaking only about particular evil people (e.g., those living just prior to the flood; the Jews of David's, Isaiah's or Jeremiah's generation), and are usually written in order to explain why those particular people were about to experience immediate judgment. Calvinists are so desperate to prove unbiblical doctrines that they must ignore these simple facts of hermeneutics and hope that their readers are no better than they are at doing exegesis.

It is fairly typical of Calvinistic argumentation to say something like: "We are shapen in iniquity, and conceived in sin (Ps. 51:5)." What kind of exegesis is this? David makes a statement about himself, and we use it to prove something about all of humanity? Can we do this with everything David said about himself—or only when we need a proof-text for a point that cannot be made by straightforward exegesis of any passages elsewhere?

I believe that every argument you made above can be found answered in this forum, in other threads. Like yourself, my time to write is limited. We will use our time best if we can exegete passages and demonstrate the fallacy of our opponents' misuse of them. It is possible that you have not heard my lectures recently on this subject. If you would get a chance to give them a listen again, you could seek to discover the error in my exegesis. I would be glad to have you present a rebuttal.

In Jesus,

Steve

P.S. You ought to reconsider the point about our form of government being inspired by Calvin's ideas. Calvin's ideas of government were demonstrated in Geneva, under his watch. This was a theocracy. It bears no resemblance to our form of government. It was the Anabaptists (whom Calvin despised) who innovated the idea of a state that does not enforce any given religion. Though many of the founders of the country were Calvinists, not Anabaptists, yet the idea of free exercise of religion was not from Calvin. Calvin was willing to burn people at the stake if they were so audacious as to exercise freedom of religious thought.