This Week in Calvinism - May 24, 2013

• Bob Burnett, in a typical liberal rant about how those who support people keeping more of their own money are not real Christians, writes:

  During the eighties American Calvinism morphed into a conservative political ideology with the formation of the Christian Right. James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, Ralph Reed, Pat Robertson, and others preached on political subjects and touted conservative "Christian" candidates.

  Of all the names one could associate with Calvinism, these are the ones he chooses? Maybe I need to brush up on my history.
  
  
• Blogger Ritzhaus also confuses Calvinists with Republicans:

  I just liked The Christian Left on facebook recently and have enjoyed their perspective. Today, they reposted a blog from Frank Schaffer about how Calvinism and the right wing Republicans have combined and really no longer follow Christ. This trend in American Evangelicalism took over my old church and is a faith killer.

  I'm beginning to feel insulted that I'm automatically perceived as a Republican just because I'm a Calvinist.
  
  
• I would agree that Romans 9 "isn't about Calvinism." In fact, I'd be willing to bet that Paul had never even heard of John Calvin.
  
  
• If the theme of the Bible is "God's gracious plan to redeem needy sinners," then it makes sense why we see his mercy in so many messed-up families in scripture.
  
  
• Rachel Held Evans is upset over John Piper's "abusive" theology. Following the Oklahoma tornadoes, Piper posted on Twitter:

  "Your sons and daughters were eating and a great wind struck the house, and it fell upon them, and they are dead." Job 1:19

  Apparently, people expect that when you quote a verse from scripture you are obligated to include an in-depth explanation in the same tweet. Sorry, but Twitter's 140-character limit kind of hinders one from doing that. That's why Piper followed that up with another:

  "Then Job arose and tore his robe and shaved his head and fell on the ground and worshiped." Job 1:20

  God is worthy of worship even in the midst of tragedy. Yeah, that's abusive, all right.
  
  
• Adam Ericksen takes it a step further, calling Piper's theology "satanic." He writes:

  John Piper calls himself a Christian, but I don't think he knows Jesus. Whenever Jesus talks about natural disasters they are just that, natural disasters. He never blames anyone for them; instead he points to them as an opportunity to show God's love. Jesus was once asked, "Who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" He responded, "Neither this man nor his parents sinned." Then the power of God worked through Jesus to stop the accusations and heal the man.

  Come on, Adam. If you're going to quote John 9:3, can't you at least read the rest of the verse? It says, "...but that the works of God might be displayed in him." The man's blindness served a purpose. What was the purpose? That the works of God might be displayed.
  
  
• John Piper explains the essence of those now-infamous tweets:

  When tragedy strikes my life, I find it stabilizing and hope-giving to see the stories of the sheer factuality of other's losses, especially when they endured them the way Job did. Job really grieved. He really agonized. He collapsed to the ground. He wept. He shaved his head. This was, in my mind, a pattern of what must surely happen in Oklahoma. I thought it would help. But when I saw how so many were not experiencing it that way, I took them down.

A Libertarian Perspective on Romans 13

Romans 13 is often used as an appeal for Christians not to resist government. "Reformed Libertarian" C. Jay Engel has written an interesting and thoughtful post on that particular passage. Here's an excerpt:

There are four overall points that can be gathered in this passage.

1. God is sovereign and he has a plan. He can use evil to achieve the ends that he has ordained before the foundations of time. In the original context: God exists over Nero.

2. In our gospel-oriented ministry, we are not seeking to overthrow the government. When Paul wrote this he understood that it might have reached Nero's hands. It was wise of him to make sure Nero understood that there was no Christian movement to take over. All governments from the dawn of time until today, are jealous governments, always scared that someone will steal the throne. In the original context: Nero, we are not aiming for your throne.

3. Government has a mandate to submit to the higher law of God by only punishing the wicked and not the good. Anything beyond that is abuse of power. Therefore, as the absolute libertarians would advocate, it is wrong for the government to forbid the spontaneous arising of other governments. There is no mandate in scripture telling the government that it must have a monopoly on governing services. In the original context: Nero, you have a purpose; submit to it.

4. Turn the other cheek. We must practice daily Christian character. In the original context: Apply my lessons [in Romans 12] to even the government.

To conclude, from a libertarian standpoint, it is important to note that a governing entity is the means by which God has decided to carry out justice. This in no way should be assumed to be a defense of the morality of the State itself. This passage can only be assumed to be a defense of the existence of an entity that practices the pursuance of justice. God has given law. Man has rights to his life and his property because God has entrusted him with those things. And what God has given, man cannot take away. This is the law Justice consists of protecting these rights, this law. This is the only role of a governing institution.

Read the full article here.

This Week in Calvinism - May 17, 2013

• Another Protestant crosses the Tiber. Lucas Westman begins a series of posts describing his journey from Pentecostalism to Reformed theology to Catholicism.
  
  
• Paul Dohse makes less and less sense every time I check out his blog: "Calvinist's (sic) don't often know their right hand from their left hand because Reformed theology communicates from an entirely different metaphysical construct than the norm." Give me a good ol' anti-Calvinist rant from Roger "The God of Calvinism Is a Moral Monster" Olson any day.
  
  
• Looking for a list of straw man arguments to refute Calvinism? Here's a list of 22 of them for a start.
  
  
• Steve Hays of Triablogue begins a running commentary on a lecture given by Jerry Walls at Houston Baptist University entitled "What's Wrong with Calvinism?"
  
  
• Calvinists and classical Arminians agree on imputed sin and total inability.
  
  
• Dr. Kevin McFadden discusses how Southern Baptists should approach theological disagreements.
  
  
• Here is a recap of recent John Piper messages from around the country.

This Week in Calvinism - May 10, 2013

• Rev. Fred Luter, president of the SBC, is trying to unite Southern Baptists, wanting to see the denomination move beyond the Calvinism issue and join together.
  
  
• Apparently following President Luter's advice, Ronnie Rogers of SBC Today explains what one can and cannot believe as a Calvinist in what I call his "You might not be a Calvinist if..." series (part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5).
  
  
• One woman's journey from Calvinism to "progressive Christianity."
  
  
• Bill Holdridge shares a few thoughts on Calvinism from Pastor Doug Hileman, who sums up his thoughts this way:

  Having shackled themselves with presuppositions that have no mandate in Scripture, Calvinists have embraced a system of theology that is neat, tidy, marvelously logical, and paradoxically, quite unreasonable. They have fallen prey to the same temptation as the early Church Fathers—leading with logic rather than scripture.

  I guess that explains why no Calvinist has ever been able to defend his position using scripture.
  
  
• Rabid anti-Calvinist Paul Dohse believes that Calvinists reject the Trinity in that we "make God the Father and the Holy Spirit lesser forms of Jesus Christ." Trust me. It makes even less sense when he explains it.
  
  
• C. Michael Patton on doubting Calvinists.
  
  
• Andre Fuller: Defender of the biblical gospel.

The Supremacy of Christ

This Week in Calvinism - May 3, 2013

• Peter Lumpkins seems thrilled to discover yet another straw man to attack in his crusade against Calvinism.
  
  
• Does Hebrews 6:4-8 refute Calvinism? No, but some people still like to keep that passage in their arsenal.
  
  
• Randal Rauser blasts his Calvinist critics while at the same time playing the "some of my closest friends are Calvinist theologians" card.
  
  
• Steve Hays blasts back.
  
  
• Jemar Tisby discusses what African-Americans bring to Reformed theology.

In America, the State Is God

Sure, in an ideal world the police shouldn't be able to abduct a child from his loving parents, but who are we to question the state?


Come on, church. Stop hiding behind Romans 13 and speak up.

North Korea Defeats Calvinism

Franklin Graham: Changing Hearts at the Point of a Gun?

No, Franklin Graham did not exactly say he wanted to change people's hearts at the point of a gun. However, he did suggest taxing violent entertainment in an effort to... Oh, I don't know. Make our nation appear more "Christian," I suppose. But what is a tax if not a threat to use state-sponsored violence against those who fail or refuse to comply?

From the Christian Post:

Evangelist Franklin Graham has stated that a solution to the problem of violence in American culture could be a tax on violent entertainment.

The CEO of the international relief group Samaritan's Purse stated this in some remarks delivered Wednesday at Camp Bethelwoods in York, S.C.

"How much violence as a nation are we willing to accept?" asked Graham, who was present in York to speak about this and other issues to those involved in a Samaritan's Purse disaster relief training event.

"We tax cigarettes, we can tax violence … only God can change your heart. We need to bring God's laws back into society."

Yes, "only God can change your heart," but in order for that to happen "we need to bring God's laws back into society." In other words, we can change hearts at the point of a gun.

As Christians, let's quit looking for salvation through legislation and instead focus our efforts on spreading the gospel. After all, it is the power of the gospel that will actually change hearts, not laws that must be enforced through the threat of violence.

This Week in Calvinism - April 26, 2013

• Does the Great Commission negate Calvinism? A more formalized online debate on that topic has begun here.
  
  
• Offended by a "militant Calvinist" who said he would burn in Hell for denying the doctrines of grace, one man has come to the conclusion that Calvinism is "repugnant, unbiblical and possibly even heretical." Another example of why we need to be loving in our defense of biblical truth.
  
  
• Did you know that Calvinism denies scripture, the new birth, and the Trinity? Neither did I.
  
  
• Puritanism 101.
  
  
• Check out Solid Joys, a daily devotional site featuring 365 excerpts from the writings of John Piper.

A Great Satirical Blog Is Back

It's nice to see that Tominthebox New Network is up and running again after a year-long hiatus. Great to have you back, Tom!

John Piper's Legacy

My wife and I have been members of Bethlehem Baptist Church for several years and have greatly appreciated the biblical teaching of John Piper. This video was shown at a celebration service thanking Pastor John for his years of ministry and praising God for what He has done.

This Week in Calvinism - April 19, 2013

• Roger Olson describes a relational view of the sovereignty of God. This view "regards God's will as settled in terms of the intentions of his character but open and flexible in terms of the ways in which he acts because he allows himself to be acted upon."
  
  
• The death of New Calvinism?
  
  
• Baptist colleges can't accept Baptist theologians.
  
  
• The main reason Arminians reject Calvinism is this: "A forced relationship is not a loving relationship." Uh, yeah. That's exactly what Calvinists teach.
  
  
• I'm convinced that one of the main reasons people reject Calvinism is their denial of total depravity.

John Piper on Regrets and Retirement

John Piper looks back on 33 years of pastoral ministry.

This Week in Calvinism - April 12, 2013

• T. E. Hanna explains why he rejects Calvinism in favor of God's sovereignty. In the process he reveals the problem with synergism, that salvation ultimately hinges on our choice:

  God is sacrificial. He is love. He empties Himself upon the cross, and restrains Himself in preservation of our free choice. In the end, we enter that city only because He has made the way possible, and because we have chosen to walk through it.

  In other words, Christ's sacrifice didn't secure salvation for anyone; it only made salvation possible.
  
  
• Kristen, thinking along the same lines, explains why she is not a Calvinist:

  If humans are incapable of resisting His saving grace, then He is responsible for not saving them all, since it's completely within His power to do so, and no one else has any say in the matter. It's not a matter of what we humans deserve so much as a matter of impartiality in justice, and completeness in mercy. I can't believe that God exercises partiality in justice and limited mercy. ... I think we can't come to God unless He draws us-- but when He draws us, we can choose to come towards Him, or resist and insist we don't want God. Simple as that.

  
  
• The Resurgence blog has a weekly feature called Resurgence Roundup. Check out this week's post here.
  
  
• Calvinists may look like normal people, but what are they hiding?
  
  
• Miss Phil Johnson? Don't worry. Team Pyro features classic posts from Phil every Friday.