Tag: The Gospel

God Chose Us Before the Foundation of the World

On By Dave MallinakIn Calvinism, Expository, Gospel Conversations, Hot Topics, Issues Facing the Church

Election is a mystery. I admit it. But the Bible teaches election, so we must as well.

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. (Ephesians 1:3-6)

A Few Exegetical Notes

The word “chosen” in verse 4 is the verb form of the word “elect.” Peter uses an adjective form of the same word in I Peter 1:2.

Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ…

Peter uses “elect” descriptively, emphasizing the method God uses in saving them that believe. Paul uses “chosen” as a verb, showing what God did on our behalf. Paul emphasizes the result of our salvation – that we should be holy and without blame before him in love.[1] Because God has chosen us, we are sanctified (4), adopted (5), accepted (6), redeemed and forgiven (7), and we have an inheritance (11).

Paul uses the aorist middle indicative “hath chosen.” The indicative points to the reality of the choice. God’s choice is actual, not potential. The timeless aorist tells us the choice is made for all time. The middle voice tells us that God made the choice for His sake, not ours. 

This selection of the saints in this age of grace is the act of God choosing out from among mankind, certain for Himself. These become His own, to be used for a certain purpose.[2]

The context confirms this.

Continue reading “God Chose Us Before the Foundation of the World” →

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” →

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” →

TULIP Trouble

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

The relation of divine sovereignty to human responsibility is one of the great mysteries of the Christian faith. It is plain from Scripture in any case that both are real and that both are important. Calvinistic theology is known for its emphasis on divine sovereignty – for its view that God “works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will” (Eph. 1:11). But in Calvinism there is at least an equal emphasis upon human responsibility. (John Frame, Apologetics to the Glory of God, p. 14)

I open with this quote because, first, John Frame is a well-known Calvinist, and second, because he accurately describes here the mysterious interaction between God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility in salvation. Recently, I placed as the tenth on my list of things I wish would change among Independent Baptists, “overstated anti-Calvinism.” In my explanation of that objection, I said that quite often, in their haste to refute Calvinists, many Independent Baptists caricature Calvinism. In response to that article, some friends asked me to explain my objections to Calvinism, which resulted in an initial post in which I objected to the way Calvinists tend to blur the paradox between God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility in their presentation of the gospel. Now, I want to raise before you the primary proof that in Calvinism, this paradox is either blurred or ignored.

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

The TULIP does not account for man’s responsibility at all. Period. It gives no consideration to man’s responsibility, and nothing in it would give anyone the idea that man is responsible before God to repent and believe the gospel. If a person learning the TULIP were to take that as the summary of Christian doctrine, they would conclude that man has no part in God’s plan for our salvation other than to wait and hope that God might save him. The TULIP is an effective mnemonic device, for sure. But as far as a summary of Christian doctrine, it falls woefully short. One could argue that the TULIP only gives one side of the coin – later, I will contend that it also goes beyond Scripture in its attempt to describe God’s sovereignty in salvation. But supposing that the TULIP does give one half of the truth, half the truth is not the truth.

Continue reading “TULIP Trouble” →

A Critical View of Calvinism

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

Let me say at the outset that I won’t be interacting with the various Calvinist viewpoints or offering a nuanced critique of hyper-Calvinism v. “high” Calvinism v. “strict” Calvinism. I saw a comic strip on Twitter/X where a Calvinist poked fun at his fellow Calvinists about some of the high-handed intermural debate that goes on between Calvinists themselves. The comic said, “Brothers and sisters are natural enemies, like Arminians and Calvinists, or Lutherans and Calvinists, or Catholics and Calvinists, or Calvinists and other Calvinists.

This isn’t a strange thing. Our church is committed to exclusively using the King James Bible – a position most would describe as “King James Only.” But amongst King James Onlyists, that isn’t nearly enough. I don’t say that the King James Version is inspired, so I’m not really King James Only – I only “use” the King James. And this statement is made with thick scorn heaped upon my head.

Our nuanced opinion is a design feature, fed in part by our unique individuality and in part by our fallenness. And though the work of redemption ought to teach us to hold our viewpoints in humility, we all have those lines that “you shall not pass.” And woe unto that man that crosses our carefully-drawn line.

That said, a hyper-Calvinist will argue that man’s salvation and sanctification and really everything in life is all dictated by God, that man has no choice in anything, that even the suggestion that we should respond to the Gospel is a corruption of the Gospel. “High” Calvinism believes in evangelism because God commands it, but considers it more of a scavenger hunt in search of the elect. According to high Calvinism, God has no desire to save the non-elect. He calls all men to faith and repentance, but for the non-elect, this call only demonstrates that their condemnation is just. God doesn’t love all men, and the atonement of Christ is not available to all men. In other words, the universal offer of the Gospel is more a theory than a reality.

Continue reading “A Critical View of Calvinism” →

What I Wish Would Change Among Independent Baptists

On By Dave MallinakIn Independent Baptists, Issues Facing the Church, Pastors, Preaching and Teaching6 Comments

While I am grateful for my Independent Baptist heritage, I am not uncritical of Independent Baptists. And though some might call me picky, I struggle with much of what I see coming from Independent Baptist churches. 

I recognize the independence of each church, and I do not write these things to sow discord among brethren. I have written previously about my love and appreciation for “fundamentalism,” and I am not backtracking here. I hope you will consider this a kind of “gentle nudge” toward what I think would be a more Biblical ordering of our churches. 

In all, I have ten things I wish would change among Independent Baptist Churches. And given my propensity for wordiness, I’ll share those ten in small bites, a couple at a time, beginning with today’s blog post. Here’s my first two…

Gospel lite

There is, among IFB churches, a default easy-believism. Sure, we tend to take the “correct” view of easy-believism itself. I rarely (though occasionally) hear of a church that embraces easy-believism openly. But easy-believism is everywhere in our movement. We deny easy-prayerism, and we preach easy-prayerism. If, in your evangelism, you look at The Sinner’s Prayer as the finish line, then you have a part in this. 

Perhaps my biggest objection to our default easy-believism is the shallow treatment of the riches of God’s grace. Too often, we barely scratch the surface of all that the gospel entails. In the average Independent Baptist church, I am afraid that the gospel is only preached to visitors and children, not to the membership of the church. Or, if the gospel is preached to the membership, it is preached “evangelistically” to produce salvation decisions rather than Biblically to deepen understanding, strengthen saints, and enrich the spiritual lives of the people.

Continue reading “What I Wish Would Change Among Independent Baptists” →

How Important Is Church Growth?

On By Dave MallinakIn Contemporary Worship, Hot Topics, Independent Baptists, Pastors, Worship2 Comments

Jesus had a following.  A conservative estimate would have 10,000 people gathered on the hillside above the Sea of Galilee, possibly doubling that number (John 6:10).  That’s a crowd.  Most pastors would feel that their ministry was successful, given similar results.  The crowds were very enthusiastic about Jesus.  “He perceived that they would come and take Him by force to make Him a king” (6:15).  So, they were all in.  What an opportunity, if that was the point.

I’m a child of the 80s, and in the 80s, Jack Hyles was the king of church growth.  When I talk to older pastors from that era, almost universally, they will tell me that they made the trek to Hammond for the Pastor’s School.  My own family migrated towards and eventually landed at a Hyles church.  And those were exciting days.  I remember a discussion my dad had maybe a year or two before our family moved to the Hyles church.  We were visiting friends in Kansas, and the topic of Jack Hyles came up.  Everyone was talking about him at that time.  He had one of the biggest churches in America – he said it was the biggest.  My dad and his friend discussed his methods, and I listened from the back seat of the car.  As I recall, they were a bit skeptical.  But eventually, we ended up there.  Who can argue against a growing church?

The ministry of First Baptist in Hammond is a case in point that, for many Christians, church growth trumps many vital things.  If a church is growing, we will give them a pass on nearly anything – heresy, impropriety, even immorality.  Chicks dig the big crowd.  Perhaps then, we could be instructed by how Jesus handled His enthusiastic followers above Tiberius.

Continue reading “How Important Is Church Growth?” →

Jesus Wins!

On By Dave MallinakIn Enjoying God, Gospel Conversations, Merry Christmas3 Comments

At Christmastime, we often hear the reminder that Jesus was “born to die.”  And that is mostly true. Of course, he came to die (John 3:14-16).  But He died so that He might live.

Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. (John 10:17)

Jesus died so that He could rise from the dead.  And though we could point to several purposes for His resurrection, the one that fits with our theme is His triumph.  Jesus rose from the dead so He could trounce Satan, who for thousands of years wielded the power of death against humanity. 

Photo by mali maeder on Pexels.com

Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. (Hebrews 2:14-15)

In the resurrection, God brought an abrupt end to Satan’s winning record.  Having defeated every man in death, Satan thought He could triumph over the Son of God as well.  And that was his fatal mistake.  Because when Jesus broke the power of death, Satan not only lost that battle, but he also lost the war.  In the resurrection of Jesus Christ, death lost its power over mankind. 

We can delight in Christ if we consider the nature of His triumph.  Notice how Jesus trounced the devil:

Continue reading “Jesus Wins!” →