GENEVA, SWITZERLAND – In an event that has left the medical community stunned, John Calvin the Reformer (click here to read about a different John Calvin) was resurrected from the dead about three weeks ago. This has been kept silent until today for two reasons. First, because it would cause a media frenzy, Calvin’s doctors did not want to immediately release the news to the press. Second, Calvin needed to be brought up to speed on things that have occurred since his death (such as the Puritan movement in England, the Enlightenment, the Industrial revolution, controlled electricity, manned-flight, the wars of the 20th Century, and the iPhone).

Calvin was gracious enough to sit down with TBNN for his initial interview with any media outlet (being Reformed does have some advantages after all). Although his first language is still French, he was kind enough to speak to us using the biblical language, 1611 KJV English (click here). We at TBNN have since translated what he said into modern English so all our readers can understand.

TBNN: Thank you so much for granting us this interview. We are deeply honored. How did this all happen?

Calvin: I have no idea. I just woke up in bed one morning in a hospital in Geneva.

TBNN: Let’s jump right into things. Some Protestants today refer to themselves as “Calvinists.” What do you think of this?

Calvin: It is actually kind of embarrassing and flattering. Some have said that I was an Augustinian, but I actually just thought of myself as being biblical.

TBNN: Calvinists have taken your teachings and distilled them into an easy to remember acrostic – TULIP. Have you heard of this, and could we ask you what you think of it?

Calvin: I never could fully trust that Theodore Beza. He was such a zealot, always showing up at my door at all times of the day and night. I think he came up with TULIP. Anyway, go ahead and ask me about it.

TBNN: We at TBNN consider ourselves to be Calvinistic. In other words, we hold to the five points of Calvinism. Where do you stand on this issue?

Calvin: This whole thing kind of bugs me. If you read my writings, you know that I wrote about a lot more than just five theological points. Unfortunately, many folks today who refer to themselves as Calvinists actually haven’t read what I wrote. For that matter, most of my critics also haven’t read my writings. Let’s take TULIP point-by-point:

T – I’m torn over this one. I never really did completely figure out the book of Romans. Sorry, for those of you who bought my commentary set. On the one hand, Romans 3:10-11 tells us that no one is righteous or seeks God. On the other hand, Romans 10:9 seems to suggest otherwise. After over 400 years, I’m still unsure. Let’s give it half a point.

U – Yes, I agree with this. No one would repent of his own free will. The world’s pleasures are too enticing for that to happen. So God decided to choose some to be saved. Ephesians 1:3-5 makes this pretty clear. By the way, to “choose” means to “choose,” not to look into the future.

L – No, I don’t think there was any limit on the extent of Christ’s payment. When Jesus died it was for all people. Look at I John 2:2 and 4:14.

I – A lot of people don’t like this doctrine, but I do believe it is true. When an elect person is saved, he is able to see God for how wonderful he is. He would never resist this gift. The reprobate is never convicted of his sin, so his rejection of God is not a rejection of God’s grace because it is never offered to him.

P -Yes, “Once saved, always saved” I always say. I think Paul addressed that in Ephesians 1:13-14. The key to remember is that it is God who preserves the elect; they do not do it for themselves.

So I guess you could call me a 3 and 1/2 point Calvinist.

TBNN: Well, we are certainly surprised to hear some of your conclusions. You’ve given us something to ponder. Now that you are alive, what do you plan to do with your time?

Calvin: I would like to do a lot of reading, and later some writing. I think I’ll start with these youngsters John Owen and Jonathan Edwards. I’ve heard good things about them. Their writings don’t look too complicated to me. After I finish with them, I want to move on to a newcomer named John Piper. Most folks seem to either really like him or, well, the opposite.

And by the way, you should be using my Institutes to teach your children’s Sunday School classes.

Technorati Tags: Calvin, satire

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

First though I do want to say a few things to get some comments out of the way.

• Pelagianism teaches that man was not tainted by evil and that he is free to choose both good and evil having none of Adam’s sin imputed on himself. The individual can save himself but is stuck with Adam’s bad example and needed Christ to set a good example. Christ is helpful then to salvation but not (ultimately) necessary.
• Augustinianism teaches that human beings are utterly depraved in nature, lack the freedom to do good, and cannot respond to the will of God without divine grace. It was in direct opposition to Pelagianism by taking the opposite extreme.
• Semi-Pelagianism/Semi-Augustinianism teaches that God and Man both work together but in the matters of salvation Man must make the first move to show that he is leaning towards God and therefore God can do the rest.
• I know Man can’t save Himself, I know God made the first move but I deny that people are incapable to respond to the will of God.

Total Depravity to the Calvinist means that individuals are so under the bondage of sin that not only are they in active rebellion against God they are incapable of hearing the Gospel and believing God (conjunction, not two statements). Faith, they say is a gift of God and no Sinners can have Faith in God without the Holy Spirit’s regenerative work and thus being given Spiritual Understanding. The Arminian says basically the same thing except that the work of God isn’t regeneration; it’s His prevenient grace working in the individual. I say that the reason people are in rebellion against God is because they are not under the purview of God (via Adam’s choice): they are their Own Selves As God. As such, this is active rebellion against God and every slight of moral imperfection counts against man as well as man’s inability to be eternal (not infinite). The fact man thinks wrong pits Him against God’s perfection and thus damns him. Man falls short of God’s perfection and actively works against God because each and every revelation of God for people to live morally or Like God (if you allow the term) is just another marker that points out to people that they are Not God. God’s grace is always at work exposing people to Himself so people can become illuminated, enlightened, understand and subsequently still reject God. So we are Depraved but we’re not deaf; we’re dead by judicial decision but not rotting corpses that are incapable of hearing God’s words. Although the actions of people before God are worthless in a salvific sense (because Man is not God and incapable of saving Himself by any temporal good-work) God does acknowledge that some actions are good (like Cornelius’ almsgiving and good works). Man’s belief or faith is not a Good Work. It’s something stupid that we often rebel against but if we take the lessons that God has taught and trust Him God decides to credit it as Good by divine fiat. This is how He has decided to work. Why believe this? Because man must be knowingly morally responsible for his active rebellion otherwise. I’ll call this Devotedly Depraved. Threads here and here and here.

Unconditional Election to the Calvinist is that God chooses the elect individuals by his own choice before time for salvation and (finally) glorification. The Arminian says that God chooses the elect based on seeing who would believe and then specifying what He will do with these people. I say that the only individual who was unconditionally Elect was Christ (the God Man). Therefore, the individuals who later unite themselves to Christ by believing in Him and identifying in his burial and resurrection are In Christ and called The Elect. The Elect is Christ—and by extension the group In Christ. Christ was unconditionally Elect, the group (even if that group contained only 1 individual) was unconditionally Elect but individuals are not unconditionally elect. I’ll call this Altogether Christ. Threads here here and here.

Limited Atonement to the Calvinist is that God decided beforehand to shed Christ’s blood and apply it specifically to the elect individuals. Arminians say the Atonement is limited in application but not in scope. I say that the Atonement was for the sin of the sinful world allowing Man to be reconciled to God and that occurred with Christ being raised from the dead and seated in the heavenlies. Christ got up but God also raised Him. This does not mean that every individual is saved but it does mean that the Second Adam has already become the victor and has been reconciled to God. So then those who believe become a group no longer identified under the system of Adam 1.0 but under Adam 2.0. If they remained under Adam 1.0 they remain under the same mandate of being judged on an eternal scale next to God. I’ll call this For The Father’s Faithful One or in Favor of the Father’s Faithful One. Thread here.

Irresistible Grace to a Calvinist is that since no one willingly turns to God on their own accord, they must be changed by the Holy Spirit to become a new creature and then believe the message of God willingly, joyfully, and “freely”. To an Arminian they would say that God’s grace is resistible and explains why some people don’t believe. I say that God’s grace for all was made evident by His sending of His Son but that there is no special magical grace that attacks specific individuals to recreate them to allow them to do the good work of Faith. Faith is not a work . God has exposed Humanity to Himself from the getgo and has of these last days spoken by His Son. People can either believe what He says and trust that He will save them—no matter how stupid or weak their faith is—or they can stand on their own, identifying under no other name but themselves and face the full repercussions of their decision. I’ll call this Forever Gracious. Thread here.

Perseverance of the Saints taught by the Calvinist is that those who persist until the end prove to be the elect of God—even if that position is known by no one but God and perhaps the individual. Some Arminians are unsure about this. I think that those who have believed in Christ are legally removed from the purview of Adam 1.0 and somehow (I don’t know how) joined In Christ and therefore will be preserved by God until the end. They are secured because God said they are secured. I’ll call this Only Kept By God. (no threads on this yet…sorry)

Predestination of Saints to Salvation to a Calvinist means that the individuals have been predestined by God to salvation. This is normally included in Unconditional Election but I wanted to make a distinction. I don’t believe that anyone is predestined to Salvation. They’re predestined for specific roles in redemptive history, and they may even be predestined to complete specific tasks but their individual salvation is not underneath that header. I think predestination is towards the end-goal of the Elect. So Christ as Elect was to be glorified, seated in the heavenlies and given a right over humanity. The group within Christ is seated with Him as co-heirs and glorified and given a right over humanity: they are conformed in the image of the Son. So predestination to me is the End Goal, Election is the choosing by God. I’ll call this Destination Endpoint Secured.Thread here.

Sovereignty of God to some Calvinists means that God is in charge of every single decision and action by divine fiat. Other Calvinists believe that God’s choices and our responsibility are compatible. Some Arminians believe likewise and others believe that God takes advantage of Evil. I think that God’s sovereignty means that He takes advantage of evil as well as being compatible with our decisions via working in all possible worlds. He’s active with our timeline so some things occur because He actively causes an occurrence but He knows how they would’ve occurred if he acted otherwise. Why He chose this time-world is because this one ultimately results in the greater Glory by saving within Christ an even greater number than all other possible worlds. It’s the one possible world of all the possible worlds while still maintaining his character (any world He chooses that’s not perfect can still be better…so its not the best possible world…it’s the one He chose to work with that ultimately results in the results that God desires). I don’t know how it works.I’ll call this Inconceivable unLimited Worlds so I can work the I and the L in there. Threads here.

Technorati Tags: arminianism, calvinism, soteriology, TULIP

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Every time there’s a major movement in the Church you have to scratch your head and wonder, I mean really wonder “Is God bringing back the salt to the table?” Briefly looking at history, you have to acknowledge that the most growth in the Church came right after times of trouble and dearth. Major problems; boom first ecumenical council. Years of problems; boom the reformation. So when I look back at the Darby movement and its grass roots growth of getting back to New Testament principles I openly acknowledge that it was God’s way of bringing out the salt shaker saying “you guys are forgetting something.”

I’m not a Calvinist. Nor am I a Charismatic. I’ve worked through the literature on both, studied through the Scripture and have come to very different conclusions. I know that both systems have inherent errors and their fair share of ride-along nutters to make any proponent of the system look bad—but who doesn’t? I know my fair share of wild eyed rapture theorists who wax poetic with the many condemnations falling on sinners during the tribulation. I can’t help attribute the odd quaver in their voice not only to faulty brain synapses but also a perverted sense of prophetic glee..

So I have to wonder about this Calvinism and Charismatic growth. Is it years of teaching that no one is important, that man is his own god and able to make it on his own that God decides to bring back a system that teaches man is totally depraved, God is Sovereign and He elects to save people? Is it years of teaching that the world can be explained naturally while painting our churches in the drab colors of deism that God decides to bring back a system that teaches that not only is God here but He’s active?

I do wish there was a way to get rid of the problems in the systems, make a way possible that the systems properly use the Scripture instead of prooftexting their points, but even so maybe this is God’s way of saying “You will always need me…this is what I do…I know what you need before you even realize it.”

We probably should give some berth to the cook in the kitchen. We may be happy (or not) with how the table is set up, but in the end God’s the chef and He’s the one preparing the meal. If he says “here’s some salt” who are we to ask Him how He’s cooking? We might not like Calvinism or Continuism—but maybe, just maybe, we currently need it (Isaiah 45).

Incidentally, here’s Russ’ Calvinism series. Here’s my Romans Issue. Here’s Mark Dever asking the similar questions (HT: Barrett Young)

Technorati Tags: calvinism, charismatic

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

But I did want to post a counter illustration because the one Boice used (in Michael’s post) wound up being one of those stories that preachers (and professors) love to use that doesn’t prove anything. It’s an appeal to emotion by using unbalanced data and an unserviceable hypothetical.

Here’s my version based heavily on Boice’s:

Imagine this. Imagine yourself being in heaven and walking with the angels.  One of them asks you, “I see your best friend isn’t here.”
You would say “Well, I got here by the grace of God alone.”

The angel responds and asks, “Well, I don’t understand. Why are you here and your best friend is not?”

You say, “Because God had mercy on me a sinner.”

“Yes, but,” the angel replies, “What makes your friend so different? He’s a sinner too: why is he in hell and you not?”

If you are a Calvinist you would ultimately say “I don’t know why God had mercy on me. I do know that I was elect and my best friend wasn’t: he’s in hell because God thought that was for the best.”

“When did God decide that?”

“Before the foundation of the world.”

“Wait,” says the Angel “Are you saying that your friend isn’t here because the Eternal and Holy God damned your friend before he even existed and you are here, strutting about because God chose you over everyone else?”

“Well I wouldn’t put it that way. You’re drawing a logical conclusion from a system that has theological boundaries. I can’t technically say–”

“Wait, wait: you’re actually saying that the Eternal and Holy God who sent His only begotten Son to rescue humanity and all of creation decided, before humanity existed, that humanity consisted of only an elect few and the rest He damned to an eternity of torture. Why on heaven would He do that?”

“For His good pleasure of course. But you see, He saved sinners–”

The Angel here takes a step back, one of his six wings covering his face “Well now I know that Eternal and Holy God indeed had mercy on sinners. How you can impugn His character and still receive His mercy instead of His wrath is beyond me. “

The point is this: the illustration offers no good reason to accept monergism or deny it. How can we possibly know that an Arminian in heaven would say “I’m in heaven, ultimately because I believed and got here”? An Arminian might say a plethora of things (just as my Calvinist did above). “Ultimately” the Arminian’s mouth might be rendered shut and he’d resort to Scripture to cling to. He could say: “God saved me a sinner, by grace through faith.” The Arminian might even say “God had mercy on me a sinner even on the weakness of my faith which was nothing but the blind grasping of a drowning man.” The Calvinist might say “Because Christ’s blood only paid for me” or might robotically intone “I. Speak.  Only. The words. That. The Holy Spirit. Has elected. For Me. To speak. Now that I. Am. Perfected.” Leaving the angel staring in horror at the automaton wondering if he’s on the wrong side. 

Or not. You see it’s an illustration: a good writer (which I am not) can do (and teach) anything with it.

Technorati Tags: boice, illustrations, logic, patton

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Well, Paul pointed out that they must call on the name of the Lord to be saved but one must realize that for someone to call they must have some prerequisites filled out. "They must be chosen before the foundation of the world" someone might say but not Paul.

A person can’t call on someone they haven’t believed. And to believe someone they must have heard them—not about them, but actually them. And for someone to hear them someone must be saying Something. And for someone to say Something they must have been given the mission to go Say.

So this preacher has the wonderful mission of preaching good news and he preaches the good news to the Jews and in that preaching they must hear the Lord speaking and from there they might believe and following that call on Him. There’s the actual steps.

The point Paul is making that for someone to be saved they must have faith and to have faith they must first have heard the word of Christ. That’s it.

Now, has the message gone awry when it comes to the Jew that they don’t believe? Is there a point where we can see the thread broken for Israel and thus find the reason they are not saved lying in some other domain?

Paul proceeds to ask four questions in a form that demands the negative.

Let me unpack that, when we ask questions we can form them in such a way that they are merely questions.

"Are there bears outside the tent?" is an open ended question that can be answered with either a Yes or a No, it’s purely informational and the answer can go either way.

But a person can ask "There aren’t bears outside, are there?" which is formed in a way that demands to be "No, there are no bears outside". Sometimes sneaky people frame their questions like this when they’re being sarcastic or some such, but that is not the case here in Paul’s argument.

1. Question 1: It’s not is it, that Israel didn’t hear? (Rom 10:18)
2. Question 2: It’s not is it, that Israel didn’t understand? (Rom 10:19)
3. Question 3: It’s not is it, that God has rejected His people? (Rom 11:1)
4. Question 4: It’s not is it, that they have stumbled so as to fall? (Rom 11:11)

Four questions all asked to demand the negative to prove that God did not falter in his offer of salvation.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites