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...