Pulling the petals off of TULIP

Introduction

Many non-Calvinist Christians would not consider themselves to have Calvinist beliefs, but because of the pervasive influence of Calvinism their beliefs will often reflect some Calvinism. Part of this may be because Calvinism is extremely important to its adherents. Many Calvinists will defend to the death their beliefs (metaphorically speaking). This level of devotion is somewhat unsettling. Because of this emphatic advocacy these doctrines have found a place in many churches and denominations. So much so it has caused us to take a closer look at what Calvinists believe.

We find many of these beliefs unbiblical if not repugnant. So from time to time we post critiques of Calvinism, usually in the context of evaluating an article written by some Calvinistic Bible teacher. We've written over one hundred such critiques in our blog, some of them quite lengthy. So the purpose of today's post is to distill down some of the key concepts regarding these beliefs.

Calvinism is typically represented by the acronym TULIP:

1. Total depravity - The lost are in complete darkness and cannot respond in any way to God
2. Unconditional election - God predestined those who would be saved
3. Limited atonement - Jesus died only for the Elect
4. Irresistible grace - The Elect cannot resist their salvation
5. Perseverance of the saints - The Elect can never fall away from the faith

This is a rough summary of Calvinism, a perplexing if not odd collection of beliefs. We will not discuss each one individually, because generally speaking they are based on one or two fundamental premises. So we will more specifically deal with the premises.

What Does Covered by The Blood of Jesus Really Mean? - by Cheered on Mom, kingdom bloggers

Found here. Our comments in bold.

---------------------

"Covered by the blood" is a phrase not found in the Bible. So the author is undertaking to explain something that does not need explaining. In actual fact, the concept itself is faulty.

The old covenant of sacrificing animals, which is referred to as atonement, was indeed a covering over. The Hebrew word kaphar literally means to cover over. To cover over means the sin is only obscured, because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins (He. 10:4).

However, Jesus' blood didn't cover over our sin, it washed us clean:

He. 9:14 How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!

Jesus' death on the cross was not atonement, it was propitiation. The KJV gets it correct:

1Jn. 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for [the sins of] the whole world. (KJV) 

While the NIV misleads us:

1Jn. 2:2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world. (NIV)

The Greek word for propitiation/atoning is hilasmos, which means an offering to appease (satisfy) an angry, offended party. So Jesus' spilled blood doesn't cover over, it turns away. His blood satisfied God's wrath.

So we are not "covered by the blood," we are washed clean by the blood.

---------------------

The Practice of the Presence of God (Brother Lawrence) - by Dean Good

Found here. Our comments in bold.

---------------------

The author has a lot of a-biblical complaints about Brother Lawrence. When he complains it is usually about some detail, supposition, or inference. 

Now certainly Brother Lawrence was a Catholic. It is probable he had some errant ideas. But we can only judge by what he wrote, and what he wrote reveals a man consumed with pleasing God and fellowshipping with Him. We do not impose any requirements about how he expresses himself in his own context and his own understanding, but rather, we desire to catch a glimpse of this man's passion for God. We look for what is useful and good, but the author is focused only on what doesn't align with his perfect doctrine.

The author quotes absolutely no Scripture in this article.

We are not here to defend Brother Lawrence, we intend to examine the author's presentation.

---------------------

How Do I Know If I’m One of the Elect? - by: Andrew David Naselli

Found here. Our comments in bold.

-----------------------

What's wrong with using the word "saved" Instead of "Elect?" Why the unnecessary Calvinist posturing?

We can answer the author's question right at the beginning. No one can actually "know" they are saved/one of the Elect. We can certainly have evidence in our lives, but we cannot truly know about the eternal status about ourselves or anyone else.

The basic problem with this teaching is that the author is taking verses out of their clear context, inserting himself in them, and concluding that the Elect include people like himself. This is the pretext which leads the author to all sorts of odd conclusions.

This truly awful teaching must be deemed Bad Bible Teaching.

------------------------

Are Images of Christ OK? No. - by RYAN M. MCGRAW

Found here. Our comments in bold.

----------------------

The author bases his entire presentation on the idea that making images of Yahweh is biblically impermissible. But he is unable to cite a verse that tells us this. Now, we don't advocate that we should make idols, but we also don't permit the author to assert things the Bible doesn't tell us.

-----------------------------

The Proverbs of Rich - tidbits of wisdom from my prayer times

Book nine here.

Book eight here.

Book seven here.

Book six here.

Book five here.

Book four here.

Book three here.

Book two here.

Book one here.

Several weeks ago a friend sent me a youtube link of a sermon delivered by James Aladiran. I have never heard of this preacher before, and it turns out I was in for a shock. His preaching on prayer convicted me greatly. From that sermon I decided to go to my church every morning at 6 am to pray for an hour.

The below "proverbs" are the notes I took over the course of my weeks of praying. I formatted it like the Bible, with each week expressed as a chapter. I'm being a little bit presumptuous, perhaps, to do so, but my intention is playful. These are certainly not Scripture. 

But hopefully the reader will glean something of value from these proverbs.

I will be adding to this post periodically.

--------------------

Bad worship songs - Goodness of God - Ed Cash, Jenn Johnson (Bethel Music)

From time to to we examine the lyrics of worship songs. Our desire is not to mock or humiliate, but rather to honestly examine content with a view to calling forth a better worship expression.

With the great volume and variety of worship music available, none of us should have to settle for bad worship songs. We should be able to select hundreds or even thousands of top notch songs very easily.

What makes a song a worship song? Is it enough to contain words like God or holy? How about vaguely spiritual sounding phrases? Should Jesus be mentioned?

We think an excellent worship song should contain the following elements:

• A direct expression of adoration (God, you are...)
• A progression of ideas that culminates in a coherent story
• A focus on God, not us
• Lyrics that do not create uncertainty or cause confusion
• A certain amount of profundity
• A singable, interesting melody
• Allusions to Scripture
• Doctrinal soundness
• Not excessively metaphorical
• Not excessively repetitive
• Jesus is not your boyfriend

It's worth noting the most worship songs contain at least something good. That is, there might be a musical idea or a lyric that has merit. Such is the case with this song, Goodness of God.

3 Reasons Why Your Small Group Is Not a Church - by: Matthew Emadi

Found here. Our comments in bold.

------------------------

We have found a surprising number of "Bible teachers" who diligently defend the traditional practices of their church to the point where any deviation from them by other churches constitutes a threat to Christianity.

Today's article was written by a pastor who wants to tamp down the idea that small groups are churches. He wants to keep them in their place so that his traditional church maintains the exclusive right to do church stuff like give communion and baptize people.

He doesn't make it clear for most of the article, but what he's specifically talking about is small groups that are created and overseen by his church. This is his view on how he wants his own ministry to function, yet he will insist that every small group is not a church.

Lastly, the author barely quotes Scripture. One might think a Bible teacher will teach from the Bible, but sadly, no. We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

--------------------------

Worship Should Feel (Somewhat) Awkward - by David de Bruyn

Found here. Our comments in bold.

-------------------

The reason the author feels this way is because he thinks his church's practice is the proper way to conduct a service. Thus the idea of a casual, celebratory worship rubs him wrong. What he's in fact defending is his own comfort and tradition. 

Now, we would concede that it is possible to take God too casually. We ourselves bristle at the idea that the fear of the Lord is explained away as merely awe. Rather, He is a consuming fire (He. 12:29) and not to be trifled with. Nevertheless, He is welcoming (2Pe. 1:11) and approachable (He. 10:19). 

The author wants an either/or when God is both, even at the same time.

And, not a single verse of the Bible quoted. We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

-------------------------

Don’t be too easy to join - by T. M. Suffield

Found here. Our comments in bold.

-----------------------

The author writes about his view of church but explains nothing about the Bible, any Bible principle, or even what the Bible explains about church. He doesn't quote the Bible at all, and provides but a single irrelevant Bible reference.

His purpose is to defend his tradition. He wants church to look like the church he wants, based on what church has looked like for centuries.

------------------------

Carl Lentz: ‘I’m Not a Disgraced Pastor’ - By James Lasher

Found here. Our comments in bold.

--------------

Ordinarily we fisk self-described Bible teachers, the Doctrinal Police, and cessationists, but today we examine Charisma News' reporting on Carl Lentz, and Mr. Lentz's statements. 

Mr. Lentz is a disgraced former pastor who claims he is not disgraced. Charisma News barely pushes back against this statement, comparing Mr. Lentz's indiscretions to Paul's thorn. Thus Charisma News disgraces itself. 

We think Charismatics are a forgiving to a fault when it comes to fallen church leaders. While we agree it is often possible to restore them, some should not be restored, and some need a few more years away from church leadership before restoration should even be considered.

Regarding Mr. Lentz, he has clearly not come to grips with the seriousness of the situation. He thinks he's not disgraced because "disgraced" is not the conventional meaning, it is more like "dis - graced." So, he weasels out of his egregious behavior by redefining words.

This manipulation means he should not be on a church staff in any capacity let alone a pastor. And shame on Charisma News for giving him cover.

------------------------

“Greater Works” Will You Do Than Jesus? - By Costi Hinn

Found here. Our comments in bold.

------------------------

When a cessationist encounters a problematic Bible verse, inevitably he must reinterpret it, explain it away, or clarify it. Such is the case with Mr. Hinn and John 14:12. Mr. Hinn's cessationist perspective cannot permit this verse to allow for the word "greater" to mean something miraculous.

Astonishingly, he will never quote the verse! This is supposed to be instruction about what the Bible means. How can one teach about a Bible verse and not quote the verse? Thus we must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

So, let's quote the passage:

Jn. 14:10-12 Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. 11 Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves. 12 I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father.

First we must understand the context. Philip had just asked Jesus to show them the Father (vs. 8), and what follows is Jesus' response. Jesus told them that they ought to know Him by now (vs. 9). He and the Father are in each other (vs. 10), which is a claim to identity. 

That ought to be enough according to Jesus, but then He falls back to ...or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves (vs. 11). Paraphrasing: 

"Philip, you've been around me for a long time and yet you still don't know who I am? If you can't figure that out, at least you should know based on my miracles." 

Jesus then says, I tell you the truth (vs. 12). The Greek is amḗn, amḗn. This word is an "emphasis marker," introduces a statement of pivotal importance... Thus Jesus heavily emphasized the importance of what is was about to say. Let's get literal: 

This is of pivotal importance - the one who believes in me will do the works I do.

It's important, Jesus said. Crucial to understand. Pay close attention.

Interestingly, this first sentence of verse 12 is more problematic for cessationists than the second sentence. We have seen in the first sentence that Jesus flat-out says that believers will do what He does, i.e., miracles. Now we have arrived at the subject verse, and here Jesus doubles down: He will do even greater things than these... So not only will the ones who believe do the works He did, they will do even greater ones. Two things, the works He did, and also even greater works.

-----------------

Does the Bible call us to unilateral forgiveness without repentance? - by STEPHEN KNEALE

 Found here. Our comments in bold.

----------------------

The author is a Calvinist, so he believes the saved are predestined and already chosen by God. Which of course means that repentance is irrelevant. Requiring repentance before forgiveness is an empty exercise,  because the Calvinist thinks it's all preordained.

Further, the author wants us to think that God's forgiveness and our forgiveness are the same thing. So on that basis the author tells us we must not forgive unless there's repentance, just as God will not forgive unless there's repentance.

This suggests that a trespasser must earn their forgiveness by doing the required steps. But this in essence is a salvation by works, antithetical to the Gospel. This is essentially what the author is teaching, that forgiveness is earned.)

------------------------

Why Only Pastors Can Baptize - By Kevin P. Emmert

Found here. Our comments in bold.

----------------------

It seems the author is attempting to set us up for the idea that pastors need to retain their position at the top of the church pyramid. In fact, it's the primary assumption upon which his entire article is built, that pastors are the pre-eminent leaders of the local church. 

But he never discusses this, but simply presumes it.

Apparently he is threatened by the possibility of pastors not being in charge. He likely thinks that the church is shifting away from his preferences. Thus he objects to lowly laypeople doing pastor stuff. In reality, he's simply defending his tradition.

Lastly, the author manages to quote only a couple of Bible snippets. How can he teach the Bible without quoting it? We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

--------------------

Did Christ Become Sinful on Our Behalf? - by Jeremiah Johnson

Found here. Our comments in bold.

---------------

It is a Calvinist/reformist perspective that the Father punished Jesus instead of us, a doctrine called Penal Substitutionary Atonement. We discuss this problematic doctrine here. We assert that the Father did not punish Jesus for our sin. Nor did Jesus pay for our sin.

Why?

The OT sacrifices were never regarded as sinful. The Jews never punished the animals. They never looked at the animals as substituting for them. The Jews never regarded the sacrificial animals as payment for their sin. The blood, and it alone, was regarded as the effective agent regarding their sin. Jesus's spilled blood was exactly the same. The OT sacrifices were typology pointing to Christ. He was the sacrificial Lamb of God whose spilled blood washed us of our sin. His blood alone is sufficient to propitiate for us.

Further, he carried our sins to the Cross like one would carry out a sack of garbage. He was our burden-bearer: 

1Pe. 2:24 He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed.

So if we rightly regard Jesus as our sacrifice, the One who carried away our sins to the cross (Col. 2:14), we no longer need to think the Father punished Him. Think about it. If the blood is sufficient no punishment is necessary.

The verse in question is 2 Corinthians 5:21: 

He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

The author will claim that this means Jesus was imputed with our sin. We disagree. Let's look at some of the words. It says God made Him to be sin. "Made" is the word poieó, which means I make, manufacture, construct. The literal Greek is 

The (one) having not known sin for us sin he made... 

The man Jesus was constructed, made for a purpose. Not imputed. He was "made sin" to reconcile us to God, which is what we read just a couple of verses before:

2Co. 5:19...God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ... 

Further, poieó has many shades of meaning in the Greek. One that caught our eye was this:

to (make i. e.) constitute or appoint one anything...

Poieó (made) is the same word used here:

Ac. 2:36 “Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.”

Jesus was appointed to the position of sin, and he was appointed to the position of Lord and Christ. Nothing about His nature changed. The Father basically said, "Go, here's your position." Therefore, His position on earth was sin.

We certainly cannot say that Jesus was imputed with being Lord and Christ. Therefore, He was also not imputed with our sin.

If Jesus was not imputed with our sin, and if He did not substitute for us, then what is the meaning of 2Co. 5:21? He was indeed positionally appointed to be sin, but crucially, the verse does not say He was made to be our sin. Many Christians tend to read themselves into Scripture, assuming everything is about them. 

This might be a mistake.

We think it possible that Paul was actually discussing His incarnation as much as His sacrifice. That is, Jesus' position as a man. Here's what we mean:

Ro. 8:3-4 For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man, 4 in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit.

All the same concepts are here that are also in 2Co. 5:21, expanded with some additional information. One thing leaps out at us: "In the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering." This is very interesting phrasing. This is where our speculation about Him being made sin leads us.

In this scenario it isn't about our sin at all, but rather His position. He was appointed to being incarnated in the likeness of sinful man to offer himself as a ransom for many. Therefore, we think "He was made sin" means "he was made in the form of sinful flesh."

Let's retranslate:

2Co. 5:21 God appointed him who was unacquainted with sin to the position of a sinful man, for our benefit...

Admittedly this is speculation, but we think it solves a lot of doctrinal problems if it's true.

Lastly, the author manages to quote only one Scripture passage besides the subject verse. We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

------------------------

Is Salvation by Faith in Jesus Unfair to Those Who Never Hear of Him? - by Amy K. Hall

Found here. Our comments in bold.
---------------------

The author is confused about what grace, mercy, and justice mean. The confusion arises from her Calvinistic beliefs, which include the idea that God has already selected those who will be saved (the Elect). As we have noted in other posts, Calvinism creates doctrinal and Scriptural difficulties that need to be worked around or explained away.  And that is what the author grapples with here.

There is no Bible verse that tells us that God does not offer salvation to all men. In fact, just the opposite:

Ro. 11:32 For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

1Ti. 2:3-6 This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and

men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all men — the testimony given in its proper time.

1Ti. 4:10 ...we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe.

Tit. 2:11 For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men.

So He offers mercy and grace to everyone, not just the Elect. 

Also, we should note that the author does manage to quote a single Bible verse, a relevant one, but quotes Spurgeon multiple times.

In any case, because of the author's confusion, we must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

-----------------

Bad worship songs: Trust In God, by Christopher Joel Brown, Steven Furtick, Brandon Lake, Mitch Wong

From time to to we examine the lyrics of worship songs. Our desire is not to mock or humiliate, but rather to honestly examine content with a view to calling forth a better worship expression.

With the great volume and variety of worship music available, none of us should have to settle for bad worship songs. We should be able to select hundreds or even thousands of top notch songs very easily.

What makes a song a worship song? Is it enough to contain words like God or holy? How about vaguely spiritual sounding phrases? Should Jesus be mentioned?

We think an excellent worship song should contain the following elements:

• A direct expression of adoration (God, you are...)
• A progression of ideas that culminates in a coherent story
• A focus on God, not us
• Lyrics that do not create uncertainty or cause confusion
• A certain amount of profundity
• A singable, interesting melody
• Allusions to Scripture
• Doctrinal soundness
• Not excessively metaphorical
• Not excessively repetitive
• Jesus is not your boyfriend

It's worth noting the most worship songs contain at least something good. That is, there might be a musical idea or a lyric that has merit. Such is the case with this song, Trust in God.

---------------------

Is God angry right now? - rethink

Recently we've been reconsidering many of the things we thought we understood regarding doctrine and faith. We have begun to question certain beliefs, church structures, and practices of the western church. Too often we have discovered unbiblical doctrines and activities. This causes us concern. We have deemed this our “Rethink.”

Our questions include, how did we arrive at our doctrines? Does the Bible really teach what we think it teaches? Why do churches do what they do? What is the biblical basis of church leadership structure? Why do certain traditions get entrenched?

It's easy to be spoon fed the conventional wisdom, but it's an entirely separate thing to search these things out for one's self. In the past we have read the Bible with these unexamined understandings and interpreted what we read through those lenses. We were lazy about our Bible study, assuming that pastors and theologians were telling us the truth, but we rarely checked it out for ourselves.

Therefore, these Rethinks are our attempt to remedy the situation.

We should note that we are not Bible scholars, but we believe that one doesn't need to be in order to understand the Word of God.