Reviews

About the author

avatar

Jason Harris

Jason loves to communicate God’s word both in the local church and at conferences and retreats. Jason has been involved with Worship Music since 1996 and InFocus since 2005. Jason has degrees in theology, music, accounting, and research and is currently a PhD candidate and lecturer in the College of Business, Law, and Governance at James Cook University, Cairns. Jason is also a pastor at CrossPoint Church.
You can contact Jason at jason@teaminfocus.com.au.

41 Comments

  1. avatar

    Jeremy Crooks

    I don’t know Steve Pettit, so I can’t comment on him personally. However, I am pleased to see they broke the nepotism that is multi-generational successionism. If they were to change the name of the institution, that would be another positive step.

    There is a lot to appreciate about a liberal arts education institution that holds fast to the Bible. Personality Cult worship is not one of those things. I know I am hammering this issue, but it is truly liberating once we don’t define our version of Christianity through the lens of a man.

    Reply
  2. avatar

    Rick

    Jason:

    I am intrigued by your descriptor of Steve Pettit as a “Calvinist Evangelist.” Why do you think he is a Calvinist. I have reason to know he denied being Calvinistic during the interviewing process. I personally have wondered about his stance based on sermons I have heard, but some Calvinists are hard to pin down.

    Reply
  3. avatar

    Jason Harris

    Hey Rick,

    Thanks for the comment. I believe he is a Calvinist based on my interactions with his ministry over the years (his preaching and music, interaction with various members of his teams over the years, his affiliations, etc.). I doubt he could be classified as “Reformed” in any significant sense other than soteriological. Keep in mind, as well, that for much of Fundamentalism (particularly the parts I have mixed in over the years), to believe in sovereign election makes you a Calvinist.

    Being a Fundamentalist evangelist he can’t very well admit to being a Calvinist. Everyone would separate from him for not being evangelistic enough. This is both stunningly ironic and a damning indictment of Fundamentalism.

    When I say he is a Calvinist, what I mean is that his theology is basically that of Charles Spurgeon.

    Grace to you.

    Reply
    1. avatar

      Rick

      “Sovereign Grace Music” does suggest a certain predilection, doesn’t it? The constant reference to God’s sovereignty does seem to be a consistent theme among Calvinists. I have often remarked that calling God sovereign is like calling water wet. Of course He is. I’m not sure who such folks are trying to convince. It’s almost as if there is some compulsion to remind us God is God. He gets to make the rules. We gain nothing from being masters of the obvious, in my view. Rather than using the claim of sovereignty as a pretext for one’s particular theology (well you know, God is sovereign, He gets to do what He wants) why not rather allow our sovereign God to simply tell us how He exercises His sovereignty. I have found Ezekiel 18 to be a good place to start. In the chapter He tells you what he wants, and how you can give it to him, and what to expect if you don’t.

      With regard to Steve’s sermons, are there any in particular you could point me to?

    2. avatar

      Jason Harris

      While I’m tempted to take up the debate, I’ll pass in the interests of getting my “to do” list done today… =P That’s not to say I don’t see it as incredibly important. I do.

      Regarding your question, it’s not what he says in his sermons, but how he says it. A Calvinist preaches the gospel differently… he tends to focus on the authoritative presentation of Scripture truth over emotional appeals to the will, he tends to present God as central in the whole process, he tends to recognise God as the initiator and man as the responder, etc. I think that for those who understand true, biblical Calvinism (Spurgeonic Calvinism if you will), careful inspection will reveal that his evangelistic preaching is inherently Calvinistic.

  4. avatar

    Rick

    Thank you Jason. By your definition, I might be considered a Spurgeonic Calvinist. Ezekiel 18, as does all of scripture, prompts me to realize that God is the initiator of the call to salvation. Deuteronomy 30:19 is probably the clearest example. The 6th verse of that chapter makes it obvious that God is speaking of a personal relationship (circumcise your hearts). If you don’t see an emotional call to salvation in God’s final plea in Ezekiel 18 “Why will you die?” I’ll eat my hat. :-)

    God is always the initiator of the call to saving grace. Always. We don’t disagree over the means of salvation. Let’s not recast the “debate” to establish straw men. We simply disagree over the scope of that calling. In a less-hectic moment, perhaps we can have a conversation about what it means to be chosen to come (invited) versus chosen to remain (enter my rest), and what makes the difference.

    The traditional (word fraught with different meaning) view of evangelical outreach by a Calvinist is that we go into the world to reach God’s elect with the gospel, inasmuch as that’s how God ordained the process to work. So we evangelize as a matter of obedience, not expedience. I suppose it’s the difference between seeing the great commission as a “scavenger hunt” versus a “rescue mission.” The fields are white unto harvest. Every time I read that passage, I am struck by the fact that Christ never once questioned the viability of the fields. He lamented the size of the workforce called to the harvest. I see expedience. Work while it is day ….. I see expedience. Why will you die? I see expedience.

    Reply
    1. avatar

      Jason Harris

      Just to clarify, a Calvinist holds that God initiates salvation, not merely the call to salvation.

      Grace to you.

    2. avatar

      Rick

      Isn’t that the lesson of Deuteronomy 30:19, “I set before you ……….?” What convinces you that the initiation is limited in scope? What prevents the call from being the initiation? Or the drawing of John 12:32?

      Rick

  5. avatar

    Rick

    Is this where that whole “God is the first cause of all things” comes in?

    Reply
    1. avatar

      Jason Harris

      I don’t think so. I understand that to be an apologetic argument which deals with the causedness of all causes and the fact that every form of naturalism must ultimately trace its causal chain back to some uncaused cause. The admission of such an uncaused cause, the apologist then argues, is an admission of theism.

  6. avatar

    Jason Harris

    I wasn’t actually debating anything. Just pointing out that Calvinism argues that God saves sinners. That sinners must respond, yes, but that by the time they are alive to respond, they have already been regenerated by God. So the initiator is God. The author and finisher is God. Man’s response follows God’s work.

    Reply
  7. avatar

    Rick

    That makes man’s response incidental, doesn’t it? It makes man’s response irrelevant, really, to the issue of regeneration. We don’t need to confess and repent, as a precursor to salvation. We do that only after regeneration? What happened to the “if” in Romans 10:9?

    Reply
  8. avatar

    Jason Harris

    A Calvinist holds that man is, spiritually, a corpse. Just as Lazarus was unable to seek or effect his own physical regeneration, so man is unable to seek or effect his own spiritual regeneration. Man is dead until God gives life.

    Jesus’ words “Lazarus, come out” were a command. Lazarus was just as obligated to obey that command after he was given life as he was helpless to even hear it before he was given life. To say Lazarus’ response was “irrelevant” or “incidental” is true in the sense that Lazarus didn’t raise himself from the dead. God did that. All God. Only God. But it is absurd to contemplate Lazarus not obeying that command.

    When God speaks the corpse to life and opens the eyes to see the horror of sin and the glory of God, faith and repentance are the inevitable response. To remain in the tomb covered in the rags of death and separated from the Son of God is unthinkable. And in that sense, man’s response is anything but irrelevant or incidental. He is raised! He is rescued! He runs from (repentance) the putrid den of death and he runs to (faith) the glorious Lord of life!

    Reply
  9. avatar

    Rick

    You are so right about the absurdity of refusing God’s call to follow Him. But many do. The rich man did, despite receiving the same exact call to saving grace as the Apostles. He would have been the 13th Apostle, but his possessions were just too great. He made a choice. There was a time when many disciples turned away from sovereign grace because what Jesus said was just too “hard” for them to believe. Jesus asked the remaining disciples “Will you also go away?” How was it ever possible to resist the words of grace from the mouth of our Creator God come in the flesh? How could anyone go away?

    Irresistible grace is a fantastic idea born in the minds of wishful thinkers. You just can’t find it in scripture. Stephen looked Saul of Tarsus and the other members of the Sanhedrin right in the eye and said: “You do always resist the Holy Spirit.” Acts 7:51. So much for irresistible grace. The only grace IS sovereign grace. There are not degrees of grace. Scripture makes no distinction between saving grace and the grace we need for daily living. And yet, we resist daily grace on a daily basis. Any Calvinist who tells you he does not daily battle the human will and the desires of the flesh is only kidding himself.

    So let’s have a “come to Jesus” moment here. We are called out of darkness into His marvelous light. That call IS the initiation. That call is universal. But some love and choose darkness rather than light, because their deeds are evil. The “rather than” phrase in that verse speaks volumes. It speaks of an enlightenment to a choice, but a choice nonetheless. Thank God that enlightenment is also universal. How else do you explain John 1:9? I’d love to hear your take. I have previously referenced Proverbs 20:27. Please go read it and ask the Spirit to “teach you all things.” Every man has a “candle” waiting for Jesus to light it. To what end? To reveal man’s wicked heart to himself. All ten virgins had a lamp. They all had the capacity for the light of the glorious gospel. They needed the oil of the Holy Spirit, and they were all advised to go get it. None were told that they couldn’t have it, or that it wasn’t readily available. The five foolish virgins were urged (I see expedience) to go purchase the oil they needed to be found ready and waiting. “Particular redemption” is a theological invention at stark contrast with the reason given in 2 Cor. 4:4 for the rejection of the gospel of grace. I quake every time I hear folks attribute the work of the devil to The Lord of Glory. 2 Cor. 4:4 tells me Satan is responsible for the blindness of those who still cling to darkness, not the Almighty.

    Isaiah 61:1-3 is where we need to be. There’s not the slightest hint of “particular redemption” in the prophet’s verse. There is, however, clear validation of the meaning of 1 Timothy 2:4. The meaning that accepts that when God says “all,” He means all.

    Grace and peace.

    Rick

    Reply
  10. avatar

    Jason Harris

    Rick,

    You seem to feel that Calvinists don’t believe humans have a will with which they are responsible to choose obedience and submission. I have never met a Calvinist who believes that. Calvinism holds that man does have a will. And that he is 100% responsible to use it to obey God.

    Calvinism does not hold that no act of God’s grace can be resisted. Rather, Calvinism holds that when God chooses to save a person, he will accomplish his purpose every single time.

    You seem to feel that Calvinism holds that some people are told they can’t have salvation. It does not. Calvinism teaches that all men have rejected God and just as God is utterly just and loving to damn all the demons without even a chance for redemption, he is just and loving to damn ALL men for ALL men have rejected him. Calvinism also holds that for some inscrutable reason, God has chosen to redeem some. This is mind-blowing grace and is the reason Calvinism is rightly called the doctrines of grace.

    You seem to feel that Calvinism holds that God blinds the eyes of men so they cannot see him. In fact, Calvinism teaches that ALL men are born blind in Adam because of Adam’s deliberate choice to reject the light. Calvinism teaches that it is only the gracious intervention of God that can cause blind eyes to see. And that he does so for those he chooses to redeem.

    Do you realise, Rick, that I have not once argued for Calvinism per se in this thread. All I have done is to correct misunderstandings about what Calvinism is. That is a HUGE problem for you and any who think like you do because it means you don’t even understand the doctrine you reject. And attack. This indicates that the issues aren’t even theological, but are personal and spiritual… matters of integrity, fair-mindedness, goodness, honesty, etc. I’d be quite happy to discuss this further via private email, but only if you’re committed first to doing some research to find out what the doctrine you oppose so strongly actually IS. There are plenty of good books written by Calvinists by which you could learn about what Calvinism is and what it teaches (A Defense of Calvinism by Spurgeon, Complete in Him by Barrett, The Doctrines of Grace by Boice/Ryken, etc.). There are even ample published primary sources for you to get the facts “straight from the horse’s mouth” (Calvin’s Institutes, the Remonstrances, The Canons of Dort, etc.). I urge you, for the sake of Christ’s testimony and for the sake of the gospel, to invest some time in this way. If you find actual Calvinism (as opposed to whatever you have been told it is) to be false, you will oppose it more effectively. If you find it to be true, you may, like me, find it to be a transforming vision of God’s glory and the sum and substance of the gospel!

    Grace to you.

    Reply
    1. avatar

      Rick

      I see that I have offended you. That was never my purpose, so I owe you an apology. In 45 years as a follower of Christ, I have indeed read many of the works of reformed theologians. For more than three of those decades, I was infatuated with the idea that God’s “mind-blowing grace” was reserved for me. I was wrong. Throw away your treasury of Calvinism. You won’t find the words of life in any of those books. There’s no power there, Jason. There never was. But you do know where the power may be found.

      I’ve given you verse after verse. You’ve given me Calvinist talking points, and platitudes. Why? Please don’t be angry with me for pointing you to the scriptures. Lay aside your books, your blogs, and your DVD’s. Search the scriptures. Ironically, we each will choose to whom we will go for the words of life. But in the process, there’s no need to insult one another. Let God be true and every man a liar.

      Go in grace.

      Rick

  11. avatar

    Jason Harris

    Hey Rick,

    Not at all. I’m sorry if my comments came across as being offended. I am and remain quite happy to talk about this and other issues on the condition that you commit to presenting the Calvinist position accurately.

    If you once called yourself a Calvinist, then it appears you either never understood what Calvinism actually is, or far more concerning, that you are just misrepresenting it. For instance, to characterise Calvinism as teaching that God’s grace is “reserved for me” is either to misunderstand it entirely or to present it dishonestly. No Calvinist would ever affirm such a statement because it is not a Calvinist statement. Again, the accurate representation of opposing views is not a matter of theological preference but of integrity, truthfulness, fair-mindedness, goodness, etc. Such forms of argument are rejected even in secular academia, and rightly so.

    You’ll note that at the beginning I declined to debate Calvinism with you. And I have not done so. Which is why I have not used a lot of Scripture in this discussion. I wasn’t arguing Scripture primarily. Rather, I was pointing out, again and again, that you don’t understand what Calvinism is (although now it seems possible that you are intentionally misrepresenting it… I hope not).

    If you want to debate the Scriptural issues with me, I’ll be quite happy to demonstrate to you how your interpretation of Scripture twists the truth, misunderstands the context, and results, ultimately, in a “gospel” that places man at the centre of salvation relegating Christ’s atoning work to a potential atonement, reducing God to helpless hopefulness, exalting unregenerate man to the status of mere spiritual sickness (the ancient semi-pelagian heresy), and reserving always for man a meritorious role in his own salvation. But I will do so by email, as noted above, which will demonstrate, by removing any audience, that it is truth you are concerned with, not grandstanding.

    Again, not offended at all. Just not interested in hosting a bunch of misinformation about Calvinism on the blog. Drop me an email if you feel it will be beneficial.

    Grace to you.

    Reply
  12. avatar

    Rick

    Thank you Jason for the invitation to continue our discourse by private email. I am as impressed with your passion and your grasp of the teachings of your mentors as you seem to be singularly unimpressed by mine. I can assure you, though, my purpose is never to grandstand. Mine is a quest for the truth, and it can only be found in one place. So if you will entertain me in that pursuit, I’d enjoy hearing from you by your private email. Let’s agree that what we do will be to the praise of His glory.

    Rick

    Reply
  13. avatar

    Jason Harris

    Hey Rick,

    Many thanks for the email. I look forward to reading it and interacting with you on its content.

    Soli Deo gloria indeed.

    jh

    Reply
  14. avatar

    searchingtruth

    I am actually in search for the truth as well. I have read and studied many of Spurgeon’s teachings and spent so much time studying the scripture to find truth in Calvinism. I just can’t believe that the Lord said if I be lifted up I’ll draw my chosen few unto me. Or If whosoever is chosen shall call upon the name of the Lord…. There is too much scripture to prove it is the free will of man and their decision whether they answer the call of Christ or not. But that he calls all men to the cross. If it’s his will that some reject the scripture, I honestly do not understand why he would say, he is not WILLing that ANY should perish, but that ALL should come to repentance. I was truly looking forward to seeing a debate here, though the scripture tells us to avoid foolish and profane babbling. It seemed as if while reading through the comments, Rick was playing chess 3-4 moves ahead of Jason, who I’m guessing had taken great pride in his intellect for lack in other areas or rejection in other areas in life and that has given him the “passion” that shows in most devout calvinists. Not for his belief, but for his pride in being right and proving his wit. All of the”debates” I’ve viewed and teachings I’ve found that have had information from both sides, I’ve continued to see this. It has me stuck at 2 thoughts. If Calvinism is from the Lord, either Calvinism is a useless teaching and there is no point in proving your point since convincing a nay sayer will eventually take place anyway. (according to their teachings)Which would defeat the purpose of it by default, or I may not be one of God’s chosen calvinist. Because I am beginning to see a trend and starting to believe it’s one of the Devils biggest lies and is keeping more ppl out of heaven than most “religions.” My final conclusion; It has to be an enemy of winning the lost.

    Reply
  15. avatar

    David

    Hi all,

    Those who discount the doctrines of grace,are usually those who hold to an easy believism. As one preacher said once,”there are only two religions in the world,one is of the cross,and….the other is of man!

    Reply
    1. avatar

      Rick

      And both religions will damn your soul. Religion is always “man-centered” to employ the Calvinist buzzword. Whatever “easy-believism” means to you, the scriptures make plain that what God demands is surrender. Confessing Christ as Lord requires surrender. Anyone out there reading this who believes that is ever “easy” has not fully appreciated Christ’s admonition that if anyone would follow Him, he must deny himself. How about that. First thing out of the box. Get off the throne and let Jesus reign. “Easy?” Not hardly. But I am curious to hear how surrender fits into the reformer’s view of “grace.” Who in their right mind would “discount” grace? Are you setting up a straw man just to knock it down?

  16. avatar

    Another "Grace"

    I am late to this article as I just discovered Jason due to the article re the Dugger dilemma and commented there. Just want to say that I appreciate this article also, Jason. I didn’t realize you were a BJU grad. My father was also, and I believe the abuse in our family was partially a result of the attitudes that were nurtured in him there. Every time we visited BJU so he could relive his glory days, the verbal and physical abuse skyrocketed. I can still see and hear his righteous tantrum imitation of BJ Sr. yelling “Do right til the stars fall” and saying things like “do right because it’s RIGHT to do right.” (Brilliant circular thinking.) He forced my oldest siblings to attend there and they came out with legalism over grace and I got off with going to Pensacola Christian College because it was founded by a grad of BJU and the legalism there made fertile soil for the KJV only teaching. Thank you for calling that out too. The culture at BJU has caused more damage than anyone realizes, I’m with Jeremy — change the name and signify a new era of love and grace.

    Reply
  17. avatar

    Chris

    Hi Jason, you state to Rick,

    “You seem to feel that Calvinists don’t believe humans have a will with which they are responsible to choose obedience and submission. I have never met a Calvinist who believes that”.

    Uh, then you have not met John Calvin. He did not believe man has a choice.

    “Who then shall be saved? That is what His sovereign will decides and nothing else. It is purely a matter of the divine sovereign will which, doubtless for good reasons known to God Himself but none of them relative to anything distinguishing one man morally from another, chooses some and rejects the rest. God’s election has nothing to do with foreknowledge except in so far as he foreknows who are to be members of the human race” (Calvin’s Institutes III, xxiii, page 10).

    “The reprobate like the elect are appointed to be so by the secret counsel of God’s will and by nothing else” (Calvin’s Institutes II, xxii, Page 11).

    “The reprobate like the elect are appointed to be so by the secret counsel of God’s will” (Calvin’s Institutes II, xxii, Page 11) and ” . . .their doom was fixed from all eternity and nothing in them could transfer them to the contrary class…” (Calvin’s Institutes III, iii, Page 4).

    “Their fate was the direct immediate appointment of God, justified indeed by their life but not in necessary consequence. He might have saved them from their doom as He did in the case of the elect who were no more worthy in themselves to be saved; but that doom was fixed from all eternity and nothing in them could transfer them to the contrary class, any more than anything in the elect could result in their becoming reprobate…” (Calvin’s Institute III, iii, Page 4).

    Chris

    Reply
    1. avatar

      Pattonlaw

      Amen Chris:
      I’ve never understood how forcing some to get saved (or forcing them to will to be saved), and consigning others to damnation could ever be described as “good news.” If it is, I sure don’t want want to hear any “bad news.”

      Truth is, Calvinism is another “gospel.”

      Rick

    2. avatar

      Jason Harris

      Chris,
      You seem to feel that God’s sovereignty and man’s will are an either/or proposition. One or the other. Scripture doesn’t.
      Calvin believed that man had a will and used it to reject God. Scripture teaches this also.

    3. avatar

      Rick

      Hello to the other side of the world:
      Calvin never called it “compatiblism,” but I take it that’s what you think Calvin meant. The parable of the frog and the scorpion is the best parable to explain compatiblism. “Why did you sting me? Now we will both die.” “Because I’m a frog.”

      You and I don’t disagree over the means of salvation. We only disagree over the scope of the call. It takes the breath of the Almighty. Job 32:8 NKJV. Scripture does not teach us that breath is in any way limited or targeted. All men everywhere are called to repentance. That’s because in God’s eyes we are worth “more than many sparrows.” My prayer is that you will one day come to appreciate why our Savior uttered those very words. Sovereignty doesn’t even begin to explain the love of Christ, my friend. Not even close.

  18. avatar

    Rick

    Oops
    “Because I’m a scorpion.”

    Reply
  19. avatar

    Brian

    Jason, are u not familiar with the T.U.L.I.P. Acrostic? T=Total Depravity/Inability; U=Unconditional Election; L=Limited Atonement; I=Irresistable Grace and P=Perseverence of the Saints?

    Many men, John Piper, John MacArthur, R.C. Sproul, are deeply routed in this false theology and are leading many people astray. They believe God has chosen to save some and to force others to go to hell. I’m neither a Calvinist nor an Armenian, and I’m also a huge critic of BJU. The theology doesn’t need reformed, but the strict and legalistic rules and judging people who don’t keep them need reformed.

    Reply
    1. avatar

      Jason Harris

      Yes, Brian, I’m familiar with TULIP. Clearly, you aren’t. Because to say that John Piper, John MacArthur, and R.C. Sproul believe that “God has chosen to save some and to force others to go to hell” is simply not true. I can only believe the best and assume you’re disturbingly ignorant on the topic.

  20. avatar

    Chris

    Hi Jason, if you are familiar with T.U.L.I.P then you know that Calvin believed that God chose some to hell and some to heaven. Piper and others might not believe this, but then, are they Calvinist? It is amusing, those that call themselves Calvinists do not even hold to what Calvin believed.

    “Who then shall be saved? That is what His sovereign will decides and nothing else. It is purely a matter of the divine sovereign will which, doubtless for good reasons known to God Himself but none of them relative to anything distinguishing one man morally from another, chooses some and rejects the rest. God’s election has nothing to do with foreknowledge except in so far as he foreknows who are to be members of the human race” (Calvin’s Institutes III, xxiii, page 10).

    “Their fate was the direct immediate appointment of God, justified indeed by their life but not in necessary consequence. He might have saved them from their doom as He did in the case of the elect who were no more worthy in themselves to be saved; but that doom was fixed from all eternity and nothing in them could transfer them to the contrary class, any more than anything in the elect could result in their becoming reprobate…” (Calvin’s Institute III, iii, Page

    Chris

    Reply
    1. avatar

      Jason Harris

      I assume, Chris, that you’re referring to unconditional election. Of course, as in any system of ideology, there are varying understandings of the details. One need not agree with everything Calvin believed about the Doctrines of Grace to be a Calvinist. Indeed Calvin himself never used the TULIP as a means to summarise the distinctives of his theology. I feel this point cannot be stressed enough. That some differ with Calvin on certain elements of HOW the points work out in detail doesn’t mean they aren’t Calvinist; what it means is that they are thinking and seeking faithfulness to Scripture above any man. You seem to think you’ve found a point in which Calvin differs with many Calvinists. Ok. Fine. No big deal.

    2. avatar

      Rick

      It’s just a shame that Calvin knew not the love of Jesus. Instead of splitting hairs on how Calvinistic John Calvin was, that ought to be the focus of our concern.

    3. avatar

      Jason Harris

      We get it, Rick. You disagree with Calvinism. Message received loud and clear.

  21. avatar

    Rick

    Actually Jason, I disagree with John Calvin. “Calvinism” has come to mean many things to many people, which I think even you would admit based on your comments in this thread.

    I just wonder why we are all universally horrified by religious zealots locking believers in a steel cage and setting them on fire, but some among us make allowances and even wink at the same atrocities known to have been threatened, committed, and endorsed by a similar madman in the 16th century? Does such barbarity improve with time? Would anyone reading your blog have the slightest doubt about whether such religious zealots knew anything of the love of Christ? How could they? Why, then, would anyone, revere or venerate the writings of such a madman? There simply must be better hero’s of the faith.

    Reply
    1. avatar

      Jason Harris

      Rick, Comparing Calvin with ISIS is manifestly absurd. If we give you the benefit of the doubt that you’re not a morally bankrupt, dishonest, slanderer, we’re left to assume that you just can’t think straight enough to understand the absurdity. Or are too lazy to.

      If you want to put in the effort to understand why your comparison is faulty, you’re welcome to email me and I’ll help you any way I can privately. But if this is just a platform for venting obsessive hatred of Calvin, consider it otherwise.

  22. avatar

    Chris

    So Jason then you would agree that Calvin was wrong in the foundational truth of the Gospel that God chooses some to heaven and some to hell, That he got it wrong?

    Chris

    Reply
    1. avatar

      Jason Harris

      I have no idea what you believe, what you view to be foundational, or what exactly you think Calvin believed.

      One of the core tenets of the doctrines of grace is unconditional election, or to put it differently, sovereign grace. Calvin and Calvinists all believe in this key doctrine. Seems simple to me.

  23. avatar

    Chris

    Let’s try this again. Do you believe in what John Calvin believed about unconditional election as quoted by his “own words” that God selects some for heaven and some to Hell?

    “Who then shall be saved? That is what His sovereign will decides and nothing else.” – John Calvin

    Chris

    Reply
  24. avatar

    Rick

    Jason. You well know that John Calvin did indeed pursue the deaths of those with whom he disagreed. He did so out of misguided religious zealotry. It is no less offensive because he did it in the name of Christ than it is for those who commit similar atrocities in the name of their faith. If you were honest (instead of piously accusing others of being dishonest) you would acknowledge Calvin’s grievous sins instead of trying to make allowances or excuses for him. Only someone who was morally bankrupt would attempt to defend the indefensible. Don’t be that guy Jason. You and I can disagree and remain civil. Just don’t pretend you’re not aware of Calvin’s inexcusable atrocities. I am neither ignorant nor unread, so I know as well as you how those who share your theology have tried to justify Calvin’s actions. Even Piper admits that Calvin was morally bankrupt.

    Reply
  25. avatar

    Jason Harris

    @Chris, Of course I believe in unconditional sovereign election. And no, that does not require me to believe in double predestination. And the fact that Calvin did or didn’t isn’t particularly relevant.

    @Rick, I’ve never denied Calvin’s role in those deaths. Nor do I now. Nor did I call you dishonest. If you’ll read carefully, you’ll note that I made a point of NOT assuming you are dishonest. But your representation of these deaths ignores that they were legal executions, that Calvin acted in his civil role, and that Calvin was one of many actors. As noted, I’m happy to discuss privately if you can keep it succinct. This post demonstrates exactly what I DID assume about you and that is sloppy, lazy thinking.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2005-2016 by InFocus. Powered by WordPress. Effective News theme by Themelions Team.