Comments on: Why I Am a Calvinist (Part 5)

By: Jerry M

Jerry M — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 12:26:55 +0000

Kubecki – thanks for posting those links together. I should probably clarify that my thinking is more on the lines of ‘what are the boundaries or qualifications in a discussion of God’s sovereignty in reprobation?

Grudem has a few sentences on this: ‘the blame for the condemnation of sinners is always put on the people or angels who rebel, never on God Himself. (John 3:18-19; 5:40) So in the presentation of Scripture the cause of election lies in God, and the cause of reprobation lies in the sinner.’ [Systematic theo, p. 686]

The canons of Dordt also address this issue and make the similar conclusion.

That’s why I was trying to decide if monergism should only apply to election and not to damnation. Just thinking out loud.

By: Kubecki.com » Blog Archive » Some Resources on Reprobation

Kubecki.com » Blog Archive » Some Resources on Reprobation — Tue, 27 Mar 2007 21:41:12 +0000

[...] As part of Phil Johnson’s series at Pulpit Magazine, Why I Am a Calvinist (Part 5), the following question has come up in the comments: If some are elected to salvation, are others elected to damnation? [...]

By: The Highland Host

The Highland Host — Tue, 27 Mar 2007 10:19:51 +0000

‘Calvinism’ may be reduced to Jonah’s affirmation (2.9) that ‘Salvation is of The LORD’. Now if that is not the core of the Gospel, I do not know what is.
The Gospel also presupposes the BAD NEWS of the Fall of man and human sinfulness. John Wesley (my favourite Arminian) clearly affirmed original sin, and that salvation was God’s work. He was, if you like, a four-point Arminian (note that, I once had a man rant at me for saying Wesley was a four-pointer because he didn’t notice the word ARMINIAN).
I have noticed that a lot of anti-Calvinist ranting is based on the unconscious rejection of original sin (assuming that we all start out good). Maybe we all need to re-examine our theology in the light of the first three chapters of Romans?

By: Modern Day Magi

Modern Day Magi — Tue, 27 Mar 2007 04:10:23 +0000

Isn’t it wonderful though the order of 1 John 4:19.
“We Love Him because He first loved us.” (KJV) or “We love because He first loved us.” (NIV, NASB etc.)

Notice the verse does NOT say “He loves us because we first loved Him.”

MDM

By: Kubecki.com » Blog Archive » Random Thoughts - 03/26/2007

Kubecki.com » Blog Archive » Random Thoughts - 03/26/2007 — Mon, 26 Mar 2007 22:20:48 +0000

[...] Phil Johnson is now on part 5 of his series about why he’s a Calvinist. Part 3 had some very good book recommendations, as well. [...]

By: Mickey

Mickey — Mon, 26 Mar 2007 21:46:09 +0000

I've linked this post, as well as the entire series, and another post on God's gracious election, on my blog. Thank you for this series, I've greatly appreciated it, especially the sermon on the historical Calvinism. Reading Deeply

By: brett maxwell

brett maxwell — Mon, 26 Mar 2007 20:36:42 +0000

“Now that sort of phrase, that would make me worried.”

Trinian, the Gospel is the Gospel. You have to stretch pretty far to find the TULIP in 1 Cor. 15 or any of the other concise Gospel passages. Calvinism is simply one of several ways trying to explain the Gospel. Calvinism and the Gospel are not synonymous nor mutually exclusive, as Phil clearly shows in his ability to believe that first paragraph before ever believing the TULIP.

By: Phil Johnson

Phil Johnson — Mon, 26 Mar 2007 20:26:00 +0000

Doug Heck became a Christian in OKC in 1969; I was converted in Tulsa in 1971. I met Doug for the first time in 1972 (in Chicago, in the freshman enrollment queue at Moody Bible Institute), and he already knew more Scripture than I knew when we graduated a few years later. Doug was one of the first people who encouraged me to consider Calvinism in light of Scripture, rather than dismissing it out of hand, as I was prone to do.

So if you hate this series of posts, take it up with Doug.

By: donsands

donsands — Mon, 26 Mar 2007 20:06:14 +0000

“moderate Calvinists have moved away from that because of the fatalistic implications”

I don’t believe I’m a fatalistic kind-of-a-guy. Could you expound on this statement a little.

“they drew and lifted Joseph up out of the pit … and sold Joseph to the Ismeelites for twenty pieces of silver and they brought Joseph into Egypt. … But the Lord was with Joseph … And Joseph said to them, Fear not: for am I in the place of God?
But as for you, you thought evil against me; but God meant it for good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive.” Gen. 37:28;39:21;50:19-20

By: Trinian

Trinian — Mon, 26 Mar 2007 18:57:08 +0000

What’s with the doubt and uncertainty? Maybe a few of you haven’t read Phil’s stuff before, but I promise, that’s really not where he’s going. He’s said from the very beginning that he very firmly affirms that the tenets of Arminianism are error – he’s not suddenly going to switch things up and say that everything about Arminianism is really Calvinism in disguise.
What he’s doing here is setting up the undeniable truths of Scripture about the Sovereignty of God – all the simple stuff that you can’t be saved by the Gospel and deny.
I imagine the next step is beginning to show how the error creeps in and how these basic ideas can be turned into something that’s almost but not quite totally outside of Scripture. Don’t worry.

The Gospel is not the principle point(s) of Calvinism, TULIP is.

Now that sort of phrase, that would make me worried.