The Narrow Path Ministries

Since I will have the opportunity to dialogue with Dr. White, beginning this week, on the subject of Calvinism, I thought I'd get suggestions of questions any of you would like for me to ask him to answer or points you would like him to explain. I may not choose to ask him every question that is suggested, as I have quite a few of my own that I want to ask, but if anyone wishes to suggest any, feel free to do so here.

If a small minority of people have been predestined for heaven, and the vast majority have been predestined for eternal hell, and man does not have a free will, then what is the purpose of this life? Why should the lost live long lives in a mechanistic fashion? Indeed why create so many people only to send them to eternal suffering? Is this an expression of God's love? I have heard that some Calvinists claim that God somehow gets glory from doing so. In what way does the act of choosing them for hell and sending them there give Him glory? It seems to me that such an act would give him infamy.

Hi Steve,

Wow, I think I would have hundreds of questions, and most of mine would probably be covered in the show anyhow.
However, I did want to respond to this post just to let you know I have been in prayer for you and will continue to do so in regards to this show.

I have actually taken some time off specifically to listen to these shows coming up on Calvinism.

It's really not a question, but my main "beef" with Calvinism is their supposed high regard for the sovereignty of God and "solo scriptura" when it seems they have to go outside of certain scriptures to support their dogmatic presuppositions on the atonement.

What I mean by that, is that they (in my assessment) clearly have to "TWIST" and "tweak" some of the clear passages on the atonement i.e. John 3:16, 1 TI 2: 3-6, Heb 2:9, 1 John 2:2 etc. just to fit their bias. In my view, this is clearly adding to scriptures that are as clear as they can be and are in no need of "interpreting". Like this goofy "two wills of God" doctrine! I personally see little fear of God in twisting clear scriptures in regards of the atonement just to make it fit your presuppositions. Sorry, I am rambling now

But this seems to be things that "WOF" teachers do that they soo quickly condemn (rightly so) and point their fingers at and cry "scripture twisting", yet again, in my view, they are just as guilty of doing themselves.

Sorry to ramble, in any event, I am praying for you Steve. May God richly bless you.

In Christ, Greg

Greg wrote:

Wow, I think I would have hundreds of questions, and most of mine would probably be covered in the show anyhow.
However, I did want to respond to this post just to let you know I have been in prayer for you and will continue to do so in regards to this show.

I don't want to repeat what you said brother Greg but you are thinking what I'm thinking . therefore I might as well quote you.

Steve:

It's alway seemed to me that Ephesians 1:1-12 referred to the Jewish believers and verses 13 and following directed toward the Gentile believers. Wouldn't this give the "election" verses that Calvinist like to use a very different meaning than what they like to assign to them?

Thanks

PR

How can he [as a calvinist] believe the gospel is actually good news in and of itself if God has chosen to withhold the salvation spoken of [in the gospel itself] from many who have and will hear it? If the only purpose of the gospel to the non-elect serves as condemnation to them, how is the message preached good news to them [in any sense] if there is no possibility they can be saved by it? I've always thought that the gospel was a message of God's love for humanity/the world to the lost. If this is embraced by Calvinist's, how can he, without any reservations, tell the lost that God loves them if they might not be elect? I'm sure he'll bring up God's common grace, but how the blessings and gifts in this life be a genuine expression of God's love if God has unconditionally excluded them from salvation & heaven and predestined them to an eternity in hell? Paul said that the sufferings of this world can't compare with the glory to be revealed in eternity for those who believe. In light of eternity, a parallel point can be made for the non-elect. The goods, blessings, and temporal grace are not worth comparing to the future misery that awaits the non-elect upon death since they had no hope of being saved. Since these temporal things in life are the sole basis for the calvinist saying God loves them, how can the Calvinist say God geniunely loves the non-elect they come across everday?

Since you have the book "Why I am not a Calvinist," then please see pg. 189-191. I would like to see you question him on the points mentioned there and in this post [they are almost the same].

How about asking him how he would explain the "4 spiritual truths" or some other scheme of elevator evangelism to an unbeliever and (if he's consistent with most Calvinists in his approach) then ask him whether he finds it a dishonest approach (or why does he feel the need to soft-peddle his doctrine)? I'm not sure how to ask the question, but this is what I related to a friend recently that stems from a point in one of Steve's exchanges with a brother that gets to the point I'm trying to make...

I recognize that Calvinists want to evangelize, even if they might be evangelizing to an unelected person. However, I think the doctrine poses some real challenges to the gospel presentation for the Calvinist. I could elaborate on this sometime, but it's almost as if the Calvinist has to lie about the gospel or polish it a bit and withhold the ugly side of the coin when presenting the message. Forgive the sarcasm, but have you ever heard a Calvinist meet an unbeliever and say:

"Hey, dude, God may or may not love you and all this stuff I just told you about Christ's suffering may or may not have been on your behalf -- if He does already love you and want you to follow Christ, then He will make sure you will respond to this message and be saved, but if not (and there's no way to know for sure) then your response (if any) will be for naught even if you think you mean it -- just trust me and make the following confession and let's see how it turns out for you. If you turn away one day, well, you weren't elect anyway, so what harm does it do to follow Christ now and make this confession just in case?"

Here's another couple:

Did god have wrath or did He have love towards the "dead" people described in Ephesians 2 "even when they were dead in their trespasses"?

Is it the "deadness" or unregenerate nature of the people that brings God's wrath, or is it their choice to deny Him and their decisions to suppress the truth? Did God give them over to their lusts because of their suppression? or did God suppress their ability to believe so that he could give them over.

Do you think God has wrath towards all infants (whether elect or not)?

Do you believe in double predestination? if not, why not?

Do you believe in double predestination? if not, why not?

And a related follow up -- would your exegesis support a position where there were two groups of people -- one group who was elect unto salvation and a second group (all the rest) who had freewill and may or may not be also saved through faith through a response to a measure of common grace?

If not, how does that position differ from double predestination?

I have a question, but I don't know how to make it short and complete. I'll give it a try though.

If I read Romans 9 accepting the exegesis offered by James White that the subject matter covers two groups: saved and lost. And accept that these two groups are this way because of God's choice and not from anything they could or would do, think or believe (including faith). Then why does Paul go on in this very context to extend hope to those Jews who are not part of "all Israel who are descended from Israel"?

Examples:
Romans 9:31 but Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness...For they stumbled at that stumbling stone.

There were those of Israel who stumbled, what of them? If God passed over them as He did Esau and company and they are "lost" then why does Paul press the point further:

Romand 10:1 Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they may be saved.

Why would Paul desire something God does not? Is it not God's choice? Paul should be at peace with this, but he seems troubled.

Romans 11:1 I say then, has God cast away His people? Certainly not! For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God has not cast away His people whom He foreknew.

So God has not rejected those whom He foreknew. Ok, this works with Calvinism, let's continue, Paul's not finnished:

Romans 11:7 What then? Israel has not obtained what it seeks; but the elect have obtained it, and the rest were blinded

Those who were not elect were blinded. Ok, so since they are clearly not elect, they cannot and will not be saved, right? So then why does Paul say these things:

Romans 11:11 I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles.


So, to provoke them (the non elect, apparently. Since the elect are kept by God can cannot fall see Jude 1:24) to jealousy salvation has been granted/extended to the Gentiles (not exclusively to Gentiles though see Rom 11:1-2).

Romans 11:14 if by any means I may provoke to jealousy those who are my flesh and save some of them. 15 For if their being cast away is the reconciling of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?

Why would Paul seek to arouse those of his own flesh who have been cast away by God, (like Ishmael was cast out?).

Romans 11:16 For if the firstfruit is holy, the lump is also holy; and if the root is holy, so are the branches. 17 And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree, 18 do not boast against the branches.

Since the wild olive tree is in contrast to the natural branches, it would seem then the root would be Abraham. The law did say that those who did not listen to "the prophet" would be cut off from the people. Anyway, these people were broken off and branches were grafted on (Gentiles).

This seems to be a recitation of what Paul has already said:

I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles.

and

What then? Israel has not obtained what it seeks; but the elect have obtained it, and the rest were blinded.

The elect obtained, the rest did not. They fell but are being provoked to be grafted on again. Is this not Paul speaking about the non-elect Jews coming to faith in Christ through jealousy? How could Paul believe to teach such a thing if Romans 9 is correctly interpreted as James White does?

Romand 11: 19 You will say then, "Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in." 20 Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either.

What natural branches did God not spare? Are these not the very ones from Romans 9 who are not part of "all Israel who are from Israel"? How then can they be grafted back on again:

23 And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.

I see that it is God who does the grafting, the condition however is faith. Interesting that God here seems incapable of grafting in those who continue in unbelief. And it's Paul's stated conviction that through the jealously caused by the Gentiles coming to God that some Jews may come to be saved. Even though they are not the elect, they are rather the ones who were blinded (Rom 11:7).

Hopefully this is at least somewhat understandable.

I don't expect this question to be addressed this week, but it's something that I've always wondered ... it's not about Calvinist doctrine, but the application of it.

As a pastor we sometimes have to conduct very difficult funerals. For example, the death of an infant or small child.

As a non-Calvinist I feel that I can offer some genuine hope to the parent of that child who wishes to see him/her in heaven some day. In their grief they cling to any hope that you might be able to share.

But how does a Calvinist pastor respond? Does he temporarily hide his doctrine because he knows it may be painful? Or, does the Calvinist pastor stay true and explain that if God did not choose the baby then their little one is currently suffering the judgement of hell fire?

peace,

dane

PS: Steve, it doesn't matter to me if you "win" or "lose" with Dr. White - it matters that you humbly represent the Body as a loving, humble slave of Christ - which I am certain you will.