Tag Archives: disagreements

Biblically Speaking

THE FLAW in DORT (5 Point Calvinism)

14 Comments

I’m so grateful that many of you have pitched in (but haven’t posted yet), and that a number of other have dropped my private notes of apology (too busy)!

I am finding that part of the problem with most Free Grace folks who are against Calvinism is that they simply have not read the original documents.  There is much in Calvinism that I love, and many things that I find to be pretty useless.  We all know that Calvinism is a theoLOGICAL system which largely makes sense if Scripture is not used as the standard of evaluation.  Do not miss the point– Calvinism is HIGHLY scriptural; yet, it is also, highly theological.  In other words, this is how Calvinists put it together.

Yet, one point is often denied in certain Free Grace circles; there is no such thing as Consistent Calvinism.  There is simply a broad spectrum of viewpoints within the largely circle.  We see this same reality with Arminians, Dispensationalists, Amillenialists, Preterests, denominations, and Free Grace advocates.  Sorry, that’s just the truth.  When we preach against “Calvinism” without defining terms, we are in the worst of straw-man worlds.  Sadly, we are attacking friends and patrons.  I personally have felt the same sense of being ostracized for not taking a stance against Calvinsim.

All Free Grace Advocates (faith alone in Christ alone) OWE a debt of gratitude to the Reformation for the recover of Grace being returned to the forefront of conversation and focus.  However, it doesn’t mean that forms and aspects of Calvinism aren’t mistaken (they are)!

Here is THE FLAW in DORT, as I study through it:

Dort assumes that humans are still depraved after regeneration.  In other words, they apply the same standards to a ‘saved’ person as they do a ‘lost’ person.  Practically, this means that they not only have the individual needing to be elected unto salvation, but elected unto sanctification (spiritual growth).

There is nothing inherently required in the ‘5 points’ or in Scripture concerning growth.  The very reason a believer can be accountable is that he is indeed a ‘new creation’ in Christ.  There is a new game in play where God can reward or chasten based on our works (and attitude, faith, doubt, etc.).  Saying that on is chosen to belong to Christ is one thing, saying one is chosen to produce good works (increasing) is quite another.

We are certainly called to good works as believers (read Titus), and God has set the kind of good works in place by His own will (see Ephesians 2:10); but to say God is imposing His will on us to make us obey is actually irrational and indefensible.

Said differently:

Before Christ = Depraved

After Christ = NOT Depraved

I’m catching a flight…so I’ll prove this later!

What do you think?  Where does this go?

Grace and peace,

Fred Lybrand

Biblically Speaking

Face it, You are at Least a Little Bit of a 5 Point Calvinist!

5 Comments

So, in studying the Canons of Dort, I’m reminded of the statements of dear friends and mentors like Dr. Radmacher who have said (to the effect), “I’m a O.O Calvinst and a O.O Arminian.” I mention Dr. Radmacher because he has been very vocal about this issue in recent years, but it doesn’t diminish my love or appreciation for him.  We all must learn to disagree graciously…and on this one, I just disagree.  Of course, I regularly have disagreements with myself as well (so, I’m very in-discriminant in the matter!). The idea is that if you buy one part of the “5 Points” of Calvinism, you must necessarily buy them all.  I’ve addressed this elsewhere.  While I find some of the points in Dort untenable , I find other points quite wonderful.

ARTICLE 11 (under the First Head of Doctrine) And as God Himself is most wise, unchangeable, omniscient, and omnipotent, so the election made by Him can neither be interrupted nor changed, recalled or annulled; neither can the elect be cast away, nor their number diminished.

ARTICLE 5 (under the Second Head of Doctrine) Moreover, the promise of the gospel is that whosoever believes in Christ crucified shall not perish, but have eternal life. This promise, together with the command to repent and believe, ought to be declared and published to all nations, and to all persons promiscuously and without distinction, to whom God out of His good pleasure sends the gospel.

Article 11 is basically saying that the saved / justified / elect cannot, for any reason, lose their salvation.  This was a huge point the Reformers recovered (thought there is some muddling in the matter as they invite an over-dependence on works/fruit as proof of faith…to be discussed later…or see www.backtofaith.com).  Surely, those of us who believe in eternal security have to agree with Dort on this one.

Article 5 is a plain statement of the gospel…whosoever believes in Christ crucified shall not perish, but have eternal life…how clear would I want it?  I know there are some who question if faith in Christ’s crucifixion should be included (see GES Gospel: Lybrand Open Letter), but I certainly find this statement to resonate with my own soul and the forgiveness I have found through faith in the Savior and His finished work.

The point is that as one works through the system of Dort (or Westminster, or the Remonstrance, or Augsburg, etc.), one will find point on which he agrees and points on which he differs.  Taken as a ‘whole’ system, one can be forced to reject or accept…and yet, is that really an accurate description of the view?

The challenge is in the logic of the system, and in theology, it tends to come down to a couple of errors we consistently see:

1.  Bad premise, bad conclusion

2. Good premise, non sequitur conclusion

These are oversimplified, but just because something seems logical, it nowise means it is logical.  Certain points are often pushed along until the absurd becomes the nauseating.  Please know, all sides fall into this from time to time.  Theology is too often built on the shaky cliffs of inference, conjecture, and speculation.  What might happen if we ever dared to just affirm what the Scriptures say and leave the rest to class-time in eternity?

God bless,

Fred Lybrand

Biblically Speaking

What makes someone an Agnostic and not an Atheist?

4 Comments

All,

I received this comment in a previous post, and thought it might lead to clarifying a distinction about atheists and agnostics.

Here’s the note:

If you want to talk to atheists in Texas, go to Austin. Specifically the Atheist Community of Austin, and their cable access show “The Atheist Experience” or their podcast “The Non-Prophets”. (And no, they aren’t paying me to advertise.)

All I can say, and someone may already have said it, is that your definition of ‘atheist’ is wrong. All an atheist is is someone who doesn’t believe in a god or gods.

Certainly someone who asserted that there absolutely was no god would fit the definition of an atheist. But the definition of atheist isn’t so specific as to apply only to those people.

Here’s my response:

morsecOde,

You are sort of making my point – it is about ‘belief’.

I think I’ve been fair in my postings [see My Favorite Conversation (ever) With an Atheist] about the distinctions in language on the term, but I’ll ponder the following critique:

There is, unfortunately, some disagreement about the definition of atheism. It is interesting to note that most of that disagreement comes from theists — atheists themselves tend to agree on what atheism means. Christians in particular dispute the definition used by atheists and insist that atheism means something very different.

The broader, and more common, understanding of atheism among atheists is quite simply “not believing in any gods.” No claims or denials are made — an atheist is just a person who does not happen to be a theist. Sometimes this broader understanding is called “weak” or “implicit” atheism. Most good, complete dictionaries readily support this.

There also exists a narrower sort of atheism, sometimes called “strong” or “explicit” atheism. With this type, the atheist explicitly denies the existence of any gods — making a strong claim which will deserve support at some point. Some atheists do this and others may do this with regards to certain specific gods but not with others. Thus, a person may lack belief in one god, but deny the existence of another god.

Below are links to a variety of references pages to help understand how atheism is defined and why atheists define it the way they do.

Now, with all that in mind, I suppose the question is what is the difference between an atheist and an agnostic? [http://atheism.about.com/od/definitionofatheism/a/definition.htm]

I’m thinking:

atheist = I don’t believe there is a god or gods [i.e. there is no God.]

agnostic = I don’t know if there is a god or gods [i.e. is there a God?]

My point is that, though many atheists believe they are atheists (which is fine, believe you are whatever you think you are), they are in fact agnostics.

So, what makes someone an agnostic and not an atheist?

Thanks,


Fred Lybrand

Uncategorized

Communication 101…How often do you flunk?

5 Comments

Communication fouls up everything…and…helps make everything work! My personal conviction from Genesis (see Babel incident) is that God put a judgment on communication so we wouldn’t accomplish near so much (and gloat in our own press releases!). Well, here’s a little way in which we flunk communication 101 as we battle the judgment.

We tend to assume that

DISAGREE = DON’T UNDERSTAND

Have you noticed how often people keep telling you and telling you something…and you simply disagree? The reason is simple; they think you don’t understand. I’m mean, let’s face it, “if you understood me, you’d surely agree with me!” Of course, this presumes we are right.

What would happen if you really began to explain to people exactly what you understand them to be saying to you? What would happen if they BOTH knew you understood their view AND disagreed with them?

It’s pretty obvious…you both could talk about the real issues and maybe get somewhere instead of explaining, and explaining, and explaining!

That’s one beauty of my friends who disagree with the Bible…it often means they at least understand something it says well enough to disagree with it. Sometimes, I think we believers are actually busy agreeing with things we don’t understand (but that’s another discussion).

Fred Lybrand