Sincere Offer, Election, and Limited Atonement

My friend Paul has posted a response to David Ponter's response to James Anderson's comments on Limited Atonement and the Free Offer. It's a very detailed and worth reading. Allow me to post some shorter thoughts on the topic, namely the objection:

Is the “free offer” of the gospel really “sincere” if Jesus only died for some men and not all? If there is no atonement available for them, the offer seems insincere.

This is a frequent objection, particularly from Amyraldians and Arminians. If you think that the gospel is "Jesus died for you," then this objection makes a lot of sense. If we're supposed to tell people indiscriminately that Christ died for them, but he didn't, that doesn't seem very sincere.

Scriptures, however, don't present the gospel that way. In Scripture, the gospel is expressed in terms of repenting of your sins and believing on (i.e. trusting in) Jesus Christ for salvation. If you trust in Christ and repent of your sins, God will have mercy on you.

There is a world of difference between those two messages. One message makes an unconditional assertion regarding what Christ has done. The other message makes a conditional assertion about what God will do.

Yet, even among those who will grant to us that the gospel is not, "Jesus died for you," some people still don't like the idea of salvation being offered to those for whom God has not made any provision. Indeed, our Amyraldian and Arminian friends sometimes urge on us the idea that such a conditional offer is not "sincere" unless God has made preparations for those people.

The mere absence of enough provision for everyone to be saved, however, doesn't explain this objection. Suppose a company offers to "anyone who is willing to come down here and listen to us explain the benefits of our new tractor," an incentive of "$5, just for coming down and listening to the talk." No one would consider it "insincere" if the company doesn't actually have $5 times the number of people who will hear the offer, so long as they have $5 times the number of people that they think will accept the offer.

So, as long as the provision is sufficient for those who will "accept" the offer, we don't view the offer as insincere. Since, under the Calvinist framework, God has made provision for all who will come to Christ, the offer of the gospel should also be considered to be sincere by this standard.

The intuition behind the objection that remains, however, is that an "offer" doesn't seem sincere, if you have no intention of giving the offered thing to the person to whom you are offering it. For example, when a child offers to share an ice cream cone, it sometimes happens that this is simply an imitation of a parent's offer to share the parent's cone. If the parent were to try to accept the child's offer, the child might greedily refuse to allow the parent to have a bite. So, the child has only offered to share the cone because the child thought the offer would be refused. Such an offer is insincere.

Of course, by this time we are now dealing with the kind of objection that an Amyraldian, or someone like Ponter, cannot consistently make. After all, the problem with the child's offer is not that he doesn't have a cone to share, but that he does not intend to give up the cone. The Amyraldian admits that God does not intend to save the non-elect. Therefore, whether or not a provision is made seems utterly moot.

Nevertheless, for those who insist that God must intend to save, we may still legitimately question the weight of this objection. Isn't it enough that God intends to save everyone who "accepts" the "offer"? The idea that God must intend to save all those whom he knows will refuse seems absurd when expressed that way. Thus, we may conclude that while such an objection may have some limited intuitive appeal, it does not hold up to intellectual scrutiny.

-TurretinFan

Compare and Contrast

Jesse Morrell: "If it were up to God, everybody would repent and be saved." (Facebook status on 11 January 2011)

Jesus: "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth." (Matthew 28:18)

Nebuchadnezzar: "all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?" (Daniel 4:35)

It is truly remarkable to contrast the powerlessness of God in the synergistic system to the power of God in the monergistic and Biblical description.

The Wrath of Man Shall Praise God

Psalm 76:10 Surely the wrath of man shall praise thee: the remainder of wrath shalt thou restrain.

This verse fits marvelously well with the Calvinistic teaching that everything that man does, even the wrath of men, glorifies God. My question is, how could an Arminian agree with this verse? How does man's wrath praise God in an Arminian worldview? I would think the best that could be said for the Arminian viewpoint is that God (according to them) manages to make the best of man's wrath.

-TurretinFan

Arminianism, Semi-Pelagianism, Wes White, and the real Francis Turretin

Pastor Wes White has an interesting post entitled, "Calvinism and Arminianism: A Middle Way?" He points out that one supposed "middle way" between Calvinism and Arminianism is just a restatement of Arminianism (and he provides a quotation from the real Francis Turretin to make his point). Although (like Pastor White) I'm a fan of Turretin and although he's right in noting that the argument of the classical Arminians is what these supposed "middle way" folks are making, I want to take the opportunity to point out that it is even an older error than that. It is the error of the semi-Pelagian opponents of Augustinians such as Prosper of Aquitaine, as one can see from the passage below in which Prosper is writing to Augustine regarding his semi-Pelagian opponents and their arguments. Read carefully and see if you

Prosper of Aquitaine:

The opinion they hold is as follows: Every man has sinned in Adam, and no one is reborn and saved by his own works but by God's grace. Yet, all men without exception are offered the reconciliation which Christ merited by the mystery of his death, in such manner that whosoever wish to come to the faith and to receive baptism can be saved. God has foreknown before the creation of the world who they are who will accept the faith and with the help of further grace persevere in it. He has predestined for his kingdom those who, called without any merit of their own, He foreknew would be worthy of their election and depart from this life by a good death. Accordingly, every man is urged by the teachings of Holy Scripture to believe and to work, and no one should despair of attaining eternal life, the reward prepared for those who serve God freely. But as to the decree of God's special call by which He is said to have separated the elect and reprobate, either before the creation of the world or at the very creation of the human race, and according to His own good pleasure, so that some are born vessels of honor, others vessels of dishonor, this, they say, takes away from sinners an incentive for conversion and gives the pious occasion for lukewarmness. For both of them, exertion becomes superfluous if neither diligence can save a reprobate nor negligence ruin an elect. Whatever way they behave, nothing can happen to them except what God has decreed. With such doubtful prospects no man can follow a steady course of action, since all pains a man takes one way or another are of no avail if God's predestination has decreed otherwise. To teach that the decree of God anticipates the wills of men is to invite them to cast aside all diligence and give up the effort for virtue; it is, under cover of predestination, to set up a sort of fatal necessity, or to say that the Lord has made men of different natures, if it is true that no one can change his condition of elect or reprobate in which he was created. To put their opinions more briefly and fully: the very objections which in your book On Admonition and Grace you took from the idea of your opponents and proposed to yourself, and the objections of Julian also which in your books against him you relate in this matter and which you answered fully, exactly these our good Christians greet with loud approval. When we show them the writings of Your Holiness which abound in countless unanswerable proofs from Holy Scripture, when we ourselves try, after the pattern of your tracts, to construct some new argument to counter them, they take cover for their obstinacy by appealing to the ancient teaching. The text of the Apostle Paul to the Romans, which you quote to prove that divine grace precedes the merits of the elect, they say was never understood by any of the churchmen in the sense in which you take it now. And when we ask them to explain it themselves according to the meaning given by the authors they prefer, they answer that they have found there nothing which satisfies them, and they ask us not to speak about things whose depth no one is able to fathom. Finally, in their obstinacy they go to such length as to assert that what we teach as being of faith is harmful to the spiritual good of those who come to hear of it; and even if it were true, we should not come out with it, because it does harm to preach what will not be well received, and there is no harm in not speaking of what no one can understand.

- Prosper of Aquitaine, Letter to Augustine, Section 3, translation by P. De Letter, S.J., Ph.D., S.T.D. in "Prosper of Aquitaine: Defense of St. Augustine," pp. 39-41 (Newman Press, New York: 1963).

Notice, for instance, the allegations of universal prevenient grace, and the allegations that Augustinian theology will hurt evangelism. The answers from the real Turretin that Pastor White brings to bear are right on the money.

It's also interesting to note that Prosper is relying on the authority of Scripture over against semi-Pelagian attempts to say that Augustine's view was a theological novelty. We sometimes hear the same allegations about our views today - but ultimately we agree with Prosper that Scripture (not the forerunners of Augustine or even Augustine himself) is our rule of faith.

-TurretinFan

Lutheran Response to Arminianism

Steve Hays recently pointed me to a Lutheran response to Arminianism (link to response). While I am not Lutheran (I am Calvinist, which is virtually anathema to certain Lutherans), I pass this on as being "of interest" to my Arminian readers (as well as my Lutheran readers, few though they may be).

-TurretinFan

Arminius' Impact on Calvinism

Dan ("GodIsMyJudge") has an interesting post in honor of the 400th anniversary of Arminius' death (link). One criticism I have, is that I think he overstates the significance of the infralapsarian wording of Dordt's discussion of election. In fact, one could walk away from GodIsMyJudge's post thinking that Arminius was an infralapsarian Calvinist who prevailed at Dordt against the supralapsarians, rather than having his errant views condemned by that synod. In context, the point of Dordt is to deny foreseen merit, something upon which both supralapsarians and infralapsarians agree.

-TurretinFan

John Knox on Free Will (Old Spellings)

Before I answer to the absurdities which of our doctrine ye collect, I must, in few wordes, put you in minde, that very foolishely ye joyn the free will of Adame with the free will of Christe Jesus, and with the libertie of God. For Adam's will was never so free but that it might (as that it did) come to thraldom; which weaknes you be never able to prove at any tyme to have bene in Christes will. Further, the will of Adam was alwaies under the impire and threatning of a law; to which subjection I think ye will not bring God. But now to your absurdities.

"If (say you) I shall grante that all thinges of mere Necessitio must come to passe, according to the prescience and foreknowledge of God, then had Adam afore his transgression no Free will." Your illation or consequence is fals, for the foreknowledge and prescience of God did neither take away free will from Adam, neither yet did compell it by any violence, but did use it as an ordinarie mean, by the which His eternall counsell and purpose should take effect. But for the better understanding hereof, we must adverte and note that which before we have touched, and promised after more largely to entreat the same; to witt, That God's prescience and foreknowledge is not to be seperated from his Will and decree. For none otherwise doeth God foresee things to come to passe, but according as He himself hath in his eternall counsell decreed the same. For as it apperteineth to His wisdom to foreknow and foresee all things that are to come, so doeth it appertein to his power to moderate and reule all things according to his own will. Neither yet therefor doeth it folow that His foreknowledge, prescience, will, or power, doeth take away the free will of his creatures. but in all wisdom and justice (however the contrarie appere to our corrupted judgements,) he useth them as best it pleaseth his wisdom to bring to passe in time that which before all tyme he had decreed. To the which purpose and end, they (I mean the creatures and their willes), whatsoever they purpose to the contrarie, or how ignorantly that ever they worke it, nevertheles do voluntarely, and as it were of a naturall motion, incline and bow to that end to the which they are created.

To make the mater more plain, let us take the creation and fall of Adam, with the creatures that served in the same, for example. For what cheif end did God create all things (of Salomon and Paule we have before declared), to witt, for his own glorie to be shewed; the glorie, I say, of the riches of his mercie towardes the vessels of mercie, and the glorie of his justice and most just judgements towards the vessels of wrath. And that this eternall counsell of God should take effect, as he had purposed, man was created righteous, wise, just, and good, having free will; neither subject to the thraldom of sinne nor of Sathan, at the first creation. But sodanly cometh Sathan, ennemie to God and to man his good creature, and first poured in vennom into the heart of the woman, which afterward she poured into the heart of Adam; to the which bothe the one and the other, without all violence used of God's part, dothe willingly consent; and so conspiring with the serpent, do accuse God of a lie; do fully consent to vendicat or challenge to themselves the power of the Godhead, of minde and purpose (so far as in them lay) to thrust downe and depose Him from his eternall throne. Here we see how the creatures and their willes, without compulsion, do serve God's purpose and counsell. For Sathan was neither sent nor commanded of God to tempt man, but of malice and hatred did most willingly and gredely runne to the same: The will of man being free before, was not by God violently compelled to obey Sathan; but man of free will did consent to Sathan, and conspire against God. And yet was the fall of man not only foresene and foreknowen of God, but also before decreed, for the manifestation of his glorie.

Let us yet take an other exemple, that the mater may be more evident. The death of Christ Jesus for man's redemption, was decreed in the eternall counsell of God before the foundations of the world were laid, as we were elected in him, and as he was the Lamb killed from the beginning; which death also was decreed in the same counsell of God to be in a certein time appointed; and that so certenly, that neither could the malice of any creature prevent the houre appointed of God thereto, neither yet could any policie or chance impede or transferre the same to any other tyme. For how oft Christ was afore assaulted, the Evangclistes do witnes; but alwaies his answere was, "My houre is not yet come." And what impedimentes did oucure immediatly before his death, is also evident. The feast of Easter was instant, the fame of Christ was great, the favor of the people with publick voices was declared, and the counsels of the Hie Priestes and Seniors had decreed, that, to avoid sedition, his death should be delayed till after that feast. But all these were shortly overthrowen, and Christ did suffer in the verey tyme appointed, as he before had forespoken.

But now to the instrumentes which serve in this mater, and whether they were compelled by God or not. Judas, we know, was not one of the least; and what moved him the Holie Ghost doeth witnes, to witt, his avariciousnes. The Scribes, Pharisies, Priestes anil Seniors, and people, led, some of malice and envie, some to gratifie their rulers, and altogether of set purpose to crucifie Christ, do consent with Judas. Pilate, albeit he long refused, and by divers nieancs studied to delyver Christ, yet in the end, for fear of displeasure, aswell of the priestes and people, as of the Emperor, he willingly, without all compulsion of God's part, pronounced an unjust sentence of deathe against Christ Jesus; which his soldiours also most willingly did execute. Thus, I say, we see that the creatures and their willes, without all compulsion, do serve God's counsell and purpose.

Here I know, that ye think that either I write against myself, or els that I conclude a great absurditic: For, if I say that God did nothing but foresee these thinges, and so permitted them (as after you speak) to folow their own train; that he worketh no more but as a simple beholder of a tragedie; then do I agree with you. And if I do say (as in verey dede I do understand and afiirme,) that the eternall counsell and purpose of God did so reule in all these thinges, that rather they did serve to God's purpose and most just will, then fulfill their most wicked willes; then will you cry, Blasphemie, and say that I deliver the Devill, Adam, and all the wicked, frome sinne, of the which I make God to be author. To the first I have answered before, that as I seperate not God's foreknowledge from his counsell, so do I affirme that He worketh all in all thinges, according to the purpose of the same his good will; and yet that he useth no violence, neither in compelling his creatures, neither constreining their willes by any externall force, neither yet taking their willes from them, but in all wisdom and justice using them as he knoweth most expedient for the manifestation of his glorie, without any violence, I say, done to their willes. For violence is done to the will of a creature, when it willoth one thing, and yet by force, by tyranny, or by a greater power, it is compelled to do the thinges which it wold not; as if a pudique and honest matron, or chaste virgine, should be deprehended alono by a wicked and filthie man, who with violence and force (thoghe the will of the woman did plainely repine) did deflowre and corrupte her. This is violence done to the will, and she of necessitie was compelled to suffer that ignominie and shame, which nevertheles she most abhorred.

Do we say that God did (or doeth) any such violence to his creatures? Did he compell Sathan to tempt the woman, when his will was contrarie thereto? Did the will of Adame resist the temptation of the woman, and did he so hate and abhorre to eate of that fruite, that it behoved God to compell his will repugning thereto to eat of it, and so to break his commandements? or, did he not rather willingly hear and obey the voice of his wyfe? Consider, I beseech you, how plainely we put a difference betwixt vidlence, which you call mere Necessitie, and God's secrete counsell and eternall purpose. But yet ye crie, "Wherein then did man offend? Who can resist the will of God ? Why doth he complein, seing that his counsell and purpose, by such meanes, is broght to passe?" Do ye not understand that these were the furious cries of those to whom Saint Paul imposeth silence, with this sentence, " 0 man, what art thou that darest reason against God ?" &c.

But lest that ye complein (as your common custom is) of our obscuritie and darke speaking, I will even in one or two wordes declare, Why the creatures offend even when they serve most effectually to God's purpose; to witt, becaus that they neither have the glorie of God in their actions before their eies, neither yet mynd they to serve nor obey God's purpose and will. Sathan, in tempting man, studied nothing to promote God's glorie; man, in obeying the temptation, looked not to the counsell of God; Judas, Ananias, Pilate, the soldiours, and the rest, had nothing less in mind then mannes redemption to be performed by their counsells and wicked workes. And therefor, of God's justice, were they everio one reputed sinners; yea, and some of them reprobated for ever. If these reasons do not satisfic you, yet shall they be a testimonie what is our doctrine; and, as I trust, shall also be a reasonable contentation to the godlie and simple reader. More would I have spoken in the same matter, and so to have put end unto it at once; but becaus that after, by the reason of your most unjust accusations, I wilbe compelled to have to do with you againe, I abyde opportunitie.

Now to your reasons: Mannes will, I say, in the self remained free, notwithstanding that God in his eternall counsell had decreed his fall; and that becaus no violence, as before is declared, was done unto it. The will of our Master and Saviour Christ Jesus, notwithstanding the immutable decree of his death, appointed to be at a certein time, was so free, that albeit the power of nature might have given unto him mo yeares of life; and also that the humaine nature did abhorre the crueil and ignominious death; yet did he subject bothe his will and the power of nature unto the will of his heavenlie Father; as he doeth witnes, saying, "Not that I will, Father, but let that be done which thou willest."

Wonder it is, that ye can not see how God's will can remaine in hbertie, except that he abyde m suspence or dowte, and so daily and hourely change his purpose and counsell, as occasion is offered unto him by men and by their actions. If this be to make God bounde, and to take frome him libertie, to affirme that lie is infinite in wisdom, infinite in goodnes, infinite in justice, and infinite in power, so doeth he most constantly, most freely, most justlie, and most wisely, bring that to passe which in his eternall counsell he hath determined; if this, I say, be to take from God freedom, wisdome, and libortie, as ye do rayle, I must confess myself a transgressor. But if your cogitations and foolishe conclusions of his eternal Godhead, be, as, alas! too manifestly ye declare yourselves, so prophane, so carnal, and so wicked, that long, you abiding in the same, can not escaip God's just vengeance; repent, before that in his anger he arrest, and declare that your justice, wherof so much ye bragge, is manifest blasphemie against his dear Sonne Christ Jesus! God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ preserve his small flock from your vennom and most dangerous heresies, and stoppe your blasphemous mouthes, that thus dare jeast upon God, as if he were one of your companions, saying, " Then is he a goodly wvse God; Then is God bounde himself," &c.

(John Knox, "On Predestination," 19th Section, as presented in the Works of John Knox, Volume 5 (1856), pp. 140-46) (I've presented here the old spellings which ought to be readable to the average reader. God willing, I will provide a modernized version at a later date.)(The work is a response, written in 1560, to an response to an Anabaptist.)

Does God Blind the Blind?

The title of this post is the title of a post by William Watson ("Billy") Birch who thinks that he has found a weakness in Calvinism (though, as he admits, he's not actually responding to a Calvinist)(link to his post).

His essential argument is this (I am paraphrasing): "Reformed theology says God blinds the reprobate. But Reformed theology says that everyone is totally depraved. Therefore, God is placed in the odd position of blinding the blind."

But Mr. Birch cannot deny that God does harden the heart of some men. God hardened the heart of Pharaoh, for example. Furthermore, virtually every time we mention this to any Arminian who is opposed to Calvinism (there are Arminians who are simply ignorant of Reformed theology) they invariably insist that the man has to harden his own heart first. How exactly is this supposed to be different? God hardens the hard? God blinds the blind?

The argument may have a superficial appeal to Mr. Birch's fan base, but it lacks substance as evidenced by how easily it is turned on his own argument.

The problem, of course, is that Mr. Birch fails to appreciate the way in which God blinds the blind. God refuses to open their eyes - refuses to provide them with a cause that would lead to the effect of their seeing.

Jesus explained:

Matthew 13:13-15
Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: for this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

Mark 4:11-12
And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables: that seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.

Furthermore, contrary to the theology of Mr. Birch, God is quite willing to take credit for concluding all in unbelief:

Romans 11:32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

How does one conclude (i.e. enclose or shut) in unbelief an unbeliever? The same way one blinds the blind. Without God's grace we can do nothing:

John 15:5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.

-TurretinFan

So Good Men Differ ... so what?

One of the perennial comments one hears is that if either A or B were correct "it is doubtful that so many Bible-believing, godly evangelical Christians would have wound up on each side." This flawed position assumes that "godly evangelical Christians" always tend to end up agreeing with correct positions.

That's a flawed assumption. In fact, "godly evangelical Christians" often disagree over things of lower consequence than the gospel. Take infant baptism as an example, or the proper ecclesiology.

What's worse is when people (such as Craig Blomberg) make the further leap of advocating something in-between those two positions as though this somehow bridged the gap created by the two positions.

In the case of Dr. Blomberg, the problem is worse because he's not actually adopted a position in the middle between Calvinism and Arminianism (the two positions he originally identified): he's adopted the Arminian position with a Molinistic explanation -- which is more like a halfway point between Calvinism and Open Theism, not between Calvinism and Arminianism. In fact, the "Arminian" position he identifies is that of William Lane Craig, one of the leading advocates for Molinism.

Even if Dr. Blomberg had actually picked something between Calvinism and Arminianism (rather than just picking Arminianism), what Dr. Blomberg has overlooked is that as soon as you set up a third position, the original argument still stands, only now there are three positions instead of two: three positions that "godly, Evangelical Christians" hold to. So the truth must be a fourth, and then (once people find that), a fifth, etc. ad infinitum.

Finally, Dr. Blomberg overlooks the fact that "godly evangelical Christians" disagree (mostly) with his fundamental premise that if "godly evangelical Christians" disagree about something, both sides must be wrong. This creates something of a paradox, since Dr. Blomberg must now rethink his original synthetic premise by synthesizing it with the position that "just because 'godly evangelical Christians' disagree about something doesn't mean both are wrong" position.

Truth is absolute, not relative. Just because "godly evangelical Christians" disagree about something doesn't mean both sides are wrong (or, necessarily, that either side is right). We need to continually go back to Scripture and let that (not counting heads) be our way of determining truth.

Thanks to Josh Walker for pointing this out to me.

-TurretinFan

Choice and the Common Man

When I talk to people (average, ordinary people) they mean by choice just what Calvinism teaches about what choice is: people picking from among various options. They normally don't impose much of a philosophical framework on it.

If I ask them, "What if someone forces you to pick A?" They would reply that this isn't really a choice. Of course, that's because there's compulsion involved.

On the other hand, if I ask them how they got their now-spouse to pick them, they will have some kind of answer. Sometimes the answer is that they "just fell in love," sometimes the answer is persistence on the part of one of the two spouses, but ultimately the person normally acknowledges some causal relation at play, although they still view the relationship as a voluntary association.

I could go further with the nuances (such as the fact that people buy advertising because they think they can influence choices), but the bottom line is that generally speaking every "average Joe" I speak to has roughly the same answers to the questions about choice, and they all line up either exactly with what Calvinism teaches about choice, or awfully close.

On the other hand, when I talk to folks who are "Arminian theologians" (of greater or lesser sophistication), I generally find them appealing to philosophical definitions of choice that (a) don't matter to the common man, (b) aren't readily intelligible either to the Arminians themselves or the common man, and (c) don't come from Scripture.

Personally, I find (c) to be the most problematic of the matters. The truth is that Scriptures clearly teach that God has foreordained whatsoever comes to pass (see Acts 17:26, for example), that men make choices (see, for example, Isaiah 65:12), and that God has a purpose in evil the evil acts of men (see, for example, Genesis 50:20). These truths are compatible, whether people like it or not. Everything is part of God's plan, even our choices.

Proverbs 16:4 The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.

This is the truth of Scripture. God has made all things for himself - even the wicked. He has a purpose in everything. That's why he sets up as a test of deity that an alleged god explain the reasons for history and tell the future. God can do those things because History is written by God:

Isaiah 41:21-23
21 Produce your cause, saith the LORD; bring forth your strong reasons, saith the King of Jacob. 22 Let them bring them forth, and shew us what shall happen: let them shew the former things, what they be, that we may consider them, and know the latter end of them; or declare us things for to come. 23 Shew the things that are to come hereafter, that we may know that ye are gods: yea, do good, or do evil, that we may be dismayed, and behold it together.

This is how great God is. He holds all of history in the palm of his hand - he turns kings hearts, whatever direction it pleases Him.

Proverbs 21:1 The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will.

And if Kings' hearts are under God's control, don't think that God only has a thought for them, but not for the lesser details:

Luke 12:6-7
6 Are not five sparrows sold for two farthings, and not one of them is forgotten before God? 7 But even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not therefore: ye are of more value than many sparrows.

This is what the Bible has to say, and we need to believe it.

But I was surprised and disappointed to hear of a counter-argument attempted from those who embrace the philosophical position of Libertarian Free Will (LFW). They have attempted to claim that their position is what common men hold, despite the great evidence to the contrary. However, Mr. Manata, employing his usual rapier wit, has provided a brief rejoinder to one of their claims (link). While I certainly find his point amusing, I hope the positive presentation above briefly provides the reason that I think the shoe is really on the other foot. It is the Arminian concept of LFW that is foreign to the average Joe. The average Joe can readily see that choices have reasons and explanations that go beyond the mere whim of the person making the choice. While the average Joe may not fully comprehend how choice and universal predestination can co-exist, this is often because of caricatures of predestination (such as the fatalism caricature) that are provided.

But let me leave you, the reader, on a more interesting note. People talk about the fact that the word "choose" is in the Bible. But did you notice who that is usually talking about?

Men Choosing

1. (Exodus 17:9) And Moses said unto Joshua, Choose us out men, and go out, fight with Amalek: to morrow I will stand on the top of the hill with the rod of God in mine hand.

2. (Deuteronomy 30:19) I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:

3. (Joshua 24:15) And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.

4. (1 Samuel 17:8) And he stood and cried unto the armies of Israel, and said unto them, Why are ye come out to set your battle in array? am not I a Philistine, and ye servants to Saul? choose you a man for you, and let him come down to me.

5. (2 Samuel 17:1) Moreover Ahithophel said unto Absalom, Let me now choose out twelve thousand men, and I will arise and pursue after David this night:

6. (2 Samuel 24:12) Go and say unto David, Thus saith the LORD, I offer thee three things; choose thee one of them, that I may do it unto thee.

7. (1 Kings 18:23) Let them therefore give us two bullocks; and let them choose one bullock for themselves, and cut it in pieces, and lay it on wood, and put no fire under: and I will dress the other bullock, and lay it on wood, and put no fire under:

8. (1 Kings 18:25) And Elijah said unto the prophets of Baal, Choose you one bullock for yourselves, and dress it first; for ye are many; and call on the name of your gods, but put no fire under.

9. (1 Chronicles 21:10) Go and tell David, saying, Thus saith the LORD, I offer thee three things: choose thee one of them, that I may do it unto thee.

10. (1 Chronicles 21:11) So Gad came to David, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Choose thee

11. (Nehemiah 9:7) Thou art the LORD the God, who didst choose Abram, and broughtest him forth out of Ur of the Chaldees, and gavest him the name of Abraham;

12. (Job 9:14) How much less shall I answer him, and choose out my words to reason with him?

13. (Job 34:4) Let us choose to us judgment: let us know among ourselves what is good.

14. (Job 34:33) Should it be according to thy mind? he will recompense it, whether thou refuse, or whether thou choose; and not I: therefore speak what thou knowest.

15. (Proverbs 1:29) For that they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the LORD:

16. (Proverbs 3:31) Envy thou not the oppressor, and choose none of his ways.

17. (Isaiah 7:15) Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.

18. (Isaiah 7:16) For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.

19. (Isaiah 56:4) For thus saith the LORD unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant;

20. (Isaiah 65:12) Therefore will I number you to the sword, and ye shall all bow down to the slaughter: because when I called, ye did not answer; when I spake, ye did not hear; but did evil before mine eyes, and did choose that wherein I delighted not.

21. (Ezekiel 21:19) Also, thou son of man, appoint thee two ways, that the sword of the king of Babylon may come: both twain shall come forth out of one land: and choose thou a place, choose it at the head of the way to the city.

22. (Philippians 1:22) But if I live in the flesh, this is the fruit of my labour: yet what I shall choose I wot not.
***************

God Choosing

1. (Numbers 16:7) And put fire therein, and put incense in them before the LORD to morrow: and it shall be that the man whom the LORD doth choose, he shall be holy: ye take too much upon you, ye sons of Levi.

2. (Numbers 17:5) And it shall come to pass, that the man's rod, whom I shall choose, shall blossom: and I will make to cease from me the murmurings of the children of Israel, whereby they murmur against you.

3. (Deuteronomy 7:7) The LORD did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people:

4. (Deuteronomy 12:5) But unto the place which the LORD your God shall choose out of all your tribes to put his name there, even unto his habitation shall ye seek, and thither thou shalt come:

5. (Deuteronomy 12:11) Then there shall be a place which the LORD your God shall choose to cause his name to dwell there; thither shall ye bring all that I command you; your burnt offerings, and your sacrifices, your tithes, and the heave offering of your hand, and all your choice vows which ye vow unto the LORD:

6. (Deuteronomy 12:14) But in the place which the LORD shall choose in one of thy tribes, there thou shalt offer thy burnt offerings, and there thou shalt do all that I command thee.

7. (Deuteronomy 12:18) But thou must eat them before the LORD thy God in the place which the LORD thy God shall choose, thou, and thy son, and thy daughter, and thy manservant, and thy maidservant, and the Levite that is within thy gates: and thou shalt rejoice before the LORD thy God in all that thou puttest thine hands unto.

8. (Deuteronomy 12:26) Only thy holy things which thou hast, and thy vows, thou shalt take, and go unto the place which the LORD shall choose:

9. (Deuteronomy 14:23) And thou shalt eat before the LORD thy God, in the place which he shall choose to place his name there, the tithe of thy corn, of thy wine, and of thine oil, and the firstlings of thy herds and of thy flocks; that thou mayest learn to fear the LORD thy God always.

10. (Deuteronomy 14:24) And if the way be too long for thee, so that thou art not able to carry it; or if the place be too far from thee, which the LORD thy God shall choose to set his name there, when the LORD thy God hath blessed thee:

11. (Deuteronomy 14:25) Then shalt thou turn it into money, and bind up the money in thine hand, and shalt go unto the place which the LORD thy God shall choose:

12. (Deuteronomy 15:20) Thou shalt eat it before the LORD thy God year by year in the place which the LORD shall choose, thou and thy household.

13. (Deuteronomy 16:2) Thou shalt therefore sacrifice the passover unto the LORD thy God, of the flock and the herd, in the place which the LORD shall choose to place his name there.

14. (Deuteronomy 16:6) But at the place which the LORD thy God shall choose to place his name in, there thou shalt sacrifice the passover at even, at the going down of the sun, at the season that thou camest forth out of Egypt.

15. (Deuteronomy 16:7) And thou shalt roast and eat it in the place which the LORD thy God shall choose: and thou shalt turn in the morning, and go unto thy tents.

16. (Deuteronomy 16:15) Seven days shalt thou keep a solemn feast unto the LORD thy God in the place which the LORD shall choose: because the LORD thy God shall bless thee in all thine increase, and in all the works of thine hands, therefore thou shalt surely rejoice.

17. (Deuteronomy 16:16) Three times in a year shall all thy males appear before the LORD thy God in the place which he shall choose; in the feast of unleavened bread, and in the feast of weeks, and in the feast of tabernacles: and they shall not appear before the LORD empty:

18. (Deuteronomy 17:8) If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment, between blood and blood, between plea and plea, and between stroke and stroke, being matters of controversy within thy gates: then shalt thou arise, and get thee up into the place which the LORD thy God shall choose;

19. (Deuteronomy 17:10) And thou shalt do according to the sentence, which they of that place which the LORD shall choose shall shew thee; and thou shalt observe to do according to all that they inform thee:

20. (Deuteronomy 17:15) Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.

21. (Deuteronomy 18:6) And if a Levite come from any of thy gates out of all Israel, where he sojourned, and come with all the desire of his mind unto the place which the LORD shall choose;

22. (Deuteronomy 23:16) He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place which he shall choose in one of thy gates, where it liketh him best: thou shalt not oppress him.

23. (Deuteronomy 26:2) That thou shalt take of the first of all the fruit of the earth, which thou shalt bring of thy land that the LORD thy God giveth thee, and shalt put it in a basket, and shalt go unto the place which the LORD thy God shall choose to place his name there.

24. (Deuteronomy 31:11) When all Israel is come to appear before the LORD thy God in the place which he shall choose, thou shalt read this law before all Israel in their hearing.

25. (Joshua 9:27) And Joshua made them that day hewers of wood and drawers of water for the congregation, and for the altar of the LORD, even unto this day, in the place which he should choose.

26. (1 Samuel 2:28) And did I choose him out of all the tribes of Israel to be my priest, to offer upon mine altar, to burn incense, to wear an ephod before me? and did I give unto the house of thy father all the offerings made by fire of the children of Israel?

27. (2 Samuel 16:18) And Hushai said unto Absalom, Nay; but whom the LORD, and this people, and all the men of Israel, choose, his will I be, and with him will I abide.

28. (2 Samuel 21:6) Let seven men of his sons be delivered unto us, and we will hang them up unto the LORD in Gibeah of Saul, whom the LORD did choose. And the king said, I will give them.

29. (1 Kings 14:21) And Rehoboam the son of Solomon reigned in Judah. Rehoboam was forty and one years old when he began to reign, and he reigned seventeen years in Jerusalem, the city which the LORD did choose out of all the tribes of Israel, to put his name there. And his mother's name was Naamah an Ammonitess.

30. (Psalms 25:12) What man is he that feareth the LORD? him shall he teach in the way that he shall choose.

31. (Psalms 47:4) He shall choose our inheritance for us, the excellency of Jacob whom he loved. Selah.

32. (Isaiah 14:1) For the LORD will have mercy on Jacob, and will yet choose Israel, and set them in their own land: and the strangers shall be joined with them, and they shall cleave to the house of Jacob.

33. (Isaiah 49:7) Thus saith the LORD, the Redeemer of Israel, and his Holy One, to him whom man despiseth, to him whom the nation abhorreth, to a servant of rulers, Kings shall see and arise, princes also shall worship, because of the LORD that is faithful, and the Holy One of Israel, and he shall choose thee.

34. (Isaiah 66:4) I also will choose their delusions, and will bring their fears upon them; because when I called, none did answer; when I spake, they did not hear: but they did evil before mine eyes, and chose that in which I delighted not.

35. (Zechariah 1:17) Cry yet, saying, Thus saith the LORD of hosts; My cities through prosperity shall yet be spread abroad; and the LORD shall yet comfort Zion, and shall yet choose Jerusalem.

36. (Zechariah 2:12) And the LORD shall inherit Judah his portion in the holy land, and shall choose Jerusalem again.

****

I know that this is just statistical data, but there is an emphasis in Scripture. The emphasis in Scripture is on the works of God. The central focal point of the Scripture is the Gospel of Christ, the glad tidings of the sacrifice that He has made for the redemption of his people. It is by Christ's death that sin has been conquered: that was God's choice, not ours. And even though men chose to crucify God, this too was ordained by God:

Acts 2:22-24
22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: 23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: 24 Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.

Praise be to God!

-TurretinFan

Pharisees and Jesus - A Study in "Arminian" Logic

First Caveat: I'm using "Arminian" here to refer to a broad range of non-Calvinists - and specifically to refer to those representative of the population of non-Calvinists that regularly criticize Calvinism. I realize that there are Arminians out there who take a very different approach. This is not directed to them.

Spurred on by Triablogue's amusing posts "Prominent Arminian Blogger Denies that Jesus is Human" (link); "Why Freewill Theism makes God the author of Evil" (link); and "Why Jesus was a Sinner" (link), I thought I'd throw my own variant of their theme onto the stack.

Did you know that all the Pharisees followed Jesus? Yes, it is a little known fact.

1) World means World (This is an important tenet of "Arminianism.")

2) John 12:19 The Pharisees therefore said among themselves, Perceive ye how ye prevail nothing? behold, the world is gone after him. (Bold added to assist one's vision.)

3) Therefore, by "Arminian" logic, it follows that the Pharisees were saying that they themselves followed Jesus!

Remarkable, eh? And totally bogus.

Second Caveat: Yes, it is totally bogus. This post is satire (as were the Triablogue posts), trying to humorously show how the argument that "World means World" like the argument that "All means All" is easily abused. The "world" in John's gospel doesn't necessarily mean (and perhaps rarely if ever means) "each and every person on the face of the earth considered as individuals."

-TurretinFan

Myths and Realities about Arminianism

Paul Manata of Triablogue has provided a thorough and detailed (and consequently lengthy) review of and response to Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities, by Roger E. Olson (link to review). Olson is a self-described Arminian responding to what he views as various misconceptions about Arminianism both those of Calvinists and those of self-identified Arminians. I hope that the more serious Arminians out there will take the time to consider what Manata has written. His precise explanations, in many cases, cut right to the heart of the matter. I am thankful for this sort of piece, since it can promote understanding by clearly stating points of difference, while providing supporting explanation.

-TurretinFan

Common Grace vs. Prevenient Grace

One reader asked, "How does the Arminian concept of prevenient grace differ from the Calvinist concept of common grace? It seems to me that they each describe one and the same thing."

In Calvinist circles, the term "common grace" is used to describe a number of things. One definition provides three aspects:

1) "a certain favor or grace of God which He shows to His creatures in general;"
2) "the restraint of sin in the life of the individual man and in the community;" and
3) an influence in which, "God, without renewing the heart, so influences man that he is able to perform civil good" and, thus, "the unregenerate, though incapable of doing any saving good, can do civil good." (source)

In contrast, Wesley (one of the most influential Arminian writers) defined prevenient grace thus (I'm not sure whether these are Wesley's own words or a distillation of his thought ... they seem to be accurate, and I could not find a more pithy quotation directly from him.):

Human beings are totally incapable of responding to God without God first empowering them to have faith. This empowerment is known as "Prevenient Grace." Prevenient Grace doesn't save us but, rather, comes before anything that we do, drawing us to God, making us want to come to God, and enabling us to have faith in God. Prevenient Grace is Universal, in as much as all humans receive it, regardless of their having heard of Jesus. It is manifested in the deep-seated desire of most humans to know God.

(source)

One could loosely compare the two by saying that common grace simply places a limit on the depth of man's depravity, whereas prevenient grace removes man's depravity. Common grace makes man not as wicked as he otherwise would be, but prevenient grace makes man essentially morally neutral.

The two are quite different. It's worth noting that some Calvinists use the term "common grace" to refer more broadly to things like the fact that God sometimes gives common physical goods to both regenerate and unregenerate alike (for example, God may give rain to water the crops of both a god-fearing farmer and his neighbor the god-hating farmer). Other times, people use the term "common grace" to refer to the outward restraints on human wickedness, such as civil government and parents.

Likewise, prevenient grace is sometimes given a range of meanings. I've heard the preaching of the gospel referred to, by an Arminian, as prevenient grace. Indeed, some Arminians would say that every favor or opportunity that God gives to man before he believes, prevenes (goes before) that faith, and consequently can be labeled prevenient grace.

Thus, while the central meanings of the two terms are largely unrelated, there is occasionally overlap, where a Calvinist might loosely refer to something as "common grace" and an Arminian might loosely refer to it as "prevenient grace."

I should point out that not all Calvinists agree with using the term "common grace." I understand the historical, linguistic, and logical rational for that disagreement (I think), but I view it as a scruple. I'm not going to debate the issue here, and I hope that I won't unnecessarily offend my scrupulously Calvinistic friends by referring to their views that way. On the other hand, I don't endorse the idea of saying that a person is a "hyper-Calvinist" if they don't use the term "common grace," or find the three points above to be an inaccurate statement of doctrine. I realize that puts me at odds with such notable contemporary bloggers as Phil Johnson, but that's just something I'll have to live with. And I'm not going to debate that issue here, either.

Having explained the differences between "common grace" and "prevenient grace," I hope I will have answered my reader's question.

-TurretinFan

30 Seconds on God's Knowledge of the Future

Team Pyro has a post that takes 30 seconds to read but concisely states one of the arguments against the Arminian world-view (link).

I've expanded on this same theme in a previous post, entitled, "The Diary" (link).

-TurretinFan

So You Want to Root Out Calvinism?

Here's a video that humorously (or at least that is the intent) illustrates a number classic errors that are frequently used by opponents of Calvinism.



There is some nice marching music in the background, but no verbal material in the audio - so if you need to turn off the audio, you won't miss any of the substance. I obviously don't endorse the use of a purported image of Christ in the video.

Hat tip to JM of the Puritanboard for pointing this video out to me (link).

-TurretinFan

Real Varieties of Calvinism

Can there be real, recognizable varieties of Calvinism? My previous post may have suggested that there could not be such recognizable varieties. That's not the case. There are several ways in which Calvinism could be divided. For example, with respect to the salvation of infants who die in infancy, there are four Calvinist views, namely that all, some, or none such infants are saved, the fourth position being that because Scripture does not tell us, we simply don't know. Dordt adopted an apparent position of "some," namely such children of believing parents. Others, out of a great tenderness of heart, have suggested that all infants (regardless of their parents) who die in infancy are saved.

Another way in which a taxonomy of Calvinism has been proposed is with respect to the logical (not temporal) order of decrees. The following chart may help, in which in addition to the two Calvinist positions, I've also included the Arminian and classical Amyraldian positions:

Arminian	Amyraldian	Infra-Lapsarian	Supra-Lapsarian
Permission of Fall	Permission of Fall	Permission of Fall	Election of Some to Glory
Death of Christ	Death of Christ	Election of Some to Mercy	Permission of Fall
Universal Prevenient Grace	Election of Some to Moral Ability	Death of Christ	Death of Christ
Predestination of Those who Make Good use of Grace	Holy Spirit to Work Moral Ability in Elect	Holy Spirit to Save the Elect	Holy Spirit to Save the Elect
Sanctification of the Predestined	Sanctification of the Elect	Sanctification of the Elect	Sanctification of the Elect

(For Warfield's more detailed chart, click here)

It should be noted that there are Calvinists in both the "Infra" and "Supra" lapsarian camps. The descriptions Infra-Lapsarian and Supra-Lapsarian refer to the relation of the decree of Election to the decree of the fall (the "lapse" in "lapsarian"). Infra-Lapsarians believe that God elected some fallen men to Salvation/Mercy (infra = after), whereas Supra-Lapsarians believe that God elected men first to Glory (supra = before), and then decreed the fall as a means to that end. Of course, both camps are discussing the logical order, not the temporal order. There have been notable reformers in both camps.

Turretin was a notable Infra-Lapsarian. Twisse, on the other hand, was a notable Supra-Lapsarian. The Synod of Dordt seems to have favored the infra view, while the Westminster Assembly seems to have favored the supra view, while neither council addressed the issue as such in so many words (i.e.neither body specifically stated that God first in the logical order decreed the fall, or first in the logical order decreed to bring some men to glory).

It's generally held in Calvinist circles that both views (infra and supra) are within the bounds of orthodoxy, although, of course, both views cannot be correct. Some people wishing to include Amyraldians as Calvinists have proposed a three-fold division of Calvinism, with Supra being "high," Infra being "moderate," and classical Amyraldianism being "low." There are a number of problems with this view, the greatest being that the classical Amyraldian position has a fundamental error with respect to the atonement, namely that it makes the atonement, with respect to the decrees, indefinite. This error is not present in a "lesser degree" in the infra view and likewise is not mirrored by an excessively definite (is such a thing even possible?) view of the atonement in the supra view. In short, the problem can be expressed as their being no single variable that permits scaling across the three groups.

Instead, the attempted justification for the scaling lies in the fact that the decree of election is earliest in the logical order in the supra view, then the infra, then the Amyraldian, and logically latest (among evangelical groups) in the Arminian view. This justification seems rather artificial, but at least is not totally arbitrary. In any event, though it would tend to provide a way of categorizing people that does not rely simply on buzz-words.

It should be noted that there are a number of Calvinists who don't take a particularly emphatic (or explicit) view with respect to the order of decrees. Thus, for example, Dr. White has mentioned that he has a "modified supralapsarian" position, but I haven't seen a detailed explanation of what means by that (link to source) (I should note that the link itself is a good example of Dr. White distinguishing his own position from hyper-Calvinism long before the recent slander-fest on that topic -- see also this further discussion). The reason for such lack of discussion is that this issue, whether the decree to permit the fall precedes or follows the decree of election, is a relatively minor point. It is not something that would require men to divide fellowship, at least that is my position.

-TurretinFan

Five Points Compared to a Few Soteriologies

For those interested, I thought it would fun to provide a tableshowing acceptance of TULIP's various petals (T = Total Depravity, U =Unconditional Election, L = Limited Atonement, I = Irresistible Grace,P = Perseverance of the Saints).

	T	U	L	I	P
Pelagian	No	No	No	No	No
Pelagian ES	No	No	No	No	Yes
Arminian	Yes*	No	No	No	No*
Arminian ES	No	No	No	No	Yes
Amyraldian	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes
Calvinism	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes

There is an asterisk by two items in the Arminian chart. The first asterisk is because many Arminians claim to hold to Total Depravity.What they mean by that is not what Calvinists mean by it, though,hence the asterisk. The second asterisk is because some Arminians reject, some affirm, and some leave open the question of whether true believers persevere. The "ES" stands for "eternal security." Oddly,some Pelagians hold to eternal security.-TurretinFan

Calvinism Distinguished Historically

Nomenclature is important. Generally speaking, Calvinism as distinct from Arminianism is the result of the controversy provoked by the Remonstrants and addressed by the Synod of Dordt. People seem to lose site of this important historical concept. This controversy essentially provided a definition of Calvinism as distinct from Arminianism, characterized by five points.

The "five points" were originally brought forth as the five points of the Remonstrants/Arminians, not the five points of Calvinism. Calvin (1509-64) wasn't around for the Arminian controversy, and Arminius himself (1560-1609) was not around for the Synod of Dordt (1618-19).

The Synod of Dordt took what has come to be called the "Calvinist" view. The "Canons of Dordt" (link) never make reference to Calvin, but always to Scripture.

The five main points, or "headings" of the Council of Dordt were:

1) Divine Election and Reprobation
2) Christ's Death and Human Redemption Through It
3 and 4) Human Corruption, Conversion to God, and the Way It Occurs
5) The Perseverance of the Saints

These five points or headings are popularly identified using the acronym TULIP, both because it is a beautiful flower and because it is something of a national symbol for Holland, the place where the controversy took place.

T = Total Depravity
U = Unconditional Election
L = Limited Atonement
I = Irresistible Grace
P = Perseverance of the Saints

Hopefully it is apparent that TULIP does not follow the order of the 5 headings of the Canons of Dordt. The alignment of point to point is as follows:

1 => U
2 => L
3 & 4 => T & I
5 => P

There is an historical sense in which the canons of Dordt may be said to help define what is and what is not Calvinism. This would seem to be the best for understanding the "Continental" brand of Calvinism. In Great Britain and Ireland the definition of what the Reformed view is would come to be known by means of three standards:

I) The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646) (link)
II) The Savoy Declaration (1658) (link)
III) The London Baptist Confession (1689) (link)

These three documents, which largely track one another (with issues relating to Baptism and Church Government being notable points of difference), were not addressed primarily to the Arminian controversy. Nevertheless, these documents were presented with the Arminian controversy already having occurred. Each of these documents rejects the Arminian error in favor of the Calvinistic view. None of these documents, however, specifically designates the "five points."

Nevertheless, the doctrines of total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints are clearly presented in the following sections:

T => WCF Chapter 6, Paragraphs 2-4
U => WCF 3:5
L => WCF 8:8
I => WCF 9:4
P => WCF 17:1

The corresponding sections of the Savoy Declaration and the London Baptist Confession have the same chapter and paragraph number, and generally present the same material, albeit sometimes in a slightly modified/expanded form.

It should be pointed out that while the "five points" are old, the acronym "TULIP" is a more modern development. The earliest reference I've seen to it is a reference in 1913 to a certain Dr. McAfee (apparently a professor of theology) using the acronym. The acronym was intended as a memory aid to recall the five points. It works.

With or without the acronym, the five points have served as a dividing line between Calvinistic monergism and Arminian Synergism. An example from 1700 can be seen in this work by Christopher Ness (link).

Not everyone is happy with this line.

A number of folks reject the doctrine of Limited Atonement, arguing that Christ died not only for the elect, but for each and every person. These folks are generally lumped into the category "Amyraldian" despite various objections as to differences among those who reject Limited Atonement. This group is the one that most dislikes the use of the five points to define Calvinism as distinct from Arminianism.

Some folks in this category have engaged in a campaign to redefine Calvinism away from the five points. Their apparent reason for doing so, is in order to be included under the Calvinistic umbrella. Whatever the reason, their approach has been to try to divide up Calvinism into various camps, from "Low" to "Moderate" and even "High" Calvinism. Worse still, they create a camp of Calvinism that they confusingly label "Hyper-Calvinism."

These divisions are rather artificial, to say the least. There is no major controversy to help make the lines bright, but, instead, the divisions tend to be drawn either along the use of certain buzz-words or minor controversies.

Worse yet, the filling of the ranks of the various divisions is done by the use of quote-mining: taking quotations from various authors and removing them from their historical context. Leading the way, of course, is the quote-mining Calvin himself. Essentially, the program is "Calvin vs. the Calvinists." Despite the fact that Arminius was mere toddler (4 years old) when Calvin died, quotations from Calvin are taken as though spoken in the context of the Arminian controversy.

I've dealt with this anachronistic nonsense in other posts already, and I don't plan to rehash all of that here. The main point to be recognized is that the Calvinism/Arminianism divide is an important one, whereas the "Hyper"/"High"/"Moderate"/"Low" classifications are neither important nor accurate. They are misleading and tend to obscure the important points.

This matter comes to a head under the use of "hyper-Calvinism."

A useful division between Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism exists when Hyper-Calvinism is differentiated from Calvinism on a substantive line, such as:

1) fatalism;
2) refusal to evangelize;
3) denial of human responsibility; or
4) denial that men have wills or make choices.

These bright line errors are rejections of the Synod of Dordt in the opposite direction of Arminians. These errors are serious, and should be avoided.

Other definitions of "hyper-Calvinism" tend to center around buzz-words. These definitions tend to focus on things like whether or not someone is willing to say that God "loves" the reprobate in some sense or whether God gives "common grace" to the reprobate.

I do think that refusing to use the term "common grace" may be the result of a scruple rather than a legitimate objection. To call them "hyper-Calvinists" is, in my view, an unnecessary offense to the brethren. It is simply a pejorative label. The issue of "common grace" does not relate to the gospel - it does not change the way that the men preach the gospel. Furthermore, it muddies the waters.

Here's a handy way to divide up the three camps:

	Arminianism	Calvinism	Hyper-Calvinism
God's Sovereignty	Denies	Affirms	Affirms
Man's Responsibility	Affirms	Affirms	Denies

Calvinism, as illustrated, is the balanced view between Arminianism and Hyper-Calvinism. It affirms both the real sovereignty of God and the real responsibility of man.

This same chart can be provided another way:

	Arminianism	Calvinism	Hyper-Calvinism
Man's Will Compatible with Divine Foreordination	Denies	Affirms	Denies

In a nutshell, what this chart aims to show is the philosophical dividing line of compatibilism. Compatibilism is the view that both man making choices and God foreordaining what those choices will be are compatible concepts. In essence, both the Arminian and the Hyper-Calvinist agree that they are not compatible concepts. One picks man's will, the other picks divine foreordination.

The recent controversy centered around whether to label the Calvinist, Dr. White, as an "hyper-Calvinist" tends to major on the details, obscuring the larger picture. The larger picture is that Dr. White is a consistent Calvinist who affirms monergism and compatibilism. Dr. White is a Calvinist as it would be defined by the relevant sections of the London Baptist Confession of 1689, identified above.

For all but the most contentious or mischievous people, that should be enough. I can understand Amyraldians feeling excluded from such charts. With respect to the Arminian/Calvinist/Hyper-Calvinist division, Amyraldians would normally fall in the Calvinist camp. The problem with Amyraldianism is that it is internally inconsistent. Whether they feel excluded or not, however, creating confusing and unnecessary divisions of "Calvinism" using buzzwords is not productive and not conducive to edification. I would gently but firmly encourage those who have been doing so, to consider desisting.

-TurretinFan

Calvinism and Determinism: a Response

Godismyjudge (GIMJ) has provided a post with the title "Calvinism and Determinism," in which his thesis is: "It seems Calvinism is simply determinism in the context of soteriology." (source)

I have a number of reactions to this sort of comment:

1) Let's suppose the thesis is correct. Then what? Applying the label "determinism" to Calvinism seems to be more an attempt to malign the doctrines of grace than to identify some weakness or error in them. It's a technique used by William Lane Craig as well - and equally as hollowly here as there. If Scripture teaches the five points of Calvinism they should be believed, whether or nor the label "determinism" applies.

2) What is worse, the label is not something with a well understood meaning. Typical readers are likely to confuse the broad philosophical category of determinism with the special case of mechanical or physical determinism. Godismyjudge doesn't mean mechanical or physical determinism, but he doesn't mention that in his post.

3) Still worse, the characterizations of Calvinism used to support the "determinism" thesis are inaccurate:

a) GIMJ claims that Calvinism teaches, "Our destiny is determined before we were born without having anything to do with us." This is not true, because "without having anything to do with us," is not an accurate representation. God appointed not only the ends but also the means. We are not chosen to glory because of something good in us, but we are chosen to be saved through faith in the Messiah.

b) GIMJ claims that Calvinism teaches, "The "possibility" of salvation [based on the sufficiency of Christ's death] is based on a different past then the actual past ... ." This is not true, either, because the sufficiency of Christ's death is a matter of intrinsic value. Christ's death is in actuality sufficient for all the sins of each and every person.

4) But the final nail in the coffin is that GIMJ's loose criticisms of Calvinism apply to classical Arminianism/Molinism as well:

a) GIMJ complains that "Our destiny is determined before we were born without having anything to do with us" is "clearly deterministic" but "our destiny is determined before we were born WITH having something to do with us," is no less deterministic. Either way, predetermination has been made. One way is divine determination, the other a synergistic determination - but both ways are deterministic in the broad, loose sense of the word employed in GIMJ's post.

b) GIMJ complains that "The "possibility" of salvation is based on a different past then the actual past" is "a hallmark of determinism" but since Arminianism/Molinism affirms God's prior knowledge of all history to come, any "possibility" of salvation for any person who will not be saved must be based on a past in which God knew something different than what he knows - i.e. a different past than the actual past.

c) GIMJ complains that "Denying contrary choice is another sign of determinism" but classical Arminianism/Molinism admits that God himself is unable to choose evil. If that is a sign of determinism, classical Arminianism/Molinism has it at the highest level.

d) GIMJ complains that the concept that "Believers can't fall away" is "Basically the same thing" as in (c) above. I cannot recall a quotation offhand, but I think it is fair to say that not only does popular Arminianism today teach "Once Saved Always Saved" but that classical Arminianism accepts the idea that those in heaven will be there eternally. Apparently, in the mentality behind this criticism of Calvinism, it's just unexplainably bad to suggest that the Shepherd is going to ensure that his sheep persevere in this life.

e) Finally, GIMJ tries to skate past Total Depravity but Total Depravity is analogous to Irresistible Grace and Perseverance of the Saints. If man is unable to come to Christ without grace, it should not be any more or less deterministic to say that man is unable to fall away from Christ with grace. Of course, the problem is that it is only in theory that classical Arminians accept Total Depravity: they negate its effects via the unbiblical gap-filler of Universal Prevenient Grace.

In conclusion, I wasn't impressed by the post. Was that due to something in the post (determination) or something in me (self-determination)? I think the former - perhaps GIMJ thinks the latter. Either way there is a reason for my failure to appreciate GIMJ's mislabeling of Calvinism, and that reason demonstrates that the laws of cause and effect apply not only to the physical world but also to the spiritual world. What do you give up if you embrace what GIMJ calls "determinism"? You give up something you (and everyone else) never ever uses - the power to choose otherwise than you actually choose. By embracing God's sovereignty over man, all you give up is a history (past and future) that doesn't exist. Whether you accept Molinism or Calvinism - the future is so certain that it might as well be written in stone (as noted here).

-TurretinFan

Arminianism and Natural Birth

Joshua Lim at Reformed Blogging has an interesting post on Arminianism and Natural Birth (link) (Mitch has pointed out that there is something wrong with the link. The post can be found via the following link, about 3/4 of the way down the page - backup link). He states fairly succinctly this particular problem that is posed for Arminianism. More could be said, of course, but the main point is articulated, and worth reading.