| Author | Message | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 927 Registered: 7-2003  |
I think you are right Stan. Here's what I find highly ironic: Speaking in very broad terms, Arminian traditions are more tolerant of Adventism because they can more readily accept the semi-Pelagian (or even outright Pelagian) nature of Adventist doctrine. Calvinistic traditions enable Adventism and lend it's underlying theological structure credence by 1) promoting the idea of one single over arching covenant, 2) promoting the division of the Mosaic Law into civil, ceremonial, and moral aspects, 3) affirming the binding nature of the "moral" commands in the Mosaic Law for Christians, 4) insisting that all of the Decalogue is purely moral and that it is the standard by which Christians are to live, and 5) promoting Sabbatarianism (of the Sunday variety). It seems to me that SDAs are the perfect example of what it looks like to intermingle Reformed Theology with Arminian Soteriology. Chris | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 576 Registered: 3-2005 |
I know Chris, but there are a lot of Reformed folk who think in New Covenant terms. Robert Morey for example has no use for any idea of Sunday sacredness the way a Sproul or Horton would. I have seen many others on the theological blogs embracing more New Covenant ideas. The Lutheran representative on the White Horse Inn also doesn't embrace Sunday sacredness or the Decalogue as the standard either. Stan | ||
| Doc Registered user Username: Doc Post Number: 179 Registered: 2-2003 |
Hey Stan, How do you think people who embrace the New Covenant deal with the idea of people being born again under the Old Covenant? This seems to me to be intrinsic to Reformed theology, in it's Reformation period form at least. All those who have ever obeyed God all belong to the same church. A couple of quotes: "It is true that there is no express command to baptize infants in the New Testament, no express record of the baptism of infants and no passage so stringently implying it that we must infer from them that infants were baptized. If such warrant as this were necessary to justify the usage, we would have to leave it completely unjustified. But the lack of this express warrant is something far short of forbidding the rite; and if the continuity of the church through all ages can be made good, the warrant for infant baptism is not to be sought in the New Testament, but in the Old Testament where the church was instituted and nothing short of an actual forbidding of it in the New Testament would warrant our omitting it now." (B.B. Warfield ñ quoted by W.J. Chantry) ìÖ potentially, all the elements of salvation, everything that can be experienced in the body of Christians in the earth, everything that can be distinct to the soul of the Christian on earth, everything that can be experienced throughout all eternity, everything that can be realized in the individual, everything that can be realized in the community, the whole body of the redeemed--all this is contained potentially in the provisions of the covenant of grace. But this covenant, like all other covenants and constitutions, must be administered; and there is a difference between the covenant and its administration. The covenant is one; it is the administration which varies continuallyÖ ìSo there has been but one redemption, there has been but one atonement and one offer of justification, there has been but one offer of regeneration, there has been but one principle of sanctification, there has been but one operation of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, from the time that the first gospel was preached to the woman in the garden, until the present day. But then this wonderful constitution has been administered in an infinite variety of ways, and it is capable of twofold unfoldingÖ ìThen, again, it did most characteristically in the specific form of its administration outline the covenant of redemption; it was the setting forth of Christ--Christ as the Prophet, Priest, and King--in the method of his redemption and our personal reception of its benefits. The conditions of salvation were the same, and salvation was secured by the same plan. The Jew, if he believed in Christ's coming, was justified and received the Holy Ghost, although without understanding it, and was regenerated, sanctified, and justifiedÖî (A. A. Hodge) Classic Reformed theology makes no clear distinction between the various covenants in the Bible. Two (or sometimes three) are postulated. There is the covenant of Redemption (optional ñ an agreement made between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit before the beginning of time), the covenant of works between God and the first human pair, and the covenant of grace which has been in force since the fall. (The fall into sin, not the autumn). This means that the Abrahamic, the Mosaic and the New Covenants are only ìadministrationsî of what is basically just one covenant. This leads to such confusion as infant baptism as being not particularly different from infant circumcision, the Ten Commandments being enjoined on New Covenant believers, and people being born again under the Old Covenant, as above. The whole structure of Reformed theology was built up on these covenants, including TULIP. It is in fact logical that if there were any people in the Old Testament who sought and obeyed God, then they must have been born again, because of Total Depravity. No-one can even think of seeking God without irresistible grace and regeneration, can they? Total depravity came in with the fall, so anyone who followed God afterwards must have been regenerated, QED. The trouble is, these eternal covenants are not in the Bible. They were postulated and worked out in the 16th and 17th centuries, and incorporated into the Westminster Confession. Does no-one see a parallel here? The whole of Reformed theology is united by the covenant of grace, which is not in the Bible. The whole of Adventist theology depends on the Investigative Judgement, which is not in the Bible either. Adrian | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 865 Registered: 10-2004  |
Adrian, going back to the discussion about faith, here are some verses I compiled that teach that faith is a gift of God:
Jeremy | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 867 Registered: 10-2004 |
And how about if I add the following?  The whole of Arminian theology depends on the concept of man's free will, which is not in the Bible. Jeremy | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 579 Registered: 3-2005 |
Adrian, I don't know where to start in answering your objections. I don't understand first of all how you can't accept the fact that the Bible teaches that saving faith is a gift of God. I don't know what Bible your reading, but I see the glorious grace of God manifested through the entire Bible from Gen. to Revelation. I see a God who worked sovereignly in history, announcing the gospel in advance in Gen 3, and then choosing an idolater-Abram-out of his land and promising His blessings through him. He chose Jacob over Esau sovereignly before either one had done anything bad or good. His grace so dramatically illustrated in the genealogy of Jesus with all those questionable characters is amazing to me. Then we have the incarnation where the Creator of the universe was born of a virgin. He lived a perfect life, and then was obedient even to death on a cross. He was raised to life for our justification, and now sits at the right hand of the Father and makes intercession for us. I see nothing butn a covenant of grace out of all of the above. At our FAF Bible study, we have been doing an inductive Bible study of Romans 9, and delving in to the Old Testament, where we see the sovereignty of God, and His wondrous grace being worked out all through history. If you take what Paul is saying literally, you can come up with no other conclusion but that God does choose some for salvation, and creates others to be objects of His wrath(Romans 9:22 is crystal clear). God would be perfectly just if he didn't save anyone. There is none righteous. Ephesians 2 makes it abundantly clear that we were all dead in our sins. If our spirits are dead, they are as dead as the bodily corpse in the cemetery. We are so spiritually dead, that we can't even exercise the faith of ou own accord to be saved. We are saved monergistically (not synergistically), by regeneration by the Holy spirit. (See www.monergism.com for more info).The Spirit gives us life, and then and only then can we exercise the faith and repentance which proves that our faith is genuine. It is impossible to resist this regenerating grace. We are saved by grace all the way. There is absolutely no room for boasting. Because if we believe like the Arminians do that everyone has the equal chance for salvation, then salvation is up to us. We could then take pride that "I accepted Christ because I exercised faith to accept Christ, and that other guy over there didn't accept Christ because he chose not to exercise faith". Logically, that would leave room for boasting. But Reformed theology is very humbling, because if we are saved by God's unconditional election, and regenerated solely by the Spirit, then we don't get our bloody hands on it at all, and we can take absolutely no credit. So, in summary, I see the essence of Reformed (or Pauline) theology like this: Long before the foundation of the world, all of us who are now in Christ, were chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world. Christ was the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world specifically for us. We don't know why God makes the choices, but I am content to leave that to God. The Father elects those who come to salvation, and the Son purchases those who the Father gives Him (see John 6), by the blood of His covenant of grace on the cross, and the Holy Spirit seals us and preserves us guaranteeing our eternal inheritance. Adrian, the above short summary is what the Covenant of God's grace means to me. I am not a theologian, and it sounds like that you do have a lot of theological training. I love what Charles Spurgeon says about Calvinism at www.spurgeon.org/calvinis.htm To paraphrase him, To preach Jesus Christ and Him crucified is to preach what today is nicknamed Calvinism. If you ask me what is a Calvinist? It is about a God who saves. Calvinism is the gospel. What is the heresy of Arminianism? but to add to the work of the redeemer." Salvation is totally by Grace through and through, and for that I praise and thank the Lord. Stan | ||
| Doc Registered user Username: Doc Post Number: 180 Registered: 2-2003 |
Jeremy, Thanks for taking the trouble to find those verses. I shall peruse them later at leisure. At first glance though, it seems they can all be read in several ways, depending on our presuppositions. As to free will, it is certainly a feature of Arminian theology, and one in which it differs from Calvinism. As far as I am aware, it is neither specifically confirmed nor denied in the Bible, hence the 500 year old conflict. I believe it is considered as part of the "image of God" mentioned in Genesis. Man is created in the image of God, so what does that mean? - no explanation is given. It is not physical likeness, as God is Spirit, and the incarnation of Jesus came much later. I will have to look into the arguments more carefully - the philosophical reasoning can get rather beyond me! God bless you, Adrian | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 583 Registered: 3-2005 |
Doc, Jeremy has given many texts showing that faith is a gift from God. You stated back on the previous archived thread that you did not believe that scripture teaches that saving faith is a gift of God. I gave my statement just above on what I believe grace and saving faith means to me. I would like to know your teaching on how a person is saved. You have stated that you will not be put in a box, and that is OK with me. I'm just curious what you actually believe with regard to salvation? Thanks Stan | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 584 Registered: 3-2005 |
Here is a Reformed website that teaches New Covenant theology. There are two excellent articles this month, one on the differences between the two covenants, and another good article on the Sabbath, and how it is fulfilled in Christ. This group is also highly respected by those who still teach the Decalogue and Sunday Sabbatarianism. www.soundofgrace.com Stan | ||
| Cindy Registered user Username: Cindy Post Number: 714 Registered: 7-2000 |
Thanks, Stan, for pointing out that site; lots of good stuff there. Could keep me reading for weeks... grace, cindy | ||
| Doc Registered user Username: Doc Post Number: 181 Registered: 2-2003 |
Hello Stan, I think somehow we are failing to understand each other. The problem is not that we are reading different Bibles, but that we are approaching the same one with different presuppositions, as I mentioned to Jeremy above. I think it is great to be able to communicate with people from far away by means of the Internet, but one problem with it is that we do not really know each other, we have different backgrounds and sets of experiences, all of which have affected us, and we can easily end up talking at cross purposes. I do not wish to attack you personally, and I do not question your faith, your intelligence, your dedication, your love towards God, or your motives. If I have upset you, then I apologise. It is clear that as human beings we react emotionally as well as spiritually. I have a tendency to be sarcastic, which I admit is not a fruit of the Spirit :-) I can see you are irritated with people who do not grasp Calvinism, and I am getting irritated with those who cannot see the problems with it. This is not necessarily helpful. You are right that I have some theological training, and I also continue to study, but I have obtained this because it interests me, and also because I am doing missions work, not in order to feel superior or because I think it makes me better than anyone else. If I say things that are difficult to follow, it is not to make anyone feel small, it is because I have thought and prayed a great deal about many issues, and have come to realise that these matters are extremely complex and not at all obvious or easy to solve. It can only be made apparently simple by ignoring many of the factors involved. My background, which obviously affects me, as I said, is as follows. I was brought up in England in a Baptist church, so the teaching of the English Baptist Union formed the basis for my knowledge about God. This is neither Adventist nor Calvinist, so although I have studied both of these systems, it has been from the outside looking in. I have actually been a Christian for 25 years, and over that period I have changed my mind on many details of teaching, sometimes several times, but I believe my relationship with God has been constant. The more I learn, the more I realise I do not know, so I am certainly not saying I have all the answers. Having said that, just a bit more about presuppositions: You mentioned a few things that the Bible teaches, like the sovereign working of God in human history, grace, predestination, the fact that we are spiritually dead before conversion and maybe one or two others. I am sure that anyone calling himself an evangelical, born-again believer would accept all of these things, as I do myself. The difference lies in the precise way that these concepts are defined and understood. I will try and briefly explain where I see some differences. I see the sovereignty of God as the fact that he is Lord over all, he in the creator, the lawgiver, and eventually the judge. He has created man in his image, and given him free choice in many things. He did this as he wanted creatures who would relate to him and love him from their own free choice, but thereby took the risk they would rebel ñ which they did. He therefore also made plans to rescue man by providing a saviour. Manís acceptance or rejection of God will have eternal consequences, as God, being sovereign, will have the last word on all things. It seems to me Calvinism, on the other hand, sees God as someone who has simply ìwritten the screenplayî of human history in advance. That sounds to me more like a control freak, or a droid master, than a king. The fact that the gospel is by grace, means that God has come up with the plan, and implemented it. It is not manís plan, it is not manís way, it is 100% Godís. We canít decide we donít like it and invent our own, we have to accept the one way of salvation that God has provided. Otherwise we have no chance of being saved at all. I believe the Bible teaches that man has to submit his will to Godís and accept his way, whereas Calvinism teaches that God makes the decision for him. Paul teaches that Christian ministers are Godís ìfellow-workersî ñ the Greek word is sünergos (1 Cor 3: 9, cf. also 2 Cor. 6: 1). This to me does not imply puppets or robots. Predestination is obviously the big difficulty. I have done research on this, and found three theories. There may be others. Very briefly, the Calvinist theory says that predestination of individuals to salvation depends on Godís eternal decrees, the Arminian view is that predestination of individuals depends on Godís foreknowledge of their response to the gospel (see Romans 8: 29 and 1 Peter 1-2), and the corporate view is that individuals are not predestined at all, but that the church, as the body of Christ, is predestined to be conformed to the image of Godís Son (Romans 8: 29 again). In other words, the church as a whole will never be defeated, although individuals may be, and the body of Christ is guaranteed to fulfil the purposes for which God called it, in contrast to the nation of Israel ñ see the next three chapters of Romans. I am still working on figuring it out! I see spiritual death as meaning that we are separated from God, and have no way of finding him unless he provides one, but it does not mean we are totally non-functional. What does a dead spirit mean anyway? Can a spirit die, in the sense of cease to exist or cease to function? If that happened, then would not the body be dead too? (See James 2: 26). If death does just mean separation, however, then it does not imply inability to respond to God at all. In any case, the Bible seems to teach a gradual increase in depravity based on manís refusal to respond to God, rather than a total depravity from birth. See Romans 1: 18-32 and 2 Thess. 2: 9-12. The order is: man had a chance to believe the truth about God, he refused to acknowledge it, so God gave him over to his depravity and helped him believe in a delusion. You mentioned that Arminians can get proud because they think they have made the decision to accept Christ. This may be so. But I just think pride is pretty well a universal sin resulting from the fallen condition of man. The Bible indicates that it was the root of Satanís sin (Ezekiel 28: 17), so maybe this is not surprising. In my own personal experience, I have found the Christians I know with an Arminian flavour to be far more gracious and humble, aware of a complete dependence on God and totally grateful to him for salvation by grace than the Calvinists. The Calvinists in Wales are arrogant about having the best theological system there is, and look down their noses on others who are too stupid to see it, and they are proud about being ìthe elect,î whereas everyone else has no chance. The ones in Hungary, on the other hand, really have no assurance of salvation, because according to them they may think they are saved, and they may try to do all they can for God, but only at the end of their lives will they find out if they were actually among the elect or not. I am not saying this is general, but it is my experience. Perhaps that will do for now. Sorry if it is a bit long. Adrian | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 930 Registered: 7-2003 |
Stan, thanks for the link to "Sound of Grace". It is a treasure trove for New Covenant Theology! Adrian, thank you for your thoughts above. It is all very interesting. I have found this discussion to be one of the most engrossing and edifying of the past several months. Chris | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 877 Registered: 10-2004 |
Adrian, People can be proud about "having the truth" or being part of "the elect," but the theology itself really gives no reason for that, since it is all GOD's doing. The Bible leaves NO room for boasting--it says that it is all a gift of God and not of works so that no one is able to boast! On the other hand, Arminian theology itself leaves room for boasting--about how you chose Christ and your friend didn't. I agree with you that the spirit can't cease to exist. My current thoughts on it are the following: It is separated from God--totally and absolutely and "infinitely" disconnected from God and the things of God and it is "dead in sin." Therefore, we can't even "choose" God or ask Him to regenerate us/save us/connect us to Himself, without HIM giving us faith. It would be like a man's dead body asking to be raised to life, asking for his spirit to re-enter his body and be raised to life--in other words, impossible! God has to sovereignly and literally raise my dead spirit to life--eternal life! And I am then eternally connected to Him and nothing can separate me from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Romans 8:37-39.) Jeremy (Message edited by jeremy on July 26, 2005) | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 284 Registered: 7-2004  |
I'm not sure that any theological approach or school of thought has an advantage in regards to boasting, pride, selfishness, or any other ugly trait. Seems that there are humans within any belief structure that do not always show the fruits of the Spirit. If we judged all doctrine by some of the people we met teaching that doctrine we would probably end up with no doctrine at all. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 2331 Registered: 12-2003  |
At the moment, I'm in a "place" from which I believe the entire truth of these questions cannot be contained within one label. I'm much more comfortable (at this point in my experience, however) speaking of God's absolute sovereignty than I am of defending Calvinism. I do not see that absolute sovereignty necessarily precludes human choiceóalthough I see all human choice as occurring under the umbrella of God's sovereignty. I likewise see that a dead spirit (which does not mean non-functional, as Adrian pointed out) is in bondage to sin, and apart from God's intervention, could probably not recognzie or accept God's revelation of Himself. I see the passage in Romans 1:18-20, which says that all men are without excuse because God's invisible qualities have been revealed through what has been made, but men suppressed their knowledge of God by their wickedness, to suggest that God Himself ensures that all men are given enough evidence of Himself that they can respond to Him if they deisre to know Him. Based on Ephesians 2:4-5 which says we were all objects of wrath prior to God saving us while we were sinners, I see that our innate sinfulness would doom us without God's intervention. Simultaneously, though, I see the Bible saying we must respond to God's overtures. He makes it possible for us to see that He is, the He offers us life and Himself--but we must respond once He brings us to that place of acknowledgement. I don't find either strict Calvinism or Arminianism describing the situation as I understand it right now. I actually find myself more comfortable seeing it as a pardox existing under the overarching sovereignty of God than trying to make the passages I'm studying fit either one or the other paradigm. I do know that God's absolute sovereignty has given me a sense of security that I never knew when I thought that the universe was full of random acts which God could use to teach me but could not prevent. And speaking of God's prevention, does anyone else find it amazing that those last four bombing in England were ALL duds? I praise God for being sovereign over us all! Colleen | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 586 Registered: 3-2005 |
Chris, I agree with you that this has been an edifying discussion, but I would also add a very stimulating experience, that has driven me back to the scriptures, and forcing me to dust off all the books that have been sitting on my shelf when I used to study this stuff 10 years ago. It has made me appreciate the absolutely sovereign grace of God even more. To God be the glory! Jeremy, Amen to your post above! You have made some excellent points. Ric_b Agreed on your point that no theological group has a corner on humility. I spend a lot of time reading theological blogs from both Calvinists and Arminians. It is the hyper-Calvinists though that are most vicious. These people call everyone who doesn't agree with them as lost and as preaching a false gospel. However, what I have found is that the more moderate Calvinist sites such as www.monergism.com and www.theologica.blogspot.com are very charitable to their Arminian brothers. But I don't find the same charity manifested by Arminian groups. For example, my wife and I attend Calvary Chapel of Costa Mesa, where Chuck Smith is pastor. Smith is very Arminian. The Calvary Chapel bookstore will not sell any books by Reformed authors (except maybe Spurgeon). In fact, they sell books such as Dave Hunt's very unfair and biased hatchet job on Calvinism which Smith endorsed. That book smears the character of Calvin and attacks Calvinism as a different gospel. Christians are all very unkind to each other. Colleen, I appreciated your post. I know we don't agree on everything, but I have been privileged to be part of the FAF study, in which you have been taking us through the great and difficult passage of Romans 9. We have been delving into the Old Testament deeply coming to a new appreciation of the sovereignty of God, and several others in our FAF group have expressed the same appreciation. Adrian, I do appreciate your reply. I guess I was looking for a clear statement about how we are saved, and maybe I just missed it. If I have come across as irritated at people because they won't accept Calvinism, then I apologize, because even though I am very passionate for the truths of Calvinism as I see them, it doesn't mean in the slightest that I consider those who disagree as not having just as legitimate opinions and faith. See my comments to Ric above regarding this. I do attend a very Arminian church (admittedly because my wife loves Chuck Smith, and I do like their style of praise and worship-they even sing hymns still!- and I get a rich blessing from pastor Chuck's teaching though I disagree with him on many points, but we can still have fellowship) And, like I told Ric, there is plenty of arrogance to go around in both circles. I don't see anyway to reconcile or mix Calvinism or Arminianism. I agree with J.I. Packer, that they are two completely independent, and logically opposed systems of thought. Maybe, because of my scientific background I see things too much in black and white. I guess my question to you Adrian, and maybe you did cover it above, is this, "If you are not convinced that saving faith is a gift from God, as I think you said on a previously archived post, then how are we saved, and how can we be assured of our salvation? Stan | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 587 Registered: 3-2005 |
Adrian, I would like to add a few notes as to my background also. I came out of the strictest form of Adventism there is, so that when I discovered the gospel, I was thrilled. Adventism as you know is extreme Arminian, and I would argue flat out Pelagian especially with the traditional doctrine of the IJ. But even after becoming saved and leaving Adventism, I held on to a lot of Arminian ideas. I hated the doctrine of Calvinism, and thought that those who taught it were the most arrogant people I had ever met. But eight years later after a lot of Bible Study, I started to see that salvation was all of grace. I was fortunate also to be introduced to the White Horse Inn radio program, where I heard a panel of four guys having a lot of fun talking about the great doctrines of grace taught by Luther and Calvin. They made these doctrines come alive, and then I read Michael Horton's book "Putting Amazing Back Into Grace". It finally all made sense. Then I started to realize that Arminianism dominated about 90-95% of American evangelicalism. Because when I visited other churches, i found the same spirit of legalism and stupid rules that I had seen in Adventism. So, when I finally became a Calvinist, it was like my making a final break with my past, since Adventism and Arminianism were intertwined so heavily. This is why I believe as I said in a previous post, that one of the reasons so many evangelicals do not see Adventism as a cult, is because they are so much like them in many ways. That is why Dr Robert Morey and the late Anthony Hoekema-both Calvinists-have insisted that Adventism is a cult. R.C. Sproul has an article documenting this American phenomenom in an article entitled "The Pelagian Captivity of the Evangelical church", that is must reading and I linked it on a previous post in the last archived section in this thread and it is on the monergism web site that I posted above. So, it is because of my strict SDA background, that has made these doctrines of grace from the Reformation really come alive to me, and I have seen the practical working out in our own lives as well. Stan | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 884 Registered: 10-2004 |
Stan, I don't know if it's totally accurate to say that Calvary Chapel and Chuck Smith are "very Arminian." They claim that they are neither Calvinist nor Arminian. Here is an article by Chuck Smith on the topic: http://xweb1.calvarychapel.com/php/ccmain/library/caatwog.php He does say he believes in the perseverance of the saints. He also says, "In difficult doctrinal matters, may we have gracious attitudes and humble hearts," and he says that these issues should not divide us. Also, Calvary Community Church in Phoenix (Pastor J. Mark Martin's church) says on their website: "Calvary Chapel takes a more balanced approach and does not claim to be Calvinistic or Arminianistic." Jeremy (Message edited by jeremy on July 27, 2005) | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 2341 Registered: 12-2003 |
Stan, you make great points. My extreme Arminian background as well has made my discovery of God's grace and absolute sovereignty seem like an oasis in a desert. Perhaps it is my reaction to this astonishing certainty that underlies my love for authors such as JI Packer and John Piper. They always exalt Jesus. Colleen | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 588 Registered: 3-2005 |
Jeremy, I don't want to come across as attacking Chuck Smith who is a great man of God, but that belief statement you linked to is somewhat vague. He uses the Arminian argument that our election by God is based on His foreknowledge, but at this link www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/smith.html you will see what Pastor Chuck means by election. He uses a racetrack analogy, and asks you to imagine being at a horse track, and that since God knows in advance who will win a horse race, He can then look down the corridors of time so He can know who the winners of the Christian life are. I don't like that analogy. But read the article, and let me know what you think. Also, at the Calvary Chapel bookstore, they sell books that accuse Calvinists of preaching a false gospel, and they don't sell very many Reformed authors. Also, it is well known that Calvary Chapel pastors are antagonistic to Calvinism, as an example George Bryson's book "The dark side of Calvinism". I can't speak for Mark Martin as I need to take more time to examine your other link above. Stan |
