Subscribe
Notify of
guest
34 Comments
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Malachi
Malachi
8 years ago

Theology AND chemistry?! Calvin was a real Renaissance Man! …except for him being a part of the Reformation.

Keith LaMothe
Keith LaMothe
8 years ago

That bottle of Limited Atonement looks surprisingly drinkable.

katecho
katecho
8 years ago
Reply to  Keith LaMothe

Interesting name for a new wine or whiskey label.
Just imagine the implications.

Wesley Sims
Wesley Sims
8 years ago
Reply to  katecho

None of that rotgut Universalism or Open Theism.

…stuff will make you go blind

Chris Duncan
8 years ago
Reply to  Wesley Sims

And speaking of blind… “But our God [is] in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased. Their idols [are] silver and gold, the work of men’s hands. They have mouths, but they speak not: eyes have they, but they see not: They have ears, but they hear not: noses have they, but they smell not: They have hands, but they handle not: feet have they, but they walk not: neither speak they through their throat. They that make them are like unto them; [so is] every one that trusteth in them” (Psalm 115:3-8). Presumably most Calvinists would say… Read more »

katecho
katecho
8 years ago
Reply to  Chris Duncan

Duncan seems to be engaging in a false dichotomy. God may predetermine (ordain) a thing to come to pass because He infallibly knows the nature of man, or of a particular man, or God may also predetermine because He intends to intervene in the moment. Herod had the children of Bethlehem killed for his own accountable reasons, and God permitted it. But recall that Saul was knocked blind on the road to Damascus, because God intervened. There is no contradiction in such ordained events. The sound Scriptural doctrine is that nothing, not one thing, comes to pass without first passing… Read more »

Chris Duncan
8 years ago
Reply to  katecho

Hello katecho-

God desired to display His wrath, and to make His power known in Herod by actively and unconditionally hardening him, irresistibly causing (turning) him to sin (cf. Romans 9:22; Isaiah 10:5-15; Psalm 105:25). The sound Scriptural doctrine is that God TURNS hearts to sin. What is your response to this?

katecho
katecho
8 years ago
Reply to  Chris Duncan

Sin begets sin, sometimes visiting to three or four generations. For example, our first lie can require ever greater lies to continue to cover it up. This is a feature of the way that God made the world. Sin begets sin. When Pharaoh hardened his heart, God saw to it that it became ever harder. Yet we note that God holds each of these parties accountable even as He is working in them to bring about His ordained purposes. Herod was eaten with worms as a demonstration of his accountability for his own actions. However, if Duncan is attempting to… Read more »

jigawatt
jigawatt
8 years ago
Reply to  katecho

Does Duncan serve such a puppetmaster god, or does he reject him, or does he reject Scripture? He rejects a puppermaster god, but not for the reasons you think. http://www.outsidethecamp.org/romans76.htm … the concept of God being a roboteer or a puppeteer makes God much too weak. People who are controlling a robot or a puppet are not in full control of all aspects of the robot or puppet. They are limited in what they can do, and things can go wrong. But with God, He controls every electron, every neutron, every atom, every protein, every cell – EVERYTHING. The objectors… Read more »

katecho
katecho
8 years ago
Reply to  jigawatt

Oh. I wasn’t familiar with them. So Duncan is actually taking the position that every evil and sinful act first originated in God’s mind, and these acts are all actively carried out by God forcefully manipulating human agents, even against their will? Sounds like some kind of hypercalvinism. It seems to destroy any basis for personal agency or accountability. Makes you wonder why God would even bother giving us a will if it can play no role except to be squashed by His. Just because we don’t save ourselves by our choice of will, it doesn’t follow that we don’t… Read more »

jigawatt
jigawatt
8 years ago
Reply to  katecho

Sounds like some kind of hypercalvinism. Actually, it’s a level above hypercalvinism. A hypercalvinist (by one definition) is someone who thinks only Calvinists are saved. The “Outside the Camp” folks believe that only HYPERcalvinists are saved. I.e. if someone is a Calvinist himself, but he allows that some Arminians are saved, then he himself is not saved. I wonder what he thinks about hyper-calvinists who nonetheless believe that “regular, non-hyper” Calvinists are saved. At what point does the recursion end? And is the answer to that question itself a test of fellowship among them? Makes you wonder why God would… Read more »

Chris Duncan
8 years ago
Reply to  jigawatt

Hey Jigawatt- We (“outside the camp folks”) have an article entitled, “Damnable Hyper-Calvinist Heresy” in the Materials-Articles section at the website. I’m thinking this means that we don’t “believe that only HYPERcalvinists are saved.” Your paragraph containing the word “recursion” is confused. This is not about Hyper-this or non-Hyper-that. It is about the gospel of Jesus Christ (Mark 16:16, Romans 1:16-17). What does belief in the gospel have to do with judgment of those who do NOT believe in the gospel? Is there any necessary connection? Or can one truly believe in the gospel and yet judge others who do… Read more »

jigawatt
jigawatt
8 years ago
Reply to  Chris Duncan

What does belief in the gospel have to do with judgment of those who do NOT believe in the gospel? Is there any necessary connection? Or can one truly believe in the gospel and yet judge others who do NOT believe in the gospel to be his brothers in Christ? If someone does not believe the gospel, I would not consider him to be a brother in Christ. That part is simple enough. The problem is determining what is essential to the gospel and what is not. There are lots of things I believe about God, Christ, and the Bible… Read more »

Chris Duncan
8 years ago
Reply to  jigawatt

Some thoughts on “determining what is essential to the gospel and what is not.” A doctrine that is “essential to the gospel” — an essential gospel doctrine — is a doctrine that EVERY single saved (regenerate) person without exception believes as an immediate and inevitable RESULT/FRUIT (not condition/prerequisite) of regenerating grace (Jeremiah 31:33-34; John 6:44-45, 15:26, 16:13-14, 17:3; Romans 1:16-17; 2 Corinthians 4:3-6; Hebrews 8:11-12; 1 John 5:20-21). In other words, an essential gospel doctrine is a doctrine that EVERY regenerate person knows and believes the instant they are saved. Conversely, what are the doctrines, that, if a person does… Read more »

katecho
katecho
8 years ago
Reply to  jigawatt

I appreciate civil disagreement. Although, I suppose for them to get mad at a non-hypercalvinist would be the equivalent of getting mad at God.

Chris Duncan
8 years ago
Reply to  katecho

Is Acts 15:18 in your Bible? You say “forcefully manipulating human agents, even against their will?” Think about the term, “Force.” Force implies resistance, correct? Force (or forcefully) is way too weak. God does not force, for He is omnipotent. Consider the following Scripture: “But Sihon king of Heshbon would not let us pass by him: for the LORD thy God hardened his spirit, and made his heart obstinate, that he might deliver him into thy hand, as appeareth this day” (Deuteronomy 2:30). God did not force Sihon since the word “force” implies resistance, and no man is able to… Read more »

Chris Duncan
8 years ago
Reply to  katecho

Is the following an accurate summary of your primary objection? “Why does He yet find fault with or hold Herod accountable, seeing Herod could not resist His will?”

RFB
RFB
8 years ago
Reply to  katecho

Being more fond of the American Scotch (Bourbon) and the practice of naming it (Pappy Van Winkle, Elijah Craig, George Dickel, et al), a smooth 12 year old John Calvin would have a certain je ne sais quoi.

katecho
katecho
8 years ago
Reply to  RFB

I may need to visit that bottle of Pappy Van Winkle for a reminder. Quite smooth, as I recall.

Dunsworth
Dunsworth
8 years ago
Reply to  Keith LaMothe

Well, it’s communion wine, kind of, right?

Chris Duncan
8 years ago
Reply to  Keith LaMothe

Consider the heart and very life-blood of the gospel: The efficacious atoning work of the person of Jesus Christ. “Efficacious” because His body is truly meat, and His blood is truly drink. To many Calvinists this bottle is professed to be much more than “surprisingly drinkable.” They might say that its precious and propitiatory contents are to be thoughtfully sipped and savored like old sweet wine. Well, that is, with the alleged careful, sober, wise, and mature caveat that this old sweet wine of efficacious atonement be fetched from the OPTIONAL gospel doctrine wine cellar. As long as the precious… Read more »

Keith LaMothe
Keith LaMothe
8 years ago
Reply to  Chris Duncan

Dear Chris,

Orthodoxy does require the doctrine that the atonement is limited in scope. The only alternatives are an unlimited atonement (universalism) or an atonement that is unlimited in scope but limited in power (which saves no one).

If that is what you are saying, then fine.

But if you are going beyond that, and are saying that one who does not believe that doctrine is necessarily not born again, then you are a heretic because you are denying justification by faith alone.

Warmly,
Keith

Chris Duncan
8 years ago
Reply to  Keith LaMothe

Hey Keith-

Do you believe that judging any professing Christian lost based on their denial of a basic and fundamental doctrine is always and necessarily a denial of justification by faith alone?

Keith LaMothe
Keith LaMothe
8 years ago
Reply to  Chris Duncan

Chris, no.

Chris Duncan
8 years ago
Reply to  Keith LaMothe

Thanks Keith. I believe that those who DENY the effectual work of Jesus Christ, claiming instead that the blood of Jesus Christ was shed for everyone without exception (including those in hell), deny the VERY HEART of the gospel. They do not believe that it is the work of Jesus Christ ALONE that makes the difference between salvation and damnation; instead, these self-righteous boasters believe that it is the effort of the sinner that makes the difference between salvation and damnation. These blasphemers deny that Jesus Christ made full satisfaction for sins and that Jesus Christ accomplished and ensured salvation… Read more »

Keith LaMothe
Keith LaMothe
8 years ago
Reply to  Chris Duncan

Dear Chris, I would not judge you (necessarily, nor in this specific case) unregenerate, no. But your condemnation of anyone who denies limited atonement does show you to be a heretic and a schismatic. Salvation is for sinners, brother, including those whose sins include heresy. That includes you, and many arminians. Even (gasp!) the occasional semi-pelagian. Are there bounds? Sure. If someone today denies the Trinity, or explicitly claims to be saved by their works, or something like that, I assume they have not been born again. And if the error you’re describing were very rare and someone was going… Read more »

ME
ME
8 years ago

Ha! We people often think just like that. Someone on the internet recently asked for the name of the guy who invented time. I assume that would be God, but apparently that was not the answer he was looking for.

ashv
ashv
8 years ago
Reply to  ME

I recommend this essay: http://szabo.best.vwh.net/synch.html (Church bell towers played a significant role.)

ME
ME
8 years ago
Reply to  ashv

Thank you, that was interesting.

Bro. Steve
Bro. Steve
8 years ago

Now the real question is whether he was foreordained to do that.

D. D. Douglas
D. D. Douglas
8 years ago

Okay, someone has to say it:
If predestination didn’t exist, we would have had to invent it.

Matt Massingill
Matt Massingill
8 years ago

It was bound to happen. ;)

doug sayers
doug sayers
8 years ago

Should be notorious moments in church history. At least the CAUTION label was on the most toxic ingredient. :)

Max
Max
8 years ago

This is great!