Why Good People Object to the Doctrine of Perseverance

On By Dave MallinakIn Apologetic, Calvinism, Gospel Conversations, Hot Topics, Independent Baptists, Issues Facing the Church

I also think that that little catch phrase, perseverance of the saints, is dangerously misleading because again, it suggests that the persevering is something that we do, perhaps in and of ourselves. Now, I believe, of course, that saints do persevere in faith and that those who have been effectually called by God and have been reborn by the power of the Holy Spirit endure to the end, so that they do persevere. But they persevere not simply because they are so diligent in their making use of the mercies of God. But the only reason we can give why any of us continues on in the faith even till the last day is not because we have persevered so much as that is because we have been preserved. And so I prefer the term the preservation–the preservation–of the saints, because this process by which we are kept in a state of grace is something that is accomplished by God. (R.C. Sproul, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CK-QdF64yng)

I understand the “P” in the TULIP to say that the God who saves a man keeps that man to the end. Thus, Sproul and many others have suggested that the “P” would better represent Calvinist theology if it stood for “preservation” instead of “perseverance.” Indeed, the Bible emphasizes not the perseverance of the saints but God’s preservation of the saints.

Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ: (Philippians 1:6)

For the which cause I also suffer these things: nevertheless I am not ashamed: for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day. (2 Timothy 2:12)

I have attempted to engage honestly with Calvinism, avoiding caricatures while expressing my objections based on Scripture. My main objection has been to the Calvinist tendency to blur or erase the paradox, the mysterious interaction between God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility and free will. This tendency shows up in various ways in the first 4 points of Calvinism. But in the doctrine of perseverance, I see a different problem related to what R.C. Sproul acknowledges above. If Sproul admits the problem, I am not alone in my concern. But Sproul and other Calvinists haven’t done themselves any favors.

The word “perseverance” is terribly misleading. Nor do these quotes help things. Consider what a variety of famous (or infamous) Calvinists have said.

Conclude we, then, that holiness in this life is absolutely necessary to salvation, not only as a means to the end, but by a nobler kind of necessity — as part of the end itself. (A. W. Pink “On Sanctification” https://gracegems.org/Pink/sanctification.htm)

Neither the members of the church nor the elect can be saved unless they persevere in holiness; and they cannot persevere in holiness without continual watchfulness and effort.  (Charles Hodge comments on I Corinthians 10:12 https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/hdg/1-corinthians-10.html)

Endurance in faith is a condition in salvation (R. C. Sproul “Grace Unkown” – this article deals extensively with Sproul’s book: https://faithalone.org/journal-articles/book-reviews/grace-unknown-the-heart-of-reformed-theology/)

Continue reading “Why Good People Object to the Doctrine of Perseverance” →

Saving Grace Is Not Absolutely Irresistible

On By Dave MallinakIn Calvinism, Gospel Conversations, Hot Topics, Issues Facing the Church1 Comment

A friend of mine likes to remind me that in the free offer of the gospel, God isn’t play-acting. God doesn’t make a show of extending the offer of salvation to sinners when, in reality, He has withheld any possibility of them being saved. Perhaps this summarizes the conflict over Calvinism better than any other illustration.

The “I” in the TULIP represents “Irresistible Grace,” which has been described as the difference between God’s “external” call and His “internal” call. Some have modified the adjective “irresistible” to “effectual.” However, the teaching itself is fairly consistent among Calvinists.

In addition to the outward general call to salvation which is made to everyone who hears the gospel, the Holy Spirit extends to the elect a special inward call that inevitably brings them to salvation. The external call (which is made to all without distinction) can be, and often is, rejected; whereas the internal call (which is made only to the elect) cannot be rejected; it always results in conversion. By means of this special call the Spirit irresistibly draws sinners to Christ. He is not limited in His work of applying salvation by man’s will, nor is He dependent upon man’s cooperation for success. The Spirit graciously causes the elect sinner to cooperate, to believe, to repent, to come freely and willingly to Christ. God’s grace, therefore, is invincible; it never fails to result in the salvation of those to whom it is extended. (https://www.fivesolas.com/cal_arm.htm)

In his online lecture on Irresistible Grace, R.C. Sproul acknowledges the problems with the term “irresistible.”

Now beloved, the history of the human race is the history of relentless resistance by human beings to the sweetness of the grace of God. What is meant by irresistible grace is not what the word suggests, that it’s incapable of being resisted. Indeed, we are capable of resisting God’s grace, and we do resist God’s grace. But the idea here is that in spite of our natural resistance to the grace of God that God’s grace is so powerful that it has the capacity to overcome our natural resistance to it. That’s why I prefer the term effectual grace rather than irresistible grace because this grace that is irresistible effects what God intends to effect by it.

And in Chosen by God, Sproul says,

Calvinism does not teach and never has taught that God brings people kicking and screaming into the kingdom or has ever excluded anyone who wanted to be there. Remember that the cardinal point of the Reformed doctrine of predestination rests on the biblical teaching of man’s spiritual death. Natural man does not want Christ. He will only want Christ if God plants a desire for Christ in his heart. Once that desire is planted, those who come to Christ do not come kicking and screaming against their wills. They come because they want to come. They now desire Jesus. They rush to the Savior. The whole point of irresistible grace is that rebirth quickens someone to spiritual life in such a way that Jesus is now seen in his irresistible sweetness. Jesus is irresistible to those who have been made alive to the things of God. (Chosen by God, pp. 122-123)

I will admit that I have often thought of my coming to faith in Christ this way – that Christ was, in a certain sense, irresistible to me, that I found His grace irresistible when I finally embraced Him as my Savior. I would guess that believers who fought His saving call ferociously would agree that eventually, after long resistance, they found that they were powerless to resist any further.

Continue reading “Saving Grace Is Not Absolutely Irresistible” →

Why I Don’t Believe in Limited Atonement

On By Dave MallinakIn Calvinism, Gospel Conversations, Hot Topics, Issues Facing the Church2 Comments

No doubt we’ve all heard Calvinists make statements like this: “Jesus doesn’t love the world,” “Jesus didn’t die for the world,” “Christ didn’t die for all or all would be saved.” As one man said,

The Bible teaches again and again that God does not love all people with the same love. “Loved by God” is not applied to the world but only to the saints.

Defending limited atonement in Chosen By God, R. C. Sproul says,

The world for whom Christ died cannot mean the entire human family. It must refer to the universality of the elect (people from every tribe and nation) or to the inclusion of Gentiles in addition to the world of the Jews. (Sproul, p. 206-207)

Sproul explains that the word “any” in 2 Peter 3:9 – God is “not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance” – doesn’t mean “any” in an absolutely unrestricted sense.

Any time we use the word any, we’re assuming some reference–any what? any of which group? Certainly Peter doesn’t say that God is not willing that any person perish. We had to supply that “person” as if it were tacitly understood.

But is there any other possible reference to the “any” besides any human being? Well, obviously, there are other possibilities, not the least of which is a particular class. You have a class here of people, and that word “people” makes up a distinctive class. And if I said any of that class, I would mean any person. Or I could have another class, a class called Jews, and if I spoke of any of that class, it would refer to anyone who is Jewish, or American, or whatever other group I would incorporate within that circle.

Continue reading “Why I Don’t Believe in Limited Atonement” →

Five Lies of Easy-believism

On By Dave MallinakIn Apologetic, Gospel Conversations, Hot Topics, Independent Baptists, Issues Facing the Church3 Comments

Once upon a time, people would deny that they preached “cheap grace,” even if they did. But we live in a brave new world where up is down and down is up. Today, if you speak out against “easy-believism,” hordes of people rush to embrace the charge. They love that low-grade, 1-ply grace, wide as the ocean, deep as spit on a sidewalk. They defend it furiously. If you disagree, “Go ahead and go to hell, you dog!”

If you ever interact with this deadly heresy, you will quickly discover that you aren’t dealing with the sharpest tools in the tool shed. They hover somewhere on the idiot-o-meter between a poached egg and a bread crust. This is the kind of lie people believe when they have determined not to think. I would be grossly overstating the case to say they have a half-baked theology. Trying to follow their argument is like trying to trace the flight path of a sparrow. Rhyme and reason made a dramatic escape from the prison of their minds long ago.

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

So, why engage this stick figure of a doctrine at all? Because easy-believism has been gaining a head of steam for a while now. I had no idea until I posted one thing on Twitter, pointing out the lunacy of the thing. Suddenly, a virtual confetti storm of trash arguments descended on my head. Easy-believism is the illegitimate child of Jack Hyle and Stephen Anderson. I wish to treat it with all the dignity it deserves.

Having interacted with the cheap grace champs, I see five lies regularly promoted in their arguments. These five lies are argued like Joe Biden preaching the virtues of Bidenomics. Though Bidenomics might have slightly more intrinsic value (if that is even possible). I mention these five lies because you might accidentally step in something and wonder what the smell is coming from your shoes. You’ll want to understand how to clean that off your shoe.

Here are the five lies of easy-believism:

Continue reading “Five Lies of Easy-believism” →

Unconditional Love, Unconditional Election

On By Dave MallinakIn Apologetic, Calvinism, Hot Topics, Issues Facing the Church1 Comment

R.C. Sproul objects – I should say strongly objects – to the notion of unconditional love. In a popular video discussion, Sproul was asked, “When everyone is talking about the love of God, and God loves me just as I am, how would you respond?” He answered,

The kingdom of God is not Mr. Rogers’s neighborhood. I think there are few things more dangerous than preachers out there preaching that God loves everybody unconditionally because the message that is heard by the people who hear that is there are no conditions. I can continue to live just as I’m living in full rebellion against God, and I have nothing to worry about because there aren’t any conditions that I have to meet. God loves me unconditionally. I don’t have to repent, I don’t have to come to Jesus, I don’t have to leave my life of sin. No conditions, no strings attached. God loves me just the way I am. He’s glad that I turned out so nicely…

I don’t disagree with this. At least, not entirely.

In 2011, Tullian Tchividjian (Billy Graham’s grandson) published his book Jesus + Nothing = Everything.In 2013, he published One-Way Love: Inexhaustible Grace for an Exhausted World. Tchividjian is a neo-Calvinist, definitely not orthodox (consider his “Upside-Down Christianity” described here). However, Tchividjian has borrowed heavily from classic Calvinist teachings to describe God’s unconditional love. Tullian likes to use edgy language in his descriptions of God’s grace. For example,

Continue reading “Unconditional Love, Unconditional Election” →

No Faith Without Repentance

On By Dave MallinakIn Apologetic, Gospel Conversations, Hot Topics, Independent Baptists, Issues Facing the Church1 Comment

Jack Hyles and Curtis Hutson catechized and indoctrinated many Independent Baptists into believing that repentance merely means a turning from unbelief to belief in Jesus. Piggybacked onto this false notion of repentance is the idea that any attempt to call sinners to turn from their sin is preaching “works salvation.”

At the end of last week, a Tweet came across my feed, and I responded. My response shouldn’t be controversial, yet out of the woodwork came the easy-believism brigade, led by @BeBerean7, @Honest_Mommy_, and @Pastorb_IFB. @BibleLineMin jumped in briefly but without much substance. Here is the “controversial” tweet.

I can see why this would be a popular “gospel.” Telling people they only need to add “belief in Jesus” to their somewhat crowded lists of self-interests must be very attractive. Though I don’t generally hear the promoters of this false gospel say it in so many words, sinners everywhere hear the message loud and clear: “I can hang on to my sin and still go to heaven when I die.” In fact, @weecalvin1509 helpfully provided me with an example of a pastor preaching easy-believism at its ultimate conclusion:

https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxZk7VBSpAmtedx94X2LH9lW9NYiKiu4dv?si=XR9iPEX2PtPU-1hY

Easy-Believism 101

It isn’t unusual for the promoters of easy-believism to isolate “faith in Christ” and treat it as if it were a lone act and as if it were possible for that to be the sole obedient response to the gospel call. They talk as if a person can make a one-time profession of faith, forget all about it, live the remainder of their days without regard for God, and still expect to hear “well done, good and faithful servant” at the end of their days. The advocates for easy-believism treat every kind of discipleship, sanctification, “following Christ,” obedience, and so forth as optional add-ons. They will argue that we don’t need to follow Christ to be saved. “Saved” merely means (as @BibleLineMin has pinned on his Twitter page) that you “believe that Jesus Christ died, was buried, and is risen to pay for all your sins. The moment you believe, you receive eternal life that can never be lost.”

Continue reading “No Faith Without Repentance” →

The Birth of Jesus a Threat to Tyrants

On By Dave MallinakIn Merry Christmas, Politics

Herod the Great was a usurper. He had no right to the throne of Israel. Herod was an Edomite, though he converted to Judaism. He was a brilliant politician, builder, fabulously wealthy, and desperately wicked. He died of a combination of kidney disease and venereal disease and was nearly insane at the end of his life. He guarded his throne with a ferocity that cost many their lives, including two of his sons – Alexander and Aristobulus – and his wife, Mariamne. Part of his madness was the result of his guilt for ordering her execution.

Because he knew his unpopularity with the Jewish people, Herod ordered the execution, upon his death, of prominent chief priests and rulers of Israel so the people wouldn’t celebrate his death. He stands in Scripture for tyrannical power.

Matthew sets forth the royal claims of Jesus of Nazareth as Israel’s Messiah King. He describes the threat Herod felt when he heard the news that Israel now had a Born King. When the wise men entered Jerusalem, they didn’t ask, “Where is the one who will become king of the Jews.” They asked, “Where is he that is born king of the Jews?” As Herod was a usurper, the claim was not lost on him.

It would be incorrect to mollify Herod with suggestions that Christ’s kingdom is not of this world. Matthew lays out a clear case for Jesus Christ to be Israel’s eternal king. Jesus came to dethrone tyrants like Herod. The prophets foretold the same.

Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this. (Isaiah 9:7)

No surprise: when Herod heard of the birth of one with a legitimate claim to David’s throne, he was troubled. Matthew excels at understatement. Herod immediately started plotting how he might find this baby and kill it. After all, killing babies has always been the practice of evil tyrants.

Continue reading “The Birth of Jesus a Threat to Tyrants” →

What Was That Star of Bethlehem?

On By Dave MallinakIn Expository, Merry Christmas

Matthew doesn’t focus on Herod, the chief priests and scribes, Mary and Joseph, or the wise men in his gospel. Matthew tells us what God did. According to Matthew 2, God prepared a star to guide foreign dignitaries to Jerusalem, where the star disappeared. Because they had no star to guide them, the wise men jolted Jerusalem with their question: “Where is the Born King[1] of the Jews?” To a usurper king like Herod, that question was a threat.  

Having gotten their answer, the Bible tells us that the same star they had seen in the east “went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was.” We see God’s hand in this – guiding the wise men with the star, bringing them to Jerusalem, hiding the star, provoking their question. God used the wise men to herald the news of Christ’s birth so that Herod the King, the chief priests and scribes, and “all Jerusalem” would hear the news of the birth of Christ.

Then, God gave them the star to guide them once again. I’m surprised, frankly, at the natural explanations that have been offered for this star. Even the more conservative commentators tend to overlook its supernatural nature.

Photo by Alex Andrews on Pexels.com

Many have suggested that it was formed by an alignment of two planets (Jupiter and Saturn). Astrologers tell us that these planets aligned in 7 BC and “would have suggested to Babylonian astrologers the idea of a king in ‘the Westland,’ as they called Palestine.”[2] Others have suggested a supernova; apparently, there is evidence for a prominent one between 5 and 4 BC. My favorite suggestion is that the star was Halley’s Comet, rumored to have appeared in 12 BC. All I can say to that is, you’d need some speedy camels to keep up with that.

An obvious question in response to these suggestions would be, can anyone tell which star stands over your city of residence? Is there a star that stands over Utah but not Indiana? From my house in Utah, I have seen the Big Dipper and the Little Dipper overhead. I also observed these same constellations overhead while visiting family in Pennsylvania. Sailors use the stars to chart their course, yet I doubt it would be possible to discern which state or nation a star might stand over.  

When the star reappeared, some insist that it was there symbolically, but it wasn’t much help.

Matthew does not say that the rising star the Magi had seen … led them to Jerusalem. They went first to the capital city because they thought it the natural place for the king of the Jews to be born. But now the star reappeared ahead of them (v. 9) as they made their way to Bethlehem …. Taking this as confirming their purposes, the Magi were overjoyed (v. 10). The Greek text does not imply that the star pointed out the house where Jesus was; it may simply have hovered over Bethlehem as the Magi approached it. They would then have found the exact house through discreet inquiry… (Expositor’s Bible Commentary, emphasis mine)

Continue reading “What Was That Star of Bethlehem?” →

How “Total Depravity” Ignores the Gospel Call

On By Dave MallinakIn Calvinism, Gospel Conversations, Hot Topics, Issues Facing the Church1 Comment

The TULIP completely ignores man’s responsibility and the gospel call itself. It is, in fact, the TULIP more than any other feature of Calvinism that gives non-Calvinists the impression that Calvinism discourages evangelism and teaches men to wait for God to save them rather than repent and believe the gospel. I would go so far as to argue that Calvinism should discard the TULIP and teach what the Bible says as the authority for what we should believe about Christ in His saving work.

The TULIP focuses exclusively on God’s sovereignty in salvation. But this obsession with the sovereignty of God drifts precariously close to a hyper-Calvinistic overstatement of God’s sovereignty, ala A.W. Pink, who couldn’t appreciate any attribute of God without re-hashing God’s sovereignty all over again. Reading Pink’s Attributes of God, one gets the distinct impression that he sees the sovereignty of God as the one attribute that defines all the others, that sovereignty is more important than God’s holiness or love.

I have no wish to understate God’s sovereignty. God is God, and as an expression of the “Godness” of God, the TULIP seeks to glorify God and to remind us that God doesn’t lay aside His sovereign control when it comes to the salvation of sinners. I am very grateful that God gets all the glory, that salvation is His work, and that I am and have always been in His hand. None of this is a denial of God’s sovereignty. Nor is it a denial that the TULIP includes vital truths about God and His work in saving sinners. I am unwilling to join some of my dear friends in repudiating the TULIP as if it contains no truth whatsoever.

But as I have insisted, the Bible doesn’t resolve the mysterious interaction between God’s will and man’s. God’s will is exhaustive. Of that, there can be no doubt. Man’s will and his entire self have been significantly damaged by sin so that from the time of the Fall onward, man’s heart has been hopelessly corrupted, deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked. To put too much stock in man’s ability would be to set aside what the Bible tells us about ourselves. To diminish God’s sovereignty in our salvation would be to ignore or reject what the Bible teaches us about God. I do not wish to fall into either error.

But we must say what the Bible says, and we must emphasize what the Bible emphasizes. I believe the TULIP goes beyond Scripture in its claims about the interaction between God’s will and man’s.

So much has been written on the TULIP that I couldn’t possibly interact with every explanation or claim. I have two fairly simple presentations of Calvinist soteriology in front of me, both apologetic in nature. The first is Chosen by God by R.C. Sproul. The second is Easy Chairs Hard Words by Douglas Wilson. I recognize that neither of these men has attempted a defense of the TULIP itself, and both provide a substantial explanation of Calvinism that includes the TULIP but doesn’t rely on it. In fairness, both men might agree with some of my critiques. I want to interact with the TULIP itself as it is typically presented since (anecdotally) the TULIP tends to be the go-to expression of Calvinist soteriology. My claim in this article isn’t that Calvinists aren’t more nuanced than the TULIP, but only that the Calvinist reliance on the TULIP is flawed and misguided. And I say this because the TULIP mischaracterizes the gospel by giving only half the story.

Continue reading “How “Total Depravity” Ignores the Gospel Call” →

Protecting Your Church from Predators

On By Dave MallinakIn Hot Topics, Independent Baptists, Issues Facing the Church, Justice, Pastors4 Comments

Any institution that deals with children is a target for sexual predators: churches especially, but not exclusively. More than once, I have pointed out the fact that the public schools have a severe problem with this – a problem that dwarfs anything Independent Baptist churches or any other religious institution might have. I don’t say this to minimize problems the IFB might have with sexual misconduct or coverups. We have had some terrible cases of abuse that have done unspeakable damage to God’s children. There is no excuse for this. Our churches must take decisive action to protect our children. However, it has been estimated that as many as 10% of public school students will be the victims of some form of sexual assault while at school – much of it at the hands of teachers and staff.

I wonder why this hasn’t been exposed. We know all about the problems and scandals religious institutions have had. Why is there no concern about the public schools? The United States has 49.4 million public school students. If 10% of them have been the victims of sexual assault at school, that would mean almost 5 million victims. Why isn’t that the biggest scandal ever?

Whatever problems the world might have, churches should be on the front lines of protecting children. If anyone qualifies as a wolf, it would be a person – pastor or otherwise – who preys on children.

Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. (Acts 20:28-30)

I shudder at the thought that a child in any of our ministries would become the victim of a predator. We have spent much time over the years putting policies in place, developing solid training for our volunteers, and teaching our parents and children how to recognize grooming, what is appropriate and inappropriate touching, and what to do if an adult violates any of the boundaries we have put in place. I want to share some of the resources, policies, and training material we have used so churches can have the resources needed to protect their children.

Continue reading “Protecting Your Church from Predators” →