Fear and Trembling

I believe that the Canons of Dort are true. This is a statement that came out the Synod of Dort, held from 1618-1619. The Canons of Dort outline the system of theology known today as the “five points of Calvinism.” The problem I have with most “five-point Calvinists” is that the Canons of Dort contain much more than five points. Many explanations of the TULIP (total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace and the perseverance of the saints) are gross simplifications of the Canons of Dort. [This is especially true of explanations given by those who oppose Calvinism. It is easier to knock down a straw man than it is to knock down a real man, and so it is easier to criticize an oversimplified Calvinism that the more robust form.] Some of those who teach the “five points” leave out some of the quotes below: This death of God's Son is the only and entirely complete sacrifice and satisfaction for sins; it is of infinite value and worth, more than ...

Ligonier Ministries blog posts a section from one of R. C. Sproul’s books on election : We conclude that fallen man is still free to choose what he desires, but because his desires are only wicked he lacks the moral ability to come to Christ. As long as he remains in the flesh, unregenerate, he will never choose Christ. He cannot choose Christ precisely because he cannot act against his own will. He has no desire for Christ. He cannot choose what he does not desire. His fall is great. It is so great that only the effectual grace of God working in his heart can bring him to faith. Sproul’s approach to election leaves a man responsible for his choice because he chooses according to his own desires. He can be called to account for his rejection of Christ because nothing outside of him causes him to choose as he does. He is responsible before God to repent of his sins and believe the gospel. Sproul also accurately describes a man’s bent toward evil. Men will not choose Christ without the i...

To say that we always choose according to our strongest inclination at the moment is to say that we always choose what we want. At every point of choice we are free and self-determined. To be self-determined is not the same thing as determinism. Determinism means that we are forced or coerced to do things by eternal forces. Eternal forces can...severely limit our opinions, but they cannot destroy choice altogether. They cannot impose delight in things we hate. When that happens, when hatred turns to delight, it is a matter of persuasions, not coercion. I cannot be forced to do what I take delight in doing already. – R. C. Sproul in Chosen by God p. 59. The way we make our choices has been a subject of inquiry for philosophers for a long time. Sproul’s definition of free-will above seems to be the answer to many questions that have troubled me for some time. We always choose according to our greatest inclination, our most powerful desire. Another way to say that is we always chose what...

I am reading a book by Max Lucado called 3:16: The Numbers Of Hope . Well, really I am listening to it on tape. I am finding this to be encouraging devotional listening. I especially like his discussion of the “whosoever” and “whoever” passages of the Bible, including John 3:16 , the focus of the book. He references Mt. 10:32 , Mt. 10:39 , Mk. 3:35 , Mk. 16:16 , Jn. 3:36 , Jn. 4:14 , Jn. 6:37 , Jn. 11:26 , and Rev. 22:17 . To which I would add Isaiah 1:18-20 , Isaiah 55:1, 6-7 ; Hosea 6:1 , Mt. 11:28 , and Rev. 3:20 (Note that Rev. 3:20 refers to Christians; they can come too.). Lucado is expansive: Whoever unfurls 3:16 as a banner for the ages. Whoever unrolls the welcome mat of heaven to humanity. Whoever invites the world to God. Jesus could have so easily narrowed the scope … but he used no qualifier. The pronoun is wonderfully indefinite. After all, who isn’t a whoever . Whoever makes it clear: God exports his grace worldwide. For those who attempt to restrict it, Jesus has a...