Calvinism Series: Calvinism is the Gospel?

Is Calvinism the Gospel? (Part 1)

For a Calvinist, the doctrinal distinctives of Calvinism (the "doctrines of grace") are nothing more or less than the gospel of Jesus Christ found throughout the pages of the New Testament. Charles Spurgeon:

"There is no such thing as preaching Christ and him crucified, unless you preach what...is called Calvinism...It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else."

Despite their equating of Calvinism with the gospel, I have yet to meet a Calvinist who claims to have embraced the five points of Calvinism when he turned in faith to Christ Jesus. Does this mean that they were not really saved before they came to understand and accept Reformed Theology as the gospel? If the five points of Calvinism can be equated with the gospel, which is "the power of God unto salvation for everyone who believes (Romans 1:16), why don't we hear Calvinists talking to the unsaved about the 5 points? If the Calvinist version of the doctrines of grace is equivalent to the true gospel, and if believing the true gospel is necessary to salvation, then why is it that most true Calvinists avoid any discussions of these "doctrines of grace" when they are trying to win the lost to faith in Christ? These are important questions that demand an honest, straightforward answer.

To the Galatians, the apostle Paul says:

"I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, 7 which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed." (Galatians 1:6-8)

It is possible, according to Paul, to turn away from the Lord after you have turned to the Lord. The question is this: Is the gospel of Calvinism, or the so-called 5 points of Calvinism, the gospel that Paul preached and that the Galatians believed when they turned to the Lord? We know that Paul was:

"...not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes." (Romans 1:16)

So if the "doctrines of grace" that Calvinism proposes is the gospel, then why did Paul not preach these doctrines if he declared he was not ashamed of the gospel? When you first came to faith in Christ, or came to Christ in faith, did you believe in the 5 points of Calvinism? Or did you simply believe in and personally embrace the truths of Scripture in which we are told that Christ died for our sins and then rose victorious from the grave? As Paul states:

"I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. 3 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures." (1 Corinthians 15:1-4)

If the gospel you believed in at your conversion was the true gospel of 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, what does that make the five points of Calvinism? Remember that this so-called gospel of Calvinism totally altered your understanding of the gospel of Jesus Christ when you converted to Calvinism. Reformed theologian Herman Hoeksema says:

"...for me the truth of the gospel and the Reformed faith are synonymous."

Calvinist David Engelsma:

"Calvinism is the Gospel. Its outstanding doctrines are simply the truths that make up the Gospel."

Calvinist Arthur Constance:

"Calvinism is the Gospel and to teach Calvinism is in fact to preach the Gospel. It is questionable whether a dogmatic theology which is not Calvinistic is truly Christian."

If you're a Calvinist now, WHEN did the truth of the gospel and the Reformed faith become synonymous to you? Odds are it was some time after you at least thought you had received Christ as Lord and Savior. Could you really have been saved believing that which turned out not to be the true gospel after all? If we must believe the gospel to be saved, then are all Calvinists lost between the period when they thought they received Christ as Lord and Savior and when they became convinced of Calvinism?

Lorraine Boettner:

"...we...hold that a full and complete exposition of the Christian system can be given only on the basis of the truth as set forth in the Calvinist system."

Thus, according to Boettner, your Christian system is, at best, only partial and incomplete if it is not in accordance with Calvinism.

Boettner:

"The Bible unfolds a scheme of redemption which is Calvinistic from beginning to end, and these doctrines are taught with such inescapable clearness that the question is settled for all those who accept the Bible as the Word of God."

You either believe that the Bible teaches the Reformed doctrine of redemption, and by extension, the Reformed doctrine of reprobation, or you do not accept the Bible as the Word of God. The Calvinist claims for Reformed Theology go much further than this.

B.B. Warfield:

"...Calvinism is just Christianity...nothing more or less than the hope of the world."

Boettner:

"There is no consistent stopping place between Calvinism and atheism."

Calvinism Series: Intro (4)

Introduction Part 4

All devout believers have a formally agreed upon standard by which to judge and evaluate all doctrines which they claim to be biblical. It is NOT Calvin's "Institutes of the Christian Religion," "The Canons of Dort," The Westminster Confession of Faith," or "The Heidelberg Catechism" that should be the determining facor as to what we believe. It is not Augustine, Calvin, or Edwards that we are to rely upon for our understanding of the truth. Every Christian not only has the right, but the RESPONSIBILITY to personally search the Scriptures to discern what they mean by whaty they say:

2 Timothy 2:15-17
Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. 16 But shun profane and idle babblings, for they will increase to more ungodliness. 17 And their message will spread like cancer. Hymenaeus and Philetus are of this sort,
2 Peter 1:19-20
And so we have the prophetic word confirmed which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; 20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation,
Acts 17:11
These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.

As Christians, we can and should learn from our spiritual elders, but we are not bound to what they teach unless it passes the objective test of scriptural truth! Calvinists David Steele and Curtis Thomas state:

"The question of supreme importance is not how the system under consideration came to be formulated into five points, or why it was named Calvinism, but rather is it supported by Scripture? The final court of appeal for determining the validity of any theological system is the inspired, authoritative Word of God. If Calvinism can be verified by clear and explicit declaration of Scripture, then it must be received by Christians; if not, it must be rejected."

I couldn't agree more. Loraine Boettner states;

"In all matters of controversy between Christians, the Scriptures are accepted as the highest court of appeal."

Charles Hodge:

"It is the duty of every theologian to subordinate his theories to the Bible, and teach not what seems to him to be true or reasonable, but simply what the Bible teaches."

According to the former two quotes, I would wholeheartedly agree with Calvinists as to how to evaluate a theological system or any of the distinctive of that system. This principle can be stated: All Christians are obligated to believe and embrace all views that agree with the teaching of Scripture. Conversely, if the distinctives of a theological system are found to be in conflict with the teaching of God's holy and infallible Word, that system or the errant distinctives of that system ought to be rejected.

With all my heart, I embrace the grace of God and the fundamental and foundational truth that salvation is by grace and grace alone.

Ephesians 2:8-9
For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.

Unbelievers are absolutely and utterly dependent upon the grace of God to SAVE them. Believers are absolutely and utterly dependent upon the grace of God to SUSTAIN them.

Reformed Theology misrepresents God's saving grace in order that it may appear to correspond and conform to the equally disturbing "Reformed views" of sovereignty and predestination. For example, for those in a hopeless "caste" of humanity (I call it a "caste" because in societal "classes", there is the potential that one can change their class...however, in a caste, one is completely bound by that caste, unable to change from one caste to another) that Calvinists call the reprobate, Reformed Theology denies even the existence of a grace intended to save them. The Calvinist will rightly say that it is not the fault of the GRACE of God that many people cannot be saved. Calvinists wrongly say or suggest that it is the GOD of grace Himself that is ultimately responsible for the plight of the reprobate. Blaming God for the damnation of those who end up in hell is either explicit or implicit in all forms of authentic Calvinism.

For most Christians, even without a fully developed and systematically stated alternative to Calvinism, a simple and unbiased comparison of what Calvinism teaches with what Scriptures says is sufficient to raise all kinds of theological red flags. Take any important passage directly addressing the doctrine of salvation. Read it carefully, keeping in mind the immediate and greater contextual considerations. Then on a piece of paper, write down what you think the meaning of that passage is (outside the lens of whatever system of theology you adhere to). Then look at what Calvin and other Reformed teachers have to say about the same passage. It is highly unlikely that you will be able to see what they see unless and until they show it to you. Even then, they may have to be very persuasive and do some theological twisting of the Scriptures to get you to agree with them.

Ravi Zacharias on a Mormon in the White House

Internationally renowned Christian apologist and theologian Ravi Zacharias raised a bit of controversy in evangelical circles back in November of 2004 when he accepted an invitation to speak at the Mormon Tabernacle in Salt Lake City, UT. He chose for his subject “The Exclusivity and Sufficiency of Jesus Christ.” When asked recently if he were at all concerned about the potential for a Mormon becoming president in the person of Mitt Romney, Ravi replied:

"What we want is a politician who will understand the basic Judeo-Christian world view, and on the basis of that the moral laws of this nation are framed, and then run this country with the excellence of that which is recognized in a pluralistic society: the freedom to believe or to disbelieve, and the moral framework with which this was conducted: the sanctity of every individual life.

If we are looking for a minister to run this country just look back and see what havoc sometimes has happened when the church got aligned totally with the state. That’s not what we want. We want political leadership that is wise, political leadership that frames itself on the moral framework of God and recognizing that you cannot dictate political ideaology to all of humanity. That’s why Jesus refused to run for office, that was not what his mission was about. His mission was to change hearts.

But as you look back at the book of Kings and Chronicles you see one difference between every king: either they followed the Lord with their whole heart and blessing came; or they turned their backs upon God and then the entailments were there. And that’s what will happen to this country.

Would we rather have someone who is a total secularist? Is that what people are asking for? Are we looking for someone who would run this the way he would run a bishoprick or something? I think we should ask the hard questions of everybody, be it Mitt Romney or anyone else and see if the framework of the value of human life and the moral framework of the Judeo-Christian world view, (which is the only moral framework under which this country could have been framed. It was not framed under a Hindu framework. It was not framed under a Muslim framework, not framed under a Buddhist or a naturalistic framework) that we are all created equal, that liberty and justice and all of those terms that I’ve given only make sense within the Judeo-Christian world view.

Created? Equal? Naturalism does not tell us we are equal. Naturalism does not tell us we are created. Liberty? Islam does not believe in the total liberty of the individual. Equal? Hinduism believes in the caste system. The Judeo-Christian world view is the only world view that could frame this country. And so I think as we elect, we go before God and see out of the candidates who will be the best one to represent the values and at the same time be a good leader for the country whose first responsibility should be to protect its citizens.

This is a great country and the challenges we face are immense to a point where this country could be totally mangled with the onslaught of a rabid atheism ala Christopher Hitchens, Samuel Harris, Richard Dawkins, those kinds of vociferous, acerbic writers in our time who would like to strip the notion of God completely from our culture. For Sam Harris to actually say if he had a magic wand to eradicate religion or eradicate rape, he would eradicate religion tells you the kind of mindset, and his book is in the top ten bestseller list of the New York Times. There’s a rabid atheism out there and there’s a rabid Islamic extremism out there and the secularism combined with that. I’ve responded to Sam Harris in a book which will be released in the early part of next year. I’ve said to him basically his choice is not going to be between religion and secularism. His choice is going to be between Islam and Christianity. Secularism has no staying power and has proven itself in Europe today. Europe is on the decline and on the demise and it’s only a matter of time before Islam would take a foothold there unless the Christian world view reemerges."

Calvinism Series: Intro (3)

Introduction (Part 3)

The doctrinal differences that divide equally sincere and devout believers on both sides of the Calvinist controversy are substantial and serious. This series I'm doing on Calvinism should not be interpreted as a personal attack on anyone. It is only that, having delved in Calvinism myself, I've seen how the doctrines pose a distortion of Scripture (as a whole). As John MacArthur states:

"Is it inherently unkind or condemnatory to say someone else's view is errant? Not if one has biblical authority for saying so. In fact, to remain silent and allow error to go unexposed and uncorrected is an abdication of the elder's role (Titus 1:9). The apostle Paul publicly called Peter a hypocrite for compromising biblical principles (Galatians 2:11-15). To disagree with or critique someone's published views does not constitute a personal attack. If the Church cannot tolerate polemic dialogue between opposing views--especially if Christian leaders cannot be held accountable for whether their teaching is biblical--then error will have free reign."

If I am right in my assessment of Calvinism relative to the Reformed doctrines of redemption and reprobation, it is my scriptural and spiritual obligation to defend the truth of Scripture. Calvinism is a challenge to all Christians everywhere who believe God has a saving love for and saving interest in all of mankind:
John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
John 6:40 "And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.”
1 Timothy 2:4 "[God] who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."
2 Peter 3:9 "The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance."

In Reformed Theology, God's redemptive love is not only minimized but also outright denied to untold millions of desperately lost souls. Within the Reformed doctrine of limited atonement, the very cross of Christ is theologically robbed of all value for countless millions of people who desperately need the forgiveness and cleansing that can only come from the Savior's precious blood:
1 Peter 1:18-19 "knowing that you were not redeemed with corruptible things, like silver or gold, from your aimless conduct received by tradition from your fathers, 19 but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot."

Even those Calvinists who believe God loves all people have redefined that love, in their thinking and theology, to exclude any kind of saving grace for some of the people they say God loves. We can take John 3:16 and 6:40 at face value or we can allow Calvinism to devalue, in our thinking and theology, the wonderful truth contained and conveyed in this and many other precious, important, and powerful passages of Scripture. One cannot do both.

So much of the energy expended by Calvinists, energy that could and should be spent winning the lost to the Savior, is spent trying to win non-Calvinist Christians into the Reformed faith. National organizations and nationally-syndicated radio programs have been established to aggressively challenge the views of any Christian or Christian church that does not agree with the distinctive doctrines of Calvinism, no matter what their commitment to the essentials of the historic and orthodox Christian faith is. Some Calvinists see themselves as Calvinists fighting for the hearts and minds of the greater Evangelical Christian community. The saved trying to save the saved instead of the lost? They desire to liberate non-Calvinist Christians from a Reformed-free faith. They actually view and treat many of the most dearly held convictions of non-Calvinist Evangelicals as symptomatic of a spiritual and theological disease, of which Reformed Theology is supposedly the cure.

Why doe Calvinists want non-Calvinists to become Calvinists? One reason is that Calvinism is by nature evangelistically sterile. Thus, for Calvinist churches to grow, they need to bring non-Calvinists into the Reformed faith. Calvinism as a system of theology is not all that encouraging to evangelism and Calvinists are typically not all that interested in winning the lost to Christ.

Many leading advocates for the Calvinist cause are convinced that only Calvinists believe in and embrace the doctrines of grace. It cannot be reasonably denied that Calvinists hold to a distinctive definition of grace. Whether or not they are right in the way they define grace is an altogether different matter. Loraine Boettner boasts:

"The doctrine that men are saved only through the unmerited love and grace of God finds its full and honest expression only in the doctrines of Calvinism."

Does this mean that non-Reformed Christians embrace only a partial and dishonest doctrine of salvation? Such claims call for a critical examination and evaluation of Calvinism in light of Scripture. If you're a Calvinist, can you objectively listen to the scripturally based arguments and evidence against Reformed theology? If you can, I believe it likely that you will discover that Calvinism is in serious conflict with the truth of God's Word on a number of important matters related to the great and gracious saving work of God.

Calvinism series: Intro (2)

For the sake of simplicity, I will henceforth title the "why i'm not a calvinist anymore" series the "calvinism series" and will number the parts with the (#).

Introduction (Part 2)

Despite formal denials from some Calvinists and documents such as The Westminster Confession of Faith, John Calvin and the system of theology he championed does, "...assert that God is, in himself, the cause and author of sin..." (taken from a partial quote by John Milton). According to Calvin, it is all happening according to the perfect plan and purpose of God. Everything is as it should be. All Evangelicals would agree that God is ultimately going to have His Way. Of that, there should be no doubt. But, can we trace moral evil back to God in the same we can good things? As far as Calvin was concerned, even the first sin and its terrible consequences were orchestrated by God.

Calvin:
"God not only foresaw the fall of the first man, and in him the ruin of his posterity; but also at his own pleasure arranged it...some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of those ends, we say that he has been predestined to life or death."

The key to understanding Calvin is not only in the words "predestined to" but in the words "created for."

Calvin:
"God...arranges all things by his sovereign counsel, in such a way that individuals are born, who are doomed from the womb to certain death..."

Only if you understand and agree with these statements of John Calvin can it be correctly said that you are a true Calvinist, because all 5 points of Calvinist doctrine inevitably stem from this idea (unconditional election). You do not have to agree with everything that Calvin said or taught to be a Calvinist, but in order to be a true Calvinist, you do have to understand and agree with the central tenets and doctrinal distinctives of the Reformed faith.

Calvinist scholar John Feinberg:
"Sometimes it would be easier not to be a Calvinist...Calvinists hold views that appear at the very least counterintuitive. This is especially so with respect to Calvinist accounts of God's sovereign control in relation to human freedom and moral responsibility for evil. If Calvinists are right about divine sovereignty, there seems to be little room for human freedom. If freedom goes, so does human responsibility for sin. If Calvinists are right, it appears that God decides that there will be sin and evil in our world, maybe even brings it about that there is such evil, and yet, He is not morally responsible for any of it. We are. If this is Calvinism's God, Calvinism seems not only intellectually but also religiously bankrupt. Who would worship this God?"

Despite what Feinburg concedes, he still believes that Calvinism is the "portrayal of God" found in Scripture. How this can be, if what he says about Calvinism is true, is difficult for me to fathom.

Feinburg:
"Unfortunately, some Calvinists, because of their understanding of God's sovereignty, have denied that humans are free. YEt some of those Calvinists maintain that we are morally responsible for our sin, while God, who decreed our sin, is not morally accountable. When asked how this can be true, they respond that it is a paradox..."

Are these conflicts in Calvinism really only a "paradox" or are they hopeless contradictions? Is Calvinism compatible with Scripture? While it is not possible for a theological system to be self-contradictory AND true, it is possible for it to be internally consistent and NOT true or not true to Scripture. As will be proven in later parts of this series, Calvinism is both contradictory AND unscriptural.

I use the terms Calvinism and the Reformed faith interchangeably because, for all practical purposes, they are one and the same label.

Paul Enns:
"To speak of Calvinism is to speak of the Reformed faith. The term Reformed is today basically synonymous with Calvinism and distinguishes the Calvinist churches..."

The promotion of the Calvinist doctrine of predestination is promotion of the Calvinist doctrines of salvation and damnation. To say that many Calvinists are extremely zealous in their committment to win non-Calvinists over to the Reformed version of the Christian faith is definitely an understatement (as to why Calvinists ARE zealous in this regard will be discussed more fully in the next part of this series). Believing they are doing all non-Calvinists a favor by winning them over to Calvinism, many Calvinists have become proselytizers for the Reformed faith.

There is a widespread view among Calvinists that all non-Calvinist Evangelicals are Arminian in their theological convictions. I admit that I'm neither a Calvinist NOR an Armenian, thus I should not be labeled as being such...but I will touch on this issue a little later.

Calvinism amounts to Theistic Fatalism. A Theistic Fatalist believes that a personal God unconditionally determines where individuals go when they die, that is, whether they go to heaven or hell.

Wayne Grudem:
"By fatalism is meant a system in which human choices and human decisions really do not make any difference. In fatalism, no matter what we do, things are going to turn out as they have been previously ordained. Therefore, it is futile to try and influence the outcome of events or the outcome of our lives by putting forth any effort or making any significant choices, because these will not make any difference anyway."

The truth is, some Calvinists do not want non-Calvinists to know the full implications of Calvinism until after they have become committed Calvinists.

Lorraine Boettner explains one of the reasons behind the reluctance of some Calvinists to initially lay it all out on the table early on:
"In preaching to...those who are just beginning the Christian life...At that early stage little need be said about the deeper truths which relate to God's part. As in the study of Mathematics we do not begin with algebra and calculus but with the simple problems of arithmetic..."

The "deeper truths" to which Boettner refers to here are the distinctive doctrines of Calvinism. Some Calvinists are not only less than totally up-front, but they are not even being altogether honest with the non-Calvinists they are targeting. In the promotion of doctrines, what is held back or not expressed can be very misleading. Many Calvinists, when promoting Reformed Theology to a potential convert to Calvinism, typically limit the discussion to those features that SEEM positive to the uninitiated. However, it is what they DO NOT tell you that you really need to know in order to make a truly informed decision.

Calvinism undermines the scriptural doctrine of salvation:
1 Timothy 2:3-4 "For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."
2 Peter 3:8-9 "But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance."
Isaiah 45:22 "Turn to me and be saved, all you ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no other."
and ect...

Again, I will get into more scriptural detail in later parts.

Reformed Theology represents a serious threat to at least some of the people for whom that salvation was provided by Christ's death on the cross:
1 John 2:2 "And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world."
1 Timothy 2:5-6 "For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time"
Hebrews 2:9 "But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that He, by the grace of God, might taste death for everyone."

The salvation that is provided is also the salvation that is offered to them in a truly scriptural proclamation of the gospel of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ:
1 Corinthians 15:1-4 "Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.
3 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures."

Why I'm Not a Calvinist Anymore (intro)

Okay, so I'm setting out on starting a series on why I'm not Calvinist anymore. I adhered to Calvinist doctrine for about a year. No it was not hearing a speaker, not it was not attending a different church, no it was not being swayed by someone's argument which caused me to denounce those doctrines. What changed my views on it was actually just reading God's Word in my own personal devotional time. As I would read it, I would read it through the lens of the 5 points of Calvinism...but I couldn't help it when I would come across certain verses and passages of the Bible which would completely refute several or all of the 5 points. The more I studied Scripture, the more Scripture I came across that completely contradicted Calvinism. I couldn't ignore it any longer. I set out to do deeper research into the matter and what I came across stemmed the tide of my Calvinist beliefs.

The first few parts of this series is really going to be just an introduction and a brief overview of what will be discussed. Then I will go through each of the 5 points of Calvinism, explain each point briefly, and then introduce Scripture which contradicts each point. Now I'm not out to divide the body of Christ. I truly believe that those who adhere to Calvinism (Reformed theology) are true, God fearing, Christ following believers..and I love them dearly as fellow brothers and sisters in the Lord. The only difference is I do not agree with the theology and doctrine that Calvinism as a system of belief poses and how the majority of those who adhere to Calvinism treat the lost and non-Calvinist believers.

The only thing I ask of you is, if you are of Reformed theological belief, that you read the subsequent articles with unbias...just purely studying the passages of Scripture and examine them in light of what Calvinist doctrine teaches, and what the Scriptures are teaching over all.

Throughout this series I will be drawing heavily upon my own research and experiences and upon the research and statements of George Bryson (who has a way of wording things much more eloquently than I can). If any of you want references, ask for them...other than that I'm not going to bother with citations because I find them tedious.

Introduction

While Calvinists are prone to accent the less negative features of Calvinism, even the best of what Calvin taught about salvation logically leads to the worst of what Calvinism teaches. While Calvinists prefer to talk about election, they know that the other side of unconditional election is a very troubling and unscriptural doctrine of unconditional reprobation. As contemporary advocate of Calvinism, James White says:

"God elects a specific people unto Himself without reference to anything they do. This means the basis of God's choice of the elect is solely within Himself: His grace, His mercy, His will. It is not man's actions, works, or even foreseen faith, that "draws" God's choice. God's election is unconditional and final."

The doctrinal distinctive of Reformed Theology cannot be reconciled with what we know about God from His Holy Word. Scripture has taught me to believe that God is absolutely just. could and would such a God allow a man to be born who has no possibility to be saved? Would the God of Scripture have me tantalize unsavable men with the offer of salvation? Would the God of all hope punish a man for all eternity for rejecting the offer of salvation, if that man was decreed by God to reject that salvation in the first place?

The God introduced to us by Calvin seems to be far removed and very different from the God who said, "...and whoever wishes, let him take the water of life freely" (Rev. 22:17). Would I not be lying to a "non-elect" man if I offered him eternal life based on what Christ did for him on the cross? For if Calvinism is true, Christ did nothing of redemptive value for the non-elect. Why are we, then, commanded to preach the gospel to every creature (Mark 16:15)? If Calvinism is true, and I affirm to a man that Jesus loves him and died on the cross to redeem him from his sins, I may be offering nothing more than a false hope. Can I, with a clear conscience, really do this in the name of the God of all Truth, knowing full well that it may not be true for this particular man? Perhaps this explains why evangelism is so neglected in much of the Reformed community.

Assuming Calvinism is true, if I urge men to receive Jesus as their Lord that they might be saved, would this not be nothing more than a cruel tease for many of those to whom I speak (Acts 2:36-39 "Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ."37When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?"38Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.")? Why would the God of all Truth, who speaks so sternly against lying, send His servants out to promote such a lie? IF God has no saving concern for many (perhaps even most), why should I? Why would God call upon a man to make a choice as to which God he would serve as He did with Joshua (Josh. 24:15)? If it is impossible for men to choose because they have been pre-ordained by God to be saved or lost, is it not rather cruel and deceitful to hold out the offer of the gospel to them if it is impossible for them to accept it? Conversely, if a man is ordained by God to be saved, with no real responsibility on his part, then why spend time and resources seeking to bring the gospel to the world? If they have been irrevocably chosen to be saved, then they cannot possibly be lost; therefore, where is the incentive to take the gospel to them?

If I follow the referenced position of James White, I would have to accept that a man's "faith" in Jesus Christ has nothing to do with getting saved. In stark contrast, when Jesus was asked, "What must we do to do the works God requires?" our Lord responded, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent." (John 6:28-29). When the Philippian jailor asked, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" Paul and Silas responded, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved..."(Acts 16:30-31).

According to Calvinism, it is futile to try to convert the lost who are not predestined to be saved. Perhaps this explains why so many Calvinists are spending so much time and energy trying to win the already saved to Calvinism! Calvinist theology, if fully understood, destroys the gospel to every creature.

Some verses i ran across and some rants

I would like to share some verses and passages that stood out to me this morning while perusing the Bible:

Malachi 2:13-17
And this is the second thing you do:
You cover the altar of the LORD with tears,
With weeping and crying;
So He does not regard the offering anymore,
Nor receive it with goodwill from your hands.
14 Yet you say, “For what reason?”
Because the LORD has been witness
Between you and the wife of your youth,
With whom you have dealt treacherously;
Yet she is your companion
And your wife by covenant.
15 But did He not make them one,
Having a remnant of the Spirit?
And why one?
He seeks godly offspring.
Therefore take heed to your spirit,
And let none deal treacherously with the wife of his youth.
16 “ For the LORD God of Israel says
That He hates divorce,
For it covers one’s garment with violence,”
Says the LORD of hosts.

“ Therefore take heed to your spirit,
That you do not deal treacherously.”
17 You have wearied the LORD with your words;
Yet you say,

“ In what way have we wearied Him?”
In that you say,

“ Everyone who does evil
Is good in the sight of the LORD,
And He delights in them,”
Or, “Where is the God of justice?”

God takes divorce very seriously...in this society where the divorce rate among Christians is equal to that of non believers, people would do well to heed what the Lord says He feels toward divorce.


1 Peter 3:7-9
7 You husbands in the same way, live with your wives in an understanding way, as with someone weaker, since she is a woman; and show her honor as a fellow heir of the grace of life, so that your prayers will not be hindered. 8To sum up, all of you be harmonious, sympathetic, brotherly, kindhearted, and humble in spirit; 9not returning evil for evil or insult for insult, but giving a blessing instead; for you were called for the very purpose that you might inherit a blessing.

Men, you better be careful to treat your wives rightly, or else your prayers will be hindered. When we get into tiffs with other believers (especially over doctrinal issues), instead of insulting them back when they insult us, we are to share words of blessing to them instead.


1 Timothy 1:5-7
But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith.6For some men, straying from these things, have turned aside to fruitless discussion, 7wanting to be teachers of the Law, even though they do not understand either what they are saying or the matters about which they make confident assertions.

For some reason, i equate this verse with people who spend all their time arguing with others over doctrine or minor things like what Bible translation one reads, so much so that there is no instruction in love...only quarreling, dissension, and insults over minor, non-soteriological doctrinal lines. I've been in some knock-down drag out conversations with other believers over such minor Biblical doctrines and details, that I realized how much all parties involved really missed the big picture. Sometimes we can be so microscopic about certain doctrines we adhere to, that we miss the fact that although another fellow believer might not adhere to that exact doctrine (again, I'm not talking about the major doctrines dealing with salvation and who God is, those, in my opinion, fall under the command to combat false teachings) we do, they're still our brother/sister in Christ. Or we may be so adamant about swaying other believers to adhere to our own doctrinal views, that we ignore those sins in our lives that are hindering our relationship with the Lord.

I think many times believers create walls around themselves and only fellowship with those other believers who think the exact way they do on all doctrines, that they isolate and alienate others who may have different views of the same doctrine, but are, regardless, true believers and followers of Jesus Christ. This doesn't even stay in the realm of doctrine...Christians create walls around their cliques in regards to if someone dresses "nicely" in church or if they dress casually, those who have a glass of wine over dinner and those who choose to abstain from all alcohol, whether one favors a particular English translation of the Bible over another, or we even judge a believer only according to what church they go to. Sadly, these types of petty issues are creating such deep dividing lines among the body of Christ, that we spend more time fighting other believers over these minor things than we do going out and preaching the Word to the lost...or encouraging other discouraged believers in the Lord to continue running the race (we choose to tear them down instead if they don't believe in say "once saved always saved")....or even loving each other in the church as the Lord commands us so often in His Word. I've seen Calvinists fight non-Calvinists to the point of pure hate speech pouring out of their mouths toward those believers who didn't adhere to the full TULIP. I've seen Baptists fight non-denominational Christians over the issue of whether the gifts of the Spirit are still applicable to today so much so that both parties are telling each other they're not truly believers...these accusations being based just on that one issue!

You see what i mean by getting so passionate over minor doctrinal issues and other issues that we become "microscopic" in our dealings with the body of Christ? Here are our neighbors and even our own family members possibly on their way to hell, and all we believers can do is fight amongst ourselves. Sometimes we miss the big picture. Does God care whether we go to church in dress shoes or sandals? Or does He care more that we carry out the Great Commission. Does God care more if we believe in limited or unlimited atonement? Or is He more concerned that we develop His love and passion for the lost and those who're truly in need of Him.


2 Timothy 2:19, 22-26
19Nevertheless, the firm foundation of God stands, having this seal, "The Lord knows those who are His," and, "Everyone who names the name of the Lord is to abstain from wickedness." 22Now flee from youthful lusts and pursue righteousness, faith, love and peace, with those who call on the Lord from a pure heart. 23But refuse foolish and ignorant speculations, knowing that they produce quarrels. 24The Lord's bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, 25with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth,26and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will.

Those who claim to be Christians, are to abstain from sinfulness...we are not to act as the world does, as unbelievers do. We are sanctified, set apart in Christ, thus we need to act that way. Let's stick with the Truths that are spelled out in God's Word instead of speculating on those things which are not in God's Word and without which we cannot possibly know. When we run across opposition, we are to be kind (not argumentative), patient, and gentle realizing that it is the Lord who grants repentance not any amount of cajoling and debate on our part.


Titus 1:15-16
To the pure, all things are pure; but to those who are defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure, but both their mind and their conscience are defiled. 16They profess to know God, but by their deeds they deny Him, being detestable and disobedient and worthless for any good deed.

Those who profess to know God will think, speak, and act in godly manners. If someone professes to know God and yet thinks, speaks, and acts like those who do not know God, then they do not truly know God (by their deeds they deny Him). This passage calls such people disobedient and worthless. Truly by someone's fruit, people can know if they truly know and love God as they claim. Are we consistently bearing good fruit, or are we consistently bearing bad fruit?


Titus 3:3-7; 10-11
For we also once were foolish ourselves, disobedient, deceived, enslaved to various lusts and pleasures, spending our life in malice and envy, hateful, hating one another.4But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared, 5He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, 6whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. 10Reject a factious man after a first and second warning, 11knowing that such a man is perverted and is sinning, being self-condemned.

We are not saved by any "good" deeds we do, but only by God's mercy. He regenerates and renews us through the Holy Spirit (which dwells within every true believer). The indwelling Holy Spirit can only be attained through belief in Jesus Christ. Because of the blood of Jesus and His gift to us of the Holy Spirit, we have the hope of eternal life. Those in the church who set out to create factions (cliques, rifts) among believers, are said to be living in sin. If after being warned, these people continue in their dissentious ways, they are to be kicked out of the fellowship of believers. It says here such people are condemned (again this is reminding me of people who create cliques and rifts in the body of Christ according to their own doctrines and/or beliefs that are not touched on in the Bible [i.e. what Bible version is the true Word of God, whether or not people should "dress up" to go to church..so on and so forth]). If these personal beliefs/convictions ARE touched on in the Bible, such dissentious people claim one must adhere to their personal convictions or else they are unsaved (even though God Himself doesn't put those particular distinctions on the sheep or goats in His Word). I guess you could call that legalism, but to an extreme.


1 Peter 1:14-17
As obedient children, do not be conformed to the former lusts which were yours in your ignorance, 15but like the Holy One who called you, be holy yourselves also in all your behavior;16because it is written, "YOU SHALL BE HOLY, FOR I AM HOLY."17If you address as Father the One who impartially judges according to each one's work, conduct yourselves in fear during the time of your stay on earth

If we consider ourselves to be children of God, we are not to live according to the sinful nature, but we are to be holy (set apart from the world) in ALL our behavior. Why? Because if we claim to be children of a holy God, then we should be holy if only for the fact that God is holy. If we claim God as our Father, we need to be like our Father. We are to treat the Lord with reverence and awe as He rightly deserves...and as such we wouldn't be so quick to sin if we respect and reverence the One we claim to follow as One who is deserving of holy lifestyles and behavior on our part.

"Family Time"

I would like to draw attention to a blog a woman wrote about family time:

it can be found here

family

I have been wondering a lot about this lately. I have been wondering mostly why the sanctity of “Family Time” has escaped us in the day of being busy and glued to work, activities, etc…. I know as a child, a lot of my friends had one day a week that was ‘Family Time’ growing up. They could not have friends over or go to friends, it was a sacred day in their family that was only for them. Not even extended family, just the immediate family- parents & children. It’s such a beautiful thing. We have been trying to institute that, with mediocre success. We try for Sunday to be our ‘Family Day’ but it sometimes doesn’t work because that’s the only day sometimes to see other people, or we are committed to other things, etc…. Life obviously can get in the way. It would be easier to pick a week night, but we are way too busy throughout the week. It’s like ‘Date Night’ except kids are involved, too. Then we push it back and try to have it on a different day. Here is the problem, most families are guilty (ours included) of not putting enough emphasis on the importance of this, and so it can go on and on before we actually have this special night. When friends ask me to help them watch their kids, or do a certain thing on a night dedicated to ‘Family Night’ it’s easier to just say ‘sure,’ then to say we are having family night, and your children are not invited to join us. It sounds kind of harsh. But in reality, it probably needs to be. I guess in order for the role of the family to be preserved in our culture, we need to get a kind of a more harsh perspective, in some ways, that really puts ‘family’ into a bubble, and refuse to let others tell us we’re crazy for it. I think the lack of this contributes to the divorce rate, and broken families, and people living far away from families and not having that support (we, for the record, are part of this living far away from family statistic, with all of mine in manitoba, canada and ben's all over the US). I guess, my real question and confusion stems from why is it so hard to just say to people “sorry, that’s family night! And nothing or no one can come in the way of this, that’s just how it is.” We do that for work, we do that for many other things, but not our families, or at least not as much as we should. I know we are guilty of this a lot, and I’m sure most families are. Even knowing this, it is still hard to change it because it seems like our culture just doesn’t place a lot of emphasis on family for the most part, and so it makes it hard to do this.

What do you do to make family a priority over everything else? To make sure a date with your family doesn’t change just because it’s more convenient than saying ‘no’ to someone else?? I’d love to hear some ideas….


This is my initial response to this post:

It's not just "family time"...i think about how much men of the household aren't leading their families spiritually at all. Their WIVES are the ones initiating "Bible time" while the men, if the wives are lucky, will go along with it or, if the wives aren't, the man will make up some excuse as to why not.

Even men in the ministry, they care more about the spiritual lives of those they're teaching, and they completely neglect the spiritual needs of the immediate family the Lord has put under their care. It's sickening...

God has placed the man to be the spiritual head of the household, not the woman...so if the woman out of necessity becomes that leader because the man is being lazy in that duty, it's not going to be very successful because it's out of God's ordained order.

It seems that Christian men of the household over the decades have become more interested in the computer, tv, their work, even pornography, than they are in spending time with and leading their families spiritually. This pathetic apathy upsets me as a woman so much.

My consolation (if u can call it that) is that these very same Christian men are going to have to stand before God after they die and be held responsible for those duties they were placed in a position to do, but they failed to do.

The spiritual state of a man's family is more important than work, any entertainment...and even a church flock...if his family is flopping around spiritually like fish out of water, it is the man's responsibility to pull the reigns and be that spiritual leader his family needs and to place this as a priority ABOVE ALL ELSE regardless of how important the other things in his life may seem.

Contextual Theology - Falling From Truth Through the Emerging Church

by Roger Oakland

In order for the emerging church to succeed, the Bible has to be looked at through entirely different glasses, and Christianity needs to be open to a new type of faith. Brian McLaren calls this new faith a "generous orthodoxy."1 While such an orthodoxy allows a smorgasbord of ideas to be proclaimed in the name of Christ, many of these ideas are actually forbidden and rejected by Scripture.

Pagitt believes that he is part of a cutting-edge response to the new postmodern world. It's a response he and others see as completely unique, never having been tried before in the history of man. Pagitt states:

It seems to me that our post-industrial times require us to ask new questions-questions that people 100 years ago would have never thought of asking. Could it be that our answers will move us to re-imagine the way of Christianity in our world? Perhaps we as Christians today are not only to consider what it means to be a 21st century church, but also and perhaps more importantly-what it means to have a 21st century faith.2

Many people I meet at conferences who come from a wide variety of church backgrounds tell me the church they have been attending for years has radically changed. Their pastor no longer teaches the Bible. Instead, the Sunday morning service is a skit or a series of stories. The Bible seems to have become the forbidden book. While there are pastors who do still teach the Bible, they are becoming the exception rather than the rule.

Emergent leaders often say the message remains the same, but our methods must change if we are going to be relevant to our generation. The measure of success for many pastors today is how many are coming, rather than how many are listening and obeying what God has said in His Word. Let's consider how Doug Pagitt uses the Bible in his own church. He states:

At Solomon's Porch, sermons are not primarily about my extracting truth from the Bible to apply to people's lives. In many ways the sermon is less a lecture or motivational speech than it is an act of poetry-of putting words around people's experiences to allow them to find deeper connection in their lives... So our sermons are not lessons that precisely define belief so much as they are stories that welcome our hopes and ideas and participation.3


What Pagitt is describing is a contextual theology; that is, don't use the Bible as a means of theology or measuring rod of truth and standards by which to live; and rather than have the Bible mold the Christian's life, let the Christian's life mold the Bible. That's what Pagitt calls "putting words around people's experiences." As this idea is developed, emerging proponents have to move away from Bible teachings and draw into a dialectic approach. That way, instead of just one person preaching truth or teaching biblical doctrine, everyone can have a say and thus come to a consensus of what the Bible might be saying. Pagitt explains:

To move beyond this passive approach to faith, we've tried to create a community that's more like a potluck: people eat and they also bring something for others. Our belief is built when all of us engage our hopes, dreams, ideas and understandings with the story of God as it unfolds through history and through us.4

You may not have heard the term before, but contextual theology is a prominent message from the emerging church. In his book, Models of Contextual Theology (1992), Stephen B. Bevans defines contextual theology as:

... a way of doing theology in which one takes into account: the spirit and message of the gospel; the tradition of the Christian people; the culture in which one is theologizing; and social change in that culture, whether brought about by western technological process or the grass-roots struggle for equality, justice and liberation.5

In other words, the Bible in, and of itself, is not free-standing-other factors (culture, ethnicity, history) must be taken into consideration, and with those factors, the message of the Bible must be adjusted to fit. As one writer puts it, "Contextual theology aims at the humanization of theology."6 But two questions need to be asked. First, will the contextualizing of Scripture cause such a twisting of its truth that it no longer is the Word of God, and secondly, is Scripture ineffective without this contextualization? To the first, I give a resounding yes! And to the second, an absolute no. The Word of God, which is an inspired work of the living Creator, is far more than any human-inspired book and has been written in such a way that every human being, rich or poor, man or woman, intelligent or challenged will understand the meaning of the Gospel message if it is presented in their native language; and thanks to the tireless work of missionaries for centuries, the Gospel in native languages is becoming a reality in most cultures today.

Dean Flemming is a New Testament teacher at European Nazarene College in Germany and the author of Contextualization in the New Testament. In his book, he defends contextual theology:

Every church in every particular place and time must learn to do theology in a way that makes sense to its audience while challenging it at the deepest level. In fact, some of the most promising conversations about contextualization today (whether they are recognized as such or not) are coming from churches in the West that are discovering new ways of embodying the gospel for an emerging postmodern culture.7

These "churches in the West" Flemming considers "most promising" are the emerging churches. He would agree with Bevans' model of theology, but he has an answer to the emerging church's dilemma. He states:

Many sincere Christians are still suspicious that attempts to contextualize theology and Christian behavior will lead to the compromising of biblical truth ... we must look to the New Testament for mentoring in the task of doing theology in our various settings.8

There's good reason some Christians are suspicious. But it can seem harmless at first because Flemming suggests the answer is in the New Testament, which he believes should be used as a prototype or pattern rather than something for doctrine or theology. New Testament theology is always open for change, he says, but we can learn how to develop this change by studying New Testament stories and characters. The premise Flemming presents of contextualizing Scripture is that since cultures and societies are always changing, the Word must change with it and be conformed to these changes. But I would challenge this. The Bible says the Word is living, active, and powerful:

For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. (Hebrews 4:12)

And if the Word is this powerful, then it is stable and eternal as well. God, in His magnificence, is the Author of Scripture, and He surpasses time, culture, and societies. Contextualizing says people and cultures change, and therefore God's Word must change. But, on the contrary, it's people who need to change to conform to Scripture. If we really believe that the Bible is God's Word, this would be clear to see; but if we think to ourselves that the Word is not infallible, not inspired, then contextualization would be the obvious expectation.

While certain parts of the Bible may be read as poetry (as Pagitt suggests), for indeed the Bible is a beautifully written masterpiece, it is also a living mechanism that is not to be altered-rather it alters the reader's heart and life. It is much more than putting words around people's experiences as emergents suggest.

The Bible tells us God is always right; it is man who is so often wrong. When we rely upon human consensus, we will end up with man's perspective and not God's revelation. This is a dangerous way to develop one's spiritual life-the results can lead to terrible deception.

Brian McLaren put it well when he admitted it isn't just the way the message is presented that emerging church proponents want to change ... it's the message itself they are changing:

It has been fashionable among the innovative [emerging] pastors I know to say, "We're not changing the message; we're only changing the medium." This claim is probably less than honest ... in the new church we must realize how medium and message are intertwined. When we change the medium, the message that's received is changed, however subtly, as well. We might as well get beyond our naivete or denial about this....9

While reaching today's generation for the cause of Christ is something we as Christians should all desire, we must remember Jesus Christ challenged us to follow Him and be obedient to His Word. Scripture commands us to "be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind" (Romans 12:2). But the emergents are leading followers in the opposite direction, teaching that the Word of God needs to be conformed to people and cultures instead of allowing it to conform lives through Jesus Christ.... reimagining Christianity allows a dangerous kind of freedom; like cutting the suspension ropes on a hot air balloon, the free fall may be exhilarating but the results catastrophic.(From Faith Undone, pp. 42-45.) Click herefor endnote references.

Chuck Smith, Jr. Emergent

I came across a letter that Chuck Smith, Jr. (Pastor Chuck's son) wrote (he was told to not affiliate with the calvary chapels anymore after he went emergent:

Hey, Andrew, I lost your email address too and Craig forgot to forward it to me.

Anyway . . . No, my dad didn't write the CCOF letter. I think it was written by my uncle. Of course, my dad is still responsible for everything that comes out of Costa Mecca and claims to define Calvary Chapel, so we can assume that he holds to the views expressed in that document. Which is, of course, sad.

Yes, write my dad. He needs to hear from people who are in the emerging conversation. He needs to be informed that it is not what he's been told or what someone else read on someone else's blog site.

I do not believe my uncle has done any firsthand research (i.e., read McLaren, Sweet, yourself, Paggitt, Kimbal, etc.). I tried to correct his views a couple of weeks ago, but his ears were already attuned to other voices and they prevailed.

Something rather silly is behind all of this . . .

Last year I edited ten of my dad's sermons dealing with life's troubles. Since I was turning oral expository sermons into a book, I reformatted them, took out a lot of filler, filled in a lot of empty spaces, and modified statements that were unclear. I also reformatted the prayers, etc. In the process, I included quotes by Len Sweet and Anthony de Mello. When I emailed the manuscript and my edits to my dad, I included a cover email to warn him about the de Mello quote and to urge him (or his editor) to read the mss carefully and remove anything he did not like or that might be offensive to others (who, perhaps having no understanding of biblical or spiritual discernment, think that if you read an author you automatically embrace everything the author says, true or false, and therefore try to control the reading habits of all Christians, especially Christian leaders), etc.

A couple weeks later I asked my dad when I would see the mss again (having three published works I was looking forward to working with the editor at the publishing company). Well, he had sent the mss into the pipeline, which resulted in a small bit of weak editing (by someone who assumed I meant "program" when I wrote of a "pogrom" against the Jews--that type of thing). But the poor sentence structure and "offensive quotes" did not get edited out. The errors are astounding.

My dad explained that when the publisher saw "storms" in the title of the book they rushed it to pring in order to capitalize on the Katrina hurricane. And so there it is, errors and all. Quite embarrassing to say the least.

In fact, there was a note I had put in italics and bracketed for the editor, saying that I wished my dad would clarify a statement in the book that contradicted an earlier statement. That editor's note appears in the published book! Sort of like a scribal note getting inserted into the text.


But more than embarrassing for my dad. He became the target of the neo-Pharisees who believe it's their job to sniff out error and defame those men and women of God who are actually doing something for the kingdom of heaven. And so those websites that in all their history have had less than 2,000 hits began to publish their heresy reports. My dad has had to explain that the offensive parts of the book were my insertions and not original to his work.

So . . . [deleted]

Now to be perfectly honest, I haven't belonged in the Calvary Chapel community for a long time. I identify with early Calvary Chapel (the culturally relevant, rock-n-roll worship, hippie church), but not as much with the institutionalized version today. I've stayed only because of my relationship to my father, whom I love and respect.

Calvary Chapel, as I perceive it is:
Fundamentalist--I am not
Dispensationalist--I am not
Anti-intellectualist (like the warning about not anything written by emergent leaders)--I am not
Primitivist--I am not

Officially, we have withdrawn from the Calvary Chapel affiliation, and for the very amicable reason that I (we) seek a breadth of relationships that CC is not willing to accommodate. For example, my close friendship with a Roman Catholic monk who died a few weeks ago. He was a wonderful person and spiritual mentor to me.

I should add, some of the stuff written in the CCOF missive were assumptions someone made based on how they perceived our church in Capistrano Beach. For example, I don't know of any emergent church (if there is such a thing yet) that has incorporated icons into the devotional life of their spiritual community. But for a while we had beautiful icons (byzantine-style) hanging in our sanctuary. Someone assumed "That must be one of those dadgum emergent thingies!" If only they had asked. But those in my old hood have never given me credit for originality, and they're always guessing who it is that's influincing me now. I've tried to tell them, it's the Lord Jesus Christ whose teaching they taught me to trust and to follow, but for some people, that just doesn't make any sense.

Grace and peace,

chuck

Posted by: chuck (the jr.) | May 24, 2006 2:15:49 AM"
"

http://tallskinnykiwi.typepad.com/tallskinnykiwi/2006/05/the_chuck_smith.html#c17664609

Is the seeker sensitive, emergent & modern church biblical?

Are you a Christian? If so, take a moment and watch this video. Feel free to send me your input once you're done, but make sure you watch the whole thing and check the scripture he quotes.

The Reason Sinners Live

Read the Ten Commandments, pause at each one, and confess that you have broken it in either thought or word or deed. Remember that by a glance, we may commit adultery, by a thought, we may be guilty of murder, by a desire, we may steal. Sin is any want of conformity to perfect holiness, and that want of conformity is justly chargeable upon every one of us. Yet the Lord does not, under the gospel dispensation, deal with us according to the Law. He does not now sit on the throne of judgment, but He looks down upon us from the throne of grace. Not the iron rod, but the silver scepter, is held over us. The long-suffering of God rules the age, and Jesus the Mediator is the gracious Lord--lieutenant of the dispensation. Instead of destroying offending man from off the face of the earth, the Lord comes near to us in loving condescension, and pleads with us by His Spirit, saying, "You have sinned, but my Son has died. In Him, I am prepared to deal with you in a way of pure mercy and unmingled grace."

O sinner, the fact that you are alive proves that God is not dealing with you according to strict justice, but in patient forbearance; every moment you live is another instance of omnipotent long-suffering. It is the sacrifice of Christ that arrests the axe of justice, which else must execute you. The barren tree is spared because the great Dresser of the vineyard, who bled on Calvary, intercedes and cries, "Let it alone this year also." O my hearer, it is through the shedding of the blood and the mediatorial reign of the Lord Jesus that you are at this moment on praying ground and pleading terms with God! Apart from the blood of atonement, you would now be past hope, shut up forever in the place of doom. But see how the great Father bears with you! He stands prepared to hear your prayer, to accept your confession of sin, to honor your faith, and to save you from your sin through the sacrifice of His dear Son.

--Charles Spurgeon from "Spurgeon Gold"

Why are Christians not interested?

A few weeks ago, my husband attended a two day conference called "The Truth Project" hosted by Focus on the Family Headquarters here. It's a really good series dealing with the issues of "What is Truth"...it's an apologetics DVD series. The purpose of the conference is to equip those in attendance to start Bible Studies where the Truth Project series is shown and discussed.

Being that my husband has desired a long time to start a home bible study at our house, he was very excited to embark on this task. He invited about 10 or more people to it and gave them his contact information. So last Friday was the first day it was to start...Jon had printed out a load of study sheets...I spent the whole day cleaning the house preparing for people to come....so 7:00 pm comes around and guess what? No one showed up! Jon and I wait around for about an hour (Jon spent the time on the internet and i spent time consoling him) before we decided to take a night stroll in Garden of the Gods.

My question is...why does it seem like many believers today aren't interested in studying God's Word? We promise to do it...or to attend something related to it...but we never show. Where are our priorities? Is it that game on TV you don't want to miss?

It seems like the general trend is this spirit of apathy toward the things of God among believers. My husband and I have been running an online ministry for almost 4 years now and have seen this trend of believers falling away and losing complete interest in discussing the Word, encouraging each other in the Word, and fighting against false doctrines using the Word. It saddens me to see believers who were so "on fire" for God and digging into the Scriptures, now not caring much to be involved in anything to do with it at all. They'd rather follow their fleshly desires, i've seen these very same people fall into believing and spreading false teachings (i.e. that hell is not eternal, that everyone is going to heaven, that there's no such thing as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit that God is only one person, that Christ wasn't God, that baptism is required for salvation, that if you do not speak in tongues then you're not really a Christian...and so on), i've seen them fall into sexual sins and engage in coarse joking and commit adultery and fornication, i've seen them fall into homosexuality, drunkenness....and the whole time ignoring the fellowshipping of believers and the rebuking of God's Word.

I've heard people say that they've read through the Bible so many times that they "know all of it" and have been in so many Bible discussions over the years that they don't care much for them anymore. Are these the words of a true follower of Christ? A true son and daughter of the only living God? Did Christ, who's spent eternity with the Father say that He's seen it all and knows everything so there's no use in sharing and continuing a relationship with God?

Could we be experiencing the beginnings of the "great falling away" discussed in 2 Thessalonians?

2 Thessalonians 2:3
Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition.

I don't know...it's just discouraging and disappointing to see such a lack of interest in the things of God (not to mention people living no different than the rest of the world) by those who claim to know, love, and follow Jesus Christ.

Christians should declare a Crusade on Muslims?

So there's a discussion on the ETM (Eternal Truth Ministry) boards where someone has come on declaring that it's Christians' duty to declare a crusade on the world of Islam. Here's the starting post:

Hi i was just wondering is it right to crusade? we have a responsibility so protect Jews as they are His chosen people so shouldn't we as Christians come together and forget denominations to expel Islam from the middle east ( a land that use to be primarily Christian and Jewish) and protect our Jewish brethren. I know i would support a Crusade in His name even though i am not a Catholic.


To see responses (and maybe join in on it if you like), here's the link to the thread:

Of Jews and Crusades

Emergent Baptism

"How To" baptism video

Anyone else find this video offensive? Not only do they make light of the seriousness of baptism (through stupid, immature antics), but they fake nudity and act as if they're cussing each other out...all in a video telling new believers what baptism's all about.

Birth Control Wrong?

I thought this was a very interesting topic and discussion found on another blog.

John Piper vs. David Bayly

Do you live as if the Gospel were a lie?

"It is a very lamentable case, is it not, that a person should believe the Gospel to be true, and yet should live as if it were a lie? If it is the truth, why do you not yield obedience to it?" - Charles Spurgeon

The Emerging Church: The Debate Continues

I would like to draw attention to a very interesting debate concerning the Emerging Church in someone's blog:

Emerging Church Issues

Open air Evangelizing

This is a video that a friend on my myspace posted of himself doing open air evangelism at a mall in Fresno, California. You can hear some of the people there yelling at him occasionally.

This is pure, folks...pure, unadulterated gospel. No "candy-coating", no "ear-tickling". This is the real deal.

Scot Open Air Preaching at the Fulton Mall in Fresno


Isaiah 55:10-11
10"For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven,
And do not return there without watering the earth
And making it bear and sprout,
And furnishing seed to the sower and bread to the eater;
11So will My word be which goes forth from My mouth;
It will not return to Me empty,
Without accomplishing what I desire,
And without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it.

Spurgeon Gold

To try to win a soul to Christ by keeping that soul in ignorance of any truth, is contrary to the mind of the Spirit; and to endeavor to save men by mere claptrap, or excitement, or oratorical display, is as foolish as to hope to hold an angel with bird-line, or lure a star with music. The best attraction is the gospel in its purity. The weapon with which the Lord conquers men is the truth as it is in Jesus. The gospel will be found equal to every emergency; an arrow can pierce the hardest heart, a balm which will heal the deadliest wound. Preach it, and preach nothing else. Rely implicitly upon the old, old gospel. You need no other nets when you fish for men; those your Master has given you are strong enough for the great fishes, and have meshes fine enough to hold the little ones. Spread those nets and no others, and you need not fear the fulfilment of His Word, "I will make you fishers of men."

From: The Soul Winner, by C.H. Spurgeon

Jesus sanctioning the right to arms?

Matthew 22:36
36And [Jesus] said to [His disciples], "But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one.


Could this verse be Jesus sanctioning our right to arm ourselves for defense? He here instructs His disciples to buy swords to arm themselves as they set out across the countryside to spread His message.

Calvary Chapel vs. Purpose Driven

Calvary Chapel and Purpose Driven

by Roger Oakland

Since Rick Warren's best selling Purpose Driven book and other related products were pulled from Calvary Distribution, [1] a number of people have contacted me asking for an explanation. My answer has been quite simple - contact someone at Calvary Distribution and ask them for the answer.

While I do speak at many different Calvary Chapels throughout the USA and around the world, I am not involved in the decisions that the leaders of Calvary Chapel make. Basically, I am a missionary to the world, based in southern California, affiliated with the Calvary Chapel movement. The ministry of Understand The Times is a discernment ministry, and I am dedicated to warning people about current trends within Christianity which lead believers and non believers away from the truth of God’s Word. Other than warning people, there is not much else I can do.

Distribution of “Purpose Driven” at Calvary Distribution

Based on what I have just stated, it was surprising to me that Calvary Distribution ever distributed Rick Warren’s “Purpose Driven” books and associated products in the first place. The fact that a decision was made to remove these materials from Calvary Distribution seemed logical based on my knowledge of what Calvary Chapel stands for and what Rick Warren’s “Purpose Driven” church growth philosophy represents.

As I stated in the introduction of this commentary, although I have no authority to make comments on behalf of Chuck Smith, Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa, or Calvary Distribution, I am willing to go on record and make comments regarding my perspective on why I believe Calvary Distribution pulled the Rick Warren materials. Following are four of my reasons:

1. Eschatology

The Calvary Chapel view of the future compared to the “Purpose Driven” view of the future is as different as day and night. One of the distinctives of the Calvary movement is a focus on the imminent return of Jesus Christ. Pastor Chuck has always been known for an emphasis on warning Christians to be alert and ready for the return of Jesus. He teaches that the Kingdom of God will be established only when Jesus Christ returns to this planet. He also emphasizes that the time period before the return of Jesus here on earth will be “as it was in the days of Noah.”[2] From this perspective, the world actually gets worse and worse, not better and better.

Rick Warren’s view of the present and the future is different from Chuck Smith’s. Warren encourages his followers to ignore Bible prophecy and spend their time and energy on the here and now, in order to establish a man made social plan (P.E.A.C.E. Plan) that will make planet earth a better place for everyone. With regards to the importance of Bible prophecy, Rick Warren has stated:

“When the disciples wanted to talk about prophecy, Jesus quickly switched the conversation to evangelism. He wanted them to concentrate on their mission to the world. He said in essence, ‘The details of my return are none of your business. What is your business is the mission I have given you. Focus on that!’



Speculating on the exact timing of Christ's return is futile, because Jesus said, ‘No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.’ Since Jesus said he didn't know the day or hour, why should you try to figure it out. What we do know for sure is this: Jesus will not return until everyone God wants to hear the Good News has heard it. Jesus said, ‘The Good News about God's kingdom will be preached in all the world, to every nation. Then the end will come. If you want Jesus to come back sooner, focus on fulfilling your mission, not figuring out prophecy.” [3]

Further, Rick Warren’s Purpose Driven P.E.A.C.E. Plan is part of a plan that is intended to establish the Kingdom of God here on earth before Jesus returns. This Kingdom depends on human effort. He is willing to work with governments (Rwanda [4]), political leaders (King of Jordan [5]), the United Nations (Inter-religious gatherings [6]) and even the Roman Catholic Church [7].

In April of 2005, Rick Warren, speaking to 25,000 in attendance at Anaheim Stadium, encouraged his Purpose Driven supporters to partner with him to usher in the Kingdom of God on planet earth, right now. Quoting from his speech:

“I stand before you confidently right now and say to you that God is going to use you to change the world. Some will say, ‘That's impossible,’ but I heard that line 25 years ago, and God took seven people and started Saddleback Church. Now we have a new vision and a whole lot more people to start with. The great evangelist Dwight L. Moody said, ‘The world has yet to see what God can do with a man fully consecrated to him.’ I'm looking at a stadium full of people who are telling God they will do whatever it takes to establish God's Kingdom on earth as it is in heaven. “[8]

It is important to understand that this type of teaching that Rick Warren heavily promotes is very similar to New Age teachings that say the endtimes, according to the book of Revelation, does not have to happen if enough people come together, realize their unity with each other and with God, and strive towards global peace.

2. The Emerging Church

Pastor Chuck has been very outspoken regarding his concerns about the Emerging Church. In fact in May of 2006, he sent out a letter to all Calvary Chapel pastors stating that no Calvary Chapel pastor heading down the Emerging Church road movement would be permitted to use the name of Calvary Chapel. [9] In this statement he wrote:

“We have great problems with the use of icons to give them (Emerging Church) a sense of God or the presence of God. If they want to have a tie with the historicity of the church, why not go back to the church in Acts, which seems to be devoid of incense, candles, robes etc., but was filled with the Spirit.” [10]

The letter was not only sent out to Calvary pastors to clarify the Calvary Chapel position, it was also followed up by action. Several Calvary Chapels that were once on the list of Calvary Chapel Fellowships have been removed from the list.

On the other hand, it can be documented that Rick Warren’s view of the Emergent Church is different than Chuck Smith’s view. Warren has endorsed the Emerging Church movement. He wrote a foreword for a book written by Dan Kimball titled The Emerging Church: Vintage Christianity for New Generations (Kimball is a leader in the movement). Warren stated:

“This book is a wonderful, detailed example of what a purpose-driven church can look like in a postmodern world. My friend Dan Kimball writes passionately, with a deep desire to reach the emerging generation and culture. While my book The Purpose-Driven Church explained what the church is called to do, Dan’s book explains how to do it with the cultural creatives who think and feel in postmodern terms. You need to pay attention to him because times are changing. “[11]

Warren’s comments are self-explanatory. For an overview of the ideas promoted by Dan Kimball that characterize the Emerging Church (also known as “Vintage Christianity”) it would be helpful to read a previous commentary I have written posted at http://www.understandthetimes.org/commentary/c29.shtml .

3. Contemplative Prayer and Christian Mysticism

The primary distinctive of the Calvary Chapel movement has always been based on the systematic teaching of the Word of God. This is clearly what Pastor Chuck has emphasized and continues to emphasize. While there have been those in the movement in the past who have moved away from the Word of God towards the promotion of experiences in God’s name, Pastor Chuck has made it clear, this will not be tolerated.

For example, the Calvary Chapel-Vineyard split occurred over this very issue in 1982. At this time Pastor Chuck warned of moving towards an experienced-based Christianity that leads followers into dangerous spiritual territory.

Further, Pastor Chuck in his Parson to Parson letter [12] to pastors mentioned his concern with contemplative practices and Eastern mysticism that is an earmark of the Emerging Church. In his statement he asked the question:

“Should we look to Eastern religions with their practices or meditation through Yoga and special breathing techniques or repeating a mantra to hear God speak to us? If this is needed to enhance our communication with God, why do you suppose that God did not give us implicit instructions in the Scriptures to give us methods to hear His voice?” [13]

Rick Warren has clearly indicated that he is willing to investigate the ideas and methods being promoted for spiritual reformation and transformation that have eastern religious roots. These include the beliefs promoted by the proponents of contemplative prayer and other mystical techniques that are supposed to get the participant “closer to God.”

Ray Yungen, in his book A Time of Departing documents Warren’s views in detail. I would suggest that readers of this commentary read a chapter from A Time of Departing titled “America’s Pastor”[14] in order to see the connection between the Purpose Driven world-view and the contemplative prayer agenda.

One of the major leaders of contemplative prayer is Richard Foster, the founder of Renovare. Rick Warren spoke very clearly of his admiration for Richard Foster’s spirituality in his first book, Purpose Driven Church when he stated that the “spiritual formation movement”(of which he named Foster as a key player) was needed and vital to the church. Lighthouse Trails Publishing has documented many instances where Saddleback pastors and staff have shown their strong support for the practice of contemplative prayer. [15]

It would seem to me that “Purpose Driven” mixed together with a touch of mysticism could be considered a recipe for spiritual disaster. That is especially true in these days when so many Christians are willing to embrace eastern mystical practices like “yoga” and other methods to pursue a state of silence or quietness in order to get into an altered state of consciousness. This is not the message that Pastor Chuck Smith or Calvary Distribution would want to promote.

4. Church Growth Philosophy

The Calvary Chapel movement has been under the scrutiny of church growth experts from the beginning. Some have suggested it was the music that caused Calvary Chapel to grow. Others said it was the way Pastor Chuck dressed. Some claimed the movement grew because of the Word For Today radio programs. One church growth expert claimed the reason Chuck Smith and the Calvary Chapel movement was so successful was because of his “good radio voice.”

Pastor Chuck, when asked why the movement has grown always has given the credit to the Holy Spirit. He has stated on numerous occasions that it is not by human effort or cleverly designed plans dependent on church growth experts.

On the other hand, Rick Warren’s church growth plan has been carefully designed and orchestrated. Purpose Driven is part of a much bigger church growth plan, one that can be traced back to Peter Drucker. [16]

Further, it is no secret that Purpose Driven is a cousin of Robert Schuller’s “possibility thinking” and Bill Hybel’s “seeker-friendly” approach. [17] Warren did not stumble on his success plan for growth by chance. He has a number of advisors besides Drucker who also have a plan to “win the world” by “whatever means it takes.” We will discuss this in a future article.

Conclusion

Why did Calvary Distribution remove Rick Warren’s Purpose Driven books and related materials from their distribution? I believe these four reasons I have discussed are reasonable and a valid answer to that question:

*

Differences in Eschatology
*

Differences with regard to the Emerging Church
*

Differences with regard to contemplative prayer and mysticism
*

Differences with regard to church growth principles and beliefs

Christianity has always been made up of strong leaders who take different positions. In this case we see two well-known contemporary leaders going in two different directions.

I also know that many Calvary Chapel pastors approved the decision and applauded Calvary Distribution when the Rick Warren materials were no longer being distributed.

Because there are some Calvary pastors who strongly disagree with this decision, it is very possible that in the future there will be a split of the Calvary Chapel movement. The pressures on young pastors today to conform to the current trends for the sake of having a successful big church are ever increasing.

In my view, the stand Pastor Chuck Smith made to stay with the Word of God and warn the flock about the imminent return of Jesus was biblical and the correct decision. I personally believe that those who go down the road of Purpose Driven will become less and less discerning regarding the end times scenario that is currently unfolding, which clearly reveals that Jesus may be soon returning.

I also believe that it won’t be very long before Rick Warren and his Purpose Driven theology will join hands with Roman Catholicism so that together they may work toward their common goal of ushering in the “Kingdom of God.”

As long as God gives me breath, I will keep you informed.

Roger Oakland



[1] http://www.calvaryd.org/assets/uploads/RecallonStorms.pdf

[2] Matthew 24:37

[3] Rick Warren, The Purpose Driven Life, pg 286, 286 emphasis mine

[4] http://www.christianitytoday.com/ctmag/special/rickwarren.html

[5] http://washingtontimes.com/national/20060202-111835-3132r.htm

[6] www.christianpost.com/article/society/section/rick.warren.speaks.about.purpose.at.united.nations/1.htm

[7] http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/pewreligion.htm

[8] http://www.biblicalrecorder.org/content/news/2005/4_19_2005/ne190405rick.shtml emphasis added

[9] http://www3.calvarychapel.com/ccof2/parsontoparson.pdf

[10] Ibid.

[11] Dan Kimball, The Emerging Church: Vintage Christianity for the New Generation, Zondervan, 2003, page 7 emphasis mine

[12] http://www3.calvarychapel.com/ccof2/parsontoparson.pdf

[13] Ibid.

[14] Ray Yungen, Time of Departing:How Ancient Mystical Practices are Uniting Christians with the World’s Religions, 2nd Edition, 2006, Lighthouse Trails Publishing, Silverton, OR, pages 142-170

[15] http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/rw226article.htm

[16] http://www.newswithviews.com/Ohara/debbie13.htm

[17] Ibid.