Sponsored by

back to Arminianism index page

Review of anti-Calvinism sermon

Recently, I have come to hear of a sermon from a pastor from an Anglican church in Singapore, let's call him Pastor X in short. The whole sermon, or at least part of it, was a diatribe against Calvinism. As I am convinced, and still am, that the theological system nicknamed Calvinism is nothing but pure, unadulterated Christianity, I regard this anti-Calvinism sermon as an assault on the historic, orthodox Christian faith and especially Christian soteriology. As such, I am doing a review of the sermon, which is based on Rom. 8: 29-30, and posting it here.

After doing the review, I have written to the pastor in question and requested a meeting. He has declined, unfortunately, so I will just post this in order to show the distinctives of the Gospel as seen in the Doctrines of Grace.

Review of anti-Calvinism sermon

Pst. X's words will be in maroon while mine will be in black.

Note: BST Greek font required. Download here.

03:54 – 04:30
… Foreknowledge, predestination and election – they go in that order … Foreknowledge, predetermination and then the selection; it's in that order …

No, it is not. Foreknew ≠ foreknowledge. In the Greek, the original word for foreknew is proginosko (προγινοσκο). The apostles would be relying on the Septuagint (LXX) as their basic text of reference for the usage of words and concepts in Scripture and in the Septuagint, the word ginosko (γινοσκο) is used to describe the intimate knowledge and love which a person has for another. For example, in Gen. 4:1, the literal translation, as kept in the KJV and the ESV, is that Adam knew Eve and she conceive. Also, the word ginosko is used in Amos 3:2 whereby it is said that the Lord only knew Israel of all the families of the earth. Of course, it cannot be said that the Lord only know about Israel and doesn't know about other peoples, thus the word ginosko is used in this sense to show that the word is used in the sense of God showing special love to His people. Since that is the case, it is possible that the apostles, in this case Paul, used ginosko to mean intimate knowledge and love, and therefore proginosko means foreloved in this context of Rom. 8:29. Since that is the case, it cannot be maintain that foreknew = foreknowledge, at least in some circumstances.

Even if the word proginosko does mean foreknowledge in this verse, which is unlikely (look at the verb form as proevgnw in Rom. 8:29 ), the problem is not solved. The text is correctly translated (in the ESV) ‘For those whom He [God] foreknew …’ , thus translating the Hos (ος) to ‘whom’ in this verse. Thus, God ‘foreknew’ people; He didn't ‘foreknew’ what people will do or wouldn't do. If the verse is rendered with proginosko meaning foreknowledge, the verse wouldn't make any sense: ‘For those people whom God knows everything about before they ever occur…’. Unless you want to subscribe to universalism, this option is not a viable interpretation; therefore the word proginosko must mean foreloved in the context of this verse.

Therefore, the primary thrust of this supposed ordo salutis falls.

04:36 – 05:40
… 1 Peter 1:2. This is the Apostle Peter … says something to this effect: That God foreknew, and that is why you were elected; you were predetermined to obedience in faith, and therefore into sanctification. … God knew first, and then you were selected as a result of his prior knowledge into sanctification and into salvation …

Wrong. Here is 1 Peter 1:1 – 2, with verse 2 in bold:

‘Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who are elect exiles of the dispersion in Pontius, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood: May grace and peace be multiplied to you.’

There is nothing about the ordo salutis here, and to read it into the text is to commit eisegesis. The foreknowledge of God the Father mentioned here is the Greek word prognosis (προγνοσις), thus it is different from the Greek word proginosko, therefore showing that the word is used in a different sense than the way foreknew is used in Rom. 8:29.

06:45 – 07:32
…. what was being predetermined. … He predestined to be conformed to the image of His son. … the predetermination was to sanctification and growth. …. that it never says in the Scriptures that predestined to go to hell. Nowhere in the Scripture does it ever teach that God has predetermined that some people to go to heaven and therefore He predetermined that some would go to hell. It never says that. NEVER!

Well, it is to be expected. I can grant that Rom. 8:29 never states that predestination was for salvation or reprobation, but this is ridiculous. To infer from that one passage that no one is predestined to go to heaven or hell; or rather to be saved or to be damned, is to turn Scripture on its head. Whatever happened to Romans 9, and especially Rom. 9:22-23?

08:11
We are not saved by predetermination …

And who says that we are? Definitely not Calvinists. We are saved by repenting of our sins and trusting in Christ alone for our salvation. Did I just hear a straw man? (Straw man #1)

08:12 – 08:23
We are saved when we received Jesus Christ by faith…

As I have said: Straw man! Calvinists believe that also. What we differ from Arminians is that we believe the reason why someone believe is because the person is being regenerated by the Holy Spirit, and that alone, and the reason for regeneration is election by God.

08:24 – 08:28
… We choose to believe or not believe

And whoever said it was otherwise? Calvinists believe in free will also, by the way, though some of us like to call it free agency.

08:29 – 08:47
… eenie minee mini more, I [God] decide that number two son would go to heaven, and because we need some extra fuel to fuel the fires of hell, then your number one, number three and number four son is going to hell.

Please, if you want us to treat you seriously, do not create more straw man (Straw man #2)! God's decree of election and reprobation are NOT the same. Election unto salvation is by God's active decree; Reprobation to damnation is God's passive decree, in which God does not choose people to go to hell, but God let them damn themselves by their sins. And the slight on reprobation is uncalled for. God neither ‘need(s) extra fuel to fuel the fires of hell’ nor does He choose people with some ridiculous ‘eenie minee mini more’ choosing game and a flippant attitude, but he does so in accordance with His good pleasure and will (Eph. 1: 11).

08: 48 – 08:51
That is rubbish! It makes God a monster. And if a ‘God’ is a monster, don't worship Him.

Of course, when you create a straw man! If you want to bash Calvinism, can you at least present it properly? And by the way, the necessity of worshipping God is something that is based on His ownership of us as His created beings, so even if God is a ‘monster’ according to the caricature presented, that would not make us any less obliged to worship Him, except now it is not based on love but on fear.

08:52 – 09:05
… Hyper-Calvinism believes in double predestination

Wrong! Hyper-Calvinism is the denial of the free offer of the Gospel and the necessity of evangelism. It has nothing to do with double predestination, an orthodox Christian doctrine which is mostly misunderstood but is part of the theology of all Reformed churches, creeds and confessions. (Straw man #3)

09:06 – 09:11
That means God has deliberately chosen you to go to heaven; and He has deliberately chosen you to go to hell

Why the straw man? Double predestination is NOT God deliberately choosing people to go to heaven or hell, but God choosing some to go to heaven and leaving the others to go to hell by their own accord (See the Westminster Confession of Faith chapter III statement VI). (Straw man #4)

09:12 – 09:25
… You can cry ten buckets of tears; you're going to hell, because God has determined you to go to hell. That is rubbish! …

And that is a straw man!!! (Straw man #5) People who are going to hell would not want it otherwise, for their hearts have already rejected God and they live in active disobedience towards Him. Those who cry buckets of tears, if they are sincere and truly experience godly sorrow and not worldly sorrow (2 Cor. 7:10), will be of the elect. The difference between the two is that the former cries because of his/her sins whereas the latter is not repentant but cries because he/she doesn't want to go to hell but still rejects God. Therefore, if God has predestined someone to go to hell, that person would NOT cry buckets of tears to try to go to heaven, unless, as stated above, those tears are crocodile tears. Unless Pastor X can come up with a way to know who the elect are and who are not of the elect, I would say that he has overstretched this time and doesn't know what he is criticizing.

09:35 – 09:51
… If I'm going to heaven, I can still live like the worst of the sinners, but I will still go to heaven

Guess what? There is such a person: the Apostle Paul who is the worst of sinners (1 Tim. 1:15). OK, seriously, I know what he is talking about, but then isn't that what some Arminians like Dan Corner of the pretentiously named ‘Evangelical Outreach’¹ have charged all of us for doing, such that we must embrace the classical Arminian doctrine of the ‘Conditional Perseverance of the Saints’? Embracing of such doctrines removes our having any assurance of salvation, and logically leads back to Rome and her teachings of justification by faith plus works (thus the denial of salvation by faith alone leading to apostasy). If we are certain of our salvation, doesn't this mean that we can "live like the worst of sinners, but still go to heaven"? Isn't the Arminian doctrine of Once saved, Always saved (OSAS) based on this?

The fact of the matter is, only pure Christian teaching as codified in Calvinism can prevent us from going to either extreme. Calvinism thus indeed say that when a person is saved, that person will always remain saved, though theoretically he/she can commit as many heinous crimes in his/her lifetime. Anyway, isn't that what Rom. 8:30 is teaching us, that ALL who are justified will be glorified? Calvinism's doctrine of Perseverance of the Saints is fundamentally different from the Arminian doctrine of Once saved, Always saved (OSAS)² as justification and sanctification, although distinct, are never uncoupled in the Christian's life. Those who are justified WILL be sanctified; NOT may be, but will be. Anyway, I'm sure Pastor X is familiar with the passages in Rom. 5-7 where it talks about the reason why Christians do not sin or do not want to sin, because sin is not their master anymore, but God's righteousness is. All Christians, who are going to heaven, will not have the desire to sin and will hate sin with a passion, as we are now a new creation in Christ (2 Cor. 5:17). If a person who calls himself a Christian openly celebrates sin, that person's salvation is be questioned. This does not somehow cast doubt on the doctrine of election and predestination as no one except God knows whether that person is predestined for salvation, and we just have to walk by faith and judge people by their fruit (Mt. 7:17-20). Therefore, the whole ridiculous idea that predestination somehow leads to licentiousness is shown to be rubbish. (Straw man #6)

14:57 – 15:10
… And what do I do with you? Don't know what to do. Someone lend me a coin. Heads you win; tails you lose

Straw man (#7)! God choose everyone based on his sovereign good pleasure and will (Eph. 1:11), not based on chance or arbitrarily.

15:11 – 15:37
… How do people got the concept? … read Scripture out of context … get the idea that [predestination and election has to do with salvation]

I tell you what. I hereby extend a challenge to Pastor X to a written debate over the Doctrines of Grace, and he can try to show me how I have read the Scriptures out of context.

15:50 – 16:24
… has to do with Calvinism. … Who is John Calvin? ….By the way, … the Presbyterians, especially the Bible-Presbyterians … take pride in being the followers of the theology of John Calvin.

And what is the point of mentioning this? We do not take John Calvin as being infallible, and we don't idolize him, anymore than Methodists ‘idolize’ John Wesley. We take ‘pride’ NOT in being followers of John Calvin, but we thank God for showing us and keeping us in the theocentric theology which is Calvinism.

16:25 – 16:35
… John Calvin, like Martin Luther, is a follower of Augustine's theology

So if I think Pastor X's theology is correct, am I a follower of Pastor X's theology, or a follower of Pastor X? Is Pastor X insinuating that somehow just because someone approves of another's theology and follow it means that person is somehow blindly following in the possible errors of the other?

17:14 – 17:38
People like Augustine and his era, they were very much influenced by the Greek philosopher, Plato. … Augustine was influenced by Platonic philosophy …

Well, show me the proof please! I hope this is not the so-called New Perspective on Paul (NPP), which is blatant heresy.

17:39 – 18:09
… [Platonic philosophy] emphasis is on the immutability of God. God cannot change; absolutely cannot change. If God said something, did something, it is forever and ever and ever; it cannot change. That is not exactly the picture of God in the Bible, by the way. … You have heard people say that ‘Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever’ but please understand it within its proper context.

Is Pastor X promoting the heresy of open theism, spewed from the mouths of heretics Clark Pinnock and Greg Boyd among others? I sincerely hope not. The immutability of God is NOT a platonic idea. Just because Plato mention it doesn't make it wrong. If that's the case, then we need to reject many things also. We can start questioning whether God is actually good or relatively good, among other things. Since Pastor X doesn't seem to like Heb. 13:8, saying it is taken out of context, let me give him Num. 23:19, which states thus:

God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind.
Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?

This verse definitely tells us in context that God is absolutely immutable. This is not a Platonic idea but it is Scriptural also.

18:10 – 18:25
God does change his mind … Many times he says that he is going to wipe out Israel, and then as a result of intercession, God says ‘OK, OK, I give you another chance’

Just because God is said in the narrative that he changes his mind does it then mean that God really changes his mind? Or was he just threatening judgment so as to invite people like Moses to intercede for the people in order to teach them to depend on him and to intercede for others? Remember that God has foreordained the means as well as the ends, so intercession can be seen as a God-ordained means to work towards a God-ordained end.

Anyway, if we use the narrative account to establish a principle which violates a clear descriptive statement in Scripture (Num. 23:19), aren't we turning Scripture on it head? Shouldn't we exegete Scripture the other way round, where didactic pronouncements and doctrinal teaching is the template upon which we interpret all of Scripture?

16:26 – 18:57
… emphasis on Augustinian theology was very heavy on the sovereignty of God. That means God is like a distant God ….

I really don't know what to say about this. What bearing does the emphasis on the sovereignty of God has on the issue over whether God is distant and personal? Scripture says that God is absolutely sovereign (Rom. 9, Is. 45:9-11 among others) and that he is also a personal God. The two are not mutually exclusive. (Straw man #8)

18:58 – 19:50
… But please, God make Adam and Eve like Him, and therefore Adam and Eve do have a choice. He didn't make Adam and Eve like a machine whereby they have no choice. … they were given the privilege of moral choice, and that is what make them like God. … Some of the animals don't have a choice. … Adam and Eve do have a choice. And that is what makes them unique among all of God's creations.

Firstly, Calvinism does not deny that Man has a choice. However, we believe in a free will which choose according to our nature (compatibilistic free will) and not libertarian free will, which states that Man can choose contrary to his own nature.

Secondly, theologians dispute the fact that the ability of choosing is what makes Man unique in all of God's creations. I am of the opinion that Man is unique because we have the ability to worship God, desire Him and enjoy Him forever (Westminster Shorter Catechism Question 1), nothing to do with whether we can make choices or not.

19:51 – 20:05
God is basically unchanging. … But that is not to say that he is absolutely unchanging

Sorry, but I don't see the difference between the two. What exactly is the difference between 'unchanging' and 'absolutely unchanging'? Philosophical definitions are not accepted as otherwise we are just following Plato, right, and that is wrong?

20:06 – 20:10
There are things which have changed in the process of time

And? What does this have to do with God? Just because God does something in time means that he is changing?

20:49 – 20:59
[In Calvinism] … Man has nothing whatsoever to do with the purposes of God.

Straw Man (#9)!! In Calvinism, Man has something to do with the purpose of God; namely, to be used as instruments in the working out of God's Will.

21:00 – 21:33
TULIP … T stands for Total depravity, which is correct…

If Pastor X subscribes to Total depravity, then can he please tell me how Man can choose God of their own free depraved will?

21:34 – 21:41
U stands for … Unconditional grace

Wrong!! U stands for Unconditional election.

22:04 – 22:17
L stands for LIMITED atonement. Now, this is where … there is going to be a serious problem as far as evangelism and fulfilling the Great Commission is concerned. If you subscribe to TULIP, forget about evangelism

And why is that so? Does Pastor X somehow know who the elect is, such that we preach to them only? Or does he believe that if God dies for a person, then person doesn't need to turn to Christ in repentance of sin? And why is that so? Does he really understand what the doctrine of Limited Atonement teaches? Also, doesn't the Scripture itself teach that the Word of God is preached not only to save but to condemn those who disbelieve (Phil. 1:28, 2 Cor. 2:16)? (Straw man #10)

22:18 – 22:42
Limited atonement also means that Jesus Christ did not die for all mankind … The death of Christ on the cross is only for the elect.

And the problem is? Unless Pastor X is seeking to confuse the issue, Limited atonement is talking about the intent of the cross work of Christ, not its power. Both Calvinism and Arminianism believe in particularism, that Christ's death only saves those who believe, and that it is sufficient to save everyone. What we differ is the intent of the atonement.

22:44 – 23:07
I is Irresistible Grace. … P is Perseverance of the Saints. Which is fine, … but people take it to the extreme. …. People say… I can sin all I want, and I will still be saved.

As I have said, that is NOT what Perseverance of the Saints teaches (Straw man #6).

23:29 – 23:54
Which of the denominations which are basically Arminian? … Arminianism is represented by people like the Baptists; like the Pentecostals; like the Assemblies of God … the emphasis is on Man's free will.

Baptists are fundamentally Arminian? Nope, unless you are either talking about the Anabaptists or the Free will Baptists, with the former in serious doctrinal error and the latter only emerging after the so-called Second Great Awakening by the arch-heretic Charles Finney, who denies justification by faith alone and original sin, among others³. The Baptists are in general Calvinistic. For example, the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith is thoroughly Calvinistic⁴. The famous Baptist preacher, Charles H. Spurgeon, is also a Calvinist who views Arminianism as rightly an aberrant doctrine⁵.

With regards to Pentecostals and AOG, it is true that they are partially Arminian in nature, but that is because they basically started off with anti-intellectual tendencies already. Even now, some of them are discovering for themselves the glorious doctrines of grace and trusting Christ alone for their all.

24:42 – 24:50
So you have two extremes [Calvinism & Arminianism] …

Isn't it always good to portray yourself as the moderate party?

24:51 – 25:03
… congregational free churches…. They are on the side of Arminianism

Well, how about the late Dr. Martin Lloyd Jones, a Calvinistic pastor of a congregational church in London, Westminster Chapel. Speaking of which, let's talk about the Anglican churches. In Article XVII of the 39 Articles of the Church of England, it is stated⁶:

Chapter XVII: Of predestination and election

Predestination to Life is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby (before the foundations of the world were laid) he hath constantly decreed by his counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom he hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation, as vessels made to honour. Wherefore, they which be endued with so excellent a benefit of God be called according to God's purpose by his Spirit working in due season: they through Grace obey the calling: they be justified freely: they be made sons of God by adoption: they be made like the image of his only-begotten Son Jesus Christ: they walk religiously in good works, and at length, by God's mercy, they attain to everlasting felicity.

[…]

As it can be seen, the 39 Articles of the Church of England is Calvinistic, and since Pastor X is an Anglican pastor who is supposed to subscribe to them, he should be preaching in line with what it teaches, not against it.

42:45 – 43:40
… You cannot say, ‘I am an unbeliever. I know you Christians believe that God has predetermined some people to be saved, and some people to go to hell. And by the way, I have decided that God has predestined me to go to hell and therefore don't bother to make a convert out of me. …’

For one thing, the person doesn't know who will go to heaven and who will go to hell; i.e. who are the elect and who are the reprobate, so his objection is invalid.

47:41 – 48:29
… what about Judas Iscariot? God chose him and he is going to hell …. Theoretically speaking, if Judas Iscariot came back to Jesus after the resurrection and say, ‘Lord, I was wrong’, I believe …. [that] Judas Iscariot will be forgiven. … If Judas Iscariot repents of his sins, he will be saved.

I agree that IF Judas Iscariot repents of his sins, he will be saved. The question is, Can he? Scripture says no, as he is the son of perdition (Jn. 17:12), destined for hell. That doesn't mean that God make him go to hell, but he willingly do so and God did not give him the grace to change his path, which He is not obliged to do so either.

53:51 – 54:05
… In a very real sense, each one of us is (sic) called into salvation; we are invited into salvation …

Called ≠ Invited. Called is always used in the active sense whereas invited is in the passive sense, in the Greek.

Summary:

Here in summary are the 10 straw men found in Pastor X's sermon:

(#1) Calvinism believe people are saved by mere predestination alone.
(#2) The decree of election and reprobation in Calvinism are of the same type and degree
(#3) Hyper-Calvinism is the belief in double predestination
(#4) Double predestination is the doctrine that God actively elects people to go to heaven and actively or deliberately elects people to go to hell
(#5) In Calvinism, there are people who are condemned to hell who will beg God and cry that they want to be saved but will be refused as they are predestinated to hell.
(#6) If someone is of the elect, they have a license to sin all they want as they will still be saved regardless.
(#7) God chooses who will be of the elect and who will be reprobate based on random arbitrary thoughts or chance.
(#8) An absolutely sovereign God is a distant God.
(#9) In Calvinism, Man has nothing to do with God's plan.
(#10) Calvinism is against evangelism.

Conclusion:

It is hoped that through this review, the distinctives of the pure Christian and Calvinistic faith could be seen, understood and appreciated better through the contrast and interaction with Pastor X's synergism, with it being exposed by the Word of God to be unbiblical. Now to Him who is the author and finisher of our faith (something which all synergists cannot say), the Alpha and the Omega, be all glory, honor, power and praise, forever and ever. Amen.

References

[1] Evangelical Outreach (http://www.evangelicaloutreach.com/)

[2] See http://www.angelfire.com/falcon/ddd_chc82/theology/OSAS.html for more details.

[3] See The legacy of Charles Finney (http://reformednet.org/refnet/lib/docs/Finney.htm) and especially A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing — How Charles Finney's Theology Ravaged the Evangelical Movement (http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/finney.htm) by Phillip R. Johnson for more details.

[4] See the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith here for more details (http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/bcof.htm)

[5] Are you sure you like Spurgeon? (http://www.banneroftruth.org/pages/articles/article_detail.php?41)

[6] Articles of Religion (http://anglicansonline.org/basics/thirty-nine_articles.html)