Archive for the 'Uncategorized' Category

15
Jan
22

The Calvinist’s Basis of Authority

Today, I discovered an article that was written ostensibly to provide non-Calvinists instruction for effectively confronting those who believe in God’s effectual grace. The author who is the comical side-kick of a disgruntled former member of a church named Clear Creek Chapel in Ohio, USA, seemed completely confident that he could tie Calvinists in knots by merely asking if they agreed with everything Calvin wrote [Who agrees with everything any other mere human being writing apart from divine inspiration has written?]. I could not suppress the overwhelming conviction that this man is simply profoundly ignorant. No informed person is going to suggest that a Calvinist is a person who is a follower of John Calvin or a person who agrees with all that Calvin wrote or said. Additionally, a Calvinist is not a person who necessarily agrees with everything written in the Canons of Dort or the Westminster, London Baptist, Philadelphia Confessions. The term “Calvinist” is merely short-hand for a person who believes in soteriological monergism. It describes one who believes as A. M. Toplady wrote, “Thou must save and Thou alone.”

According to this man, you must simply ask a Calvinist if everything Calvin wrote was inerrant. If he wrote anything that cannot be substantiated by a clear reading of the Scriptures, then Calvin must have been a heretic. In other words, either everything Calvin wrote was without error, or nothing he wrote can be trusted and he was a heretic. That would tend to render everyone who has ever written or spoken anything a heretic.

I want to suggest a couple of ideas for you to consider. First, as indicated above, we are not followers of John Calvin. We do not agree with everything Calvin did or everything he taught. If we cannot find a basis for his doctrine or his practice in the Scriptures, we simply reject it.

Secondly, being wrong about a particular aspect of biblical doctrine does not make one a heretic. No one claims inerrancy for Calvin’s writings and a handful of errors in his voluminous writings does not make him a heretic.

Finally, when we quote from Calvin, the Canons of Dort, or from one of the Confessions mentioned above, we do not do so as an authoritative basis for our beliefs. We do not regard any of these as our authority. We simply quote them to give definition to our doctrines. If you wish to know what we believe, don’t consult books written by soteriological synergists like Dave Hunt . Go to our Confessions or Canons. Interact the doctrines that are articulated in them. That should at least give us a solid basis for meaningful discussion.

02
Dec
20

Romans Study

27
Jul
20

A Response to Leighton Flowers denial that Romans 8:1-14 teaches Total Inability

In this video, I have explored Leighton Flowers’ claim that Romans 8:5-9 does not teach the sinner’s moral and spiritual inability.

08
May
20

The Grace That Saves by Randy Seiver

Visit my author’s page at http://www.amazon.com/author/randyseiver

10
Dec
19

A Response to Leighton Flowers on Foreknowledge.

08
Aug
19

Authentic Evangelism/The Message/The Gospel Call

13
Jul
19

A Response to Kevin Thompson on Predestination.

13
Jul
19

Leighton Flowers’ View of “Conversion.”

14
May
19

Predestined–But When?

Southern Baptist Traditionalist, Leighton Flowers, along with his merry band of soteriological synergists, has posited a view they call “Corporate election.” The idea is that God has chosen no one but Christ, and believers become God’s elect when they, by their libertarian free will decision, unite themselves to Christ by their faith. Additionally, he states that predestination occurs once a person has made this decision. Once the sinner has made his choice, a choice that he is able to make because he is humbler and more pliable than other sinners, God, then and only then, predestines that he will be conformed to the image of Christ or glorified.

Has anyone noticed that in Romans 8:30, predestination precedes calling—“Those he predestined, he also called?” And, this call is “according to God’s purpose”(v.28). The call could not be according to his purpose [a purpose Leighton argues did not exist antecedently to the sinner’s decision] if the purpose were subsequent to the call.

They have also denied that there is a biblical distinction between the universal call of the gospel and an internal and effectual call. It should be clear to any thinking person that if the call eventuates in justification, it must have been an effectual call. Still, even if one understood the call as nothing more than the hearing of the gospel message, God’s decree to conform his people to his Son, would have to have occurred prior to their being united to Christ by faith and not subsequent to that union having been established.

11
May
19

Less or More?

  • One gets the impression in listening to soteriological synergists [Arminians, Semi-Pelagians, Southern Baptist Traditionalists, and those who flirt with Pelagianism like Leighton Flowers] that they think Calvinists believe God has done less to bring all sinners to salvation than they believe he has done. In reality, Calvinists believe God has done nothing less to bring sinners to himself than they believe he has done. Both groups believe God has flooded sinners the with the revelation of his glory, in creation, conscience, commandments, Christ’s redemptive work, and conviction by the Holy Spirit. We both believe he has clearly expressed his desire that sinners repent and bow before him in humble submission to his sovereign reign and that he has promised to pardon freely all who thus return.

    If you should ask about prevenient grace, my questions would be what is there that is accomplished in this mysterious work of God about which the Scriptures never once speak, that is not accomplished by what Calvinists would call common grace? If someone should answer that it grants to the sinner the power of free will, we would have to ask how the speaker understands the concept of free will. If we should take the definition the Traditionalists have given, i.e., “the ability to choose between two options,” we would have to ask whether all do not concede that all rational beings have that ability as a part of their constitution as human beings. Do we mean by the term, the ability to choose other than we have chosen? If so, we would state that this ability is not granted either by prevenient or by effectual grace as long as we do not mean that we have the ability to choose that for which we have no desire and to which every fiber of our beings is totally averse. This ability does not need to be granted to any sinner. Additionally, the same would apply to the concept that sinners act voluntarily and not by compulsion. No one should deny this. The problem is that all the prevenient grace in the world will not remedy the sinner’s indisposition to choose what he ought to choose and reject what he ought to reject. The problem is not his inability to choose the right if he so desires but his lack of desire to choose the right. There is no evidence that prevenient grace, whatever it may be, does anything to change a sinner’s inmost desires

    The difference is that Calvinists believe God has done more to bring some sinners to himself than he has done to bring all sinners to himself, and synergists don’t think he has the right to do that. He is not free to do for one sinner what he does not do for another. When one boils all the fat out of it, the issue is whether God has the right to be God or not.