A Theology in Tension

Joke of the day

Posted on March 26, 2013 by StriderMTB

Heard the funniest joke today: Two flies are sitting on a pile of poo. One fly cuts a fart and the other fly says, “Hey– I’m eating here.” 🙂

Posted in Thought of the day | Leave a comment

Virginity: Is it Identity? NO.

Posted on March 26, 2013 by StriderMTB

The children I came to care for five years ago have now become…(DREAD)…teenagers. And teenagers means crushes, hormones and sexual tension. I find myself pulled into more and more conversations about love, dating and sex each passing month. Since they all know I am still a card carrying member of the V-club (and pay my dues every freakin year hoping it’s my last) they like to see me as “one of them” in virtue of the fact that I’m in the same boat as they are. When we talk about the reality of sexual temptation my basic approach is to not just speak in spiritual platitudes about abstinence before marriage but advocate simple common sense (i.e. “I just wish I’d had more sex before I married,” said no one ever.)

I do want to extol the gift of virginity that they can give one day, and I do want them to see its value. But at the same time I don’t want to press it so far that they think God equates their private parts with their value and worth. Sometimes I wonder if the Church ties too much value and worth to virginity in ways that send mixed signals to teens. On the one hand the Church says:

1) Your identity is not in what you do but in who you are in Christ as a much loved daughter and son of your Heavenly Father.

But on the other hand the Church often sends this message:

2) Don’t give away your virginity before your married because it is the invaluable treasure of who you are, and once you lose it by giving it to the wrong person you can never get your treasure back again. You are tainted, used goods from that point forward.

Here in Cambodia the culture places such a high value on virginity that it becomes equated with identity and personal worth. When a young girl’s virgin rights are sold by her family (in desperate poverty) and she is repeatedly raped for a week by her purchaser and is then returned to her village, she is usually shunned by her own family and forced out of the village because everyone knows she is “tainted goods. As such she will not be able to get an honorable marriage to a good man in the village. Her identity and value as a woman becomes consigned to a lower category because she is “dirty.”

Cambodians have a saying, “Men are like rocks that can be washed clean but woman are like cloth that are stained forever.” In other words men can get away with sexual promiscuity by taking a shower, but women are stained and branded forever as dirty women. Many young, teen, Cambodian girls whose virgin rights have been sold end up being the girls who work the night shifts in the karaoke bars and brothels. Why? Because the societal custom is to equate the loss of female virginity with a loss in personal identity and worth.

If the Church community is not careful I think she can inadvertently make the same mistake in her worthy endeavor to promote purity and instruct both girls and boys to wait patiently for marriage.

Each generation has its own unique pressures bearing upon it from the secular culture, and therefore each church generation needs wisdom from the Holy Spirit in how to best reach the hearts and minds of our teens and extol the wisdom of waiting until marriage.

Click here for a rather shockingly blunt yet excellent, must read piece on how the church’s approach to virginity and sex can unwittingly push the issue front and center to an unhealthy degree.

-StriderMTB

Nursing Bitterness–Drinking Poison

Posted on March 26, 2013 by StriderMTB

If you choose to suckle on resentment and nurse bitterness you end up drinking poison. –StriderMTB

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged bitterness quote, resentment quote, un-forgiveness quote | Leave a comment

Poverty of Character–the Unseen Beggar Within

Posted on March 23, 2013 by StriderMTB

Lately I’ve been giving a lot of thought to the concept of poverty. Poverty can come in many different forms. It doesn’t always have to mean a lack of money, shelter or food. The basic concept of poverty means, “the state of being insufficient in amount.” This opens up a host of correlations. It could be said that a person who lacks understanding has a poverty of understanding. A person who lacks imagination has a poverty of imagination. And a person who feels unloved and unwanted has a poverty of belonging.

It is the desired aim of every humanitarian organization to break cycles of poverty wherever they are identified. In many instances the reality of poverty is infused with an abject lack of basic resources to survive and thrive. As a result there is a concerted effort on the part of many NGO’s to meet these basic needs—and that is commendable and laudable. However we are remiss to think that poverty of finances, shelter and food are the sole catalysts driving the wheel of poverty across the threshold of one generation and into the next generation. In one sense a lack of money, shelter and food are the easily observed realities of what I would call “surface” poverty. But what about “underground” poverty?

As I’ve contemplated, observed and contemplated again the various and diverse issues related to the pervasive ability of 3^rd world poverty to recycle the next generation of children through its rotation, I’ve come to see the subtle yet potent influences of underlying, “underground” causes of poverty that in turn act as an impetus— driving surface poverty one more revolution into the next generation.

Causes of poverty can be grouped in four general categories:

1) Calamity

2) Oppression

3) Social Disorder

4) Personal Responsibility

Each general category entails additional underlying causes. Some of them are easy to identify, such as war, famine, geo-politics, prejudice, a lack of education, a lack of healthcare and a general exploitation and manipulation of social order. But those causes largely revolve around the first three categories. What about Personal Responsibility? Concerning this category, I’m of the opinion there are a host of underlying, unseen causes of poverty that unwisely get consigned to the margins—if they are even recognized at all. Poverty is no modern invention. It is as ancient a human plight as mankind itself. Interestingly the Bible speaks of the injustice of poverty almost more than any other issue.

Injunctions and commandments concerning generosity, care of the poor and extending one’s own resources to help lift others out of “surface” poverty permeates the Bible. But it also insightfully identifies some unique causes of poverty that left unaddressed can both create and perpetuate continued impoverishment. They involve poverty of character, integrity and responsibility. For instance: Love of too much sleep, lack of integrity, an un-teachable spirit, inflexibility, resistance to instruction, habitual inactivity, absence of a work ethic, coveting your neighbor’s wealth, drunkenness, gluttony, lack of wisdom and understanding, impatience, stubbornness, dishonesty, failure to abide correction, failure to be diligent, failure to persevere, a lying tongue—all of these are spoken of as being instrumental in cultivating a fertile life for surface poverty to take root.

As the director of one of PCL’s Children’s Homes, I find myself asking how all of this translates into our approach to raise up children who will be agents of change rather than victims of circumstance. We can all appreciate the fact that breaking the proverbial “cycle of poverty” in anyone’s life involves escaping the cycle of its revolution. But how is that best done?

In one sense “breaking the cycle of poverty” as it relates to orphans and abandoned children is best understood as breaking the cycle of dysfunction and lack of education that can easily give rise to poverty and cause them to be carriers of impoverishment to their own future families. As such transplanting them into new cycles is critical.

In a sense all of our kids have all been liberated from a cycle of surface poverty and transplanted into a cycle of love, a cycle of health, a cycle of being valued, a cycle of belonging and a cycle of education— which in turn gives them the indispensable, internal infrastructure to step into opportunity and discover possibilities of growth never before imagined.

But is that enough to truly stop poverty from perpetuating itself through their lives unchecked and unaddressed? I don’t think it is.

Above all I believe it is critical that their internal character grow right along side their bodies and minds. Growing “tall” inside is just as important as outward growth and development. If the opportunities of life outstrip their character, if career options eclipse their work ethic, and if empowerment surpasses personal humility and honesty— they can easily find themselves subject to a life of impoverishment anew. Or perhaps even worse, they could become the new oppressors of a social niche who are empowered and educated to perpetuate poverty by disenfranchising their fellow man! Either way issues of personal responsibility, accountability and moral ethic must be addressed if any lasting poverty relief is truly going to take root long term.

Not all—but a great deal of the social ills I witness in Cambodia, and which numerous NGO’s constantly seek to redress, are a direct result of a societal breakdown in personal responsibility and compromised character.

For example, a father chooses to abandon his first wife and children and selfishly re-start his pursuit of personal satisfaction in the arms of a new, young woman he met “with the boys” in a karaoke club. As a result, the first wife can’t afford to care properly for her children. Depressed and rejected she begins to gamble to pass the time. Soon she becomes addicted to rice wine and emotionally disassociates herself from her children.

At age 14 daughter #1 is soon trafficked by “loving” mom into prostitution and soon acquires multiple, debilitating STD’s. NGO’s “A”, “B” and “C” all seek to address different aspects of her dysfunctional life. At age 4 daughter #2 gets dysentery and dies from easily treatable diarrhea and dehydration—but not before NGO’s “D” and “E” desperately try to save her life. If only mom wasn’t so drunk the day before, she could have sought help earlier. Soon mom demands that son #1 start to carry his own weight. So rather than reach his long-treasured dream to become a veterinarian, son # 1 drops out of school to scavenge for recyclables to help his family.

At the age of 16 he gets mixed up with the wrong crowd—a crowd of youth that mutually console each other with similar stories of absent fathers, negligent mothers and broken dreams. NGO “F” steps in and tries to offer him vocational training but it doesn’t stick. At age 18 he ends up getting a girl pregnant, but has never had parental responsibility modeled for him, and so he abandons both girlfriend and child—just as his father did to him years before. Rejected and shamed by her family she has no other course of action except to abandon her newborn at NGO orphanage “G” and begin a life of self-exploitation in the arms of users and abusers.

On the way to her own poverty of soul and personal destruction, she passes by the shriveled up frame of a young girl breathing her last breadths in a darkened and dank alley—not realizing it is the sister of the boy who is the father of her child she in turn abandoned. And on and on it goes… growing ever more pervasive and widespread in its wretched, societal effects. And all of it—ALL OF IT— is rooted in the self-centered, morally compromised character of a father who chose to jettison personal responsibility for personal pleasure.

Poverty is indeed a multifaceted conundrum to address—but we are remiss in thinking that dollars alone are the answer. Poverty of character, ethic, integrity and responsibility can’t be remedied with donations or contributions. Such impoverishment largely stems from poverty of soul and spirit—but that would lead to an altogether different blog for maybe another day.

-StriderMTB

Posted in Church and Culture | Tagged causes of poverty, character and ethics and poverty, money can't solve poverty, the cycle of poverty understood, underlying causes of poverty | 2 Comments

Calvinist Quotes on God Determining All Evil

Posted on March 21, 2013 by StriderMTB

Calvinism is a belief in meticulious divine determinism over every thought, choice and event throughout human history–and according to John Piper this includes every one of your personal, besetting sins (quote below). Just think about the insidious implications of such a view. If a rapist or pedophile were to declare in a courtroom, “God caused me to do it!” we would denouce him as a liar or a lunatic. However when a Calvinist declares more a less the same thing behind their pulpit (substituting “caused” for “decreed” or “determined”), he is extolled as being biblical!

I cannot tell you how often I hear people retort, “That’s not what Calvinists believe! I’m a Calvinist and I don’t believe God predetermined all my sin!” My typical response is, “Well then welcome to Arminianism because you certainly can’t be a Calvinist.” Usually this is not received very well because they have already been indoctrinated and propagandized into believing that Arminianism is a man-centered, man-glorifying, anti-grace heresy. More often than not the people I speak of are novice Calvinists who have been hoodwinked into a high-Calvinist, Reformed theology by a Piper sermon that conveniently left out all the ugly, sinister implications and absurdities that accompany swallowing Calvinism in toto.

If you are a recent devotee of Calvinism I can only imagine that I have only precious seconds to prove the indisputable assertion that Calvinism-Reformed theology is founded on the tenet that God sovereignly predetermines (whether through hard determinism or compatibilism) every decision and choice humans make–including sin and evil.

Here are a list of quotes from leading, mainstream Calvinists over the years that speak of this inescapable fact (I offer follow-up comments to help clarify the remarks and to the best of my knowledge have taken no one out of context):

*All bold type and emphasis is mine*

John Calvin:

*** “Hence we maintain that, by his providence, not heaven and earth and inanimate creatures only, but also the counsels and wills of men are so governed as to move exactly in the course which he has destined.”[1]

[The question must be asked—how are men held responsible for sinful choices that flow out of wills that are “governed as to move exactly in the course which God has destined?”]

*** “Men do nothing save at the secret instigation of God, and do not discuss and deliberate on anything but what he has previously decreed with himself, and brings to pass by his secret direction.”[2]

[In Calvinism God is the logical origin and thus author of every sinful thought or choice men make. How else to explain Calvinism’s teaching that all our decreed decisions and deliberations are initiated by the “secret instigation of God” that he infallibly “brings to pass by his secret direction?”]

*** “The hand of God rules the interior affections no less than it superintends external actions; nor would God have effected by the hand of man what he decreed, unless he worked in their hearts to make them will before they acted.”[3]

[Calvinists are well-known for redefining free-will as being “free to act in accordance with our strongest desires.” However what they leave out is the pivotal point that God has also causally predetermined which desires act upon our wills. Here Calvin admits that for God to achieve a predestined, external action in a person, he must effectively “work in their hearts to make them will before they act.”]

*** “The will of God is the chief and principal cause of all things.”[4]

[There is no getting around the logical implications of this. Whether a modern-day Calvinist admits it or not his theology is logically and necessarily undergirded by the premise that God’s will is the ultimate causal force behind every sinful choice and act of rebellion throughout human history.]

*** “If God controls the purposes of men, and turns their thoughts and exertions to whatever purpose he pleases, men do not therefore cease to form plans and to engage in this or the other undertaking. We must not suppose that there is a violent compulsion, as if God dragged them against their will; but in a wonderful and inconceivable manner he regulates all the movements of men, so that they still have the exercise of their will.“[5]

[On the one hand Calvin wants to say that God’s will of decree regulates, turns and infallibly controls the thoughts and actions of every person. But on the other hand Calvin wants to preserve human accountability in making choices, so he asserts that God does not force his will of decree on anyone. How does God accomplish this? Calvin never tells us. Instead he appeals to unexplainable mystery seen in his cloaked phrase “wonderful and inconceivable manner he regulates all the movements of men…” This is theological gobbledegook in its highest form.]

*** “The first man fell because the Lord deemed it meet that he should: why he deemed it meet, we know not… Man therefore falls, divine providence so ordaining but he falls by his own fault.”[6]

[As is obvious Calvin believed God did not just foresee the fall of man, he unconditionally decreed that man would fall. Again Calvin seeks to cover his theological rear from getting blindsided by appealing to an incomprehensible mystery (“we know not”) and then adding in the qualifier “but he falls by his own fault.” Herein lies Calvinism’s greatest conundrum concerning a compatibilist account of freedom. Compatibilist Calvinists say our choices are wholly determined and caused by our desires. Yet Adam and Eve did not have any sinful nature and thus no inherent desire to sin or rebel. So how and why did they choose to sin and rebel? Arminians do have an answer because we understand self-determination to be the ultimate and final explanation for choice and behavior—rather than compatibilist “free-will” which maintains that all “free” choices have their origin in God’s prior decree.]

*** “How it was ordained by the foreknowledge and decree of God what man’s future was without God being implicated as associate in the fault as the author or approver of transgression, is clearly a secret so much excelling the insight of the human mind, that I am not ashamed to confess ignorance…. I daily so meditate on these mysteries of his judgments that curiosity to know anything more does not attract me.”[7]

[Here again Calvin wants to insist that God is the causal determiner of every sinful transgression and yet absolve God of all responsibility and culpability in foreordaining those sins. How does God do this? Calvin has no idea and again appeals to inscrutable mystery. The obvious problem is Calvinism creates mysteries where none should exist. There is no mystery as to how we can be held responsible for all the sins God causally determines—because God has not causally determined all our sins. There is no mystery as to how God can be the willing determiner of all your sins and not be the author of them—because God has not determined your sins. Calvinism makes God out to be a moral monster equal to the devil himself and appeals to mystery in order to extricate God from looking like the devil! The mysteries of Calvinism are just that—mysteries that solely exist in their own theological construct and are alien to biblical truth.]

*** “I have already shown clearly enough that God is the author of all those things which, according to these objectors [non-Calvinists] happen only by his inactive permission… No, when we cannot comprehend how God can will that to be done which he forbids us to do, let us call to mind our imbecility…”[8]

[In defending his view of sovereignty against his objectors John Calvin concedes that logically it must mean God is the ultimate author of everything he ordains. Moreover he argues that simply saying that God gives “permission” is not sufficient. He later attempts to say that our minds are too finite and stupid (“imbecile”) to comprehend the mystery as to why God would ordain the very sins he forbids us to do.]

*** “What we must prove is that single events are ordered by God and that every event comes from his intended will. Nothing happens by chance.”[9]

[For Calvin and Calvinism in general “chance” is understood as being any choice of self-determination that lies outside what God has already unilaterally pre-chosen should occur. In other words God has chosen what each choice shall be and chance is defined as any event or choice that is free of God’s causal determinism of all choices before the world began. Whether it be the roll of the dice in monopoly, your decision on a menu, or whether or not to cheat on a test— in Calvinism the only thing God is “allowing” is his own choice to become realized.]

*** “But where it is a matter of men’s counsels, wills, endeavours, and exertions, there is greater difficulty in seeing how the providence of God rules here too, so that nothing happens but by His assent and that men can deliberately do nothing unless He inspire it.”[10]

[Here Calvin states that God inspires everything men do. Thus God inspires every child molestation, every lie, every act of adultery and every suicide. Accordingly God does not simply allow men to abuse their freedom to do evil—he in fact inspires the very evil men do.]

James White:

Calvinist theologian James White, in a debate with Hank Hannegraaf and George Bryson, was asked, “When a child is raped, is God responsible and did He decree that rape?” To which Mr. White replied:

*** “Yes, because if not then it’s meaningless and purposeless and though God knew it was going to happen he created it without a purpose… and God is responsible for the creation of despair… If He didn‟t [decree child rape] then that rape is an element of meaningless evil that has no purpose.”[11]

[For a thorough refutation of White’s reasoning, click here.]

*** “Scripture…teaches God’s sovereignty (providence, decree, etc.) and man’s responsibility. We usually call this “biblical compatibilism,” which we might summarize by saying that human beings freely chose what God foreordains.”[12]

[Secondary causation, otherwise known as compatibilism, still results in causal determinism that precludes human responsibility in White’s theology. For in Calvinistic compatibilism God doesn’t just passively allow us to pick which bondage of sins our fallen desires “freely” pull us towards—he determines which desires we will have and which specific sins we will choose! In the end Calvinism can make no sense as to why God still treats people as moral agents who are responsible for the very same evil actions he causally determined and inwardly initiated for them to do.]

Vincent Cheung:

*** “God controls everything that is and everything that happens. There is not one thing that happens that he has not actively decreed – not even a single thought in the mind of man. Since this is true, it follows that God has decreed the existence of evil, he has not merely permitted it, as if anything can originate and happen apart from his will and power. Since we have shown that no creature can make completely independent decisions, evil could never have started without God’s active decree, and it cannot continue for one moment longer apart from God’s will. God decreed evil ultimately for his own glory, although it is not necessary to know or to state this reason to defend Christianity from the problem evil.”[13]

*** “Those who see that it is impossible to altogether disassociate God from the origination and continuation of evil nevertheless try to distance God from evil by saying that God merely “permits” evil, and that he does not cause any of it. However, since Scripture itself states that God actively decrees everything, and that nothing can happen apart from his will and power, it makes no sense to say that he merely permits something – nothing happens by God’s mere permission.”[14]

[In declaring that every thought of man, even man’s sinful thoughts, are actively decreed by God, and that nothing happens unless God actively determines it (and not just permits it), Vincent Cheung leaves no stone unturned as to the extent of God’s divine determination over all things. Moreover, like John Piper, Cheung holds to the absurd and despicable Calvinist idea that God has divinely determined all evil—for his own holy glory.]

John Piper:

*** “Has God predetermined every tiny detail in the universe, such as dust particles in the air and all of our besetting sins? Yes… Now the reason I believe that is because the Bible says, “The dice are thrown in the lap, and every decision is from the Lord” (Proverbs 16:33).” [15]

[Here we find a rare moment of total honesty from John Piper about the true nature of his commitment to Calvinism. More often than not, Piper will use obscuring language to extol what he calls the “supremacy of God’s sovereignty.” Very rarely does he allow the “young, restless and reformed” crowd to be exposed to the dark and sinister implications of what it means for God to be “supreme” in Calvinism. Yet here he admits that to hold Calvinist beliefs is to also hold to a belief that “God predetermined… all of our besetting sins.” Do you struggle with lust, pride, gossip, porn, and lying? Take comfort in knowing God predetermined that you would. Such is the morally bankrupt “dead end” of Calvinism to those who wish to have it. Piper attempts to justify this vile belief through Proverbs 16:33 which speaks of God’s sovereignty extending even to the result of dice being thrown. However humans are not dice! We are free, moral agents! That being said, we need not think God is the cosmic, casino owner of Vegas ensuring that the odds are always in the house’s favor (which statistically they are.) We only need to believe the general principle that God’s power can extend into any arena, such as thrown dice. But that general principle need not commit us to the belief that God’s hand actually does manipulate every throw of dice in a poker game (much less a monopoly game.) Proverbs often speaks “universally” to make a general point or principle, but not a universal, absolute law. For example Prov. 10:3 states, “The Lord does not let the righteous go hungry” but many persecuted believers languishing in prisons will tell you of great hunger. Prov. 14:23 says, “Hard work brings forth a profit” but many people can attest that too is not a universal law. Prov. 22:6 says, “Train up a child in the way he should go and he will not depart from it” but many heartbroken parents can tell you otherwise. That Piper would look to Proverbs (which tells us how to avoid sin!) in order to anchor his belief that “God determined all our besetting sins” is abhorrent. He should know better.]

*** “So when I say that everything that exists — including evil — is ordained by an infinitely holy and all-wise God to make the glory of Christ shine more brightly, I mean that, one way or the other, God sees to it that all things serve to glorify his Son… By ordain I mean God either caused something directly or permitted it for wise purposes.”[16]

[In this quote, Piper attempts to argue that God ordained all evil for a purpose. What is that purpose? According to Piper it is so that God can achieve a greater radiance of glory. The view suffers in that it implies that God was not fully glorified before sin and now needs sin to make his glory “shine more brightly.” All Christians ought to distance themselves from such a view because it presents a God who has a need—sin and evil—to achieve something righteous—glory. Notice also that Piper attempts to do damage control by shrouding his true beliefs behind the innocuous phrase “God sees to it that all things serve to glorify his Son.” What Piper really means is “God eternally conceived, designed, predetermined every evil for the good purpose of glorifying his Son.” We are left wondering if perhaps Piper does not want to be this blunt and honest with his readers because he is afraid many will not have the “stomach” to handle such brutal truths. Unfortunately Piper is very reticent to be theologically honest and forthcoming in his popular sermons—especially with young people who are considering Calvinism. He will often borrow an Arminian framework of God not “preventing” evil and “permitting sin” to explain how God foreordains every event of evil without being the author of such evils. But given that our first quote of Piper already puts him on the record in conceding “Yes” to the question, “Has God predetermined all our besetting sins”– it means any utilization of the language of “permission” is wholly inappropriate. Does Piper think God needs to get permission from Himself? In cannot be stressed enough that when Piper uses the language of “permission” or “allow” to morally shelter God from his own theology determinism, he is not only being wholly inconsistent with his own theology, he is also being dishonest (misleading) with his laymen listeners and readers. This charge I do not make lightly. Yet I am convinced Piper knows that he cannot always unfurl the true, unpalatable implications of his views to his readership. Despite conceding (in other writings) that God has “predetermined all our besetting sins” Piper is savvy to know people will reject Calvinism wholesale if he is that honest all the time. So he misleadingly states that God’s ordination of all evil can include the idea of God “permitting it for wise purposes.” This is both a theological and philosophical “whopper” and Piper knows it! Since Piper affirms the Westminster Confession that says God does ordain/decree things because He foresees them as free acts, and since human beings were not yet born when God designed and predetermined all our sins, Piper knows it is wholly misleading to talk about God “permitting” or “allowing” people to commit the very evils he designed and predetermined for them to commit! Bad theology is always garbed in cloaked language.

*** “God is able without blameworthy ‘tempting’ to see to it that a person does what God ordains for him to do even if it involves evil.”[17]

[Piper has yet to be able to articulate a philosophically sound and coherent account of how our Holy God decrees the desires, motives and intentions of every man’s evil choices; renders it certain that they carry out those specifically decreed evils—yet all the while escapes the charge that he “tempts men” to do evil. Piper’s position is essentially that God does not actually tempt men to sin because that would make him morally culpable for sin. Instead Piper theorizes God only designs and decrees all of our sin; sovereignly inclines all of our wills to commit that decreed sin—yet somehow remains morally un-culpable because he doesn’t tempt us to sin. What? This position would almost be worthy of humor given its irrationality if it wasn’t so tragic that Piper has managed to convince multitudes of others to think the same absurdity.]

J.I. Packer:

*** “God… orders and controls all things, human actions among them…He [also] holds every man responsible for the choices he makes and the courses of action he pursues… Man is a responsible moral agent, though he is also divinely controlled; man is divinely controlled, though he is also a responsible moral agent. To our finite minds, of course, the thing is inexplicable.”[18]

[Notice again how Calvinists are quick to find refuge in “unexplainable mystery” whenever they are pressed on explaining the logic of their convictions. If one drops the premise that all human desire and choice is rooted in God’s irresistible eternal decree then the mystery of how humans can be responsible for their actions disappears.]

R.C. Sproul Jr.:

*** “God wills all things that come to pass…God desired for man to fall into sin. I am not accusing God of sinning; I am suggesting that God created sin.”[19]

[This Calvinist theologian unashamedly takes Calvinism to its logical conclusion. That other Calvinists hold to the same view but don’t speak so openly and plainly to their masses is a cause for concern.]

Edwin Palmer:

*** “All things that happen in all the world at any time and in all history–whether inorganic matter, vegetation, animal, man or angels (both good and evil ones)– come to pass because God ordained them. Even sin– the fall of the devil from heaven, the fall of Adam, and every evil thought, word, and deed in all of history… Foreordination means God’s sovereign plan, whereby He decides all that is to happen in the entire universe. Nothing in this world happens by chance. God is in back of everything. He decides and causes all things to happen that do happen. He is not sitting on the sidelines wondering and perhaps fearing what is going to happen next. No, He has foreordained everything ‘after the counsel of his will’ (Eph. 1:11): the moving of a finger, the beating of a heart, the laughter of a girl, the mistake of a typist – even sin…Although sin and unbelief are contrary to what God commands…God has included them in his sovereign decree (ordained them, caused them to certainly come to pass).[20]

[To concede, as Palmer does, that God unilaterally and unconditionally ordained “every evil thought” undermines the typical Calvinist defense (via Edwards and Piper) that human choice can be determined by God and yet humans can still be held morally responsible for the choices they make because freedom of the will is simply thinking upon and doing what we think and desire to do– and left to ourselves we will always desire evil. But if our evil thoughts and desires are themselves determined by God, as Palmer admits, the Calvinist argument is rendered meaningless. The mere fact that so many intelligent and sincere followers of God believe God unilaterally and unconditionally ordained “every evil thought” and “decides and causes…even [their] sin” is truly troubling and worrisome in that the view offers no sound reason as to why–in the end– God’s grace is not a license to sin. One can only speculate as to how many lives have been shipwrecked on the rocks of this extreme view of God’s sovereignty that provides every person a valid reason to absolve themselves of all guilt—for who can resist an irresistible decree of God to sin?]

W.G.T. Shedd:

*** “Sin is one of the ‘whatsoevers’ that have ‘come to pass’, all of which are ‘ordained’…Nothing comes to pass contrary to His decree. Nothing happens by chance. Even moral evil, which He abhors and forbids, occurs by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God… man’s inability to explain how God can make things certain, but not compulsory… is no reason to deny that [God] can do it or that he has done it.”[21]

[Here we are told that God foreordains the very evils he hates and abhors. Again the theology of Calvinism makes God indistinguishable from the activity of the devil! In fact Calvinism must logically affirm that every demon is meticulously controlled by God insofar as he has decreed every one of their acts of temptation and evil.]

*** “God by his providence permitted some of the angels willfully and irrecoverably, to fall into sin and damnation…ordering that, and all their sins, to his glory.” [22]

[Notice how Shedd, like Piper and Edwards, adopts a philosophy of absurd incoherence in attempting to use the language of “permission” to explain the fall and activity of demons, while simultaneously asserting a reality of divine determinism to explain the fall and activity of demons. If a teacher arranges an exam whereby she renders certain that all her students fail, it is meaningless to then assert she “permitted” them to fail. And again we find another Calvinist telling us that God determines all sin “to his glory.” Webb should have said “to his shame.” Only a Calvinist possesses the strange ingenuity to attribute sin to God’s glory and in so doing divest glory of all that qualifies it as such.

Gordan H. Clark:

*** “I wish very frankly and pointedly to assert that if a man gets drunk and shoots his family, it was the will of God that he should do it…” He goes on to assert, “Let it be unequivocally said that this view certainly makes God the cause of sin. God is the sole ultimate cause of everything. There is absolutely nothing independent of him. He alone is the eternal being. He alone is omnipotent. He alone is sovereign.[23] Some people who do not wish to extend God’s power over evil things, and particularly over moral evils…The Bible therefore explicitly teaches that God creates sin.“[24]

[Unlike many of his Calvinist brethren who opted to shield themselves behind “mystery” as to how God can be the pre-determiner of sin without being the ultimate cause or author of sin, Clarke was not ashamed or too timid to admit the logical conclusion of Calvinist dogma—that being that God is the determinative cause of sin. He makes no attempt to lessen or soften Calvinism’s extreme view of God’s sovereignty to make it more palatable or agreeable but readily admits that God’s sovereignty, as logically seen through the lens of Calvinism, results in a God who determines, orders and causes the evil acts of all people. Why? Because “He alone is sovereign.” It is Calvinism egregious view of God’s sovereignty that is its foremost error and gives us little reason not to toss it in the rubbish heap of theology gone to seed. Some Calvinists accused Clark of being a “hyper-Calvinist” because of his boldness of speech in unfurling the full banner of Calvinistic logic for all to see. Clark denied he was a “hyper” anything and simply opted to view himself as a logically consistent Calvinist. To date no “soft-pedaling” Calvinist has been able to respond to Clark’s arguments without appealing to inconceivable mystery as a refuge.]

A.W. Pink:

*** “Plainly it was God’s will that sin should enter this world, otherwise it would not have entered, for nothing happens except what God has eternally decreed. Moreover, there was more than a simple permission, for God only permits things that fulfill his purpose.”[25]

[Here Pink, the well-known Calvinist theologian, insists that sin entered this world as a result of what “God has eternally decreed” and that permitting is more or less a formality of means to bring into reality what he purposed unconditionally. When a Calvinists says, “God permitted the sin of X to occur” he is really saying, “God fulfilled the decree of X to occur.”]

John Frame:

*** “The Reformed [Calvinists] agree that God knows what would happen under all conditions, but they reject the notion that this knowledge is ever ultimately based on man’s autonomous decisions. Human decisions, they argue, are themselves the effects of God’s eternal decrees.”[26]

[Here Frame admits that God’s knowledge of every human decision (i.e. sin) is ultimately not a result of knowing what humans autonomously choose. In Calvinism there is no “autonomy” of the will. We are more like the glove that fits on a hand. The glove moves but ultimately only in response to the movement of the hand. Our wills are thus God’s instruments to affect his decrees. In this sense Frame would have us understand that God knows all human decisions because he has decreed each decision. Our illusion of free will is merely a trick of the mind because we are constrained to time. The fact is, according to Frame, every choice we make is merely the effects in time of what God eternally decreed.]

Mark Talbot and John Piper:

*** “God brings about all things in accordance with his will. It isn’t just that God manages to turn the evil aspects of our world to good for those that love him; it is rather that he himself brings about these evil aspects… This includes God’s having even brought about the Nazi’s brutality at Birkenau and Auschwitz as well as the terrible killings of Dennis Rader and even the sexual abuse of a young child.” [27]

The above quote, which was edited and approved by John Piper for inclusion in his book “Suffering and the Sovereignty of God”, is so morally repugnant, evil and contrary to the majesty and glory of God, the mere fact that any Christian leader could affirm it only goes to show how deeply entrenched Calvinism is in demonic deception. 1500 years ago at the Council of Orange, the Church had little tolerance for such blasphemous departures from the nature of God’s goodness and holiness, saying, “We not only do not believe that any are foreordained to evil by the power of God, but even state with utter abhorrence that if there are those who want to believe so evil a thing, they are anathema.” (Council of Orange 529AD)

Conclusion: Calvinism makes much of the will of man being in bondage to sin, but it turns out this is only a formality in man’s experience–it is ultimately irrelevant. In Calvinism, man’s will is in bondage to God’s decretive will. Moreover this bondage is throughout one’s life! A Calvinist would be mistaken to think regenerated, saved persons somehow escape the “bondage of the will” they formerly incurred while in sin. That would be a conclusion that does not give Calvinism its full due. In order for a Calvinist to extoll God as sovereign it must be conceded that every sin, even sins made by Christians who are in Christ, is a sin that God decreed for them to make. Becoming saved changes this not one bit. There is ultimately no true freedom of the will to be gained in being a new creature in Christ—your sins are still determined just like they were before!

The result of such an extreme view of sovereignty is quite frightfully appalling. God tells us to put to death the deeds of our flesh and to walk in holiness, yet every time we give in to the flesh God’s meticulous predeterminism ultimately lies behind it all—such that we could not have chosen against God’s decree. Far from being removed from sin, Calvinism results in God being the conceptual designer, author and determinative cause of all sin!

At its core historical, scholarly Arminianism has principally been motivated by an unceasing passion to protect and defend the holy and righteous character of God from the horrific implications of Calvinist theology.

[1] John Calvin, Inst. I.xvi.8. 1539 edition. Quoted in A.N.S. Lane, “Did Calvin Believe in Freewill?” Vox Evangelica 12 (1981): 73

[2] John Calvin, Inst. I.xviii.l. 1559 edition. See A.N.S. Lane, “Did Calvin Believe in Freewill?” Vox Evangelica 12 (1981): 73

[3] John Calvin, Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God (tr. J. K. S. Reid) (London, 1961)175f. (OC 8.358) See A.N.S. Lane, “Did Calvin Believe in Freewill?” Vox Evangelica 12 (1981): 73

[4] John Calvin, Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God 177 (OC 8.360) (‘summam et praecipuam rerum omnium causam’). Cf. Inst. I.xviii.2 (1559). See A.N.S. Lane, “Did Calvin Believe in Freewill?” Vox Evangelica 12 (1981): 73

[5] John Calvin, Commentary on Is. 10:15. See A.N.S. Lane, “Did Calvin Believe in Freewill?” Vox Evangelica 12 (1981): 73

[6] John Calvin, Inst. III.xxiii.8. See A.N.S. Lane, “Did Calvin Believe in Freewill?” Vox Evangelica 12 (1981): 73

[7] John Calvin, Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, 124 (OC 8.316). See A.N.S. Lane, “Did Calvin Believe in Freewill?” Vox Evangelica 12 (1981): 73)

[8] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 2008), 1.18.1 and 3:136, 138-39

[9] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book I, Ch. 16, Sect. 4

[10] John Calvin, Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, pp.171-172

[11] James White, http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2011/08/why-it-is-important-to-go-back-to.html

[12] James White, www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=4324

[13] Vincent Cheung, “Problem of Evil,” http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/ProblemEvil.htm (March, 2013)

[14] Vincent Cheung, “Problem of Evil,” http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/ProblemEvil.htm (March, 2013)

[15] John Piper, https://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/has-god-predetermined-every-tiny-detail-in-the-universe-including-sin

[16] John Piper, Spectacular Sins: And Their Global Purpose in the Glory of Christ (Wheaton: Crossway, 2008), 54. See also John Piper’s sermon “Is God less Glorious Because He Ordained that Evil Be?” http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/conference-messages/is-god-less-glorious-because-he-ordained-that-evil-be (June, 2012). In that sermon Piper quotes Jonathan Edward’s answer to the question as to how God can be the ultimate cause and determiner of sin and yet not be its author. Notice how Edwards relies on the Arminian language of “permission” to extricate himself from the dilemma:

“If by ‘the author of sin,’ be meant the sinner, the agent, or the actor of sin, or the doer of a wicked thing… It would be a reproach and blasphemy, to suppose God to be the author of sin. In this sense, I utterly deny God to be the author of sin.” But, he argues, willing that sin exist in the world is not the same as sinning. God does not commit sin in willing that there be sin. God has established a world in which sin will indeed necessarily come to pass by God’s permission, but not by his “positive agency.”

Piper than goes on to quote Edwards further saying, “God is, Edwards says, the “permitter… of sin; and at the same time, a disposer of the states of events, in such a manner, for wise, holy and most excellent ends and purposes, that sin, if it be permitted… will most certainly and infallibly follow.” As is obvious Piper is being wholly inconsistent with the logic of his own position. In Calvinism all men sin necessarily in virtue of God irrevocably decreeing that they sin irresistibly. For in Calvinism it is impossible for men to choose against God’s decree. It is pointless to say God permits what he necessitates through an irresistible decree. Piper is intentionally obscuring the true horror of Calvinism by softening his language and borrowing Arminian terms to escape the logical implications of his own theology. As one writer insightfully points out, “Such a view of permission as Edwards and Piper describe would be like saying that someone who controlled the mind and actions of another to sin in such a way that the person being controlled had no power to avoid sinning ‘permitted the sin’ because he ‘allowed’ the person to think and act just as he was irresistibly controlling the person to think and act.” Obviously this is hardly how anyone would understand ‘permission’ yet this fact does not give Calvinists like Piper pause. He intentionally obscures meaning. To say that God “permits” sin to come about through his infallible, determinative decree is to simply say God established a world whereby sin happens of necessity–via eternal decrees. In the Edwards/Piper/Calvinist scheme, man is powerless to control his own choices because they are powerless to choose or act contrary to their “strongest motive.” But in Calvinism, not even their interior affections, desires or motives are untouched by God’s decrees, for God has determined those too! All these things are secured by God’s determinative decrees before the world began. Adam’s sin, mankind’s consequent fallen nature, and every subsequent thought, motive, desire, and act are rendered necessary (not only certain) because God’s eternal decrees cannot fail. A person can no more resist or act contrary to the eternal divine decree than they can create their own universe! How then can we speak of God merely “permitting” these “necessitated” sinful acts?” See Ben Henshaw’s devastating critique of Piper’s sermon and reliance on Edwards ill-conceived theology at: http://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2012/03/13/john-piper-on-god-ordaining-all-sin-and-evil-part-1-an-arminian-response-to-pipers-first-question/ (June, 2012).

[17] John Piper, Spectacular Sins: And Their Global Purpose in the Glory of Christ (Wheaton: Crossway, 2008), 24

[18] J.I. Packer, Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God (Chicago: InterVarsity Press, 1961), 19-23.

[19] R.C. jr Sproul, Almighty Over All (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1999), 54

[20] Edwin Palmer,The Five Points of Calvinism, 24-25

[21] W.G.T. Shedd, Calvinism: Pure and Mixed, 32-33, 38-39 http://www.archive.org/stream/calvinismpuremix00shed#page/32/mode/2up

[22] W.G.T. Shedd, Calvinism: Pure and Mixed, 32-33 http://www.archive.org/stream/calvinismpuremix00shed#page/34/mode/2up

[23] Gordon Clark, Religion, Reason, and Revelation, (Philadelphia, PA: Presbyterian & Reformed), 1961, 221

[24] Gordon Clark, Predestination. (The Trinity Foundation), 1987. 18

[25] A.W Pink, The Sovereignty of God, 2009, 162

[26] John Frame,“Scientia Media,” Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd ed., ed. Walter A. Elwell. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001), 1075.

[27] Mark Talbot, edited by John Piper and Justin Taylor, Suffering and the Sovereignty of God, (Wheaton, Ill: Crossway Books, 2006) 41-42

Posted in Critiquing Calvinism | Tagged against calvinism, against reformed theology, Calvinism and evil, Calvinism and Sin, Calvinism debunked, Calvinism is evil, Calvinism is heresy, Calvinism theodicy, Calvinist quotes on God determining all sin and evil, Calvinist quotes on sin, Dark side of Calvinism, Do Calvinists believe God ordains all sin, Refuting Calvinism | 97 Comments

Discipleship: Being taught and FILLED by our Master

Posted on March 20, 2013 by StriderMTB

The following is an excerpt from a post by Rick Joyner who I like to read from time to time even though I have my points of disagreement with him. He captures the insightful truth that our Christian call to discipleship is not primarily about being taught by a master, but being filled with our Master such that he dwells within us.

He writes:

We are told in Ephesians 3:16-19:

that He would grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with power through His Spirit in the inner man;

so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith; and that you, being rooted and grounded in love,

may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth,

and to know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled up to all the fullness of God.

We are going to seek to comprehend the breadth and length and height and depth of the love of God with the ultimate purpose of being filled with the fullness of God. This is a concept too awesome to comprehend on our own, so it is something that the Lord must “grant” to us as we are told in verse 16. It also requires that we are strengthened with power through His Spirit in the inner man so that Christ dwells in our hearts, and we are rooted and grounded in love.

This might sum up the purpose of our discipleship. It is more than any earthly discipleship where we might be devoted to learning from a great master and becoming like the master, but here we are told that we are to be filled with our Master so that He dwells in us! This is such an awesome calling that even the angels marvel at it. The more we comprehend this, the more we must be compelled to seek it with all that is within us. -(Rick Joyner)

Posted in Devotion Life | Tagged discipleship explained, how to be a disciple of Jesus, What is Christian discipleship | Leave a comment

Tim Keller: Private Calvinist, Public Arminian

Posted on March 17, 2013 by StriderMTB

UPDATE: Oddly enough both videos were pulled from YouTube at the same time this little write-up was getting traction through facebook shares. The video recording of Keller explaining unconditional election in a Calvinist friendly church seems to have been banished forever. However I found another copy of Keller’s speech at Harvard where Calvinist Keller is retired (along with unconditional election, irresistible grace and limited atonement) and Arminian Keller emerges. He goes so far as to say individuals that “right now don’t have Jesus, need to get him…those that don’t have Jesus…and are headed toward a Christ-less eternity…are those who have chosen not to turn towards the grace of God.” This is quite astounding given that Calvinism repudiates any idea that God’s redemptive, irresistible grace is of a nature that it can be turned away from! Keller’s public statements would be more congruous with his privately held beliefs if he had said, “Millions of people go to hell because Jesus didn’t want to be ‘gotten’ by them. Therefore Jesus decreed that his redemptive grace would turn away from them.” The video is linked here.

I really like Tim Keller– I really do. He is a brilliant thinker, a passionate preacher and an articulate apologist. Unfortunately he is also suffers from a severe bout of Calvinism-Cognitive-Dissonance (click here for more info). Either that or he lacks the courage or will-power to say publicly what he holds privately in safe theological quarters, like his home church. Either way I am troubled by this increasing trend by Calvinists. I have tried to highlight in other posts how Calvinists are shockingly duplicitous in regards to their own theology. In public forums and public blogs that are “unsafe” for full Calvinistic disclosure they often choose to double-deal in Arminian theological terminology rather than unveil the nefarious and utterly horrific implications of their Calvinistic beliefs.

For example, John Piper insists that sovereignty means God decrees and wills every evil choice and event in human history–and does so irresistibly. That is to say man’s actions are irresistibly determined and rendered certain by God’s will, and he can no more avoid doing what God has decreed than he can sprout wings and fly to the moon. But later when Piper attempts to explain such a scenario for the mass consumption of his followers he obscures the most controversial element of his argument by dropping the language of decree and picking up the language of permission, saying “God has established a world in which sin will indeed come to pass by God’s permission.” [1] Given the fact that Piper believes that 1) God’s foreordaining mind is the author and origin of everything that occurs, and that 2) God has decreed every thought, desire and choice of man, it is quite silly and disingenuous for Piper to say God permits what he has decreed–as if he had to act as a middleman between His decree and the outworking of His decree. Does God need to get permission from himself? [2]

In returning to Tim Keller let me reiterate that I admire and appreciate Keller (and Piper’s pastoral heart for that matter) for much of what he writes and preaches, but it is concerning to see how consistent leading Calvinists are in being inconsistent! Is it a lack of courage or integrity? I don’t mean to insinuate moral integrity but a lack of theological integrity (unity) that invites the all too common temptation to speak out of both sides of one’s mouth.

In the first video Keller is in the safe confines of his reformed church and he has no qualms about spelling out his belief in Unconditional Election–a doctrine founded on the belief that multitudes are eternally lost because God does not desire their salvation in any genuine sense that would motivate him to extend grace and rescue them from sin. However in his explanation it was disturbing to hear him divorce Unconditional Election from the real implications of Irresistible Grace and try to “sanitize” the entire doctrine by trying to ground it in an analogy of God doing nothing more than “opening their eyes.” But that description falls woefully short of the coercive implications of Calvinism’s doctrine that God’s grace cannot be refused, rejected or resisted. Keller just isn’t being forthcoming or consistent as to what Calvinist theology entails.

The closest reference we have of the phrase “God opened their eyes” in a redemptive context is with Lydia in Acts 19 where it says God opened Lydia’s heart to respond to Paul’s message. But the Bible makes clear that she was already a “worshipper of God”–and only subsequent to that fact did God open her eyes/heart to believe Paul’s message. In other words she was not some hardened, hostile person in open rebellion against God whereby God comes along and “ZAP” sovereignly overturns her hostile rebellion and opens her eyes. Not at all. The scriptures make plain that prior to hearing Paul’s message she was already a “worshiper of God” (Acts. 16:14) and only then did God open or draw her heart further to respond to Paul’s message. This accords succinctly with Arminianism! Arminianism teaches that God’s enabling, drawing grace is absolutely necessary for conversion. But we believe God’s grace brings us to a place where we can believe, but not to a place where we must believe–big difference. Because Lydia, “a worshiper of God” in a pagan land responded humbly and teachably to God’s prevenient, drawing grace before Paul came, He now faithfully opens her heart further to behold a fuller revelation of Himself through Paul’s message. So it is with all those that respond to God’s preceding grace and seek to know him in greater measure.

Even though Keller doesn’t use the term “Arminians” he seems to try and contrast his Calvinism with the “other side” by saying that sinners, if left to themselves and divorced from grace, will never choose Jesus–even if given a thousand chances. Granted! That is an essential feature of Arminianism–which majors on the necessity of preceding grace to enable a free response of faith. It is somewhat disturbing that Keller, a well informed theologian, would qualify his Calvinism in such a way as to imply it is the only theology that necessitates God’s grace for true conversion. Again– Arminians hold that God’s grace is necessary for salvation and draws us to a place where we can believe but not to a place where we must believe. In the end we believe God’s grace is resistible and un-coercive– as is the nature of all grace.

But I digress somewhat. I don’t mean to be unkind or uncharitable to Tim Keller, but in the second video Keller is on the hot seat in a public forum as to why not all can be saved, and he sounds more like a water-downed Arminian than the bold Calvinist he is unashamed to be in a Calvinist church. That being said I don’t actually disagree with Keller’s answer. It is an acceptable answer from an Arminian perspective– but only half the story from a Calvinist perspective.

Keller says, “All I can ever say about this is God gives me, even as a minister with scripture, a lot of information on a need to know basis…here’s all I can tell you. Unless you get Jesus Christ, who created you to start with, unless you are reunited with him sometime, there is no eternal future of thriving. If Jesus is who he says he is you gotta have him. If right now someone doesn’t have him, he or she needs to get him. If someone dies and they don’t have Jesus– I don’t know. In other words I’m on a need-to-know basis. This is all I know–you need Jesus.”

Here Keller is simply pretending he “doesn’t know” and pretending he lacks certainty. Why is he pretending? Because in his private, Calvinist chambers he does know and is not at all on a “need to know basis” as to what happens to people who don’t “have Jesus.” As a Calvinist he thinks he has ample, more than sufficient information to warrant a definitive answer– God unconditionally predestined them to perish eternally!

So I must say Keller is being thoroughly inconsistent with his definitive, unambiguous Calvinist beliefs as to why people are not ultimately saved. But Keller simply couldn’t bring himself to say what Calvinists believe privately and tend to utter only in safe quarters–which is: According to the scriptures God didn’t atone for the sins of all people and didn’t love multitudes of people enough to unconditionally elect them to ‘get Jesus.’ God could have elected all to salvation–because what his irresistible grace can do for some, it can do for all. Yes–God created them, but he created them to be apart from him eternally. So before they were born God decreed they would ‘not get Christ and God.’ That is the principal reason why not all can be saved.

Such is the unembellished truth of Keller’s privately professed Calvinism. However Keller intuitively knew that if he answered the interviewer’s question in a straight-forward, Calvinist manner he would have immediately lost all intellectual and moral credibility in the eyes of the audience. The point is– if it can’t be preached in public it shouldn’t be believed in private.

This brings to mind something I once heard: “If it can’t be preached at the gates of Auschwitz it ought not to be preached from the pulpit!” [3] It’s no easy answer for any theological viewpoint, but I would wager a bet that if Tim Keller were to visit Auschwitz and were to be asked, “Where was God?” Calvinist Keller would suddenly be retired and Arminian Keller would quickly pop to the forefront and adopt Arminian language of “free-will being abused.” Why do I think this? Because I think Keller is too good of a man not to retire his Calvinist theology in such a setting– a theology that requires him to believe every Nazi thought, evil desire and action committed at Auschwitz was irresistibly decreed by God in eternity past for his glory.

As alluded to before if a belief system can’t publicly answer the most difficult, painful questions about life and loss, without the very holy and righteous character of God being besmirched beyond recognition (God conceived and decreed all evil), then we ought to toss it in the waste bin of history and go back to the drawing board.

In returning to the public interview above on why some people can’t be saved, I would like to think the real reason Keller chose not to un-sheath his Calvinist sword was because he had too much integrity to actually be fully integrous and consistent to his privately held Calvinist beliefs. In other words I think Keller intuitively knows something is woefully amiss with Calvinist soteriology and sovereignty, but he can’t bring himself to admit it in his private Calvinist chambers.

As such my principal problem with Keller is that he conveniently double-deals in Arminianism phraseology and theology when pressed in public, but disavows and disclaims Arminianism in private when safe. This is epidemic in Calvinism today!

Articulate speakers do create followers and I am concerned that many young people are becoming attracted to Reformed/Calvinist theology without a clue as to the darker, sinister aspects of Calvinism (i.e. God sovereignly and irresistibly decreed all your God-dishonoring, destructive sin).

Most initiates eventually become so enamored with their “Calvinist heros” that they end up becoming assimilated into doctrinal teaching that they probably would have “spat out” had they not become so smitten with their Calvinist heros: “Well, gosh…it’s hard to swallow the doctrine that Jesus didn’t die for all humanity, that he doesn’t redemptively love all humanity, and that God decreed all my sinful and evil choices, but if a smart guy like Keller believes it– it must be true!”

In that sense Keller is a great “poster boy” for contemporary Calvinism because he can represent it in name while simultaneously refusing to be upfront and forthright with Calvinism’s horrific logical and theological implications. Bad theology always survives by clothing itself in the garb of good theology whenever convenient in order to keep the controversial dissimilarities as hidden as possible from public view.

Because I really do appreciate so much of what Keller writes and shares, and believe his voice is credible and needful in so many ways, I long for the day Keller sees his Calvinism as both a liability to the gospel and a libel against the character of God.

P.S. In the first video Keller does ask some questions of an Arminian perspective that are worth looking into further. I hope to post on this later. For starters here is a good place to commence.

[1] http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/conference-messages/is-god-less-glorious-because-he-ordained-that-evil-be

[2] For a thorough rebuttal of Piper’s attempt to justify all sin and evil being authored and grounded in God’s will of decree I would highly recommend: http://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2012/03/13/john-piper-on-god-ordaining-all-sin-and-evil-part-1-an-arminian-response-to-pipers-first-question/

[3] I believe it may have been Roger Olson who first said this.

Posted in Critiquing Calvinism | Tagged Calvinism Inconsistency, Dark side of Calvinism, defending arminianism, Tim Keller calvinist arminian, Tim Keller Public Arminian, Tim Keller theology | 47 Comments

The Death of a Best Friend

Posted on March 7, 2013 by StriderMTB

Today marks the one-year anniversary that one of my most cherished and loyal friends went to be with the Lord. His name was Noah Huss. If you had the privilege of knowing him, you would forever remember him. His funeral was packed and everyone seemed to share a common theme in describing their relationship to him and remembrance of him–loving, genuine, spiritual, funny, wise and disarming. I miss him tremendously and find myself often thinking of him in the quiet moments when I am all alone with my thoughts and memories. We were first introduced in the crib together by our mothers and therein began a life long friendship and brotherhood until an auto accident tragically took him from us. My heart aches for his family–especially his wife and three sons. In the depths of our being we know that those who die in Christ will one day be reunited to us in Christ… but it still hurts…and the sense of loss over a friend, a brother, a son, a father and a husband is profound. The following is what I shared in a eulogy at his funeral a year ago. I share it today in honor of him:

Yesterday was a hard day—but it was also a day that testified of the remarkable man Noah was. Only someone like Noah could bring together 3 decades of people to the same place. Yesterday I saw his kindergarden teacher, his teenage friends and his co-workers and I also met someone that had met Noah only two weeks before—just one time—and he said that conversation over lunch was so impacting that when he heard about his passing he felt compelled to drive down from PA and honor his life. His passing pulled so many people out of the woodwork of the past and that is a testimony of his life.

I had the privilege of being Noah’s friend ever since we were in a crib together. Noah once said he remembers the first day we met because I poked him in the eye. But since I was only 6 months old and he was only a few days old when our mothers introduced us…I think he made that up.

There was a significant and pivotal bonding moment in our friendship that I remember sooo clearly as if it was just yesterday. And it happened when I was around 7 or 8. I remember some of the other boys in the neighborhood had been picking on me. I don’t remember why or what it was about…I just remember feeling so rejected and hurt. And I also clearly remember turning to all of them and shouting, “Fine—go ahead and be meanies to me. I don’t care because I have a best friend—and his name is Noah Huss…and he lives on that hill!” And I marched off to Noah’s house that day and in many ways I never looked back.

He was such a good child-hood friend. People that knew me as a young kid will tell you I had this insane obsession with Davy Crockett and cowboys and Indians. Even though Davy Crockett wasn’t a cowboy I insisted that we induct him in the cowboy hall of fame and every day of our lives play cowboys and Indians. And of course I was Davy Crocket. The problem was I couldn’t find many Indians that wanted to play with me. But Noah…again so many times Noah was willing to be my Indian that I had to find in the woods.

I found out many years later that Noah didn’t really want to play cowboys and Indians all those times…but he accommodated me back then because friendship with him was built on a selfless foundation. You felt so safe and assured around Noah because you knew you were around someone you could trust—who really wanted the joy of life to be about making you happy and making you laugh. And boy did he make us laugh.

Some of my greatest memories of Noah took place with him having a puppet on his hand or a fake beard on his face. I’m sure many of you who experienced the glory days of the hilarious Beachmont David Clough and then Noah Huss and Sue Bailey puppeteering era will be nodding your head in agreement.

Spiritual formation for children was never more fun to watch. Daily belly spasms of humor came from watching Noah re-enact Bible characters. Sure he took some minor liberties…. But that’s what artists do. And Noah was in many ways an artist—not necessarily with a paintbrush but he was an artist in his heart and mind and he was an artist with his words. Sometimes he would be able to put words together that I didn’t think should ever go together and he gave you a whole new perspective on a subject. He was a philosopher of life without the egodropping pride of thinking he “knew it all.”

Now in saying all this, Noah wasn’t perfect… I think he was a Steelers fan….and I think he owned every Pink Floyd album. But whatever imperfections Noah had—he made up for many of them by marrying Rachel. Unfortunately over the past years geographical distance has kept me from being part of Noah’s life like I was before—which is why I was so touched to see the video put together of Noah and his family. He was a true father in a day and age when true fatherhood is in short supply.

I am telling you from the core of my being—this is not Noah. This is just the cosmetic, surface apartment Noah was paying rent to during his earthly journey with us. Now Noah is living rent free in the presence of the King of Kings and Lord of all Lords. In the Bible. The apostle Paul says, “To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.”

We don’t know “WHY” his life was cut short. But Noah wouldn’t want us to forever become captives and prisoners of the “Why” question. It doesn’t lead anywhere and it just makes you a victim for as long as it dominates your life. And Noah would say, “You’re not a victim —you’re an overcomer.” Noah was an overcomer. That doesn’t mean he didn’t have questions. I know that Noah also had many questions—we all have questions sometimes. But Noah also believed that at the end of the day it is more important to know God than it is to know answers.

And I have no doubt that through God’s grace Noah’s very death will be overcome in such a way that God is going to bring life out of it for others.

So today we have come to say goodbye to a dear friend, a gentle son, a loyal brother, a faithful father and a loving husband. BUT we also take comfort in knowing that goodbyes like this are only temporary for those who are in covenant with God. For as the apostle Paul said, “We cry and we grieve—yes—but we don’t grieve as those without hope.” For those who have submitted their lives to be swallowed up in the majesty of Christ’s sacrifice, they will embrace Noah again. Noah has passed from death to life and he awaits us on the other side of the veil. This is no fairy-tail. And this is no pretentious cliché to soften the sting of death for us. This is true. This is the rock—the only Rock we are called to build our life on. The Bible says in 1 Cor. 15:55-58,

When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: “Death has been swallowed up in victory.”

⁵⁵ “Where, O death, is your victory?
Where, O death, is your sting?”

⁵⁶ The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law of condemnation. ⁵⁷ But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

⁵⁸ Therefore, my dear brothers and sisters, stand firm. Let nothing move you. Always give yourselves fully to the work of the Lord, because you know that your labor in the Lord Jesus is not in vain.

I want to close by playing a little song…and actually it is a song recording of Noah singing when he was 14 years old. When he was 14 Noah and my brother wrote some songs together and they had a little concert at our church. Now I have to warn you…Noah would not have lasted very long on American Idol. At 14 his talent wasn’t carrying a pitch. But that didn’t stop him from singing. What I most want you to hear is what he says before he sings a song called “Neither” based on the verse in Romans 8 that says “Neither death nor life can separate from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

Please listen: (Noah went on to sing a song about how death can never separate us from our Lord and Maker. But most astonishingly he took a few moments to personally share his own heart on the reality of death. He shared how death always frightened him and he often shuddered to think about it–but when he finally grasped the truth of Roman 8 he was forever changed and his fear of death disappeared with the certainty of knowing he would forever be in the hand and heart of Christ.)

I miss you much Noah! I will see you again!

-Strider MTB

Posted in Thought of the day | Leave a comment

Belief in God vs. Trust in God

Posted on March 4, 2013 by StriderMTB

Peter Enns has once again stirred the soup of my mind with a recent post titled: “Why I Don’t Believe in God Anymore.” However the title is supposed to be somewhat provocative and induce a further look. In truth Enns insightfully presents a distinction between belief in God and trust in God. After reading his article I felt motivated to move past the ceiling of basic belief in God and move into a greater realm of trust–despite the risks. For their is no trust without risk. Here is an excerpt of Enns piece:

I see a huge difference between “I believe in a God who cares for me” and “I trust God at this particular moment.” The first is a bit safer, an article of faith. The latter is unnerving, risky–because I have let go.

You’ve all heard of the “trust fall.” There’s a reason they don’t call it a “belief fall.” Belief can reside in our heads. Trust is doing it, risking it. Trust is humility, putting ourselves in the hand of another. Trust requires something of us that belief doesn’t.

When God promises Abraham that he will have more offspring than the stars in the sky, translations of the next verse conventionally say that Abraham “believed” God. (Genesis 15:6)

“Believe” isn’t the right word there. “Trust” is. The Hebrew word is the same one we get “amen” from. “Amen” is not a social cue that grace is finished and it’s time to eat. It is the final word in the prayer: we’re done talking now, Lord, and we now move to trust.

God promised an old man a lot of kids. Abraham trusted God to come through. That is way harder than believing. Believing has wiggle room. Trusting doesn’t.

The same thing holds for the gospel. “Believing” in God–or even having “faith” in him–doesn’t cut it. At least the way these words are used today.

Beliefs can be collated into a “belief system”–an intellectual construction of what sorts of things are right to think and not think about God. Followers of Jesus, however, are called to do something much harder.

Jesus tells a famous story about why those who follow him need not worry about anything. Don’t fret about how much you have, what you wear, or what you will eat. Don’t worry. Trust. (Matthew 6:25-34)

Jesus illustrates the point in what at first blush seems rather off topic–at best marginally helpful. He tells us to consider the grass of the field and the birds of the sky. Look at them, Jesus says. They’re doing just fine and they don’t worry for a second.

Of course they don’t worry, Jesus, because they are–if I’m not mistaken–grass and birds. Grass doesn’t have a brain and birds are skittish little things that fly into windows. These things aren’t really relevant, Jesus, because, you see, by definition, Jesus, these things are incapable of worry.

And when you put it that way, you can see the profound point–and challenge–of what Jesus is saying: worry should be as impossible for us as it is for grass and birds. His followers–if they get it–should be as incapable of worry as insentient grass and bird-brained birds.

“Believing in God” doesn’t get you to that place Jesus is describing here. Belief leaves room for worry. Trust explodes it.

Posted in Devotion Life | Tagged trusting God vs. belief in God, what is the difference between belief and trust | 14 Comments

I like both Matt Slick and James White—great writers and insightful apologists that have encouraged my faith in the past. That being said I don’t agree with their Calvinist leanings. Today their viewpoints will serve as two principal examples in highlighting the weakness and inadequacies of the Calvinist position in regards to God’s sovereignty and evil.

Calvinists will often attempt to assert that God must have meticulously predetermined all the perverse evils of mankind because if he did not then the evils which do occur would demonstrate that:

1) God is helpless in the face of them.

2) There exists no meaning or purpose in God permitting an evil event he did not predetermine.

For example Matt Slick writes, “If libertarians [Arminians] were correct in that man has “free choice,” then when man committed a gross evil against his neighbor, the evil committed would have been pointless. That is, if God had no control over what, where, or when evil took place, then it only naturally follows that the suffering produced from the evil was without purpose, and thus pointless. For example, if someone were robbed and beaten, and yet God had no say in the crime whatsoever (for it was a free, uninhibited action based upon the criminal’s free will), then the person robbed would not have only been unjustly treated, but the evil he endured would have had no point to it. It was just a spontaneous action from a criminal. God is sort of left helpless in the matter.”[1]

Calvinist theologian James White takes a similar stance. In a debate with Hank Hannegraaf and George Bryson, White was asked, “When a child is raped, is God responsible and did He decree that rape?” To which Mr. White replied… “Yes, because if not then it’s meaningless and purposeless and though God knew it was going to happen he created it without a purpose… and God is responsible for the creation of despair… If He didn’t [decree child rape] then that rape is an element of meaningless evil that has no purpose.” [2]

As is obvious both Matt Slick and James White are committing the logical fallacy of a false dilemma. Namely they are insisting that there exists only two alternatives or solutions to a problem when in fact there are other valid options to be considered. Clearly the false dilemma presented by them is that God is either meticulously sovereign in the face of evil, decreeing every evil event, choice and thought according to his secret, irresistible decrees, or God is helpless in the face of evil in virtue of not decreeing all evil. Moreover both Slick and White further imply that if God did not meticulously decree all the evil that pervades this world, then there no longer exists any meaning, point or purpose for God to allow evil’s occurrence in the world.

This is a serious contention and challenge. If evils do occur in this world freely, such that God did not divinely predetermine them, does it follow that God has no purpose in permitting such evils? Take for example the child being molested and raped. This would be a tragedy specifically because God did not desire it or will it. Yet it occurs anyway. Does it mean God was helpless in the face of this evil? Does it mean God retains no purpose in permitting choices that result in evil? How do we reconcile this with a sovereign, omnipotent God?

As is obvious the answer to both Slick and White is that if evil actions are done freely— that is the purpose! [3] The overarching purpose God has in permitting evil that he neither desires nor has determined is to preserve his original intention and sovereign decision to create mankind free. That is to say God purposes to allow evil to occur, even rape, because God purposed for the will of men and women to be free and self-determinative. And God refuses to abort that meaningful, sovereign intention simply because of humanity’s misuse and abuse of such autonomy and self-determination.

Notice also how White tries to mischaracterize the Arminian position by smuggling in the word “creation” when he argues that if God didn’t decree the rape but knew it was going to happen (or even knew it was a possibility) then “God created it (rape) without a purpose…God is responsible for the creation of despair.”

Created rape? Not at all.

Only in Calvinism does God conceive of and create evils like rape through irresistible decrees that men are powerless to choose against. The Arminian position is not that God “created rape” but rather God permits it to occur because in his wisdom he knows he can only prevent all evil by countermanding his own sovereign intention to create a world of morally responsible agents capable of good. So it is false to say God “creates” evil in the Arminian context. Rather God created man. More specifically God created man free and God sovereignly permits man to exercise his God-given freedom.

That being said, it does not mean God stands by passive and detached from evil. Not in the least. God seeks in every way to exploit the evils committed against us and ultimately use them for good in our lives. This often requires that we submit our bitterness, un-forgiveness and pain to him, but the good news is that in Christ we never need be completely victimized by evil.

God is fully capable of usurping and ransacking the evil intentions of others and overruling them for our good (as he did in the life of Joseph). But that is a far cry from saying God decreed all the foul, sordid evils of this world for the purpose of bringing about good. Or as John Piper puts it, “to make his glory shine more brightly.”[4]

Calvinism would have us believe God has a need–evil– to bring about good. Moreover the thought is that God’s divine conception and determination of evil provides a necessary context for his glory to stand in contrast to evil– the very evils he predetermined.

Does that sound farcical and confusing?

That’s because it is. It would be akin to an arson setting fire to a house just so he can run in as the hero rescuer and splash his name across the newspapers. In contrast the position of Arminian-minded thinkers is that God seeks to trump the evils of this world and exploit them for good. His glory is in overriding evils for good (Arminianism) not justifying all evil by determinatively decreeing all evil (Calvinism).

All this to say, God’s will is not the only will “in town.” There are other wills in play in this universe: angelic, demonic and human. God has sovereignly given to free agents, not an exhaustive, but a certain amount of “say so” in determining world events. [5] In particular humans were made in God’s image, possessing self-autonomy and self-determination. Right now God’s will is contending with other wills in this universe. God could annihilate all other wills if he so desired, such that only his will determines a course of action or state of affairs, but God could only do that at the expense of jettisoning his sovereign intention to bestow moral freedom on his created order.

Apparently God, as of yet, has sovereignly chosen not to do this. It is not a question of God being helpless in the face of free-will, as Slick seems to think. It is a matter of how God has sovereignly chosen to create his world! That is the point Calvinists seem all to eager to avoid.

As Scott McNight astutely explains, “All of this can all be resolved by positing a sovereign God who sovereignly self-limits himself!…God permits because God chooses to grant humans the kind of freedom that God does not deny. God has a perfect will — what God wants for all — and a consequent will — what God wants in light of human rebellion. God is now allowing his sovereignty to be challenged.” [6]

The point Calvinists are so remiss in fully considering and engaging is the Arminian contention that it was none other than God himself who sovereignly purposed to create man in his own image and give men an autonomous, free will— knowing full well that mankind would consequently have the freedom and possibility to disobey and choose evil.

Why would God do that?

Because in his sovereign wisdom God knew there could be no true worship and no true obedience unless the freedom to not worship and not obey was a viable choice. For indeed God understood that if worship, obedience and love were to be purposeful and mean anything—they required free agency of the will whereby the choice to not worship, to not obey and to not love were real possibilities.

Now let’s delve further into White’s underlying logic that only acts done in accordance to God’s pre-determinative will have meaning and purpose. This too is patently bogus. [7] In fact quite the opposite is true.

Obviously from man’s perspective, if our all our thoughts, desires, choices and actions (both good and evil) are unilaterally chosen for us by an irresistible, divine decree, then all our choices and actions are meaningless and purposeless! For we are no longer in control over what we think and do! We are just God’s passive toys rendered willfully inoperative and motionless until God decrees us to think, choose and act. We aren’t even free to choose what sins we will commit or desire in our fallen natures– for the range of possible sins has been reduced to the one— the one predestined for us by God’s decretive will.

Thus all our choices are meaningless in the sense that they do not really belong to us. Instead they are God’s choices and we are simply his intermediate instruments to bring about his willed decrees.

This raises the question as whether or not our actions are meaningless from God’s vantage point? Maybe that’s what White was talking about when he implied that events outside God’s determinative will of decree are pointless and void of meaning and purpose. But if it were to be conceded that meticulous, divine determinism were true, as White believes, how would this change anything? In what way are evil events suddenly infused with meaning and purpose from God’s perspective?

They could only be said to be meaningful and purposeful in the same way that a stage director shuffles his actors around, scripts their lines and cues their actions. But is this world merely God’s cosmic stage and are we simply thinking, choosing and acting in accordance with God’s divine script?

That hardly seems to do justice to the scriptures admonishes of responsibility and accountability. The blunt truth is that if Calvinism’s theology of a meticulous, divine determinism were correct— it would logically entail this very post that condemns it! Indeed it is hard to see how from a human vantage point all meaning, purpose and responsibility doesn’t vanish or at minimum become incoherent. For as already insinuated, if anyone were to believe that all their thoughts, choices and beliefs were divinely determined, like White believes, it would necessarily entail their own belief in divine determinism! Moreover it would mean that anyone who disavows White’s beliefs would likewise be divinely determined to disagree with him.

Thus in a world governed by meticulous, divine determinism, beliefs are not the product of examination, analysis, reason and contemplation whereby we search for truth and weigh various options and make informed decisions. Rather they are just the spin-offs of God’s universal, exhaustive, meticulous divine decrees. White would have to concede that a person who believes in meticulous, divine determinism does so for the same reason that another person disbelieves meticulous, divine determinism. It has nothing to do with evaluation, truth and reason—and everything to do with what has been determined for them to believe!

Indeed it is hard to see how this wouldn’t be the very epitome of a pointless, meaningless and purposeless existence.

-Strider MTB

[1] http://carm.org/god-and-evil-a-philosophical-contradiction

[2] http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2011/08/why-it-is-important-to-go-back-to.html

[3] In one sense I could state that certain evils are indeed pointless and meaningless insofar as one is looking for the proverbial “good reason for everything that happens.” We live in a fallen world where the clutter and “fallen leaves” of sin build up and blow over into the “lawn” of our lives—no matter how faithful we are in trying to keep our lives and families manicured and removed from such evil. Take for example a drunk driver killing a mother and her unborn child, or in the example above, a child being molested and raped. As an Arminian I can deny that there is a good or godly reason God purposed to decree every evil and wicked act in human history (i.e. Calvinism). As an Arminian-minded advocate I have other alternatives that retain God’s holy and good character. For instance, a classical Arminian can assert that God refuses to countermand his sovereign decision to create man free, but that does not mean he is passive in the face of evil. Rather he seeks to exploit the evils committed against us, override their evil intentions, and ultimately bring about good as we submit to him. However that is a far cry from saying God decrees evil for the purpose of good. Or I can say as William Lane Craig (Arminian-minded Molinist) does that though God did not divinely determine every evil event, God can have a morally sufficient reason to allow each and every evil event. For example, God, in his omniscience, could have known that if Hitler would not have been permitted to carry out his evil intentions, that an emboldened and more powerful Stalin would have arisen and caused even greater, unspeakable death and suffering across Europe. We can only speculate. I could also opt to hold, as Greg Boyd does (Arminian-minded Open-Theist) that God has a good purpose for allowing every tragic event that occurs, and yet we can deny that any tragic event happened for that good purpose. In this sense Boyd would would say the challenge is to fathom an intelligence so great it has an eternally prepared good purpose for every possible event that might unfold. In all three options the nature of God’s morally perfect character, being too holy to 1) be tempted by sin, 2) tempt men to sin, or 3)causally determine the sin of others, is preserved. This is not the case with Calvinism.

[4] John Piper, Spectacular Sins: And Their Global Purpose in the Glory of Christ (Wheaton: Crossway, 2008), 44. Of all popular proponents of Calvinism, Piper, exemplifies the pinnacle of Calvinism’s inability to remain logically consistent with its own doctrinal assertions. Piper intuitively knows that suggesting God determined sin for the sake of his own glory is a “tad” over-the-line. So he fudges on his own view of meticulous, exhaustive divine determinism, softens his terms, and inexplicably borrows the language of “permission” by attempting to explain that when God foreordains that evil occur it is because “God either caused something directly or permitted it for wise purposes.” Obviously Piper hasn’t thought through the logic of his own beliefs. Piper thinks God meticulously determined all events and choices–including evil. So does God need to get permission from himself? Calvin–to his credit–was much more appreciative of internal coherency and consistency and rightly understood that saying God “permits” what he divinely decreed is meaningless. Calvin writes, “the fiction of bare permission is at an end; for it would be ridiculous for a judge only to permit, and not also to decree, what he wishes to be done at the very time that he commits the execution of it to his ministers…” However not even Calvin could make heads or tails of why God would decree that we do the very things he abhors and wishes that we not do! He states, “No, when we cannot comprehend how God can will that to be done which he forbids us to do, let us call to mind our imbecility…” John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 2008), 1.18.1 and 3:136, 138-39. When a theology grounds the conception of all evil in the conceiving mind of God and anchors the ultimate cause of all evil in the decretive will of God, and then can only appeal to mystery to extricate themselves from resultant, multitudinous absurdities and inconsistencies, it is high time to re-visit our Bibles and toss our hermeneutical framework in the waste bin of good interpretive intentions gone awry.

[5] Couching creaturely freedom in within a limited context of determinative “say-so” is a helpful concept explored by Greg Boyd in much of his writings. Check out his site: http://www.reknew.org.

[6] http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2011/10/20/for-and-against-calvinism-3/

[7] Both White and Slick argue that God would have no purpose in permitting evils he did not divinely decree in eternity past, but their underlying logic takes their contention much further. They are really saying any act outside of God’s divine determination is rendered pointless, meaningless and purposeless. Now the important question to be asked is, in what sense do both Slick and White understand “meaningless, pointless and purposeless?” It may certainly be true that evil events are pointless and meaningless in terms of promoting human happiness and well-being. But that does not seem to be what they are arguing. They seem to be using pointless, meaningless and purposeless in an ontological sense or as philosophical synonyms for senseless, inane and absurd. It is somewhat uncertain, but it is possible they are arguing that any spontaneous act of the human will, un-decreed by God would be an act that has no meaning whatsoever–thus becoming ontologically non-existent, illogical and absurd. It’s almost as if they are advocating some sort of divine verificationism, in that anything not decreed by God is therefore meaningless and absurd. Slick apparently contends that if God were to not have decided to decree action X (evil event), then its effect Y (suffering produced) is therefore rendered meaningless and pointless. But by such reasoning this would not only entail evil events and their subsequent effects of suffering— it would also entail good events and their subsequent effects of joy and love. For example, if a husband were to freely and spontaneously sweep his wife off her feet and kiss her (action X), but God did not divinely predetermine him to do so, does that thereby render her subsequent joy (effect Y) meaningless and pointless? Not at all! But this would then render Slick’s argument invalid. Now what about White’s underlying contention that the action of X itself would be rendered meaningless and purposeless if God did not divinely decree it? His contention doesn’t fair any better than Slick’s. A spontaneous action, such as a husband’s choice to kiss his wife, is obviously infused with meaning and purpose even if were to be outside the realm of what God predetermined. The same would go for evil events. Just because an evil event was not divinely determined by God, does not necessarily mean that the evil act is meaningless and pointless. The meaning and purpose may be self-indulgent in regards to the evil doer or serve no good purpose in regards to promoting human happiness in the life of the victim– but that doesn’t therefore render the action meaningless and purposeless in a philosophical sense. I am not insisting this is the point White and Slick are trying to make, but since they are not more specific we are left wondering.

Posted on February 28, 2013 by StriderMTB | 10 Comments

John Calvin:

James White:

Vincent Cheung:

John Piper:

R.C. Sproul Jr.:

Edwin Palmer:

W.G.T. Shedd:

Gordan H. Clark:

A.W. Pink:

John Frame:

Mark Talbot and John Piper:

[1] John Calvin, Inst. I.xvi.8. 1539 edition. Quoted in A.N.S. Lane, “Did Calvin Believe in Freewill?” Vox Evangelica 12 (1981): 73

[2] John Calvin, Inst. I.xviii.l. 1559 edition. See A.N.S. Lane, “Did Calvin Believe in Freewill?” Vox Evangelica 12 (1981): 73

[3] John Calvin, Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God (tr. J. K. S. Reid) (London, 1961)175f. (OC 8.358) See A.N.S. Lane, “Did Calvin Believe in Freewill?” Vox Evangelica 12 (1981): 73

[4] John Calvin, Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God 177 (OC 8.360) (‘summam et praecipuam rerum omnium causam’). Cf. Inst. I.xviii.2 (1559). See A.N.S. Lane, “Did Calvin Believe in Freewill?” Vox Evangelica 12 (1981): 73

[5] John Calvin, Commentary on Is. 10:15. See A.N.S. Lane, “Did Calvin Believe in Freewill?” Vox Evangelica 12 (1981): 73

[6] John Calvin, Inst. III.xxiii.8. See A.N.S. Lane, “Did Calvin Believe in Freewill?” Vox Evangelica 12 (1981): 73

[7] John Calvin, Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, 124 (OC 8.316). See A.N.S. Lane, “Did Calvin Believe in Freewill?” Vox Evangelica 12 (1981): 73)

[8] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 2008), 1.18.1 and 3:136, 138-39

[9] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book I, Ch. 16, Sect. 4

[10] John Calvin, Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, pp.171-172

[11] James White, http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2011/08/why-it-is-important-to-go-back-to.html

[12] James White, www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=4324

[13] Vincent Cheung, “Problem of Evil,” http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/ProblemEvil.htm (March, 2013)

[14] Vincent Cheung, “Problem of Evil,” http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/ProblemEvil.htm (March, 2013)

[15] John Piper, https://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/has-god-predetermined-every-tiny-detail-in-the-universe-including-sin

[17] John Piper, Spectacular Sins: And Their Global Purpose in the Glory of Christ (Wheaton: Crossway, 2008), 24

[18] J.I. Packer, Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God (Chicago: InterVarsity Press, 1961), 19-23.

[19] R.C. jr Sproul, Almighty Over All (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1999), 54

[20] Edwin Palmer,The Five Points of Calvinism, 24-25

[21] W.G.T. Shedd, Calvinism: Pure and Mixed, 32-33, 38-39 http://www.archive.org/stream/calvinismpuremix00shed#page/32/mode/2up

[22] W.G.T. Shedd, Calvinism: Pure and Mixed, 32-33 http://www.archive.org/stream/calvinismpuremix00shed#page/34/mode/2up

[23] Gordon Clark, Religion, Reason, and Revelation, (Philadelphia, PA: Presbyterian & Reformed), 1961, 221

[24] Gordon Clark, Predestination. (The Trinity Foundation), 1987. 18

[25] A.W Pink, The Sovereignty of God, 2009, 162

[26] John Frame,“Scientia Media,” Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd ed., ed. Walter A. Elwell. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001), 1075.

[27] Mark Talbot, edited by John Piper and Justin Taylor, Suffering and the Sovereignty of God, (Wheaton, Ill: Crossway Books, 2006) 41-42

I had the privilege of being Noah’s friend ever since we were in a crib together. Noah once said he remembers the first day we met because I poked him in the eye. But since I was only 6 months old and he was only a few days old when our mothers introduced us…I think he made that up.

Some of my greatest memories of Noah took place with him having a puppet on his hand or a fake beard on his face. I’m sure many of you who experienced the glory days of the hilarious Beachmont David Clough and then Noah Huss and Sue Bailey puppeteering era will be nodding your head in agreement.

And I have no doubt that through God’s grace Noah’s very death will be overcome in such a way that God is going to bring life out of it for others.

When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: “Death has been swallowed up in victory.”

55 “Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?”

56 The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law of condemnation. 57 But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

58 Therefore, my dear brothers and sisters, stand firm. Let nothing move you. Always give yourselves fully to the work of the Lord, because you know that your labor in the Lord Jesus is not in vain.

I see a huge difference between “I believe in a God who cares for me” and “I trust God at this particular moment.” The first is a bit safer, an article of faith. The latter is unnerving, risky–because I have let go.

You’ve all heard of the “trust fall.” There’s a reason they don’t call it a “belief fall.” Belief can reside in our heads. Trust is doing it, risking it. Trust is humility, putting ourselves in the hand of another. Trust requires something of us that belief doesn’t.

When God promises Abraham that he will have more offspring than the stars in the sky, translations of the next verse conventionally say that Abraham “believed” God. (Genesis 15:6)

“Believe” isn’t the right word there. “Trust” is. The Hebrew word is the same one we get “amen” from. “Amen” is not a social cue that grace is finished and it’s time to eat. It is the final word in the prayer: we’re done talking now, Lord, and we now move to trust.

God promised an old man a lot of kids. Abraham trusted God to come through. That is way harder than believing. Believing has wiggle room. Trusting doesn’t.

The same thing holds for the gospel. “Believing” in God–or even having “faith” in him–doesn’t cut it. At least the way these words are used today.

Beliefs can be collated into a “belief system”–an intellectual construction of what sorts of things are right to think and not think about God. Followers of Jesus, however, are called to do something much harder.

Jesus tells a famous story about why those who follow him need not worry about anything. Don’t fret about how much you have, what you wear, or what you will eat. Don’t worry. Trust. (Matthew 6:25-34)

Jesus illustrates the point in what at first blush seems rather off topic–at best marginally helpful. He tells us to consider the grass of the field and the birds of the sky. Look at them, Jesus says. They’re doing just fine and they don’t worry for a second.

And when you put it that way, you can see the profound point–and challenge–of what Jesus is saying: worry should be as impossible for us as it is for grass and birds. His followers–if they get it–should be as incapable of worry as insentient grass and bird-brained birds.

“Believing in God” doesn’t get you to that place Jesus is describing here. Belief leaves room for worry. Trust explodes it.

Calvinists will often attempt to assert that God must have meticulously predetermined all the perverse evils of mankind because if he did not then the evils which do occur would demonstrate that:

1) God is helpless in the face of them.

2) There exists no meaning or purpose in God permitting an evil event he did not predetermine.

Created rape? Not at all.

Calvinism would have us believe God has a need–evil– to bring about good. Moreover the thought is that God’s divine conception and determination of evil provides a necessary context for his glory to stand in contrast to evil– the very evils he predetermined.

Does that sound farcical and confusing?

Apparently God, as of yet, has sovereignly chosen not to do this. It is not a question of God being helpless in the face of free-will, as Slick seems to think. It is a matter of how God has sovereignly chosen to create his world! That is the point Calvinists seem all to eager to avoid.

Why would God do that?

Now let’s delve further into White’s underlying logic that only acts done in accordance to God’s pre-determinative will have meaning and purpose. This too is patently bogus. [7] In fact quite the opposite is true.

Thus all our choices are meaningless in the sense that they do not really belong to us. Instead they are God’s choices and we are simply his intermediate instruments to bring about his willed decrees.

Indeed it is hard to see how this wouldn’t be the very epitome of a pointless, meaningless and purposeless existence.

[1] http://carm.org/god-and-evil-a-philosophical-contradiction

[2] http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2011/08/why-it-is-important-to-go-back-to.html

[5] Couching creaturely freedom in within a limited context of determinative “say-so” is a helpful concept explored by Greg Boyd in much of his writings. Check out his site: http://www.reknew.org.

[6] http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2011/10/20/for-and-against-calvinism-3/

Recent Posts

Archives

Categories

Meta

⁵⁵ “Where, O death, is your victory?
Where, O death, is your sting?”

⁵⁶ The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law of condemnation. ⁵⁷ But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

⁵⁸ Therefore, my dear brothers and sisters, stand firm. Let nothing move you. Always give yourselves fully to the work of the Lord, because you know that your labor in the Lord Jesus is not in vain.