These searches occur repeatedly, so we will compile them with the responses here.
PEOPLE:
Is Paul Washer a Calvinist?
Yes.
Is John MacArthur a Calvinist?
Yes.
Is R.C. Sproul a Calvinist?
Yes.
Is Ravi Zacharias a Calvinist?
Not if he fully agrees with the doctrinal statement of the Christian and Missionary Alliance, which is where Ravi is ordained. Thanks to commenter Jeremy (possibly a Georgetown fan), we have this statement by Ravi on the issue – it appears clear he would not affirm the Calvinist viewpoint on and .
Is Dr. James Dobson a Calvinist?
Not likely. He belongs to the Church of the Nazarene.
Is Rick Warren a Calvinist?
Who knows? He does not appear to be a very consistent Calvinist, if he is one, and he is not a very consistent Arminian, either.
Is Joel Osteen a Calvinist?
Please.
No. Is he an Arminian? I don’t know, but I would tend to say based on what he says he is more Pelagian than anything else. Please see his church’s belief statement – it is so generic no one can really tell. They do not post the text of his “sermons” so we can’t glean anything from that source (it’s essentially the same message every Sunday anyway). As of this update in July 2010, you can purchase DVDs of sermons for $12. You can. I won’t. If that’s your intent, you would perhaps be better off purchasing this DVD.
Is Voddie Baucham a Calvinist?
Yes.
Is Bob DeWaay a Calvinist?
Is Charles Stanley a Calvinist?
No. Scroll down to “Salvation.”
Is Justin Peters a Calvinist?
Is Ray Comfort a Calvinist?
Is Jerry Bridges a Calvinist?
Yes. He is a member of The Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals.
Is T.D. Jakes a Calvinist?
**coughing fit** Whoa. Dude. Come on. Good thing I’m sitting down. No, he isn’t. He must be rather flexible though, with callouses on his shoulders from patting himself on the back on this page.
Is Joni Eareckson-Tada a Calvinist?
Yes, she is. Here’s the story of how she came to be one – AFTER her injury.
Is Kevin DeYoung a Calvinist?
Yes.
Is Norman Geisler a Calvinist?
No, no matter how often Dr. Geisler proclaims himself so (a “moderate” Calvinist, in his own words). Dr. Geisler has co-founded a seminary and their statement of faith is decidedly Arminian.
Is D.A. Carson a Calvinist?
Yes.
Is John Piper a Calvinist?
Is Joseph Prince an Arminian or a Calvinist?
One could make the point he is neither, based upon this rather vague Statement of Faith. Is a classic case of eisegesis, however, this is how he interprets Exodus 3:14 and the “I AM” statement made by the Lord – methinks neither Arminius nor Calvin would agree with this: “That’s why, in the burning bush, He revealed Himself as “I AM” to Moses. (Exodus 3:14) My friend, He is the great “I AM” in your life. What does that mean? It simply means, “I AM whatever you need Me to be!”
Yikes. Original document here.
Commenter “chrizchian” asked this question: “How about these performers? Are they Calvinists?”
Don Moen – can’t make a definitive call, but most likely not, given his background at Oral Roberts University and his collaboration with those such as Max Lucado.
Ron Kenoly – not if he affirms the beliefs of his home church, but boy, oh boy, “I See The Lord” is a great, a great song.
Michael W. Smith – can’t make a definitive judgment but the first impression is that he is not, based upon the generic “Statement of Faith” from New River Fellowship, which grew out of a home fellowship at the Smith’s. Their Statement of Faith says they affirm the Apostle’s Creed, the Nicene Creed and The Lausanne Covenant. One of their elder/pastors, though, came from a church with this statement of faith, which affirms faith preceding regeneration which is decidedly not Calvinistic.
Bob Fitts – TBA
Kent Henry – TBA
Darlene Szsech – she is definitely not, being pastorette of a church in Australia that is a member of the Australian Christian Churches. See their “What We Believe” page.
Steve Green – it certainly appears he is from all the people he references in his journal and from his Links page.
Carman – TBA
Amy Grant – TBA
Paul Baloche – TBA
Keith and Kristyn Getty (Ireland) – TBA
Katherine Scott – TBA
Israel Houghton – TBA
Kirk Cameron – TBA
Is Jim McClarty a Calvinist?
Yes.
Is Wayne Grudem a Calvinist?
Yes.
Is Donald Gray Barnhouse a Calvinist?
Well, considering Mr. Barnhouse has passed on to glory, where everybody is a Calvinist, yes. While he was alive, though, he was most certainly a Calvinist.
Commenter Tall Tim asked about these three and whether or not they are Calvinists:
Francis Chan: Interestingly enough, given Chan’s having graduated from Master’s College and Master’s Seminary, it appears one cannot tell. The statement of faith at the church he recently left appears to be one that is not Calvinistic, while the statement of faith at the bible college founded by Mr. Chan appears to be Calvinistic. Mr. Chan’s personal web site gives no help with regard to the answer.
David Wilkerson: I don’t think so, given his Pentecostal leanings and background, but one cannot say based upon this statement of faith (the question was raised the week after Mr. Wilkerson’s death).
Mark Kielar: Definitely a Calvinist.
Is Shai Linne a Calvinist?
Yes.
Was Matthew Henry a Calvinist?
Yes.
Is Charles Swindoll a Calvinist?
Is Nathan Pitchford a Calvinist?
Yes.
Was J.C. Ryle a Calvinist?
Yes.
Is Tullian Tchividjian a Calvinist?
Yes – see the beliefs of the church which he pastors – that church affirms the Westminster Confession of Faith.
Is R.W. Glenn a Calvinist?
Yes.
Is Douglas Wilson a Calvinist?
Yes. He is also the author of one of my favorite books, a wonderful introductory treatment of Calvinism entitled, “Easy Chairs, Hard Words: Conversations On The Liberty Of God.”
Is Matt Chandler a Calvinist?
Yes.
Is Billy Graham a Calvinist?
No. See Graham’s book, “How To Be Born Again,” available for preview at Amazon, where he says, “The context of John 3 teaches that the new birth is something that God does for man when man is willing to yield to God,” (p. 150) and, “The Holy Spirit will do everything possible to disturb you, draw you, love you – but finally it is your personal decision.” (p. 162) FYI: Dr. Graham is the grandfather of Tullian Tchividjian, shown a few lines above here.
Where can I find Josh Gelatt?
Sorry to say, but…Ohio. Yes, OHIO!!!!!!. He is now the pastor of Grace Chapel in West Liberty, Ohio. Anytime a Michigander crosses the border into Buckeye territory, it is to be considered a missionary venture, to be sure. After all, Ohio is a foreign land where people wear crimson and gray and drive very slowly on their interstate highways through mostly flaaaaaaaaaaat terrain.
Is Jon Cardwell a Calvinist?
Jon who? In any event, yes, he is. And a fine one, at that. He also likes bacon and ribs, which moves him way up in the hierarchy of swell people.
ISSUES:
Why do Calvinists evangelize if they believe in predestination?
Because they believe the Bible and therefore believe in predestination. Calvinists believe God ordains the end (predestination), and that He also ordains the means to that end, which is through evangelization.
Why don’t Calvinists evangelize?
Who says they don’t?
If Calvinists don’t evangelize it’s because they are a) lazy or b) disobedient to Scripture. A certain group of people who would fall into a category called “hyper-Calvinism” do indeed not believe in evangelization – they believe that God will save His elect without the assistance of anyone, including any who may evangelize. That is just plain in opposition to Scripture.
Verses that disprove Calvinism:
We have compiled such a list in book form, with assistance from two swell brothers. We have laid out the doctrines of God’s sovereign grace, one by one, known as the five points of Calvinism, then immediately following each point, have made the logical argument refuting each point along with Scriptural support for the refutation. Depending upon where you live, the book is available for U.S. purchasers here and for international buyers here. Or, we have the related question…..
How do you prove Calvinism is wrong?
It’s actually very easy. First, come to the Bible with your mind having already been made up as to what God is like and what He can and cannot do. Second, impose human standards of “fairness” upon God and His Word. Finally, ignore the clear teaching of Scripture. It’s so easy, anyone can do it, and many in fact do.
Or, you could just cite a list of verses that Calvinists and non-Calvinists alike would affirm and declare that they disprove Calvinism. Think I’m kidding? Check this out.
What book would you recommend for the clearest explanation and justification of Calvinist doctrine?
There are many fine books on the subject. In the interest of full disclosure and Christian honesty, however, even fine books like this one, this one and this one may have a theological nit or two to pick. The little book mentioned in the above question explains the Calvinist view on the doctrine of salvation quite succinctly. In the end, though, there is one book that is absolutely irrefutable and clear with regard as to its explanation of the doctrines of grace. It’s this one.
St. Francis of Assisi and preaching the Gospel without words – did he say it?
Most likely not. Even if he had, he would have been wrong. The Gospel is an account of real, historic events and a real historical Person – the Person and work of Christ – and we are commanded to “repent and believe the Gospel.” You and I can’t preach the Gospel without words, either. Pagans can perform wonderful philanthropic and humanitarian works, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, providing shelter for the homeless, etc. and they can be indistinguishable from Christians in doing so. If so, then how can our performing these works “preach the Gospel?” The Gospel, in the New Testament, was preached by proclamation. No other manner will suffice.
Why pray if the outcome has already been determined, as you Calvinists say it has?
Because we believe that God has ordained means in His eternal decree to accomplish His predetermined plan (see the above on predestination). One of those means is prayer.
But if the outcome of the prayer is predetermined, then the prayers are meaningless, aren’t they?
“But who are you, O man, to answer back to God?” was how Paul addressed such an issue and if it was good enough for Paul – under the divine inspiration of the Spirit of God, then it should be good enough for us. After all, “The prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working” doesn’t it (James 5:16b)?
What do Armenians believe?
We can’t say, because no doubt people from Armenia have many, many different beliefs. If one wishes, one could investigate the national church of Armenia, the Armenian Apostolic Church, to see what it believes.
That’s not why you’re here, though, is it? You don’t want to know what Armenians believe, you want to know what Arminians believe. Those known as Arminians would affirm the teaching of Jacobus Arminius, Dutch theologian of the late 16th and early 17th Centuries. His followers generated a document in opposition to the teaching of Calvin known as The Five Articles of the Remonstrance in 1609. Many who claim to be Arminian today are not, and in fact are Semi-Pelagian, if not fully Pelagian.
BTW, the number of people who enter some form of “Armenian” into a search engine – when they are looking for “Arminian” – and arrive here is quite astonishing.
What did Martin Luther say/believe/write regarding “free will?”
Let’s just say that Luther’s view on “free will” wouldn’t jibe with most contemporary Christians. His definitive treatment of the subject can read online, but for some juicy tidbits of Luther’s, we direct you to Reformation Theology. Luther did indeed see the issue of free will being at the heart of the Reformation debate and at the core of the Gospel itself. This is mere conjecture, but I don’t think Luther would be attending this church or singing this song if he had his druthers.
1 John 2:2 says “He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world,” so how can you believe in the Calvinist doctrine of limited atonement?
Well, then, how does it feel, Christian brother/sister, to be under the control of the evil one? The Apostle John used the same phrase, “whole world,” later in the Epistle (1 John 5:19). I am assuming you would affirm that John would thus be using the phrase in the same manner in both instances – the other citation would be , where John says, “We know that we are from God, and the whole world lies in the power of the evil one.” So, by your own interpretation – “whole world” in meaning “every single person without exception,” then must mean the same thing – “every single person without exception” is in the power of the evil one. You reply, “John didn’t mean that in 5:19! He only intended to mean the world system – not every single person!”
Hmmm.
If he didn’t mean “every single person” in 5:19 , what requires him to mean “every single person” in 2:2? A study of “kosmos,” the word we translate as “world,” is a very meaningful study. You’d be surprised how many ways it is used. I think those in Hell would also be most surprised to find that the wrath of God was appeased on their behalf per your exegesis of 2:2.
What percentage of Christians are Calvinists?
It depends. When they pray a petition, 100%. You don’t see too many non-Calvinists praying like this, do you? It’s interesting how Calvinistic people become when they desperately pray for the salvation of a loved one. You didn’t ask the corollary question, though – “How many Calvinists are Christians?” Less than 100% – belief in a particular doctrine of salvation does not justify a sinner – faith in Jesus Christ does. Sound doctrine alone apart from faith in Christ does not save – refer to the demons who know who God is – and know who Jesus is, from the accounts in the Gospels, yet are not saved.
Are Southern Baptists Calvinists?
Yes and no. The Baptist Faith and Message 2000 can be read such that both Calvinists and non-Calvinists are able to affirm it. In a related question………..
Are Baptists (in general) Arminians or Calvinists?
Typically, yes, but not all cases. There are Pelagians and Semi-Pelagians out there. Baptists who hold to the 1689 London Baptist Confession are Calvinists.
How can Calvinists believe in “once saved, always saved?”
Let’s define our terms first. If you mean “once saved, always saved” in the sense that all a person has to do is make a one-time profession of “faith” and they are thus “saved,” regardless of whether they continue in faith or commit outright apostasy, then no, Calvinists do not believe in that. Does anyone REALLY believe that? Yes – for example, Arminian Baptist pastor Charles Stanley does (scroll down to the bottom portion – the pages in question in Dr. Stanley’s book may or may not be available for viewing on Amazon. At one point they were, but were later removed).
However, if you mean that once the Spirit raises a person from spiritual death to spiritual life and gives that person faith and repentance, then yes, we do believe that. See the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith for a complete explanation (near the bottom) – that such an act of the Spirit does not give the believer license to sin but necessarily results in a changed life which includes the holiness without which no man shall see the Lord (Heb. 12:14).
Are Arminians saved?
Maybe. Before you go ballistic, hear me out.
Belief in a theological system saves no one (see the above statement concerning sound doctrine). Just because one affirms the doctrines of grace – Calvinism – as the correct soteriological doctrine does not mean one is saved. Just because one affirms an incorrect doctrine, such as Arminianism, does not then mean one is NOT saved, either.
A person is saved through their faith in the Person and work of Christ. This is not a Calvinist/Arminian issue. The Calvinist/Arminian issue has to do with how one gets to the point of salvation. Arminians think man’s decision to believe was the fundamental one, cooperating with the grace of God, resulting in salvation. Calvinists, being correct, believe that the decision of God to save is the fundamental one.
As R.C. Sproul says when asked if Arminians are saved: “The real question is whether they are safe… Saved? Most are, barely… really the debate between Calvinists and Arminians is an intramural debate among Christians.”
What would cause anyone to change their mind from Arminian thought to Calvinistic thinking?
They finally read their Bibles without presuppositions or the traditions of men as the lens through which they approach the Scripture. They subsequently submit to what the Scripture says, difficult as it may be (in some cases). Sounds trite, but ask around. It’ll be more common than you may think.
How can you amillennialists believe in replacement theology?
Huh? Who said we did? Certainly not us.
This is a misrepresentation of what amillennials believe. The common objection we get here is that “You believe the church replaces Israel!!” OH? Where did we say that? Those who would affirm amillennialism affirm no such thing. Here is what we would affirm:
God has always had a people for Himself. In the Old Testament this people was known as Israel. Even in the Old Testament, however, Israel was not purely made up of ethnic Jews. We know that as far as national Israel goes, a mixed multitude left Egypt. Within national Israel, there has always been a righteous remnant (a ‘spiritual Israel’), which included non-Israelites such as Rahab and Ruth. We also have Jonah’s missionary endeavor adding to the people of God through his preaching at Ninevah.
In the New Testament, we see not “replacement theology,” but “expansion theology.” Paul goes to great length in Romans to describe how Gentiles are grafted into the tree (spiritual Israel). He also says that God has broken down the “dividing wall of hostility” between Jew and Gentile in Ephesians 2. Paul also discusses there being neither Jew nor Greek in Galatians 3 and in fact these people are one in Christ, then he goes on to state that those who are Christ’s (the Jew and Gentile of the prior verse) are the offspring of Abraham and heirs according to the promise.
Yes, we know there is much disagreement within the family of faith on millennial issues – but please, in your disagreement, do not misrepresent what amillennials believe.
What is the most frequent search term that results in visits here?
We have a new answer to this question. Our former fave, the search term ‘lightning bolt,’ has been replaced. The most frequent search that ends up in our swell little corner of the world of bits and bytes is some form of the apocryphal ‘preaching the gospel without words,’ allegedly uttered by Francis of Assisi.
A close second, surprisingly, is people wondering whether or not Ravi Zacharias is a Calvinist. For that answer, see above.
Two side notes: 1) I know a missionary who spent many (almost 20) years in Italy evangelizing the people there. He lived seven miles from Assisi. He said it was the most pagan town and environment he had ever encountered. 2) If you are wondering where the search for “The Lighthearted Calvinist” ranks in the hierarchy of those who arrive here, well, let’s just say it’s not near the top. Or the middle. It is firmly planted at about, oh…..1,266,211, give or take a hundred thousand. Or two.
Hi Jeff.
I suppose if you added, “Is Jon Cardwell a Calvinist?” you would get comments on this page that ask, “Jon who?”
This is my favorite FAQ page on the blogsphere.
Blessings to you, my friend.
Well, given my little corner of the world I inhabit, I’m not sure if I should say: a) “Thank you, Jon, for the compliment,” or b) “Dude, you need to get out more.” In my quest to be more gracious, I’ll go with a).
Thanks. Truly. God Bless.
Just ran across your blog. As another reformed baptist I have to say I’m more lighthearted already after my visit here! Thanks for the fun.
Wow. I’m immortalized by The Lighthearted Calvinist!
Jeff, I guess since you’ve included me on your swell site, on your swell FAQ page, along with all the swell articles links and resources you provide here, all I have to say is, “That’s swell.”
Blessings to you, my friend. Thanks for keeping us all lighthearted!
Just so you know, my wife HATES my use of the word “swell.” Says it makes me sound so out-of-date. Next thing you know, she’ll be wanting me to get rid of the rotary dial telephones and 8-track tapes.
Sheesh.
[...] as a Calvinist right alongside such names as Paul Walker, John MacArthur and R.C. Sproul on the FAQ page of Jeff Peterson’s The Lighthearted Calvinist. Jeff’s FAQ page is my favorite FAQ page on the [...]
I will pray for all the Calvinist. They were predestined to believe false doctrine. Haha just trying to be lighthearted!
We will use our free will to do just that. Thanks for stopping by.
I think you missed out the name Bill Hybels if he’s a Calvinist. :)
There’s an R.C. Sproul video series where, sitting in the front row, is….Bill Hybels (!). Sproul even introduces him. I’ll have to try and figure out which video it is. Looks like it was made back in the early 1990′s.
If Bill Hybels was a student of RC Sproul…i wonder whatever happened why the seeker-sensitive group came about?
Jeff,
I enjoyed this article. But I’m not so sure your assessment of the CMA Statement of Faith is correct. I don’t see it as excluding Calvinism. Maybe I’m missing something?
Maybe it’s the part that appears to support universal atonement? Well, there are statements just as strong in many mainstream Calvinists, Calvin himself included (not to mention some very universal sounding Scripture verses). Not to start the whole extent of the atonement debate here, but wouldn’t it be accurate to say affirming universal aspects in the atonement is not necessarily the same thing as denying particular redemption.
Maybe I missed something else in the CMA statement, but if I read it correctly there is nothing there which is technically non-Calvinistic. So . . . maybe Ravi Z is a Calvinist? Dunno, but I like him either way.
Blessings,
Derek Ashton
Derek:
Thanks for stopping by.
It is not the statement on the atonement which is the issue (many of the Dallas Theological Seminary people would be four-point Calvinists, for instance). It is this one:
“Salvation has been provided through Jesus Christ for all men; and those who repent and believe in Him are born again of the Holy Spirit, receive the gift of eternal life, and become the children of God.” This seems to state that faith precedes the new birth, unless I am reading it incorrectly.
This statement is also typically one made by the non-Reformed concerning entire sanctification and the second blessing of the Holy Spirit/a “crisis experience”: “It is the will of God that each believer should be filled with the Holy Spirit and be sanctified wholly,(22) being separated from sin and the world and fully dedicated to the will of God, thereby receiving power for holy living and effective service.(23) This is both a crisis and a progressive experience wrought in the life of the believer subsequent to conversion.(24)”
Perhaps I’m wrong, though…..
Jeff,
Thanks for the clarification. I don’t know how I missed the sanctification issue. I wonder if there are any old-school Keswick Calvinists? Seems oxymoronic.
The CMA statement on the new birth seems like it could go either way. They say those who repent and believe “ARE born again,” which might be the perfect ambiguity of Ordo Salutis. Do they mean we ARE born again, so that we repent and believe, or because we repent and believe? The present tense keeps it unclear, so I think a Calvinist in the CMA could argue that the CMA faith statement is open to a Reformed interpretation (at least in soteriology). But I agree that it isn’t the most natural reading, and the whole Keswick thing is a red flag.
Thanks, and again I enjoyed the post very much!
Blessings,
Derek
Jeff,
I found this short document ‘Zacharias-God’s Sovereignty and Man’s Free Will.doc’ at the website below, on Ravi Zacharias’ viewpoint of Calvinism/Armenian thought. A very different and interesting read, in my humble opinion. I dare say that you will find his viewpoints closer aligned to Armenian ideology than calvinistic thinking.
The document is is near the bottom of the webpage below:
http://www.rzim.org/usa/usfv/tabid/436/articleid/174/cbmoduleid/1561/default.aspx
Your thoughts?
Good legwork, especially for someone who appears to be a Georgetown fan…..:))
A giveaway on whether one leans more toward the Arminian (better make sure you spell it correctly, Jeremy, or they’ll get upset) side of the fence is the “we can’t really understand” train of thought with regard to the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man. Also, Ravi’s thoughts on 2 Peter 3 are a giveaway as well.
Vincent Cheung has written that the absolute sovereignty of God over the will of man does not deny him his freedom and responsibility, but in fact establishes it.
Thanks for stopping by.
Jeff,
I disagree about the “can’t really understand” train of thought being a giveaway that a person leans toward Arminianism. One finds these kinds of “mystery” comments in Calvin, Packer, Piper, Carson, and many other historic Calvinists. Up to the last paragraph, Ravi’s comments are almost identical to those of Dr. MacArthur at this year’s Ligonier Conference. See the excerpts here:
http://theoparadox.blogspot.com/2010/06/paradox-files-vol-14-john-macarthur.html
Then, in a stunning reversal, Dr. Zacharias makes this astounding remark:
“If God were absolutely sovereign, then it would be a contradiction to say that man is absolutely free. God is not absolutely sovereign to the point that He can call something that is not as if it actually were. For example, God cannot make squares into circles. That would be a contradiction. So absolute sovereignty is really not what is being talked about here. God, therefore, has chosen to give us the option and, within that framework, He cannot call us free while absolutely violating that freedom.”
Wow. That’s really sad and troubling. Why can’t God make squares into circles just like He made dirt into people? Doesn’t Scripture say God calls the things that are not as if they are? Not to mention a square circle is just a cylinder, and they do exist (but not in 2 dimensions). Zacharias says God is not very sovereign and not very omnipotent (because that would violate man’s free will), rather than affirming both sides in compatibilism as his previous comments would dictate. So he does give away his bias, very clearly. He seems to be trying to strike a balance as a compatibilistic Arminian, rather than a compatibilistic Calvinist.
Vincent Cheung, on the other hand, is most certainly (oh, I’m afraid to say it, but I have to) a hyper Calvinist. But I do agree that God’s sovereignty establishes human freedom and responsibility.
Blessings,
Derek
The assumption that man is “absolutely free” is a decidedly unbiblical one. I understand that assumption is read into the Scriptures in order to preserve God’s justice and righteousness (“How can He hold us responsible and command us to repent and believe if we can’t?”), but it is an unnecessary assumption. God’s own Word protects Him just fine and He doesn’t need protecting, anyway.
Thanks.
I agree. It’s amazing that he refers to human freedom with the unnecessary qualifier of “absolute,” while denying the “absolute” nature of divine sovereignty. Danger Will Robinson!!!!
I think one should take the ministry as a whole for Ravi in greater context than focusing the whole of his ministry on a statement made 23 yrs prior.
Jeremy:
Just trying to address the issue of whether Ravi is of one persuasion or the other – you’d be surprised how many people arrive here asking the question. Not trying in any way to minimize Ravi’s contributions to the Kingdom.
Thanks.
How about these performers? Are they Calvinists?
Don Moen
Ron Kenoly
Michael W. Smith
Bob Fitts
Kent Henry
Darlene Zsech – this one’s obvious though
Steve Green
Carman
Amy Grant
Paul Baloche
Keith and Kristyn Getty (Ireland)
Katherine Scott
Israel Houghton – alright, this one’s obvious too
Kirk Cameron
We will attempt to find out. Thanks for stopping by.
Thank you!!! God bless bro.
A few years ago I saw Steve Green in concert at Roy Hargraves’ church (Roy is a well known Southern Baptist Calvinist). Based on that experience alone, I have no doubt that Steve Green is a Calvinist. It was a very edifying concert, as well.
I have really enjoyied reading your well written article. It looks like you spend a lot of effort and time on your blog. I have bookmarked it and I am looking forward to reading new articles. Keep up the good work!
Thanks. No posts lately with a fresh, clean grandchild being born. They will resume shortly.
Francis Chan?
David Wilkerson?
Mark Kielar?
Jeff, Steve Green is also a member of a PCA church in Franklin, TN. Further evidence that he is indeed a Calvinist.
Jeff, if you actually read the Bible without the Calvinist doctrines fed to you, you would come to the conviction that God WANTS us to repent, place our faith in Him, and be baptized; he does not not FORCE some people who he chose before time to do so.
Just look at a few Bible verses objectively:
“ENTER through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few FIND IT.” (Matt. 7:13-14)
These are all commands. We human beings are the ones who ENTER and FIND the narrow gate. God doesn’t do it for us; he WANTS us to do it.
“If anyone chooses to do God’s will, he will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own.” (John 7:17)
Just pretend you never read this verse before. What else can “ANYONE” and “CHOOSES” mean besides the fact that everyone has a choice – including having a choice to believe and repent.
At the very beginning of time, look at what God says to Adam:
“The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. and the Lord God commanded the man, “You are FREE to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.” (Genesis 2:15-17)
What else can FREE mean besides Adam being free to do whatever he wants? It was Adam’s responsibility to choose what he should do; God gave him that responsibility. Therefore it was Adam’s fault for sinning; there is no way he could blame God. Calvinists are stuck with the idea that they can’t be saved even if they want to and are willing to do anything for God; but they can’t blame God either for not giving them the choice. That’s just a terrible doctrine and fortunately isn’t true at all.
You need to look at the Bible objectively and realize what the truth is in God’s Word, not John Calvin’s words that came about in the 16th century, long after thousands of Christians lived and died and knew how to obtain salvation without Calvin’s doctrines. You need to humble yourself; you need to realize that Christ died for ALL so that anyone who chooses to believe that He is God and walks according to that faith can have eternal life. You’re not “chosen” before eternity to go to heaven; stop thinking that you’re more special than any other human being that God made and loves deeply.
The Calvinist doctrines simply don’t line up with the Bible. Calvinists use Romans 9 to support their view, but they terribly misinterpret it. Hear me out. So at first you read verse 16:
“It does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy.”
Then you think (because of John Calvin’s doctrines), “Oh, okay. So God chooses who is saved and condemned far before they even had a choice.” But look at the conclusion of Chapter 9:
“What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. Why not? Because they pursued it NOT BY FAITH BUT AS IF IT WERE BY WORKS.” (Rom. 9:30-32)
Paul is saying that it is not through works that we are saved, but through faith; since Jesus died on the cross, we now can be saved through faith in him, not hopelessly trying to do good works like people in the Old Testament.This is the point Paul is making in Chapter 9. Calvinists twist this chapter of the Bible and say that we are not saved through our own belief in Jesus, but from God placing belief in our hearts, a choice he made before eternity. This is adding an illusory, false step to Paul’s teaching. You need to look at the context as a whole; chapter by chapter, then look at the whole teaching of the Bible.
If you were to grow up on an island alone, just you and a Bible, there is no way you would come to the conviction that: a) Jesus died only so that those who God chose beforehand to be saved could be saved, b) our faith in Jesus can only come from God, forcing us to believe in Him, or any other Calvinist doctrine. Listen, God is our JUDGE, not our PUPPET MASTER. God gave us free will; that’s how we can have a personal relationship with Jesus. How can we have a personal relationship with Him if he forces faith on us? If you were able to somehow force a woman to love you, would it be genuine? “We love because He first loved us.” (1 John 4:19) We don’t love because He forces us to love Him. We do it out of our free will; a free will that He mercifully gives us, risking the chance that we might not love Him. But it’s a risk God’s willing to take to get a few people that genuinely love Him – Christians as a whole church. People who are grateful for God’s sacrifice for us, who in return love Him and others, do it themselves; they’re not forced by God to feel gratitude towards Him. Open your eyes and realize that you love God and have faith in Him not because God forced you to, but because you felt His love with your free will.
Connor:
Thanks for stopping by.
In response, I can only say, “Wow.”
I do not know where you came to your understanding of the doctrines of grace, known as “Calvinism,” in theological shorthand, but they appear to be a gross misrepresentation of what we believe.
Firs, you assume I have swallowed something that was fed to me by someone else, which is not true. I came to an understanding of Calvinism not because anyone force-fed me, but through serious bible study while I was a Semi-Pelagian attending a confessionally Arminian church. Only after coming to understand the doctrines and what the Scripture said about them did I know they were referred to as “Calvinism.”
You also appear to have embraced the fallacious thought that Calvinists believe a) God forces people to believe against their will and b) Calvinists believe there are people willing to be saved but God will not save them because they are not among the chosen. Neither is true and a superficial study of Calvinist doctrines would show what Calvinists truly believe.
Also, statements that Calvinists don’t believe that faith is necessary or that people have to respond to the command to choose are puzzling as well. Where you received the idea that we do not affirm those items is a mystery to me. Where you get the idea we believe that God “forces faith” upon people is puzzling as well.
If you would be interested in knowing what Calvinists actually believe, please let me know. The caricatures and misunderstandings you appear to have are things Calvinists themselves would also deny as unbiblical. I would hope you would also see that Calvin did not “invent” what we know as Calvinism. Men such as Calvin’s contemporary, Martin Luther, and predecessors in the family of faith such as William Tyndale, John Wycliffe, Gottschalk and Augustine affirmed them as well – in Augustine’s case, more than 1,000 years before Calvin was born.
Thanks again for stopping by. God Bless.
Which makes it even more interesting that the Catholic church has made Augustine a Saint when he is the leader in Predestination and wrote volumes on it.
Thanks for the site…loved read this…recently got into a debate with a Berean about Calvinism and the person finally said that we are mystics and are going to hell…..which is funny to since Berean’s don’t believe in the Trinity…..putting this site as a bookmark.
Where do you find that bereans do not believe in the trinity?
I’ve studied the Calvinist/Arminian rift for the past two years and have some questions? Why are Calvinist’s more defensive than Arminians? Why is a greater percentage of the Protestant population Arminian? Why in the world did MacArthur name the study bible after himself? Will any Calvinist debate William Lane Craig? How in the world could John Calvin have known the Prince of Peace and premeditated the murder of Michael Servetus? After Servetus offered up his own critiques of Calvin’s Institutes, Calvin’s ire and angst and defensive posture grew incredibly and led to the murder of Servetus…do you think this has anything to do with the defensive posture of today’s Calvinist? And one more thing…it’s impossible to be “barely” saved. Hang in there Lighthearted Cal!
“I’ve studied the Calvinist/Arminian rift for the past two years and have some questions? Why are Calvinist’s more defensive than Arminians?”
I think it’s probably because of Servetus.
“Why is a greater percentage of the Protestant population Arminian?”
Clearly, most Protestants are Arminian because of what happened to Servetus.
“Why in the world did MacArthur name the study bible after himself?”
I think it had something to do with Servetus. Notice, too, that Calvin’s Institutes are named after . . . Calvin! This was also because of Servetus.
“Will any Calvinist debate William Lane Craig?”
If Servetus was here, Calvinists would debate him. But they’re scared to debate WLC. Calvin himself would be afraid of WLC.
“How in the world could John Calvin have known the Prince of Peace and premeditated the murder of Michael Servetus?”
Clearly Calvin must have been unsaved on the day when he wrapped his gnarly hands around the throat of that poor, innocent Servetus and personally killed him. I’ve heard he became saved again later, though.
“After Servetus offered up his own critiques of Calvin’s Institutes, Calvin’s ire and angst and defensive posture grew incredibly and led to the murder of Servetus…do you think this has anything to do with the defensive posture of today’s Calvinist?
Calvinists are vastly more defensive than Arminians because of . . . you guessed it: Servetus! I’ve never met a defensive or self-righteous Arminian.
The word “Servetus” has become the last refuge of Arminians who refuse to deny the inerrancy of Scripture but still don’t want to be drawn into the inevitable Calvinism that follows this conviction. If only Augustine could have foreseen what that horrible Calvin guy was going to do to poor Servetus, he would surely have steered away from the clear Biblical teachings about election and predestination. Because there was no Servetus in Augustine’s day, he was left with nowhere to go for answers but the Bible.
I hope this isn’t too defensive. I wonder if Augustine was as defensive as all the other Calvinists who have ever lived?
[/tongue in cheek]
To be honest this article, and i only briefly looked it over, seems a bit, well, demeaning to those who believe, with scriptural backing, a different viewpoint. I consider myself a bit of a mixture of the two, that God did predestine, but his foreknowledge was that he knew who would choose him. I also believe there were those that he called out, like Paul and jeremiah. But for the love of the body of Christ everyone, what’s the huge deal with this? If there is scriptural evidence that shows for one side and some for the other, and some merit in middle ground, then how about we all just agree that it is through faith alone in Christ our lord that we are saved, not by works, and go out and preach the Gospel regardless of whether you do it to “Find the chosen” or to “Reach the lost”?
Stuff like this makes non-christians view us as a bunch of nit-picking whiners.
Mr. sapauthor:
Thank you for your visit.
I just wish to give food for thought concerning your “nit-picking whiners” comment. Keep in mind Paul wrote Scripture to the Galatians – and Peter – in response to (among other reasons) Peter’s having done something so insignificant as switching seats at meals. Was Paul – inspired by the living God in writing such – thus a “nit-picking whiner?” Something to ponder, isn’t it?
To quote others far more mature, learned and respected than I, “ideas have consequences.”
Thanks again and God Bless.
I used to be into Benny Hinn, Joel Osteen, Kenneth Copeland, Marilyn Hickey, Charles Capps, Kenneth E. Hagin, all Word of Faith preachers… Hating the idea of God’s providence and predestination, I picked up Grudem’s Systematic Theology.
I am now a calvinist.
I tell ya I have never heard any man think the Bible through so much as Grudem has. Wow! I love that guy. He has truly opened my eyes to reasonable, biblical, and sound doctrine.
All Calvinism is –is just another way anal retentive people use to divide.
Its based only a few scriptures of a topic that is incomprehensible to temporal man. The fact that an entire branch of Christianity is based on something no one agree on shows how pitiful it is. Its a complete lack of faith. I feel armin is also slightly in this category, however, it is by far the most accepted idea.
Calvinism is very similar to the block universe naturalists view of freewill. Because they lack a certain type of intelligence that allows you to expand your theoretical constructs to the real world you end up thinking particles randomly colliding are responsible for your thoughts. Thus you have no actual opinion or choices.
This is Calvin in a nutshell. Its so myopic, so arrogant it actually believes it can understand a topic that was purposely left so vague by Paul, and even more vague when compared to the rest of scripture..we are suppose to just rest on faith in regards to the topic.
But no, cerebral Christians who have reduced Christianity to a math equation have robbed it of its reality and turned God into a computer program so they can engage in self serving debates of superiority all the love long day.
Part 2
So let me expand of this now that the rant is over.
We are talking about a THE topic that is known only to God. If this was suppose to be clear..Paul would have made it clear–thats why I believe the Armins also share some blame to–although its is by far the majority of Holy Spirit led peoples view and seeks, today, to mainly combat Calvinists naturalism.
It is NOT clear intentionally. We were never suppose to build doctrines out of a single chapter of scripture that no one agrees on. But we need to know instead of just trusting that God does whats right in regards to our families and friends and fellow humans. We need to spell it all out like theoretical physicists and wind up making just as foolish statements as they do.
What has the brilliance of those in power in the churches over the centuries taught us. What do men with power do? They overreach
. They have followers–so they’re special. They have special insight no one else has. So special I see Calvinists calling themselves Calvinists before they ever say they are Christian.
If you would realize that this is about nothing but masturbation….About debate and its self serving back patting you would all drop this right now.
John,
I don’t mean to be picky, but one thing you said might be construed as offensive. You referred to Arminians as “Armins.”
On behalf of all my Arminian friends, I should point out that it’s highly offensive to abbreviate their name in this way. If you want to insult them properly, you should follow convention and call them “Armenians,” or go for something really creative like “Armini-winnie-binnie-ans.” Shortening it to “Armins” is kind of like calling your friend Bartholomew, “Barfy”. He probably won’t talk to you anymore after you do that.
Here’s a few more names for your already extensive list (apologies if I’ve duplicated any that are already there).
Al Mohler: calvinist
C.J. Mahaney: calvinist
Matt Chandler: calvinist
David Platt: calvinist
Mark Dever: calvinist
Tim Keller: calvinist
All of whom are quite edifying regardless of which side of the house you fall on.
I know this is supposed to be a more light-hearted site, but I can’t help but point out (since there seem to be some arminians and free-willers asking about this) that the resulting difference in the two systems seems to be with what it drives you to ultimately live for. While arminianism tends to drive you to evangelize people because of the debt you feel toward Christ, calvinism tends to drive you to live all of life for the glory of Christ, which of course includes not just superficial evangelism (like many arminians do) but “making disciples of all nations” to fulfill the Great Commission.
For the record, I have yet to meet an arminian that is completely obsessed with the glory of God (although they would all agree that this is a good thing) – but on the other hand, this is what calvinists thrive on. Just think of the prophets, Moses prayed “show me thy glory!” Elijah prays in 1 Kings 18 “Answer me, O Lord, answer me, that this people may know that you, O Lord, are God, and that you have turned their hearts back.” There you have it – the peoples’ hearts would be turned back (i.e. they would repent) and the Lord is said to have done it – and Elijah wants all of that to be known so that his God gets the glory. What a blessing it must have been for Moses and Elijah to later stand with Jesus – the personification of God’s glory in the flesh – and see him transfigured!
That’s my challenge to the arminians – does your theological system drive you to live for the glory of God? Does he really deserve all your praise? Is he worthy of all your worship? Or are you keeping a little back for yourself?
My challenge to my fellow calvinists is this – we must show grace, compassion, and understanding to those that have not surrendered to the most straight-forward reading of scripture, for we were all once blasphemers. It is very easy for us to become frustrated and bitter because we have zeal for the glory of God – but we must be full of not just truth but full of Grace and Truth. We must also be zealous in fulfilling the Great Commission and not accidentally tend toward a hyper-calvinist practice while denying it in our doctrine.
Grace and peace.
I wasn’t sure about where Francis Chan stood either, but in this interview from Desiring God he seems to make it pretty clear:
http://www.desiringgod.org/blog/posts/francis-chan-on-the-sovereignty-of-god
Also when he spoke at Piper’s Pastor’s Conference he talked about predestination like he believed in it
And one more
Alistair Begg : Calvinist
One of my favorite preachers
Jeff,
One moe thing, the ‘swell’ graphic header would make a great T-Shirt, do you guys mind if I use it?
RE: “T-shirt.” For personal use, go ahead. For mass production/distribution, no. Sort of like taping a movie off TV.
Thanks for stopping by.
Of course, for personal use. Thank you.
I am happy to be neither calvinist or arminian.
Now blast me out of the water for refusing the personal doctrines of two men that weren’t alive when the Bible was completed :)
John 3:16 all the way! :D
(yes I know, to the calvinist, I’m an “arminian”… but actually I’m one of those free grace guys, so, insert calvinist anger here _______)
I’m glad we agree on John 3:16…..God Bless.
FYI…some Calvinists consider themselves “free grace guys” and specifically say so – see Don Fortner, for instance, and the hymn he wrote at donfortner.com.
Jeff, just want to encourage you to take a look at focus. I won’t make a judgement because no one knows the heart but God. God’s been working on my heart a lot the past couple months, and a verse has been driving it: 1 corinth 13:2 “If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.” I have been one to attack and defend furiously my opinion on minor issues, and making enemies instead of friends. If anyone, and i mean anyone, pushes a point in arrogance, hatred, or a demeaning fashion, it doesn’t matter what point it is or how valid it is or not, it is nothing and will not effect anyone. Since then i’ve been instead of attacking, reaching out in love, talking with respect and gentleness as scripture talks on, and for those who aren’t saved realizing they can’t follow God without the holy spirit, they are a slave to sin, and instead of being a jewdiaser that says you must follow X Y and Z laws before you can come to Christ, i seek to lead people to the cross, and encourage them to get deep into the word and let the Holy spirit do it’s job: convicting. Walk with people with love, as iron sharpens iron, gently guide back to the scripture, you can’t sharpen a blade by beating it to death with a iron rod, that only dulls it. Hope this helps soften everyone’s hearts and helps others reach out in love to the lost, instead of attacking each other. People will see us by our love, not by our superior knowledge (although we should always seek for more wisdom from God and his word).
God bless.
2 Peter 2:1 is one of the flies in the Calvinist ointment. I lean toward the Calvins, Determinism/Predestination seems the more logically sound Position in attempting to reconcile the Paradox/Duality/Contradictory-ness of Scripture…but there are equally Philosophical Logically sound arguments that appeal to Scripture for the Arminian Position (and other Positions, Calvinism and Arminianism are not the only two Positions underneath the Umbrella of what is historically considered “Christian”…but they are the two Positions that get the most press in our day and age).
I thought that all Calvinists protest against the teachings/practices of the Catholic church and therefore oppose ecumenism. Why is it that John Piper is an ecumenist. He serves on the Lausanne Movement which is up to its neck in ecumenism being heavily influenced/controlled by the Vatican. Just read through the LM site to see much evidence of this.
Thanks for stopping by, Mr. Chingford. Perhaps you should contact Dr. Piper at DesiringGod.org and ask him.
I would if I thought there was any possibility of receiving any replies from him personally. The reason I am asking you is because I thought you might have the answer seeings you are an authority on Calvinists.
Well, I certainly find a few of the things Dr Piper does curious, but I’m sure he would find me just as curious. This little corner of the web is not all-encompassing in its content, but we sure try and do what we do with a pleasant demeanor. I suppose we should also define “authority.” I would see this as more of a “resource” than an “authority.”
thanks for stopping by once again.
Thanks for your courteous replies
I have wondered about Israel Houghton. I realize that he leads worship at Lakewood Church but if you listen to the lyrics in his later music, he sounds somewhat Calvinistic. He performed at the Passion conference a few years ago with Chris Tomlin.
A related question would be: is Joel Osteen a Calvinist? I could certainly understand why most people would say no. But, it is possible that he is a lot like Robert Schuller and Robert Schuller is Reformed, very loosely at least. I was raised Word of Faith and I will say that Osteen has a higher view of the sovereignty of God than most of those guys. It seems that Joel has learned quite a bit from Joseph Prince as Prince himself says that their respective ministries are similar. And from what I can tell, Joseph Prince is a monergist, albeit on the free grace end of things that is not all that much different from other pseudo-Reformed teachers that are antinomian like Tony Evans, Erwin Lutzer, and Chuck Swindoll.
So I would say no for the most part. But it is possible that he is closer to being a Calvinist in some respects than most evangelicals. He needs to learn preaching Christ in all of scripture from the Reformed tradition because I rarely hear him preach the Gospel.
Truly enjoyed reading this post, and the responses that have come after it. I can honestly say that every single “battle” I’ve yet had to deal with as regards Calvinism/Arminianism was begun by someone asking me if I was a Calvinist, and then immediately launching into an attack against it and me with “How can you be so stupid as to believe ?”
I’m not saying that it is always a one-sided assault for everyone, only that so far, my own experience has been such, and being ‘naturally’ inclined to loose the razor in my mouth when provoked, so I haven’t always responded non-defensively. And I openly admit to being a born smart-arse who’s penchant for sarcasm bears continual work to rein in properly.
You’ll notice I said I try and keep it reined in, not cages and starved, as I firmly believe that sarcasm can certainly be Biblical (the book of James anyone?), and an old pastor friend of mine expressed his own by referring to mine as something of an undefined spiritual gift.
As these unprovoked assaults tended to lead to my going to Def-con 5 near-instantly, a few years ago, I changed my response to the initial question of “Are you a Calvinist?” (or the SO much nicer: “You’re not a Calvinist…are you?”) from the simple “Yeah.” to “That depends on what you mean by the term ‘Calvinist’?” Their response generally makes it pretty easy to determine if I am going to discuss it with them or not. A real and respectful discussion? Sure! A battle of wits with someone who brought a cap pistol to an artillery range? No thanks.
The really sad thing that I see all the time, is that the majority of people I interact with who would be quick to proclaim themselves Arminians really aren’t anything more than quasi-pelagians at best with precious little knowledge of what Arminianism actually teaches, let alone Calvinism (The number of people who’ve asked me in the last 3 years years alone why Calvinists believe you can lose your salvation is just plain sad!). I say that this is “really sad” because it shows that across North America at least – doctrine is not being taught in most churches at all, only Christianized self-help nonsense by affirming speakers (blech!).
I’ll give you an illustration before I shut my yap and get on with my day ‘offline’.
Last year, a church plant that I had previously been involved with, merged with a church I previously had been a member of (no, seriously), although it was more of a covert leveraged takeover in many respects.
A dear friend who was really unhappy about the change had been at my house bemoaning the whole enterprise over coffee and guitar scratchings. As he was leaving my house, he turned back towards me and said, “Did you know that Pastor is a CALVINIST?”
I said that since I had worked on that plant for a year, of course I did.
“Really? Well, how could Pastor (pastor of the church being Borged) not know that?”
“Of course Pastor knows that. He’s also a Calvinist.”
“No way!! He can’t be!”
“I promise you , he’s a Calvinist same as I am.”
“YOU ARE????”
“Dude, how can you possibly NOT know that?”
“Why would I?”
“Did you listen to the sermon series I gave you from Alister Begg a few months ago?”
“Yeah, it was great. I listen to him everyday now at work”
“Did you read the John Piper books I gave you?
“Yeah, he’s really deep, but it’s excellent.”
“How about John MacArthur? You still listening to him?”
“Of course!”
“Begg, Piper, MacArthur – ALL Calvinists dude!”
“WHA???”
“Remember going to see James McDonald with me a few years ago?”
“Yeah, the ‘Men At War’ thing. That was really good.”
“Calvinist! Should I continue?”
“Uh..no, I gotta go to work now.”
Jeff,
Enjoyable read, but I’d like to take exception on one point with you. I believe you can be a Calvinist and believe that faith proceeds being born again. In fact Dr. Moore, the Dean of the school of Theology at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary explained his position in very much those terms. And he very much falls within the Calvinist camp. His reasoning was that Scripture indicates that faith proceeds regeneration, such that when the men asked Peter, “What must we do to be saved?” his response was, “Repent and be baptized.” Thus Peter indicates that the being saved comes from the repenting and being baptized (not to argue that this means baptismal regeneration, clearly the “repent and be baptized” is a short hand for believing the gospel message).
If you make the argument, “Yes, but one cannot believe unless one has been regenerated” I would argue that while that seems to be logically necessary, it, in fact, is not. The Spirit draws men to the Father, so that God is the author of salvation, but men believe and then are saved. Thus there is no necessary contradiction in Calvinism and believing that faith proceeds salvation. This is how I also read Paul’s letter to the Ephesians, that God gave them faith leading to repentance and salvation, but salvation still followed their exercising faith and placing that faith in Christ. This does not, as I understand Scripture, negate God’s sovereignty as the faith God gives men will be acted upon.
I recognize that this is totally picking nits. I enjoyed the site, just wanted to throw my two cents in on the chicken-or-egg discussion.
Thanks for stopping by – sorry for the delay in posting your comment, but I take a week-long cyber-sabbatical each year and last week was this year’s.
Do you have a source for Dr. Moore’s comment?
Jeff,
The only source I can give you is my attendance of his lecture. I received my M.Div from SBTS in 2010 and had Dr. Moore for Systematic Theology when this issue was discussed. He asked the class why the argument is generally made that regeneration must proceed faith. I answered that logically one cannot have faith without first being regenerated as the natural heart of man is set against God. His answer was that this is the most common answer and went on to explain that while it seems to be logically necessary, his understanding of Scripture is that faith proceeds regeneration.
Again, the only source I can give you is my personal attendance of his lecture as a student. If I had a way to verify my attendance at seminary during the time in question I would be glad to do so.
Thanks for the swift response. My son-in-law is in what I guess is a pre-doctorate program at SBTS – maybe he can ask him if he ever encounters the good Dr.
God Bless.
You left out Billy Graham.
Thanks for stopping by.
Mr. Graham was left out, believe it or not, because until you posed the issue – no one had ever asked. This page, being an “FAQ” page (“F” for our purposes defined as “once”), only addresses question actually asked. Now that you have asked, Mr. Graham will be included.
Thanks again and God Bless.
Too bad you’re not more concerned about your identity as being a follower/disciple of Christ rather than being a follower of Calvin. The problem with the Calvinist position is it appears followers are so heavenly minded they’re no earthly good and the problem with the Armenist position is they’re so earthly minded there no good in heaven. Please stop perpetuating the superficial schism brothers/sisters IN Christ deny due to the fact they while being in “time” can not perceive how a timeless/changeless God can operate outside of time from eternity that reaches back beyond creation past revelation yet interact personally/relationally. This to oversimplify seems like mankind stuck in their humanity trying to determine if God is coming or going… He is neither ..He always has been/is/always will be. Ask for wisdom, knowledge, and understanding He will give as much as you are ready to receive as submitted yielding and abiding you (may/are) be. It sickens my soul when these fruitless arguments for the sake of winning an argument rather than the heart of others to Christ take place. It’s commonly said that for the unbeliever the biggest problems with “christians” are other christians who claim the name but deny Him how they live. Even Gandhi liked Christ but didn’t see Him in His so called followers He was to indwell.
So, as those who have been chosen of God, holy and beloved, put on a heart of compassion, kindess, humility, gentleness and patience; bearing with one another, and forgiving each other, whoever has a complaint against anyone; just as The Lord forgave you, so also should you. Col.3:12-13
[...] FAQ [...]
For me I would say I really don’t care much of who’s right or wrong, the work of God goes beyond this, all I know and care about is that I believe in Jesus Christ and Im sure of my salvation say it was through predestination that God chose me or my personal desision to come to him, I dont care how it came to be all I care is that in both cases I still since Im in Chirst. Praise Him.
Hey, I LOVE your site – just wanted to say that right off the bat. I saw that someone here had asked if any Calvinist would ever debate W.L. Craig. Well, I would, but I don’t think anyone would be interested in that debate…. but Dr. James White has a standing challenge to debate Craig – but Craig will not debate him. I suspect Craig knows he wouldn’t do well in defending his “middle knowledge” concept – he doesn’t seem to want to defend that against ANYONE, much less the current best Christian debater alive today (Dr. White). I praise God for W.L. Craig and the work he has done for the Kingdom, and love him as a brother, but facts are facts – and the fact is, it is Mr. Craig who is unwilling to debate pretty much ANY Calvinist, and he seems ESPECIALLY UNWILLING to debate Dr. White.
What is Andrew Wommack?
http://www.awmi.net/
i hope everybody knows that there is a big difference between being arminian and being non-Calvinist. namely that arminians believe you can lose your salvation. Most protestant non-calvinist do not hold to any doctrine of being able to lose your salvation
Billy Graham is now a Calvinist. See this article: http://religionroundtable.blogspot.com/2007/05/billy-graham-falls-to-knees-admits.html
LOL.
thanks for stopping by. God Bless.
I have several Christian friends who are of the Calvinist persuasion but I have a question I need answering that “Might” bring a division in our fellowship and so have not posed this question to them. Please help. The question is “If we can ONLY be sure that a person either will or will not be saved (sovereignty), then in our estimation it is a 50/50 chance that they will be saved. Shouldn’t we be at least intellectually honest and tell them that even though they may want to accept the Gospel, if God has not loved them enough to actually CHOOSE THEM then, “Too bad”? Why all the double talk? You know, speak openly and plainly about Limited Atonement with other Christians/Calvinists but not openly and plainly with people who are lost? We tell them evangelically that they can be saved when it is no way clear to us that they WILL be saved? If we lead them to THINK they can ask Christ to save them-but He has chosen NOT to, what do we do in heaven? Say “Oops, my bad? I didn’t mean to mis-lead you into thinking you actually COULD be saved”. See my dilemma?
I am sure someone will answer your question better than I, but I did want to point out what I see to be a significant flaw in your question. It is in regards to someone who may “want to accept the gospel.” This is a non-issue, the Bible is quite clear that unless God enables someone to respond to the gospel, they will NEVER want to accept the gospel. And if God enables someone to respond to the gospel, He WILL save them AND keep them. God isn’t preventing ANYONE from accepting the gospel. Outside of His grace, NO ONE would want to “accept” the gospel. Not you, not me – not ANYONE. Until God changes our hearts, we are haters of God, enemies of God. So there is no such animal as someone who “wants to accept the gospel” but God “has not loved them enough to actually CHOOSE THEM” – All who come to Jesus will not be turned away, but no one can come unless the Father enables them. So preach the gospel to EVERYONE. The identity of the elect is not for us to know (this side of heaven), but the gospel IS ours to proclaim.
Thanks for stopping by.
Regardless of one’s theological bent, the biblical method of evangelism is clear – we are to call all people to repent. We do not know who the elect are amongst the masses – and perhaps everyone we encounter may be elect, in God’s providence. Also, in God’s providence, the sinner may not be brought from death to life until well after we present them with the good news.
Jesus gives us an interesting situation in Matthew 11. In verse 25, He begins to pray – and pray what? Thanking God for hiding “these things” (the things of God) from the wise and understanding. He is thanking God for those who can’t believe due to the sovereign freedom of God in salvation. Then what does He do? He issues the general call: “Come, all who are…”
Jesus is the one who mentions election in what He says (e.g. John 6:35-40) but He also issues that general call. We see it in Acts 13:48 (“All who were ordained to eternal life believed”) but we do not see the Apostles judging ahead of time who is and isn’t elect. We also don’t see mention of Christ’s atonement (“Jesus died for your sins,” without which 99% of contemporary Christians could not evangelize), other than Peter’s mention of those who killed the Christ in his audience in Acts 2 and 3 (and in Acts 2 he tells them that Christ was crucified according to the plan of God, at the hands of lawless men – those whom he was evangelizing).
When Peter’s audience was cut to the heart, what did Peter say? “If you’re elect, repent and be baptized?” No, he said, “Repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins.”
We are ambassadors, proclaiming the message by which people are saved, and they are saved as a sovereign act of God. We should go no further than the Scripture reveals – and the Scripture has not told us which people have an “E” on their forehead for “Elect.” We tell them to repent and believe – just as Jesus showed at the beginning of His ministry (Matt. 4:17).
If one wishes to speak of the atonement (and I’ve had this discussion with my pastor, who confesses to be a 4.2-4.3 point Calvinist, the decimal occurring on the atonement), I believe it is biblical to say that Christ died to save sinners – after all, He did come to seek and save that which is lost. I don’t, however, see either of the following in the Bible – evangelizing using “Limited Atonement” or using “Unlimited Atonement” (both names being a misrepresentation of their own position. The “Unlimited” side does not believe in a truly unlimited atonement, because it in reality only applies to those who end up believing, even if one desires to say it applies to all men in some form. After all, those in hell did not have their sins atoned for, at the end of the day, did they?). The Bible doesn’t show anybody discussing the degree of the atonement in evangelism – nor does it show anyone saying “God loves you” in evangelism. The closest thing we see is Jesus’ statement in John 3:16 and “world” does not have to mean “every single person without exception.” After all, Jesus Himself taught sovereign reprobation – in Matthew 13 and John 12, calling upon Isaiah 6 and Isaiah’s vision of Himself on the throne (see John 12). Paul uses that same passage to describe why Jews do not come to faith in Romans 11 – are we to believe Romans 11 has been fulfilled? Food for thought. The Apostles never evangelized using “God loves you” or “Jesus died for you.” In fact the word “love” does not appear in Acts at all, in either agape or phileo form. Not a once.
90% of my Christian friends are non-Calvinists. There’s no reason to have our differences divide us to the point of disfellowship. As much as Spurgeon is the mancrush for many on both sides, when Spurgeon said, “Calvinism is the gospel,” he was sorely mistaken. We are not justified by faith in Calvinism – we are justified by faith in the Person and work of Christ and Him alone.
God Bless.
Our Saviour has bidden us to preach the gospel to every creature; he has not said, “Preach it only to the elect;” and though that might seem to be the most logical thing for us to do, yet, since he has not been pleased to stamp the elect in their foreheads, or to put any distinctive mark upon them, it would be an impossible task for us to perform; whereas, when we preach the gospel to every creature, the gospel makes its own division, and Christ’s sheep hear his voice, and follow him. –Charles Spurgeon
I have known some who have said to me, “I am afraid, sir, and this is my daily
trouble, that God has never chosen me to eternal salvation; suppose that, after all, I should not be one of his elect.” Now, listen: suppose that you should be one of his elect. Is there not as much sense in supposing the one thing as the other? –Charles Spurgeon
Others have already addressed this comment, but it is not a new objection. If indeed you find anyone who says, “I want to come to Christ!” Then encourage him to do even as we have been taught, and let him come until he should find such a passage that tells him he may not. When he finds a passage that says he indeed is not one of the elect, then he may protest that it is his desire to be saved. If a non-Christian should say that the doctrine of election is a hang up for him, then let the question be: why? Why should it bother you that God would choose you and mark you if indeed you have come to Christ? Why should you grumble that God has not chosen those very ones who do not desire to come to him in the first place? Surely you will be hard pressed to find any man who says, “I desired to come to God, but he himself has rejected me from finding salvation in Christ!” (If you do find such a man, be sure he can show you the passage he uses to stand on, for that would be an interesting
conversation indeed!)
The problem I really have with Calvinism is that if Salvation and Choosing to believe in Jesus is not a human thing to decide to aquire or believe, then why Jesus came and told us to believe? It seems that his mission doesnt matter if we actually don´t have a saying on that.
Why offer something you know people are not getting by their own request, if is not optional, and why pray if you are not getting anywhere near heaven? Why Church if the preaching at the end will do no good?
It seems that no matter what you do, the result is the same, and the bible teaches me that God is a fair, just, and mercyfull God so you are saying that if you are chosen then good for you and if you are not ,even if there´s a 2 thousand year old bible telling you that Jesus is the way for salvation and that believing in him will get you to heaven, won´t do any good to you?.
I personally believe there´s common sense in God, he made it, he has it and he uses it, Jesus had a tough time with Pharisees and Sadducees who didn´t had it and he explained the scriptures back to them with common sense… these people tought they knew what they where talking about and instead repeatdly Jesus told them they where wrong in their interpretation of the scriptures.
I know this, there´s a way: JESUS, there´s a Choice: JESUS, There´s mercy to ALL sinners, through: JESUS, There´s a heaven that we all who decide to belive will share with: JESUS.
You said “when Spurgeon said, “Calvinism is the gospel,” he was sorely mistaken.”
I would have to completely disagree with you, he was not mistaken in the least. It’s simply a matter of rightly understanding what Spurgeon meant by what he said.
If we take that sole sentence “Calvinism is the gospel” as it is, outside the context of what Spurgeon was saying and teaching at the time, as well as through the whole of his teachings, then sure, we could choose to interpret it to mean simply that. However, Spurgeon was expressing that the totality of the gospel as proclaimed in the scriptures is expressed most fully outside the actual scriptures by Calvin’s teachings.
I would have to agree with Spurgeon on this in that I have nowhere else (outside the Bible) found the glory of the gospel so wonderfully expounded, so wonderfully expressed, so clearly and fully shown.
You could say on this subject, that Calvin’s teachings ought to be interpreted only by use of the same exegesis we should use in interpreting scripture itself. ;-)
God bless and keep you and yours.
You have only to read the posts above to see how it is so easy to misrepresent and misunderstand the biblical doctrines of grace (Calvinism) today (i.e.
JC Sancho above is a good example). Like many critics of Calvinism, Sancho fails to distinguish carefully and biblically between “being born again by the Holy Spirit” (the sovereign act of God) and “being saved” (free act of men). Both aspects are absolutely necessary for conversion but they are clearly not the same and must be properly distinguished in conversion. The same Bible that teaches what man must do to be saved; namely,turn away from sin in faith to Jesus Christ for salvation) also teaches that the natural [unregenerate] man, without the Holy Spirit, cannot perform spiritual acts of repentance and faith apart from the convicting and regenerating power/grace of the Holy Spirit in the new birth (See Ephesians 2:1; 1 Cor. 2:14, Romans 8:7; John 6:44, 65; Acts 16:14; John 1:12-13; etc.) The new birth, or .regeneration (“being born again”) is God, Holy Spirit, giving us spiritual life and power/ability to enable us to do what we must do to be saved (repent of sin and believe in Christ for salvation), but CANNOT DO, because of our bondage to sin and unbelief. Yes, sinners everywhere freely and willingly receive Jesus Christ in true repentance and faith. God cannot and will not repent and believe for anyone. But let us not make the mistake, as many do, of thinking that responsibility automatically equals ability. It clearly doesn’t. Unregenerate (spiritually dead, blind and rebellious sinners) freely and willingly repent of sin and believe in Christ for salvation only because they are enabled to do by the Spirit of God in the new birth (regeneration). Every sinner who turns to Christ does so willingly, but that willingness is a direct result of the Father’s election and and the supernatural working of the Holy Spirit in regeneration and effectual calling (see John 6:37, 44, 63, 65; 2 Thess. 2:13-14; Acts 13:48; Acts 16:14; John 10:26; 15:16; 17:2, 6, 9, 11-12, 20, 24; etc..).
I would highly recommend you read “God’s Part and Man’s Part in Salvation ” by Dr. John G. Reisinger (you can Goggle same).
[...] [...]