The Question of Calvinism

I saw this meme on Facebook today:

Now of course as an Arminian, I also agree that salvation is of the Lord. God invented it and Christ died (and rose again!) to make it possible; He chooses who to save (conditional election) and He saves them by His power alone.

So, Arminians do say "Salvation is of the Lord."  But what separates us from most Calvinists is that we believe in the power of the Lord.

Arminians proclaim the ability of God.  Calvinists begin their argument with saying that man cannot have faith until regenerated. And many cannot answer this question:

If God wanted to, would He be able to give a man so much grace that the man could accept salvation, without needing to give so much that the man would be unable to refuse?

Is that an option that God has available to Him?"

Thoughts on Conditional Election

Conditional election: God chooses some people for salvation, and intentionally chooses those who meet some condition that He sets. Some christians hold to unconditional election, which I respect. I don't hold to it, myself, though. Like John Piper says, in his book “Future Grace,” conditional does not mean deserved. Grace in the life of a believer is spelled out to be conditional (God gives grace to the humble), but it's certainly not earned or deserved. And that's what I believe. I think that conditional Grace is unearned grace that God only gives out to some.

I would not say that God chose on His own, apart from any foreknowledge He has, because for me, God's knowledge, along with His power and Sovereignty, are all part of who God is – it's all unified. God is not apart from His knowledge, and therefore I don't think that God chooses apart from His knowledge anymore than He chooses apart from His Sovereignty. Rather, He chooses according to His knowledge, according to His Sovereignty, and according to His good pleasure.

“God chooses on His own.” I would agree with that sentiment. I also think that God choose conditionally, but since it is God who chooses the condition, God Himself is the foundation of all that He does. Some people think that if something is conditional, then the BASIS of salvation would be the person and not God. I see the merit of the idea, but I ultimately disagree with it. You see, if God had a compulsion to save everyone who had red hair, and if you had red hair, then He just couldn't help Himself and then saved you – then the basis of your salvation would be your hair, and not God. Or if God couldn't help Himself but to elect those who “pray a prayer,” then the basis of the salvation would be the prayer, and it would just kinda drag God into it, though His compulsion.

However, as we all know, it doesn't happen that way. If the condition of salvation was red hair, it wouldn't be because God is compelled, it would be because God, in His wisdom and according to His good pleasure decided that He prefers to only save those with red hair, and that it would give Him more glory that way. He would be picking the condition of salvation, but the BASIS of salvation would be in God's good pleasure – for God choose to save, He choose who to save, and He choose on which condition He would choose to save people.

That's how I see election. I do believe in conditional election, and I believe that the BASIS of salvation is God. It is not of man who wills (or else all Catholics would be saved, for they will to be saved) or man who runs (or else all the Mormons and Jews would be saved too, for they work hard), but of God who determines who to save.

And I don't believe that election is conditional just because I think it sounds nice. I believe it because every time I see salvation mentioned in the Bible, it is listed with a condition. Even in many non-salvation matters, God chooses to use conditions to deal with people. For instance:

Genesis 4:6

“So the LORD said to Cain, “Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen? If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door. And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it.”

Jeremiah 18:5-10

“Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying: 'O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter?' says the LORD. 'Look, as the clay is in the potter’s hand, so are you in My hand, O house of Israel!

The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it, if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it. And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it, if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will relent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it.'”

[Side note: God's actions are not determined by the people doing this or that, rather, Jonah correctly speaks in regard to God's conditional mercy upon Ninevah by pointing to God's character and saying: “Ah, LORD, was not this what I said when I was still in my country? Therefore I fled previously to Tarshish; for I know that You are a gracious and merciful God, slow to anger and abundant in lovingkindness, One who relents from doing harm.”]

Numbers 21:9
“So Moses made a bronze serpent, and put it on a pole; and so it was, if a serpent had bitten anyone, when he looked at the bronze serpent, he lived.”

It is not uncommon for God to deal with people according to conditions that He Himself, in His wisdom and good pleasure, sets. Jesus Himself, in fact, compared the salvation that He offered to the healing offered conditionally in the wilderness, to those who would look at it.

And then there's the commentary of Jacob and Esau, and how one was elect and the other was not – without regard to their works, whether good or bad. And that's exactly the point that Paul was making, he said: “nor having done any good or evil... [election is] not of works.” Paul says specifically that salvation is NOT conditional based on works, and that's exactly what the Jews there didn't want to hear, but they needed to hear it. He ends the chapter by saying that the condition God DID choose was faith: “Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness. Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, by the works of the law. ”

And it all does come back to God's character too. We are told to imitate God's character through loving our neighbor as ourselves. If we see two men in a burning building, we are to try to rescue both if possible – not to save one unconditionally and leave the other. Even so, I do not see throughout the Bible that God's character is consistent with choosing to save some unconditionally, and not lifting a finger to even make salvation possible for the others. Now of course, I realize that for election to be conditional upon faith, people need to be able to have faith; or for election to be conditional upon ceasing to resist the grace of God, people need to be given by God the ability to cease to resist. We see this through Scripture as well, but that is another topic for another blog.

God's Sovereignty (A poll)

Orthodox Christians believe that God is Sovereign over the universe. Does this mean that when sin happens, He simply allows it, or does He get more involved? If God does, in fact, decree a specific sin - how involved does He get, in order to make sure that that particular sin (instead of another sin) actually occurs?

I want to hear about your beliefs.

Instructions:

First, read through the definitions of the terms that will be used: Levels of Involvement

Copy and paste the poll to a word document.

Fill out your answers and save the file.

Email to me: skarlet.servantoftheking (at) gmail.com

God Bless!

____________________________________________

Question #1-A

What is your name?

Question #1-B

You consider yourself to be:

___ An open theist

___ An Arminian

___ A non-Calvinist Christian

___ A Calvinist

___ A three point, or four point Calvinist

___ Other (Please explain)

Question #1-C

Do you believe that God is completely Sovereign over all creation?

Question #2

In your opinion, which viewpoints presented here represent a belief that YOU hold to, regarding the sin of humans?

Please mark an “X” by all statements that you believe are true, or just highlight in yellow. If you believe that none of the statements are consistent with what you believe, then do not mark or highlight any options.

__________________________________________________

___ God is sometimes ignorant of sin that will occur

___ God is completely uninvolved with occurring sin

___ God is helpless to stop some sin

___ God sometimes allows sin

___ God sometimes actively gives permission for sin to occur

___ God is a “cause in fact” for sin; without Him, no sin could have happened

___ God “aids and abet”s those who He knows will harm others

___ God provides synergist energy, thus enabling people to carry out every act of sin

___ God sometimes acts as a trigger or catalyst for someone committing a particular sin

___ Like the police, God sometimes entraps people by putting them in situations where He knows they will sin

___ God sometimes puts sinful ideas in people's minds

___ God sometimes lightly influences people to sin

___ God sometimes invents/masterminds the sin

___ God sometimes internally commands people to sin

___ God sometimes then internally persuades people to sin

___ God sometimes tempts people to sin

___ God sometimes indoctrinates people's minds, so that they will commit the sin

___ God sometimes inspires a sin

___ God sometimes manipulates a person to sin

___ God sometimes incites them to arouse them to commit the sin

___ God sometimes incepts the idea into their head, so that they think that they were the one to think it up

___ God sometimes uses overwhelming influence to get the person to sin

___ God occasionally, in effect, “drugs” people, by manipulating their brain chemistry to the point that they cannot go against the temptation that God is enforcing with the chemicals

___ God sometimes uses mind-control to make people want to sin and then sin; like a programmer causes a robot to act, by controlling all cognitions

___ God sometimes causes people to sin without will; like a puppet-master controls the actions of a willess puppet

___ God sometimes forces people to sin against their will

.

Regarding God's Sovereignty: An Exchange

Dan Rysselburghe:

Skarlet, I think I know your errant theology enough to say that you believe that God's grace is completely resistible- see, people do it all the time. You say, also, that Salvation is merely an offer that can be accepted or refused. In saying these things, you strip God of His sovereignty, reduce Him to a poor beggar of men's souls and relegates Him to the role of a responder. Don't you see, this makes you sovereign over your own destiny and refutes the Scripture which says, "it does not depend on man's desire or effort" and "God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden. ~ Rm 9.

Skarlet Reinagel:

Dan; Yes, God's grace is resistible, and only because He designed it to be that way. God doesn't want people who have no choice but to serve Him, He is a God who exalts in relationships. If you have a problem with this, take it up with Him and not me. I feel that since God made the universe, if He wishes to give people grace enough so that they are able to accept His offer of salvation but don't have to, He has every right to do so.

Yes, Salvation is offered to all, but that's not all. It's also enacted for those who believe, according to God's design. Everyday, people are regenerated, justified, and sanctified further and further. If this seems to a person to be "merely" anything, then that one does not fully yet understand the magnitude of the gospel, or the Amazingness of His grace toward all. Salvation is an absolute miracle and we should be on our knees every day thanking God that He is Merciful enough to offer it to us wretched beings!

God IS Sovereign over all. Giving people the option to resist His grace does not make Him less Sovereign. In fact, to say that God is not free to offer salvation to all would be to try to tell God what He is and is not free to do in order to retain His status of Sovereignty in your eyes. He is not afraid of your opinion. He is Sovereign over all and gives grace as He sees fit, and not as you see fit. He does not beg, but commands; He also glorifies His name in dealing out the rewards of disobedience to those who ignore those commands. He is not a responder, but is proactive in the life of every human being, both in blessing and grace, and in cursing and punishment.

Finally, none of us is sovereign over his or her own destiny. God is. God chooses who He wants to save, according to His conditions, in line with His good will. If He chooses to have mercy on those who do not resist His grace, what is that to you? And if He chooses to continue to harden those who harden their hearts in response to His grace, who are we to stand against Him? Every destiny is in the hands of the Lord, and it is only by His will and His grace that you or I has been given grace to his faith, and that we are promised eternal life. If God had wanted, He could have given eternal death to believers, but it did not so please Him. It is HIS world. HIS conditions, my friend.

"You do not believe because you are not my sheep"

The following verses from the Bible are awesome, true, and also a point of much misunderstanding and confusion in the Calvinist/Arminian debate:

John 6:37

“All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away.”

John 6:44-45

“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day. 45 It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me.”

John 6:65

“He went on to say, ‘This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him.’”

John 8:43-44, 47

“Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. 44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desire. . . . 47 He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.”

John 10:26-29

“. . . but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. 27 My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand.”

John 17:1-2, 6, 9, 24

“Father, the time has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you. 2 For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him. . . . 6 I have revealed you to those whom you gave me out of the world. They were yours; you gave them to me and they have obeyed your word. . . . 9 I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours. . . . 24 Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am.”

For an excellent discussion of the Arminian perspective on these verses, I would recommend that you each . read the following article:

The Order of Faith and Election in John's Gospel

It contains some very clear and powerful ideas concerning the transition from the Old Covenant before Christ, and the introduction of Jesus as the perfect revelation of the Father and His official representative. Those throughout Israel and the world, therefore, who truly knew and loved God the Father already, those who were in right relationship with Him, would also come to Jesus and embrace the Messiah, when He was presented to them. It's a great opportunity to really dig deeply into the Word of God and to gain further understanding of the aforementioned passages.

Imporant Note: Please Read

God

is

AWESOME !

Just sayin.

_

Jesus Died for You

Earlier this week I heard the same claim that I've heard a myriad of times before: If Jesus died for anyone, then everyone's sins are paid for, and they should go to heaven. If they are sent to hell still, it's double jeopardy!

This is a criticism of the doctrine of unlimited atonement – the belief that Jesus Christ died for all of mankind – and the basic premise of the complaint against it is this claim: according to this doctrine, whatever Christ accomplished on the cross, he accomplished for all alike: those who are finally saved as well as those who are finally lost. (Theopedia) If you take this as a given, then you run into a problem because you only have two possibilities:

1 – Jesus provided the offer of redemption, but does not atone for anyone's sin.

2 – Jesus procures atonement of sin for everyone. (So you have either universalism, or people being punished for sins that were already paid for)

The first claim seems pretty ridiculous, since everyone agrees that some people are actually saved and that there sins were atoned for by Christ! Calvinists do make this claim about the doctrine of unlimited atonement, though. “Universal (or unlimited) atonement is the view that Christ's work makes redemption possible for all but certain for none.”(Theopedia) However, the doctrine of unlimited atonement still holds that the sins of some people are atoned for, and that their salvation is made certain through Christ. Paul the Apostle, for instance, I think we can all agree that Christ atoned for his sins, that he is with the Lord now, and that his salvation had been made certain by Christ.

The second claim doesn't represent the position any better than the first. Those who hold to the doctrine of Unlimited Atonement and believe that Jesus died for all most certainly do not believe that everyone goes to heaven. Nor do they believe that the sins of non-believers were paid for. When a non-believer is lost for eternity, it is for their own sins, which have not been atoned for, that they suffer.

If neither possibility described the beliefs of those who hold to Unlimited Atonement, then the problem is clearly with the premise.

The claim was that “whatever Christ accomplished on the cross, he accomplished for all alike.” I'm going to blatantly deny this claim. This is not what Arminians believe. This is not an accurate portrayal of the position of Universal Atonement. I've tried many times to explain that Christ accomplished two goals on the cross. Not one. Two. He provided salvation for all, and procured salvation for those who would believe on him.

3 - Jesus provided the offer of redemption for all, and actually paid for the sins of believers.

I've written on the topic before and explained the importance of this concept, along with explaining the difference between providing and procuring salvation. Usually I use the analogy given in the book of John – the reference to the serpent raised up in the wilderness to provide healing for all who were bitten, and only to actually heal those who looked upon it.

Very likely, people get confused with the phrase “died for." When a Christian says “Jesus died for (provided salvation for) everyone,” someone is bound to hear “Jesus died for (paid for the sins of) everyone” and will object! Again, a Christian will say “Jesus died for (provided salvation for) everyone,” and someone else will complain, “What? You don't think that Christ actually procured salvation for anyone at all?” Standard American lingo is so imprecise, it's no longer everyone believes strawman positions about opposing views.

In any case, perhaps a more modern analogy would help to make the point clear and memorable. Before I begin describing the analogy, though, please bear in mind that this analogy only applies to describe the difference between providing and procuring a benefit for someone. It does not address the issues of natural ability or the lack thereof.

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

The analogy involves money. Most of us probably use credit cards. We know how those word. Probably all of us have at some point used cash to pay for stuff. Some of us, at least, have also used personal checks. Now, giving someone a check is different from paying someone cash. If I hand you $10, you have the money. I no longer have the money. I have procured money for you. You have the benefit of having that money

If you hand me a check, though, there is first the question of whether the check will go though. Let us assume, though, that you are an honest person, you have enough money in your account, and if I cash the check, it will go through just fine. When you hand me the check, you have provided me with money. I don't have that money yet; I just have the opportunity to have that money. It isn't until I actually deposit or cash that check that I receive the benefit of having more money. If I burn the check instead, I will never receive the money that you provided for me. I had opportunity to have that money, but I never actually took advantage of that opportunity.

To recap: when you give me the check, money is provided (but not procured), and when I cash the check, the benefit is actually procured for me (given that the check goes through like you said it would).

So, to tie this back in with the initial thought, salvation is provided for all, but only procured for believers. The offer of salvation – like the offer of money when you hand someone a signed and valid check – is God's gracious gift to all. This offer is available because of the atonement of His Son. Actual redemption – like the actual benefit of having more money – is only procured for those who believe. (Reminder: This is not addressing the concept of total inability. This is JUST about the provide/procure comparison. Additionally, this analogy is NOT addressing the actions of the giver, but just the difference between experiencing provision and experiencing the actual benefit of something.) This redemption is accomplished through the atonement of the Son.

Provision of salvation for all: Jesus died for all.

Salvation procured for believers: Jesus died for the elect.

Both goals were accomplished. This is the doctrine of Unlimited Atonement.

The Society for Evangelical Armianism describes it this way:

“While God has provided for the salvation of all people by Christ's sacrificial and substitutionary death for all, the benefits of Christ's death are received by grace through faith and are only effective for those who believe.”

P.S. So please people, if you have a sudden urge to claim that those who hold to Unlimited Atonement believe either that Christ's death made no one's salvation certain or that everyone's sins were paid for, feel free to re-read this blog entry before making that claim. If you are going to argue against the doctrine at all, at least make a solid point about it.

References:

http://evangelicalarminians.org/Outline.FACTS-of-Arminianism-vs-the-TULIP-of-Calvinism

http://www.theopedia.com/Unlimited_atonement

See also http://christiancompletely.blogspot.com/2010/03/addressing-boettner-quote-about-limited.html

Sovereignty and Free Will

This is a very short blog for your consideration: food for thought, as it were. As I prepared to teach Sunday School this week, on the topic of God giving Christians the Holy Spirit as a "Helper" to enable us to obey His commands and escape from temptation, I read this fascinating passage. All passages in the Bible are excellent, and this one is especially helpful for the purpose of clarifying the way I see man's freedom and God's Sovereignty.

[This relates to the Sunday School lesson because God allows us to either give in to temptation and will discipline us, or accept His day-to-day grace and escape temptation, as He promised. God allows this choice, and yet is Sovereign.]

Consider, then, the following passage in which a messenger of the Lord delivers to David a message of discipline:

1 Chronicles 21:11-12
So Gad came to David and said to him, “Thus says the LORD: ‘Choose for yourself, either three years of famine, or three months to be defeated by your foes with the sword of your enemies overtaking you, or else for three days the sword of the LORD—the plague in the land, with the angel of the LORD destroying throughout all the territory of Israel.’”

In this, we see that God wants David to choose between three options. Yes, God, in his Sovereignty, WILLS that a person make a choice. God could choose for Himself. However, God is the boss, and if He wants a person to choose, then that person will be the one to choose. Why? Because God is in control, and He gets what He wants, according to the counsel of His will.

David gets a choice here. Does that make him in charge? Obviously not! If David was in charge, he wouldn't want to choose any of those punishments; he would choose peace, safety, and prosperity! As you can see, then, David is not in charge, even though he has a choice. God is in charge.

Captain EO - And Irresistible Grace

Well folks, I finally have seen the sentimental draw of the doctrine of Irresistible Grace

Now, after years of me ranting and raving against Calvinism, you may wonder what it was that brought about this new perspective. Let me first say that just because a doctrine has emotional appeal does not mean that the doctrine is true, and so please do not misunderstand me to be saying that I now agree that Irresistible Grace is taught in the Scripture. With that said, it was a visit to Disneyland that changed my perspective about this. Captain EO is a show which was played at Disneyland 9/18/86 - 4/7/97, and now also 2/23/10 - the present. Some of you may have seen it when it originally played, but I only had the chance of seeing it this year. It's a musical that stars Michael Jackson (back when he was black) as "Captain EO," who comes to make a world a better place by giving a gift, which has to do with music and beauty, and is described by Caption EO as "a key to unlock" those things. If you have not seen the show, then you are probably wondering how it could possible relate to the doctrine of Irresistible Grace, and so before I go on, I will briefly outline some main parts of the plot.

Captain EO flies around in outer space, with his band of obvious misfits, in a spaceship that strongly resembles a turkey. After tripping an intrusion alarm, and finding out that "Hooter" has eaten the map, he and his hardly-competent team land more or less successfully on a planet that looks a lot like "the death star" from Star Wars. They all set off to find "the Supreme Leader," and fulfill that goal by being almost immediately captured by some scary-looking goons, who conveniently take them directly to the ruler of the whole planet.

The Supreme Leader

Naturally, the supreme leader decides that she wants two of them to be turned into trashcans, and sentences Captain EO to a hundred years of torture. This would be looking pretty bad, but Captain EO expresses that he just wants to bring a gift to her, which will unlock her inner beauty. Before Hooter has time to correctly set up the instruments involved, the Supreme Leader gets inpatient and sends her troops to take Captain EO into custody. As soon as the musical instruments are working, Captain EO escapes their clutches by sending out a blast of energy, which knocks them all back.


The second blast of energy actually transforms the goons, physically, mentally, and emotionally. Later, when the Supreme leader sends out her more fearsome guards, he does pretty much the same thing, and using his special magical-energy-light-beams to transform them into friendly, obedient souls. He's never met these guys before, but after the transformation, they dance perfectly in step with Captain EO, without even needing instruction or practice.

The show ends victoriously when Captain EO, together with all of his new transformed followers give out one final blast of transforming energy which changes the Supreme Leader to be beautiful and docile, and changes the whole planet to be a beautiful place, alive with vegetation, color, and architecture.

"So do surrender
’cause the power’s deep inside my soul
Sing it

(we are here to change the world)
Gonna change the world, sing it
(we are here to change the world)
Hee, gonna change the world, ooo"

And as he leaves, singing a song of course, he waves goodbye to world that he had changed utterly from ugly, dark, and cruel to beautiful, kind, and coordinated.

Very magical, very disney, and all that. But what does it have to do with theology? Well, let us first take a look at the doctrine of Efficacious Grace, or as it is more commonly known, Irresistible Grace. The Westminster Confession defines it like this:

“All those whom God has predestined unto life, and those only, He is pleased in His appointed and accepted time, effectually to call, by His Word and Spirit, out of that state of death, in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly, to understand the things of God; taking away their heart of stone and giving them a heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and by His almighty power determining them to that which is good; and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ, yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by His grace” (Chapter X, Section 1,2).

In the words of Loraine Boettner,

"It is a common thing for opponents to represent this doctrine as implying that men are forced to believe and turn to God against their wills, or, that it reduces men to the level of machines in the matter of salvation. This is a misrepresentation. Calvinists hold no such opinion, and in fact the full statement of the doctrine excludes or contradicts it. The Westminster Confession, after stating that this efficacious grace which results in conversion is an exercise of omnipotence and cannot be defeated, adds, “Yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by His grace.” The power by which the work of regeneration is effected is not of an outward and compelling nature. Regeneration does no more violence to the soul than demonstration does to the intellect, or persuasion the heart. Man is not dealt with as if he were a stone or a log. Neither is he treated as a slave, and driven against his own will to seek salvation. Rather the mind is illuminated, and the entire range of conceptions with regard to God, self, and sin, is changed. God sends His Spirit and, in a way which shall forever redound to the praise of His mercy and grace, sweetly constrains the person to yield." (The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, pp 176)

What does that mean, in English? Simply it means that, by that doctrine, a man cannot have faith in Christ unless God first imparts to him such an amount of Grace that the sinner is regenerated: transformed so completely that without question they submit to God's authority and trust in Christ as Savior. This regeneration comes before faith. First sinners are enemies of God, and then God sends some transforming grace their way, and then they become beautiful on the inside and follow Him rather than fighting against him. Why is this called Irresistible Grace? Because man cannot resist it. If God singles out a man to be saved, and gives him that kind of grace, that man will be transformed against his will, and only then will he freely choose to follow to follow Christ. Man does not have the power to resist this grace enough to stop it from transforming his heart and mind. That is why efficacious grace is generally described as irresistible grace.

It is probably obvious, as this point, how Captain EO clearly reflects the main points of this doctrine. The Captain's Transforming Energy has pretty much the exact same effect as Irresistible Grace. It changes worlds, people, and lives against their will, in such a way that after they are transformed, they are kind, happy, and glad for the transformation. Not only that, but they submit to his every whim, which is more analogous to God's secret will than to His revealed will, because Captain EO never told them how to dance, and yet they all stayed in step perfectly.

You can see just how much this transformation was against the natural will of the people involved if you glance at this screenshot of the face of the Supreme Leader while she was starting to be transformed:

But, it was a beautiful show, and I watched it again and again. I loved seeing the ugliness of the planet fade to beauty. I loved seeing all the enemy troops magically transformed into obedient allies, who are were very musically coordinated. I loved the music about changing the world. It was beautiful! And for a moment, I could really see why people would enjoy believing the real world is like that, except with God in charge rather than Michael Jackson. Sometimes, even I would like to use that power to transform people who are unkind to me. One main difference, though, between Captain EO and the Calvinist doctrine of Irresistible Grace, is that Captain EO transformed everyone. Now, obviously God is powerful enough to change people this way, even without having to use the lights and special effects. At first glance, it may even seem that this sort of forced transformation may be the best way for God to relate to people, or even the only way that He could possible save them. But is this really the only way God could change people? Is this His best and favorite tactic for bringing people from darkness into light? Those are some interesting questions, and they should be pondered in light of God's character, as revealed throughout Scripture.


Also Check Out:
Blog Post Discussing More Fully The Question of Whether Irresistible Grace is Biblical

Forget who-dun-it. Who is responsible for this mess?!?

The Reformed Assertion:"God can determine a specific outcome, a person can have no other option but to do the outcome, and that person can be held up to moral judgment while God is blameless."

Now, one objection to Calvinism that keeps coming up consistently over the years is the objection that it makes God the author of sin. Now, when it comes right down to it, Calvinists will generally teach that God did, in fact, decree sin before ever there was sin, and makes sin happen.

Generally, however, they seem to object to the term "Author" of sin, because it implies that God would be culpable for sin:

"The term authors is almost universally condemned in the theological literature. It is rarely defined, but it seems to mean both that God is the efficient cause of evil and that by causing evil he actually does something wrong.1 So the [Westminster Confession] says that God “neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin” (5:4). Despite this denial in a major Reformed confession, Arminians regularly charge that Reformed theology makes God the author of sin. They assume that if God brings about evil in any sense, he must therefore approve it and deserve the blame." - David Mathis

The Calvinist view is that God causally determines the desires and actions of men, but that men are held responsible for what God caused them to do.


They do teach that God decrees sin, and causally determines that it happens:

" So here I see that God's command is that the sons of Eli ought to listen to and obey their father, yet the will of God was that they would not listen so that He would put them to death." - Peter Pike

"God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass" - Westminster Confession of Faith

"Nothing has ever come to pass, or ever will, merely because God knew it. The cause of all things is the will of God." - Arthur Pink

"The question, though, is whether God merely permits evil, or whether in addition he actually brings evil about in some sense. I think the latter is true. Scripture often says that God brings about sinful decisions of human beings... If evil comes from some source other than God, that would be pretty scary." - Andre Rook

"That men do nothing save at the secret instigation of God, and do not discuss or deliberate on anything but what he has previously decreed with himself, and brings to pass by his secret direction, is proved by numberless passages of Scripture." - John Calvin

“But where it is a matter of men’s counsels, wills, endeavours, and exertions, there is greater difficulty in seeing how the providence of God rules here too, so that nothing happens but by His assent and that men can deliberately do nothing unless He inspire it.” - John Calvin

But they all maintain that God is righteous, holy, and pure. He is not culpable for the evil that He makes happen:

"Thus, even if God is 'the instigator of all sin' that would not necessitate that God is culpable for sin." - Peter Pike

"...yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established." - Westminster Confession of Faith

"And while it is not ours to explain how God in His secret counsel rules and overrules the sinful acts of men, it is ours to know that whatever God does He never deviates from His own perfect justice. In all the manifestations of His character He shows Himself pre-eminently the Holy One. These deep workings of God are mysteries which are to be adored, but not to be inquired into; and were it not for the fact that some persons persist in declaring that the doctrine of Predestination makes God the author of sin, we could let the matter rest here." - Loraine Boettner

_________________________________________________

How can this be?
To the untrained mind, it may seem patently obvious that if God causes people to sin, then He is culpable for the sin. What is the Reformed answer to this?

1) Calvinist doctrine absolutely relies on the idea that only the direct cause is responsible for sin. They belabor this point to no end. We cannot hold God culpable for sin because He is not the agent of sin, the actor of sin. He merely causes it. But though He causes it, He is not culpable, because the secondary causes are culpable.

2) Now, if one argues that the cause of sin, directly or indirectly, is culpable, they will usually respond that even in Non-Calvinism, God is first cause of everything. So the other system solves it no better than theirs. But here is the difference: We admit that God is the first cause of every thing in the sense that without Him, nothing could happen. However, we do not see God as determining that we will sin in a causal way. In other words, we see that God allows sin, but they think that God causally determines sin - like pushing one domino causes, in a determining way, all the unsupported dominoes behind it to fall.

I use the phrase causally determine because if I say "cause," then they insist that God is the first cause of everything even in our system, and if I say "determine," then they say that determine can also include allowing. Because of the slippery nature of these words, I try to clearly and habitually use the term "causally determine" which does not allow for ambiguity.

Now, Calvinists are slow to accept that idea that the cause, or the One who causally determines sin is responsible or culpable for it. Why? Because if one could show them that the Being who causally determines something is culpable for it, then they would see that their system makes God culpable for all of sin.

3) Calvinists often argue that man is culpable for sin while God is not, because God decrees the sin with good intentions, while man has evil motives. According to John Calvin, "we must hold that while by means of the wicked God performs what he had secretly decreed, they are not excusable as if they were obeying his precept, which of set purpose they violate according to their lust."

In this defense, they seem to imply that God decreed the action for a good reason with righteous motives, but the secondary cause carries out the action with bad motives - and therefore it is sin for the one with the bad motives, but not sin for God.

__________________________ __________________________
My short answers to those propositions:

1) So, I will try to show that whoever causes sin to happen, intentional and in a determining way, is responsible and culpable for sin, even if it was caused indirectly.

2) Again, I will be arguing not that just any cause is culpable, but that the determining cause of sin is responsible, and if the determining cause was intentional, then that person is also culpable for it.

3) There I would remind them that their system does not only charge God with decreeing actions, but also decreeing motives. If the motives, and not the actions are truly the sin which one can be held culpable for, then God is culpable for intentionally causing those specific evil motives in a way that determined that they would happen.


_________________________________________________
What does the Bible say about it?

Case A: Nathan confronts David

2 Samuel 12:9b
"You have struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and have taken his wife to be your wife and have killed him with the sword of the Ammonites."

Now, David here, if he subscribed to theory that indirect causes were not responsible or culpable for sin, could have justly replied: "Now, now, Nathan. You forget about the liberty and contingency of secondary causes here. I was not the one to strike down Uriah. I didn't kill him. Those bloodly Ammonites did, and you know that they had bad motives!" Rather, the Bible seems to equate the culpability of doing the act of killing and causally determining that it would happen.

David here caused sin to happen, intentional and in a determining way, and is Biblically held responsible and culpable for that sin.

I could give many other examples of mob bosses causing crimes, and then washing their hands of the deed and claiming that "hey - all my money is clean. I didn't kill nobody." The intentional, but indirect, cause of sin is not innocent, but merely has others do their dirty work. Speaking of "washing hands," though, Pilate didn't kill Jesus. He merely intentionally causally determined that it would happen. He didn't directly kill Jesus, so he's innocent, right? According to the Bible, wrong.

Anyone who causes sin to happen, intentional and in a determining way, is justly held responsible and culpable for that sin. Anyone. No special pleading.

If God caused sin to happen, intentional and in a determining way, He would justly be responsible and culpable for that sin. Why? Because it is wrong for anyone, even God, to cause someone to sin! Yes, I just said it would be wrong for God to do something. God is not above morality - He is morality. He is always true to His righteous nature, and it would be wrong of Him to deviate from it. It would be wrong of Him to lie, for example.


-------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------
Case B: Causing sin to happen is wrong

Malachi 2:8
"But you have turned aside from the way. You have caused many to stumble by your instruction. You have corrupted the covenant of Levi, says the LORD of hosts,"

See, in this verse, it seems pretty clear that causing people to sin is, in and of itself, a sin. Okay, sure, but what if you cause people to sin for a good reason? To that, I would quote this verse:

Romans 3:8
"And why not do evil that good may come?—as some people slanderously charge us with saying. Their condemnation is just."

There is no excuse for causing evil to happen. The good omelette is not an excuse for breaking the "eggs" to achieve that result.

Leviticus 22:15-17
"They shall not profane the holy things of the people of Israel, which they contribute to the LORD, and so cause them to bear iniquity and guilt, by eating their holy things: for I am the LORD who sanctifies them."

We are not just commanded not to sin ourselves, but also are commanded not to cause others to sin or to bear more iniquity and guilt. To cause others to sin is a sin. It's wrong. Period.


-------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------
Case C: The cause of sin is bad

Matthew 5:29
"If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell."

Matthew 5:30
"And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell."

Matthew 18:8
"And if your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life crippled or lame than with two hands or two feet to be thrown into the eternal fire."

Now, you'll notice that the concept about cutting off body part, if they cause you to sin, is a recurring theme here. Maybe it's important. Some think that these verses are hyperboles to make a point, and are not meant literally. I disagree. It is, indeed, better to lose a body part than to go to hell! Does Jesus want us to cut off our limbs? Of course not. Why? Well, notice the key word here: If. If your hand causes you to sin... If your foot causes you to sin... If your eye causes you to sin... The reason we do not cut off our limbs is that our body parts do not actually cause us to sin. If I were to pluck out one eye, I would sin with the other one! If I had neither eye, I would sin in my mind. The key concept here is that the cause of sin is a bad thing, and ought to be thrown away - no matter what the cost.

Wait - hold on. The cause of sin, Biblically, is a bad thing, and ought to be thrown away. If God is the ultimate intentional and determining cause of all sin... then... how exactly would that work? Would He command us to love and serve Him as Good, and then declare Himself evil and say that we should distance ourselves from Him? That would be contradictory!

i - The cause of sin is bad and we ought to get rid of it
ii - God is not bad, and we ought not to try to get rid of God
iii - Therefore, God is not the cause of sin


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case D: It would be better...

And now we come to perhaps the harshest words about how wrong it is to cause others to sin:

Matthew 18:6
"...but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea."

Mark 9:42
"Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea."

Oh snap. And, according to Calvinism, who causally determines that little ones who believe in him will sin?

God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain that they would sin.

No sin of little kids has ever come to pass, or ever will, merely because God knew it. The cause of that sin is the will of God.

Little kids do nothing save at the secret instigation of God, and do not discuss or deliberate on anything but what he has previously decreed with himself, and brings to pass by his secret direction...

According to Calvin himself, little kids can deliberately do nothing unless God Himself inspires it.

Enough said.


-------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------
Case E: A couple of interesting verses about the cause of sin

Jeremiah 32:35
"They built the high places of Baal in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to offer up their sons and daughters to Molech, though I did not command them, nor did it enter into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin."

Point being, God didn't cause that to happen.

James 4:1
"What causes quarrels and what causes fights among you? Is it not this, that your passions are at war within you?"

Point being, we are the determining cause of our own sin, and therefore we are responsible and culpable for it.



*All verses are quoted from the English Standard Version, unless otherwise noted

Jesus Loves Me - This I Know

Love, isn't it wonderful? Jesus loves me. That's awesome. Of course it is, but what is love?


What does "Jesus loves me" really mean? The word "love" gets tossed about quite a bit in this culture, and it doesn't always get used correctly.

In his book, "The Four Loves," C.S. Lewis discusses four greek words for love: Storge, Phileo, Eros, and Agape. Each are different, of course, and each are very valid. Storge is basically natural affection, phileo is brotherly love, eros is romantic love, and agape is the type of love that we are to have for everyone. Although each type of love is different, they must have some commonality to be called love at all. There may even be more types of love than this, but it also must have the core components of love to be correctly entitled love.

I would say that the core component of all the different types of love is agape love. If there is a type of love which does not include agape, then it is a cheap imitation, and not true love. For instance, if a man rapes a woman because he eros-loves her, then he does not really love her. Obviously, a person who agape-loves someone would not violate that person like that, and therefore that man, who lacks agape-love, also lacks true romantic love.

Now, love is probably one the most complex topics of all time. There is no way to fully describe love with words. I do not claim that I can fully describe love. However, I do think that it ought to be possible to describe some sort of working definition of love. It is possible and reasonable to be able to claim that "this is love" and that "that is not."

As a side note, I would love for you to all first read this blog: (Link) I wrote this blog about love, and it gets more in-depth than I will right now. Right now, I will chose to mention only a minimal set of core requirements for love:

_______________________________________________________________
What is love?

To love someone is to delight in them.

Proverbs 3:12
"For whom the LORD loves He corrects, Just as a father the son in whom he delights."

To love someone is to want what's best for them.

Romans 10:1
" Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they may be saved."

To love someone is to actively help them get what is best for themselves.

James 2:16
"And one of you says to them, 'Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,' but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit?"

To love someone is to show tough love, not just spoiling them.

Proverbs 13:24
"He who spares his rod hates his son, But he who loves him disciplines him promptly."

That's right, when I speak of love, I'm not talking about some sort of wishy-washy liking of someone that prompts one to spoil them. No, I am talking about that intense, fearful, powerful love that God has for us when He insists that we cannot come to come heaven as we are, but must die and be reborn. I am talking of a love that everyone wants, but no one wants to experience. You must even love yourself enough that you don't let yourself slip into sin and accept your own excuses. [Important note: just as a father who disciplines a son should challenge him, and keep him accountable, he is not to be verbally abusive or overly harsh.]

Love fights to defend the loved one from harm:

Isaiah 1:17
"Learn to do good; Seek justice, Rebuke the oppressor; Defend the fatherless, Plead for the widow."

To love someone is to teach and guide them.

Proverbs 22:6
"Train up a child in the way he should go, And when he is old he will not depart from it."

To love someone is to be concerned with their physical well-being.

Matthew 25:44-46
“Then they also will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?’ Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’"

In this sin-cursed world, love suffers:

John 11:35-36
"Jesus wept. Then the Jews said, 'See how He loved him!'"

Love does not harm to neighbor:

Romans 13:10
"Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law."

_________________________________________________________________
All of this is pretty obvious and straightforward. Those who love you and gentle in rebuke when they can be. When we love someone a lot, we delight in their presence when we can; when we cannot, we wish that we could. We want what is truly best for those that we deeply care about: we are not apathetic when they get themselves into trouble. We provide help, and not just wishes, when we really love someone. True love is when you defend people against the sin in their lives, rather than just sit idly by. It is a very known principle that tough love is love, while enabling is not. If someone loves you, they will defend against those who try to hurt you. Someone who loves you will, if push comes to shove, give you the coat off their back. When someone claims to love you, and then does you harm, it's obvious that they are not being loving.

Finally, love wants betterment and closeness even when it's obvious that it will never happen - yes, love often is irrational to "want" something it knows it will not ever see. If I saw a robber getting ready to hurt or kill you, I would not want you to hurt or die, even those I might know that I could not stop him.

"To love at all is to be vulnerable. Love anything, and your heart will certainly be wrung and possibly be broken. If you want to make sure of keeping it intact, you must give your heart to no one, not even to an animal. Wrap it carefully round with hobbies and little luxuries; avoid all entanglements; lock it up safe in the casket or coffin of your selfishness. But in that casket — safe, dark, motionless, airless — it will change. It will not be broken; it will become unbreakable, impenetrable, irredeemable. The alternative to tragedy, or at least to the risk of tragedy, is damnation. The only place outside of Heaven where you can be perfectly safe from all the dangers and perturbations of love is Hell." - C.S. Lewis

_______________________________________________________________
And now at last, we reach the questions that I brought up at the beginning.
Does Jesus love me?
Or, of more importance to this discussion, does Jesus love you? Does Jesus love everyone who sings that song? Does Jesus love everyone? Does the Bible really say so?

1. God loves all people
   

   John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
   

2. God doesn't just love... God IS love. God cannot NOT love.

   1 John 4:8 "He who does not love does not know God, for God is love."

3. To love someone is to want what's best for them.

   1 Timothy 2:4 "Who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."

4. Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one’s life...

   1 John 2:2 "And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world."

5. Love anything, and your heart will certainly be wrung...

   Matthew 23:37 “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!"

_______________________________________________________________
Yes. Jesus loves each of us. The Bible DOES tell us so...
"And anyone who says otherwise is selling something..."

Now, there is this particular theory going about nowadays that Christ did not die for everyone: that not just anyone can be saved, that God offers salvation to save, and not to others, that God created some people as vessel of destruction to condemn them to hell. What determines if God died for you, or made you to burn? Some "unconditional" reason, whatever that means. These people will say that God condemns people to hell justly for sin and for unbelief, while claiming that they were unable to anything but sin and disbelieve.

These people will say that:

• * God condemns people to hell for not achieving the impossible.
• 
  
• * God could save extra people at no additional cost to Himself, but for no obvious reason, decides not to.
• 
  
• * God created some people and decreed that they sin, so that He could punish them, and thereby demonstrate His awesome wrath and justice.
• 
  
• * People, who you love enough to give your life for, are going to be burned alive for eternity, because of nothing they have control or influence over.
• 
  
• * God does this out of true and sincere love for those people

I understood it all until that end part. See, me personally, I would call burning people alive for not achieving the impossible "NOT love." The reason I would call it not love is because I have carefully defined love from the Scripture, and that does not seem to fit the definition at all. If anything, it seems the opposite of love. Even in human terms, if a parent slaps a kid for not achieving the impossible, we would not call that love. It would be abuse. If a fireman ran into a burning building, because two people were in there, and only rescued one of them when he could have easily saved both, no one would call that love. It would be even worse if the president had decreed that they should be in that building, and then told the fireman not to save both. And yet, we are told that God does this? And that it still counts as love?

God Forbid!

Love seeks the betterment of the person being loves, even tough love does. How is condemning people without a chance seeking their betterment? Like I said, from the Scriptures: Jesus loves each of us. Really and truly, not in some mystical "burning people alive is a beautiful example of love, it's just a different kind of love" way.

[Note: I do believe in hell. I also believe that Christ bled and died so that people would not have to go there. To twist His character and say that He was not willing to die for them, or even to offer a bit of grace, but rather decrees that they should burn, according to His good pleasure, is unbiblical nonsense. Love seeks the betterment of the person loves. Christ loves us and sought our betterment.]