In an article by Dr Michael Brown on his blog on the debate with Dr James White on one of the many debates they have participate on the issue of Calvinism and the Doctrines of Grace. The precise debate I am not certain of at this point. But still there is a great purpose for us to consider his six compact reason which he presented in one of his opening statements.
It is important that we consider a statement he made in a recent debate with another Calvinist, where he said the following words:
I appreciate the Job you have done. The problem is the bible is against your position (the Calvinist one) from Genesis to Revelation ..... The reason I rejected Calvinism - is because of the testimony of scripture read honestly - without preconception. From beginning to end was Against Calvinism.There is his opening words in this particular debate that drew my attention. Is it true that the bible is against the doctrines of grace? or is it another case whereby this man has completely misunderstood the bible teaching on Salvation? It is our contention that he has misunderstood it in a way that forces him to not accurately handle scripture at this point.
Consider the words very carefully that are above, for they reveal something seriously in error in his approach. And that is this, he states "The reason I rejected Calvinism - is because of the testimony of scripture read honestly." It is here that rubber meets the road: he uses a different standard than that of when he deals with the Trinity, Homosexuality. In that his focus is never on the key texts as it is in such cases.
And it is because of such a bias that it seems as though he cannot handle all scripture as he claims. Now let us consider these 6 points at length:
1. It is absolutely clear from the Word that there are many things that people do that grieve God and are contrary to His will. He certainly did not ordain them! Throughout the Word, He distances Himself from human sin and evil and makes clear that this was not what He intended for His creation (supported by Gen 6:5-6; Jer 7:31).Now from the start it should be noted that there is a logical disconnect in his thinking here; in that he is committing a fallacy known as a Non Sequitur. It is seen in these two points "Word that there are many things that people do that grieve God and are contrary to His will." and then this statement, "He certainly did not ordain them!" It is entirely possible that in the first point that it all is true, there are many things that grieve him. Still it does not lead that we should conclude that such things were not apart of his decree. For example, we know that Sin in and of itself grieves the lord and is against his holy nature. Yet Sin exists as apart of his decree, he has a purpose in all of it. Even the greatest sin - the murder of his own Son. So no, the points do not follow logically.
Again, in saying these words "He distances Himself from human sin and evil and makes clear that this was not what He intended for His creation." It is only partially correct in that God does distance himself from Sin, even more is seen in the fact that he demands his saints to do the same. But this is where the argument falls apart for if he did not "intend for it" then what in the world was the purpose behind the atonement which is said to have been God cure for sin from eternity past. So it is not quite correct to assume such is the case.
It is a hot topic whether Genesis can be consider to support such a stance as this, because if it were not "intended" then the very fact that it typified the coming Christ in ways that are very intrinsic to Gods purpose -- can only be classed as coincidence and not a picture of what Christ has done for his elect believers.
As for the second passage mentioned Jeremiah 7:31:
For the sons of Judah have done evil in my sight, declares the Lord. They have set their detestable things in the house that is called by my name, to defile it. And they have built the high places of Topheth, which is in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, which I did not command, nor did it come into my mind.Here is the greatest example of misdirection - this passage has nothing to do with God's decree of events of history, but his will of command. Notice the key verse "which I did not command, nor did it come into my mind." This is what is known as Hebrew parallelism or a chiastic construction. And the point in this is God law, he did not command his people do this, neither did even come to his mind as a command.
And this the error that plagues the Arminian interpretation of the scriptures. They do not know the difference between the two points: (1) will of command. (2) will of decree. And as a result they misinterpret a lot from the bible.
Here is the second response given by Dr Michael Brown. And as usual it begins with the greatest Arminian position "Throughout the Word, He calls us to make choices," the issue is not the fact that we make choices at all. The issue here is how and why we make choices; in fact, more important the course to even make them is the foundational point here. The sinner can only do that which is in conformity to the nature that is his - in other words the choice he makes is conditioned by and driven by his sinful desires and impulse. And he acts accordingly. He can never make a move toward righteous because it is not in his nature.
2. Throughout the Word, He calls us to make choices, commending those who trust and obey Him (like Abraham, whom He calls his friend in Isa 41:8, among many others) and condemning those who refuse His grace (supported by Deut 30:19; Luke 13:24; Rom 2:6-11). I also noted “that it is clear from the language of Scripture that God did not predetermine the response” (citing Jer 36:2-3; Ezek 22:30-31; along with Jer 18:1-12, with reference to God as the Potter)
And in saying that "God did not predetermine the response," obviously Michael is reading the bible in light of a non biblical tradition, for that is precisely what the bible teaches. God predestined people to be saved, he regenerates them and as a result they respond to it in the positive fashion. To those who reject, they only do so because God never choice them in the first place. We at this point can consider two texts of many, John 1:11-13, and acts 16: 11-16.
But the biggest challenge to this kind of flimsy approach is that it is contradicted by this grand text in Romans 8, it reads:
And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.It must be noted that all five links in this chain are completely God's work; he is active in each point. He foreknew the people as in he first loved them; He predestined them as in he chose them unto salvation in Christ; He called them through the work of the Spirit and the word which produced the response in them; He Justified them by Christ's act of obedience upon the cross; He glorified them in heaven.
And any reading of Old Testament text that speak of God commanding "Israel to repent" before judgement falls upon them. It must now be read in light of the full revelation of the New Covenant truths: in that the demand are only obeyed by the Jewish remnant who God enables to follow through the task at hand and repent.
3. Throughout the Word, He makes clear that He takes no delight in the death of the wicked but desires rather that they would repent and live (supported by Ezek 18:23, 30-32; 33:11; Mic 7:18; Jer 31:20).It would seem as though the Arminian cannot even symphonize different texts which present the opposite realities. If we can show just one text where the opposite is taught from the Old Testament, and the New Testament then what will the Arminian do to try balance these texts. Let us now consider some passages that the Arminian seems to neglect in their haste:
And as the Lord took delight in doing you good and multiplying you, so the Lord will take delight in bringing ruin upon you and destroying you. And you shall be plucked off the land that you are entering to take possession of it. (Deuteronomy 28:63)
The Lord has made everything for its own purpose, Even the wicked for the day of evil. (Proverbs 16:4)
For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water. But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men. (2 peter 3: 5-7)Clearly, upon seeing 2 kinds of texts in the bible about what God wants and desires of man. in one sense he doesn't want them to perish; yet in another sense he does have a purpose the opposite happening. But the Arminian who denies that God has different wills cannot begin to make sense of these two very contrasting views. Only the Calvinist can.
In the first place, God decrees both life and death - that much is seen from scriptures as he created life to his glory. But it is his natural will that does not take pleasure in such things, whereas his decretive will encompasses all such matters.
4. This is further confirmed throughout the Word as God expresses His ardent desire for His creation to know Him, with Israel often as the focus of His love (supported by Jer 3:19-20; Luke 13:34; Isa 48:17-19; Deut 5:29). I also noted that “This is the summary of the biblical message: “I will was willing, you were not!” (Cited here were Isa 65:1-3; Luke 7:30.)The question is not that God wants to know us- that much is clear from scripture. The real issue in this is: has God determined a way in which that can be achieved from the start to the end of the process. And the clear point in scripture teaches that is exactly what he has done through the incarnation and the atoning work of Christ, and the ministry of the Holy Spirit whom they both send to be with the believer forever.
And one of the most central teachings of the whole scripture is this, found in 2 Timothy 1:
Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord or of me His prisoner, but join with me in suffering for the gospel according to the power of God, who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity, but now has been revealed by the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel,It is very clear that Salvation is a sovereign act on God part, now no one is denying that we receive Christ; but it is only because God had chosen us in Christ and had regenerated us by the Spirit. Which set us free from a sinful nature that gives us the capacity to choose in the first place. This is the consistent testimony of all the scriptures En tota. If this Brother does not understand the nature to which one is saved, then it is likely that he never will.
And in a sense, it is exactly true what a commenter made clear that he is "preaching a man-centric view of salvation," despite however he want to hide the evidence - behind terms that biblical such as "having no place to boast." That is precisely the point, Arminianism leaves the final ball in the court of man and his choice after God does all he can to persuade him - man is the final arbiter of his choice. And that is what it means in Michael words "God is so sovereign that he chose to give us a choice in Salvation.
The bible however makes it clear that "choice" only comes after Regeneration. When God changes man's nature by removing the sinful nature - Man is free to receive Christ. Until then every choice we make is always going to be fixed on sin and selfishness. Now let us consider the most cited verse by the Arminian in the New testament:
Just at that time some Pharisees approached, saying to Him, “Go away, leave here, for Herod wants to kill You.” And He said to them, “Go and tell that fox, ‘Behold, I cast out demons and perform cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I reach My goal.’ 33 Nevertheless I must journey on today and tomorrow and the next day; for it cannot be that a prophet would perish outside of Jerusalem. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, just as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not have it! Behold, your house is left to you desolate; and I say to you, you will not see Me until the time comes when you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!’”I have provide a little more of the context to the single verse which Michael has misapplied as do all Arminians with it's counter part in Matthew 23:37-39. And it is important we rightly divide the context to avoid any wrong conclusions or even reading our ideals into the context of any given passage.
What we need to be clear on are two important facts in this context: (1) their are two groups in this context - the Jewish leader "Jerusalem," and then the students of the leaders "your children." That is a vital point in our understand that must not be glossed over. (2) It does not speak of the students "your children" frame of mind and whether they were taken by Jesus' teaching or not, it only speaks of the Leader control over those under them. In other words, this more about fear control than anything else similar to Jehovah Witness.
On top of these important facts, this text is far from persuasive of the Arminian claim, it in fact, strengthens particularity in election. Notice at the centre that was not all Jews that Christ came for but only subset of the Jews.
5. Jesus then comes into the world as the full expression of the Father and sheds His blood for the entire world, meaning, He shed His blood to pay for the sins of every human being and secured the salvation of those who put their trust in Him (supported by John 3:16; 1 John 2:1-2; 1 Tim 2:3-6; 1 Tim 4:10; Titus 2:11; Heb 2:9; 2 Pet 2:1; Acts 26:28-29).This is a very troubling assertion that is offered by Michael Brown. While it is true that "Jesus came as the full expression of the father" that much is seen in many place such as John 1:14-18, and Hebrews 1:1-3. How that truth leads to this statement is not worked out correctly, notice the words: "World, means every single person," the bible is clear - the term world does not mean every single person, but only believers.
As for all the scriptures mentioned:
John 3:16 one single verse given .. no real understanding provided at all. What happened to verses 1-15 which teach teaches the necessity of regeneration as a precursor of true saving faith. What the following verses, which stated there are some who are already condemned. 1 John 2:2 is not teaching universalistic salvation far from it, it is teaching that believers have a faithful high priest who will forgive... the "us" are the elect Jews and the world is the "elect gentiles." But the main point is that it does not discuss who will be saved. Hebrews 2:9 is not a solo verse, it is apart of a larger subject - it goes on to state "in bringing many sons to glory," we should allow all the context to stand. 1 Timothy 2:3-6, Titus 2:11 do nothing to support such conclusion read the contexts to each; for in both there are people mentioned to which people was dealing with Kings and authorities and different types of people such as the elderly.
1 timothy 4:10 helps this position in no measure - the context makes it clear there is a distinction in function: God is a saviour in one sense to all people; while in a different sense, being the redeemer-saviour of the believers. Acts 26:28 is place in a historical setting for a purpose, because it took place in a certain fashion. to ignore that and the fact that he had an audience which he was addressing back then is also additional to the point. It is Eisegesis to read all people in every part of history into this. 2 peter 2: 1 does not help either as it is not addressing salvation at all, the term "brought" in this matter refers to being created, not redeemed.
6. And this is what our amazing, sovereign God does: Before the foundation of the world, He determines that He will get a people for Himself who will love and serve Him and be with Him forever, chosen and elect in His Son, trophies of His grace – and He carries this out in the midst of a sinning, rebelling world. What an incredible God He is! (Cited here were Eph 1:3-6; 1 Pet 1:1-2.) I also noted that, “In keeping with this, He confirms unbelievers in their unbelief and shows Himself to be just in judging them, but He gives grace to the humble who put their trust in Him. And there is no room for boasting, since it is all of grace by faith, and faith is not a work, and we glory in the Lord alone.” And I urged everyone to remember Deut 29:29, namely, that the secret things belonged to the Lord — in other words let God be God! — whereas He requires us to be obedient to what is open and revealed.Now this all sound like it is sound in its premises or at least that is what we are led to think is the case. But there are some deep concerns in this:
(1) When it says "Before the foundation of the world, He determines that He will get a people for Himself who will love and serve Him and be with Him forever" how are we to understand this, in what way does God "determine that he will get anyone" in fact, this idea is so imbalanced that God cannot even possible get anyone. And even more, what courses the people to "love and serve" God if it is not God who works this end out.
(2) Is this act of electing something that God personally active in or passively selective in because this not even clearly spelt out for us. In other words, when God elects people, what is the motivation behind it: is it based on something sees or is based on something he does?
As for the passages mention in passing but never actually dealt with. It gets more interesting because they both present God as the one who alone brings people to faith in Christ. he choose them in Christ before the word was created. God created the world, already knowing what he was going to achieve and purposed it to take place in the exact manner he had set his sight on.
Now notice what Ephesians 1: 4-13 clearly teaches on the subject of election:
even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth. In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory. In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.This passage makes it clear that Paul is not speaking of groups or nation, but individual election. But what is more important here, lies in the fact, God did not chose us based on some foreseen act of faith, love and obedience. It was independent of anything in us. Any handling of this scripture that does not see the clarity of the fact that the very first words, "even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, " as point back before time even existed, that God the father had already established a plan which he set in motion from the very beginning of creation to which found it culmination in the history reality of Christ's death, which also has far reaching parameters until the end of time.
Sure misses the very foundational truth of this passage which is repeat in a different way in verse 5, in a chiastic fashion: "In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will," with each "in him" strengthening the main issue that God chose a particular people in his Son, and will bring each one to glory.
The conclusion
As we see from the above points as laid out by Michael Brown his hatred for Calvinism has blinded him to the truths that the bible actually teach; in that the bible clearly and distinctively teaches what we Calvinists believe and teach. It is fascinating to see tap dances that this man has do with the scripture to get a way from the implications that are drawn out of the key text on such subjects that Calvinism believe; even to the point of ignoring the texts as if they were not there at all. Such a tactic maybe acceptable with cultist (may even be expected); but for a Christian to do the same then it really leaves some deep issues that need to be addressed.
A fascinating tact that is adopted by many in Michael browns camp is the idea that you strip-mine a text of its context and assume any Old Testament meaning into the New Testament. Let me just give an example:
In Romans 9: 12-13 we have two Old Testament text cited about Jacob and Esau, "it was said to her, “The older will serve the younger.” Just as it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”" Rather than allow the context it is found in here in Romans determine the New Covenant meaning of Individual Election and Individual Reprobation; they instead go to the Old testament context to get the meaning, and assume an Old Testament meaning and then read that back into the New Covenant context.
The error in this however, is found in the fact that would never dare to do such a thing in other doctrinal area of the bible such as the Trinity or Divinity of Christ. So, what makes them use a double standard at this juncture - they are not clear in their intentions or motives. But what is worse, is that they do this and reveal they hate God in the process. For it is God who gave us Romans 9 through Paul and it is God who gives us the correct meaning.
Let now see how such an interpretation fundamentally shipwrecks the gospel if consistently applied in other areas:
For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “But the righteous man shall live by faith.”All Christians agree that this passage is such a foundational passage in giving us a clear understanding of the Gospel. Yet if we apply this standard of rationalising everything it will ship wreck the faith and destroy the Gospel; for the very old testament text that is quoted has nothing to do with the Gospel nor with new Revelation. It sole application was for the Jews adherence to the Law as the people of God.
Consider the context of Habakkuk 2 for a moment: "And the Lord answered me: “Write the vision; make it plain on tablets, so he may run who reads it. For still the vision awaits its appointed time; it hastens to the end—it will not lie. If it seems slow, wait for it; it will surely come; it will not delay. “Behold, his soul is puffed up; it is not upright within him, but the righteous shall live by his faith." It is clear that the New testament writers have right to give a new application to the Old testament citation it reference when and where they choose. And this very thing it does continually with the Very Spirit's authority and permission.
As Christian we must allow the New Testament scriptures to define its own reality as it sees fit. The Arminian disconnect (along with Palagianism) has no biblical warrant or basis to Read the New Testament through the lens of the Old Testament and walk away with a heretical understanding of The truths set forth in the Gospel.
