Now let us begin our examination this case, it is good to make it clear for the almost 1 hour presentation - they spent the first half of it poisoning the well. Here is an example of such behaviour:
Jim and I are going to address a doctrine tonight ... There's a doctrine that a lot of churches in ----- believe in, and a lot of pastors believe in. And this doctrine is the ugliest doctrine I have ever seen in my life - now before you get down on us, I don't want to hear negativism. We have been called to stand up against heresy; we're command to do that as Shepherds. I'm going to show you something - hold onto your seats ! I want to show a picture of a few little cute babies - don't you love babies. The doctrine we are going to share with you tonight - here is what the doctrine says "the majority of those babies were created by God with the intention they were going to burn in hell." and he will be glorified in this.There it is! Calvinism is bad because it teaches "the majority of those babies were created by God with the intention they were going to burn in hell." Therefore, it is a bad doctrine. It is almost immediate that this presentation slips into a fallacy and invalidates it whole presentation; this is called poisoning the well. While it is true that a majority of people will go to hell upon judgement that much is seen by scriptures alone. And that is something which is not even hinted at in the presentation; but it gets worse, in presenting this argument they choose to leave out a few important truths. (1) every person who is born on earth is born with a corrupt nature due to the fall in Adam (Romans 5:12-15, Eph. 2: 1-3). (2) every person who lives on the face of this planet is a sinner before God and deserves to be sent to hell. No exceptions. With these 2 basic points we have established an important point, which we be return to later in more depth.
It is almost amazing how such a statement on babies can miss the fact that these men cannot show us one Reformed or Calvinist writer (Not even John Calvin) who teaches this kind of thing. In fact, many have written extensively on the subject showing the opposite is the case; one example will suffice : John MacArthur.
Now notice another statement made by these gentlemen:
The doctrine is Calvinism. ---- the third doctrine states - now I know the doctrine! It states "that God only chose a few. He only chose some to have eternal life. His decision is only based on whatever - we don't know what it is based on.
Some one is blaspheming my Father - and there knocking him and saying his cruel. His like a heathen god. And I'm angry "that's my dad." Let me tell you something: God, John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." Listen! God loves all of you- you Homosexuals, God loves you. You gangsters, God loves you. You strippers, God loves you. I hate to say it! You Calvinists, God loves you. He loves everybody! You see I refuse to come to a place where "I'm chosen - the world go to hell. I don't careIn this there are many issue that arise... we could speak on the misidentification of the doctrine. We can even speak on the poor understanding of John 3:16. And we will later under a more appropriate section. My attention is zeroed in on 2 major points which are very deceptive in nature. And I truly hope that was a misunderstanding.
First, in this statement "Some one is blaspheming my Father - and there knocking him and saying his cruel. His like a heathen god. And I'm angry "that's my dad." There it is, the accusation - it is being laid before us. Apparently, Calvinists are "knocking God" and calling him "cruel." Indeed someone is, but it is not the Calvinist - it is in fact, the Pastor who gave this sermon. It is a charge that finds its origin being on the lips of the anti Calvinist. But even more importantly, we see it in this whole sermon as it manifests in a reckless handling od scripture.
Second, we have this almost unscriptural emphasis that is a direct attack on God's holiness and his very being; when we are told "God loves all of you- you Homosexuals, God loves you. You gangsters, God loves you. You strippers, God loves you. I hate to say it! You Calvinists, God loves you. He loves everybody!" So much for the continual emphasis on the Christians purity in many passages. You can be whatever you want and God will accept you without judgement.
The case that will be considered
With such statements as the above it is evident that this is not a accurate presentation; but it only gets worse with this statement:
Matthew 22:14 what's wrong with this? Well - that is one verse pulled out of context - it is a part of a parable that Jesus gives. Romans 9: 9-11 shows that God is doing something crazy - in allowing everyone into heaven. It is a passage discussing Nations and not individuals. There is a word called exegesis - you take something from over here, over here, and over here (different places) and come up with something.
The invisible God has made himself visible through his Son: Jesus Christ. So everything consistent with Jesus in doctrine is true - everything inconsistent with Jesus in doctrine is false teaching.Now this will be the measuring rod to which all that follows will be tested and tried in order for us to arrive at a safe conclusion. Apart from the fact that they did not even deal with the 2 verses which they carefully selected as being "the best Calvinist proof texts" show that they do not have a full understanding of the thing they so vehemently hate. But it also shows that the cannot even begin to truly handle scripture.
And as we will see the very thing that they accuse us of doing "that is one verse pulled out of context" is the very thing they will be doing themselves. So the objection is one based on a double standard.
Let us now consider the refutations of all the key doctrines.
Examination of refutation 1:
Total Depravity (the total inability to chose the truth)
As we can see there is no real interaction with anything on this doctrine, not even a helpful statement on what it teaches; nor any interaction with any key passages on the subject. Here is a description of this truth:
Total depravity: Man is dead in sin, completely and radically impacted by the fall. The enemy of God; incapable of saving himself, this does not mean man is as evil as he could be nor does it mean that the image of God is destroyed, or that the will is done away with. Instead it means that all the pervasiveness of the effects of sin -- and man is outside of Christ is an enemy of God. With this brief understanding of what doctrine teaches about God and man in the ultimate sense -- that God is sovereign and man is not free, but ensnared to his sinful nature.
The reality is that this attack miss a key point, and that is this: Man does choose, but the thing he chooses will always be Sin. It is biblical fact that man cannot choose God in any fashion (John 6:44-45, Romans 8:5-8, 1 Corinthians 2:12-14). And these men do not even interact with any of the key passages on this issue such as Romans chapters 1:18-3:20, Ephesians 2:1-3, Isaiah 6 and 69, Psalms 14 and 53 Just to mention a few examples.Mans nature been radically corrupted due to the fall in Adam. The fall doesn't just effect one part of us, but it radical effect every part of us; it has left us as human race hell bent and dependant on that nature of sin. There is also another side to this truth which is known as the inability of men: this is basically saying due to man propensity to continue in sin, he has been cut off any residue of Godliness that Adam once had; and in the process, he is left with self-centre bent to doing only what is right in his own sight, he can no longer do what is pleasing in God's sight.
But what they do offer is nothing short a red heron - the passage that are offered do not even touch the subject in any sense. They are the following:
So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ. (Romans 10:17)Therefore put away all filthiness and rampant wickedness and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls. (James 1:21) I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live, (Duet. 30:19). I have chosen the way of faithfulness; I set your rules before me. (Psalms 119: 30). And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the Lord, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.” (Joshua 24:14)But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, (John 1:12)Looking at the proof texts offered against "Total Depravity/ Total Inability" we are left scratching our heads trying to see how this is a refutation of the doctrine at all. What we have here is what I called 'contextual amnesia' in other words, you select a single verse and suddenly you have no memory of the context. And assume a foreign meaning into the text.
I will show you what I mean: in the first verse mention, the context actually reveals something very important to note " So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ." You have to consider what is being said in this statement... faith comes, comes from where? From God himself. It is a gift (Ephesians 2:8-9) And, then how does it come? Through the Spirit by regeneration (John 3). Therefore, it is by the Spirit who uses the Word of Christ to create faith in us. The second verse mention here: "Therefore put away all filthiness and rampant wickedness and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls." Here is where the rubber meets the road, and reveals the very unbalanced view as the passage James 1: 19-27 is speaking of Sanctification. And does not refute the truth of the depravity of man. The third, fourth and fifth verses are all about the first Covenant before the age of grace; and cannot be used to discredit the view of man being depraved. And now the sixth verse: "But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God," again, this is a false understanding of a verse... it is not good to use this to discredit Man's inability to come to God ... when the verse does not teach what you claim ... How did they receive Christ... verse 13 tells us " who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God." The new birth, the act of regeneration is solely caused by God, man has nothing to do with it.
Examination of refutation 2:
Unconditional Election (God selects those who will be saved without a condition)
Unconditional election: God elects a specific people unto himself without any reference to anything they do; this means that the basis of the elect is solely of God and himself -- his grace, his mercy, his will, it is not mans action, work or even for seen faith that draws Gods choice, Gods election is unconditional and final.
Firstly, you are mixing divine election and reprobation with equal ultimacy; and not recognising the distinction that even Calvin himself made by lining up all he taught. Secondly, you are scrapping a clear biblical truth for sake of your pride in coming to these truths with a open mind, and you have a tradition in your view that is unbiblical. Thirdly, you are force a Greek pagan concept of freewill upon the scripture and falsely interesting the bible through that lens. The bible no where speak of such a thing .. Jesus says all men are slave to sin (John 8:31-39). And finally, even the act of belief has to granted to a person, you cannot exercise it freely. (John 6:44-45,65 and Philippians 1:25-29)The reality in this is that the God of the bible has revealed at great lengths as to how he saves people; it is man who misrepresents God as we see in the video when the Pastor says that he believe in the "foreknowledge view." The bible is clear that God chose based on his own will (Ephesians 1:1-13, Romans 8:28-34, 1 Thessalonians 1: 4-6, 2 Thessalonians 2: 13-17, 2 Timothy 1: 8-10, Titus 1: 1-4, 3:4-7, 1 Peter 1: 1-5, 2 Peter 1: 1-5). It is almost strange that in the caption they would include the words "without a condition" as if to say there is some condition. The onus is them to prove this is the case.
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. (John 3:16). This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Saviour, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time. (1 Timothy 2: 3-6). The Lord is not slow to fulfil his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. (2 Peter 3:9). And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.”(John 12:32). But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honour because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone. (Hebrews 2:9)Looking at the proof texts offered against "Predestination/ Election" we are left scratching our heads trying to see how this is a refutation of the doctrine at all. What we have here is what I called 'contextual amnesia' in other words, you select a single verse and suddenly you have no memory of the context. And assume a foreign meaning into the text.
I will show you what I mean: in the first text to be mentioned John 3 16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." There is a disregard not only for the verse, but also the context and the meaning John would want us to take away from this. The "whosoever" is vacant in the Greek; it actually reads "the believing one" it is more specific in its application. But even more important in this is the fact that the text is not addressing who will be saved, nor how many will be saved; rather, it is addressing how they will be saved when we consider verses 1-15.
The second and third citations I have brought together, it is not addressing salvation in the slightest fashion. It is not addressing how believer should act under persecution: particularly Prayer. And the "all people" is not every single person alive, but is more specified --- it is pointing back to verses 1-2 and those who are in the secular authority. The third text from 2 Peter 3:9 is not even relevant to the subject of Salvation as it addresses the return of Christ. Read verses 1-13. And even so, we need to consider the letter as whole - It is addressing who? The elect found in Chapter one of the first letter, and the Beloved of Chapter 3, verses 1 of this book. The fourth text from John 12:32 does not help this universalistic teaching either. Consider the context, it says "Jesus draws" all people, and that is not based on human action either - It is based on the Sovereign decree to draw "all people" as in the Greeks as well. This does in no way contradict the teaching found 6 chapters earlier when the "Father draws" it is a sovereign act of God, who alone draws those that are elect.
The fifth text mentioned is once again found in the same situation as John 1:12. It has been isolated from the context and force to address something it does not. Here is the text, "But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honour because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone." Does this text suggest that Salvation is for "all people" or does the term "everyone" have a more specified meaning. Let us consider what comes after in verse 10 "For it was fitting that he, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the founder of their salvation perfect through suffering." Contextually, this only has one meaning that "everyone is speaking of the "many sons" only.
Examination of refutation 3:
Limited Atonement (Christ died only for the elect)
As we can see there is no real interaction with anything on this doctrine, not even a helpful statement on what it teaches; nor any interaction with any key passages on the subject. Here is a description of this truth:
Limited Atonement: What must be understood with this central truth, that must be taken to heart: this doctrine does not deal primarily with whom will be saved (although that is apart of it since it is linked in a chain to the previous one). But the way for us to consider what is being approached in this doctrine is to replace the first word 'Limited' with the word 'Definite' as I believe this captures the central point in this doctrine. Here is what this doctrine really is speaking too: (a) the very fact that those whom God has chosen in Christ will actually be redeemed. It is not a potential atonement or a possibility, but it achieves what it sets out to do faithful and fully. It is a definite and actual transaction. (b) there is no place in this teaching that says that it will be secured based on mans acceptance or helping hand.
In other words, the atonement Christ made in his blood was made for a particular people (indeed), but encapsulated in this truth is that God is the one that finalises the security that is brought forth from this. And to say that the atonement only makes salvation a possibility is to deride and demean the sufficiency of Christ work and the Spirits role too; in that it completely misapprehends the true biblical position of what the atonement actually achieve before God the father.
The reality of this doctrine is that Christ actually gave his life upon the cross to secure the redemption of those who would come to believe in him by the Father decree. There is no room for the idea that he only made a potential atonement but that it can only be effective if the person is willing. The bible gives us many passages that speak to the two elements of this truth (1) The extent (who will be united in Christ) (Romans 8:28-39, John 10:1-18, 24-30) . (2) The nature (the effectiveness of the atonement) (Hebrews 7- 10, Ephesians 1: 5-8, Romans 3-5).
All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all. (Isaiah 53:6) For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Saviour of all people, especially of those who believe. (1 Timothy 4:10).Looking at the proof texts offered against "Limited Atonement/ Definite Atonement" we are left scratching our heads trying to see how this is a refutation of the doctrine at all. What we have here is what I called 'contextual amnesia' in other words, you select a single verse and suddenly you have no memory of the context. And assume a foreign meaning into the text.
I will show you what I mean: in the first passage mentioned Isaiah 53:6, we run into a problem. Let us see the scripture again, "All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all." Now the problem is that we tend to read yourself selves into scripture where we should not be doing such a thing. Now we have "all" and we have "we" and we have "us" it is not addressing who will be atoned for, but rather, it is addressing the fact that he took the punishment that all sinners deserved.
Now if we go on in the chapter we see whom will be atoned for, when we read: "Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong, because he poured out his soul to death and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and makes intercession for the transgressors." Here we see just who will be atoned for, when it states "he bore the sin of many," it is clear that it is for the elect from such a term which Jesus drew upon in Matthew 20:28, and Paul draw upon in Romans 5:18-21.
In the second scripture mentioned in this attack, we have " For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Saviour of all people, especially of those who believe." This is admittedly a hard one based on the translation. But the key is to be found in the word "Saviour" Jesus is the Saviour of all men in that he continually provides and sustains all regardless of all concerned. But then he is the Saviour of those who believe in a radically different manner, he is the one who has paid the price for their sin.
And one of the main ways that he is fully able to do this is through continual teaching of his shepherds - the Sheep grow spiritually, they learn to nurture the thing Christ does for them by being able to do the very things they are commanded to do.
Examination of refutation 4:
Irresistible Grace (God's grace for salvation cannot be resisted)
As we can see there is no real interaction with anything on this doctrine, not even a helpful statement on what it teaches; nor any interaction with any key passages on the subject. Here is a description of this truth:
The reality of this doctrine is that when the chosen believer Comes to faith in Christ, God first sends his Spirit to regenerates the Person, makes them new in Christ; sets them free from the Sinful nature and produces faith in them and Repentance of the former life. The Christian life of a believer is a gift of God, that is granted by his will. This truth is seen in many places such detail (John 3:1-15, 1 John 5:1-5, Philippians 1: 25-30, 2 Timothy 22-26, 1 Peter 1: 3-5, James 1:16-18, Acts 16:11-15).
“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing! (Matt 23:37). You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, 40 yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life. (John 5:39-40). “You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you (Acts 7:51). Because I have called and you refused to listen, have stretched out my hand and no one has heeded, because you have ignored all my counsel and would have none of my reproof, I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when terror strikes you, (Proverbs 1:24-26). He who is often reproved, yet stiffens his neck, will suddenly be broken beyond healing. (Proverbs 29:1).Looking at the proof texts offered against "Irresistible Grace/ Infinite Regeneration" we are left scratching our heads trying to see how this is a refutation of the doctrine at all. What we have here is what I called 'contextual amnesia' in other words, you select a single verse and suddenly you have no memory of the context. And assume a foreign meaning into the text.
I will show you what I mean: In the first scripture, Matthew 23:27. This is not about Salvation, but Judgement. We must read the full chapter; not a single out of context, misinterpreted verse. Even in this one verse we see a distinction being made. It was not the whole of Jerusalem that was in view: Christ wanted to bring to himself those under the Leaders tutelage - But the Leaders would not allow them. In the second scripture, John 5:39-40. It is simply saying that those who were given the Old Testament were not able to see that it points to Christ. However, it does not give us the reasons for their blindness to the fact, for this matter we must consider other scriptures such as Isaiah 29:13-16 which we see stated in John 12:40 and Romans 11 :7-10. In this we see that they were divinely kept from seeing the truth due to their hardened hearts of Sin. In the third scripture, Acts 7:51. We must not read out own idea in the text as does these men. Instead when we consider the whole chapter it is clear that Conviction is being discussed by the term "resisting the Holy Spirit," read John 16:7-15, the gift of Salvation is not something that can be resisted for it is design with one outcome. In the fourth scripture, Proverbs 1:24-26 we see a similar issue concerning conviction. In the fifth scripture, Proverbs 29:1. is an interesting for the very purpose of the objection being stated that "man can resist the Holy Spirit" it is in the cases of the above 2 about conviction, and the interesting thing in this proverb is that the initial reaction is said "will suddenly be broken beyond healing." in other words, the hardened people will at some point be convicted.
Conclusion
Now we have consider the charges and the objection offered by these two pastors who give a very appalling refutation of the Doctrines of Grace. But when you are dealing such people who cannot represent a position correctly; there is only one thing which can be done and that is to correct the many errors and rebuke the pastors as they should have known better than this. (consider Titus 1:5-9 on the matter)
It is Jesus Christ himself that is being slander through this assassination; whether or not you agree with a position- it is the duty of a Christian accurately handle not only the bible but also the position you are decrying.
For it is the Lord who states these words about himself "I am the way the truth and the life" and as the ones who claim to be followers of Christ, then we are followers of "the way, the truth and the life" and it is reflecting badly on his Character when those who believe in distort something they disagree with- they did this in a few ways:
Firstly, by setting up the talk with continuous straw-men of the position by claiming that the position holds to the Idea that "God created people sinful, and for hell" that is not even close to what we believe and teach. And neither is it biblical to deny one central truth and that is Man is born in sin (a corrupt nature) which is biblically attested in Romans 1, 5, 6 and Ephesians 2. Therefore this is a hug issue that needs to be considered.
Second, they claimed that they could correct all the teaching of Calvinism on these matter (a proud boast); and yet, then go onto not even demonstrate the claim. And instead throw out irrelevant issues that matter not. Things such as the pagan doctrine of free-will (not biblical); and then this other thing where they raised issues concerning Calvin and Servetus -- such an issue does not discredit his teachings.
Thirdly, one of thing that was raised as a way to shot down criticism was found in this kind of thing "if you can't kill the message, kill the messenger" this of course, is just a to make yourself invincible in terms of what you teach; whether it is good or bad - no one has the right to judge it for consistency. And unfortunately, many in the church fall for this kind of reasoning; but it changes nothing to the fact that the bible tells us to do this.
Final thought if any one want to see a more fuller refutation of all the above verses offered against the Doctrines of Grace (as I know here I have only give a brief run though on each) then place consider looking up the 5 part article on this issue called "a critique of an anti-reformed article" as that should give more clarity on the issues.
