You say � �Who is doing this? Most of my friends are NON-Calvinist believers, and I firmly believe they are “IN”. I disagree with their soteriology, obviously. But I certainly dont think they are “OUT” (as you say). I also dont know any other Calvinists who believes that NON-Calvinists are “OUT”.

And then you go on to say � �We see it as a central core issue relating to Christ’s atonement, man’s depravity, and as Luther said in the quote I gave you above - it’s key to understanding God’s grace. This is why Spurgeon said “Calvinism is the Gospel”. He felt that these issues are woven into the fabric of how people are saved.�

And I see this resoning countless times with Calvinists. You talk about the immediate group of Christians you fellowhip with as non-Calvinists and believe that they are �in�.

But then go on to say what is shown above, that they have it all wrong when it comes to salvation. This makes absolutely no sense to me. You say that the issues being debated are the very issues that determine how people are saved. You quote Spurgeon and how he said �Calvinism is the Gospel”, and then go on to say that friends of yours who do not subscribe to it are �in�. I have yet had a Calvinist explain this.

{{{Candleman}}}

(2) I wonder if this whole Arminian - Calvinist argument comes from insisting on applying our limited, human concepts to God. It seems like we limit His existence and nature to the paltry scope of our understanding. Or maybe it would be better to say that we limit our understanding of His greatness to the extent of our reason. (It’s the best we’ve got, but it’s human; it’s not God-like.) This would make Him seem a lot like us, and involve Him in apparent contradictions.

(3) For example, the whole issue of predestination comes up, really, when we ask how God could be omnipotent and omniscient, and yet still provide us with freedom of will. But actually, omniscience and omnipotence depend on our ideas of time and space. And we believe God is outside of time and space — completely different from them and not constrained by them. So even asking whether he caused our actions *before* they took place doesn’t make sense, because *before* depends on our ideas about time and space.

If God cannot be limited by my own personal beliefs about good and bad, I don’t see how he can be limited by my own beliefs about time and space… or about causality.

Best regards, everyone, from Popeye.

I just cant imagine a decided Calvinist doing that; it shows a misunderstanding of the whole theological system. Rather than trust some professed Calvinist bloggers, why not go with the words of a well-known Calvinist author or leader. Can you find me anything in Jonathan Edwards writings in which he says “Im a Calvinist but I think there is a conflict with Calvinism and Evangelism”? How about his friend David Brainerd the Calvinist missionary, or Matthew Henry the Calvinist commentator, or Calvinists with large evangelism-oriented churches like Spurgeon or MacArthur. This whole line of reasoning is a straw man, based on faulty human reasoning. It doesnt line up with history, nor does it reflect the beliefs of any Calvinist that I know of.

Dan said: “What I’m disagreeing with is using a theological system like Calvinism as a means of discerning who is In and who is Out.”

Who is doing this? Most of my friends are NON-Calvinist believers, and I firmly believe they are “IN”. I disagree with their soteriology, obviously. But I certainly dont think they are “OUT” (as you say). I also dont know any other Calvinists who believes that NON-Calvinists are “OUT”.

Dan said: “I wrote [this] post because I’m seeing people battered and judged by theological systems”.

And I responded to your post because I see those who take a firm stance on Calvinism or Arminianism as being judged and battered by your posts. Your “dogma” that we should not be dogmatic on these issues, is in fact a dogma of it’s own.

Dan said: “I suspect that we too often get obsessed with the borders and not obsessed enough with the person of Jesus Christ”.

The problem is, you see the topic at hand as “a border” issue. There are others that dont see it that way. We see it as a central core issue relating to Christ’s atonement, man’s depravity, and as Luther said in the quote I gave you above - it’s key to understanding God’s grace. This is why Spurgeon said “Calvinism is the Gospel”. He felt that these issues are woven into the fabric of how people are saved.

Dan said: “If I am following Him and staying in the center of His will, everything else becomes a moot point. Do you disagree?”

Yes, I disagree. Error in doctrine leads to error in practice and I refuse to regard anything that the bible reveals as being “optional truth”. We need to do our best to understand all of God’s word, and not put yellow police tape around certain topics and passages in scripture, calling those things “un-important”.

Dan said: “Your post a few weeks ago on decisional regeneration is a case in point. How can any human being say that the weepy-eyed fellow who walked down the aisle after the pastor gave an altar call was not being drawn 100% by God?”

We can’t know for sure if the weepy-eyed fellow is truly saved or not, at least not until a year or two down the road. We can eventually say however, that certain practices have the tendency to breed false converts, and are misleading at best. Some practices lead people to believe that they have control of what Spurgeon referred to as the “diamond hinge” on which salvation turns (in his quote from above). We should call people to salvation, but not give them the idea that it’s a light switch that they can control, whenever and however they want. Salvation is something that God does. To Him be the glory.

Dan said: “Why call that man’s salvation into question? Proof is in the fruit.”

I suspect that we have two different definitions of “fruit”. Im guessing that you regard a profession of faith as an actual salvation. I would prefer to call it a “profession of faith”, and do as George Whitefield said, in delaying any guesses as to their conversion, until a year or so down the road. You’ve indicated that you dont think it’s right “to judge” someone’s salvation. Then why are you so eager to judge them as positively converted, as soon as they make a profession?

Dan said: “If he stays at the feet of Jesus and walks out a life sanctified by the Holy Spirit, how can anyone say he’s not saved because his “experience” didn’t conform to the ideal set forth by Calvinism”

Perhaps you misunderstood my post. God can save anyone, anywhere. I know someone who was saved through a Stryper concert (that’s a Christian Metal Rock Band similar to the secular group “Kiss”). Does that mean I should advocate Stryper concerts as the way to be saved? Is Stryper really the ideal setting for conversion? It has nothing to do with an “ideal set forth by Calvinism” (your words) at all.

Also, Calvinists dont “save people into Calvinism”, we preach repentance and faith in Jesus Christ and allow the Holy Spirit to covert whomever He will to Christianity (not Calvinism). I would be delighted to preach the Gospel to someone and have them come to salvation, regardless if they agree with me on Calvinism afterwards or not.

Dan said: “Lutherans do not consider themselves Calvinists!”.

A subtle topic change there Dan. You originally asked me about Luther’s beliefs, not the Lutheran church. Philipp Melancthon, who lead the Lutheran church after Luther, disagreed with Luther on predestination, and the Lutherans followed his lead after Luther died. All of this is well documented. Aside from issues related to communion, Martin Luther and Calvin were very much in step on most things of significance.

It doesnt appear from the things you write, that you understand Calvinism. Im not saying you have to. But I think it would be a good idea, if you are going make statements against it. Or if you are going to tell your readers that they should not be dogmatic about such things.

Some advice before you write against Calvinism: It wouldnt be honest to find the fringes of something, and treat it as though it were the mainstream. That’s what is happening when you try to sell your readers on how Calvinism has “inconsistencies” (on evangelism, etc.), citing a few Calvinist bloggers that you feel claim such inconsistencies. Stick to the mainstream, as there are fringe groups in every belief system. Perhaps you could reference the beliefs of some of the mainstream Calvinist authors whos books you recommend on your site. Those would be excellent sources to quote from.

Thank you in advance Dan,
—Jim

The issue of Calvinism and evangelism is not new to this blog. In fact, more than one Calvinist blogger has pointed out this problem. If anything, I’m just referring to what people within the camp are saying. And that’s not the wishy-washy ones out there, either. Big name Calvinist bloggers have raised the same red flag.

On Luther and Calvinism:

Jim, Lutherans do not consider themselves Calvinists! And there were plenty of places where Calvin did not agree with Luther. The theological system that became Calvinism is different than what Luther was preaching. Yes, they are both considered Reformation thinkers and yes, they had plenty of overlap. But it is not an “A=A” correlation.

On “giving Spurgeon a pass” and the usefulness of the past:

No blog goes back to the past more than this one does. I just blogged a few days ago about the foolishness of ignoring 2000 years of Church wisdom and history as if we today are the pinnacle of spiritual enlightenment!

Having said that, I will also be the first to say that different parts of the Gospel are emphasized in different eras. The Reformation Age is not noted for its kindness to the poor and ministry geared to the down-and-out, for instance. Changes in emphasis are not bad unless someone bristles at the whole idea of change. Still, there is nothing new under the sun, so even our change is just a shift to something that was already emphasized at one point previously.

Back to my comments on “God’s drawing” and evangelism:

Jim, I’m not disagreeing with what you posted from Spurgeon. What I’m disagreeing with is using a theological system like Calvinism as a means of discerning who is In and who is Out because of how some outside observer perceives another person’s “salvation experience” happened. That implies that you, or me, or someone else has perfect knowledge of the exact way in which God drew someone to Himself! The problem is that God draws people when they are at different places in life. The Holy Spirit is at work in many different ways in wooing the unsaved to Christ.

I wrote the “Quantum Singularity” post because I’m seeing people battered and judged by theological systems. We should not be doing that. Jesus calls us as disciples to do one thing: sit at His feet and stay there. If a person has repented and surrendured his life to the Jesus Christ, Jesus asks him to come sit at His feet and live out the life of a disciple. “Follow me” means just that. If I am following Him and staying in the center of His will, everything else becomes a moot point. Do you disagree?

We use theological systems to frame the borders. That’s fine! But I suspect that we too often get obsessed with the borders and not obsessed enough with the person of Jesus Christ. At least that it was I see in a lot of the Christian blogosphere.

Your post a few weeks ago on decisional regeneration is a case in point. How can any human being say that the weepy-eyed fellow who walked down the aisle after the pastor gave an altar call was not being drawn 100% by God? Why call that man’s salvation into question? Proof is in the fruit. If he stays at the feet of Jesus and walks out a life sanctified by the Holy Spirit, how can anyone say he’s not saved because his “experience” didn’t conform to the ideal set forth by Calvinism—or some hyper-Calvinist interpretation of traditional Calvinist thought or any other theological system?

That’s my whole point with this post.