Thou Shalt Come - Introduction

As I sit here this twenty-sixth day of December in the year of our Lord 2010, I am prepared to embark on a study less than few have intertwined into their lives. Some may find it an unnecessary learning – and perhaps they are correct in the large scope of life, if the mere reading should consume one – yet I cannot but hope that such will rather enlighten me in much greater things of importance along the journey. For what I find at the end may indeed be less significant – in practical purpose – than the gleanings and wisdom which shall become prevalent along the way. Of which, in no small means, would I be equally content with grasping at the understanding of. Though, likewise I am required to retain this expedition must not be satisfied without the acting upon such found knowledge; for what is faith without works[1]?

It is my belief[2] – from experience with myself, along with others I have conversed with throughout my life – when one is presented or seeks out information or questions concerning virtually all things, there appears to be already in place a sense of opinion, thought, or idea – whether partial or in full – concerning it. Even though scripture declares such is folly[3], mankind seems to find it quite easy to do – perhaps even subconsciously acting upon it. Whether due to previous learning we have received through school, media, society, or possibly from family, church, and books, we appear to find it difficult to simply say, “I don’t know” without actually having some preconceived notion of what it might or should be – according to us.

But, is it so wrong to have predetermined ideas of that which we may not know or fully understand? Or, rather – should we ask – how shall truth overcome our presuppositions, if by chance we do not lend our ears and mind to that which is in contradiction? To limit our study to merely one side or the other – of any topic; especially if we are but novice concerning its intellect – does not make that which we believe true, but bounds us to it as though we have become the final authority by rejecting all other knowledge without evenly considering it. Neither do harsh words, name calling, nor misrepresentation of the other make our case stronger and more profitable for those we deem without. We must maintain that truth is truth, without our vain presuppositions; for we do not establish nor define truth, as truth is whole by itself. Just as our assumptions may lead us to the truth, they may likewise disperse us from it.

So, for this study, I shall try to put away my argumentative mind, while attempting to give equal standing with each author and all books, as they present their case for what they believe to be truth. Using the Bible as the final authority, as did those in Thessalonica[4], I hope to take every point of doctrine and exert its truth in my own life daily.

I shall entitle this study Thou Shalt Come, based on John 6:37; whereby, scripture declares, All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

So begins my study of Arminianism, Calvinism, and those who claim the truth – along with themselves – lies somewhere in between...

---

[1] James 2:20, 26 (It would do one well to read the chapter in its entirety.)

[2] I realize, possibly a mere presupposition itself.

[3] Proverbs 18:13

[4] Acts 17:11

Do You Perfer D.E.S.I.R.E. over T.U.L.I.P.s?

I was recently presented an article, whereby the author suggest the concept of D.E.S.I.R.E over T.U.L.I.P.; stating “There it is—God’s “D.E.S.I.R.E.” for you. It isn’t the T.U.L.I.P., but its not Arminianism either!”

I am not so sure even this article (belief or conviction of D.E.S.I.R.E) gives one “a model of election that would allow me, or any preacher, to expound every verse of Scripture with equal confidence and not have to soft pedal or ignore those passages which are problematic to one view or the other,” as the author hopes himself.

Can Abrahamic Election and Salvation Election (as presented by the author) really be limited to only corporate (Abrahamic) and individual (Salvation)? I mean, we also have those that could be “cut off” individually from their people (the Jews) by breaking the covenant, and a corporate “church” or body of Christ (similar as collective groups seen in “all that the Father giveth me” and sheep “folds”) spoken of in scripture. And wasn’t the picture of individual fleshly circumcision a picture of individual spiritual circumcision? I am not saying Israel and Church are synonymous in Scripture, but I’m not sure I can agree with the author’s limitation of corporate vs. individual regarding Abrahamic and Salvation Election.

Here is a little confusing, or where I am failing to see what the author is saying:
"From God’s perspective there can never have been a single moment when God has not had the totality of His experience (their acceptance and after, or their rejection and after) with each and every human being as part of His “present” (i.e. eternal) experience and knowledge.
God has always experienced those accepting him and praising him in the New Heaven and New Earth as well as those who have rejected him and have been sent to perdition. Thus, the ones He has always experienced accepting and worshipping him are elect and He works in an especially solicitous way to make their call effectual and they will believe as opposed to must believe.”

I can understand the “present tense” of how God sees things (past, present, future as present), but it appears the author suggest that because God sees presently (though future to us) “those…praising him in the New Heaven and New Earth” THEN or BECAUSE OF THIS “He works in an especially solicitous way to make their call effectual and they will believe.”

So, it seems the author is saying that since God experiences the presence of certain individuals in the scope of eternal salvation (future), He works effectually in them (presently) so they “will” believe.

If such is what the author is saying, then by equal contrast, those “He (God) has always experienced the rebellion and the rejection of those who are lost and they will not accept his invitation and call” He will NOT “work in an especially solicitous way to make their call effectual and they will believe.”

I don’t see how the author escapes having foreknowledge contradictions or questioning as he claims TULIP have.

If God works effectual within an individual toward salvation “based” (as the author appears to note) on whether He “experiences” the individual in salvation (New Heaven and New Earth) or perdition (Hell), then how is this different than saying foreknowledge is based on God “looking forward into time” (our time) to see who will accept Christ and who will reject Christ – then only working effectually in those He already knows will accept Him? To me, it seems what the author has done is base God’s “effectual working” choice on man’s “electoral” choice to accept or reject Christ.

And if God presently (though our future) sees an individual in Heaven or Hell, can it not be said one “must believe” or “cannot accept” – for if the future is set (for in God’s eyes it is), then how can the individual do anything but believe or reject – even without the effectual calling of God (per the author)?

A Question for Calvinists? Or, Non-Calvinists As Well?

On a forum I frequently visit, the following question was posed as a ‘Calvinism question’:

1. Did God create some people for hell?

On the surface, such a question may appear to be directed only to Calvinists, with the possible inclination of leading into an attack upon it. The idea of election, foreknowledge, predestination, and possibly limited atonement may come to mind rather quickly, but that is limiting the scope of the question to one set of teachings, namely Calvinism. But, the question actually supersedes Calvinism, and encompasses also non-Calvinist Christian theology regarding the salvation and punishment of sinful man.

Sometimes the non-Calvinist will confront a Calvinist, immediately claiming that the Calvinist theology makes God a tyrant that chooses to create some persons just to go to hell. Just the thought of such would make most people cringe. How could a holy God create a person and predestine them to go to hell? How can holy God do such a thing, and not be guilty of sin Himself?

The answer may come in a variety of ways, ranging from ‘I don’t fully understand it myself’, to the quoting of scripture such as Romans 9:19-24 regarding vessels of wrath and mercy.

With this, the non-Calvinists may find themselves puffing out their chest, considering they have exposed the flaw of Calvinism once and for all. Prideful they smile; sharing with everyone it is they who hold to the true doctrines of the faith regarding salvation and punishment.

Now, pose again the question to a non-Calvinist, and one will most likely answer, ‘No.’ Whereby I must ask, ‘How so?’

Most Christians (at least that I know – whether Calvinist or not) hold to the belief that God is omniscient (all knowing), and therefore His foreknowledge would include having knowledge of who will and will not accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior before they are ever created. If God creates a person knowing they will not accept Christ, has He not basically created one for hell? A non-Calvinist cannot escape such a question, without denying the perfect foreknowledge of God. So, the question becomes more personal, and cannot be simply directed at others.


* The purpose of this post was not to prove, disprove, or explain the question, but to show that this question [Did God create some people for hell?] is more than just a Calvinist one. It is a question that needs much prayer and meditation in the Word of God, and not just something that can be tossed about like a grenade to seemingly crumble another’s theology without also causing one to take a look at their own.

What Makes A Calvinist Hyper?

Hint: It's not red Kool-Aid.

When it comes to Calvinism it appears to me that there are sometimes misconceptions from non-Calvinists. The tendency to group all Calvinists into one group or to claim all Calvinists hold certain beliefs which all may not appears to be easily found. Sometimes it is most likely due to a lack of understanding concerning Calvinism, sometimes it may be just a repeat of what one has been taught, and other times could actually just be the spreading of a serious dislike for the theology and/or the people.

If you find yourself condemning all Calvinists into one group called Hypers, honestly feel that you misunderstand Calvinism, or simply would like to know the difference between Calvinism and Hyper Calvinism, please consider reading the link below.

The topic was brought up on a forum I am a member of and here is a link that was posted:

A Primer on Hyper-Calvinism

Agree or disagree with the theology labeled as Calvinism, but don’t incorrectly lump all those that claim to hold to the Doctrines of Grace as Hypers.