Mark Cahill's Calvinism Critique Weighed and Found Wanting (Part 2)

I hope that one aspect of Mr. Cahill's beliefs that you picked up on from reading his statement on Calvinism is a decidedly "man-centered" bias.

Now, I do realize that Mr. Cahill would most likely deny that his theology is man-centered, and in many ways, I'm sure it is not.

However, pay particular attention to his arguments. He begins with the premise that man is able to repent. He weaves this idea throughout his entire statement. Note these quotes (remember, I am assuming that you have read his entire statement before reading my take on it...if you haven't yet read it all, please do so) from Mr. Cahill...

"Man is separated from God by his sins, but that in no way means that he cannot repent and believe."

"Remember the Bible says it is the fool that has said in his heart that there is no God. It is a choice to come to that conclusion. It wasn’t that he couldn’t come to the conclusion that there is a God, but he chose to make that decision; and because of that, there is no good thing in him."

"How can God judge people that had no ability to repent and believe in Him?"

"Men loved the darkness and not the light. That doesn’t mean they couldn’t repent and go towards the light."

"Because everyone has the ability to repent: the only question is will they do it or not?"

"People can choose."

It is said that one will not understand Calvinism (or the so-called "doctrines of grace") if one does not understand the "T" in "TULIP"...

Total depravity.

Based upon the arguments contained in his statement, Mark Cahill doesn't understand total depravity. He begins his arguments with man.

He's primarily concerned with man's ability.

He's primarily concerned with man's choice.

He's primarily concerned with man's will.

Brothers and sisters, if we are going to even begin to understand what it means to be saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, we absolutely must begin with GOD.

GOD'S ability.

GOD'S will.

GOD'S purpose.

It is by no accident that the Bible begins with these words...

"In the beginning, GOD...."

Mr. Cahill wants us first to consider what man can do. He wants us to first understand that man has a sovereign will. He wants us to first understand that man has a sovereign choice. He wants us first to understand that man has the ability to repent.

But we always must in all things begin with GOD when pondering salvation.

That is why I say Mr. Cahill shows a "man-centered" bias in his arguments.

Look at his explanation of Acts 17:32...

"This is just one more verse that makes it easy to
disprove the idea of total depravity, because these folks wanted to hear more about the things of God. I
thought man had no desire for those things? The truth of the matter is that I meet people all the time who
have questions about God and eternity. Why? God has placed that curiosity in us and the creation
around us speaks of this wonderful Creator!!"

Now wait a second. Mr. Cahill--so much the proponent of man's "free will"--tells us that "God has placed curiosity in us." What if folks didn't want to be curious? Would that not violate our free will as Mr. Cahill has structured his argument? But I digress...

Having questions about God and eternity doesn't mean that man is not totally depraved in mind, heart, and deed. Demons believe in God (James 2:19)! Did Mr. Cahill consider that the fact that some people who have genuine curiosity about God and eternity just might be those of the elect of whom God is drawing to Himself? Or maybe they're just people who simply have curiosity about God and eternity.

In either case, Jesus makes it abundantly clear that no one comes to Him unless God the Father draws (a word that literally means "to drag") him.

No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.
(Joh 6:44 ESV)

So, whether somebody is curious about God, the Bible, Heaven, Hell, salvation, baptism, or anything contained in the Bible, or whether they could care less about those things, one thing is clear...

They will NOT come to Jesus Christ unless they are drawn to Him by God the Father.

So--ultimately--whose "choice" is it that a sinner come to Christ?

God's.

And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father."
(Joh 6:65 ESV)

Please note that Mr. Cahill--in his explanation of man's sovereignty--never mentions what Jesus taught in John 6. Honestly, how can anybody who believes that man is ultimately sovereign over his salvation offer an explanation of John 6?

If the words of Christ contradict our beliefs, it's time to change our beliefs.

Continuing on with Mr. Cahill's statment, pay attention to how he describes divine election...

"Calvinism teaches that God has unconditionally elected certain people to go to heaven. It has nothing to do with that person. Nothing they believe comes into play. God has decided in eternity past to regenerate certain people who are dead in their sins and therefore want nothing to do with Him, and make them born again. But in order to hold that position, you also have to hold that God has unconditionally rejected certain people to go to hell and there is nothing they can do about it. The interesting thing is though that there is something God can do about it! But He chose not to. Does that sound like the loving God that we read about in the Bible?"

Well...NO, Mr. Cahill. That doesn't sound like the God of the Bible. Of course, his arguments above are "straw men" fallacies. Mr. Cahill doesn't understand Calvinism.

"It has nothing to do with that person." This is GRACE, Mr. Cahill. Of course my salvation has nothing to with me as a person. If I could do anything to merit my own salvation, then I couldn't honestly say I saved by the grace of God, could I?

This is not to say that repentance is not still commanded (Acts 17:30), but the faith in Christ we exercise is itself a gift.

For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.
(Eph 2:8-9 NASB)

Contrary to what Mr. Cahill seems to be saying, salvation is purely and solely by grace (shown by God) through faith (given by God) in Jesus Christ (the sole object of faith).

He continues...

"But in order to hold that position, you also have to hold that God has
unconditionally rejected certain people to go to hell and there is nothing they can do about it."

"There is nothing they can do about it?" Again, we're back to total depravity. There is nothing they WANT to do about it. They are dead (Ephesians 2:1). They are hostile to God through their wicked works (Colossians 1:21). They are God's enemies (Romans 5:10). Does this sound like people who want to have a covenant relationship with God?

Here is one of the more troubling statements made by Mr. Cahill. He quotes Ezekiel 33:11 and then writes the following...

"God does not want wicked people to die and go to hell. That is why He provided a way out for all people through the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ!"

There are several errors in these few sentences that need to be addressed.

"God does not want wicked people to die and go to hell." Before I go any further, I should say that this is a common phrase used by street preachers. I have to admit that I have used it myself. However, upon prayerfully studying the Scriptures and using both His word and sound reason, I have to say that such a statement is profoundly inaccurate.

Does God take some sort of sick pleasure in the destruction of the wicked? Of course not, as Ezekiel 33:11 clearly states. "God is no sadist," R.C. Sproul has said.

A judge is bound by law to see that justice is done. Does that mean he takes pleasure in sending people to prison for life? Does he get his kicks from upholding death sentences for murderers? I would hope not! However, does he "want" to uphold the law and see to it that justice is carried out? I would hope so!

So, in that sense, God certainly does "want" the wicked to be punished. The God of the Bible is a God of justice (Genesis 18:19; Deut 32:4; Job 34:12; Job 36:6; Psalm 7:11; Psalm 10:18). While God doesn't get any sort of sadistic pleasure out of destroying the wicked, He does want to carry out justice and thus bring glory to His name.

Then from Mr. Cahill...

"That is why He provided a way out for all people through the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ!"

Is this how he sees the cross of Christ? Did Jesus Christ die for a possibility? This is a fundamental flaw in Arminian theology. Mr. Cahill is saying that--through the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ--God provided a POSSIBLE way of salvation. It is "possible" in the sense that some will accept this atonement, and some will reject this atonement. Even if one buys the notion that God did indeed passively "foreknow" who would accept Him and who would reject Him, the Arminian position is still that He died for all people, both the receivers and the deniers.

The real question is this: Did Christ die for a PEOPLE, or did Christ die for a POSSIBILITY?

If Mr. Cahill is correct and Christ died for "all people," then Christ really died for a possibility, since--obviously--not everyone is saved (universalism is the logical end of this particular Arminian doctrine).

I've asked this question before, but I'll ask it again.

Let us suppose that everyone who ever lived and who will ever live in the world actually REJECTED the payment that Jesus made on the cross.

This is certainly a possibility using Mr. Cahill's reasoning. Everybody has "free will," thus everybody is free to either accept or reject. As Mr. Cahill wrote many times, everybody has the ability to repent or reject.

So what if everybody rejected the payment of Christ?

Then exactly who or what did Jesus Christ die for?

NOBODY. NOTHING.

His death? Meaningless. His resurrection? Useless.

Of course, the truth of the Bible is that Jesus Christ died for His sheep.

just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep.
(John 10:15 ESV)

The truth of the Bible is that Christ gave His life for His bride. His church.

Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her,
(Eph 5:25 ESV)

If Christ gave Himself up for everybody, then the above verse would be completely robbed of its meaning.

Mr. Cahill uses the usual proof-texts to make a case that Jesus Christ died for everybody in the world...

He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.
(1Jn 2:2 ESV)

The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!
(Joh 1:29 ESV)

Of course, "the world" as used in these verses (not limited to just these, however) doesn't mean the whole of creation. Nor does it mean every person who has ever lived and who will ever live in the entire world. Look at these verses...

In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered.
(Luk 2:1 ESV)

Did this decree go out to every erson who has ever lived and who will ever live in the entire world? We can all agree that is obviously not the case.

because of the hope laid up for you in heaven. Of this you have heard before in the word of the truth, the gospel, which has come to you, as indeed in the whole world it is bearing fruit and growing--as it also does among you, since the day you heard it and understood the grace of God in truth,
(Col 1:5-6 ESV)

Was Paul referring to the Gospel bearing fruit in every person who has ever lived and who ever will live in the entire world? The Gospel had not traveled across the globe at that point. Paul could not have meant "the world" in the sense of "every person who will ever live and who will ever live in the entire world."

So, why is it always assumed that when it speaks of Christ's vicarious atonement for sins, it must be for everybody who has ever lived and everybody who will ever live in the entire world?

What we DO know from Scripture is that God will draw His elect from "every tribe,"every tongue" and "every nation" (Revelation 5:9). Salvation isn't limited to the Jews. Gentiles from all across the world will share in God's effectual grace.

This is a GLORIOUS truth from Scripture (Revelation 7:9), and it is completely gutted and diminished when one ascribes to the Arminian doctrine of universal atonement.

Later in his statement, Mr. Cahill shares with us a fairly bizarre scenario...

"Can you imagine having to preach, “Ladies & gentlemen we are here to tell you that Jesus only died for some of you!” That is totally absurd! But that is what you would have to preach as a true Calvinist, because to them, Jesus did not die for all people. His blood was only shed for the elect."

The "good news" to be preached to sinners is this...

Jesus Christ died for sinners!

I personally do not believe that I should tell everybody I run into that "Jesus died for you" because--quite simply--the Bible doesn't teach that. The apostles never preached in that way, and we who are bringing the apostolic message shouldn't preach in that way, either.

We are to preach this...

The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost.
(1Ti 1:15 ESV)

If people do not believe themselves to be sinners, then that message would be foolish. And--not surprisingly--God reminds us that the message we preach will be looked upon many as foolish.

but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles,
(1Co 1:23 ESV)

Mr. Cahill would also have Christianity redefine the word "election." Those who hold to Arminian theology--apparently--are unsure of what to do with the many instances of the term "elect" (used to describe God's people) used through the New Testament. One cannot simply ignore the word, but I suppose one can certainly try and change its meaning. Case in point...

"Election does not mean that God elected some and rejected others. The word election, according to 1
Peter, simply means that God, since He is omniscient, knew who would believe in Him and it is those
people He calls the elect. It is really that simple. We mustn’t change the definition of a word!"

I wonder, was Mr. Cahill referring to this from 1 Peter...

and "A stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense." They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do. But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.
(1Pe 2:8-9 ESV) (emphasis mine)

Well, that probably wasn't what he was referring to. To be honest, I'm not sure exactly what it is in 1 Peter that Mr. Cahill was referring to.

The dictionary defines the word "elect"--in the Christian sense--as this:

"To select by divine will for salvation. Used of God."

So He selected those who are His elect. He chose those who are His elect. That is why we are called "His elect." Now who is it that is attempting to change the definition of a word?

There are a few more instances of misrepresentations and flawed reasoning via Mr. Cahill in his statement, but to continue would--in my estimation--be getting repetitive.

In conclusion, I would to correct Mark Cahill one last time. I'm not sure who he's speaking to/about when he states this...

"One of the amazing things I have found when I talk to both Calvinists and people who have left Calvinism is that they never tell me they found Calvinistic teachings reading their Bibles. They always tell me they found them reading someone’s book or listening
to someone’s teaching tapes!"

Let me assure you, Mr. Cahill...here is one Calvinist who sees total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement (or particular redemption), irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints throughout the Bible.

And so we arrive at Mr. Cahill's final point...the point about which this latest controversy began brewing in the first place. Given that he believes such a radical thing, notice how flimsily he makes his point...

"I just got this statement from a Pastor: “These REFORMED THEOLOGY people are preaching another Jesus and another gospel and are under the ‘accursed’ terminology as God wrote in Galatians 1:8-9 that I quoted today in my morning message. I believe God's Word is totally against any part of ‘reformed theology.’ As such, we must be careful to avoid CLOSE fellowship with them lest we are swayed by their false philosophy. One thing is sure. They MAJOR in this one thing and won't quit talking about it.”

If you believe in the god and jesus of Calvinism, you are either in Galatians 1 territory, or you are heading straight toward it."

I don't mean to sound as though I'm taking this lightly, but...

That's IT????

I don't deny the substance of the warning Paul gives in Galatians 1. However, Mark Cahill has not made his case that Calvinism is "another gospel."

The Jesus I believe is the Jesus of John 6. Mr. Cahill, explain how we are not drawn (literally, dragged) by the Father toward Christ Jesus. Jesus said that nobody can come to Him unless the Father draws him. Should I believe this Pastor or you, Mr. Cahill? Or should I believe the words of Christ?

The God I believe in is the God of Romans 9. Mr. Cahill, explain that chapter and how election is not really God's final decision. The objections that Mr. Cahill raises in his arguments against Calvinism are really arguments against the doctrine explained by Paul in Romans 9.

Having said that, my response to Mark Cahill's objections is really Paul's response...

But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory-- even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?
(Rom 9:20-24 ESV)

Although the writings of other theologians have certain been helpful and it the entire concept of godly men teaching other Christians for the purposes of building up the body is Chrsit is BIBLICAL (2 Timothy 2:2), I can clearly see the teaching of election shown throughout Scripture.

If Mark Cahill honestly believes that Reformed theology is heretical, then he should be willing to sit down with a Calvinist and a Bible and discuss it.

CONCLUSION...

Ever since it became public that Mr. Cahill holds the views he does, I have noticed--in various blogs/forums/Facebook--many comments from Christians that seem to reappear again and again. I would like to answer a few of these concerns/objections that have spawned out of this controversy. Please note that I'm not quoting anybody specifically (at least not consciously); these are paraphrases.

"Ultimately, this issue doesn't matter."

I must directly take issue with the attitude that "doctrine doesn't matter."

We can take it from Paul, who had his fair share of doctrinal battles...

Sound doctrine does matter.

Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.
(1 Timothy 1:8-11 ESV) (emphasis mine)

If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness, he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy craving for controversy and for quarrels about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions, and constant friction among people who are depraved in mind and deprived of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain.
(1 Timothy 6:3-5 ESV) (emphasis mine)

But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.
(2 Timothy 3:14-15 ESV)
He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.
(Titus 1:9 ESV) (emphasis mine)
But as for you, teach what accords with sound doctrine.
(Titus 2:1 ESV) (emphasis mine)
Those who would deny the vital importance of sound Biblical doctrine are in continual danger of falling into error.

"We'll never get this issue resolved in this life."

I'm not one to say that we--as fallen, depraved individuals--are ever going to come to a perfect understanding of every doctrine contained in the Bible, but using that fact to downplay the importance of contending for the faith is unwise.

Remember the words of our Lord, speaking through Jude...

Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.
(Jude 1:3 ESV)

Let us contend, Christian.

Let us be loving...

If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.
(1Co 13:1 ESV)

Let us be patient...

Better is the end of a thing than its beginning, and the patient in spirit is better than the proud in spirit.
(Ecc 7:8 ESV)

Let us be overflowing with grace...

Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person.
(Col 4:6 ESV)

But let us contend nonetheless! Let us struggle to come into unity in our doctrine, recognizing that all Christians are being sanctified.

Brothers and sisters, I would not be responding to what Mark Cahill wrote if I didn't care about doctrine. Those who think it better to remain silent as well-known ministers of the Gospel make public statements that condemn not only Biblical teaching, but also those who follow such teaching, I would vehemently disagree. Mark Cahill is not benefited by our silence. Yes, I recognize and trust that the Lord can open the eyes of Mr. Cahill to see the truth of His word. We as Reformed street preachers also know this very well: God uses preaching to change lives.

And God can use His word delivered by other Christians to open Mr. Cahill's eyes.

So pray for Mark Cahill.

And let us watch our own lives, our own walk, and our own doctrine.

That is one lesson we all can learn from this controversy.

Keep on proclaiming...

- Shane

Mark Cahill's Calvinism Critique Weighed And Found Wanting (Part 1)

A "straw man" fallacy is best described in this way (from Wikipedia)...

1.) Person A has position X
2.) Person B disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially-similar position Y
3.) Person B attacks position Y, concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed

With that in mind...

Well, Mark Cahill has released his "statement" on Calvinism. Mr. Cahill has come under criticism in Reformed street evangelism circles over his behavior regarding his beliefs about Calvinism, which he has--at least up to this point--made clear in private circles but has neglected to share his views publicly.

More information on the consequences of his behavior can be found HERE.

I have blogged about his behavior previously. However, this particular blog will concentrate on Mr. Cahill's statement, which can be found HERE (please read his entire statement before you continue reading this blog).

On a side note, you will notice that this "statement" appears no where on his own website. Why that is is anybody's guess. Feel free to search his SITE and if you find it, let me know so I can correct this blog.

Let me say at the outset that if this "statement" were written by anybody other than a respected leader/teacher in the body of Christ, I wouldn't be responding to this. However, Mark Cahill is a very active teacher/preacher who currently travels cross-country and speaks to churches and church organizations about evangelism. Those who would call themselves "teachers" are duly warned about being judged with "greater strictness" (James 3:1).

Simply put, when Mark Cahill speaks, people listen.

So I am responding to some very serious charges he makes in his statement. I'll stick with the broad strokes as I explain what he has said (you can read his statement in full to get all of the specifics).

To begin with...Mark Cahill is definitely not a Calvinist. He begins his statements with this astute observation...

"Similarly, if you can prove any of the points of Calvinism wrong, than the whole belief system comes tumbling down like a house of cards."

This is true. That being said, the entire doctrine of Calvinism really hinges upon the Biblical teaching of "total depravity," which can be summed up in this verse...

And you were dead in the trespasses and sins
(Eph 2:1 ESV)

We are dead in our sins. Every aspect of our lives is tainted with sin/rebellion toward God. This would include our will. Paul is referring to "dead" in the spiritual sense. We are not sick men. We are not blind men. We are not deaf men. We are not spiritually disabled. We are dead men.

But Mark Cahill takes exception to this label of "dead" (a label Paul chooses to describe our spiritual condition)....

"Man is separated from God by his sins, but that in no way means that he cannot repent and believe."

He CAN repent and believe, Mr. Cahill. But he cannot do so without God's work of regeneration. Of course, Mr. Cahill is talking about man in his own natural state.

In Mr. Cahill's paradigm, man is free to either embrace Christ or reject Him. This fact will come back to haunt Mr. Cahill's doctrine (more on that in a bit).

Mark's flawed reasoning rears its ugly head when he makes this statement...

"Men are required to make a choice for God in this lifetime. That is why we are here. Period."

Men DO make a choice concerning God, Mr. Cahill. We have chosen to make Him our enemy through our wicked works (Romans 5:10; Colossians 1:21).

Why are we here? Ultimately, not to "make a choice for God," but rather to glorify Him, either through our humble confession of Him as Lord, Savior, and King...or through our rejection of Him unto eternal damnation. God is worshipped and glorified as a "just judge" (Psalm 7:11).

Another curious statement from Mr. Cahill....

"How can God judge people that had no ability to repent and believe in Him? The very thought is preposterous."

God's judgment of people has nothing to do with whether they have an "ability to repent and believe or not." This is a major problem of Arminianism; professing Christians who are--perhaps unknowingly--exalting man above God by considering man's innate abilities (whether or not these abilties even exist) over God's sovereign reign over ALL.

Simply put, God's judgment of people has everything to do with our sin. It has everything to do with our lawlessness. God is JUST because God punishes lawbreaking.

"...the soul that sins shall die." (Ezekiel 18:4)

For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
(Rom 6:23 ESV)

What are "wages" but that which is given to people who have rightly earned which is given? What are our "wages?" What have we "rightly earned?"

DEATH, Mr. Cahill. We have earned death for ourselves because of our sin.

And this is what makes God's sovereign choice in election so amazing.

Even though we have rightly earned for ourselves spiritual death, He still reaches down and chooses some to save.

Now we get to a particularly egregious error on the part of Mr. Cahill. He offers this quote from R.C. Sproul (which appears in Sproul's book "Chosen by God")....

“It was certainly loving of God to predestine the salvation of His people, those the Bible calls the 'elect or chosen ones.' It is the non-elect that are the problem. If some people are not elected unto salvation then it would seem that God is not all that loving toward them. For them it seems that it would have been more loving of God not to have allowed them to be born. That may indeed be the case.”
(http://anti-calvinism.blogspot.com/2008/05/quotes.html, citing; R.C. Sproul, Chosen by God, 32.)

Then, based upon this (incomplete) quotation, Mr. Cahill makes the following accusation against Dr. Sproul...

"Even Mr. Sproul knew something isn’t right here. His false view of election then makes him wonder why a loving God would create people that He purposefully damned to hell. It doesn’t make any logical sense. His conscience is getting to him."

(As an aside, whenever you read/hear somebody begin their thought with "why would a loving God....," please remember that their primary concern is their own personal feelings and not the inspired, inerrant word of God...just something to bear in mind)

But wait...let's quote a little more of Dr. Sproul and we will see that Mr. Cahill's characterization of Sproul is fallacious. Indeed, it's so fallacious that one wonders if Mr. Cahill has read anymore of the book than what he has chosen to quote. I will put in bold more of the quote (which Mr. Cahill--quite conveniently--chose to leave out).

"It was certainly loving of God to predestine the salvation of his people, those the Bible calls his 'elect' or chosen ones. It is the non-elect that are the problem. If some people are not elected unto salvation, then it would seem that God is not all that loving toward them. For them it seems that it would have been more loving of God not to have allowed them to be born. That may indeed be the case. But we must ask the really tough question: Is there any reason that a righteous God ought to be loving toward a creature who hates him and rebels constantly against his divine authority and holiness? The objection raised by the philosopher implies that God owes his love to sinful creatures."

Now, does that in any way sound like Dr. Sproul knows "something isn't right here?" Does that still sound as though Dr. Sproul's "conscience was getting to him?" It's amazing what a few extra sentences will do.

Sadly, Mr. Cahill is as dangerous in quoting the Holy Scriptures as he is in quoting R.C. Sproul.

He quotes Jesus's preaching in Matthew 4:17 to "repent, for the kingdom of Heaven is at hand."

He follows that quote with this...

"Who was Jesus talking to here? He was talking to everyone in front of him. Not just the elect, but everybody that was there. Why? Because everyone has the ability to repent: the only question is will they do it or not?"

Mr. Cahill seems to think that we are to preach the Gospel to everybody because "everybody has the ability to repent."

Let me make this clear: The ability of people to repent or not repent has NOTHING to do with why we as Christians are to preach the Gospel.

So why are we as Christians supposed to preach the Gospel?

Because Jesus commanded us to.

And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
(Mat 28:18-19 ESV)

And he said to them, "Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation.
(Mark 16:15 ESV)

So the reason that we preach the Gospel to everybody is because Jesus commanded us to preach it to everybody. And God will be glorified either through the acceptance of His message or through the rejection of His message.

What is Mark Cahill's primary reason for preaching the Gospel? Because he thinks that every person has the ability to repent and believe?

Isn't the fact that Jesus commanded us to preach enough of a reason?

TO BE CONCLUDED...

An Issue Worth Blogging About, Part 2

DISCLAIMER:

The following views are mine and are not meant to reflect the views of anybody else involved in Bezeugen Ministries.

To sum up my thoughts on this whole Mark Cahill "situation"...

Should Jon Speed have posted "an open letter to Mark Cahill" in which he urged Mr. Cahill to repent of his sowing of discord among the brothers?

Yes, he should have. It's a good thing.

For those who disagree with how Mr. Speed handled this situation, let me ask you this...

Suppose that you and I are friends as well as being brothers in Christ. When I'm around you, I'm quite the jovial chap and I always try to be positive and encouraging to you (just like K-LOVE!). You always appreciate how I treat you when we're around each other.

Then, one day, you learn that--privately--I have been telling other Christians that you worship a false god and you preach a different Jesus than the one in the Bible. You find out that I have been doing this for a period of time. You are stunned upon finding this out because I never--to your face--told you that I believed such things.

Wouldn't you want to know if I was doing such a thing to you behind your back? And when you found out, wouldn't you be Biblically justified in confronting me about it? And shouldn't you warn your brothers and sisters in Christ about me if I were behaving in such a manner? And wouldn't it be especially important to make my behavior public if I was involved in a very public ministry?

Proverbs 6:19 tells us that the LORD hates the sowing of discord among brothers. Mark Cahill's behavior is doing damage to the body of Christ. It gives me no pleasure to state this. I have been an admirer of Mr. Cahill for quite some time, having read "One Thing You Can't Do In Heaven" and recommended it to many of my Christian friends. One strange aspect of this entire story is the fact that Mr. Cahill uses many quotes by Charles Spurgeon in his book, and Spurgeon is well-known as a staunch Calvinist! It wouldn't take but some surface-level research to learn that Pastor Spurgeon was a "5-pointer."

So for those who disagree with what Mr. Speed did in posting his open letter and cutting ties with Mark Cahill, I can only wonder what you would do in the same situation.

Contrary to how this entire affair is being constructed, this is not just another Calvinism/Arminian debate.

We can have that debate. In fact, might I humbly suggest that we absolutely MUST have that debate.

This is not a tertiary issue like whether or not we should sprinkle water on babies. Nor is it a third-tier issue like whether or not the 1000 years is literal or not (it's not literal, by the way ; )).

This is about the GOSPEL. And we definitely should have this debate. For those who don't like the word "debate," then call it a "discussion." Call it whatever you like, but we need to determine what the Bible teaches about the sovereignty of God in salvation and then GO WITH IT.

We need to preach the Gospel APOSTOLICALLY. If our gospel preaching doesn't line up with the teaching of the apostles, then we need to drop it.

I am speaking first and foremost to myself here. I have been convicted of some sloppy preaching myself in the past.

The unashamed worker is the worker who RIGHTLY handles the word of truth. The major problem I have with Arminianism is that those particular doctrines simply do not rightly handle God's word.

The challenge I would put forth to those who find terms like "election" and "irreistable grace" distasteful is this:

Search the Scriptures, and if these teachings are plainly spelled out in Scripture, then change your tastes.

Personally, I don't think that all Arminians worship another god and a different Jesus. Some certainly do, and those who have slipped entirely into the heresy of Pelagianism are indeed believing in the "contrary gospel" of Galatians 1.

So, if you're Arminian and you're reading this, I'm not automatically assuming that you're an idolater.

And if you're reading this and you find youself disgusted with the entire concept of labels such as "Calvinism" and "Arminianism," let me explaint to you why I have no problem calling myself a Calvinist.

I consider it a "shout-out," if you will, to our church fathers. To call myself a Calvinist simply means that I want to acknowledge those early theologians who worked so tirelessly and devoted their lives (some even unto a painful death) to the advancement of sound doctrine and the preservation of God's word.

Sound Biblical doctrine is not something to be downplayed, discounted, or distanced from.

In fact, those who refuse to learn and practice sound doctrine need the Law in order to show them their sinfulness.

"Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.
(1Ti 1:8-11 ESV)

Those who persist in teaching false doctrine should take note that the Scriptures describe them in graphic terms...

If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness, he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy craving for controversy and for quarrels about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions, and constant friction among people who are depraved in mind and deprived of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain.
(1Ti 6:3-5 ESV)

The qualifications of an elder--qualifications that every Christian man should strive to live up to--includes this...

He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.
(Tit 1:9 ESV)

As Paul instructed Titus, so we in ministry should take heed to this instruction...

But as for you, teach what accords with sound doctrine.
(Tit 2:1 ESV)

That is why we need to keep discussing Calvinism/Arminianism. Through this discussion, we can clarify our doctrine. We can explain our positions and make them known. We can hold each other accountable for what we are learning and what we are then teaching to others.

May God grant me the grace to be teachable.

Pray for Mark Cahill. Pray for all of those who are so quick to dismiss the importance of sound doctrine. Pray for those who hold to a "love at all costs" mentality in the Christian community.

We are taught that we need to love sinners enough to tell them the truth, and that is true.

We also need to love our brothers enough to hold each other accountable to a Biblical standard.

Soli Deo Gloria!

Keep on proclaiming...

- Shane

An Issue Worth Blogging About, Part 1

DISCLAIMER:

The following views are mine and are not meant to reflect the views of anybody else involved in Bezeugen Ministries.

Okay...I admit it. I am not a natural "blogger." I began this website in hopes of getting the word out about our local evangelism efforts. I also wanted to use this blog as a springboard from which to launch my opinions onto the internet because, y'know, the internet needs yet another opinion posted somewhere (rolls eyes).

But, alas, I have not been doing a very good job of keeping the blog updated. Our street evangelism is a regular, weekly occurrence (most of the time we're at Bricktown, occassionally we'll make it over to Campus Corner at OU), and--as always--local Christians are more than welcome to join us as we preach the Gospel on the streets.

I have--finally--updated this blog because there is an issue currently swirling about in "street evangelism" circles. Other men whom I respect as mature brothers in Christ have addressed this issue and--while I do desire to make my thoughts known--I fully realize that my voice is but one of many. Either agree or disagree at your own leisure.

The "issue" has to do with what is quickly becoming a dirty word in evangelicalism. Let's face it, this word has always carried with it major baggage and has given well-meaning Christians fits for a long time.

The "issue" is Calvinism.

Already I can only imagine many eyes are simultaneously rolling at the mention of the dreaded "C" word. "Not THIS topic again," many may bemoan.

Trust me, I feel your pain.

However, I am going to charge ahead where angels fear to tread and address this issue because I am noticing that there is some possible "muddying of the waters" of doctrine afoot here (note that I said "possible"), and I want to make it clear where this particular street evangelist stands.

In short...I am a Calvinist.

It's even worse. I'm an unapologetic Calvinist.

When I say "unapologetic," I'm not just referring to the substance of the five points of Calvinism (total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistable grace, perseverance of the saints); I am referring to the use of the label itself.

"So what's the big deal," you may ask. Why would I come out and actually bother to update my blog in order to share with you the fact that I am an unapologetic Calvinist? Is this supposed to be news that somebody should care about?

Well, I think so, but you'll have to make the final call on that one.

I bring this entire topic because of this...

AN OPEN LETTER TO MARK CAHILL

Click on the link, and you'll see that a highly respected evangelist believes that the Reformed doctrines of Calvinism are totally and completely untrue.

So somebody disagrees with Calvinism. Now that is definitely not news.

But Mr. Cahill goes further than simple disagreement. Mr. Cahill has been telling people that Calvinists worship a different god and different Jesus. You know, like Mormons. Or Jehovah's Witnesses. Or Muslims.

So...apparently, to believe in the Jesus of John 6 is to worship a different Jesus.

Apparently, to believe in the God that Paul teaches about in Romans 8 is to believe in a different god other than the God of the Bible.

Okay, then. That nonsense aside, I wanted to address some misconceptions that Mr. Cahill mentions in his email (the email that Jon Speed has been getting so much grief for posting publicly, but more on that in Part Two).

Here is how Mr. Cahill views Calvinism and--probably not a surprise to Christians who call themselves Reformed--he misrepresents what the doctrines of Calvinism actually are.

"If you believe that God has in eternity past unconditionally elected certain people to go to heaven and unconditionally rejected certain people to go to hell; if you believe that Jesus died only for the sins of the elect and not the sins of the world; if you believe that man cannot choose this day whom he will serve; then yes, you and anyone else is believing in a different god and a different jesus [emphasis ours]. You are entering into Galatians 1 territory."

Misrepresentation - God "unconditionally rejected certain to go to hell." God has elected certain individuals unto salvation (beginning with the nation of Israel, then read through to Romans 9, paying particular attention to how Paul makes the case for election). However, if it is true that "the soul that sins shall die" (Ezekiel 18:4) and that the "wages of sin are death" (Romans 6:23) then how exactly would it be that God "rejects certain people to go to hell?" If truly "all have sinned" (Romans 3:23) then people are going to hell because they have broken God's law, not because they were "certain people rejected" by God "to go to hell."

We as evangelists know the "bad news" that is inherent in the "good news" of the Gospel. We preach to people on the streets every day...in different locations...in different langauges.

The "bad news" is that "all have sinned." The bad news is that "the soul that sins shall die." A person's sins (culminating in the sin of unbelief, which the condemned die committing) is what consigns them to the lake of fire.

Is it a "different god" that teaches that sin is deserving of death?

"if you believe that Jesus died only for the sins of the elect and not the sins of the world..."

Okay, Mr. Cahill does state this accurately; this is not a misrepresentation, per se. However, this position needs an explanation and there is a explanation to be had.

We know that when the term "world" is used in the New Testament, it doesn't always mean "every person who ever lived in the entire world."

See Luke 2:1. Also Acts 17:6. Also Colossians 1:6.

Notice 2 Corinthians 5:19...

"that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation."

If God was "reconciling the world to himself" and "the world" always means "every person who ever lived in the entire world," then God would be reconciling every person who ever lived in the entire world to Himself.

So that would mean every person who ever lived in the entire world would be saved, correct?

No.

The Calvinist believes that when the term "world" is used in relation to God's saving power, it carries the meaning of not all people everywhere, but a people made up of people from every tongue, tribe, and nation.

Another interesting point to consider...

Mr. Cahill seems to believe that Jesus died for the sins of everybody who ever has been and who ever will be in the world. Yet I know that Mr. Cahill doesn't believe in universalism, and yet universalism is the natural conclusion one should reach if one believes in a "universal atonement."

Simply put, if Jesus died for everybody, then everybody will be saved.

But the "universal atonement" advocate would say "ah, but those who reject Christ will keep himself/herself from appropriating the blood of Christ that was shed for everybody."

So--in effect--the "universal atonement" advocate believes that Jesus Christ died for the possibility of salvation. His atonement didn't secure any particular souls; His atonement only provided the possibility that all souls might be saved. The final choice, they say, would be the individual's.

The huge problem with this belief is this...

Let us assume that this is correct, and Jesus died for the possibility of salvation.

What if everybody who ever lived and everybody who will ever live actually rejected the offer of salvation?

If everybody who ever lived and everybody who will ever live rejected this offer, then exactly who did Jesus die for?

Nobody. His atonement would be completely and utterly ineffectual for everybody.

Think about this for a moment. It is quite possible--given the "universal atonement" advocate's paradigm--that the individual can freely reject God's offer of salvation even though Jesus Christ supposedly died for sinners.

And yet if every sinner were to reject God's offer, then how could it be said that Jesus Christ died for anybody????

Christ said in John 10:15 that He lays down His life for the sheep. Is the entire world the "sheep?"

If that's that case, then who are the goats (Matthew 25:32-33)?

Paul tells us in Ephesians 5:25 that Christ gave Himself up for the church. Is the entire world the "church?"

Christ died for His people. And His people are from every corner of the world.

TO BE CONCLUDED...