The other night I did something I hadn’t done it quite some time: I had an in-depth discussion on Calvinism with someone who does not share my belief in the famous “5-points”.

Nevertheless, since the interaction, I have reflected back on why discussions like this are sometimes a bit frustrating. Each side can quote scripture, of course, and there was plenty of that coming from my side. But here are a few reasons –other that just looking at scripture– why it’s just not as simple as looking at a few verses in trying to reach common ground between the two polar opposites:

• There is a clear ‘language barrier’ that so often hinders these types of discussions. That is, when we use the term ‘Calvinism’, it is often misunderstood to mean something that it is not. Also, when the term ‘free-will’ is used, it likewise, is often defined in a manner different than we Calvinists intend.

(more…)

I’m not going to blast all megachurches here, after all there have been some good ones, at least . . . a few good ones. But I’ve noticed that some of the most popular of these mega-pastors could use some theological proofreaders. What’s needed is somebody with theological consistency, almost any Calvinist would do, as would an Arminian who is committed to remaining thoroughly consistent with his beliefs.

Dave Hunt should not apply for this proofreading job. I say that because I get his Berean Call newsletter and I’m always amused at how Calvinism is taken to the cleaners in it, and then in the same newsletter there are materials for sale in his bookstore which include things written by Calvinists.  Go figure.

But the kind of thing that needs to be theologically proofread include this book by Chuck Smith, the founder of the Calvary Chapel line of churches; the book is called The Gospel According To Grace, and you will find it online. 

Here are the parts of Chuck Smith’s book that I don’t understand.  I mean, I do understand them, but . . . I don’t understand why they would be together in the same book:

In Section 9 entitled "Chosen" Chuck Smith writes:

"… salvation stands by election alone and not by works. God calls and elects whomever He wishes. I can’t honestly look at myself and say that God elected me because I’m so good. God simply acted on the basis of His own divine sovereignty. The fact that God chose to elect me thrills me …"

The Calvinists in the audience stand up and cheer. But wait, there is something for everybody. Here’s what Chuck Smith says a few pages later in Section 10:

"If you confess Him and believe in Him, He’ll save you, because He keeps His word. ‘But what if I’m not predestined?’ You’ll be saved anyhow. … [a few sentences later]: All men are equal in His eyes."

He explains this obvious contradiction by saying:

"We discussed the sovereignty of God in the last chapter. Now we come to the matter of human responsibility. Here the truth finds balance."

Chuck Smith is not alone in his odd theological balancing act, a while ago Alan over at Calvinist GadFly wrote about the
similar contradictions of Rick Warren found in Saddleback’s literature.

So often contradictory ideas like this are explained-away as a "paradox" in scripture that man can not resolve. In
this video clip however, Robert Reymond is quoted as he explains that such a "paradox" would be indistinguishable from an actual contradiction.  All of us, including the mega-pastors above, would be quick to say that there are no contradictions in the bible, and with that in mind Reymond’s words should be something that we all try to get a grasp of, before we misuse this term “paradox”.

In light of Jerry Falwell’s recent statement that he and Liberty University consider the doctrine of Limited Atonement to be heresy, it would be beneficial for us to reflect on the doctrine of Limited Atonement, and why it is such a beautiful, important, scriptural truth.

Specifically, many people may question why it is necessary whether one believes in Limited Atonement or not. Is it really worth arguing over? Obviously, Jerry Falwell believes it to be a serious issue. But our view of the atonement has many basic, practical and theological applications to our Christian walk. Here are just a few of the issues that are at stake here:

A few theological ramifications of Limited Atonement:

• Only the doctrine of Limited Atonement captures the intimate, personal aspect of the atonement and of the gospel. With a general, non-specific atonement for all men without distinction, the intimate, special love that Christ has for His elect is lost. Christ gave Himself for you specifically; you’re not just another face in the crowd. Christ is your mediator; He is not yours just the same as He is for the wicked. You have been crucified with Christ; you have been cleansed by His blood. Christ died for your specific sins in a way which the lost world cannot claim. Christ laid down His life for His sheep, they hear His voice, He knows His sheep and His sheep know Him. This is vital to understanding the depth of the love of God towards His bride -and ultimately our infinite unworthiness as objects of His gracious love.

• Limited Atonement purifies Christ’s work on the cross. His sacrifice is perfect; He did not fail as Mediator. Christ did not go to the cross with the intention of perfecting people whom the Father had not chosen out of the world; His mission was accomplished in full. There is no dissention in the Godhead between Christ offering a sacrifice for someone and the Father refusing to receive it. God was sovereign in planning the cross (Acts 4:27-28), and God is perfect in all that He does. This enforces the reality of God’s sovereignty in all things, including the atonement. He perfected whom He chose; He did not attempt to reconcile the world, only to have the majority of His creation reject His sacrifice. Christ’s work is perfected, purified, and He certainly has sat down at the right hand of the Father, having accomplished all that He was given to do.

These theological ramifications also play a role in Practical Application:

• In our evangelism, only the doctrine of Limited Atonement captures the reality of the wrath of God against personal sin. Limited Atonement is the only consistent safeguard against universalism, particularly from a witnessing and apologetics standpoint. If you’ve ever discussed the atonement with an unbeliever who has taken the time to think through the issues, then you understand that theological inconsistencies are hindrances to convicting them with the truth. If Christ died for all men without distinction, then why are there some who are punished in hell? Repent of what if Christ died for all my sins? Why would I worry about punishment if Christ already died in my place? Without a proper understanding of the wrath of God against sin, there can be no true conversion. Limited Atonement allows us to emphatically proclaim that God will punish sin, all of their specific sins, if one is not clothed in the righteousness that only comes through faith in Christ. Limited Atonement rightly and properly keeps the wrath of God as a prominent part of the gospel proclamation.

• The doctrine of Limited Atonement affects how we read scripture. This is vital when we come to scriptures such as Romans 8:31, “If God be for US, who can be against US…who shall bring a charge against God’s elect?” And Titus 2:14, “…Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good works.” He redeems US, He teaches US, He produces a PEOPLE. How we read scripture affects our level of growth and sanctification. Thus, the doctrine of Limited Atonement affects our sanctification in our fight against besetting sin.

• The doctrine of Limited Atonement affects our holiness. Again, Titus chapter 2 brings this out beautifully: Christ’s death redeemed us from lawlessness and purified us as people zealous for good works. Christ’s death has already accomplished the sanctification and obedience for those whom He died for. We are not left to our own devices, we can know and understand that Christ has purified His chosen, that sanctification has been accomplished (Eph 2:10; 1 Cor 6:11), and with that knowledge we are armed to go out and fight against sin and the flesh. If Christ’s death is for all without distinction, then all men have been ‘attempted’ to be made pure and zealous for good works, and we are left to our own devices in rising up above and beyond the world as pertains to holiness. Jesus Christ has ‘perfected for all time those who are being sanctified’, Heb 10:14. He has perfected and will indeed sanctifiy those whom He died for on the cross.

In summary, the ultimate issue here is, what do the scriptures teach? Obviously there are two sides to this argument, but they can’t both be right. This doctrine’s most practical outworking is found in whether the scriptures teach Limited Atonement, or whether they do not. We cannot fully see why it matters what we believe in this area, but the scriptures clearly teach one way or another, and because they do, we are most obligated to find out the truth. From a Limited Atonement perspective, Jesus seemed to emphatically nail down the point that there was a certain group of people to which the Father sent Him to redeem, and since Jesus placed so much emphasis on teaching about this group, then we should certainly pay attention the depths of truth behind His words: John 6:35-40; John 10:11,14-18; John 10:24-39; John 17:1-11,20, 24-26).

In less than a month, I will have the privilege of live-blogging a great conference in my own neck of the woods.  The conference is called “True Church Conference“ and is taking place May 3-6, 2007 at First Baptist Church of Muscle Shoals, Alabama.  The theme of the conference is “The Miracle of Conversion.”  I have included in this post the conference distinctives, bio sketches of the speakers, and the schedule.  If you are interested in registering or in need of directions, I have included the links to those as well at the bottom.  You can download this information by going to their online brochure (click here). 

:: Conference Distinctives ::

Doctrine Aflame

We desire to focus on the passionate preaching of the great doctrines of Scripture that are being neglected in today’s church. I’m convinced no doctrine is more neglected or misunderstood than the doctrine of conversion. Easy believism, decisionism, and manipulative altar calls have replaced the sound preaching of the Gospel calling sinners to repentance and faith. The result is an unregenerate church membership and bloated membership rolls. As Dr. Al Mohler writes, “We are reaping the harvest of doctrinal neglect. The urgency of this task cannot be ignored. Baptists will either recover our denominational heritage and rebuild our doctrinal foundations, or in the next generation there will be no authentic Baptist witness.”

Theology and Methodology

The conference will give much attention to how sound doctrine must govern the life of the local church. Today’s evangelical church is often driven by man-centered pragmatism, worldly marketing approaches, and entertainment.  And all this with a veneer of Christianity! We need the passionate, expository preaching of the truth, accompanied by an unswerving commitment that ALL methodology in the church MUST flow out of sound theology.

Local Church Centered

The conference is being held at the First Baptist Church of Muscle Shoals, Alabama. The church is located in the northwest part of the state and has about 1,000 active members. Jeff Noblit has been on the pastoral staff for 26 years and has been the Senior Pastor for preaching for 18 years. For the last two decades God has been blessing First Baptist in reforming both its policies and procedures to become more biblically healthy.

Application Intensive

During the conference, time will be set aside to discuss the practical “working out” of sound doctrine in the life of the local church. Plus, materials on baptismal counseling, membership policies and procedures, church discipline, and other matters will be made available to conference participants. There will be a large bookstore featuring trustworthy books and commentaries by both past and contemporary writers.

Evangelism and Missions

Sound doctrine will always promote the preaching and sharing of the Gospel!  If a passion to glorify God by winning lost souls is not present, then our doctrine is invalid. A strong emphasis on evangelism and world missions will permeate the conference. All conference attendees are invited on Saturday afternoon to accompany members of First Baptist Church in street preaching and door-to-door visitation. True doctrine never results in cold intellectualism.

Modeling and Mentoring

Our first goal is that God will use the conference to continue the maturation of First Baptist, Muscle Shoals, in the truth. We believe the church should be reformed and always reforming. We also have a strong desire to encourage and help mobilize sister churches who are on the same pilgrimage.

To help serve this goal, each participating church will be assigned a private area for discussion and seeking God concerning the application of sound doctrine into the life of their church. We believe the conference will be used of God to strengthen your church’s pilgrimage to a more biblical and healthy church life.
 

:: Conference Speakers ::

Voddie Baucham is an author, Bible teacher, professor, and pastor.  He currently serves as Pastor of Preaching at Grace Family Baptist Church in Spring, Texas. He is also an adjunct professor at The College of Biblical Studies in Houston and Union University in Jackson, Tennessee. His own post-graduate study focused on Cultural Apologetics.  Voddie is the author of The Ever-Loving Truth, a book which helps twenty-first century Christians apply God’s Word to contemporary life.

David Miller has been preaching for 42 years. He pastored for five years before serving as Director of Missions for Little Red River Baptist Association (Arkansas), a position he held for 25 years. An itinerant preacher, David has been in full-time evangelism (Line Upon Line Ministries) since 1995. He served on the Board of Trustees of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, for eight years. He currently prefers the title “Country Preacher-at-Large.”

Russell Moore serves as Dean of the School of Theology, Senior Vice President for Academic Administration, and Associate Professor of Christian Theology at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. He is the author of The Kingdom of Christ: The New Evangelical Perspective and co-editor of Why I Am a Baptist. He has written articles for various publications including Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Southern Baptist Journal of Theology, Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, and SBC Life.

Jeff Noblit is the Senior Pastor-Teacher of First Baptist Church of Muscle Shoals, Alabama. He has served on the pastoral staff for 26 years, the last 18 as senior pastor. Jeff is the founder of Anchored in Truth Ministries, an expository preaching ministry, and is the author of The Accountability Notebook and the witnessing booklet, The Great Answer to the Great Question.  He has written articles for various magazines and journals.

Paul Washer ministered as a missionary to Peru for 10 years, during which time he founded the HeartCry Missionary Society to support Peruvian church planters. HeartCry’s work now supports indigenous missionaries in Eastern Europe, South America, Africa, Asia, and the Middle East. An itinerant preacher, Paul also teaches in the internship program at his home church, First Baptist Muscle Shoals. He is the author of The One True God: A Biblical Study of the Doctrine of God.
 

:: Conference Schedule ::

Thursday, May 3

1:00 p.m. Registration / Bookstore Open
6:30 p.m. Worship
7:00 p.m. Session 1: The Sovereignty of God & The Miracle of Conversion - Russell Moore
8:00 p.m. Session 2: The Sovereignty of God & The Miracle of Conversion - Russell Moore

Friday, May 4

8:00 a.m. Continental Breakfast
8:30 a.m. Worship
9:00 a.m. Session 3: The Power of the Holy Spirit & The Miracle of Conversion - Voddie Baucham
10:00 a.m. Session 4: The Power of the Holy Spirit & The Miracle of Conversion - Voddie Baucham
11:00 a.m. Individual Churches Prayer, Discussion, & Lunch
2:30 p.m. Session 5: The Preaching of the Gospel & The Miracle of Conversion- David Miller
3:30 p.m. Session 6: The Preaching of the Gospel & The Miracle of Conversion- David Miller
6:30 p.m. Worship
7:00 p.m. Session 7: Church History & The Miracle of Conversion - Jeff Noblit
8:30 p.m. Q & A
9:30 p.m. Individual Churches Prayer & Discussion

Saturday, May 5

8:30 a.m. Continental Breakfast
9:00 a.m. Worship
9:30 a.m. Session 8: Evidences of the Miracle of Conversion - Paul Washer
10:30 a.m. Session 9: Evidences of the Miracle of Conversion - Paul Washer
11:30 a.m. Individual Churches Prayer, Discussion, & Lunch
2:00-3:30 p.m. Street Preaching & Door-to-Door Visitation (optional)
4:00-6:30 p.m. Individual churches prayer, discussion, & dinner
7:00 p.m. Session 10: Believer’s Baptism & the Miracle of Conversion - Jeff Noblit
8:00 p.m. Q & A

Sunday, May 6

Sunday morning worship at First Baptist Church of Muscle Shoals
9:30 a.m. Session 11: Missions & the Miracle of Conversion - Paul Washer
10:30 a.m. Session 12: The Glory of God & the Miracle of Conversion -Jeff Noblit
 

>> To download or view their online brochure, click here. 
>> To register, click here. 
>> For directions, click here. 

A while back I made this statement to someone who had visited my blog and was questioning the belief in regeneration leading to faith: “You won’t find a bible verse that says ‘believe and you will be born again’”. The person responded by saying: “Is 1 John no longer a part of Scripture? ‘Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God’“. Although this is not the only verse that I would cite to support my position, in this post we’ll examine that verse, 1 John 5:1.

Depending upon which English bible translation you are looking at, this verse might appear to support the assertion that faith precedes regeneration, or it may appear to support just the opposite in other translations. For example, here are some translations that some might cite in favor of the view opposite of mine:

“Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ IS BORN of God”, NASB
“Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ IS BORN of God”, KJV
“Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ IS BORN of God”, NKV
“Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ IS BORN…”, NIV

However, in these translations, it appears that the opposite is the case - that people who believe have been (past tense) born again.

“Everyone who believes … HAS BEEN born of God”, ESV
“Everyone who believes … HAS BEEN born of God”, NRSV
“…believing that Jesus is the Christ… HATH BEEN begotten”, YLT
“…believes that Jesus is the Christ… HAS BEEN born” WUEST

And so we can see that, so far as our English translations are concerned, there is room for some controversy. In order for us to get to the bottom of this, I’d like to cite an excerpt from page 287 of The Potter’s Freedom, as it does an excellent job of drilling down in this passage:

Generally such a passage would be understood to present the following order of events: 1) Believe that Jesus is the Christ, and 2) you are born of God. Yet, the original readers of this text would not jump to such a conclusion. In reality, the most literal rendering would be, “Every one believing (present tense participle, emphasizing both the on-going action as well as the individuality of saving faith, “each believing person”) that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God (a perfect passive verb, “has been born by the agency of God”). In John, “the one believing” is very common, and it is no accident the the emphasis falls upon the on-going action of faith. The one believing that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God. If a person is now believing that Jesus is the Christ in a true and saving fashion, they are doing so because, as a completed action in the past, they were born again through the work and agency of God. The verb “to be born” is passive: they were caused to be born by another, that being God. They did not cause their own spiritual birth. And what is the inevitable result of being born of God? belief that Jesus is the Christ. Just as all those who are given by the Father to the Son come to the Son (John 6:37), so too all who are spiritually reborn through the work of God have as the object of their faith the Lord Jesus Christ.

Some Arminian exegetes might object to this interpretation. A means of testing the consistency of the exegesis offered of this passage would be to ask how such a person interprets these words from John:

If you know that He is righteous, you know that everyone also who practices righteousness is born of Him. (1 John 2:29)

Every consistent protestant would say, “the reason one practices righteousness is because they have already been born of Him. We do not practice righteousness so as to be born, but instead the birth give rise to the practice of righteousness”. And such is quite true. But, this means that in 1 John 5:1 the belief in Jesus as the Christ is the result of being born of Him. The verbal parallel is exact: in 1 John 2:29 “the one practicing righteousness” is a present participle; in 1 John 5:1 “the one believing” is a present participle. In both passages the exact same verb in the exact same form is used. Therefore, sheer consistency leads one to the conclusion that divine birth precedes and is the grounds of both faith in Christ as well as good works.

There is some further discussion of value about this passage in various systematic theologies that are available. If I remember correctly, Wayne Grudem addresses this passage, and perhaps Robert Reymond as well. Feel free to cite any others, if you have them handy; I’m interested in hearing from some other sources on this passage.

The great crisis within the Church today is a crisis of worldview. Instead of forming ideas about life “to the glory of God alone” with Christ at the center of their thinking, many Christians have become profoundly affected with a worldly mindset– a pattern of thought that is self-centered, with personal interests and human rationality both providing the starting line and setting the course for how life is to be conducted. We see this with the rise of “Christian psychology” in the place of biblical counseling and with the rise of “pop Christianity”– the tendency for many within the Church to gravitate toward whatever new popular book promises some kind of deeper experience with God– rather than a solid focus on the biblical spiritual disciplines.

Most alarmingly, we see this worldly mindset infecting how the Gospel is preached. Biblically, the Gospel message is centered on Jesus Christ– particularly, on His work in saving sinners by dying on the Cross and being raised again from the grave:

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, (1 Corinthians 15:3-4 NIV)

He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification. (Romans 4:25 NIV)

Commonly, however, we hear the Gospel proclaimed as if it was not focused on what Jesus has done, but on what we must do. In sacerdotal systems, such as the Roman Catholic Church, the work of Jesus is presented as if it were background information, with the most crucial aspect of the “Gospel” message centered on whether or not a person has actively appropriated God’s grace through the sacraments. In modern evangelicalism, the work of Jesus is likewise relegated to the background, with the most crucial aspect of the “Gospel” message being whether or not a person is willing to “accept Jesus” by praying a scripted prayer not found in the Bible. (more…)

”All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work” (II Tim. 3:16-17 NIV).

Based on verses such as the above verse, it is my firm conviction that doctrine should be useful. That is, when we summarize our beliefs about what Scripture teaches, we should always be asking “so what?” Why does this or that doctrine make a difference, specifically in regards to salvation and sanctification? God in His Scriptures certainly does not just indulge our curiosities; rather, He has a very specific purpose in condescending to speak to sinners and in acting to preserve His words. Scripture’s main purpose is soteriological, given to proclaim the message of reconciliation to God through Jesus Christ (see John 3:16 and John 5:39). It is through Scripture alone we have a right knowledge of God and our means of a right relationship with Him. Therefore, the testimony of Scripture is crystal clear in all matters concerning salvation (see Psalm 19:7 and Psalm 119:130).

Many people, when learning of the Doctrines of Grace, take special exception to the Reformed teaching concerning the extent of Christ’s atonement– i.e., that Christ’s work on the Cross was intended specifically for the benefit of the elect. The primary objection to this teaching is that some verses speak of Christ dying for “all” or for the “world.” These verses may seem, then, to teach that Jesus’ substitutionary death on Cross was intended to benefit more than just the elect. As I’ve previously addressed these unlimited atonement proof-texts before in articles such as That “All” Is Always Defined By Context, On Spurgeon’s Understanding of “All”, and The Proof-Texts, I’ll not repeat those arguments here. Suffice it to say, once people start to see that there are cogent arguments from Reformed Theology that explain the “all” and “world” passages in their proper contexts, they often cease their confident denial of definite atonement, but instead they raise a secondary objection. This objection is two-fold: That Scripture is not clear concerning the extent of the atonement, therefore the extent of the atonement is not a doctrine that is soteriologically important.

The purpose of this post is to demonstrate an argument that Scripture is extremely clear in its teaching on the extent of the atonement and that this doctrine is of vital soteriological import. (more…)

Propaganda.

The formal definition of the word is simply, “information that is spread for the purpose of promoting some cause” (this according to the princeton.edu Wordnet page). “Propaganda” has certainly come to have very negative connotations, however, as leaders of different groups employing propaganda have often sought to promote their causes with little regard to the truth. So, how can people be persuaded apart from a clear presentation of the truth? One way is through emotional appeals. Emotional appeals have been employed by leaders throughout history to persuade people to think and react without taking the time to investigate the facts behind what is being presented to them. This type of propaganda can be especially ugly when employed against minority groups within a society. To give but two examples:

1. Local leaders within the Roman Empire often incited persecution against the early Christian community through spreading the rumor that the followers of Christ were baby-eaters. Since Christians spoke of being nourished by the body and blood of Christ and since they also spoke of Him as a little child, some came to the conclusion that babies were being baked into the communion bread [Justo L. Gonzales, The Story of Christianity, 50]. Clearly, this was a gross distortion of Christian teaching and there is no reason for this rumor to have started, except that some had an anti-Christian agenda.
2. Throughout the middle ages, the Jewish people were often subject to violence due to what are known as “blood libels”– accusations against the Jews concerning ritual sacrifice of infants to obtain blood for mystical purposes. These accusations were based upon the Old Testament sacrificial system (ignoring the facts that this system of animal sacrifice strictly forbade the killing of humans and that the sacrificial system no longer exists under rabbinic Judaism), out-of-context renderings of certain passages from the Jewish Bible (such as Psalm 137:9, “How blessed will be the one who seizes and dashes your little ones against the rock”), and the role that the Jewish leaders played in the crucifixion of Jesus (ignoring the obvious fact that Jesus Himself was a religious Jew).

To point out some similarities in the examples above: Both the rumors against the Christians and the blood libels against the Jews were based on some elements of truth that were grossly distorted. Also, both of these examples involve supposed harm inflicted upon very young children. In fact, as one reads through the history of propaganda, it is interesting to find just how often accusations of harm done to infants have been employed. There seems to be very little that can stir the emotion of an audience to blind hatred of a group other than making them feel that the group in question is prone to support violence against babies.

(more…)

[Please see yesterday’s post for the context of what you are about to read.]

Dr. Vines began his anti-Calvinism speech with the following two statements, declaring:

“Number 1. I’m not going to attack individuals in this message. I have many friends and they’re many sincere Christians who are Calvinists. I’m not dealing with personalities or individuals; I’m dealing with the theology of Calvinism; Number 2, What I’m going to say to you tonight is not exhaustive. I will not deal with every Scripture that is used on both sides of the issue, nor will I address every logical argument pro or con.”

Likewise, the current series of posts on Strange BaptistFire are in no way an attack on Dr. Vines as an individual. I personally have little knowledge about Dr. Vines or his past ministry. I do know that he has a very good reputation among many in the Southern Baptist Convention. As Dr. Vines said, “I’m not dealing with personalities or individuals.” Instead, my contribution to this series of posts will be to examine Dr. Vines’ recent teaching against the doctrine of Limited atonement. Following Dr. Vines’ lead in terms of relative brevity, this will not be an exhaustive treatment of the Bible’s teaching on the extent of the atonement. Again, as Dr. Vines stated, “I will not deal with every Scripture that is used on both sides of the issue, nor will I address every logical argument pro or con.” I do hope, however, to give a fairly throrough examination of Dr. Vine’s teaching on this subject as presented in the speech under consideration, as well as asserting what I believe to be the biblical response to his position.

(more…)

On the eve of the night where there was supposed to be a debate over Baptists, Calvinism, and/or omnibenevolence (or something like that), I thought I’d pose a question that I had been thinking about since yesterday afternoon to my Arminian friends. Let me provide the context of my question first if I may.

According to the Arminian theological framework, God’s election of a person is conditioned on the basis of foreseen faith. The faith which God sees is an act of trust that is inherent within a sinner (that is derivative of man and not a gift from God) who freely, of his own accord and without any external or internal influence, chooses Christ. The Arminian position readily emphasizes the human responsibility to “call upon the name of the Lord” and right they should, but the nature of the free will is libertarian and carries the idea of “power of contrary choice” in where there is no efficient cause (“contra-causal freedom”) resulting in a framework of indeterminism. So there are three key aspects: conditional election (foreseen faith), saving faith derivative of man, and libertarian free will – all components in the soteriological underpinnings of Arminian theology.

So my question comes regarding God’s foreknowledge and the nature of saving faith. God’s foreknowledge assumes (apriori) that His knowledge carries some measure of determinacy, for to know something in advance is more than a prediction; it is definite, certain knowledge. And, according to the Arminian position, God foresees those who place their faith in him and therefore elects them. But, in actuality, they have not existed at the time of God’s foreknowledge and have not placed their faith in Jesus Christ. And, if they possess libertarian free will, they must necessarily be able to choose contrarily if they are to really be free. So in essence, God cannot foreknow what a man who possesses libertarian free will will do, whether he believes or not, because if God knew they would put their faith in Him, they would not be free. So here’s my question:

(more…)