Secular Media Puts Rob Bell to Shame

The fact that this man is actually taken seriously by professing Christians boggles my mind.

This Week in Calvinism - March 11, 2011

• How a five-point Calvinist shares the gospel.
  
  
• The "demoralizing dogmas of Calvinism"? For a brilliant man, Thomas Jefferson was pretty ignorant.
  
  
• Christian universalism doesn't just go against "traditional Calvinist teachings on Heaven and Hell"; it goes against scriptural teachings of Heaven and Hell.
  
  
• Speaking of Christian universalism, the much-anticipated Tim Challies review of Rob Bell's new book is finally here.

Sometimes You Can Judge a Book by Its Cover

Such is the case with Rob Bell's new book, Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived. Many of us were concerned when we heard of it, and with good reason. And thanks to discerning readers like Tim Challies, we don't have to actually read it for ourselves.

In his excellent review, Challies confirms what most of us expected:

[Bell's] argument progresses to this: Because heaven will eventually come to earth, if we're to take heaven seriously, we must take the suffering that exists in the world seriously now. Therefore, we are called to participate "now in the life of the age to come. That's what happens when the future is dragged into the present" (p. 45). In light of this, humanity's role within creation is redefined so that we are not so much stewards as we are God's partners, "participating in the ongoing creation and joy of the world" (p. 180), and engaging in creating a new social order with Jesus (p. 77). This language of partnering and participating is frequently applied by Bell to causes of social justice.

But what about hell? Is hell a future reality or a present one? Is it an earthly reality or one that exists elsewhere?

Hell appears to be more about what we do to each other than what we've done to God. Bell reads Jesus' warnings of divine punishment as addressing only the temporal, rather than both the temporal and the eternal. These warnings were for the religious leaders of the day, and had very little to do with some other reality or some other time, he argues (pp. 82-83). Instead, hell is "a word that refers to the big, wide, terrible evil that comes from the secrets hidden deep without our hearts all the way to the massive, society-wide collapse and chaos that comes when we fail to live in God's world God's way" (p. 95). There's no fire and no wrath, at least, none that is extrinsic to us.

Does Rob Bell deny the existence of hell? He would say no. We would say yes. He affirms, but only after redefining. And that's just a clever form of denial.

Further Thoughts on Paedobaptism

Last week I asked a question: "How can infant baptism be considered the more biblical position when there is not a single example of it anywhere in scripture?" The comments generated were interesting and spirited.

Let me respond by saying up front that I understand the basic theological thinking behind paedobaptism. Proponents see a connection between New Testament baptism and Old Testament circumcision. Reading no explicit prohibition of the baptizing of infants, they feel obliged to follow the commands and examples seen under the Old Covenant when applying the sign of the New Covenant.

Support for the paedobaptist position relies heavily on the Old Testament since, as has been pointed out, no example of it can be found in the New Testament. Many point to passages like Acts 10:24-48, Acts 16:30-34, and 1 Corinthians 1:16, which mention the baptism of entire households. But the "entire household" argument is one made from silence, as there is never any mention of infants. In each instance, however, we can see that baptism followed belief in the gospel that had just been preached. I have a hard time picturing the disciples, in the middle of baptizing those who believed, saying, "While we're at it, let's take care of all the babies, too." With the exception of Jesus, baptism in the New testament is always preceded by repentance and faith.

Jesus ushered in a New Covenant that replaced the Old, so why this insistence that everything associated with Old Testament circumcision be carried over to New Testament baptism? Yes, all infants in ancient Israel were given the sign of the Old Covenant. And, yes, the unregenerate shared in the blessings of that covenant, even to the point of crossing over into the Promised Land. But scripture is quite clear who the members of the New Covenant are: those who have been born again.

What sealed the debate for me was what Paul wrote in Romans 6:1-4:

What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

If we have already died (past tense) to sin, and baptism symbolizes our sharing in Christ's death and resurrection, then how, by any interpretation, does that apply to unregenerate infants?

I would agree with those who say that this is not an issue over which we should divide. After all, baptism is not the gospel. I do think, however, that friendly discussion and debate over issues like this is helpful when all of us share the goal of gaining a deeper understanding of scripture and a closer walk with Christ.

This Week in Calvinism - March 4, 2011

• Justin Taylor discusses Rob Bell's upcoming book, Love Wins: Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived.
  
  
• Phil Johnson weighs in as well.
  
  
• C. Michael Patton on the doctrine of Hell.
  
  
• John MacArthur believes the protesters opposing authoritarian rule in the Middle East "are all in violation of a biblical command -- to submit to the powers that be because they're ordained of God."
  
  
• Inter Varsity Press spotlights Kenneth J. Stewart, author of Ten Myths About Calvinism.
  
  
• Darryl G. Hart has "nothing personal against John Piper," but...

A Question for Paedobaptists

How can infant baptism be considered the more biblical position when there is not a single example of it anywhere in scripture?

This Week in Calvinism - February 25, 2011

• C. Michael Patton, Tim Kimberley, and Sam Storms present part 5 of their series "An Invitation to Calvinism."
  
  
• God is not an egotistical maniac. As C. Michael Patton writes, "God's purpose in creating us was to give to us life, love, and joy. His purpose in creating us was for us to share in his glory. He calls on us to worship, serve, and adore him precisely because he wants us to be fulfilled. His glory is reality. Our glorifying him is merely a recognition of that reality."
  
  
• God's love is the cause and result of ours.
  
  
• Register now for the Ligonier Ministries 2011 National Conference.

This Week in Calvinism - February 18, 2011

• Q & A: African Americans in the Reformed tradition.
  
  
• 10 questions with John MacArthur, one of which deals with Reformed Charismatics.
  
  
• "Biblical" ways of doing church: a grace-killer?
  
  
• Phil Johnson reminds us of the truth that God justifies the ungodly.

This Week in Calvinism - February 11, 2011

• OK, you're not an Arminian or a Calvinist; you're a biblicist. But what kind of biblicist are you, a monergist or synergist?
  
  
• Richard Beck writes, "I reject Calvinism because I find the doctrine of election to be loathsome." The nice thing about being a universalist is that, other than selecting a few verses in the Bible that talk about God's love, you don't really have to worry about having a biblical foundation for your beliefs.
  
  
• Joel Madasu believes the doctrine of limited atonement "limits the power of the Gospel and the faith necessary for Salvation. How can one witness, knowing that the love of God, His Word, the work of the Holy Spirit is only limited and viewed as strictly to the elect? [Dave] Hunt states that no true Calvinist, who believes in limited atonement, can look into the eye of an unsaved person and say that Jesus Christ died for you." First of all, no one knows who the elect are. We are called to "go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation" (Mark 16:15). Secondly, what's wrong with simply calling on others, as Jesus did, to "repent and believe in the gospel" (Mark 1:14-15)?
  
  
• *Sigh* Here we go again: "It was at just about this time 2-years ago that I began to read Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion, a guided tour through the mind of a sociopath and, doubtless, the engine of huge amounts of human misery; if it could all be totted-up, Calvin would surely rank near the top of the list of history's monsters."
  
  
• John Piper speaks with Tim Keller and D.A. Carson about the role of gospel-centered theology in fighting the temptations of pornography.

This Week in Calvinism - February 4, 2011

• Does Hebrews 6 teach, as many Arminians believe, that one can lose his salvation? No.
  
  
• One way around the predestination dilemma in scripture is to conclude that the way that leads to death is just as predestined as the way that leads to life: "Both paths are made available. Both paths lead to real and legitimate finish lines. Both paths are predestined. But we must choose which path we take."
  
  
• The controversial Covenant of Grace.
  
  
• William Birch believes we Calvinists should be opposed, but he doesn't think we're heretics.
  
  
• Austin Brown presents an Arminian conundrum.

Calvin the Impaler

You would think that a couple of educated gentlemen might actually do a little research before lashing out against Calvinists. In a short ebook entitled Calvinism!: A Strange Doctrine Among The Brethren, Dr. Saneesh Cherian and Dr. Johnson C. Philip manage to condemn Calvinism without quoting a single Bible verse or citing a single source to back up their accusations. In essence, the authors have slapped together a venomous diatribe that paints John Calvin and his followers as bloodthirsty maniacs.

Consider these excerpts:

"Anyone who opposed [Calvin's] stand on infant baptism was fined, punished, or tortured."

"[Calvin] emphasized that the bread and cup were not symbols, and anyone who dared to suggest that these were only symbolic of the flesh and blood of Christ stood the danger of getting fined, punished, or tortured."

"Since man had no freedom, God was the author of every sin committed by mankind, but mankind was responsible for undergoing the punishment for it. Humans were not supposed to question this arbitrariness of God. Anyone who dared to question this stood the danger of getting fined, punished, or tortured."

"[Calvin] believed that other than him nobody had freedom to think about Bible, doctrine, and theology. He also believed that it was his moral duty and obligation to punish, torture, and kill anyone and everyone who opposed his theology and even his whims and fancies."

If you think you can stomach it, you can read all nine pages of this nonsense here.

This Week in Calvinism - January 28, 2011

• According to Dr. Jack Cottrell, "election" can mean just about anything -- except, of course, the unconditional election of an individual for salvation. Consider what he says about Ephesians 1:1-14, for instance:

  [Paul's] main point is not the predestination of individuals to salvation, but the predestination of all the Jews as a nation, and then the predestination of all the Gentiles also, to be a part of his chosen people. However, he is not here speaking of every individual Jew nor of every individual Gentile as the object of predestination to salvation, but of God's choice to make salvation available to both groups and to unite both groups into one body, the church.

  I guess that means when Ephesians 1:5 says we have been predestined "for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will," it's referring to all of us, believers and unbelievers alike. Sounds a little too close to universalism for my comfort.
  
  
• If Calvinism is true, why evangelize? Let's start with this: God tells us to do it.
  
  
• Craig Olson draws some parallels between abortion and Calvinism and the issue of choice. Yes, we all make choices in life, but in the case of abortion the unborn baby isn't free to make a choice, so I'm not sure how the illustration applies to God giving us free will.
  
  
• Bobby Grow announces the end of his Evangelical Calvinist blog. His blogging efforts will now be focused here.
  
  
• Steve Hays on Norman Geisler's charge that Calvinism is "theological racism."
  
  
• James White reflects on Geisler's book Chosen But Free.
  
  
• I don't know about you, but I'm really growing tired of how paranoid atheists always point to isolated incidents involving "religious nuts" to discredit everyone who has a belief in the supernatural. And how they always bring up the Inquisition and the Salem witch trials as examples of the evils of religion. And how they exploit the execution of Michael Servetus without bothering to read up on their history. I suppose that kind of willful ignorance explains why C. Boyd Pfeiffer can make the erroneous claim that "Calvin insisted that he be burned 'slowly' to extract the maximum amount of pain for his sin of differing theological views."

This Week in Calvinism - January 21, 2011

• TurretinFan continues his review of Louis Ruggiero's book, The God of Calvinism: a Rebuttal of Reformed Theology, here, here, and here.
  
  
• For a look at the other side, you may want to check out Arminius Speaks: Essential Writings on Predestination, Free Will, and the Nature of God. Hey, it's endorsed by Roger "I'm not sure how to distinguish [the God of Calvinism] from the devil" Olson, so it must be good.
  
  
• Regarding 1 Timothy 2:4 and God's desire for all people to be saved, Rick Ianniello notes that the free offer of the gospel "is a bona fide expression of God's good will."
  
  
• The new Waterproof Bible "gives you the freedom to take God's Word with you anywhere -- boating, traveling, camping -- with worry-free confidence that your Bible will withstand the test of time."
  
  
• Can non-Calvinists hold to the perseverance of the Saints?
  
  
• C. Michael Patton gives us a top ten list of systematic theologies.
  
  
• Saying what you believe is clearer than saying "Calvinist."

This Week in Calvinism - January 14, 2011

• Bob muses, "If God can be surprised, can Calvinists claim unconditional election with absolute certainty?" I think a better question to ask is, "If God can be surprised, can he be God?"
  
  
• Sarah is "giving up on this whole Calvinism argument."
  
  
• Joel explores keeping the Sabbath, believing that command to be binding on Christians today. He admits it may be difficult, raising such dilemmas as deciding whether or not to eat out at a restaurant or take a taxi. But Jesus himself said, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath" (Mark 2:27). I believe the Fourth Commandment finds its fulfillment in Christ, as he is our Sabbath rest (Hebrews 4:9-10). (There's an interesting article on that here.)
  
  
• Calvinistic Cartoons: The Game!
  
  
• It's an age-old story. Calvinist boy meets Arminian girl online and they fall in love.
  
  
• Fred Phelps and other members of the Westboro cult are not Calvinists.
  
  
• TurretinFan points out a glaring inconsistency in Louis Ruggiero's book, The God of Calvinism: a Rebuttal of Reformed Theology.

Proverbs 3:6

(via)