Comments on: Free to Decide: Confessions of a Former Calvinist http://www.brandonacox.com/2006/04/21/free-to-decide-confessions-of-a-former-calvinist/ The Blog of Brandon A. Cox Thu, 11 Mar 2010 04:18:30 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Brandon http://www.brandonacox.com/2006/04/21/free-to-decide-confessions-of-a-former-calvinist/#comment-16425 Brandon Sun, 31 Jan 2010 02:52:45 +0000 http://brandonacox.com/2006/04/21/free-to-decide-confessions-of-a-former-calvinist/#comment-16425 Tom, I'm afraid I don't see your logic... ;) Tom, I’m afraid I don’t see your logic… ;)

]]> By: Tom http://www.brandonacox.com/2006/04/21/free-to-decide-confessions-of-a-former-calvinist/#comment-16424 Tom Sun, 31 Jan 2010 02:48:06 +0000 http://brandonacox.com/2006/04/21/free-to-decide-confessions-of-a-former-calvinist/#comment-16424 Our logic is not the same as God's wisdom? Sure, but wisdom and logic are entirely different things. I do not see how God's logic and our logic can differ. Can God truthfully declare that a thing exists and does not exist at the same time? Can he declare that some proposition is both true and false at the same moment? I do not think he can, anymore than we can. He wisdom exceeds ours, but to say that he has a different logic is to say that no revelation coming from God could have any meaning for us. Our logic is not the same as God’s wisdom? Sure, but wisdom and logic are entirely different things. I do not see how God’s logic and our logic can differ. Can God truthfully declare that a thing exists and does not exist at the same time? Can he declare that some proposition is both true and false at the same moment? I do not think he can, anymore than we can. He wisdom exceeds ours, but to say that he has a different logic is to say that no revelation coming from God could have any meaning for us.

]]> By: Brandon http://www.brandonacox.com/2006/04/21/free-to-decide-confessions-of-a-former-calvinist/#comment-16423 Brandon Sat, 30 Jan 2010 19:26:47 +0000 http://brandonacox.com/2006/04/21/free-to-decide-confessions-of-a-former-calvinist/#comment-16423 Ron, very good question, and I wish I had the perfect answer. I think one of the problems with intellectual pride is that it's subtle and very difficult to help someone see it, and we certainly don't classify it with other sins in our own minds. I think the main goal is to promote humility and to hold up the guys who are humble in their approach about it. There are some great Calvinist folks who aren't so arrogant and I love them and lift them up as examples. Ron, very good question, and I wish I had the perfect answer. I think one of the problems with intellectual pride is that it’s subtle and very difficult to help someone see it, and we certainly don’t classify it with other sins in our own minds.

I think the main goal is to promote humility and to hold up the guys who are humble in their approach about it. There are some great Calvinist folks who aren’t so arrogant and I love them and lift them up as examples.

]]> By: Ron Hale http://www.brandonacox.com/2006/04/21/free-to-decide-confessions-of-a-former-calvinist/#comment-16422 Ron Hale Sat, 30 Jan 2010 19:09:19 +0000 http://brandonacox.com/2006/04/21/free-to-decide-confessions-of-a-former-calvinist/#comment-16422 Brandon, Thanks so very much for your confession and sharing your journey! As an older guy in the convention now (57 years old), I can say that I was never confronted with reform theology during my college and seminary days. So, I've had some catching up in my understandings. Give me some pointers in relating to some of my younger Brothers in the SBC that haven't even pastored their first church as of yet, or baptized anyone, but they feel they are smarter/wiser than their old pastor back home in their country church -- because -- they have been enlightened by calvinism. I have been personally offended by certain attitudes, but I'm truly wanting to be bridge builder. <Ron Brandon,
Thanks so very much for your confession and sharing your journey!

As an older guy in the convention now (57 years old), I can say that I was never confronted with reform theology during my college and seminary days. So, I’ve had some catching up in my understandings.

Give me some pointers in relating to some of my younger Brothers in the SBC that haven’t even pastored their first church as of yet, or baptized anyone, but they feel they are smarter/wiser than their old pastor back home in their country church — because — they have been enlightened by calvinism.

I have been personally offended by certain attitudes, but I’m truly wanting to be bridge builder. <Ron

]]> By: Gordon http://www.brandonacox.com/2006/04/21/free-to-decide-confessions-of-a-former-calvinist/#comment-16413 Gordon Wed, 27 Jan 2010 12:12:34 +0000 http://brandonacox.com/2006/04/21/free-to-decide-confessions-of-a-former-calvinist/#comment-16413 I, personally, believe in OSAS. I noticed some of the speakers you like, Ronnie Floyd and Jack Graham. I too enjoy their ministries. I enjoy watching the chapel sermons at SWBTS along with a host of others, like Dr. David Jeremiah, Graham, Hunt, Gains, and many more. I identify very closely with the views of Dr. Elmer Towns of Liberty University and I am a huge fan of the Falwells. I, personally, believe in OSAS. I noticed some of the speakers you like, Ronnie Floyd and Jack Graham. I too enjoy their ministries. I enjoy watching the chapel sermons at SWBTS along with a host of others, like Dr. David Jeremiah, Graham, Hunt, Gains, and many more. I identify very closely with the views of Dr. Elmer Towns of Liberty University and I am a huge fan of the Falwells.

]]> By: Brandon http://www.brandonacox.com/2006/04/21/free-to-decide-confessions-of-a-former-calvinist/#comment-16411 Brandon Wed, 27 Jan 2010 11:41:49 +0000 http://brandonacox.com/2006/04/21/free-to-decide-confessions-of-a-former-calvinist/#comment-16411 You know, though I'm not an Arminianist, nor do I agree with all that Free Will Baptists believe, I do love Picirilli and his writings. His book on Paul's life is my textbook for a Wednesday night Bible study right now. Excellent thought too. Very hard to present a compelling argument against what Picirilli asserted here. Thanks for sharing! You know, though I’m not an Arminianist, nor do I agree with all that Free Will Baptists believe, I do love Picirilli and his writings. His book on Paul’s life is my textbook for a Wednesday night Bible study right now.

Excellent thought too. Very hard to present a compelling argument against what Picirilli asserted here.

Thanks for sharing!

]]> By: Gordon http://www.brandonacox.com/2006/04/21/free-to-decide-confessions-of-a-former-calvinist/#comment-16410 Gordon Wed, 27 Jan 2010 11:27:41 +0000 http://brandonacox.com/2006/04/21/free-to-decide-confessions-of-a-former-calvinist/#comment-16410 I have just recently read Robert E. Picirilli's book "Grace Faith Free Will - Contrasting Views of Salvation: Calvinism & Arminianism. Dr. Picirilli is a very clear thinker and has the ability to discuss both sides without condemnation and ill will. His insight and understanding are worth all who struggle with the difference between these two theological views a necessary read. Here is an example of his thinking as it pertains to the meaning of Eph. 2:8 “There are two reasons, one grammatical and one syntactical, for insisting that “this” does not refer back to “faith”. Grammatically, “faith” is feminine and “this” is neuter. Only an unnatural stretching of the possibilities of Greek grammar can read “faith” as the antecedent of “this”. Syntactically, the fact (often overlooked) is that there are three complements of “this” which follow it: (1) “this” (is) not of you (2) “this” (is) God’s gift, (3) “this” (is) not of works, lest anyone boast. To read “faith” with “this” might make some kind of sense for the first two of these, but it will not work with the third: “this faith is not of works” would be nonsensical tautology in view of the fact that works is in contrast to faith already. In Ephesians 2:8, 9, therefore, “this” has for its antecedent the entire preceding clause. This fits the “rules” of Greek grammar that called for a neuter pronoun to refer to a verbal idea, and it makes perfectly good sense in the context. “By grace you have been saved by faith: and this saving experience is not of you but is the gift of God, not of works lest any boast.” End of Quote Tautology defined by “Dictionary Dot Com” noun, plural -gies. 1. needless repetition of an idea, esp. in words other than those of the immediate context, without imparting additional force or clearness, as in “widow woman.” 2. an instance of such repetition. 3. Logic. a. a compound propositional form all of whose instances are true, as “A or not A.” b. an instance of such a form, as “This candidate will win or will not win.” I have just recently read Robert E. Picirilli’s book “Grace Faith Free Will – Contrasting Views of Salvation: Calvinism & Arminianism.
Dr. Picirilli is a very clear thinker and has the ability to discuss both sides without condemnation and ill will. His insight and understanding are worth all who struggle with the difference between these two theological views a necessary read.
Here is an example of his thinking as it pertains to the meaning of Eph. 2:8
“There are two reasons, one grammatical and one syntactical, for insisting that “this” does not refer back to “faith”. Grammatically, “faith” is feminine and “this” is neuter. Only an unnatural stretching of the possibilities of Greek grammar can read “faith” as the antecedent of “this”.
Syntactically, the fact (often overlooked) is that there are three complements of “this” which follow it:
(1) “this” (is) not of you
(2) “this” (is) God’s gift,
(3) “this” (is) not of works, lest anyone boast.
To read “faith” with “this” might make some kind of sense for the first two of these, but it will not work with the third: “this faith is not of works” would be nonsensical tautology in view of the fact that works is in contrast to faith already.
In Ephesians 2:8, 9, therefore, “this” has for its antecedent the entire preceding clause. This fits the “rules” of Greek grammar that called for a neuter pronoun to refer to a verbal idea, and it makes perfectly good sense in the context. “By grace you have been saved by faith: and this saving experience is not of you but is the gift of God, not of works lest any boast.”
End of Quote
Tautology defined by “Dictionary Dot Com”
noun, plural -gies.
1. needless repetition of an idea, esp. in words other than those of the immediate context, without imparting additional force or clearness, as in “widow woman.”
2. an instance of such repetition.
3. Logic.
a. a compound propositional form all of whose instances are true, as “A or not A.”
b. an instance of such a form, as “This candidate will win or will not win.”

]]> By: Brandon http://www.brandonacox.com/2006/04/21/free-to-decide-confessions-of-a-former-calvinist/#comment-16401 Brandon Sun, 24 Jan 2010 13:32:58 +0000 http://brandonacox.com/2006/04/21/free-to-decide-confessions-of-a-former-calvinist/#comment-16401 Yes, it is a very good and powerful point. Yes, it is a very good and powerful point.

]]> By: jennifer http://www.brandonacox.com/2006/04/21/free-to-decide-confessions-of-a-former-calvinist/#comment-16400 jennifer Sun, 24 Jan 2010 07:50:29 +0000 http://brandonacox.com/2006/04/21/free-to-decide-confessions-of-a-former-calvinist/#comment-16400 I liked Gordon's comment. In fact I'm going to print it out. The trouble with Calvinism is that it attributes behaviour to the Lord that we would find highly incomprehensible and disconcerting in any sane person. Calvinism makes God out to be some kind of self-willed, cosmic lunatic - who says one thing but means another! I liked Gordon’s comment. In fact I’m going to print it out. The trouble with Calvinism is that it attributes behaviour to the Lord that we would find highly incomprehensible and disconcerting in any sane person. Calvinism makes God out to be some kind of self-willed, cosmic lunatic – who says one thing but means another!

]]> By: Tom http://www.brandonacox.com/2006/04/21/free-to-decide-confessions-of-a-former-calvinist/#comment-15530 Tom Sun, 04 Oct 2009 17:40:34 +0000 http://brandonacox.com/2006/04/21/free-to-decide-confessions-of-a-former-calvinist/#comment-15530 Brandon, I have been a Calvinist for about 25 years and am now undergoing a change. It started with doubts that anyone could honestly say to another person that Christ has done anything for his salvation. I always had to keep in mind that the person spoken to might not be one for whom Christ has died, and therefore not one for whom salvation is possible. I felt I had to accept this situation, like it or not, because to doubt the Calvinistic doctrine of limited atonement would be to undermine all the other five points, and thus to undermine a true systematic biblical theology. After much reading, I have given up on limited atonement and am seeing that the other four points are morally, logically and scripturally false without considerable modification. I was amazed to see how much my own experience is like your own. I wonder how many there are out there like us. Brandon, I have been a Calvinist for about 25 years and am now undergoing a change. It started with doubts that anyone could honestly say to another person that Christ has done anything for his salvation. I always had to keep in mind that the person spoken to might not be one for whom Christ has died, and therefore not one for whom salvation is possible. I felt I had to accept this situation, like it or not, because to doubt the Calvinistic doctrine of limited atonement would be to undermine all the other five points, and thus to undermine a true systematic biblical theology. After much reading, I have given up on limited atonement and am seeing that the other four points are morally, logically and scripturally false without considerable modification.
I was amazed to see how much my own experience is like your own. I wonder how many there are out there like us.

]]> By: Will http://www.brandonacox.com/2006/04/21/free-to-decide-confessions-of-a-former-calvinist/#comment-15040 Will Mon, 27 Jul 2009 16:38:34 +0000 http://brandonacox.com/2006/04/21/free-to-decide-confessions-of-a-former-calvinist/#comment-15040 <a href='#comment-14935' rel="nofollow">@Jimbo</a> - Hey, man, use the comma instead of the apostrophe. It's right below the 'm'. @Jimbo – Hey, man, use the comma instead of the apostrophe. It’s right below the ‘m’.

]]> By: Tracy http://www.brandonacox.com/2006/04/21/free-to-decide-confessions-of-a-former-calvinist/#comment-15034 Tracy Sat, 25 Jul 2009 22:48:55 +0000 http://brandonacox.com/2006/04/21/free-to-decide-confessions-of-a-former-calvinist/#comment-15034 Brandon, I think you have written very well and studied this out. It does sound like Calvinism does a great disservice to what the bible speaks of as the "simplicity in Christ". God means what he says when he said HE wishes that NONE should perish but that ALL should come to repentance. Its just a sad fact that many will not choose Him, but God will save any one who asks for it on God's terms. Well done for the glory of God and true- He cannot be put into a box that our intellectual theologians have designed for him. He is greater than what we can fathom! Brandon, I think you have written very well and studied this out. It does sound like Calvinism does a great disservice to what the bible speaks of as the “simplicity in Christ”. God means what he says when he said HE wishes that NONE should perish but that ALL should come to repentance. Its just a sad fact that many will not choose Him, but God will save any one who asks for it on God’s terms. Well done for the glory of God and true- He cannot be put into a box that our intellectual theologians have designed for him. He is greater than what we can fathom!

]]> By: Brandon http://www.brandonacox.com/2006/04/21/free-to-decide-confessions-of-a-former-calvinist/#comment-15001 Brandon Sun, 19 Jul 2009 15:13:07 +0000 http://brandonacox.com/2006/04/21/free-to-decide-confessions-of-a-former-calvinist/#comment-15001 Good point about logic. I think I say Calvinism is logical only in the sense that the major tenets may be mutually supported by a system which flows out if human reason and intellect, not out of truth. Our logic certainly doesn't always correspond with God's perfect wisdom, especially since the fall. Good point about logic. I think I say Calvinism is logical only in the sense that the major tenets may be mutually supported by a system which flows out if human reason and intellect, not out of truth. Our logic certainly doesn’t always correspond with God’s perfect wisdom, especially since the fall.

]]> By: Gordon http://www.brandonacox.com/2006/04/21/free-to-decide-confessions-of-a-former-calvinist/#comment-14999 Gordon Sun, 19 Jul 2009 13:48:16 +0000 http://brandonacox.com/2006/04/21/free-to-decide-confessions-of-a-former-calvinist/#comment-14999 1. Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, 2. for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence. 3. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4. who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5. For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, 6. who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time, 7. for which I was appointed a preacher and an apostle I am speaking the truth in Christ and not lying a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth. One must consider that if God desires all to be saved then of the same breath pick a few for salvation and damn the rest then we have a real problem with truth. Can God be holy if he damns the people to eternal hell and picks form the all a few while at the same time telling us He desires all to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth? There are three answers to this passage and Calvinism is the most illogical of the three. God desires all to be saved: Calvinism picks a few of the all Universalism picks saves all humanity However, the only position left is to allow some form of human freedom in the process which does not violated God's sovereignty, recognizes the depravity of man and honors the atonement of Christ. Calvinism is not a logical order of belief. Calvinist must arguer against passages that clearly teach that Christ died for all mankind. Is that logical? No Calvinist must arguer that foreknowledge does not mean foreknowledge. Is that logical? No Calvinist must arguer that regeneration is before faith and this is not found in Scripture where as we read in a number of places where salvation follows faith. The clear passages are there but denied. Is this logical? No We must stop supporting the argument that Calvinism is logical because it is not. 1. Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, 2. for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence. 3. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4. who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5. For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, 6. who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time, 7. for which I was appointed a preacher and an apostle I am speaking the truth in Christ and not lying a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.

One must consider that if God desires all to be saved then of the same breath pick a few for salvation and damn the rest then we have a real problem with truth. Can God be holy if he damns the people to eternal hell and picks form the all a few while at the same time telling us He desires all to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth?

There are three answers to this passage and Calvinism is the most illogical of the three.

God desires all to be saved:

Calvinism picks a few of the all

Universalism picks saves all humanity

However, the only position left is to allow some form of human freedom in the process which does not violated God’s sovereignty, recognizes the depravity of man and honors the atonement of Christ.

Calvinism is not a logical order of belief. Calvinist must arguer against passages that clearly teach that Christ died for all mankind. Is that logical? No

Calvinist must arguer that foreknowledge does not mean foreknowledge. Is that logical? No

Calvinist must arguer that regeneration is before faith and this is not found in Scripture where as we read in a number of places where salvation follows faith. The clear passages are there but denied. Is this logical? No

We must stop supporting the argument that Calvinism is logical because it is not.

]]> By: David http://www.brandonacox.com/2006/04/21/free-to-decide-confessions-of-a-former-calvinist/#comment-14976 David Sun, 12 Jul 2009 03:59:12 +0000 http://brandonacox.com/2006/04/21/free-to-decide-confessions-of-a-former-calvinist/#comment-14976 As one who has struggled over Calvinism many years, I found this blog which I came across tonight fascinating. Thank you for it. When I was a new Christian and found my spirit very wounded by Calvinism, I asked a Calvinist why he thought I had to believe in Calvinism. He said that the reason was that there was no other way to interpret Romans 9-11. However, a wonderful Bible teacher steered me to a great book, God's Strategy in Human History, by Forster and Marston, which was a Christianity Today Book of the Month Club Selection. It had a fabulous explanation of all the Bible passages that sound Calvinistic, and it explained them all in a non-Calvinistic way which made a lot of sense. This book greatly comforted me that I could believe in the Bible's inerrancy without feeling forced to believe in Calvinism. It's available on Amazon.com -- God's Strategy in Human History by Roger Forster and Paul Marston As one who has struggled over Calvinism many years, I found this blog which I came across tonight fascinating. Thank you for it. When I was a new Christian and found my spirit very wounded by Calvinism, I asked a Calvinist why he thought I had to believe in Calvinism. He said that the reason was that there was no other way to interpret Romans 9-11. However, a wonderful Bible teacher steered me to a great book, God’s Strategy in Human History, by Forster and Marston, which was a Christianity Today Book of the Month Club Selection. It had a fabulous explanation of all the Bible passages that sound Calvinistic, and it explained them all in a non-Calvinistic way which made a lot of sense. This book greatly comforted me that I could believe in the Bible’s inerrancy without feeling forced to believe in Calvinism. It’s available on Amazon.com — God’s Strategy in Human History by Roger Forster and Paul Marston

]]>