What do you get when you misrepresent Scripture, hold your traditions and teachers above the Word of God, and close your eyes to anything that those leaders tell you to look away from? You get men with one eye leading the blind. You get masters that have you under their will, conforming you to their own image, and not pointing to you to Christ as supreme. You get the likes of Chuck Smith who does what is right in his own eyes…just read the CALVARY CHAPEL DISTINCTIVES if you don’t believe me!
In the first video below Chuck Smith and pals answer a young woman’s question about her friend who is a recent “convert” of sorts to Calvinism. Chuck Smith and pals laugh off the issue by misrepresenting Calvinists, Scripture, and telling the girl to back off from her friend and not to engage that issue. Their answer was completely insufficient. They don’t take on the issue. And they certainly don’t give this young woman anything to stand on besides some cute out of context verses.
Praise God that I am no longer under the influence of this man.
In reply to Chuck: meet Jim McClarty and Word Pictures.
Context. Context. Context. Context.
17 September 2009 at 9:53 am
I guess being conformed to the image of Christ doesn’t mean saved?
17 September 2009 at 9:54 am
He bought them but they are perishing? Woa
17 September 2009 at 9:56 am
Calvinism is Christianity without Jesus?
17 September 2009 at 2:32 pm
Jon,
Apparently, according to what they are saying, then there are those who are predestined to be conformed into the image of Christ whether Saved or not; thus being conformed into the image of Christ has nothing to do with Salvation. Likewise they are saying (again by taking Scripture out of context) God cannot keep those who are in Christ from being plucked from His hands (which makes Him a liar). And how can anything be Christian without Christ? That means Chuck and pals are making some serious accusations against those of us who subscribed to five point Calvism.
Yet this does not surprise me as it is from the source that teaches it well and good to make ignorant comments, then hide away from any discussion of the matter because it is just not loving to discuss things that may hurt feelings. (It is a wonder that the gospel even gets shared.) Just listen how one of Chuck’s pals gives the advice not to engage because Calvinists tend to be cult-ish. Talk about pots calling kettles black!
Of course after mentioning that she should not engage her friend in this issue they offer out of context Scriptures, poor charicatures of the Calvinist view point, mock those of us who are five-pointers, and make some serious accusations about our Salvation. (Remember that without Christ we are condemned and remain under the wrath of God.)
There was no depth, nor truth in their words. It was utter bile, and yet those of us who make statements disagreeing with Chuck or the CC view point are dividers and plain unloving. This is what we call a cult.
The cowardice is sickening, the refusal to discuss with those of us where they believe we are wrong is antithetical to the Word of God, and reveals a disdain (at best) for those they believe to be lost.
God hating, and doing what is right in their own eyes.
Blessings,
Michael
20 September 2009 at 11:48 am
It’s really unfortunate that the bulk (not all) of CC pastors loosely handle the Word of Christ the way they do. I used to think Calvary Chapel was the place to be. That was until God got a hold of me and showed me my need to go deeper with Him and truly labor in the scriptures.
Over the last few years my eyes have been opened to see the lack of proper exegesis coming from CC pulpits.
I agree with you Michael when you say that you are so glad you are no longer under Chuck’s influence!
If only they would let go of their tradition and faulty presuppositions, and begin to apply proper hermeneutical principles in their study, so they could rightly interpret the sacred text!
Good post buddy,
Roger
22 September 2009 at 9:34 am
[...] views superior even though their may be Biblical support against them. The Moses Model (really?). Encourages scoffing at ideas contrary to his own (and also demonstrates a lack of knowledge of what happened at the cross, and proper exegesis of [...]
3 October 2009 at 6:53 am
[...] superior even though their may be Biblical support against them. The Moses Model (really?). Heencourages scoffing at ideas contrary to his own (and also demonstrates a lack of knowledge of what happened at the cross, and proper exegesis of [...]
4 October 2009 at 12:05 pm
[...] message by Dr. White deals exactly with an issue that I shared when I first found Chuck Smith’s commentary on [...]
1 November 2009 at 11:51 am
The problem here is not a contradiction of scripture. The problem is the limitations of our puny human minds. God exists outside of space and time. He who ordained the universe, and “stretches forth the heavens” can reach into time and boggle our insignificant understanding. For every one of the billions upon billions upon billions of minute choices that humans make throughout our finite, bodily existance, the God of the universe has a billion options to fulfil His perfect will. He did not create Adam to sin, but He did create Adam *knowing* that he would sin. He imparts us with the gift of faith, and draws us to Himself, but we still have the option to say “No”. God created us to love Him and fellowship with Him, but what is love if it is not voluntary? We believe in the absolute sovereignty of God, without question, and know that he will work His perfect will with, or without our individual contributions to the kingdom, however, he *DOES* desire that we participate. He desires that ALL men would come to repentance, but he will NEVER force us to do so. He imparts the gift of faith, but He does not force the repentance. He sees us in more dimensions than we can fathom, and He knows the end from the beginning, but He still requires that we choose, (or to speak in a more Calvinistic way, that we do NOT reject.) Every man, woman and child is born bearing the consequence of sin. If we repent of our sin, and look to the Cross as the propitiation for our sin, and accept God’s provision – not as some ‘act’, but as belief in our heart and soul that Christ *IS* the Son of God, that He *PAYED* for our sins, and that he *ROSE* from the dead and ever lives to make intercession for us, then we have Eternal Life. If we do NOT believe that- if we reject the free gift- if we choose to go on sinning, then we CAN’T BLAME GOD for not “Predestining” us. Limited atonement? Unlikely. Limited understanding? Much more probable!
5 November 2009 at 9:40 am
Neither Calvinists, nor Armenians,
“For every one of the billions upon billions upon billions of minute choices that humans make throughout our finite, bodily existance, the God of the universe has a billion options to fulfil His perfect will.”
So God is the great Reactor? This makes God out to be one who spun all things into existence and has a stock pile of tricks to react to the whims of His creation to make sure that what He wants to happen happens. There is almost an implication that God is unsure of what is going to happen next with His creatures.
Why are you so afraid to entrust your life into the sovereign will of our incredibly loving Father? Why is it such a bad thing for God to be God?
I want you to consider prophecy. Prophecy IS NOT God looking into the future and telling us what is going to happen and how He is going to respond. Rather prohecy IS God stating what He intends to do. When He says He is going to raise up Cyrus, He means that He will raise up a man named Cyrus (Isaiah 45) whom He has known from the beginning. He will ensure that certain people come together, that a certain family line is structured, and ensure that certain people at God’s timing will bring forth a son named Cyrus. When God raised up Cyrus was He just lucky?
It is absolutely insane that there is such a backlash against God’s sovereignty. Do you not know that if you are not a slave to Christ, then you are a slave to SIN? Man has a will, but it is enslaved to a corrupt and sinful nature. Does the Bible lie?
Blessings,
Michael
Man goes to Hell because He loves His sin
5 November 2009 at 11:26 am
You completely miss my point – and in so doing, illustrate it perfectly.
My point is that most people cannot grasp the concept of existence without time. We can barely fathom what “Infinite Time” would be like, but I am convinced that “Eternity” is not for ever, but rather it is the condition of existing without the limits of time.
God is not bound by time. At the sub-atomic level, time is an illusion. Time did not exist “In the Beginning”. Of course God is a “reactor”, but he does not have to wait for the event to take place in order to react to it. God did not WILL for man to sin. God “reacted” to the fall of man by planning our redemption. He did not create us to fall, but He created us ANYWAY, knowing that we would fall. No one here is denying the Sovereignty of God. What I am saying is that God still gives man the choice. And EVERY choice that man makes is known by God outside the realm of time. But we are still not puppets. God created man to love God. How can man love God without a choice to do so? I’m saying that this is a non-argument, perpetuated for centuries by people with limited minds. Yes God is sovereign. But he is NOT cruel. He didn’t create man just so He could punish him. His justice is perfect, and that justice demands punishment of sin. But He is not willing that *ANY* should perish. When Jesus said, “Whosoever”, He meant “WHOSOEVER”. Limited atonement is not supported by the whole council of God.
6 November 2009 at 11:32 am
Neither Calvinists, nor Armenians,
I understood your original point, I just don’t necessarily agree.
Let me sort through your last comment:
“What I am saying is that God still gives man the choice. And EVERY choice that man makes is known by God outside the realm of time.”
I completely agree. However, what is man’s choice? What does he choose? Man chooses to reject God. Have you not read: “None is righteous, no not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.” (Romans 3:10-12) The Gospel goes out, and people outside the regeneration of the Holy Spirit will choose to reject God because that is what they will, or do you suppose that the Scriptures lie concering the hearts of men (Genesis 6:5, Genesis 8:21, Romans 1,2,3)?
God gave man a choice, and we are now dead in sin (Ephesians 2), and we are slaves to sin (Romans 6). We cannot choose God. You espouse that we can do what the Scripture says that we cannot do. If anyone seeks, it is because God has sought him and called him first (Romans 8:28-30, Ephesians 2:1-10, 1 John 4:19).
“When Jesus said, “Whosoever”, He meant “WHOSOEVER”. Limited atonement is not supported by the whole council of God.”
I do agree that “whosoever” means “whosoever,” for Jesus said “…whoever comes to me I will never cast out.” (John 6:37b) And I preach the Gospel in that very manner always, for I do not know who is/is not elect. But who is the “whosoever” which will come, if not “…[a]ll that the Father gives…” to Christ (John 6:37a)?
But you push off limited atonement as just a problem belonging to me, yet do you not also limit the atonement in its application? Jesus atoned for all (meaning every single person past, present, future), and yet the atonment is rendered ineffective until one applies it. Is this not the choice you say we have? This presents one sin for which Christ either did not, or could not, die for: unbelief.
You emphasize “choice, choice, choice!” as if God is unfair for not showing mercy to every single individual, in which case you need to wrestle with Romans 9. We ALL deserve to go to HELL for all eternity because of our transgression against God. Do you think your sins, or anyone else’s sins are tolerable before our “holy, holy, holy…” (Isaiah 6) God?
If the wages of sin is death, then we all deserve death. Yet God has chosen to show mercy to those upon whom He has chosen to show mercy. We don’t deserve to go to Heaven at all. I recommend you take time to consider what the Word has to say about sin before insinuating that God is cruel if He punishes a law breaker without giving them a second chance.
Blessings,
Michael
6 November 2009 at 1:12 pm
Perhaps you have read only half of my text. I never mentioned a “second chance” or even a “first chance”. We all deserve hell. I never said any kind of sin is tolerable to our Holy God. I emphasize only that man is not a puppet, and that if he were, we wouldn’t be in the situation we’re in. I claim that God has chosen to show mercy to all men, but only some would be redeemed. ( Rom 5:18-19. )
I agree (and have stated) that God imparts the gift of faith, but this is not irresistable. On the cross, Jesus pleaded, “Father, forgive them, for they know no what they do.” Yet, I contend that many (if not most) of those perpetrating the crucifixion died in their sins.
Did Christ die for their sins? Was His plea ignored by the Father? Maybe, since the Father had turned His face at some point previous to that plea. However, I prefer to believe that everything required for their salvation was provided by God, and those men turned down the offer.
I guess when you state it they way that you did, I agree that there is an unforgivable sin of unbelief, and yet it is only unforgivable in it’s last iteration before death. I mean, someone may dismiss the gospel many times throughout their life, and yet may still be drawn by the Spirit eventually, or even gradually, and repent and follow Christ.
Does it benefit a rebellious heart when the righteous pray fervently for their salvation? Is the draw of the Holy Spirit hindered or helped by the prayers of others?
There is nothing in me that I can contribute to my salvation. Without the gift of faith, I will have no impulse to respond. On these points we undoubtedly agree. But is the call of the Holy Spirit irresistable? I say that there are still people who die in their sins because of the hardness of their hearts, not because of the lack of God’s calling. Call them “unelect” if you want, but I contend that God’s call is upon ALL men. Yet, only they who “received” Him did He give power to become the Sons of God. (John 1:12) God commands “all men everywhere to repent” (Acts 17:30), but obviously they don’t all respond.
Do you not agree that there is as much scripture supporting the sovereignty of man to deny Christ as there is scripture supporting the idea of the predestination of only certain individuals?
6 November 2009 at 8:59 pm
Neither Calvinists, nor Armenians,
I do agree that men can deny our Lord, and in the Scriptures themselves there is a rejection of Christ by men all over the place. All men everywhere are called to repentence and faith. On these things we are in agreement.
I don’t agree with man’s sovereignty.
“Does it benefit a rebellious heart when the righteous pray fervently for their salvation?”
If they are of those given by the Father to the Son (John 6:37), yes. And in so praying do we also not recognize the Seeker and Author of our Salvation? And in so praying do we not recognize God as the one who changes hearts and dispositions? Do we not recognize God as the one who saves to the uttermost? Do we not see that Salvation belongs to the Lord?
You see, the fact remains that I don’t know the elect. There is no secret marking or symbol or handshake. That knowledge belongs solely to the Lord according to His good counsel. What I do know is that our Lord Jesus Christ comissioned us to take the Gospel to the whole world and make disciples of all nations(Matthew 28:16-20). That is all I am to do. I don’t ever think a person reprobate because I don’t know the time of the harvest (John 4:1-43). What I do know is that I am to proclaim the Gospel with all earnestness. I pray for those I share the Lord with because I recognize that He is the one who saves.
“I agree (and have stated) that God imparts the gift of faith, but this is not irresistable.”
I disagree that the gift of faith is resistable, for who can resist God? When Jesus called Levi (Matthew) to follow Him, did Levi really have a choice? Could he really have refused and kept counting money, or did the grace of our Lord pour out upon him and call out to His elect vessel to rise and walk with Him?
Or what of Lazarus? Could he have stayed in his tomb? Could he have said, no Jesus, I’m sorry. I like it here. I like my rock which hides my stench. I’ll just stay right here.?
It is absurd to think we can resist God.
“Yet, only they who “received” Him did He give power to become the Sons of God. (John 1:12)”
This is where things get ugly. If you quote a verse reference to me, I will look it up. I do it all the time. I love the Word of God, and each time I open it, I learn, I am edified, I am convicted, I am renewed, and I am strengthened.
Here you have misrepresented the text; and I will assume unintentionally. Let us look at the text.
“But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God,” ~John 1:12
Notice that after the word “God” is not a period to end the sentence/idea, but rather a comma signifying continuation. What is that continuation?
“But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.” ~John 1:12-13
By what will are they adopted to become heirs (Ephesians 1)? God’s will (John 6).
Regarding Acts 17:30, of course all men everywhere are commanded to repent. God’s standard is that sin (trangression against God’s Law) brings death, but all who repent and believe in Christ will be saved. So when all men everywhere are judged, those without Christ as their Savior will be condemned and enter into the fullness of God’s wrath. They rejected God by their own wills, amen. But those of us who repented and believed; we are left without even the slightest boast for if not by God’s grace we would be in the same pitiful state.
Soli Deo Gloria!
Blessings,
Michael
16 December 2009 at 3:47 pm
[...] superior even though their may be Biblical support against them. The Moses Model (really?). Heencourages scoffing at ideas contrary to his own (and also demonstrates a lack of knowledge of what happened at the cross, and proper exegesis of [...]