***I recommend going to google docs and downloading a copy of the original in order to utilize the hyperlinks. Or email me at traever7@yahoo.com and I can send you a copy. All the hyperlinks (blue letters) work in the original word doc but not in blogger. They greatly aid in readability especially if you want to jump around within the doc itself instead of reading it straight through. Google doc here:
*This critique is mostly addressing the presentation given in Morton. There are some portions from the Peoria presentation blended in and an amendment at the end addressing some items specific to the Peoria presentation. Other presentations may have varied slightly in content or emphasis. The presentation was about two hours in length and this is not meant to be an exhaustive critique. It is merely meant to address the most egregious errors and mischaracterizations.
Contents
*to utilize hyperlinks hold control and click to jump to location in paper
Foreword
First off, let me say that I am friends with Fred and we have known each other for years. I love and appreciate him as a brother in Christ and only reluctantly address his presentation critically. No offense is intended towards him, and although we disagree significantly, I am still indebted to him for playing a role in sparking my interest in church history. I have both read and listened to his recommendations for books and lectures. I also thoroughly enjoy his sense of humor and speaking style. However, in this case I feel an honest thorough critique of his recent presentation is necessary.
I made Fred aware that I’d be
doing a critique as we emailed back and forth about sources (he was helpful in
directing me to his own sources). I was relieved to see him reply: “you certainly have the
right to critique my public presentations—I’m not bothered by that at all.” I
hope to deal with Fred’s material on a high level and give more attention to
some of the claims made during the presentation. Many subjects require a much
fuller explanation if truthfulness and honesty are meant to be conveyed. It is
my wish that truth will prevail in order to bring greater honor to God.
Fred
was sent a copy of the critique. He had no comment.
Categories
*to utilize hyperlinks hold control and click to jump to location in paper (only if you have word doc available for download here: https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6Xq2fUkNq9rZTM5YjEwYjItZmI3Ni00Yzc3LTk5MzMtNzEyMjNiOWE2ZjM4)
Critique of statements on…
Seemingly dishonest: (most important 2, 3, 7, 8, 33, 44); (others 1, 4, 11, 15, 21, 28, 31, 32, 38, 42, 43)
Most shocking thing said: 44
Single worst thing said: Peoria amendment 46 (at the end)
Intro
This presentation was advertised as purely historical and essentially unbiased. Unfortunately, the bias was clear from the beginning and the topic did not stick entirely to a historical review. A selective historical discussion can easily be used to discredit anyone or anything. If only partial facts are given or if they are not put in their proper historical context, then it is not at all difficult to spin things in one’s favor. Sometimes this is done intentionally and sometimes it is not. I believe both scenarios took place during Fred’s talk. His presentation was skewed to carefully portray history in a way that would not undermine his bias of being anti-Calvinist and extremely pro-Anabaptist. Frequently, this led to very unfair, or entirely false, re-telling of history. It must be noted that while Fred is not new to the field of history in general, he is not entirely familiar with the history of the reformation specifically. It is not his area of expertise (nor does he claim it is). He is also not intimately familiar with the theology of Calvinism (he admits throughout his talk there are many parts he does not understand). So, while he was asked to give this talk because of his knowledge of the field of history, he is by no means an expert in this specific area of history. He cannot be viewed as speaking from a position of authority. Although there is little doubt in my mind that asking Fred, who has experience and degrees in the field of history, would produce that kind of trust from the audience. This is mentioned not to combat anything Fred claimed for himself, but rather to inform the audience to take a proper perspective when listening to the information and opinion given. The examples cited in the following critique will properly highlight the unfamiliarity that is being referenced. His realm of expertise is in American history, and he is intimately familiar with the complicated church history and education of early America. It is easy to see his depth of knowledge in this specific area when it comes up during this talk.
One reason this unfair and false presentation is so bad is because anyone not already intimately familiar with both the history and theology will be given a false first impression, which all too frequently turns out to be permanent. For most in the audience this was their initial or most in-depth presentation, on this subject matter. Unfortunately, few will have been well informed enough to discern the great many errors, falsehoods, and mischaracterizations. This undoubtedly caused great damage to the listeners unbeknownst to them. Obviously, not everything was wrong, but the bias in the retelling of events was overwhelming. It continues to sadden me that the theology, and now even the history, of Calvinism will not be dealt with fairly or honestly. It certainly was not addressed scripturally.
The stated purpose of this presentation was simply to inform the audience of the history behind the theology of Calvinism and thus foster peace. The actual purpose to anyone aware of the recent events in the AC church is far more obvious but less stated- to calm the fears about Calvinism through discrediting it and to convince the people that the doctrines it addresses cannot be known with any degree of certainty. This effort to convince the audience of the impossibility of knowing the doctrine of free will, election, and predestination is the single greatest sin coming from this talk. Make no mistake about it- it is a sin to promote ignorance in the people of God about a doctrine taught in the Bible. As John Piper says, “Everything that is true and revealed about God is profitable to know”. It is also a direct attack on the sufficiency and clarity of Scripture itself. It was even said during the talk that not even Paul himself understood these doctrines when he wrote about them. This claim is beyond outrageous! So even though Paul writes about predestination and election in-depth- on several occasions- to a young church, and even addresses objections to it, it is still maintained in the presentation that not only can we not figure it out through the Word of God, but that Paul himself didn’t even know what he was talking about. So that is essentially saying Paul wrote on a subject he didn’t understand to young Christians so that they could what? ...Also not understand it? Was he intentionally promoting confusion? This is nothing short of saying the Bible and the Holy Spirit in the heart of a believer cannot adequately teach us the doctrines taught in Scripture. This is a flagrant abuse of the Protestant doctrine of Scripture. It cannot be understated how serious a claim of this nature is. Basically, what is going on here is that in order to confront the doctrine of election/predestination taught in Scripture and affirmed in Calvinism, the leadership involved has chosen to attack Scripture itself. They are comforting their own hearts about being uninformed and unable to submit to these biblical truths by dragging down their congregations with them. This is a common Anabaptist method and has been used almost exclusively in response to the recent rise in Calvinism that has occurred from people seeing the doctrine taught clearly in Scripture. I myself have had this type of response given to me when I asked questions about these doctrines. What is so hard to understand is why this subject is always addressed in ignorance. Why is it so hard to just learn it and present it accurately? Why the insistence on misrepresentation in order to combat it?
**********
Post-Peoria presentation amendment: Fred ended his Peoria presentation with an impassioned plea to the audience not to concern themselves with these doctrines. He sets doctrine over and against good works as if they are in opposition and greatly emphasizes the importance of works. This is a false dilemma. Never does a proper focus on doctrine ever diminish works, rather it empowers them. This is the Anabaptist error of somehow thinking that an intense focus on holiness can succeed without the proper attention to the very beliefs that actually drive holiness. On a personal note, these doctrines in question have been the greatest most sanctifying beliefs that I have ever encountered. That’s because knowing these doctrines is knowing Christ! The ignorance Fred advocates is not going to bring anyone closer to Christ or drive any good works. Our faith should have substance, and that substance should be derived exclusively from Scripture. If Scripture is willing to take the time to expound on a doctrine, especially in regards to the inner workings of salvation, then we should be willing to take the time to learn it. Fred feverishly implores the Peoria crowd that we can never know these truths and they are simply a distraction. Well, Paul and the Holy Spirit guiding him obviously felt otherwise when they wrote Romans and Ephesians. And Jesus Himself sure didn’t hesitate to deliver them in their full ‘offensive-to-man’ nature in John 6 and John 10. The great sin Fred is committing here is attacking the clarity of Scripture and actually trying to convince an entire audience to NOT care about doctrine. That thought is amazing to me seeing the lack of doctrinal clarity in the church today and the weakness that confusion causes. He again creates a false dilemma of studying election and predestination or studying Christ and the gospel. These doctrines deal with our very salvation and the work of God in such. To know them is to know Christ even more deeply, which should be every Christian’s goal.
Just because he has such a hard time with these doctrines of election and predestination does not give him the right to advocate ignorance. Just because he tells us over and over that he doesn’t care about them or understand them doesn’t mean that we should all hold to his same shallow (non) understanding. Good works are indeed important, but works without faith is nothing but sin. The engine that fires in our hearts to produce good works is the doctrines taught in the Bible. And sadly enough, Fred has taken a steadfast stance in opposition to such truth.
The Trinity is a greatly debated topic and even deeper than election/predestination, yet we would never see Fred willing to plead for people to ignore it or say that Scripture cannot adequately teach it to us. At least we would hope not. It seems that the only thing Fred is certain about is the validity of his own uncertainty. He advocates not having a position on election and predestination all the while he openly holds to and teaches the new-fangled doctrine of corporate election. His viewpoint is staunchly Arminian. So how is he any different and how is he not being hypocritical here in telling us that it will never be figured out? He said over and over that we cannot know it, yet he must think he knows it if he believes in corporate election. He holds a position that places him squarely in the Arminian camp. He is no different, and his innate distaste of Calvinism coupled with his uninformed claims against it are just adding more heat than light.
This position so ardently promoted by Fred in the Peoria presentation is not simply a different perspective; it is sin. It is sin to say we can’t know the truth. It is sin to slander the reformers of the past. It is sin to misrepresent history repeatedly to one’s advantage. It is sin to beg people to not care about it or study it. There is only one response to pubic sin like this and that is to publically correct the error for the sake of those who were taken in by it and to petition for repentance.
**********
The effort to discredit Calvinism was undertaken by intentionally giving an impression of confusion and disagreement over the doctrines of election/predestination/free will in history as well as by giving an intentional impression of constant unsettled positions and change by the reformers and Calvinists of the past. This is a meaningless pursuit (because it wouldn’t prove anything anyway even if it were true) and not done in an entirely honest manner. What was clear from the beginning was that any history regarding Calvinism or Calvinists would not be presented totally fairly, nor would there be much effort to prevent an anachronistic view of events, especially of John Calvin. An anachronistic view of history is done by judging and considering events of the past in light of one’s modern perspective or context instead of doing so within the historical perspective and context that the events actually took place. It would be like judging the events of the reformation era in terms of if they had taken place in our own day and age as opposed to how the world was back then. In fact, it seemed clear that an anachronistic view of history was almost depended on to make Calvin specifically look bad (in the sense that it was expected and not prevented). I’ll address that more later.
I’ll now try to address some of the quotes or thoughts being made during the presentation…
1. What was said or implied: The doctrine of election and predestination were never that big of deal or even totally agreed upon by the reformers, and they still aren’t, so basically no one can really figure it out. Not only that but Calvinism has changed over time and therefore cannot be biblical.
The response: This idea is about as unfair of a perspective that could have been presented, and it ran throughout as the primary argument for Fred’s views. These ideas were not systematically presented all together but were implied overwhelmingly throughout the presentation at different points and on several occasions. The idea behind this is that if Calvinism affirms something at one point, but then something different at another point, then it is certainly not true because true doctrine never changes.
There are several points that need to be made to correct this thinking. First of all it would be silly to think that the reformers went from being Roman Catholic to Calvinistic/Reformed overnight. There had been over 1000 years of unbiblical doctrine and man-made tradition built up and calcified on the church. Correction from that sort of sin does not come quickly or easily. It took decades of study and preaching to overcome the immense damage done by the Roman Catholic Church. So of course the reformers changed over time. They gradually reformed their churches into much more biblical entities. However, just because they gradually reformed the church and developed correct doctrines with more in-depth understanding does not mean that their stance towards election and predestination changed dramatically over time. The truth is, those issues were at the forefront of the reformation from the very beginning. The essence of reformed doctrine centered on the correct view of salvation which centered on the proper view of grace as seen in election and predestination. It was at the very heart of the Protestant church’s theological difference with Roman Catholicism. Although the role of tradition and church practice were centerpieces to the reformation, the greatest weight was on the doctrine that needed to be reformed- mainly the gospel and soteriology (the doctrine of salvation). This fact is seen most clearly in Luther’s quote addressing Erasmus (a Roman Catholic) over the Calvinistic understanding of free will…
“Moreover, I give you hearty praise and commendation on this further account – that you alone, in contrast with all others, have attacked the real thing, that is, the essential issue. You have not wearied me with those extraneous issues about the papacy, purgatory, indulgences and such like—trifles, rather than issues—in respect of which almost all to date have sought my blood (though without success); you, and you alone, have seen the hinge on which all turns, and aimed for the vital spot. For that I heartily thank you....”
Luther also stated: “If any man doth ascribe of salvation, even the very least, to the free will of man, he knoweth nothing of grace, and he hath not learnt Jesus Christ aright.”
Luther considered free will, and by direct relation election and predestination, to be the essence and heart of the Protestant church’s break with Rome because it is so foundational to the correct view of grace. Zwingli likewise, while heading the reformation in Switzerland, adhered to the same understanding of Calvinistic doctrines of free will, election, and predestination. It is a fact that cannot be denied that these doctrines were both vitally important as well as nearly universally held by the reformers. It is intellectually dishonest to portray these men as having any kind of significant disagreement on these issues pertaining to the inner workings of salvation. Only the most biased and unfair reading of history would portray them as struggling to agree on them.
*Side Note: Notice Zwingli and Luther were intensely Calvinistic. This was all while John Calvin was yet a child. Prominent pre-reformers such as John Wycliffe, and Jan Hus, and others likewise held to the same doctrines. These are men that paved the way for future reformation and made significant efforts to get the Bible and preaching in the language of the people. They often paid for this with their very lives. It is obvious to anyone willing to be honest with history that the doctrines commonly called Calvinism did not at all originate with John Calvin. Fred brings this point out somewhat in his presentation, but it is important to reiterate and highlight here since it is so clearly seen in Luther’s words.
Back to the idea of Calvinism changing…what the presentation did was hijack the fact that the reformed churches changed (improved) over time (as one should expect after years of Roman Catholicism). The change that occurred was then applied to Calvinism itself as if agreement of those specific doctrines was rare. This is far from the truth. Obviously, all the reformed doctrines were systematized over time as more freedom was gained from Roman Catholic political forces and there was time and safety to study and produce confessions of faith. Fred said at one point that what Calvinism taught depended on which period of time you look at it. This is not really true. It became more systematized over time but never actually changed its essence, especially not to the point it ever contradicted its own doctrine from another time. There is always going to be different verbiage used over time and culture to express the same ideas. The presentation gives the wrong impression that you would find Calvinism teaching something completely different depending what era you look at it. This is false. Modern Calvinists still look back on writings from the reformation, still hold to confessions from the reformation, still uphold the canons of Dordt from the reformation, and still hold the same doctrine of free will, election, and predestination that the reformers did. Just as the reformers likewise held to the same view of grace, election, predestination, and free will that Augustine and the early church did 1000 years before. This view was even affirmed in their church councils (Council of Carthage 418, Council of Ephesus 431, and Council of Orange 529). It can be accused of changing, but the writings from Augustine up through the reformers and even today show a consistent solidarity of belief regarding these biblical concepts.
The real reason John Calvin’s name got attached to the reformed doctrines of election and predestination was due to his role in systematizing the doctrine, not at all because he originated or even popularized them. In fact, the reformers had a Latin phrase to promote this continual biblical check of their beliefs: “semper reformanda”. It means always reforming. The reformers had the insight to recognize that deviation from Scripture was the cause of not only the bad doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, but also the man-made traditions that became so prevalent. That is why there is so much danger in the idea that we cannot know these doctrines from Scripture even though they are addressed. If we cannot go to Scripture to figure it out when it speaks directly to it, then how can we go to Scripture to figure out any other subject? 2 Tim 3:16 says “all scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness”. That means that those numerous passages that discuss election and predestination are profitable for doctrine, instruction, reproof, etc. The Roman Catholic (RC) Church believes that regular men cannot even begin to understand Scripture themselves and must be aided by the allegedly “infallible magisterium” of the RC Church. The idea that was promoted in the presentation was eerily similar to this (minus the RC authority), directly implying that we cannot figure it out in Scripture. It was implied several times that we as believers cannot possibly know the truths behind these doctrines, and we really shouldn’t even bother trying. This is reverting back to a Roman Catholic understanding of Scripture. I said early this is a common Anabaptist error. The Anabaptists, as the radical branch of the reformation, came full circle and fell back into many of the pitfalls that originally crippled the RC Church. As Fred alluded to in his presentation, Anabaptist history includes a number of “heretics and oddballs”. Indeed he is correct and history shows that that number is disproportionately large in respect to the other reformation groups. One of the gravest errors of the Anabaptist movement was its loss of orthodox doctrinal fortitude. They were not and are not known for their doctrinal depth. This is the direct cause of their overwhelming trend toward legalism and even denying the gospel in some cases. As reformation historian Michael Reeves has said, “The Anabaptists were theological lightweights more interested in holiness than the beliefs that can foster true holiness”. This is the best short summation of them I have ever heard. Though they cared deeply about holy living, they neglected the very doctrines that were the engine of such sanctification. Without that doctrinal anchor they often drifted into heavy legalism. Those consequences continue today in nearly all Anabaptist churches. It is most easily seen in their intense focus on outward appearance and traditions coupled with doctrinal ambiguity and confusion. We’ll address that more later as well.
One of the reasons the Anabaptist went off the rails so grievously is that they defined themselves by what they didn’t believe as opposed to what they did believe. The reformation gave way to several movements that did, however, take the time to define what they actually believed in confessions. These great confessions of the faith give us the clearest insight into the faith of the reformers and early Protestant church. They also provide us abundant evidence to combat the idea that there was a lot of disagreement over the doctrines of free will, predestination, and election amongst the reformed churches.
Before addressing that we need to make a quick historical note. Calvinism is not a denomination. It was essentially treated as such throughout much of the presentation. Calvinism is a body of doctrine addressing specific aspects of soteriology (the doctrine of salvation). There are many groups/denominations that came out of the reformation, with many being Calvinistic. This was not always so much because of profound disagreement between them but rather because of the new cultural political landscape. Denominational development was now driven essentially by geographic necessity and convenience as technology allowed as well as by local/national issues that different groups dealt with independently. There was no longer one single authority figure or papacy and no one church ruling all of Christendom. Yet while there is not 100% agreement between any two denominations (or any two Christians), it would be inaccurate to think of the Dutch Reformed denomination as vastly different than, say, the Scottish Presbyterians or even the English Puritans. At their core they adhere to most of the same beliefs, especially regarding the tenets of Calvinism. However, their distinctions in practice were driven by their cultural and religious context. Puritan idiosyncrasies, or what the Puritans are known for, were shaped from their necessity in addressing the Church of England for example and there is no reason why that sort of thing would be replicated in a Dutch Reformed church. The bottom line is that is it unfair and inaccurate to use these minor differences in denominations in different geographical locations and context as any kind of proof of wide doctrinal differences regarding Calvinistic doctrine. While Fred did not do this directly, I feel it easily could have been concluded by the audience, however unintentional it may have been. These churches did not develop into different denominations because they had different views of grace, the gospel, or the doctrines of Calvinism.
These groups and denominations drew up confessions of faith to guide the governance of their churches and declare the faith they hold true as they saw it in Scripture. The reason I said this provides great evidence against the idea of non-agreement amongst Protestants about the doctrines of Calvinism is because they all essentially uniformly agree on soteriology! The Westminster confession of faith, the Heidelberg catechism, the Belgic confession, the canons of Dordt, the Genevan Confession, the Scottish Confession, the English Confession, the 39 Articles, the Lambeth Articles, the Irish Articles, The French Confessions, the Brandenburg Confessions, the Helvetic Confessions, the Basle Confession, the Savoy Declaration, the London Baptist confession of 1689, even up to the Philadelphia confession and many, many more, not only address election and predestination, but all uniformly agree on it- despite all being written by different denominations or sects at different periods of history! This completely contradicts the idea that these doctrines were not important or agreed upon by the reformers or those that came after them. The proof is in the confessions. Calvinism is reaffirmed prominently over and over in different times and different places by the confessions all basically saying the same thing in regard to those specific doctrines. That’s why a United Reformed Church pastor, a Presbyterian Church of America pastor, and a Reformed Baptist pastor can all heartily agree on the doctrines of Calvinism, because their respective confessions (Belgic, Westminster, and LBC 1689) all uniformly agree on it.
This also raises the question of how we can be so dense as to think that we cannot know these truths even though these giants of church history and the vast majority of Christian church history believes these doctrine to be apparent in Scripture and vital to devotion to the faith. These are the men that formed the churches of today and that devoted their entire lives to promoting the faith. Modern day liberalism in the church can always be traced back to a denial or ignoring of confessional standards and solid doctrinal teaching. Indeed, it is a liberal view of Scripture that says that it is unclear and unable to teach us doctrine definitely. Even most of those that disagree with Calvinism still admit the doctrines it addresses are addressed in the Bible and can be known. No one with any historical understanding of the church can credibly claim that election and predestination had anything other than an incredibly uniform adherence by most of the orthodox churches emerging from the reformation.
The claim that election, etc. cannot be known is centered on the fact that it is a long running debate among Christians and allegedly hard to understand. This attempt to discredit Calvinism is nonsensical because it is just as applicable to doctrines even more important- such as the Trinity. Consider the fact that the Trinity has been debated in the Christian church from the very beginning (even longer than election/predestination). It was the first major theological debate confronting orthodoxy, and it created numerous heretical groups either denying the Trinity or the full humanity or deity of Christ. Also, the Trinity is easily the deepest and hardest doctrine to understand in all of Scripture (way deeper and more complicated than Calvinism). It simply has no other earthly comparison or analogy to accurately describe it. Yet an informed believer would never deny the importance of the Trinity or its ability to be known from the Word, even though they constantly attack the doctrines of election, predestination, and free will on these very same grounds. The Trinity has been debated longer, and it is deeper, more complicated, and harder to understand. The debate about it continues to rage even today. It gets very heated and creates anger. These claims prevent no one from adhering to orthodox Trinitarianism, but they are some of the very excuses they use to reject Calvinism. If they were consistent in their arguments against Calvinism they would have to likewise reject the doctrine of the Trinity. Interestingly enough, some Anabaptists did just that. There is an unfortunate strand of heretical non-Trinitarianism within the Anabaptist tradition. Luckily we do not see that consistency played out by Fred or many other Arminians today. There is a simple solution to these kind of hard truths found in the Bible- a systematic study and theology of doctrine to harmonize everything Scripture says regarding a certain doctrine. This leads to, and properly frames, the orthodox belief. It can be done with the Trinity and it can certainly be done even easier with the doctrines of election and predestination. Do not allow yourselves to be fooled into thinking that the Bible and the Holy Spirit within us is inadequate to teach what has been revealed in the Word of God.
Although Fred did not make this point, I have heard it said that to systematically define a doctrine like election and predestination is to “put God in a box”. I was happy to hear Fred avoid it. This objection is simply childish and ignorant. To even say God is love is to put Him in a box! God also put Himself in a box that says He cannot lie. There are all kinds of biblical boxes God puts Himself into in order to communicate to humans who He is in terms they can understand. The point is that it is a box God has revealed to teach us about Himself. Again, do not be fooled by such badly formed arguments such as saying that Calvinism “puts God in a box”. All doctrine does that; the question should be, “is the box created by God and revealed in Scripture?” (Back to top)
2. What was said or implied: John Calvin took the doctrine of predestination to extremes to the point where he taught “double predestination” saying that God actively elected people for hell just like He elects people for heaven. And the other reformers said “let’s not go there” and they backed away and moderated the doctrine of election.
The response: False. Flat out incorrect. This error by Arminians is called “equal ultimacy”. The idea that John Calvin taught this is promoted most often in an effort to make him look extreme, and thus to further discredit Calvinism. This error is common and mistakenly says that “reprobation” is equal and opposite with election. It says that God elects people to hell just as He elects people to heaven. This is based in a fundamental misunderstanding of Calvinism. The fact that Fred repeated the falsehood that Calvin believed this highlights his unfamiliarity with the history of the doctrine and an unfortunate unwillingness to learn it with any depth before attempting to communicate it to others. Anyone doing even a cursory study of Calvinism or Calvin’s beliefs should be aware that this view of “double predestination” is false and never held to by Calvin himself. Please read this part to the end for definitive proof of this.
Calvin did not believe that reprobation (God passing over or leaving people in their sins to go to hell) was equal and opposite to election (God choosing His elect to go to heaven). That is a huge difference to the way it was portrayed in the presentation. He did not teach, and the Bible does not teach, that God made any positive action to choose some for hell. God's reprobation is essentially a non-action, or a non-election. He reprobates them by not choosing them; it is a passing over of them. You can think of it in human terms as when you go to the store you choose (or elect) what you want to buy and leave (or reprobate) everything else. You did not take any positive action towards the products you did not buy and nothing you did gave them their position on the shelves. This is not meant to reflect God’s attitude in election, but merely the understanding of reprobation in respect to election.
This is a rough analogy but the way double-predestination was described in the presentation is like if there are three tables; two are empty and one is full of people. God picks out some and puts them on a table for heaven and picks out some others and puts them on a table for hell. This has the wrong starting point because it has man as neutral. The correct view (and Calvin’s view) is that there are only two tables and all the people are on the table for hell, but from that table God chooses some to go to heaven and leaves the rest on the table for hell. Like I said, there is a BIG difference between those two. Reprobation is a non-action automatically generated as election occurs. In the same way that cutting a piece of paper in half automatically produces two halves and cannot NOT produce just one half, so is reprobation determined upon the act of election. Dividing any object, by necessity, cannot but create two new distinct sub-groups. By actively electing some but not all, God simultaneously reprobates through inaction those that have not been elected. No positive action or determining action is taken by God in regard to the reprobate. This view by Calvin is no different than the view of the other reformers before and after him, even if it is more highly defined or systematized.
One of the reasons this particular error is so bothersome is because it shows such an eagerness to discredit Calvin in hopes of making Calvinism look untenable and extreme to the audience, even at the expense of misrepresenting a godly man. It also shows that Fred is following the common tactic of bad-mouthing Calvin as a man in hopes of making an entire theological body of doctrines look bad. Bad-mouthing Calvinist/Calvinism was a directly stated non-purpose of the presentation at the beginning, yet that is exactly what the presentation degenerated into in this instance (and others). Like it was mentioned earlier, Calvin did not create or even popularize Calvinism. He simply systematized it further. You could fill an entire book of stories about how bad or good of a guy Calvin was, and whether they are true or not would mean nothing at all in regards to the biblical veracity of Calvinism. He was just one of many many reformers that held to the doctrines of election, reprobation, and predestination. This same eagerness to make him look bad is seen again in the next quote. But to say the other reformers were somehow hesitant of adhering to Calvin’s view of election and predestination is sadly dishonest. The views he held are the same as the other reformers, the same held by the early church and Augustine, and the same held by modern day Calvinists. Fred cites no source to back this type of thought and is most likely just drawing anti-Calvinists rhetoric from an Arminian source. This is far too common in Arminian attacks on Calvinism. They rarely go to the source material. An honest reading of the majority of the past and present views of election and predestination completely debunk Fred’s claim. It is a shame to see him try so vehemently to discredit Calvin in hopes that the audience will transfer that slander onto the entire body of doctrine of Calvinism.
***************
Post Peoria presentation amendment: When I notified Fred of this error he said he “took it into account” for his next presentation. However, he repeated this exact same falsehood once again the very next night in Peoria with even more emphasis, this time intentionally misconstruing Calvin’s view of reprobation! Fred admitted in the Peoria presentation that he had been corrected on this point and said the following:
“NOW…truth in teaching? I had a Calvinist young man email me last night. He heard a recording of a previous presentation, he emailed me and said Fred, I just want to correct one thing, one major thing. He didn’t really like my presentation, but he wanted to correct one major thing. He said Calvin did not believe in double predestination and he gave me a lengthy, LENGTHY [emphasis Fred’s], description of what Calvin believed. Umm. And I…I…haven’t responded. I just disagree, I think he believed in double predestination. Um, but that’s ok, if he doesn’t want to believe that Calvin didn’t believed in double predestination that’s fine with me. Quite frankly I DON’T CARE WHAT HE [Calvin] BELIEVED [emphasis mine]. BUT, the historians I read, and my reading of Calvin is that he believed in double predestination. So um, but I DON’T CARE EITHER WAY [emphasis mine].”
If Fred would take the time to read Calvin with any depth it would be incredibly easy for him to see how wrong he is here. But, seeing as how he says he doesn’t care anyway I guess we cannot expect that level of research or willingness to be honest with Calvin’s well stated theology. So we’ll let Calvin speak for himself since Fred seems intent on misrepresenting him in order to make him look bad and deceive people about his beliefs.
Calvin’ Commentary on Romans 9:14 (1)
It is indeed, as the flesh imagines, a kind of injustice, that God should PASS BY ONE and SHOW REGARD to another.
Calvin’ Commentary on Romans 9:14 (2)
But before we proceed further, we may observe that this very objection clearly proves, that inasmuch as God ELECTS SOME and PASSES BY OTHERS, the cause is not to be found in anything else but in His own purpose
Calvin’s Institutes, Book 3, Chapter 23, Section 1.1 – Election opposed to reprobation
“God is said to set apart those whom He ADOPTS into salvation; it will be highly absurd to say that others acquire by chance or obtain by their own effort what ELECTION ALONE CONFERS ON A FEW. Therefore, those whom God PASSES OVER, He condemns; and this He does for no other reason than that He wills to exclude them from the inheritance which He predestines for His own Children.”
Calvin’s Treatise (Part 1) “The Eternal Predestination of God – The Consent
…concerning “The Eternal Predestination of God”, by which He has CHOSEN SOME MEN unto salvation, while He has LEFT OTHERS to their own destruction…
Calvin’s Treatise (Part 1) “The Eternal Predestination of God – Section 1
Having twisted this passage of the apostle to his purpose, he slips away in security, thinking himself victorious. Just as if no testimony of Scripture plainly declares that SOME ARE CHOSEN of God to salvation, while OTHERS ARE PASSED BY.
…those whom He blessed with this free adoption to be His sons He illumines by His Holy Spirit, that they may receive the life which is offered to them in Christ; WHILE OTHERS, continuing of their own will in unbelief, ARE LEFT DESTITUTE of the light of faith, in total darkness…
the reason why He CALLS SOME, while others are LEFT REPROBATE, lies solely in His own will
Calvin’s Treatise (Part 1) “The Eternal Predestination of God – Section 2
…it evidently follows that the rest, the non-elect, were equally "fitted to destruction," because, BEING LEFT to their own nature…
For BEING THUS LEFT destitute, each one bears the consequences of his own sin.
the children of wrath, BEING THUS LEFT to their own natural will and inclination…
The list goes on and on. There is honestly no shortage of material whatsoever to disprove Fred’s false claims of Calvin’s belief in double predestination. His writings were voluminous and detailed. It is not even close to difficult to find explanations that completely and utterly debunk what Fred told the audience in every presentation. Never in Calvin’s writing will you see him describe reprobation as a choosing or electing to hell as was described by Fred.
Calvin’s view is not subjective. Fred cannot just say he “thinks” Calvin believed in double predestination because the people he reads get that impression. It is an objective truth that Calvin did NOT believe what Fred claimed. Calvin’s understanding of election and reprobation are well known and still held to. It is not even in question. Fred has failed to read him in context or with any depth, which is understandable since a fair reading of Calvin would ruin his objective to make him look bad. Calvin openly teaches that election is an active setting apart for adoption, and reprobation is a passing over and non-inclusion in what has been predestined for His children. If Fred would be honest and take the time to study the beliefs of those he is attempting to discredit, he would see that Calvin uses the term predestination mostly in terms of God’s predetermined plan and election and reprobation are set in opposition. So even when the actual word predestination is used of the reprobate, it does not have the meaning Fred gave it. When election is talked about it is as a setting apart and choosing. Reprobation on the other hand is described as a passing over, NOT a choosing, NOT as a setting apart, NOT equal and opposite to election. Calvin’s own words of describing election as a setting apart and reprobation as a passing over can be easily understood. This is not difficult to find and his institutes are online for free. Fred simply did not want correction. He wants Calvin to look really bad for the audience. It is more convenient for him if he can be dishonest with Calvin’s beliefs and make the audience abhor him. This is beyond ignorance and into the realm of intentional deceit.
Fred then goes on to say I sent him a “lengthy, LENGTHY description”. What kind of impression did that leave the audience? Three pages? Five? I’ll have you know I wrote him about 1/3 of a page, a mere total of 223 words, on Calvin’s correct view of reprobation. Again, why the urgency to make Calvinists look so bad? Why did he feel the need to misconstrue the truth again in even this small instance? Is he that desperate for Calvinists to look bad that he has to make up fake stories and say they believe things they don’t? The worst part is he said twice that he doesn’t even care what Calvin really believed anyway. Then why are you talking about it and refusing correction?! Not caring at least explains your unwillingness to actually find out the truth and accurately convey it to the audience. However, you chose the road of dishonesty. You slandered Calvin and even took an entirely unnecessary swipe at the “Calvinist young man that emailed you”. I was offering nothing but gentle and honest correction on a genuine objective historical error on your part. How you responded revealed a sad lack of character I was not expecting to see. This is just one of the examples of how the Peoria presentation was somewhat more venomous and dishonest than the Morton one. (Back to top)
**********
3. What was said or implied: Calvin made a theologian who came to town and criticized him go through the city and kneel in the dust at every intersection and apologize for insulting him. Calvin ruled Geneva with an iron fist, he really did. The city council pretty much did whatever Calvin told them to do. You had to do what Calvin said or you’d be expelled. Calvinism in the 1500’s was incredibly militant, very very militant.
The response: Here is another example of wildly dishonest exaggeration. There are a slew of these types of stories that Arminians use to make Calvin look like a proud dictator that could not stand to be challenged. Some of these stories have a basis in actual events (like this one told by Fred), but they are retold with a very unfair reading and given with an extremely biased perspective typically with partial facts. This is also where an anachronistic view of the audience is depended on to ensure Calvin looks as bad as possible. What that means is that the stories are told without needed detail, and in turn the audience judges them as if they happened today. The historical context of the time and place they actually happened is ignored or forgotten. For instance, modern Americans have no concept of church and state being as interrelated as they were in the past. While we still have laws regarding morality, and see punishment for violating those laws, it is still hard for us to conceptualize someone being put in prison for adultery or even heresy. However, the church and state had been intertwined since roughly the 4th century. This error was not fixed immediately, and like it or not most Christians considered this the norm. It was not Calvin or any one man’s doing that this was the case.
In this case the story is retold in a blatantly unfair manner so that Calvin is cast in as negative light as possible by crediting him with occurrences and decisions he was not ultimately responsible for. This deceitfulness is entirely unacceptable, especially from Fred who should know better. Unfortunately, this is generally how the retelling of these stories goes when done by Arminians. I doubt Fred would allow this type of shallow and bias reading and recounting in his own classroom. I know he didn’t spend much time on this story, but if it requires more time than is allowed to give it a fair and accurate recounting then it should not be brought up. Since it was brought up and retold unfairly, it will need to be addressed with more consideration here. The inaccuracies are abundant.
To say Fred took some artistic license in retelling this story is an understatement. This reflects his desires to discredit Calvin and Calvinism (even though he admits Calvin didn’t come up with the theology). This unfairness proves he is more interested in pleasing the audience than reflecting the truth. The man in question was named Pierre Ameaux. He was not a theologian who came to town. He was a former card maker. In the effort to make this story more sensational, Fred got even some of the most basic details wrong. Calvin had actually introduced Ameaux to his future wife. After being married, however, she had embraced libertine/antinomian heresy and openly committed, and even tried to justify, adultery. Ameaux had asked for, and been granted, a divorce by the city council. He had gotten drunk at a dinner party and started making claims such as Calvin taught heresy and the doctrines taught in Geneva were false and Calvin was unchecked by the Genevan authorities. He also falsely demeaned Calvin’s character (a sin taken far more seriously in those days). The city council had him arrested (Calvin had nothing to do with his arrest at all). Calvin tried to visit him in prison but the council would not allow it. This also goes to show that he could not simply do as he pleased or that the council would willingly give in to his desires. He certainly was not ruling anything with an iron fist. The council called ministers to witness in the trial and eventually pronounced a large fine as punishment. Calvin, along with all the support of the other ministers, called for a more severe punishment in light of the accusation of heresy and defamation. This was not Calvin seeking vengeance from his wounded pride, it was a group of ministers taking serious a public sin and accusations of heresy. The council then pronounced the punishment of publicly kneeling and asking forgiveness since his crimes were public and they thus carried out the sentence. The city council made Ameaux do this, not Calvin.
It must be noted that Calvin did not sit on the city council or hold any political position in Geneva. He was also not even a Genevan citizen and thus had no voting rights or authoritative power whatsoever. He held the position of lead minister in the church of Geneva and his influence extended exclusively from there, though all unofficially. He often encountered strong political opposition for many years while in Geneva to the point where he was even exiled for a period of time early on. No one can honestly say he was running anything with an iron fist or that he was unopposed. He didn’t even have any official state or political position by which to rule. The church and state were related but not to the degree that his position in the church granted him anything near the same powers as a political position would. Calvin had an extended period of political and social opposition. In fact, the opposition he did encountered took a heavy toll on him.
This is a far cry from the impression that was given in the re-telling of the story in the presentation. Calvin didn’t make Ameaux do anything. He couldn’t have even if he had wanted to. Calvin didn’t have him arrested, Calvin didn’t pronounce any punishment on him, and Calvin did not seek vengeance for being defamed. He simply led the group of ministers that called for a stricter punishment of a man who publically called orthodox doctrine heresy after the city council had given him what the ministers deemed an unsatisfactory sentence. It is by no means a story that makes Calvin look especially good. But nor does it make him look especially bad. More than anything it reflects the church-state relationship that was present at that particular time and place. Obviously, anything like this happening today would be unthinkable. Yet this is the anachronistic thinking we must carefully avoid while evaluating history. I must ask: “why the haste in such an unfair recounting of the event?” Why are Arminians so quick to demean the man John Calvin? An immensely sinful John Calvin discredits Calvinism no more than a flawless John Calvin proves Calvinism. Arminians would be well advised to only address the character of John Calvin fairly or not at all. (Back to top)
*The recounting of this story can be found in several sources, several of which are not all that favorable to Calvin. All of these can be found using google books…
(Fred’s source) Philip Benedict, Christ's Churches Purely Reformed: A Social History of Calvinism (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2002) page 103
The Writings of John Calvin: An Introductory Guide by Wulfert De Greef page 29
The life and times of John Calvin: The Great Reformer, Vol. 2 by Paul Emil Henry page 57-59
John Calvin: His Life, Letters, and Work by Hugh Young Reyburn 134-136
The Life of John Calvin by Thomas Henry Dyer page 201-204
4. What was said or implied: The Anabaptists were the first to believe in freedom of conscience and religious freedom. They believed political power is of the world and must be left aside. They were the only ones to totally draw the line between the world’s ways and the church’s ways.
The response: I’m afraid Fred is giving way too much credit to the Anabaptists here. He somehow managed to include almost as much info on the Anabaptists as he did about Calvinism; with the one big exception he wasn’t blatantly bias against the Anabaptists as he was the Calvinists. What is notable about Fred’s claim that the Anabaptists were the first to believe in freedom of conscience are the words of Martin Luther at the Diet of Worms where he made his famous “here I stand” speech, which easily pre-dates the Anabaptists. When challenged to recant his beliefs Luther said these words:
“Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Holy Scriptures or by evident reason-for I can believe neither pope nor councils alone, as it is clear that they have erred repeatedly and contradicted themselves- I consider myself convicted by the testimony of Holy Scripture, which is my basis; MY CONSCIENCE IS CAPTIVE TO THE WORD OF GOD. Thus I cannot and will not recant, BECAUSE ACTING AGAINST ONE’S CONSCIENCE IS NEITHER SAFE NOR SOUND. Here I stand, I can do no other. God help me.”
Freedom of conscience was one of the key beliefs of the reformers. Obviously they all rejected the authority of the Roman Catholic Church and constantly faced painful death for doing so. They refused to go against their conscience, and thankfully so! To credit the Anabaptists with this as if it is an innovation originating from them is to ignore the fact that the entire reformation itself would not have even begun without a strong belief in the freedom of conscience!
Now, it is clear from history that most of the reformed church would not tolerate heresy, whether real or perceived within their realms. Indeed, Luther, Zwingli, or Calvin surely had little patience for such difference when it came to the gospel. Some of that is indeed justifiable intolerance for heresy, but some is what we would consider unthinkable religious intolerance in our own day. It is not difficult to see some of the sin that the reformers fell prey to while trying to prevent any false doctrine to exist. It seems that historically speaking, whoever is in the minority is far more tolerant of differing doctrine and whenever they are in the majority or joined with political force then that tolerance is far more narrow. Fred seems to consider religious tolerance to be unique to the Anabaptist. One expected reason they appeared to be more tolerant is that the Anabaptist were so often in the minority and thus frequently advocates of religious tolerance. They also advocated separation of church and state (and deserve credit for being mostly right on this issue); although it was a belief they unfortunately did not consistently follow. Where Fred has taken a far too rosy of perspective on the Anabaptists is thinking that they were somehow exempt from the same temptation to intermingle the church and state. Though the sample size is smaller, the one main instance we can look at where the Anabaptists were in the majority was the city of Munster. This was even after a failed attempt to set up a theocracy in the peasant’s war (any theocracy has the church and state as inseparable). The sin that ran rampant during their reign in Munster is of the most heinous variety. There were witch trials, polygamy, murder by beheading, claims to prophet-hood, and all kinds of twisted occurrences that usually go along with false doctrines and religions. Both the city of Munster and the peasant’s rebellion show that the Anabaptists are no less responsible for violence, persecution, and abuse of church-state relations than any other group; they just had less opportunity to be in power and do it. They were easily the smallest and most disjointed of the reformation groups so there is not nearly the same amount of history to look back on. But again, we must not view these events anachronistically. While we can clearly see that it was sinful for every group to take part in any kind of events of this nature it was still far too commonplace in that era. Over time nearly all groups matured past such failures. The point is we cannot accuse or discredit any of the Calvinists or credit the Anabaptists when they clearly took part in similar failures. No one totally rose above such standards of that specific era.
Even though Fred mentioned both the peasant’s revolt and the city of Munster in passing, neither one is given any attention. But those two examples both debunk the impression given of Anabaptists being above the sort of sin of church-state abuse that gets pinned exclusively on the reformers. The specifics of both the peasant’s war and the rebellion in Munster are shocking and sad. I would agree with Fred in his encouragement for anyone unfamiliar with them to find a reliable historical source and read up on the subject. In some ways however the reformers were more willing to separate church and state because the Anabaptists tried to set up theocracies when they had the chance. The reformers on the other hand, did not take it that far. Too much credit is given to the Anabaptists here for claiming no political involvement. And I would certainly expect that Fred disagrees with some of them that went to the length of saying that a Christian cannot even serve in any governmental capacity. The Anabaptists’ view of church and state is far messier and inconsistent than most would like to admit. Government is not a necessary evil. Can you imagine the depths of depravity a society would reach with no Christians serving in politics whatsoever? This incorrect way of thinking of Christians not serving in certain occupations that face temptation, like politics, is the same incorrect thinking that leads some to conclude that athletes cannot be Christians. At its heart, it is simply a distrust of the sanctifying and protecting work of the Holy Spirit in the life of a believer. (Back to top)
5. What was said or implied: “It doesn’t matter what you believe if what you believe is aimed like a weapon and brings about division then that is not from God.”
The response: This is little more than a veiled accusation against Calvinists. They are frequently accused of being mean or divisive. It is also one of the most frustrating accusations because the vast majority of the time it is levied regardless of whether it is true or not. It is used more often as a defense mechanism to avoid listening to Calvinists than anything else. For the record, just because a Calvinist believes something strongly, knows why they believe it, and can skillfully defend it does not mean they are using their theology like a weapon. This doctrine is definitely something that is worthy of dividing over. It is fundamental to one’s understanding of the character of God and how grace and salvation work. It is nonsensical for a Calvinist to attend an Arminian church. And though it is typically the Arminian making the claim that Calvinists are divisive, they are no more likely to attend a Calvinists church themselves. Arminians are just as divisive as Calvinists. They simply view their own position as the default and thus act as if it is always the Calvinist dividing from them. If anything is worthy of division it is the doctrine of salvation. There are many doctrines that will bring division, such as the Trinity did in the early church, but that doctrine is certainly from God. So it is an undeniable fact that division is an unworthy standard to judge whether something is from God. Paul created plenty of division when addressing false doctrine in Galatia. And Jesus himself told us in Luke 12:51-53…
"Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division; for from now on five members in one household will be divided, three against two and two against three. "They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law."
In light of this and the inconsistency of other fundamental doctrines bringing divisions, it is time Arminians stop making the claim that if something creates division it is not from God. Jesus and the Apostles didn’t believe that and neither should we. While the church should of course strive for unity, it should never be at the expense of sound doctrine. (Back to top)
6. What was said or implied: “We can never resolve the main areas of disagreement between Calvinists and Arminians.”
The response: This is again reinforcing the idea that Scripture and the Holy Spirit within us are inadequate to teach us the correct understanding of these doctrines. Obviously Fred would not make this claim in these words but that is the inevitable result of such thinking. I have no illusions of grandeur that this debate will go away anytime soon, but I heartily believe that we can both know the truth of election and predestination and thereby resolve to understand the truth. That belief, however, is frequently dismissed throughout the presentation. It is implied over and over that we cannot know this and we can “ask Jesus about these deep questions” when we see Him. I simply respond that if Scripture talks about it, and Paul taught about it, then we can know it and are indeed even responsible to learn it accurately. I believe Scripture and the Holy Spirit have that capability and I believe that’s why we have God’s revelation to man in the Bible. There is nothing so unique about the doctrines of election and predestination that make them unknowable. If one were willing to learn them in-depth it would be seen that they are actually fairly simple and straightforward, though admittedly surrounded by much false doctrine and human traditions that seem to confuse people. The difficulty is not in how complicated these issues are; it is in how difficult they are for us to submit to.
When Christ was asked skeptical questions by the Pharisees He would most often reply: “It is written”, “have you not read”, “what saith the Scriptures”. He went to Scripture to show their accountability to know the truths that have been revealed. I, for one, am not going to give an excuse of confusing texts if asked these questions by the Lord. If Scripture takes the time to teach something, we should take the time to learn it. (Back to top)
7. What was said or implied: “The point of the presentation is not to bash Calvinists or trash-talk them. The idea is to understand Calvinists and see areas of agreement. And if someone is considering becoming a Calvinist that history would encourage them to be humble about their beliefs.”
The response: I’m glad the stated point was not to beat up on Calvinists, but there are far too many untruths and misrepresentations to take this claim seriously. The presentation in Peoria was clearly loaded with angry rants and extreme falsehood. This was very far from a fair presentation and the anti-Calvinist slant was apparent almost immediately. The point of the talk clearly included providing the audience with ammo against Calvinism as well as encouragement for not believing it. It is also hard to believe that the understanding of Calvinism was such a prominent objective when the presentation reflected unfamiliarity with so many elements of it. He openly admitted several times that he did not understand significant portions of it. If one is to provide an understanding of Calvinism then it needs to be addressed accurately and fairly. There has remained a stubborn refusal to do so thus far. Why Fred feels comfortable giving a talk on something he doesn’t understand is a looming question. In this instance it led to large amounts of deceit and falsehood being communicated to the audience, many of whom were hearing this material for the first time.
A true Calvinist should be absolutely humble about their beliefs because they know only grace and God’s mercy have granted them to believe the truth. However, this statement is again just a veiled response to the fact that Calvinists are eager to promote their beliefs and frequently are well versed in Scripture to the point where Arminians often feel attacked when discussing it. When this is the case they frequently resort to accusations of pride as a defense mechanism. The statement here is referring to that idea of pride when Calvinists unashamedly share their faith and skillfully defend it and Arminians cannot respond. (Back to top)
8. What was said or implied: “By approaching the topic from a historical perspective then we can avoid the theological aspect of the debate. And to address it historically is to do so as a 3rd party observer and unbiased.”
The response: No, really you can’t. Nor should you. Nor did you. Calvinistic beliefs and theology were still addressed and still misrepresented- sometimes intentionally, as we have shown in point 2 above. And it is just plain silly to try to foster understanding purely by addressing Calvinism historically by giving an incredibly unfair and deceitful presentation of it. The debate is over theology and doctrine and you will foster very little understanding without addressing that area specifically. Also, history is only unbiased when presented fairly and accurately, which this presentation did not do at all. It’s just as easy to be biased with history as it is with any other subject. If fostering understanding is truly the goal then please address the actual disagreement; address the theology, and do so accurately. (Back to top)
9. What was said or implied: Calvinism is a tradition and historical and history is the study of change over time. Calvinism is subject to change and some Calvinists treat Calvinism like rock solid truth from God and if you disagree with them they act as if you disagree with God Himself.
The response: What needs to be noted to the audience here is that this is true of every doctrine and in no way means that all doctrine is false or unknowable. The audience can easily hear statements like this and conclude it is a reason why Calvinism, or Trinitarianism for that matter, is false and must have changed or cannot be trusted. All that matters is if a belief is biblical. Not if it is a tradition or if it is historical. Every true rock solid doctrine can also be said to be traditional and historical. That’s just another reason why addressing something like Calvinism to create understanding without addressing the theology is futile.
Of course Calvinists treat Calvinism as truth from God- just like we do with the Trinity and just like Arminians do with free will and their beliefs. Everyone does this with what they believe about what the Bible teaches- as they should! The doctrine taught in Scripture is unchangeable, so if Calvinism accurately reflects the teaching of the Bible, then we should absolutely treat it as “rock solid truth from God!” All that matters is if it is biblical. This is just an attempt to make Calvinism look false by accusing it of changing over time or being different in different periods. Not only is this a huge exaggeration, but, as I say over and over, all that matters is if it is biblical. If it is then they should treat it as unchanging truth. If Arminianism were biblical then Arminians should act the same way to defend their doctrine. The fact that some have not expressed the doctrine of Calvinism in the same words or in complete accuracy does not at all discredit Calvinism itself (which was the real goal of referring to Calvinism as a “tradition” and as “historical”). Calvinism is just a belief in monergistic salvation (meaning God alone works to save). Monergistic salvation, under any and every name, whether Calvinism, Augustinianism, Zwinglism, or Pauline theology, all has the exact same belief that election is personal and unconditional, believers are predestined by God, and man does not have free will by which to consent to faith prior to regeneration. Someone can pretend those beliefs are highly variable in history, but that simply is not the case. (Back to top)
10. What was said or implied: “We’re going to do history God’s way- tell the beautiful and the ugly, like with the Bible does with David.”
The response: This is perfectly acceptable and right, with one problem- this is supposed to be the history of a doctrine, not a person or group. This is supposed to be a history of Calvinism not Calvinists. If you are going to do a history of Calvinism then it need to be addressed theologically, for that’s what it is, a theology and body of doctrine. Take again the history of Trinitarianism. There is no ugly history to that doctrine. It is true and always has been. All that can be mentioned is the ugly side of those that defended or denied the doctrine. But what winds up happening in this sort of talk is the ugly side is mentioned of some that hold to a doctrine, that ugliness is often exaggerated, and then that is used as a means to slyly discredit the doctrine itself. I believe that took place here and I believe it was intentional; at least it was not prevented with much effort. If you want to address Calvinism you cannot have the intense aversion to theology or debate. If you want to address Calvinists then it is far simpler. This presentation tried to somehow do both while claiming to avoid the theological debates and specifics entirely. There is just no way to do that. (Back to top)
11. What was said or implied: “The Anabaptists were not into starting churches, naming things after themselves, becoming rich and famous, and so, because of that, I think most people, even within the Anabaptist tradition, have totally forgotten who the Anabaptist leaders were.”
The response: This again shows more infusing of pro-Anabaptist statements in a presentation that was meant to be about the history of Calvinism. This happened repeatedly for no reason, but it serves to highlight more of Fred’s bias. Although this does not directly address Calvinism, this statement gives the distinct impression that the reason other leaders were actually remembered was because they were somehow into getting rich and famous or naming things after themselves. Whether that was the intention or not, it is a reckless and inaccurate statement to make. This was clearly not the objective of the reformers that are remembered nor are these the reasons that Anabaptists are lesser known. Most of the reformers that are remembered never made any conscience decisions to name churches or the like after themselves. Luther did not make a decision that the reformed church in Germany was going to be called Lutheran. And Calvin was dead and buried before reformed soteriology was ever referred to as Calvinism. He even asked to be buried in an unmarked grave so it would not become a site to be visited. This was not a man with an intense battle with pride or desire for fame. It is really an amazing statement to hear when the vast majority of reformers were shown to be brilliant, brave, pious, and godly men. In most cases they are remembered for their work for the gospel, never because of a drive for fame, fortune, or other egotistical motives. Typically if a person’s name is applied to a specific doctrine, church, or whatever it may be, it is simply because of that person’s work or defense of the faith in that realm, such as Augustinianism. To sully the work or reputations of those men by implying that it is because of egotism or impure motives that they are remembered is a rather low blow. Those types of names are rarely if ever applied by the men themselves, but rather by major consensus post mortem.
The Anabaptists were a relatively small group of disjointed and undefined believers. They are somewhat of latecomers on the reformation scene and never had much of a consolidated grouping or central geographical base. Their beliefs themselves were just as amorphous and undefined as the people themselves. There were mystics, heretics, gospel deniers, perfectionists (believed in Perfectionism), legalists and all kinds of other shallow believers all mixed in with the true solid Christians. They are sort of the junk drawer of the reformation; not that they are useless, just that they are a very mixed group that just had no other category or sect to fall into. These are the reasons their leaders are not as remembered. They are a chaotic group that just didn’t fit in that well anywhere else. And even the Anabaptists groups that remained DO typically have leaders that are remembered and DID have a movement named after them (the Mennonites after Menno Simons, the Hutterites after Jakob Hutter, the Amish after Jakob Ammann, just to name a few). So this entire statement is fallacious and reveals the anti-Calvinists/pro-Anabaptist perspective that the presentation reflected over and over.
I know Fred has a love for the Anabaptist tradition, so it’s not all that surprising to see his bias come out repeatedly. But that bias also needs to be acknowledged and in many of these cases critiqued to bring out a more accurate view. This particular statement is just one of many that reflect a heavy bias. (Back to top)
12. What was said or implied: Calvin was just one of many to have the theological views he did and it could just have easily been called Zwinglism or following Bucer. There were many men just as well known and just as respected as Calvin that held his same doctrines. Put them all together and it forms the reformed tradition. (Back to top)
The response: Yes, totally agree. Was very glad to hear this depicted accurately in this particular statement.
13. What was said or implied: These men (as referred to above, the reformers) did not agree on everything.
The response: Of course not, but they did all agree on Calvinistic soteriology, which is the relevant point here. This was not a history of the Eucharist or a history of church governance. Differences on other minor issues do not at all reflect disagreement in the doctrines of election, predestination, and free will. It was often the case in the presentation that minor differences were mentioned with the implication that there were big differences in Calvinistic teaching as well. This is simply not the case. The uniformity of Calvinistic teaching throughout the confessions stated above proves that point thoroughly. (Back to top)
14. What was said or implied: “Free will was not a bad word back then.”
The response: Doesn’t matter. Free will as it is depicted by modern day Arminianism today is completely denied by the reformed tradition and the reformers. When the words themselves were used by a reformer in a non-negative light, it was typically meant in a different sense than it is used today. What matters is not if the words were used but what was meant by those words. To affirm free will, as defined by Arminians, is to deny total depravity. Luther’s quotes about free will above show the complete denial of free will as defined by modern day Arminianism. The reformers denied this idea of “free will”. It should be mentioned that they, and even I, could affirm a type of “free will”, but the context of my usage would determine its meaning. Calvinists tend to avoid using it all together since it is so often meant in a different way than they would define it. However, it may be used in very specific instances with very specific meanings that differ than typical Arminian usage. (Back to top)
15. What was said or implied: “Augustine founded many of the doctrines of Calvinism such as individual election and Calvinistic predestination. They were not found in the early church.”
The response: This is a big one. It has been clearly shown by both the original and modern day reformers that the doctrines of Calvinism had basis in the early church. Only a biased and selective reading of the early church fathers could entirely avoid these doctrines within them. In fact, one of the great accomplishments by the reformers was that they effectively used the early church in their favor to defend their beliefs. The Roman Catholic Church would often, and still does, make claims that everything prior to Augustine is fully in support of their beliefs. But there is much more that needs to be said about the early church. First, it would take an incredible length of time and writing to properly address their writing to prove one’s point either way. That’s why Fred couldn’t do it in his talk and that’s why I can’t do it here. I can assure you that there is no difficulty in finding Calvinistic election and predestination in the writings prior to Augustine, at least not in relation to any thoughts opposing them. The fact is that these doctrines were not the major issue of the day. Dealing with the Trinity and the deity of Christ along with the defense of Christianity as a whole were the major topics of the first 300 years or so. Second, persecution was still occurring and formulating doctrine took somewhat of a backseat early on. Third, Scripture itself was not all that wide spread yet. This means that doctrinal formulation could not be effectively carried out all that well or in a very widespread manner yet. The manuscripts were still in the phase of copying and expansion. So we come across church fathers like Justin Martyr that clearly did not have the Pauline corpus (the writing of Paul) available to him and thus never quotes from him in his writings. Fourth, you will also be able to find writing that seemingly support some of the Roman Catholic traditions as well as Arminian ideas or Pelagian ideas. The fact is that doctrines were still being formed and solidified as Scripture spread and heresy arose. Persecution and a yet solidified canon along with the need for the spread of Scripture prevents the first 300 years or so from being entirely reliable to prove any doctrinal stance. If we are honest we will have to admit that Calvinists, Arminians, and even Roman Catholics can quote certain early church writings in defense of their position without taking the writings out of context. So this ends up being a shallow argument. However, it is one the audience will undoubtedly believe unquestioningly due to their unfamiliarity with early church history and early manuscript history coupled with Fred’s historical experience.
What is important to note that debunks Fred’s claim here is that Augustine’s theology (the same as what the reformers held to and is also called Calvinism) came at a time when the church was dealing with these issues for the very first time. Doctrinal definition generally developed as attacks against orthodoxy occurred. So the Trinity was defined because it was challenged and the same happened when it came to election and predestination and the nature of grace in the 4th and 5th centuries. The major debates about the Trinity and the deity of Christ had headed strongly toward the orthodox position we hold today and that made way for the debates revolving around the understanding of grace, election, etc. It was opposed by Pelagianism in Augustine’s time and about a hundred years later by an improved, yet still very wrong, version called semi-Pelagianism. Semi-Pelagianism is basically ancient Arminianism. The ancient church affirmed Augustine’s understanding of grace, individual and unconditional election, and predestination over and against both Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism in several councils (Carthage- 418, Ephesus- 431, and Orange- 529). It is just plain wrong to think that individual election originated with Augustine as was claimed, yet it somehow miraculously found near universal support from the early church instantly upon its supposed introduction, even to the point of full support from three major church councils. That kind of support is entirely unrealistic to have happened had Augustine been the first one to teach those doctrines in the history of the church. What those councils were affirming was that Augustine’s teaching of grace, etc was the historic understanding of the church from the beginning. The support of these councils alone provides a massive problem for Arminians to explain. They show that not only was Augustinianism (ancient Calvinism) affirmed, but Semi-Pelagianism (ancient Arminianism) was outright denied. There’s no getting around this historical fact that provides immense weight for Calvinism and against Arminianism.
Augustine absolutely defended this doctrine, and thus had his name associated with it from then on, but he did not invent it. Election always has been individual. The unique idea of “corporate election” espoused by some Arminians today denies the personal nature of salvation and God’s mercy. It is typically held to simply to allow them to use the actual term “election” while denying its very essence. Arminians deny election but are forced to admit some form of it since it is a biblical word and thus they have come up with so-called “corporate election”. That will be dealt with more later. What is the most amazing is that the early church settled this debate about election, predestination, and free will relatively early on when the orthodox teaching support by Augustine was first seriously challenged, yet it continues to reappear in history. And again, as I have said over and over, all that matters is if it is biblical. If Calvinism can be shown to be true in Scripture then no early church writings matter at all and all these claims are meaningless.
It should be noted that the modern day Roman Catholic church is essentially Semi-Pelagian. The same is true of modern Anabaptists as well, and many of the legalistic Anabaptists are even flat out Pelagian and deny such core doctrines as original sin. (Back to top)
16. What was said or implied: “All of the reformers including the Anabaptist held dear that Salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.”
The response: This is another really big one that needs to be addressed. The solas, as they are called, were a major doctrinal truth held by the reformers and the addition of the word “alone” is what distinguished the true gospel of the reformation from the false gospel of Rome. It is also what distinguishes the true gospel of Scripture from the gospel of men. But unfortunately Fred is being overly generously once again to the Anabaptists. They really did not make much effort to define doctrine with much depth (as is still the case today) and thus lost some of the core gospel beliefs, such as the solas of salvation. The solas were universally affirmed among the reformed but the same cannot be said among the Anabaptist.
One big problem with this claim is that the affirming salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone actually precludes the Arminian doctrine of free will. The reason being is that the reformers were Calvinists and authored this formula as a reflection of monergistic salvation. That means they believe that God ALONE works to save man. Arminianism, Pelagianism, Semi-Pelagianism, and others are all synergistic, which means that they think man cooperates with grace of his own free will in order to make it effective. So by adding free will, Arminianism has implicitly rejected the key word “alone” from the formula. Arminians do not believe in effective grace as Calvinists do. Arminianism teaches that grace is useless outside of man’s assent to allow it to work (this can be seen clearly in Fred’ “bus analogy” that is addressed in #34). The reformers rejected this understanding of free will. Monergistic and synergistic salvation simply cannot both affirm grace, faith, and Christ alone. Synergism by definition adds man’s work into the equation. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot say grace and faith alone plus man’s free will; it automatically contradicts the meaning of the word alone when anything done by man is added in. This is one of the key theological disagreements between Calvinism and Arminianism and again highlights the futility of ignoring and avoiding the theological aspects of this debate while addressing it, as Fred tried to do. By approaching this topic merely historically, one of the most important doctrinal differences is glossed over with one sentence. This will never foster the understanding stated as the purpose of this presentation.
When the remonstrance raised the five points of what later became known as Arminianism as areas of disagreement from Calvinism, the Synod of Dordt addressed the issue. It was agreed at that time that the Arminian understanding of free will, conditional election, etc was a return to the view of salvation similar to Rome. And indeed it was. Both the Roman Catholics and Arminians are essentially Semi-Pelagian. Thus, an Arminian understanding denies that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. They recognized that fact then and we recognize it now. The Anabaptists as well eventually became almost uniformly Arminian and thus denied the solas. It is likely true that the earliest Anabaptists that sprang up under Zwingli were indeed Calvinistic however, and only the second generation and modern day Anabaptist are uniformly Arminian. So as we see, the Arminian and Anabaptist understanding implicitly deny the solas. But in the Anabaptist tradition there is a heavy strand of legalism that does more than implicitly deny justification by faith alone, they EXPLICITLY deny it, and thus flat out deny the gospel itself. This sadly is even seen today in Fred’s own Anabaptist AC church. I have personally on several recent occasions seen it outright and brazenly denied in writing. I will cite and quote some of the examples as proof (I am not responsible for all these hyperlinks being online)…
1) In a comparison of doctrines booklet written by a member, with collaboration from other members as well as leadership, Calvinists are said to believe in “salvation by faith alone” while their own Anabaptist belief is contrasted with that. They claim to be saved “by faith plus a sacrificial life”. Later, Calvinists are said to be saved through “Christ unconditionally”, but “through Christ only if obedient and faithful” in their own Anabaptist view. That can be found here: http://www.rightlydividingac.blogspot.com/
So works are clearly and explicitly added to the formula of justification by faith alone!
2) In a letter from a group of elders, they add to faith in order to “become a child of God” and “have peace with God” (justification). They add “repentance, separation from worldly activities, confession, restitution, and a broken and contrite spirit”. They also refer to this as being “qualified” to make a covenant with God.
Again, works and man’s actions are explicitly added in order to be justified! The absurd use of the word “qualified” completely misses the point of the gospel that man is never at all qualified in even the slightest way to be right with God. That’s the whole point of Christ! Shockingly, this was written by several elders that inexplicably remain in the teaching office.
That letter can be seen here: http://acelderletter.blogspot.com
3) In that same letter these elders likewise state that faithfulness to God and thus continual salvation demands “faithfulness to their church’s practices”. And later they state that good works “play an integral part of salvation”. Within this same letter they affirm that a converted soul that does righteousness IS righteous.
They deny the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ as the basis of our salvation and seem to have fallen prey to the Roman Catholic understanding of infused righteousness acquired through good deeds. The New Testament denies that any works will ever make a man righteous in even the slightest sense.
4) In a letter addressed to the elders written by a group of members, there is a section entitled “faith alone” that flat out affirms the necessity of works and even states that “faith alone will not get anyone to heaven”. That letter can be seen here: http://www.indefenseofthefaithac.blogspot.com/
As Calvin himself said, “we are justified by faith alone, but not by a faith that IS alone”. Works spring from true faith, but are not necessary to be justified. We are instantaneously justified upon having faith, and our works are simply fruit of that justification. They provide proof but never meet a necessity. Our justification does not hold off until we can produce works.
5) In a personal letter from a minister to another member, he writes that “works are necessary”.
Same error as the other group above, from a minister even. Seen here: http://www.dubachletter.blogspot.com/
6) In a personal email from a member he stated: “faith alone is not enough, according to the Bible”.
Same error as the two above.
7) In a “church history and doctrine blog” started as part of the “4 Pillar Mission” of the Phoenix Arizona AC church, the author writes on imputed righteousness under the category of “false doctrine” and goes as far as to claim: “When this doctrine (imputed righteousness of Christ) was first made popular by the Protestant reformers of the 16th century there were plenty of dissenting voices that spoke out against it. Since that time many others have also rejected it. The Apostolic Christian church has never taught this doctrine and we are not alone.”
That can be seen here: http://apostolicekklesia.blogspot.com/2010/07/imputed-righteousness-historic-dissent.html
Another outright denial of imputed righteousness coupled with a claim that the AC church has never taught it. All of this is part of the “mission” of this particular church so this is either vetted by leadership and allowed, or it was allowed through passive non-scrutiny. Both cases are utterly unacceptable. I personally know at least some ministers that have told me they do believe in imputed righteousness so it is difficult to address his claim that the AC church has never taught it. They certainly have never defined it in any statement of faith or taught it with clarity. Yet his willingness to boldly and clearly state that it is a false doctrine does reflect the obvious presence of those that do deny it. Just the fact that someone that denies the gospel by denying the imputed righteousness of Christ was asked to setup a blog for the church about doctrine is shocking in and of itself.
8) In an essay written by a member, he outright denies both faith alone as well as the imputed righteousness of Christ: “The only way for men to make their false interpretation “work” is to insert their exaggerated doctrine of imputation. They teach that, yes, man must continue to live in this miserable, carnal state, but since he professes faith he will be saved in the end because Christ’s righteousness is imputed to him.” (Copy can be made available upon request)
This sentence reflects a deep and intense misunderstanding of both the doctrine he is attempting to mock and refute as well as a misunderstanding of the gospel itself. If this man thinks his own righteousness will get him into heaven without the imputed righteousness of Christ he is in for a sad surprise. God will cast us from His presence if anything other than Christ’s perfect obedience is credit to our account. Without the imputed righteousness of Christ, you have nothing but false gospel.
If any man, especially an elder, ever says that peace with God (justification) is accomplished with anything at all more that faith, that man is a heretic. He is unfit to teach the gospel and does not understand it. These are not Calvinism-Arminianism issues; these are actual gospel issues. You don’t have to be Calvinist to believe in the imputed righteousness of Christ or in justification by faith alone; you just have to be a Christian. We’re talking about men denying the gospel here, not about being a Calvinist or an Arminian. We can only hope that most of these examples are simply people confusing the fact that works, while always present with true faith, never provides a basis for justification. However, it is clear that some clearly do know what they are saying and are convinced that their own righteousness is created through good works and that Jesus Christ’s righteousness is not imputed to our account. This is a clear reversion to the Roman Catholic false gospel of justification by faith plus works and infused righteousness over against the reformed doctrine of imputed righteousness. These are modern day Anabaptists (AC’s) outright denying the gospel itself. They clearly deny salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. This false gospel is alive and well and is able to thrive due to the common Anabaptist trait of ill-defined and shallow doctrine. I would advise the AC leadership to spend far less time worry about the “history of Calvinism” and much more time on stamping out heresy from within its own church. Obviously the gospel is not clearly proclaimed if even elders are promoting such heretical beliefs seen above and so many examples are available of members following suit. I think the words Jesus might use would be along the lines of “remove the plank from thine own eye”… (Back to top)
17. What was said or implied: Anabaptists are the most radical reformation group (the slides showing the denominations on a sliding scale of how reformed each group is). The Amish are radical Christians. He then critiques the American church that tries to be like the world to appeal to them.
The response: This same point is dealt with in #47 as well since it was more in-depth in Peoria. Fred used the word “radical” while the slide showed the word “reformed”. Radical is more accurate when addressing the Anabaptists. It wouldn’t make sense to simply refer to any difference with Rome as reformed. The Anabaptists were more revolutionary than reformed. The difference is that the reformation was guided by Scripture to correct doctrinal error in the church, while revolution is guided by man’s ideas and philosophy. The better illustration would show a circle to reflect how many Anabaptist came full circle back to a legalist religion packed full of tradition similar to the Roman Catholic Church, as well as reverting back to their Semi-Pelagian view of salvation. As we saw above, some even espouse justification by faith plus works as well as rejecting imputed righteousness for infused righteousness. Sadly, the legalism of many Anabaptists is eerily similar to Roman Catholicism.
I also find it interesting that the Amish are referred to as “radical Christians”. There is no denying they are radical but it is often doubtful they are Christian. Amish belief denies the gospel and overtly teaches legalism. Any gospel that is legalistic is not the gospel of grace taught in the New Testament. Although as Anabaptists, the Amish do have the common characteristic of highly ill-defined doctrine and thus make room for the possibility of Christians within the Amish religion. However, their teaching, taken at its face value, denies the gospel. But what we see here is also the Anabaptist tendency to admire legalistic values and “radicalness” even when it is totally uncalled for in Scripture. You can hear it in Fred’s voice and his approach to the Amish and how being completely different from the world on things that have no moral bearing whatsoever is somehow valued. This same mindset has found heavy support within the AC church as well.
Fred is certainly right to criticize many churches today that try to appeal or appear as the world to convince them they are not all that different. Churches that adhere to the reformed tradition and Calvinism join with him in this criticism. It would be a fallacy however to suppose that the extremes seen in Anabaptist churches are the only means by which to avoid such conformity to the world. The churches that have stood strongest against this tendency without compromising the gospel are those that also strongly embrace Calvinistic doctrine. Many Anabaptist churches have also withstood this tendency to appeal to the world but unfortunately it has been at the cost of the gospel itself or at the cost of a clear proclamation of the gospel. Those churches generally embrace a highly legalistic set of traditions and beliefs and thus point to those as evidence of their non-compromise with the world. This is a mistake of high degree that fools many believers into a mindset that thinks that everything the world has is anti-Christian in some manner. You can see this in the Amish avoidance of modern technology. It is a mindset that needs to be pitied and corrected, not admired or praised. (Back to top)
18. What was said or implied: Luther and the Calvinists frequently tried to get together and unite. Luther met with the Calvinists and they agreed on everything except the nature of the bread and wine and Luther called the Calvinists heretics (in Peoria he says Luther hated the reformers). They argued and argued about church polity and the Eucharist. Predestination was not that big of an issue. They could disagree on a relatively wide level.
The response: Well not exactly. This gives the impression that the reformed churches and the Lutheran churches were somehow trying to get together and form some new non-Roman Catholic mega church or that Luther and Zwingli were trying to unite to form a single church. This is not at all the case. The reformers certainly interacted and discussed issues, but there was never any effort to form any sort of single large church or denomination to rival Rome. Any unity that was sought was for political purposes. What Fred is undoubtedly referring to is the Marburg Colloquy in 1529 where Zwingli and Luther met together among some fellow reformers from their respective churches. This is a single instance and certainly not a frequent occurrence to attempt to unify as Fred implies. There was no effort to create a single church or denomination between different ecclesiastical bodies in separate countries. At Marburg, there was complete agreement on 14 of the 15 articles drawn up with the single point of disagreement being over the Eucharist. Fred strongly implies, by mocking the debate over the nature of the bread and the wine, that the Eucharist is a fairly meaningless debate and that he does not understand why it was such a big deal to them. What he is not taking into account is that the Protestants had just reformed a heretical doctrine of Roman Catholicism (transubstantiation) that was the absolute centerpiece of their system of sacramental salvation. It was a HUGE deal. Anyone familiar with RC doctrine knows that the reformers were dealing with an issue that was incendiary in that day and age and remains of utmost importance in the eyes of the RC church still today. Reforming that particular doctrine was earth shattering. Of course it is resolved now for Protestants, but we are hundreds of years down the road from these reforms. To downplay the importance of that particular doctrine at that particular time is to ignore the historical context in which that debate was an issue.
Both the reformers and the Lutherans at Marburg disavowed Rome’s view of transubstantiation, but Luther had only partially reformed his view and held to what was called consubstantiation. Zwingli and other reformers believed in a memorial view of the Lord’s Supper. They actually agreed on the nature of the bread and wine contrary to what was said in the presentation but disagreed on the nature of Christ’s presence in regards to the elements (but maybe that’s just semantics). Luther felt strongly about this, but there were no other reformed churches that adhered to his doctrine of consubstantiation. What Luther actually said was not the word “heretics” but he did tell Zwingli that he was “of a different spirit”. He certainly did not “hate” the other reformers as Fred said. In fact, he referred to John Calvin as “The Theologian” (not exactly a name you use of someone you supposedly “hate” as was said in the Peoria presentation). Still Luther had tendency to be brash (as anyone that has studied him will tell you). However, it is inaccurate to say he called the Calvinists heretics. That implies that He himself was not Calvinist, but he was (see his book Bondage of the Will). Calvinism is not a denomination. It is a body of doctrine held to by the different groups in the reformation. The entire Marburg Colloquy was Calvinists from the Lutheran church talking with Calvinist reformers from Switzerland.
So to use that disagreement to highlight a point of severe disagreement amongst reformers is wishful thinking. Church polity (as another topic that was cited by Fred) was also was a topic that had widespread agreement, especially in relation to church authority apart from Rome. Plurality of elders and deacons, the practice of church discipline, and the priesthood of all believers were universally held to among the reformed churches. There were certainly different views on the details or specifics but again it is really majoring on the minors to try to use this as an example of a big disagreement between them. What is going on here is desperation in trying to make the reformed tradition look diverse and widely defined in its doctrine, but that is simply inaccurate. The strong unity found amongst them is reflected in the strong unity in their writings and even more so in their confessions. They defined what they believed and why they believed it, and there was vast and overwhelming agreement, especially on predestination and election. When Fred says it wasn’t discussed that often or that it wasn’t that big of a deal, he is failing to realize that the reason was because of its widespread agreement, not its unimportance. Trying to imply election or predestination were not doctrines of major importance to them would be flat out wrong, and somewhat intellectually dishonest. (Back to top)
19. What was said or implied: Some Baptists were Calvinists (Particular) and some were not (General). “There are some Baptists in the SBC today who are trying desperately to purge the church of non-Calvinist beliefs. The Anabaptist and Quakers were never Calvinists.”
The response: This is also addressed in #48. I was very glad to see the historical line of Baptists distinguished from Anabaptists. This is rarely communicated correctly so I was glad to see Fred make the distinction. It is a good example of where Fred’s real expertise in American history was evident. However, it must be pointed out that the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) is still overwhelmingly Arminian by 80-90%, so there is not in actuality a large push to “purge” it of non-Calvinistic beliefs. The Calvinists within its ranks are on the rise and do promote their doctrine, but it is still largely opposed as one would expect. They are not trying to get the Arminians kicked out by any means. The largest battle within the SBC has historically been with rampant liberalism, and that battle was won thanks in large part to Calvinists and reformed doctrine of Scripture.
The Anabaptists as a movement were not Calvinistic as Fred rightly noted, but the earliest ones that came up under Zwingli were more doctrinally sound and were indeed Calvinists. That doctrinal aspect died out quickly among them though. But this fact about the Anabaptist generally not being Calvinists refutes the earlier assertion that they joined with the reformers in affirming salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. That is a Calvinistic formula as explained above and cannot be accurately held to by any non-Calvinist. (Back to top)
20. What was said or implied: “In my opinion it is very difficult to preach as a Calvinists; to preach an evangelical sermon as a Calvinist.”
The response: Unfortunately this again reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the doctrine of Calvinism. This can only be stated by one who is unclear on the details and consistent teachings within Calvinism. It is a typical thought from an Arminian, but it highlights another part of this talk that did not stick exclusively to history and thus reflects the uninformed nature on the theology. So this point requires explanation…
Calvinists indeed make a universal call for repentance and faith from all men everywhere. Faith and repentance are a command, an imperative, in Scripture. God commands all men to believe and turn from sin…
God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent (Acts 17:30)
Calvinists make this command known in preaching and plead with the sinner to respond. However, they do not view preaching as the cause of the response but rather the means by which the Spirit works. Faith comes by hearing the gospel preached (Rom 10:17), which means it is the instrument by which faith is activated in a sinner’s heart. But this faith only comes AFTER regeneration. Faith is impossible in an unregenerate heart. It is not a part of the nature of an unregenerate man to submit to or obey the command of God to have faith. Man can only act according to his nature. This is the reason why pigs can’t fly; it is not within their nature to do so. Men likewise do not have the capability to do anything outside of their own nature. So as we see in Rom 8:6-8, this is totally and utterly outside of the nature and ability of man prior to being born again…
For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, because the MIND SET OF THE FLESH IS HOSTILE TOWARD GOD; for IT DOES NOT SUBJECT ITSELF TO THE LAW OF GOD, for IT IS NOT EVEN ABLE TO DO SO, and THOSE WHO ARE IN THE FLESH CANNOT PLEASE GOD.
It really cannot be any more explicit. An unregenerate man is UNABLE to subject himself to the command of God to have faith and repent! He cannot please God. This is the Calvinistic rejection of free will- faith is outside of the nature, and thus the ability, of unregenerate man. Man still does exactly what he wants, but what he wants is never to obey the command of God. Man’s will is not bound by God, but by his own sin. And the Bible makes it even more clear by telling us other traits regarding faith…
Heb 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.
Rom 14:23 whatever is not from faith is sin.
So since it is impossible to please God without faith as Hebrews says, and if the man in the flesh cannot please God, then man is not able to have faith until he has been regenerated and everything he does prior to that is sin according to Romans. This is simple, it harmonizes all of Scripture, and most importantly it properly puts man in his place as a helpless sinner and God on His throne as glorious and merciful. This shows the true nature of grace by God granting us faith rather than us creating it by our own free will. This truth is not complicated; it’s just hard for most people to submit to.
So why is this all relevant to Fred’s statement that he finds it difficult to preach as a Calvinist? Because faith is the first and immediate fruit of being born again. We do not preach to literally change hearts by convincing anyone of anything. Faith cannot be generated or accepted by any man before being born again. And we as preachers and evangelist do not seek to change hearts so someone will submit to Christ; we make known the command to do so! Our job is to passionately tell the truth about how to be saved- have faith in Christ and you will be justified, then turn from your sin in repentance. We have no need to dull the message or appeal to the desires of the listener; we just need to have the correct joy and passion as is warranted by the greatness of God’s mercy. Indeed, as 1 Corinthians 1:18 says the word of the cross is foolishness to those that are perishing. Paul makes that point even more emphatically in 1 Corinthians 2:14…
But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.
And again in 2 Corinthians 4:3-4
And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.
We see Paul reiterating the fact that the natural (unregenerate) man does not accept the gospel. But what we must recognize is that preaching is merely the means by which man is removed from his sinful nature and given a new spiritual nature. The Holy Spirit removes our hearts of stone and gives us a heart of flesh. This is regeneration; this is being born again. Preaching communicates the object of our faith, which is Christ, through telling the gospel. The Spirit regenerates listeners to not reject that gospel and to submit to the law of God to believe it. We see this truth most explicitly described in Acts 16:14 when Lydia is reborn and believes…
A woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple fabrics, a worshiper of God, was listening; and the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul.
Lydia could not have responded unless the Lord opened her heart to do so. This is the heart of Calvinistic preaching. We preach the gospel and the Lord opens hearts. When the elect are born again they will hear and obey the gospel call. This is the same guarantee we see coming from Christ throughout the gospel of John…
I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they WILL hear My voice (John 10:16)
All that the Father gives Me WILL come to Me (John 6:37)
There is no “maybe” about whether or not Christ’s sheep (those given to Him by the Father) will come to Him or not. They WILL hear and WILL come. The new nature we are given through being born again is a nature that desires Christ above all else and will act according to that desire. The will is freed through rebirth to do what is right, which is to submit to the command to have faith. That’s why Calvinistic preaching is far less man-centered. It is not about the speaker or methods or the songs or the style; what really matters is the substance, the gospel, the truth! Arminian theology was the primary driver behind the 2nd great awakening’s shameful evangelistic methodologies such as alter calls and emotionally manipulating the audience. These so-called “conversions” were man-made, not Spirit born. Charles Finney, for example, openly stated that he could produce a confession for Christ if he spent 15 minutes with any man. This decisional regeneration mentality is largely derived from an abandonment of the Calvinistic doctrine of election and regeneration, and the drift towards Arminian theology that Fred accurately noted that took place during the 2nd great awakening. A great many “conversions” during this period showed themselves to be false over time. People turned away because they had made emotional decisions and were talked into “accepting Christ” as opposed to actually being born again and submitting to Christ. This is where ideas such as “asking Christ to come into one’s hearts” were popularized. Christ is a king and does not need permission to rule. He does not regenerate us because we grant Him permission to do so. We are to obey His commands and we get summarily and justifiable punished for not doing so. So while Fred may find it difficult to preach as a Calvinist, only Arminianism would convince someone that they need to say the right words or preach a certain way in order to save the lost. Only Arminianism produces false decisional regeneration. Only an Arminian understanding of grace teaches that it is empowered by man and useless without free will. Preaching is a means to save; it does not contain the power to save.
In reality, being a Calvinist should be incredibly freeing for a preacher; they know they have guaranteed results. The elect will always believe the gospel at some point because God has predestined them to believe it. And the preacher cannot screw up God’s plan to save someone. A preacher should take great comfort in Calvinism. An Arminian, on the other hand, is left to scrutinize and wonder if his words should have been different or if someone would have believed if he would have only been more prepared or said something in a different way. (Back to top)
21. What was said or implied: In the doctrines compared section- “I speak in the most general of terms because there is so much diversity in the Calvinist tradition.”
The response: Any diversity among Calvin-IST is not in regard to Calvin-ISM. The agreement about free will, predestination, and election is vast and uniform. That’s the very reason they were all considered Calvinists. If one does not agree on these specific doctrines then they would not even be considered a Calvinist. They are the foundation for what Calvinism is. As we see from the confessions of faith highlighted above, there is just no way to honestly imply that there is “so much diversity in the Calvinist tradition,” especially not in regard to the doctrines that make Calvinism what it is. It just isn’t true. What Augustine and the 4th century church believed about these doctrines is what the reformers believed about them and what Calvinists today believe about them. Again, this is supposed to be a history of Calvinism not of Calvinist. Calvinists have differed over the years on 2nd and 3rd tier doctrines, but not on Calvinism. There is no evidence cited for changes to the doctrines of Calvinism, it is just blindly asserted. Where is the evidence that Calvinism ever taught something other than the doctrines of election, predestination, and non-free will? It simply does not exist.
22. What was said or implied: “Our own Anabaptism is neither Calvinist nor Arminian. It certainly leans much more towards Arminianism, but it wasn’t Arminian.”
The response: False. They were not a part of the “remonstrance”, but they still hold to Arminian theology. I’m not sure why there is so much aversion to using the label Arminian for AC’s. I simply ask: which of the five point of Arminianism do you disagree with? Anabaptists (and the AC church) affirm all five points of Arminianism and reject all five points of Calvinism. How can you possibly say that you aren’t Arminian then? If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it’s a duck. It is the substance of their beliefs that make AC’s and Anabaptists Arminian, not their willingness to apply and use the label on themselves. (Back to top)
23. What was said or implied: “Most Calvinists throughout time would say that sovereignty is the MOST important attribute of God.”
The response: False. I have heard this one on several occasions. They would say that HOLINESS is the most important attribute of God. It is the only thrice repeated attribute in the Word (Isa 6:3 and Rev 4:8) and both instances are being proclaimed by angels in heaven. Sovereignty is certainly important and the most relevant to this particular debate, but they never elevate it above His holiness. The only reason it is talked about so much in regards to Calvinism is because that is part of what Calvinism addresses and gets challenged on by Arminians. Sovereignty is relevant to the discussion, but it is not what Calvinists would say is the most important. This is another example of mischaracterization of Calvinistic theology and being uninformed. (Back to top)
24. What was said or implied: “The most important thing Calvinist say we can do is glorify God by emphasizing His sovereignty.”
The response: Again, this is false. I have never heard this thought coming from a Calvinist nor have I even thought it myself. It is important that His sovereignty is depicted accurately; that is all. It is a fact that Arminianism teaches God has willingly forsaken His sovereignty over salvation in order to allow men to exercise their free will to choose Him. This is also the AC church’s stance as stated in Page 4 paragraph 4 of the “Sovereignty of God” paper. It is given no scriptural support. Calvinism teaches that God has never made such a statement anywhere in Scripture and remains sovereign over men’s hearts just as He is over everything else. That is why it is addressed in Calvinism. This is just more mischaracterization to make Calvinist look imbalanced in their understanding of God. (Back to top)
25. What was said or implied: “So while God is sovereign, He has ultimate authority over man in all our ways, God chooses to allow human free will so as to allow all people to choose or reject Him. He has chosen to limit His sovereignty in such a way that allows for human beings to follow Him or not.”
The response: This is the exact belief of Arminianism I just articulated. This shows that both AC’s and Anabaptists are Arminian as I had already said, for this is their belief. Fred does a good job here articulating the Arminian belief that has God supposedly forfeited His sovereignty over man’s salvation. This is one of the most fundamental differences between Calvinism and Arminianism and a great example of where Fred’s stops addresses history and outright teaches Arminianism.
Calvinists have no natural reason whatsoever to be against a belief such as this, except that it is entirely man-made and found NOWHERE in Scripture. They have no reason to disagree with this Arminian proposition, but there just isn’t a single solitary passage anywhere in Scripture that even hints at God limiting Himself, His control, or His sovereignty in the realm of salvation. This assertion is purely philosophical. This entire debate could be eliminated and solved if Arminians had any biblical support to teach this view of free will since Calvinists would eagerly submit to it. Calvinist don’t need or want to disagree with Arminian free will, they are just willing enough to admit that it is never taught once in the Bible. We have already shown where Paul has said over and over that the natural man cannot and will not submit to the law of God, nor can he please God by having faith. So in order for Arminians, to support their claim, they need to show where the Bible teaches that unregenerate man has the ability and desire to believe and repent. That is where the debate on free will hinges. Calvinists openly admit that God let’s all men choose exactly what they desire most. They never say God has prevented them from freely choosing what they want. But what Calvinists do say is that the Bible openly teaches that any man prior to being born again will never desire to have faith in Christ or want to repent of their sin. Man is a slave to sin. He is not free. He is bound by his own nature. But the Bible teaches that man’s nature is sinful and spiritually dead. Not spiritually sick. Not spiritually hindered. DEAD! Man cannot go outside his own nature and freely choose to obey Christ any more than he can go outside his nature to freely choose to fly. The difference is he is bound by his own sinful desire to sin and desire to reject Christ. He’s not physically unable; he’s spiritually unable. He must be born again FIRST. That’s what makes the new birth so awesome; God grants us a new nature- one with Christ as its highest aspirations and faith as its immediate product. The issue at hand is not choice, and it isn’t even if man can choose according to his will; it is if man will ever have the will to submit to Christ before being born again. The Bible emphatically says NO! Calvinists emphatically say NO. Arminians emphatically say YES. Scripture says God allows all men to pick exactly what they want, and it also says that they never want Christ before being born again. This is how you reconcile and harmonize all of Scripture. It’s simple and it again puts man in his place of helpless sinner and God on His throne as merciful ruler.
The reason this doctrine is denied by Arminians is because it does not satisfy their human sense of fairness. They refuse to acknowledge that God holds man responsible for the consequences (spiritual death) of Adam’s sin. They insist that if God extends saving grace to some then He must do so for all. They accuse Him of not being righteous or loving if He does not grant this same grace to every human that ever existed. This theory of grace steals the un-owed aspect from the very definition of grace. Grace cannot be demanded. A good example confronting that thought would be that just because Paul got a Damascus road experience does not mean God owes one to everyone. Grace is not owed. God does not need to give everyone the same amount of grace or blessing. No one deserves anything whatsoever, so anything God gives is mercy, and whenever mercy is withheld justice is executed. There is nothing unfair about someone getting justice if they never deserved grace to begin with. Arminians have disregarded the clear teaching of Scripture in favor of human reason. They refuse to admit man’s inability and have elevated man’s will as the very determinative factor in the great gift of salvation. But where does Scripture ever teach this Arminian version of free will? Where does Scripture teach this doctrine that God has limited His own sovereignty? If these two ideas are so key to understanding God’s sovereignty in salvation then why didn’t Jesus or the Apostles ever take the time to articulate them? If we are to take Scripture alone as our source of doctrine then we must admit that we have no excuse to believing the doctrine of free will taught in Arminianism. The Jews of Jesus’ day had a very similar view as Arminians in regard to their supposed freedom. Jesus knew better…
and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free." They answered Him, "We are Abraham's descendants and have never yet been enslaved to anyone; how is it that You say, 'You will become free'?" Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin. “The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son does remain forever. “So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed. John 8:32-36
Jesus clearly understands that being a slave to sin means you do not have free will to decide not to be a slave any longer. Let us not ignorantly claim our own supposed freedom as the Jews did. God and man cannot both be free in terms of man’s salvation. God is sovereign over all things at all times. This is not an “extreme” view; it is just the true biblical view. God is always sovereign in everything. Never in Scripture are we given the idea that He has voluntarily forfeited His sovereignty in any realm, especially when it comes to His great work of salvation. (Back to top)
26. What was said or implied: “Calvinists believe in the love of God but they say it must be consistent with His other attributes…therefore God does not love everyone…they would not say God loves everyone equally. In fact, someone just recently posted something on my daughter’s facebook wall saying ‘God does not love everyone; He only loves the elect’.”
The response: Well parts of this one are accurate, but it needs some more attention than what Fred was able to give it in the presentation in order for an audience to understand what is meant when a Calvinists addresses this topic. Calvinism has no problem affirming a general love by God towards His own creation and mankind, but that is not what’s at issue. The question is if God has the same special love for the elect, His bride the church, as He does for the non-elect. Does God ever distinguish types of love? When John is described as the disciple that Jesus loved, did it really mean the disciple that Jesus loved equally and the exact same way as the rest of the disciples? We acknowledge that men love their own wives as well as their friends’ wives, but with an obviously very different type of love. Does Christ have this same capability to love His own bride (the church/the elect) with a special love? Does He have a salvific and electing love that is particular for His elect? Or Does God just have an equal identical love for every single human that He ever made? Can you imagine for a moment if men had an identical love for their bride as all other women? Or if a father loved his own children identically to every other person in the world? We are told the church is the bride of Christ (Eph 5:22-33) and we are told to love our wives in the same manner, yet according to Arminians, Jesus has no special love for His own bride! We are told that the elect alone are the children of God (Rom 9:8), yet according to Arminians the Father has no special love for His own children! According to Arminianism, God does not have the freedom to love His own bride or children any different than any other person He created. He just has a bland generic love for everyone.
When it comes to answering these questions we are in luck. God gives us explicit and undeniable evidence to determine this very question. In Romans 9:13, in the context of election even, God tells us outright: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated”. And what does God say the reason for this love and hate is? Well verse 11 states it clearly: “in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls”. You can read it as many times as you’d like but the fact remains that God loved and elected Jacob and not Esau prior to their birth for the very reason of election- not according to their future actions but according to His own calling. There are several responses the non-Calvinist can come up with to address the clear Scripture that “Jacob I loved but Esau I hated”. The first is to say “no He didn’t”. You can outright deny that God hated Esau. This is an unsaid response of many sadly. Second, you could say that God merely “loved Esau less”. Well, that still does not support the proposition that God loves everyone equally anyway so that idea fails. Plus, that’s not what the word “hated” means. Or third, you can admit that God has different types of love with a clearly stated special love for His elect that does not reflect anything better about them but rather a purpose in God’s sovereign decree of salvation. This is what Calvinism teaches. There is just no getting around the fact that Jacob was elected by God because God loved Jacob and Esau was not elected by God because God hated him. The one response that will always come but cannot be supported is that that isn’t fair. But the grace that Jacob received was not owed to Esau. Just because Jacob got mercy does not mean God also has to therefore have mercy on Esau as well. Esau got justice, not injustice. He didn’t get anything he didn’t deserve. Paul knows that men will read what he just wrote and respond in frustration towards the justice of God so he anticipates it and answers their objection…
What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." Rom 9:14-15
He follows that answer with another clear and outright denial of free will…
So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. Rom 9:16
The very heart of Arminianism is that our election and salvation depends on our free will choice of Christ. This could not be anymore clearly denied by Paul. He has one answer for that theology: “NO IT DOESN’T!” Election depends on God’s mercy that He has on whoever He wants. He literally says I will mercy (a verb in the original Greek) whoever I mercy. Paul’s whole point is that election is not based on what we do or will do, but on a God’s mercy that is not given to everyone! Are we really so naive so as to think God purposed to have mercy on all, to save all, and failed? Did man’s free will cause a failure in God’s purpose and plan? Obviously not. God has mercy on who He wills and they are thus saved. No one can claim injustice.
He goes on to cite the example of Pharaoh. Can we honestly believe the Arminian teaching that God had the same love for Pharaoh as He did for Moses when God tells Pharaoh directly: “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” The purpose of Pharaoh being created was so that God could use his defiance to glorify Himself. God did not need to change Pharaoh’s heart to make him be defiant; He simply left Pharaoh to his own sinful desires to reject the command of God to let His people go. This is what we all would do outside of God’s mercy; we reject God’s command. This is what we all do when we are commanded to repent and believe; we reject the command. God does not need to create disobedience in our hearts for this to happen, just as He did not need to create defiance in the heart of Pharaoh. This is the reaction of men with a sinful nature. Men’s hearts naturally harden outside of merciful grace. We act according to our flesh. Only being reborn will change that, and that mercy of regeneration is not owed to Esau, or Pharaoh, or any man. God’s special love for His elect is not the same as the love He has for everyone else, just as God’s love for Jacob was not the same as His hatred of Esau.
This particular issue was what was being discussed on Fred’s daughter’s Facebook wall. I was a part of it and among several people trying to make the point clear that God does not love everyone equally. I do not know if Fred was quoting my particular statements, but I can tell you it was not as direct as simply saying “God does not love everyone; He only loves the elect”. That is a vast oversimplification to the point that was being made that if God tells us directly that “Jacob I loved but Esau I hated” then we absolutely have to admit that their is something blatantly different in God’s disposition toward Jacob as opposed to Esau. Why is it not enough to convince an Arminian when Paul tells us that the reason is due to God’s election? Why is it that only Calvinists are willing to harmonize these hard passages with the rest of Scripture and submit to them? Also, since the Arminian teaching of election does not elicit the same reaction as Paul’s teaching on it in Romans 9, then we can know for sure it is wrong. It is therefore very telling of the truth of Calvinism since it does in fact elicit the very responses Paul does when addressing it. Any correct teaching on election should have the same objections and accusations of being unfair as Paul’s teaching got when he taught it.
*For the record, since it was addressed regarding Pharaoh’s purpose, the doctrine that God uses men’s evil desires for His own glory and purpose without creating the evil in their hearts (thus keeping man responsible) is called compatibilism. Men freely choose to do evil according to their sinful nature and God predestines that evil to take place without having to determine the will of the creature. You do not need to be a Calvinist in order to believe this but Arminians always seem to struggle with it when it comes to Calvinism. We see compatibilism taught clearly in several places…
As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive. Gen 50:20
This passage shows that Joseph’s brothers had evil intent but God had a great purpose in their evil. They freely chose to sin and God predestined what occurred. We see this same predestining of evil for the greatest sin that ever took place- the murder of Jesus…
For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur. Acts 4:27-28
Herod, Pilate, the Gentiles, and the Jews all freely sinned of their own will, yet we are told that God predestined this to occur. If compatibilism is taught for the most heinous crime ever done, then it likewise explains God’s sovereignty over any and all lesser sins that happen in this world. (Back to top)
27. What was said or implied: “Non-Calvinists say that the most important attribute of God is that He is love, therefore all the other attributes must be consistent with His love, and because of that we must believe in some measure of free will. The idea that God would create some people just to go to hell and not give them any other option is not consistent with God as love.”
The response: This entire statement is absolutely loaded with false presuppositions. Those need to be addressed in order for all the falsehood in this short statement to be recognized. Yes, non-Calvinists do indeed say the most important attribute is love. Again, this is in opposition with the Calvinist view that the most important attribute is holiness (the thrice repeated attribute proclaimed by angels in God’s presence Isa 6:3 and Rev 4:8). Love is no more important than God being just. He is just as merciful as he is wrathful toward sin. The fact is that God’s love is holy, and His wrath is holy, and His justice is holy. Holiness is the overarching attribute of God that governs all His actions and characteristics. When God is angry it is holy anger, not loving anger. When God is punishing sin, it is holy punishment, not loving punishment. Likewise, when God is loving to us, it is holy love.
The logical failure by non-Calvinist is that unconditional election is inconsistent with God’s love. How in the world is God hating Esau consistent with God’s love in the Arminian view? Only a Calvinist can even approach that question with any consistency. It certainly is not consistent with the Arminian view of God as love. God’s justice is not inconsistent with His love just because He doesn’t have salvific electing love for every individual man. It is a completely illogical leap for non-Calvinists to say that God MUST give the same mercy to all. God says He has mercy on who He has mercy and has compassion on who he has compassion in both Romans 9:15 as well as Ex 33:19. God tells this to Moses after he asks to see God’s glory. God’s freedom to show grace to some and not all is part of the very essence of who He is! God’s love does not even in the slightest bit demand that man have free will. We have already shown that Arminians have a misguided concept of free will, but there is no logical step, and more importantly no biblical evidence that states that God’s love means He must grant man a “measure of free will”! That idea is entirely man made. Where does the Bible teach this? This is no different than the claim of Universalists that since God is love therefore He sends no one to hell. Universalist and Arminians have the exact same basis for their argument. Arminians say God is love therefore He must grant free will. Universalists say God is love therefore He must not send anyone to hell. How is the logic behind Fred’s claim and the Universalist claim any different? Both make unfounded conclusions from God saying He is love. Scripture teaches neither one. If the most important attribute of God is love and God’s love demands a measure of free will as Arminians claim, then surely the Bible teaches that link somewhere right? If God’s love and man’s free will are so intimately intertwined then where is it taught? This again highlights that for Arminians, man’s reason is the primary driver to their theology over against Scripture. If God’s love refrains Him from commanding anything we are unable to do as Arminians claim, then they have forced themselves into believing in the false doctrine of Perfectionism as well. God clearly tells us to be perfect as the Father is perfect (Matt 5:48) meaning that, for an Arminian, they must also credit man with the ability to be perfect of their own free will as well. The inconsistencies begin to mount significantly when you apply the Arminian precondition that “if God commands it, man must be able to do it with free will”. Since Scripture says man cannot and will not submit to God’s commands prior to regeneration then we must be willing to believe that, no matter how pride crushing it is.
The idea that “God would create some people just to go to hell and not give them any other option” is one of the more atrocious mischaracterizations of Calvinism in this entire presentation. This again highlights Fred’s misunderstandings of Calvinism and the fact that he is unqualified to address it. Why is it so hard for an informed and accurate presentation to be given? First, even non-Calvinists MUST admit that God knows someone’s eternal destination prior to their creation. Except for open theists, everyone admits God knows before we are born if we are going to heaven or hell. So I must ask: can God be wrong? Can His knowledge be falsified? Of course not. So then our destination is determined before our birth even in Arminianism. As Michael Horton puts it, (these questions) “pose a vexing challenge not merely to Calvinists but to anyone who believes that God knows exhaustively and eternally everything that will happen. In other words, everyone who affirms God’s exhaustive foreknowledge has exactly the same problem as any Calvinist. If God knows that Adam will sin—or that you and I will sin—and could keep it from happening, but does not, and God’s knowledge is infallible, then it is just as certain as if he had predestined it. In fact, it is the same as being predestined. Then the only difference is whether it is determined without purpose or with purpose.” So did God not have any purpose other than to send those people to hell that He knew were going there when He created them? He knew as He created Pharaoh that he would be going to hell, but was His only purpose to create him anyway just “to send him to hell”? No, of course not. We are told the purpose of Pharaoh’s creation – for God to “make His power known in him”. What about Judas, who Jesus said was lost to fulfill Scripture…
I was keeping them in Your name which You have given Me; and I guarded them and not one of them perished but the son of perdition, so that the Scripture would be fulfilled John 17:12
Was Judas created just to go to hell? Again, this is a ridiculous assertion to apply to Calvinism. Scripture acknowledges that sinners are created and sinners sin so that God can use them in His plan to glorify Himself. This is another concept that Paul teaches in Romans 9 and again knows that he will have objections to. Nevertheless, he tells us…
Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory Rom 9:21-23
This is indeed an explanation that man hates! But the Scriptures are clear: God creates vessels of wrath in order to display His wrath and make His power known for the very reason of making His riches known to the vessels of mercy. He determined all this before creation. His plan for creation is for His glory; the salvation of man is only subservient to and a means by which to show His glory. God must be free to display His full range of attributes. He tells us His purpose in creating vessels of wrath and it’s not callously referred to as “just for hell” as Fred puts it. Paul’s entire analogy of the potter and the clay used in this chapter is for the purpose of defending God’s right to do with His creation as He pleases. God can make vessels of wrath if He wishes and if God wishes to display all His attributes to the vessels of mercy (the elect), then again He has every right to do so. This never violates the fact that He is love. These actions by God show us He has more to display of Himself than merely love! God is love, but He is not just love. He displays His justice and wrath as well as His mercy and love. To single out love as somehow more important or inconsistent with His justice and wrath is to ignore God’s stated purpose in election, justice, and all of salvation. Fred’s statement here is a glaring spotlight on complete and utter failure to deal honestly with some of the hardest texts in Scripture. God has purpose in sin; God even has purpose in sending people to hell; and God controls it all for His own glory!
The next major fallacy is the claim that those that go to hell “have no other option”. The first major problem is that Fred’s own Arminianism does not eliminate this question entirely anyway. Like I already stated, even Arminianism admits God knows someone’s destination for hell before He creates them and that God cannot be wrong about that thus making that person’s destination predetermined. So even Arminians’ stubborn unfounded clinging to “free will” does not solve this problem for them. However, Calvinists never say that the reprobate (those going to hell) have no other option. They can freely choose according to their desires at any point in time to submit to Christ and obey the command to repent and believe. God gives them that option and never withholds it from anyone. Calvinism openly acknowledges that. The distinction is in the desires of the hearts of unregenerate men. They never want to obey and submit, thus they never freely choose the option of heaven. They are all bound by their sinful nature and sinful desires. They cannot and will not obey or submit according to Rom 8:6-8. It’s just that simple. Not easy to submit to, but still simple. To say God gives them no other option or that Calvinists teach they have no other option is a grossly inaccurate claim. Plus, it is a silly claim to make in light of the belief of Arminianism that creates the same dilemma. However, the reason it is not a dilemma for Calvinists is because we recognize the justice of being born with a fallen sinful nature. Adam, as our federal head, freely chose to eat the fruit and thus cast all future mankind into spiritual death and sin. Arminianism uses human reason to steadfastly declare that our inability stemming from the fall is unjust and unloving, therefore God MUST give ability to all men. This is one of their ultimate logical fallacies. Nor is it a conclusion Scripture ever draws from the love of God. In fact, the idea that God owes grace (ability to obey through regeneration) to all men is contradicted as we have shown several times above.
Our options to obey or disobey God’s commands have always been the same since the dawn of time. Our ability to choose rightly, however, has been impacted by the fall. God did not create man as depraved, spiritually dead, and slaves to sin. But that is our condition now. Where are not now as we once were. Our wills only have the ability to choose what we desire most, and prior to regeneration our highest desires will NEVER be obedience to the command to repent and believe. It must be repeated again and again because the same false presuppositions are being used by Fred to attack the correct understanding of salvation. The “options” are the same, but our nature is not. So again we see that only Calvinism can reconcile and harmonize these hard truths in Scripture. (Back to top)
28. What was said or implied: “From the very beginning the Anabaptist said it is important that we get theology right, but it’s equally as important that we live right.” The Anabaptist arguably held closest to idea that if you are gonna call yourself a Christian there’s gotta be a difference between you and everyone else…There are ways in reformed theology to be saved because you are the elect and not demonstrate it in your life…The link between works and salvation is, in my opinion, a lot more tenuous and uncomfortable in the reformed theology than the Anabaptist theology.”
The response: This section is a complete joke. Here again we see Fred’s incredible bias toward the Anabaptists and against the reformed tradition. This time he does so at the expense of “doing history God’s way” that he advocated earlier in the talk, for he ignores the history of legalism in the Anabaptist tradition that disproves his statements. He credits Anabaptist with a firmer link between works and salvation and even the monstrously inaccurate statement that they said theology was important. Their very trademark is an abandonment of theology and doctrine! The Michael Reeves quote is very applicable once again: “they were theological lightweights more concerned with holiness than the beliefs that can foster true holiness”. That’s why you see legalism so rampant throughout their tradition.
Fred makes the mistake of crediting them with “difference from the world”, which they undoubtedly excel at, as if it is the same as being sanctified. This is a massive error. There are all kinds of differences with the world that do not even begin to mark one as godly. Take the Amish for instance, their false doctrine and eschewing of technology is not in any way pleasing to God or considered a good work! God does not ask us to simply be as different from the world as possible; He asks us to believe in Christ and that will drive one to good works. This is the reformed doctrine of works. They are a SIGN of conversion, not the basis of it. Works are an outward manifestation of an inward reality. We have works because we have faith. The reformed tradition says “we are justified by faith alone, but not by a faith that IS alone”. That means that all true faith produces works, but those works never provide a basis for justification; only faith does that. Works just prove that that faith is real. It can be easily shown in this simple equation…
False Gospel: faith + works => justification
True Gospel: Faith => justification + works
The reformed tradition gets this decidedly correct. There is no way in the reformed tradition to be saved by being elect without any signs of actually being saved. This Joseph Pipa quote says it best: “Some may say ‘because I am elect, it doesn’t really matter how I live or what I do.’ Well the one thing I can say for sure about you is that you might be elect, but you are not yet converted.”
The Anabaptist historically struggle with false gospel because their theology is so weak that they cannot combat it and it has led to a cloudy gospel. We see that clearly in #16 above and in the blatant denial of justification by faith alone by several AC elders that STILL remain unchecked and unhindered in their denial of the gospel. Any tenuous and uncomfortable link between works and salvation has been on the Anabaptist side. Fred’s claim is outrageous on its face for anyone familiar with history. Where works are wrongly taught there will be legalism. Where do we find a continual history of prominent legalism? The Anabaptists. Both in the past and still today. (Back to top)
29. What was said or implied: “The reformed look at believing as a work”
The response: False. Very very false. The reformed look at believing as a FRUIT and a GIFT. Why Fred is confused is because the reformed say that IF Arminianism were correct then THAT turns faith into a work instead of a fruit. The Arminian view has men having faith prior to being born again, and then they are saved as a result of that faith. That turns faith into a work. It would be a product of man’s free will that he does in order to be saved. Only the reformed have faith AFTER regeneration as a fruit of our new birth and the Holy Spirit in our lives. They distinctly say it is not a work; it is a fruit. Arminianism teaches faith is a work, even if they don’t outright say that. Fred is very confused here. (Back to top)
30. What was said or implied: “Non-Calvinists say God’s grace has freed our will in order to receive salvation. To say otherwise is to be too deterministic and turn God out to be a dictator. What you have is God in His sovereignty deciding who gets to be saved, and in fact every last bit of human life becomes determined by God.”
The response: The words of Charles Spurgeon address this issue best: “Men will allow God to be everywhere except on His throne”. The fact that there are people that believe human events happen outside of God’s sovereignty brings sincere questions about what kind of being they actually think God is. How can He be God without being sovereign in all things?
Fred accurately articulates the Arminian doctrine of “prevenient grace” proposed initially by the Semi-Pelagians, then later made popular by the original Arminians and John Wesley. We have already adequately dealt with this false teaching above (#20, #25, and others). There just isn’t a single lick of evidence anywhere that God has extended this grace to all men. Nowhere in Scripture is the idea taught that man, prior to being reborn, has the capability to believe and repent as they are commanded to do. The most honest Arminians will admit that and say that it is a human made presupposition that they hold to as opposed to a biblical derived belief. Prevenient grace is the perfect example of reading beliefs into Scripture instead of having Scripture drive what you belief. In this case, it causes much contradiction with what both Jesus and Paul say about man’s condition before rebirth. We also see more false presuppositions being used here such as God cannot be sovereign over sin. Again we dealt with this above by highlighting the biblical teaching that God was clearly sovereign over the sin of Joseph’s brothers, Pharaoh’s defiance, and even the greatest sin of all time- the crucifixion of Christ. God is sovereign over sin without being the primary cause of it in the hearts of men. Men have the free will to sin, but not to obey God. But it’s already been covered in-depth enough above. (Back to top)
31. What was said or implied: “Some Calvinists prefer the term sovereign election (over against unconditional election) so they disagree on what exactly unconditional election is.”
The response: True some have a preference; false they disagree. A preference in terms does not at all point to a disagreement in concept. Both mean the same thing. This is more of Fred trying to manufacture the appearance of disagreement where there is none. (Back to top)
32. What was said or implied: “Some believe in God electing some to salvation and some to damnation and some just believe that God elects some to salvation and leaves some to damnation.”
The response: False again. Orthodox Calvinism has always had a distinction between an active choosing for election and an inactive passing over for reprobation. This is again Fred looking to fool the audience into thinking there is serious disagreement where there is none. He falsely ascribed this view of double predestination (or double election as would be more accurate how Fred describes it) to John Calvin himself. He is wrong and he has been corrected but it does not serve his purpose of attacking Calvinism so he continues to repeat it. There is more discussion of this in point #2. (Back to top)
33. What was said or implied: “When God chose is highly debatable. There is debate among Calvinists. Did God choose the elect before the fall of Adam? If you agree with that you are a supralapsarian. If you believe God chose the elect after the fall of Adam you are an infra or sublapsarian. And they will argue incessantly exactly when God chose the elect.”
The response: Fred gets this wrong as well, again highlighting the fact he is unfamiliar with the topic and unworthy of addressing it. This is a great example of majoring on the minors and more manufacturing an “incessant” debate when it is a very minor issue. This issue has nothing to do with chronology. It has to do with the logical ordination of events prior to time. No Calvinists believes God chose the elect after the fall as Fred says. There is no time element even a part of it. And the worst part is how he gives a blatantly false impression that it is some huge debate that they all argue about all the time. This could not be farther from the truth. But it serves Fred’s purpose of making Calvinists look argumentative and unable to agree on anything regarding election. That’s why he’s exaggerating so drastically here. I read a significant amount of material from Calvinists and it is not even an issue that comes up. I myself have never once had an argument over this. Fred is making this up to give the audience false impressions of Calvinists and he doesn’t even understand the issue enough to articulate it accurately.
And since Arminians likewise claim to believe in election, though a different form of it, they can likewise join in this same discussion over the logical order of decrees. It is not a divisive issue or dogmatically defined by orthodox Calvinistism, but anyone affirming some form of election (which all Christians must) would be able to discuss it. So again Fred wants to pin everything negative on Calvinists and his accusations fall flat.
*********
In the Peoria presentation Fred mentions that he was told (by me) of this inaccuracy. He responded to the crowd this way:
“Honestly I never really understood the debate to begin with, umm, and quite frankly… I gotta go to work. You know what I mean? I got other Bible studies I gotta work on. I don’t care.”
To that, I simply respond that I know. I know you don’t understand it. You proved that already. And I know you don’t care. Since you refuse to fix it and continue to talk about it when you openly admit your own ignorance, you obviously don’t care. What I cannot figure out is why in the world you feel comfortable openly mischaracterizing something when you’ve been corrected and still addressing a subject you don’t understand. If you don’t care about getting it right then please stop talking about it! You are lying to people when you do it willfully. They are under the impression you understand this stuff but you clearly do not. That kind of willful use of incompetence is lazy and sinful. (Back to top)
**********
34. What was said or implied: Fred articulating his view of corporate election (he did so more in-depth in Peoria)…God elects a body, the church corporately, not individuals. Think of it as two buses, one going to heaven and one going to hell, and everyone can get on and off as they please and decide where they want to go, but the final destination of the bus is predestined…“Who understands election, I certainly don’t…I don’t know. Who knows? I just know I’m part of the elect, I don’t know how it happened.”
The response: Fred holds to the new doctrine of corporate election. This has essentially no church history support whatsoever and is not all that popular due to the fact that it makes salvation impersonal, which many are turned off by. That is indeed one of its largest flaws, but even more so is the large amount of Scriptural support for individual choosing by God. However, some Arminians still like it because it allows them to use biblical terms like election and predestination without actually having to believe them in their essential meaning. That is the real reason corporate election has some people grasping onto it.
Fred’s bus analogy does accurately shine a bright light on the largest flaw of Arminian salvation. It makes man the ultimate determiner of his salvation. Man gets on the bus. Man stays on the bus. Man can get off the bus. God doesn’t do a whole lot but drive. So when the destination is arrived at, both the driver and the passengers share the glory, since the driver didn’t do anything to get them on or keep them on. Man would be just as active and just as crucial to getting saved. That’s why it is called synergism- it is man and God working together to save. Calvinism on the other hand is monergistic, meaning that God does it all. He drives the bus, He puts you on the bus, and He keeps you on the bus. He does all this not by force, but by graciously changing our wills to see that the greatest thing ever is Jesus Christ. We still do what we want, but we have been granted a grace that opens our blind eyes and deaf ears to the truth.
But again we see Fred openly admitting to not understanding election. Well, why do you hold a position on it at all then? Why do you promote a position on a doctrine you don’t even understand? How could you ever say a Calvinist was wrong on election? If you don’t understand it then you should not be going around lecturing on it and trying to make another view look so bad. Nor should you be advocating your own view of corporate election. Openly admitting non-understanding should be the first sign that you are not qualified to address the subject. You may be satisfied not knowing how you became elect, but God tells us how election works. Where the Bible speaks we can have confidence and knowledge, where it is silent, so must we be. If you claim to be ignorant and undecided then the last place you should be is up in front of a group of people lecturing on something where it is a key element. (Back to top)
35. What was said or implied: Some believe in election based on foreknowledge. God foresees who will believe and then chooses them. This keeps election personal. (Discussed more in Peoria than Morton)
The response: This is the typical Arminian belief. Fred described it briefly and accurately but it is fairly straightforward. I think he doesn’t hold to it because he either sees the inconsistencies with that definition of the word “foreknew” or he realizes it doesn’t alleviate all the Arminian claims against how God works in Calvinism. Essentially, as long as God knows the future destination of anyone and still creates them, then even the misuse of foreknowledge by Arminians does nothing to prevent their same distaste for the actions of God. Not to mention that view of “foreknew” does not allow for anyone to lose their salvation, which is not a doctrine Fred holds to.
This idea comes from taking the passage in Romans 8:29-30 and claiming that “foreknew” simply means God looked forward in time to see who would freely choose Him and then upon that basis predestined them. It is necessary to explain why that interpretation is impossible. First off, God says He foreknew us. It is speaking of people, not their actions or anything they do. God is the subject, foreknew is the verb, and we are the direct object of the verb. You may recall from the Old Testament that “to know” in Hebrew is the deepest and most intimate form of love. It is usually reserved for husbands and wives. When Adam “knew” Eve she conceived. The same term is used when other wives conceived as well. It is a Hebrew concept of strong love. So when we are told we are foreknown and predestined it essentially means we were fore-loved or fore-set apart. It is not merely a statement of God’s knowledge. Of course, He knows our future actions- He knows everything. That is not what Paul is saying here and it would be out of context. Also, if that were true what would it mean when Jesus says to false Christians in Matt 7:23 “I never knew you”? Is he literally saying that He is not all knowing and had no knowledge of them? Is He somehow denying His own omniscience? Certainly not. He is telling them He does not have the deep, intimate, and ultimately salvific (salvation related) love that He has for His sheep. What about in Amos 3:2 when God tells Israel that they are the only nation that He knows? Is He again saying He has no knowledge of other nations and denying His own omniscience? Also, we see in 1 Peter 1:20 that Christ is foreknown. Obviously, this does not mean He merely had knowledge of Christ. God foreknowing people is not a statement of mental knowledge; it is a statement of incredible love! Secondly, to take that incorrect interpretation of foreknew would make Rom 8:29-30 a Universalist text (teaching universal salvation). With that meaning we would be forced to say He foreknew everyone that ever existed since obviously God is all knowing. That would also mean everyone that ever existed is also predestined, called, justified, and glorified. The statement is clear from beginning to end that the ones that get glorified are the same ones that were foreknown. There is no room in the text to lose anyone within any of the steps of salvation. Third, those who believe you can lose your salvation would not be able to make any sense of this passage with that meaning of foreknew. If that definition were true that would also mean that God knew beforehand that they would fall away and would therefore never predestine, call, justify, or glorify them. So if they were never justified, they were never saved anyway. That means they never actually had salvation and therefore never lost it. So we can clearly see that there is only one meaning of foreknew that makes any kind of sense in this text, and that is that God fore-loved us and set us apart, before He even created anyone. It is a tough truth for sinful men to accept, but nevertheless it is the truth.
Another big reason that this view of foreknowledge is so wrong is that it has God acquiring knowledge from His own creation. It turns Him into a giant psychic instead of the God that ordains all things. God actually has to look into the future to see how someone He creates will act. So God is not all knowing and perfect because He learns and gains knowledge through His creation. This, along with the other reasons above, shows why that false view of foreknowledge is so untenable. (Back to top)
36. What was said or implied: In the irresistible grace section while Fred is attempting to articulate the Calvinist view, he states, “I’m not exactly sure how this happens, I’ve never really understood their theology on this. But in some mysterious way God will just make sure you are saved.” “This is highly deterministic.”
The response: Again we see admitting to not getting it! Why is it being addressed out of ignorance?! As expected when someone doesn’t understand something, admits it, and tries to explain it anyway, it was done terribly. Irresistible grace is simply the idea that regeneration precedes faith. God causes you to be born again without your assent to it since you cannot assent to it in the flesh. So God takes us out of the flesh. God makes us spiritually alive when we are dead. That’s all it is. We don’t give permission to God to give us rebirth, we don’t accept rebirth, we don’t ask for rebirth; it happens to all the elect at some point in their lives. From that rebirth comes our faith and good works because that is what changes our nature. If you do not understand this aspect of Calvinism then you will be lost on everything regarding faith, conversion, good works, justification, etc. This misunderstanding by Fred points to a much greater misunderstanding of the doctrine in general. How many times do we have to hear someone admit to not understanding something before we realize their non-credibility in addressing the subject? (Back to top)
37. What was said or implied: “Hard core Calvinists will say every single thing that happens in your life has been determined by God. Every single thing. If your dad abused you as a child, God determined that your dad would abuse you. And he did it to his glory. It is to His glory for God to determine every moment of your life.” In another section: “The Calvinistic view of the sovereignty of God has God being the author of sin. Frankly, I’m gonna leave it at that…because I just don’t understand it.”
The response: Every single thing? Well, what does Scripture say? Romans 8:28 God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God. So…every single thing? The Bible says YES. I’ll side with Scripture. Especially when we again hear more admitting to not understanding it.
The worst part of this is here we see Fred sitting in judgment over God’s sovereignty. This is an old canard that gets trotted out against God’s sovereignty all the time. If they were honest they would just admit they do not believe in a totally sovereign God because they say He is not sovereign over salvation or sin. This example is just meant to tug on the heartstrings though. What Fred obviously does not understand is the Calvinists view of 1st and 2nd causes. This is clearly laid out in the confessions that he so frequently ignores. The Westminster confession does a superb job articulating this. God puts no evil in the hearts of men for them to act, but yes He does sovereignly ordain and decree all that comes to pass.
Michael Horton says it best: “Once you acknowledge that God foreknows a sinful act and chooses to allow it (however reluctantly) when he could have chosen not to, the only consolation is that God never would have allowed it unless he had already determined why he would permit it and how he has decided to overcome it for his glory and our good. Mercifully, Scripture does reveal that God does exactly that. (Arminians) agree that God “chose to allow” suffering and sin. The Calvinist says that God chose to allow them for a reason. It’s permitting rather than creating, but it’s permission with a purpose.” His article can be found here: http://www.whitehorseinn.org/blog/2011/11/16/does-calvinism-make-god-a-moral-monster/. It is more than adequate in handling this question.
What I cannot understand is how Fred’s view is any better, more comforting, or lessens the accusations against God. Even Fred is forced to admit God knew what was going to happen, could have stopped it, didn’t stop it, and uses sin to His own glory. How is it any better for him then to say God is not sovereign over it? What Fred is left with a purposeless act of meaningless evil. That’s not how God ordains evil though. God uses evil to glorify Himself. Did Joseph have an argument against God just because God ordained and had a purpose in his brother’s sin? Or was Joseph comforted knowing that God was sovereign over this horrible kidnapping and selling into slavery and ordained it for a reason? He certainly experienced monumental suffering for God’s ordination of those events, including 13 years in prison. But look what Scripture says…
As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive. Gen 50:20
How about Job? God was sovereign over all that happened to him. His example is far worse than abuse by a father toward a child. But God does not come in at the end of Job and say “you don’t understand Job, I was not sovereign over any of that!” NO, He says just the opposite! The explanation Job gets would be good for Fred to reread because it completely debunks every aspect of his argument. Fred wants to say that God does not determine any bad things that happen to you, but God says I ordain everything and just cause you don’t know what I’m doing doesn’t make it wrong! Job’s example perfectly illustrates how God ordains and determines evil acts without ever being the primary cause of evil in any way. Fred’s aversion to theology and misunderstanding of Calvinism has again led to false accusations and the besmirching of God’s actions and plan. What about the greatest evil act of all time, the crucifixion of Christ? Did God ordain that? Was He sovereign over it? Of course!
For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur. Acts 4:27-28
Without a God that is sovereign over evil you have no recourse but to say God cannot control bad things at all without sullying His goodness. This is foolishness! God knows what will happen, He can stop it or allow it, He uses for His glory, He predestines it; He ordains it! It seems the simple understanding in Romans 8:28 that God works ALL things together for good for those that love God, is being outright denied here. God’s use of man’s own sin in His plan does not make Him the author of it. Fred admits again to not understanding the teaching yet still brings it up. God doesn’t need to create or author our sin because we will do that on our own. But He is sovereign over it and uses it for His purposes. Fred’s own view does nothing to alleviate this same accusation of God as the author of sin.
What is interesting is that Scripture does call God the author and finisher of our faith (Heb 12:2). This is denied in Arminianism because man chooses faith of His own free will and keeps his faith of his own free will. Arminianism makes man both the author and finisher (or non-finisher) of his own faith. (Back to top)
38. What was said or implied: “The reformed had church discipline. It was called burning at the stake. It was called throw you in a tower and starve you to death. That was their church discipline. The Anabaptists wouldn’t do that.”
The response: Vast exaggeration. Yes the church and state were still interlinked, but church discipline was hardly used how he is describing it. He is taking punishment for heresy or morality crimes and pretending it was how the reformed handled church discipline. This is ridiculous. A good example was that Pierre Ameaux’s wife (referred earlier in Fred’s inaccurate story) was put in prison for committing adultery and refusing to repent.
The funniest part is how Fred makes the claim that the Anabaptists would never do that. What he means is they would never do that, UNLESS they had the power to. Their history still has examples of them setting up theocracies or attempting to and fighting wars or rebellions. The city of Munster for example was an Anabaptist theocracy with torture, murder, etc as punishment. It was even more vicious than anything the reformed did. And they were no pacifists either. They fought to keep that city that was so immoral and depraved that the reformed and RC’s united to overthrow their twisted city-state theocracy. Fred’s beloved Anabaptists are not so pure as he pretends they are. His biases are loud and clear. (Back to top)
39. What was said or implied: “A historic weakness of reformed theology is it tends toward antinomianism (that Christians exist apart from any law). Some Calvinists became flat out antinomian: ‘if God elected me to be saved then frankly it doesn’t matter what I do in life’.”
The response: What’s so ironic about this claim by Fred is that even Paul’s teaching of grace got accused of antinomianism. In fact, if you re teaching grace correctly then you should get that kind of response. Paul knew when he taught grace that men would reply this antinomian way. So he addresses it…
What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it? Rom 6:1-2
Someone continuing to live in sin does not understand grace, period. Calvinism and the apostle Paul both get this reaction because they both have the same view of grace. Someone that lives in sin proves themselves not to be a Calvinist, and certainly not a Christian. Joseph Pipa says it best: “Some may say ‘because I am elect, it doesn’t really matter how I live or what I do.’ Well the one thing I can say for sure about you is that you might be elect, but you are not yet converted.”
Fred is trying to condemn Calvinism here as leading to lawless licentious living. This has been a problem for any teaching of grace when done rightly. But the true Christians that have been born again will show themselves to be converted by bearing fruit and doing good works. True faith produces both and they prove the authenticity of the faith itself. Fake Christians will ignore the law of God and continue in sin. Only Calvinism makes these concepts identical to the gospel in the New Testament.
Fred’s own Anabaptist position has historically led to legalism, and continues to do so to this day. They confuse sanctification with justification. They have lost the anchor of sound theology and start saying that good works and Christian living are the basis of our peace with God instead of the fruit of our peace with God. Leaders in Fred’s own church have made this mistake and have begun teaching a false gospel as we have seen in #16. That can be seen here: http://acelderletter.blogspot.com (Back to top)
40. What was said or implied: “Calvinism makes things too mechanistic. I feel like a robot. It doesn’t make sense to me. I can’t work that out.”
The response: Fred cannot work this out because he doesn’t understand the Calvinistic doctrine on the will of man. God frees our will by grace. We still get to do what we want. Compatibilism was explained in #26 and some in #36. Man still has a will but the will is always enslaved to either the man’s sin (before regeneration) or to Christ (after regeneration). Enslavement to Christ is true biblical freedom; it is a good thing. Man’s will can only act according to its nature, which is either fleshly or spiritual (Back to top)
41. What was said or implied: “What about us non-Calvinist? Sometimes we can get caught up in our own affairs and treat God like a divine bellhop, where our joy and comfort is numero uno and God exists to make me happy.”
The response: Sadly this sin is not exclusive to non-Calvinists. I think we all sin in this way, Calvinist or not. (Back to top)
42. What was said or implied: The Calvinists system of predestination can cause either great peace or great anxiety. It can either give you great comfort knowing you can’t mess it up or it can cause great anxiety because you can’t know if you are elect or not. “Because to say that you know is to say that you have the mind of God. Even if you say I know because I worship and love God and go to church etc, then that is salvation by works because you are putting your confidence in your works.”
The response: Here Fred mixes the confidence we have of our election based on the fruits of the Spirit with the confidence we have in salvation based on Christ and His sacrifice and imputed righteousness. God working in our lives, sanctifying us, and changing us are all results and fruit to give us confidence of our election. Pointing to them as evidence is not at all salvation by works. Our Confidence for salvation (faith) is pointing to Christ alone. Fred is very confused here and makes the Anabaptist error of confusing sanctification with justification. Not to mention that in the Peoria presentation he flat out said he knew he was part of the elect (quoted in #34). So according to his own standard he says he is claiming to know the mind of God. In reality, confidence of our election is not even remotely close to knowing the mind of God. John writes that one of his purposes for writing was so that they may know they have eternal life (1 John 5:13). Scripture tells us how to be confident of our salvation. (Back to top)
43. What was said or implied: “How do we have assurance? Reformed theology says rest in God’s sovereignty. But the problem with that is how do we know we are elect?” Fred then cites a Puritan woman that tried to kill her children just so she could know of the status of her election.
The response: This is very similar to #42. But Arminians also believe in election as Fred himself stated. So this accusation about being unsure of election is not at all exclusive to Calvinism. But both sides have the same recourse- we look to the evidence of God’s work in our lives, our good works, our love of God to know we are elect. That’s why John wrote 1 John 5:13, so we may know we are saved. We know we are elect because we have faith. It is no different for a Calvinist or an Arminian. In the Peoria talk, Fred even says he knows he’s elect and doesn’t care how election works. Well, there you go. The same way Fred knows he elect is the same way a Calvinists knows he elect- the work of God in sanctifying us. Read #42 if you are confused by thinking that is putting confidence in our works instead of Christ.
The difference lies in that Arminians can NEVER be sure of their own continuance in faith. They can never truly know they are elect because they don’t know if they will apostatize. Calvinists of course believe in apostasy but with the caveat that John makes in 1 John 2:19 that those that turn were never truly saved to begin with…
They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us.
John does not know these men’s hearts if they were really saved or not. He does not have that power; He is not omniscient like God. But he does not hesitate to say they did not have true faith. He is making this judgment by his theology! John had the same theological belief about the preservation of the saints as Calvinists do. We can know that someone’s faith is false if they turn away from Christ just as John knew of these men. An Arminian on the other hand says that person lost their true faith. The apostle John disagrees. True faith ALWAYS perseveres. (Back to top)
44. What was said or implied: “Predestination and election is a mystery that has never been solved. Who understands it? No one does. You know what, honestly, I don’t even think Paul understood it when he wrote Romans. I really don’t…I can’t imagine that Paul understood all the intricacies of God’s mind and God’s sovereignty and the human will and human heart. I don’t think he understood all that. I think he just wrote what he did and left the rest of us confused for the next 2000 years.”
The response: This is easily one of single worst and most sinful statements in the entire presentation. Here we find the entire crux of Fred’s argument against Calvinism- both his own confusion and misunderstanding along with others. Fred launches in full frontal attack on the clarity of Scripture. This is an outrageous and shameful thing to say. Can you imagine the ridiculous doctrine and sin that would ensue from applying this type of thinking to any doctrine that has been debated or that someone has accused of being confusing or deep? This can just as easily be applied to the Trinity, homosexuality, justification, the incarnation of Christ, etc. Nearly every core doctrine in Christianity has been challenged and debate since its inception. It is a meaningless argument. To attack Paul and scripture itself as insufficient to teach this doctrine is sheer desperation.
There are several points that need to be made in response to this claim. Calling it a mystery does not mean we cannot know it. The word “mystery” is used of all kinds of things we know now. In Mark 4:11 we are told the mystery of the kingdom of God has be given to us. In Rom 11:25, Paul says he does not want us to be uninformed of this mystery. Again in 16:25, he refers to the gospel itself and the preaching of Jesus Christ as a mystery that’s been revealed. And he uses it again and again for doctrine and revelations that we know. Ephesian 3 says it over and over…
Verse 3-4: that by revelation there was made known to me the MYSTERY, as I wrote before in brief. By referring to this, when you read you can understand my insight into the MYSTERY of Christ
Verse 9: and to bring to light what is the administration of the MYSTERY, which for ages has been hidden in God who created all things
Each time it is used as something we know and has been revealed. And that’s the point. Just because predestination or election or the Trinity or Christ is a mystery, we know it because Scripture has revealed it to us. And it has done so clearly! Fred actually went as far as to say that Paul (with the Holy Spirit guiding his writing) is the reason we are all so confused by it. I’m not confused. Calvinists aren’t confused. The millions of Christians that hold to the great confessions are not confused. Not because we are smarter but because Scripture tells us clearly. Paul wasn’t confused. No one is saying that every little detail about the mind of God has been told to us, but we can definitely understand the doctrines that have been taught by God’s apostles and Jesus Himself. You just have to remove all the human preconditions that men set up that prevent them from submitting to this doctrine. We must stop with the presupposition that God has no special electing love for His sheep. Or that God has freed every man’s will to enable them to choose Him. These kinds of things are flat out contradicted in Scripture and just because man doesn’t like it, it doesn’t give them the right to deny it. This is the basis for confusion by both Fred and others; it is their own sinful interpretations and presuppositions they are forcing on the text. He then shamefully attacks that text for being unclear and confusing. If we had that excuse for everything that’s been debated in Christianity then the gospel would be denied constantly and we wouldn’t know or be responsible for knowing anything. Fred’s only certainty is his own uncertainty and he seeks to impose it on all his listeners. (Back to top)
45. What was said or implied: Calvinists divide over theology because it is so important to them. This shouldn’t be because Jesus told us to love one another.
The response: Yes, Calvinists divide over theology, as they should. No, this does not mean we do not love each other. Anabaptists are one of the single most divisive groups in history. If division is considered unloving then they are in big trouble. The AC church itself, which is a relatively tiny church, has created all kinds of spin off groups that have then likewise gone on to divide again and again. This accusation is just silly to pin to Calvinism exclusively. But this is just another one of Fred’s many examples of biased anti-Calvinist history and unjustifiable pro-Anabaptist history. He certainly fails at “doing history God’s way” as he described at the beginning of his presentation. (Back to top)
Conclusion
If you have made it this far there is little left to say. This entire debate would end if it could simply be shown biblically that an unregenerate man has the ability to obey and submit to the command of God to repent and believe prior to being born again. Or if it could be shown in Scripture that because God is love, it is therefore required that He grants every single man a free will or ability that he does not deserve. If Arminians would bring that to light with biblical support, no Calvinist would have a reason to deny it. Since neither of those concepts exists in the pages of Scripture, this debate will continue.
Fred said at the beginning that his presentation was meant to foster peace and understanding with Calvinists. In that regard, he utterly failed. This is one of the most biased historical presentations I have ever heard. It was blatantly anti-Calvinist and pro-Anabaptist. Somehow a historical presentation on Calvinism was just as much about the Anabaptist and why they are so great. Hmm, makes you wonder. What needs to be understood by Fred is that we are required to believe what the Bible says, not what we want it to say. He repeatedly made open pleas to the audience to not care or worry about this doctrine. He said it was unimportant, a distraction, and no one could figure it out. He simply wants to point at facts about the doctrine being debated as if that is somehow a basis for saying we cannot know it. Then he wants to point to division as if that is somehow a basis for ignoring it. He has sacrificed good theology at the altar of the fear of man. He has focused on good works at the expense of doctrinal depth; the very doctrinal depth that ironically drives the good works he claims to care about so much. He has stubbornly clung to the milk of the Word when he should be well into the meat. He has attempted to muddy the waters to make a simple, clean, and not all that complicated doctrine to look impossibly difficult for anyone, including Paul! The desperation to make this point is glaring when we are told that neither Paul nor Scripture itself are sufficient to teach us election or predestination. Fred has fallen into the postmodern error of not trusting Scripture to teach doctrine and thus being unsure of anything with depth.
The number of contradictions really begins to mount as you listen for consistency, especially when you hear the Morton and Peoria talks back-to-back. Fred insists that predestination was not a big deal, there was wide disagreement among the reformed, and everyone was ok with the differences. Yet at the same time he insists that Calvinism was incredibly intolerant, militant, and willing to kill and torture those that disagreed. Well, it simply can’t be both. He likewise says that no one can know they are elect because “to say you are elect is to have the mind of God”. Yet he openly acknowledges “he knows he is part of the elect”. He begs for people not to hold a position or to think they can figure out election. Yet he himself has a position by holding to corporate election and claims just as much understanding of it as anyone else that has a position. He pleads for people not to care or worry about these doctrines since he says they don’t matter and considers them a distraction, yet all the while he decries their negative impact. Again, it can’t be both. He bemoans the division and separation the doctrinal debate has caused, yet praises profusely the most divisive and separatist group of all the reformation era sects (Anabaptists).
Any leader that openly downplays or ignores the importance of doctrine is not to be trusted. To ignore such doctrinal depth found in election and predestination is to do a disservice not only to your own Christian walk, but to the body of Christ as whole. He willingly bent the truth repeatedly to ensure it did not undermine his premises, even to the point of contradicting his own arguments. Then to top it all off there are numerous instances where Fred openly admits to not understanding vital parts or not even caring, even when he’s been corrected. Yet amazingly, none of this prevents him from still attempting to teach on it. This refusal to deal honestly with the doctrine or with history should open the eyes of everyone to the unbiblical nature of this presentation in nearly every regard. It is also very frustrating to hear Arminians claiming that the doctrine cannot be figured out. Calvinism answers no question that Arminianism does not also address. They both address and answer the exact same issues. Both have a position on free will, if election is unconditional, if regeneration precedes faith, if we can lose our salvation, if God atones for the sins of those in hell, etc. An Arminian can never honestly complain that Calvinism is more complicated or that it speaks to any topic that they themselves do not. Fred has a position on all those things, yet tries to accuse Calvinism of being wrong for doing the exact same thing. He disagrees with their position, but he even says that they should not claim to know what the Bible teaches on any of those things either. But the fact is Arminianism does just that. Someone has to be right; someone has it figured out correctly.
The theological aspect of Calvinism was advertised as not a part of the presentation yet it was frequently brought up, often told inaccurately, and subtly taught against. The secrecy and reluctance to make this talk available by those involved reflects their knowledge that it is flagrantly anti-Calvinist and that they do not want it scrutinized. The intention was to bring in someone that would be easily seen as an unquestionable authority in order to prevent any questioning or doubting of the facts given. It’s funny how degrees and scholastic education are all of a sudden revered in this instance but not on the pulpit. Ultimately, I think they probably succeeded in that regard. I seriously doubt many people will ever read or research anything on the subject or read this critique. Not because it is way too long (which it is), but because they don’t want to know. They don’t want to be challenged on their beliefs. The shepherding of their leadership has led to very shallow theology, undefined doctrine, and worse yet, a complete and total fear of knowing the Word with any depth of understanding. All of this has resulted in shallow legalistic Christianity. Some have taken this to the point of denying the gospel. Prayerfully, many have not.
Ultimately, the overarching error in the Anabaptist thinking of focus on good works and holiness to the detriment of doctrine is really just putting the 2nd greatest commandment of loving others over and above the 1st greatest commandment of loving God with their entire mind, heart, soul, and strength. The 1st must be done without ignoring the 2nd. To forsake knowing God through His teachings will never produce more good works; only empty actions backed by a shallow understanding of God and His ways. This mindset is the equivalent of pushing a car instead of adding fuel when it runs out of gas. You want the car to move, but gas in the designed means by which to do so. In the same way, doctrine is the designed means by which to produce good works. Just as adding wood to a fire makes it burn bigger and hotter, that’s how the truths in Scripture work in our heart to produce works. I can only hope that this critique will serve to correct egregious error and falsehood and open eyes to the truth about God’s glorious grace. It is so much more amazing than Arminianism ever teaches. We are saved purely out of God’s good will and pleasure, not at all because of what we did or what we chose. Grace is grace for the very reason that it is unconditional and undeserved. It cannot be demanded, it doesn’t need to be given to everyone, and it is never ever ineffective in accomplishing its intended purpose. Grace is deeper, richer, more profound, and more amazing than I ever realized. Nothing in my life has softened my heart like the correct biblical understanding of how awesome God’s grace really is. (Back to top)
Traever Guingrich
For those interested in the actual history of Calvinism I recommend…
Steve Lawson’s Pillars of Grace series
Curt Daniel’s book or audio series The History and Theology of Calvinism
DVD documentary Amazing Grace: The History and Theology of Calvinism
Available here: http://www.monergismbooks.com/Amazing-Grace-The-History--Theology-of-Calvinism-DVD-p-16342.html
**********
Peoria Presentation Amendment
Fred’s presentation in Peoria had a few points with more or less emphasis and a few that were not even mentioned in the Morton presentation. Some of them, as you will see are severe enough to warrant further response.
46. What was said or implied: After explaining about the first time he encountered Calvinism and reading a book on it given to him, Fred says it made a solid case, but then tells the audience: “it really, really horrified me”. He says he gave the books back and told the brother: “I have to tell you, he (the author of the Calvinist book) makes a really pretty persuasive case. I will tell you, that if he’s right I will believe it. If this is biblical, I have to believe it. But I said, I don’t think I can ever love God again. I’ll serve this God, if this is the God of the Bible, I’ll serve this God. But I don’t see how I could love Him. I just don’t.
The Response: Here we encounter the fatal flaw of Arminian theology, loud and clear. In this simple story, Fred contradicts his own fundamental principle of “God is love”. His misunderstanding of this principle is the very foundation for his denial of unconditional election. His words expose his great error that underlies all his false presuppositions about God and grace. He is literally saying that if God does not grant identical grace in salvation to all people then God IS NOT WORTHY OF LOVE. For a Calvinist, God defines love. Fred has taken his own external definition of what love is and imposes it on God Himself! For Fred, God’s character does not define what love is, but rather love is some external attribute that God must be in order to be considered loving and therefore to be worthy of Fred’s love. This statement and entire thought process is riddled with sin! Love is what God is. He does not need to do something in particular in order to be worthy of our love, especially meet some random Arminian’s expectations of how God must act in the salvation of men! I cannot get over how outrageously arrogant saying something like this is. Can you possibly imagine seeing God face-to-face and telling Him: “I know no one deserves to be saved, but you certainly cannot choose who to save simply out of your own good will and pleasure. But if you do, I guess I’ll serve you (because I have to), but I won’t love you”. Can you imagine trying to justify that to Him? How utterly sinful.
This same thought also highlights another of Fred’s false presuppositions, that all men deserve grace. He can only say I won’t love this God if he fundamentally believes God is doing something unjust. But this is sheer arrogance once again. Who deserves grace? Who deserves to be saved? Who is God required to show grace to? NO ONE! On what basis then is anyone getting injustice? God is not just love. He is also wrathful to sin. He is also just. That’s why Paul uses Jacob and Esau in Romans 9. Neither one is worthy of salvation. Neither one deserves to be elected by God. But Jacob’s election is still taught by Paul: “so that God’s purpose of election might continue, God chose Jacob over Esau”. His entire point in that example is that is was NOTHING to do with them or what they would do, but entirely on God’s choice. Jacob deserved justice. He got mercy. Esau deserved justice. He got justice. Who has a complaint against God? Esau cannot claim injustice; he got exactly what he deserved! There is no injustice with God! Yet Fred tells us here that a God that acts in this manner is unworthy of his love. And if this interpretation is in doubt, all we have to do is look to see that Paul knows the Arminian response. It is the same as Fred’s response- God must be unjust! But Paul answers it without ever explaining that God was really choosing based on their future choice. He says the very opposite- “it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy”. Case closed. God can elect whoever He wants and He can give justice to whoever He wants. Jacob got mercy; Esau got justice. No one gets injustice. God remains loving.
It’s not entirely clear to me how both Exodus 33:19 and Romans 9:15 is not enough to clear up the issue of if God shows grace and mercy to all. God’s very point in both verses is He is gracious to whoever He wants, He has compassion on whoever He wants, and He is merciful to whoever He wants. For the Arminian, those words are hollow. God never shows salvific or electing grace to some and not others in their view. Indeed He cannot if He is love in their view. But does God ever tell us that “if I show grace or special love to any particular person or group then it is only just that I do the same for ever person I create”? How could Fred possibly love the God of Genesis that shows grace to only eight people in the entire world by saving Noah and his family? The only way out for him is saying that Noah and his family were more deserving of grace. There was something better about them in order for God to choose to save them. When this same false thinking is translated to the Arminian view of salvation we finally see adequately that they are making the same claim about themselves being chosen. Somehow they believe that they were more deserving of grace. They were more submissive, or better listeners, or more humble, or less resistant to God’s grace. And on that basis God saved them since they somehow were the one’s smart enough to use their free will to accept grace. Is that why Noah was saved? Was he smarter? Was he more worthy of being chosen due to his proper usage of free will? As RC Sproul says: “The only thing that we have earned at the hands of perfect justice is perfect punishment”. How about Israel, why did God choose them? Can Fred find it within himself to love the God that chose Israel from all the nations of the earth to show His specific love to? Does that act by God make Him unworthy of Fred’s love and adoration? If he is being consistent it certainly should be. Yet God tells us outright that He did not choose Israel because of anything better in them. In fact, we are told just the opposite- that they are a foolish, stubborn, and stiff-necked people. Yet God still chose them. They had grace and blessing beyond anyone on the entire planet for thousands of years. But according to Fred’s logic that makes God unworthy of love since God did not choose people in China and India and Africa as well. Never will you hear a more false premise than imposing man’s definition of love onto God instead of letting God define what love is.
Our only thought as Christians should be: “whatever God is, I will love. If God damns us all He is just to do so for that is what we all deserve. He remains loving in and of Himself. If He saves us all, He is merciful to do so for none of us deserve it. And if He saves some of us by mercy and damns the rest in justice, then He is a merciful, just, loving and ultimately holy God. No matter what God does, He is owed love and glory for He defines exactly what that is”. Funny enough, that is exactly what we are told in Romans 9. Paul clearly lays out God’s purpose in election, that being to display all His attributes of mercy and justice. God’s mercy is set up against His justice to show us just how very merciful He is. Steve Lawson describes it best when he calls God’s just reprobation “the black velvet backdrop upon which the diamond of God’s election shines”.
For Fred and all Arminians, God must act in a specific way according to what they deem right or “loving” in order for God to be worthy of their love. God has no right in their minds to decree grace as He sees fit; He must give to all without exception, and only if that condition is met will they love God or consider Him loving. But God does not need humans in order to be loving. He was loving before He ever created any men to show love to. There was love between the persons of the Trinity in eternity past. Whether or not He shows mercy or justice to any man will never change the fact that God is love. (Back to top)
47. What was said or implied: This point was in the Morton presentation but Fred emphasized it more in Peoria. When speaking of how radical the Anabaptist were he says “they reformed the church more, they moved the church away from the Roman Catholic Church farther than anybody else”. He then spends some time praising how radical the Amish are even saying: “I deeply deeply respect their willingness to be weird when the rest of us won’t. Seriously, I admire them for that.” He then critiques the American church that tries to be like the world to appeal to them. He does mention he’s not making a value judgment in getting as far away from RC as possible, but just wants to show the fact that the Anabaptists are radical.
The response: This portion is not so much inaccurate as it is simply hard to understand. Yes, Fred is right on in critiquing the American church for its worldliness. He’s exactly right in how he describes their error. But he is again managing to infuse more praise of the Anabaptists into this talk. His point is irrelevant to this topic because the reformed churches of today are the ones that have remained the least influenced by this tendency of other churches. They adhere to confessions generally speaking and make little to no effort to appeal to the desires of unconverted men. This is because of their theology on grace. However, most churches that have given in are those that are historically Arminian and have succumbed to the methodology made popular during the 2nd great awakening, which was distinctly Arminian. So even though what he’s saying isn’t false, it certainly isn’t applicable to Calvinism at all. The audience could easily have gotten the wrong impression. It’s hard to say if that was the intention or not. Based on the tone of the rest of the talk, I’d be surprised if they didn’t apply the negativity generated here to Calvinists.
It is also silly to claim the Anabaptist “reformed” the church more. Revolution is not reform. Reform is driven by biblical principles. What the Anabaptists did was tear down everything, including that which was good and proper. Their reckless shallow-doctrinal direction destroyed the good with the bad. In their effort to distance themselves from everyone, they lost traditions that actually had biblical basis and foundations. Once those were lost and they had no doctrinal depth to rebuild them, they simply reverted to man-made traditions and legalism. Anabaptist churches today are still suffering from this great error as we see in both the Amish as well as Fred’s own denomination. What is so very hypocritical though is Fred’s disgust with what he views as Calvinist’s separation over doctrine. He feverishly rants against it, especially in the Peoria talk. Yet his most intense admiration is constantly directed at the single most divisive and separatist group stemming from the reformation (the Anabaptist). Again, their churches today still bear this characteristic. It seems division is wonderful and respectful whenever a group Fred agrees with is involved, yet is horribly sinful and worthless if it involves Calvinists.
The effusive praise and “deep deep respect” for the Amish radicalness is also fairly baffling. In a way I understand how a fellow Anabaptist like Fred would like it, but as a Christian it should be clear how incredibly sinful such legalistic practices are. This is again more proof of Fred’s intense pro-Anabaptist stance that leads to bias, in this case frighteningly so. The Amish need to be reached with a clear gospel proclamation, not revered for being “weird”. While Christ certainly calls us to a radical lifestyle, it is nothing close to the twisted interpretation the Amish have taken. We are to differ from the world in respect to our holiness, love, and sanctification. Not in our abstinence from technology, culture, or interaction with the lost. (Back to top)
48. What was said or implied: Calvinism is doing in the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) what it is doing to so many other congregations, which is creating so much heartache.
The response: Any doctrinal debate is going to make some people uncomfortable. But iron sharpening iron is not a gentle process. It is rough and agonizing most of the time. We strengthen the body of Christ when we do it, but we cannot expect it to always be enjoyable. As iron grates against iron, little bits of pieces brake off and the metal wears down and sparks can fly. There is a reason God uses this analogy. It isn’t necessarily pleasant when iron sharpens iron, literally or figuratively.
It is not the doctrine that causes heartache, but sin in the lives of certain believers that do not belief the truth. Heartache is the sign of most any doctrinal debate, even those debates that Fred would have to admit still need to be had. Truth needs to be defended. When the Trinity was being debated it caused heartache as well. Same with debates over race in American church. Never is “heartache” a sign of a worthless debate or a reason not to have the discussion at all. Heartache in churches comes from sin, plain and simple. To blame the fact that the debate is occurring is meaningless. (Back to top)
49. What was said or implied: TULIP is a controversial term. People didn’t start talking about TULIP till end of the 1800’s. But it wasn’t common to use it to summarize Calvinism till then. Some Calvinists today don’t like to use the term.
The response: This point definitely needs more clarity. The audience most certainly got the wrong impression of another manufactured debate by Fred that Calvinists supposedly have all the time. TULIP is not really “controversial” as he claims. What he means, or should mean if he wants to be accurate, is that many use different phrases to articulate the doctrine because the usage of those particular letters lack clarity. The acrostic (some call it an acronym), can be misleading because the phrases they stand for were used not for precise meaning but as a memory device. The most documented early usage of TULIP comes from a lecture by Dr. Cleland B. McAfee in 1905. The reason he made it spell TULIP was to allude to the Synod of Dordt (1618-1619). Dordt is in Holland which is commonly known for its tulips.
The reason the Synod of Dordt is important is because that is where the five points of Calvinism came from. Calvinism was never exclusively soteriological (dealing with salvation), nor was it ever called Calvinism or even “reformed theology”. It was just the doctrine of salvation of the reformers and Protestantism in general. Both Jacob Arminius and John Calvin were already dead. Neither one created their doctrine or named anything after themselves. The Arminians were essentially just reviving the Semi-Pelagianism of the 6th century. Semi-Pelagianism was original declared false at the council of Orange in 529 by the early church, but had made its way into Roman Catholicism over the centuries. The Remonstrance in Holland (the original Arminians) had raised five points of dispute towards the Protestant understanding of salvation and grace. They were the ones that created five points and started the entire debate within Protestantism. The Synod of Dordt met and responded with five counter points. Those five points are what’s now called TULIP or Calvinism most generally. The synod also pointed out to the Arminians that they were just reverting back the Roman Catholicism understanding of man and God working together in salvation. And indeed they were; both Arminianism and Roman Catholicism are distinctly and ardently synergistic.
The substance of those five points was driven by what the Arminians disagreed with. But what those five points teach is basically the same over the years. Whether someone calls the T part “total depravity” or “radical inability” doesn’t matter; they mean the exact same thing. Both phrases mean that man cannot submit to or obey the command to repent or believe until they are first born again. The same goes for the other letters and their alternate phrases. TULIP is just a clever memory device to quickly bring to mind the five points. There is not any heated debate over it. What they stand for has been believed by a great many Christians throughout church history from Augustine to Gottschalk to Martin Luther to John Calvin to Jonathan Edwards to Charles Spurgeon to John MacArthur and John Piper. (Back to top)
50. What was said or implied: Fred describes the violence and wars during the reformation period, especially the 30 year war and how horrible it was, but blames all the violence on the fact that everyone but the Anabaptists thought the “church should encapsulate all of society”. “There was a belief there could only be one church and everyone had to belong to it, and you could tolerate no dissent whatsoever.” All the churches went to war with each other because each one thinks God wants them to establish their doctrine in their land. Fred exempts the Anabaptists from pretty much ever doing anything wrong in this realm.
The response: This is a significant twisting of history to Fred’s advantage. He is of course right in the horrendous nature of the wars. But he is completely wrong in telling the audience that the Anabaptist took no part in anything of this nature. He is also wrong for giving them the distinct impression that Calvinism or Lutherans were essentially fighting to force their doctrine on others or force conversions in other lands or create a single church. No one but the Roman Catholic Church was of the “one church” ideal, though Fred implies all were. It’s a sad fact, but the RC church was seeking to re-impose itself and regain the power it once had in certain regions. Those countries had to be defended or they would have been totally taken over once again by Rome. Like it or not those countries had a God-given right to defend themselves. The reformed churches were not out for conquest. They were not imposing their doctrine on people. When it is to his advantage he paints the picture that the reformed churches were exceedingly tolerant of different beliefs (when he wants to say they don’t care if others didn’t believe Calvinism), but when he wants to make them look bad he acts as if they are murderous and violent towards anyone that disagreed with their doctrine. He is certainly inconsistent in his characterization of any non-Anabaptist; most often to serve his purpose of making them, or Calvinism in general, look bad.
The fact that the Anabaptists made violent attempts to establish theocracies, such as in the peasant rebellion and the city of Munster, conveniently gets left out by Fred in these portions. He frequently exempts the Anabaptists from taking part in many of the sins of that day. But his reservation to bring these same errors to light in their history does not change what they did. Anabaptists were of course a much smaller group and never had a centralized or geographic power base or cohesive unity among themselves, but that did not stop them from attempting to violently establish a city-state or theocracy according to their own beliefs. In some regards, what they did was worse because they were not defending their own countries from any political takeover by Rome, and theocracy per se was not the objective of the reformed churches in their battles. But the Anabaptist examples of such actions are small since their sect as a whole was small and not unified.
This effort to continually exempt the Anabaptist from nearly every sin or error that he attributes to everyone else was simply overwhelming. Rarely will you hear anyone but Anabaptists themselves giving the radical reformers any credibility whatsoever. Their shallow theology, legalism, and the disproportionate amount of heresy that evolved among them leads most church historians to have a properly negative view towards them overall. They were surely ahead of their time in some aspects, but those few positives were vastly overshadowed by their own dysfunction. Yes, they were radical. No, that radicalness could not often be considered biblical. (Back to top)
51. What was said or implied: “I think Satan is using a dilemma the church has never solved (Calvinism) to siphon off our young people (from the AC church), into a theological debate we will never answer till we see God and even then we may not understand it.”
The response: This entire statement is loaded with false presuppositions. First off, the stated purpose of this presentation was to foster understanding and peace with Calvinist. Yet here we see their faith being categorized as a tool of Satan. I’d be surprised if Calvinists feel much peace directed their way after that. Fred seems somewhat ignorant of the vast amount of reasons other than Calvinism that the young people (and old) are being “siphoned off”. The Anabaptist legalism, unbiblical church government, unbiblical church discipline, shallow doctrine, etc are all additional reasons people are leaving.
Secondly, his statement presupposes that everyone, including himself, is wrong on the doctrine of election and predestination and free will. There seems to be a growing trend among more mystical leaning Christians and those that discredit the clarity of Scripture that if a man holds ANY position theologically then he is automatically wrong (since they say no man can understand the things of God). This is ridiculously false on its face. Scripture is given to us for the very reason to reveal God to us. Not only do we have the ability to know and understand the contents/doctrines in the Bible, but we also have the RESPONSIBILITY to know and understand them. How did Jesus always respond to the Pharisees’ skeptical question? “It is written”, “have you not read”, “what saith the Scriptures”. He went to Scripture to show their accountability to know the truths that have been revealed. I, for one, am not going to give an excuse of confusing texts if asked these questions by the Lord. If Scripture takes the time to teach something, we should take the time to learn it. But we already heard Fred say in the Morton presentation that he doesn’t even believe Paul understood it and he just wrote about it and left us all confused for 2000 years (detailed in #44 above). This is the third major false presupposition in this statement; Fred simply denies the clarity of Scripture. He does not trust it to teach us any doctrine beyond the milk. Just because a doctrine is deep and has thus been debated does not mean it has not been solved or figured out. The Trinity is still denied all the time, but the church must continue to defend it. Orthodox Christianity still has it “figured out” (as far as it is revealed). We don’t give it up because the debate has raged for 2000 years. Same goes for the full deity and humanity of Christ. Same goes for the proper practice of church government and church discipline. Let’s hope Fred does not back away from the truth of homosexuality as a sin or no women in eldership or the exclusivity of Christ as those debates grow more frequent and heated in the coming years.
Good doctrine SHOULD siphon people from churches that don’t teach it. Obviously, there are different levels of importance to different doctrines, but it’s pretty obvious to all that Calvinism and Arminianism touch on one that is of great magnitude. The fact that tenets of Calvinism are denied in the AC statement of faith and that no openly Calvinistic member would be allowed on the pulpit or eldership proves their agreement to its significance. The beliefs of Arminianism have been openly taught by ministers, but Calvinism would never be tolerated in teaching. So there’s no getting around the fact that everyone agrees it is of enough importance to leave or attend a different church. So that means that if Calvinism is false then Satan is using it to siphon people out, but if it is true then God is using it to siphon people off and get them in more theologically sound churches. If I were Fred, I’d be more careful in attributing it to the work of Satan, especially since he admits to not understanding so much of it and thinks we cannot figure it out, even if Paul himself were here in person to teach us! (Back to top)
52. What was said or implied: “Some reformed folks still in their writings, you can tell, in fact some of them will actually say we sort of wish we could control the political system. There’s still that lure of political power.” Fred also spent significant time in Peoria describing the persecution of the Anabaptists at the hand of “Calvinists”.
The response: Fred attributes any desire by the reformed for a Christian government to a “lure of political power”. If you read the writing of the some portion of reformed people he is referring to, you will already know this is not the motivation at all. Besides that, the fact that most American evangelicals are Arminian and are so politically involved pretty much debunks this false idea of bad Calvinists still always wanting to run the state. He is making a false equivocation between the worldly desire for power with the admirable desire for a God-fearing government. Don’t we all pretty much want the state to outlaw such heinous sins as abortion or homosexual marriage? That desire has nothing to do with wanting to “control the political system” or obtain power as any honest person would admit.
The extensive retelling of Anabaptist persecution was meant as another way to make Calvinists just look like mean, nasty, horrible people. It is true, sadly, that the Anabaptists were some of the most persecuted people at the time of the reformation (not exclusively by Calvinists). I am not disagreeing at all that what happened to them was horrible and sinful, in spite of the fact that I have a low opinion of them overall. Also, the reasons for the persecution were not always from what could be considered orthodox teaching, meaning that there were many genuine heretics that were attacked for being heretics (not that that makes it right). What is frustrating however, is how Fred intentionally and frequently calls their persecutors “Calvinists”. It’s not that they weren’t Calvinists; it’s just that their Calvinism was not related to the persecution. They were also Trinitarians. And white Europeans. And any number of other labels that are not relevant to the reasons the Anabaptists were persecuted. Calvinists persecuting anyone says nothing about Calvinism just as Trinitarians persecuting someone says nothing about Trinitarism. Fred is using anachronism in church-state relations to aid in his effort to tear down Calvinism. And he overlooks entirely any Anabaptist sins and violence to do the same type of sin as we have documented extensively above (#4, 38, 50). This is just more unfair and biased historical recounting to his advantage. (Back to top)
