Tag: Calvinism

Our Divine Playwright

~ Bob Hayton

I’ve been making my way through Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology again recently, since our pastor is teaching a systematic class for our mid-week Bible studies. I found Grudem’s discussion of divine providence to be especially helpful. In my teaching on Reformation doctrine for adult SS, we’re getting into this area of God’s sovereignty, providence and predestination, too. The following illustration of God as our divine playwright, has been especially helpful in thinking through the area of God’s sovereignty and man’s free will. I thought I would share it here for the benefit of my readers.

It seems better to affirm that God causes all things that happen, but that he does so in such a way that he somehow upholds our ability to make willing, responsible, choices, choices that have real and eternal results, and for which we are held accountable. Exactly how God combines his providential control with our willing and significant choices, Scripture does not explain to us. But rather than deny one aspect or the other (simply because we cannot explain how both can be true), we should accept both in an attempt to be faithful to the teaching of all of Scripture.

The analogy of an author writing a play may help us to grasp how both aspects can be true. In the Shakespearean play Macbeth, the character Macbeth murders King Duncan. Now (if we assume for a moment that this is a fictional account), the question may be asked, “Who killed King Duncan?” On one level, the correct answer is “Macbeth.” Within the context of the play he carried out the murder and is rightly to blame for it. But on another level, a correct answer to the question, “Who killed King Duncan?” would be “William Shakespeare”: he wrote the play, he created all the characters in it, and he wrote the part where Macbeth killed King Duncan.

It would not be correct to say that because Macbeth killed King Duncan, William Shakespeare did not kill him. Nor would it be correct to say that because William Shakespeare killed King Duncan, Macbeth did not kill him. Both are true. On the level of the characters in the play Macbeth fully (100 percent) caused King Duncan’s death, but on the level of the creator of the play, William Shakespeare fully (100 percent) caused King Duncan’s death. In similar fashion, we can understand that God fully causes things in one way (as Creator), and we fully cause things in another way (as creatures).

Of course, someone may object that the analogy does not really solve the problem because characters in a play are not real persons; they are only characters with no freedom of their own, no ability to make genuine choices, and so forth. But in response we may point out that God is infinitely greater and wiser than we are. While we as finite creatures can only create fictional characters in a play, not real persons, God, our infinite Creator, has made an actual world and in it has created us as real persons who make willing choices. To say that God could not make a world in which he causes us to make willing choices (as some would argue today; see discussion below), is simply to limit the power of God. It seems also to deny a large number of passages of Scripture.

~ Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Zondervan: 1994), pg. 321-322

A friend at church commented on this analogy along the lines that we have a greater confidence in our God because he has written the script for everything that happens. And He has written in several times where he steps into the play himself. I agree, and want to stress that this whole concept of God being “our divine playwright,” should give us confidence in God and his power and an ability to endure suffering knowing He is on the throne. It should also make us humble and trusting, not proud and boastful. With tomorrow’s holiday on the mind, it should make us incredibly thankful. Thankful that God would intervene and care enough to craft “his story” – history – to include each of us and that He would work all things together for our good (Rom. 8:28).

John Piper on Calvinism and Logic

~ Bob Hayton ~ 1 Comment

John Piper recently addressed how Calvinism and logic relate. His article specifically addresses how he appreciates G.K. Chesterton’s writing in spite of some significant theological differences. One of those is an appreciation of Calvinism. See the excerpts below, but then go on and read the whole article at Desiring God Blog.

What About Logic?

It is a great irony to me that Calvinists are stereotyped as logic-driven. For forty years my experience has been the opposite. The Calvinists I have known (English Puritans, Edwards, Newton, Spurgeon, Packer, Sproul) are not logic driven, but Bible-driven. It’s the challengers who bring their logic to the Bible and nullify text after text. Branches are lopped off by “logic,” not exegesis.

Who are the great enjoyers of paradox today? Who are the pastors and theologians who grab both horns of every biblical dilemma and swear to the God-Man: I will never let go of either.

Not the Calvinism-critics that I meet. They read of divine love, and say that predestination cannot be. They read of human choice and say the divine rule of all our steps cannot be. They read of human resistance, and say that irresistible grace cannot be. Who is logic-driven?

For forty years Calvinism has been, for me, a vision of life that embraces mystery more than any vision I know. It is not logic-driven. It is driven by a vision of the ineffable, galactic vastness of God’s Word.

Let’s be clear: It does not embrace contradiction. Chesterton and I both agree that true logic is the law of “Elfland.” “If the Ugly Sisters are older than Cinderella, it is (in an iron and awful sense) necessary that Cinderella is younger than the Ugly Sisters.” Neither God nor his word is self-contradictory. But paradoxes? Yes.

We happy Calvinists don’t claim to get the heavens into our heads. We try to get our heads into the heavens. We don’t claim comprehensive answers to revealed paradoxes. We believe. We try to understand. And we break out into song and poetry again and again.

From Dilemma to Unicorn

We don’t adjust the brain-baffling categories of Scripture to fit human reason. We take it as one of our jobs to create categories in human minds that never existed in those minds before “” a job only God can do “” though he makes us agents. For example, we labor to create categories of thought like these:

God rules the world of bliss and suffering and sin, right down to the roll of the dice, and the fall of a bird, and the driving of the nail into the hand of his Son; yet, even though he wills that such sin and suffering be, he does not sin, but is perfectly holy.

God governs all the steps of all people, both good and bad, at all times and in all places; yet such that all are accountable before him and will bear the just consequences of his wrath if they do not believe in Christ.

All people are dead in their trespasses and sins, and are not morally able to come to Christ because of their rebellion; yet, they are responsible to come, and will be justly punished if they don’t.

Jesus Christ is one person with two natures, divine and human, such that he upheld the world by the word of his power while living in his mother’s womb.

Sin, though committed by a finite person and in the confines of finite time is nevertheless deserving of an infinitely long punishment because it is a sin against an infinitely worthy God.

The death of the one God-Man, Jesus Christ, so displayed and glorified the righteousness of God that God is not unrighteous to declare righteous ungodly people who simply believe in Christ.

These are some of the intertwining, paradoxical branches in the tree of Calvinism. They do not grow in the soil of fallen human logic. They grow in the Bible-saturated soil of “Elfland.” Those who live there believe that a Dilemma with two horns is probably metamorphosing into a Unicorn.

Mining the Archives: Once Saved, Always Saved?!?!

~ Bob Hayton ~ 6 Comments


From time to time, I’ll be mining the archives around here. I’m digging up Bob’s best posts from the past. I’m hoping these reruns will still serve my readers.

Today’s post was originally published February 11, 2006.

 

 

Today’s popular evangelical maxim “once saved, always saved” while based in the Biblical truth of justification by faith alone has morphed into a virtual get-out-of-jail-free card for far too many. The church’s duty to make disciples of all nations has been downgraded to an optional extra. The gospel call to repent and believe has become a plea for sinners to assent to the facts of the gospel, pray a prayer, and join the cool Christian club called churchianity. Gone are the stern warnings to “watch and pray” and “endure to the end”. Gone are the bold exhortations to “make your calling and election sure” and “be diligent to be found in [Christ] without spot or blemish”. In their place are the warm assurances “since you confessed you are saved” and “since eternal life is a free gift, God cannot take it back”, and the friendly reminders “everybody makes mistakes” and “don’t sweat: remember, we’re under grace!” The old doctrine that saints must diligently make a personal effort to persevere in faith has been overshadowed by the new doctrine that saints can live just like anyone else in the world and as long as they once assented to gospel truths they are most certainly bound for heaven.

I wish I was merely exaggerating the situation. But when a nationally well known evangelical leader like Charles Stanley seriously believes and teaches that people who actually stop believing in Christ and walk out on God are still eternally secure, I can hardly be accused of overstating my case. In the article linked to above he claims, “The Bible clearly teaches that God’s love for His people is of such magnitude that even those who walk away from the faith have not the slightest chance of slipping from His hand.” He goes on to only deal with Eph. 2:4-9 and 1 Cor. 1:21, while adding in a good portion of reasoning and illustrations. In his book Eternal Security: Can You Be Sure? he makes the startling claim that salvation can be compared to receiving a tattoo. Even if moments later, you regret receiving the tattoo, it cannot change the fact that you have it! (pg. 80)

The Grace Evangelical Society exists to perpetuate such ideas. In other specters of evangelicalism, easy believism is represented by a 1-2-3-repeat-after-me approach to evangelism. A very large segment of independent fundamental Baptists (represented by literally thousands of churches and tens [if not hundreds] of thousands of members) emphasizes this approach to such excess that staggeringly huge numbers of salvations and baptisms are reported each year–which if really true, would make the Great Awakening look like a picnic. People are converted in five minutes or less–even through a rolled-down window during the duration of a stop light! One church has boasted of a million souls saved in the past 25 years, and yet less than 500 attend on any given Sunday.

Today no view seems criticized as much as Lordship Salvation or the Calvinistic doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints. These views are very similar, if not synonymous and both share a strong critique. Charges of “works-salvation” or “perfectionism” are thrown mercilessly at these misunderstood views.

So how did we come to such a time and situation as this? It seems that in a mix of zeal and evangelistic fervor, popular Christianity began to move away from its confessional roots in the late 1800s. American individualism probably worsened the situation, as Sola Scriptura became the license for anyone and everyone to disregard centuries of theological formulations and church teaching and come up with a myriad of homespun theories. The lasting impact of Charles G. Finney, who rejected substitutionary atonement among other orthodox doctrines, also contributed to what became popular American revivalism. Today, people have hardly heard of many of the great Reformation confessions like the Westminster Confession or the Synod of Dort, and yet they are quick to find a proof text for a host of contradictory Biblical teachings.

Yet a misunderstanding of perseverance is not limited to Arminians and non-Calvinists today, either. Doug Wilson says it well in a recent post on Heb. 3:7-19:

Apostasy is a real sin, committed by real people. This is something that Arminians get, and that most Calvinists do not get. None of the elect can every [sic] be taken out of God’s electing and sovereign decree. This is something that Calvinists get, and that Arminians do not get. Arminians can read Romans 8 through 11 and not see the absolute sovereignty of God, which is something that never ceases to astonish me. But lest we Calvinists get on a high horse, Arminians can read though Hebrews and can see real apostasy there. There are few things more exegetically embarrassing than to hear a Calvinist talk about how the warnings are hypothetical, like “keep off the grass” signs in the middle of the Sahara. There are many things that can be said to this, but the most compelling of them is that the warnings invariably deny that they are anything like hypothetical….The sin warned against here is that of evil unbelief, pure and simple. Not only is it unbelief, it is unbelief resulting in apostasy — departure from the living God, falling away from the living God. The sin is spoken of in the sternest possible way — rebellion, hardened hearts, evil heart of unbelief, and a departure from God…..This book [Hebrews] is about the sin of apostasy. Can a Christian fall away? Yes. Can someone who is truly regenerate, elect of God, an eternal Christian, fall away? No, clearly not.

Before I go on to defend the Biblical (I believe) doctrine of perseverance, let me provide here a brief excerpt from John Piper’s book The Purifying Power of Living by Faith in Future Grace

A few years ago I spoke to a high school student body on how to fight lust. One of my points was called, “Ponder the eternal danger of lust.” I quoted the words of Jesus–that it’s better to go to heaven with one eye than to hell with two–and said to the students that their eternal destiny was at stake in what they did with their eyes and with the thoughts of their imagination….After my message…one of the students…asked, “Are you saying then that a person can lose his salvation?”…This is exactly the same response I got a few years ago when I confronted a man about the adultery he was living in….I pled with him to return to his wife. Then I said, “You know, Jesus says that if you don’t fight this sin with the kind of seriousness that is willing to gouge out your own eye, you will go to hell”….As a professing Christian he looked at me in utter disbelief, as though he had never heard anything like this in his life, and said, “You mean you think a person can lose his salvation?”…So I have learned again and again from firsthand experience that there are many professing Christians who have a view of salvation that disconnects it from real life, and that nullifies the threats of the Bible, and puts the sinning person who claims to be a Christian beyond the reach of biblical warnings. I believe this view of the Christian life is comforting thousands who are on the broad way that leads to destruction (Matthew 7:13)….The main concern of this book is to show that the battle against sin is a battle against unbelief. Or: the fight for purity is a fight for faith in future grace. The great error that I am trying to explode is the error that says, “Faith in God is one thing and the fight for holiness is another thing….The battle for obedience is optional because only faith is necessary for final salvation.” (pg. 330-331 and 333)

Belief in perseverance does not negate the great truth that faith alone justifies and secures our eternal salvation. Rather it affirms with Martin Luther, “We are saved by faith alone, but not a faith that is alone.” Our works prove the sincerity of our faith, and are in this sense necessary. This is why so many passages teach that God will actually judge all mankind by their works. Without exception, Rom. 2:6-11 states: “He will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immorality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury. There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality.” The reason this does not teach works salvation is that when we come to God in faith (as a result of his work of regeneration in our hearts–John 1:13 and 1 Jn. 5:1, and his gifts of faith–Acts 3:16, 15:9, 18:27, 1 Pet. 1:21, Phil. 1:29, Eph. 1:19-20, 2 Pet. 1:1 and repentance–Acts 5:31, 11:18, 2 Tim. 2:25) he begins a good work in us (Phil. 1:6) and will be the One to complete it. He will produce good works in us as a testimony of the genuineness of our faith–Eph. 2:10, Phil. 2:13, 1 Cor. 15:10, 1 Thess. 5:23-24, Jude 24, Tit. 2:14.

In other words, true regeneration produces true fruit. This is Jesus’ teaching in Matt. 7:18-19 “A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.” In the parable of the sower, the only soil which produced fruit was the good soil. Even thought the rocky soil produced plants which looked healthier than the fruitful plants, they bore no fruit and withered away. Jesus said this represents those “who receive [the word] with joy…but…have no root: they believe for a while, and in time of testing fall away.” The clear teaching of the parable is that transient faith does not save. Only the faith that bears fruit saves.

In understanding perseverance, it is important to recognize the difference between justification and glorification. Justification is the legal pronouncement of “not guilty” which happens immediately upon our faith and is based on Christ’s substitutionary atonement. This pronouncement is a voice from heaven, so to speak, concerning our hearts. The testimony from earth (our lifestyle) does not unfalteringly reflect this. Sanctification is a slow and gradual process of the out-working of our faith and the living out of our justification. Glorification is the point when we are gloriously transformed into Christ’s image immediately after our death. At this point salvation is final. Up until then, since we cannot enter heaven’s throne-room and hear the irreversible verdict of “not guilty” applied to us, we must trust in sanctification to prove the genuineness of our faith. The term “salvation” is most often used in Scripture to refer to our glorification and only sparingly used to refer to justification. So when we see the English words “whoever believes will be saved” it usually is teaching that whoever believes will one day ultimately be saved/glorified. The Greek tense used for “believe” most often (99% or more of the time) in such statements is the present tense which directly conveys a continual action. Literally, it is often stated, “the believing one will be saved”. If we walk away from faith and cease believing we prove to not be a “believing one”.

Perseverance is required of believers. It is our duty. But the flip side of this is the teaching that God will preserve His elect (John 10:26-30, 1 Pet. 1:5, etc.). So all of the elect–all the truly regenerate among professing believers–will persevere and it will be by God’s grace. Most reading this post already understand that God will preserve the elect, so I will not labor to prove that assertion. But what follows will conclude this post by providing a defense of my assertion that the Bible requires us (professing believers) to persevere.

The Bible speaks of our need to “examine” ourselves (2 Cor. 13:5) and to diligently “make our calling and election sure” (2 Pet. 1:10). We cannot assume that since we believed in the past or made some profession of faith, we are absolutely and inviolably secure eternally. We must make room for the Scriptural potential that our faith could be insincere or not genuine. Luke 8:13 again, speaks of those who “believe for a while, and in time of testing fall away”. Even Paul leaves it open that he might even still yet become a “castaway” (same Greek word for apostate) in 1 Cor. 9:27.

Heb. 3:12-14 (along with other warning passages in Hebrews) is emphatically clear that we might ultimately fall away, and so thus we need to daily exhort one another to continue in belief. Paul calls this the “good fight of faith” in 1 Tim. 6:12 and exhorts Timothy to “take hold of the eternal life” (6:12) and to “hold faith” (1:19), because some had already “made shipwreck of their faith” (1:20), and some have “abandoned their former faith” (5:12), and others have “swerved from the faith” (6:21). This is why he exhorts Timothy to “Keep a close watch on yourself and on the teaching. Persist in this, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers.” (4:16) This is why so often Paul and other Scriptural authors do not boldly assure their readers of their personal sharing in Christ, rather they hold out before them their duty to persevere. See all the conditional statements in the following verses: Col. 1:23–“if indeed you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast,…”; 1 Cor. 15:2–“by which [the gospel] you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you–unless you believed in vain”; Heb. 3:6–“and we are his house if indeed we hold fast our confidence and our boasting in our hope”; Heb. 3:14–“we share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original confidence firm to the end”; John 8:31–“if you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples”; Mark 13:13–“the one who endures to the end will be saved”; 2 Tim. 2:12–“if we endure, we will also reign with him”; Rom. 8:13–“if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live”; Gal. 6:9–“in due season we will reap [eternal life (see 6:8)], if we do not give up”; Heb. 12:14–“holiness without which no one will see the Lord”; James 2:26 (with 14)–“faith apart from works is dead” and “can that faith save him?”

Scripture never gives us assurance of salvation based on our profession of faith (in a past time and place), rather it declares the objective reality of Christ’s work and the subjective reality of the Spirit’s work in our lives as the grounds for assurance. (And the stress in 1 John is on our subjective experience of characteristic obedience.) 1 John 2:3 states ” And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments.” 1 John 2:19 also gives us the key to understanding this truth. It helps us to interpret what happened when we see someone who seemed to have genuine faith fall away. It declares, “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us.” In other words, we should not conclude like some Arminians that all professing believers who fall away have in fact lost their salvation. Rather we should conclude that they were only professing but not possessing faith. Paul teaches this same truth when he declares belief could be in vain (1 Cor. 15:2) or could be only temporary (see 1 Thess. 3:5). Jesus also clearly taught both the reality of professors being proven to not possess faith in the scary passage of Matt. 7:21-23, and the need to persevere in Luke 21:34-36 among other places.

To sum up the teaching of perseverance, let us quote 2 passages. 2 Thess. 2:13b “God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.” Heb. 6:12b “be…imitators of those who through faith and patience inherit the promises.” Both of these passages teach that ultimate, final salvation (inheriting the promises) come to those who both believe and persevere (are sanctified/have patience).

But should this teaching result in our condemning large segments of evangelicalism and condemning many we know? Are we to judge them as not being true possessors since we may doubt their perseverance? No! Emphatically, no! Remember, justification is a heavenly sentence. We do not know, here on earth, what that sentence is. We can judge based on their fruits, but we also must be aware of the motes and beams in our own eyes. We should judge ourselves first and others much later. We can have confidence and hope in our sovereign God that there are evidences of grace in all who profess salvation. But then again, we know Biblically that this is most likely not the case. So rather than condemn one another, we should seek to edify one another and encourage them to press on, and to continue in belief (Heb. 3:2-14 and Gal. 6:1-9).

Before I close, we must revisit that popular maxim, “once saved, always saved.” If “saved” is viewed as glorification, I do not disagree at all with that statement. Nor would I if “saved” is viewed as justification. But once again, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and the proof of justification is in your works (James 2). So even with the truth of once justified, always justified in view, we must never assume we have been justified if we have no good works to point to as Spirit-wrought proof.

In conclusion, brothers and sisters, I say with the apostle John “Watch yourselves, so that you may not lose what we have worked for, but may win a full reward.” (2 John 1:8) And remember that although Jude warns us to “Keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ that leads to eternal life” (v. 21) he also assures us “Now to him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you blameless before the presence of his glory with great joy…” (v. 24). So do not lose heart. Trust in God’s great promises, and fight the good fight of faith. Above all, do not presume that you have arrived and are outside the bounds of Scripture’s warnings. Rather, “be all the more diligent to make your calling and election sure, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall.” (2 Pet. 1:10)

For a more succinct treatment of this topic, I refer you to an earlier post where I reproduce a helpful outline on Heb. 3:2-14. Also, for a Biblical look at how important mutual edification of believers is, see my post on 1 Thessalonians. And for more resources concerning this topic, check out some articles and sermons by John Piper listed here on the issue of future grace, or just read his book referenced above. (You can get a copy at the following retailers: Westminster Bookstore, Christianbook.com & Amazon.com.)

For further thoughts on this topic check out posts in my Perseverance category. You may also want to look at my explanation of the five points of Calvinism here. Also, if you want, you can read all 65 comments on the original post.

John Piper Interviews Rick Warren

~ Bob Hayton ~ 4 Comments

Finally, the long-awaited interview of Rick Warren by John Piper has posted. Just last week, the 90 minute interview was released. I found the interview interesting and informative. I do think Rick Warren has gotten a bad wrap from us Reformed folk.

Warren doesn’t like to identify with the Calvinist label. Can we really blame him? He wishes that proponents of the Doctrines of Grace would be more gracious. I wish the same.

In the interview, it comes out that Warren is a monergist and believes in unconditional election. He’s uneasy with limited atonement as popularly conceived. His book The Purpose Driven Life was not originally intended for unbelievers, and he never expected it to sell as well as it did. Warren bemoans some of what he said in the book, wishing he would have been more clear in his emphasis on repentance.

Piper has very little criticism of The Purpose Driven Life really, and the book is what the interview is primarily about. Piper is aghast at some of the bitter reviews he’s read of the book. In Piper’s reading of it, he just doesn’t see it that way.

John Piper does challenge Rick Warren with regards to ensuring the legacy he leaves through his influence over thousands of pastors is one that encourages them to go deep and to explicitly root their ministries in theology. Part of Piper’s aim in the interview too, is “that the thousands of pastors and lay people who look to Rick for inspiration and wisdom will see the profound place that doctrine has in his mind and heart.”

I believe that Warren took the opportunity to clarify himself and his ministry and ran with it. He knew he was speaking to many critical voices through this interview. That said, he doesn’t come across as artificial or canned. The impression I got is that it’s the same Rick Warren, and that he’s been misunderstood more than people are willing to admit.

Am I now a rip roaring Warren guy? No. I’m cautious still with Warren’s ministry. But I am happy to have heard what I did of it. I’m more optimistic and hopeful for him and his influence. I’m also thankful that people like John Piper are willing to interact with people like Rick Warren. I think that there is a friendship budding here which can have a positive effect both ways. Piper can be encouraged to be more practical and think bigger dreams, and Warren can be challenged to be more explicit about how theology shapes his vision, and to be more careful with his influence over pastors all over the world.

The naysayers and critics will dismiss this interview altogether. They’ve already judged Warren (contrary to Romans 14), and now are going to be even tougher and more critical of John Piper. But I am willing to bet that if you listen to Piper’s three conference messages shared at Saddleback last month, you won’t find him back-pedaling. Piper apparently didn’t end up speaking at Saddleback church beyond the DG conference that Saddleback hosted. But 2,000 people attended the conference and so an important message was shared to the people who were in attendance.

I’ve spoken my mind about the Warren-Piper scandal before You can see several posts on this question here. And I’m willing to hope for the best on this. I doubt we’ll see Piper waver and falter in his message now. I am not sure we’ll see Warren change. But I hope people are challenged to think through secondary separation and other matters that something like this raises. Do we have to be ultra-critical of anyone not quite like us? Do we have to think the worst when we see a 2 minute video clip of someone being grilled on Larry King Live? Can we agree to disagree on such questions over someone’s ministry? Is it okay that I approve of Piper’s embrace of Warren and that you disapprove of it? Can we still be friends and get along?

I hope this scandal is behind us now. God will be (and is) the judge. We can rest in His sovereignty. Until then, remember, we’re not ministering on behalf of Piper or Warren or anyone else. We have to be faithful with where God has put us. I’m not of Piper or of Warren. I’m of Christ. But I respect both of these men and pray God’s continued blessing on their ministry.

Amazing Deal on Amazing Grace: The History and Theology of Calvinism DVD from the Apologetics Group

~ Bob Hayton

For a limited time, you can pick up a top-notch resource on DVD for only $5.

The Amazing Grace: The History and Theology of Calvinism DVD is excellent. This presentation carefully explains the issues surrounding Calvinism and the history of this doctrinal position. For those unfamiliar with Calvinism or interested in learning more, this DVD will give you a fair introduction. At four hours long, however, it’s not correct to call this just an introduction. Still, the film moves along and doesn’t bore the viewer. Theologians are interviewed on various points and the Calvinistic understanding is clearly and carefully explained. I highly recommend this DVD and you should grab it at this steal of a price.

About Amazing Grace:
Part One explores the history of the debate. It begins with the pivotal dispute between Augustine and Pelagius and continues through the semi-pelagian controversy; focusing particularly on the debate between Martin Luther and Desiderius Erasmus. Many viewers will be shocked to discover that free-will theology was NOT the doctrine of the Reformation but instead the teaching of an increasingly apostate Roman Catholic Church. The history section ends with a definitive historical explanation of the issues that arose during the Calvinist/Arminian controversy. By examining the five points of Arminianism and the Synod of Dort’s response, the viewer will clearly see that the Protestant Church understood how the Gospel would be compromised if Arminianism prevailed.

Part Two opens the Word of God, our ultimate authority for life and faith. The five points of Arminianism are put on trial as what would later come to be known as the “five points of Calvinism” are clearly and forcefully presented.

Part Three asks and answers the provocative question: If Calvinism is true, if God is absolutely sovereign; then why should we evangelize? It also explores the vital issue of how to and to whom the gospel should be presented so as to be faithful to the great doctrines of God’s sovereignty, man’s depravity, and the miracle of amazing grace.

Rich in graphics, dramatic vignettes, and biblical analogies, Amazing Grace – The History and Theology of Calvinism also features many of the finest reformed thinkers and pastors of our time: Dr. R.C. Sproul, Dr. D. James Kennedy, Dr. George Grant, Dr. Stephen Mansfield, Dr. Thomas Ascol, Dr. Thomas Nettles, Dr. Roger Schultz, Pastor Walt Chantry, Dr. Joe Morecraft, Dr. Ken Talbot, Pastor Walter Bowie and Dr. R.C. Sproul, Jr..

Details on the $5 Special Sale:
For the sake of the gospel and to get the message out, a Christian business man has agreed to underwrite this promotion. Starting Wednesday, April 6 through Friday, April 8 we are offering Amazing Grace: The History & Theology of Calvinism for $5 each. These are not flawed DVDs (like the last promo). More than likely, this offer will not be repeated. So get it while the gettin is good.

SPECIAL NOTE: Outside of the U.S. only four DVDs (of this title) per order. Every four you order we will charge your card another $12.95 for shipping.

Click here, to learn more about the DVD and to purchase it at this great price.