You asked whether enlarging the church is always a good thing. That is a very insightful question. The answer is no. During the mid 20th century, many evangelicals were praying for revival, but A.W. Tozer didn’t. In fact, he hoped and prayed that there would not be a revival (in the sense of increasing church membership) until the church experienced renewal (deep repentance and reconciliation to God). There is no sense in growing something that does not contribute to God’s redemptive purpose. The church and the kingdom of God are not the same thing. They are related, but they are not the same. Distinguishing between the two is not splitting hairs. It is fundamental to understanding God’s mission.
]]>]]>
When Calvin ran for office, his slogan was “elect Calvin”.
]]>Although there are difficult things to accept about the doctrines of grace, such as limited atonement, it is the only tenable soteriological point of view. This is especially true when questions get asked such as, “Well, what about people on a remote island that never heard the gospel?” Believing that God is sovereign in all things and ultimately the elector of men’s souls, those issues quickly become irrelevant. It also should put Christians at ease when it comes to preaching the gospel and the guilt that they sometimes feel for when people reject it. I suppose it is perfectly natural to second-guess ourselves and wonder if we really did the best we could in any given situation, but certainly God is not going to send someone to hell because of a weakness or even a failure on our part. And since man is totally depraved anyway, he cannot come to God on his own without the help of the Holy Spirit.
For me this was difficult to accept at first. In fact, I even found some of it offensive. But the more I examined the Bible, the more I started to see the truth of these things over and over and over. And once I was willing to accept it, I found myself filled with the highest gratitude for what God has done for me. Aside from the Five Solas of the Reformation, I can think of no other more important teaching for Christians to know and understand than the doctrines of grace.
]]>Since I incline toward things that people generally shun or don’t like, I love your Acts 27:22,31 experiment, which I believe that the Bible never gives us full satisfaction this side of heaven (Deut 29:29). I believe the apostle Paul is Calvinist, 16 centuries before Calvin, who simply expounded on Paul’s theology. The humanly irresolvable biblical conflict (which drives some Christians nuts) is that GOD IS SOVEREIGN, YET WE ARE FULLY RESPONSIBLE.
Arminians, who emphasize free will and human responsibility, inadvertently diminishes God’s sovereignty in his election and predestination, while Hyper Calvinists emphasize God’s sovereignty as an excuse for laziness, complacecy and negligence. What do you think, John?
]]>Sorry, that’s a bad joke.
]]>It took me perhaps 2 years of reading to barely skim the surface of somewhat understanding the difference between Calvinism and Arminianism. My conclusion is that I’m Calvinist and Reformed, though that comes across as offensive to some in UBF whenever I’ve said so. Thus, I stopped saying it.
IMHO UBF follows the Wesleyan tradition, which is Arminain. Even my own dear wife, I believe, is perhaps intellectualy Calvinist, but functionally and practically Arminian. I just told her last night that the next article that I am considering submitting to Joe would be entitled: “I’m Calvinist, my wife’s Arminian, and we’re both happy in UBF (and I still love her).” But that’s probably too long of a title!
]]>