Archive for September, 2014

By Dr. James Ach and J/A

Tony Miano is a Calvinist among the crowd of Calvinists that I usually pick on, but he is an inconsistent Calvinist that does not act like the majority of his cohorts, so I don’t pick on him very much. He is not a bully and tends to avoid much of the vitriolic confrontations initiated by the likes of Fred Butler, JD Hall and that crowd [UPDATE: this has recently began to change. Since Miano has become more cozy with the likes of JD Hall, his attitude has become increasingly vitriolic]. I appreciate that Tony is one of the few professing believers-Calvinist or not-that actually preaches in the streets (and was actually erroneously detained in England for taking a Biblical stand against homosexuality, or rather, for simply answering a question about it [Considering Cameron’s recent UN speech, don’t expect England to change on this anytime soon]) and even though I disagree with his doctrine,  he is one of the few that anyone could use to prove that there are at least SOME evangelistic Calvinists.

But, public preaching of heresy is still heresy, and I can’t compliment someone’s efforts if they are holding to a false gospel, and while Miano may not have intended for his article to be taken that way, that’s the only conclusion that one can leave with, and hence the necessity to refute it.

Miano wrote an article about Christians Hating Adoption by comparing the attitude that some earthly parents have toward adoption as an alternative to abortion, to Christians who also despise God’s work in Biblical adoption. It was this Twitter comment describing his article that caught my attention:

“Christians who despise God’s monergistic work in #adoption should examine themselves to see if they are in the faith.”

In other words, if a person does not believe the Calvinistic explanation of HOW God saves people, they are not really saved. It is not enough to simply repent and believe the gospel, but you must also understand the mechanics of how it works in order to be saved. Now despite the fact that even Calvinist theologians themselves have argued for centuries about predestination, preterition, election, whether or not God actively chooses some to heaven and simply “passes over” the non-elect, or whether he purposely selected those damned to hell (see differences between infralapsarianism and supralapsarianism), Miano would have to take sides against some of his favorite Reformed theologians and declare that one of them is not saved if having a thorough understanding of how God works is a prerequisite to receiving grace.

There are a number of problems with this. First of all, how does an unregenerate person who can not, as Calvinists admit, “receive the things of the Spirit of God” according to 1 Cor 2:14 and be expected to understand the dynamics of salvation BEFORE HE IS SAVED? Miano puts a condition on salvation that according to even his own theology is impossible for the sinner to achieve.

Secondly,  Tony uses the term “Christian” in the present tense. If the person is in fact a Christian, then it is not possible that he can lose his salvation at some later point because he has not come to a thorough understand of how salvation works. Of course, if Tony is an Arminian then we’d have to argue about his views of conditional security (which in reality, all Calvinism leads to conditional security anyway if you understand the Reformed view of perseverance, but we’ve addressed that problem elsewhere).

Now I would agree with Tony that a person could have believed in vain (1 Cor 15:2), but that’s not the impression that Tony gives. Although I do note that Tony added “professing” Christian at the end of his article, and there is no Scriptural evidence that believing in vain had anything to do with failure to understand the dynamics of the doctrines of soteriology, but about a person’s unwillingness to accept the narrative of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ as the sufficient payment of our sin that satisfied the wrath of God, and is obtained by repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Acts 26:20 (And the very fact that in Acts 26, Paul mentions doing “works meet FOR repentance” shows that repentance and works are not the same thing. Thus in God’s eyes, the command to repent is not viewed as a “work” that has salvific value. Romans 11:6, Titus 3:5, Romans 4:2-7).

LIFE PRESERVER ANALOGY

Tony takes exception to the “life preserver” analogy, which was made popular by Norman Geisler in describing the free will of the person to respond to the gospel. Miano, as most Calvinists, reject this analogy on the grounds that a dead person can’t reach out to grab a rope so the analogy is fundamentally flawed on its premise  according to their view of Ephesians 2. The problem with that critique is that it is equating spiritual death with the physical, a subject we have dealt with in refuting James White’s message about Lazarus (See, Could Lazarus Have Said No?)

If a dead man can’t reach out for the rope, than a dead man can’t call upon the name of the LORD either to satisfy Romans 10:9-13 either. Neither can dead men hear the gospel. If the Calvinist argues that God wakes him up to call upon him, then you have God waking up the person to reach for the rope, but then if the person in the pool is dead, and has been revived by God, why then would he even need to grab the rope at all? He’d be saved before he was saved…AH…but Calvinists actually believe this point-that a person can be regenerated prior to salvation. This is the Reformed way of getting around verses in Acts (e.g. Acts 10-11) where a person demonstrates seeking God (a premise that Calvinists reject is possible according to their view of Romans 3 and Ephesians 2 on Total Inability resulting from God-ordained depravity) prior to being saved.

THE FREE WILL OF THE PREACHER CONUNDRUM [J/A]

Tony’s theology (and really, most Calvinists) ignore the fact that there is still something required of the sinner to be saved, he preaches it all the time: repent and believe. Now here’s what Tony and all Calvinists miss;  Can God save the person without your command for them to repent? Not normally according to Romans 10:14-17  because that’s just not how God chose to do it . Calvinists readily admit this fact and confess that God uses human instruments as the means to gather his elect. But then that still brings you back to square one. If man is used as an instrument in gathering the elect which is necessary for the sinner to hear the words that save (John 6:63), then it’s STILL NOT MONERGISTIC. Although the Calvinists will argue that the sinner himself was made to repent and believe (a whole other heresy) they can not account for the synergistic acts of the preacher which is a requirement for that person to hear the gospel and be saved.

If you disagree, then read Ezekiel chapters 3 and 18 and see what happens to the sinner when the watchman DOES NOT give them God’s message, and then ask yourself this question: If the sinner’s destiny is determined, then why does God hold the watchman accountable at all?

 When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand.

19 Yet if thou warn the wicked, and he turn not from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul.

20 Again, When a righteous man doth turn from his righteousness, and commit iniquity, and I lay a stumbling-block before him [notice that the stumbling block comes AFTER the sinner’s refusal to turn, not based on some decree made in eternity before the world began], he shall die: BECAUSE thou hast not given him warning, he shall die in his sin, and his righteousness which he hath done shall not be remembered; but his blood will I require at thine hand.” Ezekiel 3:18-20

[*This is in reference to Israel, but the means of salvation should be consistent with eternity if Calvinist soteriology is to be taken seriously. Although you will quickly see the Calvinist who is normally Covenant Theology oriented become a Dispensationalist when trying to explain this passage as it relates to the free will of the watchman]

Furthermore, Calvinists often contend that God controls even the means of the salvation process (that’s the whole point of monergism), but they have overlooked something crucial: does God control the preacher? For a Calvinist to be consistent, they would HAVE to say yes, otherwise they breach the golden chain of redemption because if God uses the preacher as the means of bringing the gospel to the sinner, then for the entire process to be truly monergistic, God must also control the preacher as well as the sinner and the sinner’s reactions. But here’s the problem, PAUL SAID THE PREACHER HAS FREE WILL:

 For though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of: for necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel!

 For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me. 1 Corinthians 9:16-17

Thus, Paul gives 2 different scenarios, each of which he can freely choose from. Yet this is contrary to what Calvinism teaches. Paul makes it clear that God does not control the means of salvation which means that even if the relationship between the sinner and God were solely monergistic, without any counterfactual conditionals, the relationship between God and the preacher IS NOT and since that is a necessary step in the sinner hearing the gospel (Romans  10:14-17) the entire Calvinist house of monergist cards falls apart at the free will of the preacher. Regardless of whether you believe the sinner’s fate is predetermined or he actually has the ability to reject the gospel of his own volition, any Calvinist explanation must answer this conundrum. (We will address the Reformed heresy of the secondary causation fallacy when someone brings it up, although this somewhat scratches the surface.) The autonomy of the preacher/watchmen is a death blow to monergism.

SORRY- INSUFFICIENT CREDIT

The statements made by Miano are actually a classic strawman that Reformers use against non Calvinists, i.e., that we think we are actually taking credit for our own salvation if we confess that we called upon the name of the Lord for salvation and willingly choose to repent and believe the gospel as an obedient libertarian free will act. In other words, Calvinists think that a person who is rescued from a heart attack goes around town bragging that he saved himself from his infarction instead of giving credit to the heart surgeon that saved his life.

Was Paul taking credit for his salvation when he said “I was NOT DISOBEDIENT unto the heavenly vision” (Acts 26:19), or when he said ” I know whom **I** have believed”? 2 Tim 1:12.  One can not be both determined to act and describe their actions as being freely committed and be true at the same time. To be obedient unto the gospel is both a command (2 Thess 1:8) and a decision one must make of his own volition (John 8:24-the Bible is FULL OF “if” statements regardless of how much Calvinists reject them, “if” you do not believe, you die in your sin, etc..).

Furthermore, if, as Miano says, that the person is not saved who believes this way, does he all of a sudden forget about his monergism when he admonishes that sinner to EXAMINE HIMSELF? If the person is merely a professing Christian, and not “a possessor” then isn’t that person in the same boat as the sinner Miano preaches to on the street? still in his sin and unregenerate? How then can that person “examine himself”? It seems that along the way, Miano has forgotten to be consistent with his monergism! (And yes, I am aware of 2 Cor 13:5 which has nothing to do with this context, and is an often misquoted verse. Focus!)

MIANO’S MISUSE OF ADOPTION

The problem with using adoption to support Tony’s story is that he is comparing physical adoption of INFANTS not yet born to spiritual adoption which can occur at any age of a person’s life. Does Paul use physical adoption as an analogy in Galatians 3 and Romans 8? Yes, of course, but not how Miano is using it to prove that since an infant has no say so in who his physical parents are that it automatically follows that the subject of adoption in Galatians has no choice in who is spiritual Father is, and if Tony (and any Calvinist) were aware of the requirements for adoption used in Paul’s analogy of the schoolmaster, they would see how erroneous this analogy is. The synergistic relationship between the pupil and the schoolmaster debunks any theory that the adoption process was one of a determined and irresistible status.

Adoption is a beautiful concept that guarantees the believer’s salvation and security, but it is no more ordained against the persons will than a Jew was saved because he was an Israelite (John 1:11-13, Matt 3:9, John 8:39). Like the prodigal, the son can waste away his inheritance willingly (1 Cor 3:11-15), but can not jeopardize his parent/child relationship, the father will always be his father. The New Testament does not use adoption to emphasize the “how” of the salvation process, but the why of salvation’s permanency. 

Although Tony seems to equate disagreeing with despise, I DO despise any ‘doctrine’ that adds to the not only Paul’s clear explanation of the gospel in 1 Cor 15, but also it’s simplicity  (2 Cor 11:3). I also despise strawmen that are erected to mischaracterize the beliefs of many born again soul winners. If this is what Miano preaches on the streets to lost sinners, then it is a false gospel, or at least displays a gross inconsistency on what is required to be saved, and what is expected to be secure.

Advertisements

When witnessing to Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Catholics, etc…one thing you will discover quickly is that each appear to be “religious” and sometimes even using “orthodox” or theologically correct sounding language. For example, a Jehovah’s Witness will claim to believe that Jesus is the Son of God. However, that’s not all there is to the story. Once you learn to get beyond the language barrier, you learn that you are not speaking the same language as they are. Calvinism has the same problem.

Here is an example of this from Gene Clyatt, who tweeted:

See, @BrianCHouston – The Gospel can be condensed down to one tweet… #RepentAndBelieve
The wrath of Holy God abides on sinful man. Jesus died to satisfy that wrath. He rose again on the third day. Repent & believe and be saved.

Sounds logical enough, right? Sounds Biblical enough, does it not? Not until you peel away what the Calvinists really mean by these terms do you really begin to smell the pungent onion scent.

1. “Wrath of God on sinful man. Jesus died to satisfy that wrath”.

To the Calvinist, “that wrath” means the wrath of ONLY those God determined from before creation to be saved. Regardless of whether it comes from the infra or supralapsarian views or preterition or “passing over”, whether God’s inaction against the unelect sinner is passive, etc, the result is still the same: the atonement that satisfied the wrath of God does NOT apply to ALL sinful man according to Calvinist theology, and therefore only some can be saved depending on who God chose.

But that’s exactly what that statement implies, isn’t it? “The wrath of God abides on SINFUL MAN”.  If that wrath is upon ALL MEN, then it should naturally follow that the satisfaction spoken of in the next phrase would equally apply to all men, but to the Calvinist it doesn’t. To the Calvinist, the blood of Christ is “wasted” if the atonement could only potentially save all men, but does not actually save them all. So then for any Calvinist to say this with a straight face, that Christ died for THAT wrath is wholly misleading.

So why then the dishonest rhetoric? We are familiar with every other argument the Calvinist has to defend these doctrines of theirs, so we’re not asking for an explanation of them, but to ask why not be straightforward with others when you explain what you really mean when using certain theological terms and rhetoric? Why say that the Christ died to satisfy THAT WRATH upon ALL sinful men if that’s not what you really mean?

2. “Repent & believe and be saved.”

Certainly most would not disagree with that, right? Not even the liberal guy Gene was directing this at (we at least have to give Gene some credit for that. Hillsong is about as close to Biblical correctness as a giraffe is in converting a lion into a vegetarian). Yet as with the Mormons and JW’s, it’s not that simple. Can a man simply repent, change his mind and attitude and believe? According to Calvinism, NO. But you would not get that impression by the way this statement is crafted. It is rhetorically misleading because no Calvinist believes that repentance is a voluntary act or one that can be made by being willingly obedient to the gospel (2 Thess 1:8), but that faith is given as a gift to believe after God has regenerated the person and given them repentance (that’s the entire idea behind monergism, the Calvinists’ explanation of how the sovereignty of God determines and controls every part of the salvation process including even man’s own will to believe and his response to the gospel. We have discussed the Biblical and philosophical nightmare behind soft determinism/compatibilism elsewhere in Free Will Proves the Sovereignty of God and Does God Determine Greater Rewards And Punishment for starts).

Calvinists regularly speak out in terms and language that is inconsistent with what they really believe. If you pay close attention to the Calvinists when they speak, you will see this pattern demonstrated over and over and over again, just like the above example from Calvinist, Gene Clyatt.

If Calvinists are going to demand that they be treated as and respected as Bible believing Christians, then they need to start being accountable for their consistently dishonest representations of the gospel, and be straight up with people about what they truly believe and about what they really mean when they use commonly familiar theological terms. Some Calvinists do not even notice themselves doing this which is what leads to the oft used popular Calvinist mantra “You don’t understand Calvinism”. With the standards that Calvinists demand for “understanding Calvinism”, nobody should be expected to “understand” it and have any meaningful debate on the matter so long as the Calvinist refuses to face his dishonest representations of what he truly believes.  The very fact that the Calvinists employ such rhetoric to maintain credibility among religious factions is in itself cause for concern. We are naturally skeptical of a salesman that we think is hiding something about the product he’s trying to sell, and we hope that people use the same critical thinking with their Biblical knowledge and common sense when it comes to evaluating Calvinism.

J/A

 

See also Calvinist Dishonesty In Action & A Word About Decisionism

UPDATES: 

9/20/2014

Following this article, Gene Clyatt responded on Twitter with:

, I would be overjoyed if both & repented & believed the Gospel. With God all things are possible.

So in other words, Gene just admitted that we in fact do believe in different gospels, otherwise he would not assume our need to repent and believe the gospel because we disagree with Calvinism.

What is strangely hysterical about Gene’s comment is this comment he made around the same time:

Gene Clyatt @Shinar_Squirrel · 22h

By the way, the “Evangelical Mugging” method is not the suggested method of evangelism, but it is superior to NO method of evangelism

Gene Clyatt @Shinar_Squirrel · 22h

The “Evangelical Mugging” method; Grab ’em by the coat, slam ’em into the wall, yell “TURN OR BURN!”, & stuff Chick Tracts into their pocket

We promote Chick Tracts among other KJVO materials published by Jack Chick. You would think that seeing the side of our website with the plethora of KJVO Baptist links, our re-posts of Chick articles, would be obvious. And yet, at least Clyatt while not giving full faith and credit to the “evangelical muggery” followed by a Jack tract, the question would be how could it be considered better than “no evangelism at all” if it’s a different gospel (according to his comments to us that he desires to see us “repent and believe the gospel”)? In other words, if our beliefs are pretty similar to Jack Chick’s, to which Clyatt still refers to as evangelistic, albeit not the greatest presentation of it, then how can he  in the same breath claim we need to “repent and believe the gospel”?

Just more fine examples of Calvinist sleight-of-hand.

 

**ONE FINAL NOTE ON COMMENTS**

We are NOT going to approve any comments from Calvinists that do not deal with the specific subject matter of the article. This article isn’t to debate your view of election, predestination, preterition, infralapsarian, sublapsarian, supralapsarianism, limited atonement or total inability, but why the Calvinist refuses to be forthright about what he/she believes in. There are plenty of other articles that deal with all of the other Calvinist/Reformed doctrines, so if you want to argue something, find it in one of the other articles.