An Answer to “John Doe” About the New Calvinist “33 Series”
Brother Doe,
Greetings. The “33 series .com” is just another version of gospel contemplationism for men. The New Calvinism movement has completely emasculated Christian men spiritually. You are not [making a mountain out of a molehill], this false doctrine will eventually lay waste to the American church. The present movement is a resurrection from its prior death. TANC publishing is presently researching the resurgences since Calvin’s Geneva theocracy. Lord willing, the history will be documented in volume two of “The Truth About New Calvinism.”
God’s people eventually catch on to the fact that this doctrine is based on perpetual re-salvation through sanctification by faith alone and the continued implementation of the same repentance that saved us. Staying at the foot of the cross eventually leads to children in adult bodies devouring each other. The tyranny of this movement can only control the chaos for so long. I would say the movement is presently at its peak and will start declining to the social death that is always its end.
Protestantism came from this movement that is long on gospel contemplationism and short on intelligent obedience leading to a house built on a rock, so when these movements die, the weak sanctification that emerges lays the groundwork for the next resurgence. Our goal is to equip Christians with the knowledge that has been kept from them by Protestant academia; ie, an understanding of biblical covenants, law and gospel, justification and sanctification, and how the full counsel of God fits together and operates in real life. We all possess the illuminating Holy Spirit and are in the information age to boot; it is time for real Christian men to be the Bereans that they are called to be. This movement has produced a generation of pathetic, mindless, cowardly husbands. Susan and I counsel women who might as well be part of a Reformed elders harem. It is amazing how a murdering mystic despot that lived so many years ago can destroy so many marriages in our day.
What would Paul Dohse do? Let the dead bury their dead. In our day, if you can see the problem, you are called to do something about it. Don’t confront the situation, it won’t go anywhere. Christians in our day do not have the theological wherewithal nor the necessary love for the truth to deal with this problem. You will stand alone, and depending on what stage of sectarian takeover the church is in, you may be brought up on church disciple. It’s not worth it; come out from among them. You need to equip yourself and start a home fellowship. That’s what Susan and I have done and have learned more about God in the past six months than our combined 80 years as Christians. We stand ready to support and network with any who take this direction.
This movement needs to do more than just die this time around, it needs to be replaced. That’s our mission, and your prayers would be appreciated.
Your brother,
Paul M. Dohse
An Open Letter to John MacArthur Jr. Concerning Progressive Justification
Mailed 4/13/2013 by certified letter:
Mr. MacArthur,
I am writing to you openly concerning the fact that you now preach Calvin’s false gospel of progressive justification. As an avid follower of your teachings over the years, and one greatly helped by them in the past, I now implore you to repent of preaching another gospel. I am provoked to write this letter after listening to your general session address at this year’s Shepherds’ Conference.
Sadly, for the most part, the message was a shameless pandering to the Calvinist audience with the same worn-out Neo-Calvinist protocol; e.g., us against evangelicalism, redefinition of the plain sense of Scripture to undermine the interpretive abilities of the laity, etc., etc. Per the usual in these settings, you also insinuated that this movement has a “fresh” take on evangelism and understanding the Scriptures in a “deeper” way.
On the one hand, you expounded on the importance of evangelism and the idea that it is the church’s primary purpose for being here, and then on the other hand propagated the idea via John 3:3 that God is going to do what He is going to do regardless of anything we do. And you also proffered the idea that it is wrong to call unbelievers to do anything in our gospel presentation other than believe, and that was only forthcoming at the very end and stated once.
Primarily presented was the idea that we proclaim the new birth and inform individuals that there is nothing they can do to obtain it. They are simply to “ask” and hope God had decided to save them before creation. In your third party presentation of the question, what can we tell them to do? you are clear: ask only and hope for the best. Shockingly, you also suggested that Reformed elders can “ask” for others as mediators (your personal experience shared about the young man suffering with aids).
Other than the fact that you have harshly criticized Rick Warren for not including repentance in his gospel messages and your hypocrisy is therefore staggering, this idea contradicts a mass of other biblical texts. One of many would be Paul’s description of his ministry that implored people to be reconciled to God. In other instances Paul simply called for repentance. The Calvinist you proudly proclaimed yourself to be in the same message has transformed your prior teachings into confusing messages that raise more questions than are answered.
But these are all symptoms of the basic problem: your false gospel. In one article written by you, the following was stated:
“If sanctification is included in justification, then justification is a process, not an event. That makes justification progressive, not complete” (emphasis added).
But yet the fourteenth chapter of Calvin’s Institutes is entitled: “The Beginning of Justification. In What Sense Progressive?” So, what’s our first clue? Indicative of your Calvinist theology that a child could even dismiss is the simple fact that Paul categorized the lost and the saved in Romans as “under the law” versus “under grace.” Calvin taught that Christians are still under the law. This is plain from his writings in ICR 3.14.9-11 in which he states that Christians cannot please God in sanctification because their works are judged by the law as a continued standard for justification. Calvin makes it clear that no “believer” has ever earned merit with God because their works are judged by the law (first sentence of 3.14.11). In 3.14.10, he even cites James 2:10, a verse that concerns those under the law, to make his case.
As I think you would know, Paul makes it clear in Romans that being under the law is synonymous with being enslaved to sin, unable to keep the law, and destined to a future judgment by law. Under grace is synonymous with having a mind enslaved to the law and free to do righteous acts, and declared righteous apart from the law. But in fact, Calvin’s total depravity also applies to the saints and deems them still enslaved to sin. You often cite Calvin’s concept of total depravity, but when are you going to start being honest and also mention you believe, as Calvin, that it applies to Christians as well?
Calvin stated in no uncertain terms in 3.14.11 that Christ’s “reconciliation with God” is “perpetual” and “not promulgated” in the beginning only. This is because the same forgiveness that saved us needs to be continually applied to our lives according to Calvin:
“For since perfection is altogether unattainable by us [which is not the point because we are under grace and not law], so long as we are clothed with flesh, and the Law denounces death and judgment against all who have not yielded a perfect righteousness, there will always be ground to accuse and convict us unless the mercy of God interpose, and ever and anon absolve us by the constant remission of sins” (3.14.10).
Hence, there is not one complete “washing,” but according to Calvin, a perpetual washing is needed (see JN 13 and 1COR 6:11).
This doctrine always dies a social death and needs to be resurrected again after carnage from the previous “Resurgence” is forgotten. The present movement was resurrected by Robert Brinsmead in 1970. Coming forth from its sectarian womb, it has divided countless families and churches. The seminary you are president of pumps out hundreds of sectarian Calvinists on a yearly basis. One of your graduates split a church two blocks from where we live.
This is your shameful legacy unless you repent.
Paul M. Dohse
American Christians Are All Calvinists
“Calvin didn’t believe in election. The assumed absurdity of the statement testifies to the traditions of men that saturate the American church.”
There is no new thing under the sun. When Christ came and began His ministry with the proclamation of the kingdom gospel, Israel was steeped in the traditions of men. And Christ didn’t call it “legalism,” He called it antinomianism. Whether Arminian or Calvinist, both came from that same stock. They claim to be different, but both celebrate their parents as heroes of the faith: the Pilgrims. The unregenerate even get in on the act during the holiday season of Thanks Giving and Christmas.
But the Pilgrims were Puritans. And the Puritans were rabid Calvinists. They brought with them the first Bible to ever see American soil: the Geneva Bible which included Calvin’s play by play commentary. They came to start a theocracy modeled after Calvin’s Geneva, and succeeded. And what followed was the same heartless brutality they brought with them from Europe. The Pilgrims were merciless tyrants and were put out of business because they hung too many Quakers for disagreeing with them. Like Calvin and Luther, they were endowed with superstition and mysticism clothed in European orthodoxy.
The reverence of Puritans as spiritual giants and pioneers is grounded on pure myth. They were communistic, and lacked the rugged individualism that founded this nation. Regardless of the vast, unmolested resources they found when they arrived here, Indians had to teach them how to survive. The Puritans were not innovators, and invented little to overcome the environment they found themselves in. Their presuppositions concerning man and mystical approach to life did not serve them well. These same presuppositions run deep and wide in the American church.
But what about Calvinism versus Arminianism and the election issue? There is no disagreement there either. Calvin didn’t believe in election. The assumed absurdity of the statement testifies to the traditions of men that saturate the American church. Calvin believed that we are sanctified the same way we were saved, by faith and repentance alone. He also believed that this saving duo of faith and repentance were necessarily perpetual, and could only be received in the formal church institution. Luther believed this as well. You keep your salvation by being faithful to the local church, or “new covenant.” One must remain “faithful to the covenant” by seeking perpetual reconciliation in the church. So-called election is being elected to be in the covenant, but then you have to keep yourself in the covenant. You run the “race of faith” by “faith alone” in order to stay justified in sanctification.
God then sorts out who was able to do that at a single, last judgment. Hence, Augustine, a forefather of the Reformation, believed that eternal life wasn’t determined until the final judgment. I document these assertions in “False Reformation” and the mini-booklet “New Calvinism for Dummies” (tancpublishing.com). However, this may be helpful as well: https://paulspassingthoughts.com/2012/10/31/mutable-justification-not-shocking-just-reformed/
The fact that Reformed theology rejects election can also be seen in Supersessionism. This is the belief that though the nation of Israel was elected, they lost their election because they didn’t stay faithful to the covenant. So, once elected doesn’t necessarily mean always elected. Though Revelation makes it clear that God will dwell with man ON EARTH for eternity, the American emphasis is eternity in heaven. Why? Because God tabernacling with man on earth =’s Israel. That’s why. The very purpose of election cannot be denied as stated by Paul in Romans 9—anything at all that we do is separated from justification. Therefore, Calvinists deny the purpose of election.
Arminians are no different because they come from the same stock. They also deny election, and seek comfort in church membership. I can’t even tell you how many Southern Baptists that I have visited who trust in their church membership for salvation. To suggest they be removed from the church roles because they have not attended in several years is tantamount to removing them from the book of life. This is a common mentality in Baptist churches and I have witnessed it first hand on many occasions. Also throw in the obvious overemphasis on salvation in Arminian Baptist churches because like their Calvinist counterparts, the same gospel that saved you also sanctifies you.
Because of the traditions of men, we are all Calvinists. And we are so steeped in tradition that we don’t even know it. There is no new thing under the sun.
paul
“God Hates the Sin But Loves the Sinner” And We know This How Exactly?
“One of the things we learn from the pure milk that is not mixed with orthodoxy is that lying about the truth is not love.”
There has been a lot going on in the societal realm lately and I haven’t had time to write about it, but the topic of this post pretty well covers it. Idol worship is always formal. Even when parents of ancient paganism sacrificed their children to the Gods, it was according to orthodoxy. The average Joe never devises his own gods and the prescribed worship—he’s not qualified, it is always devised by the religious experts ruling the day. Hence, parents didn’t just sacrifice their children by some flippant self-devised method; it was done according to proper worship.
Historically, there are only two religions; Cult and Word. Cult is the idea that enlightened human mediators rule the unenlightened masses on behalf of God. The truth that they supposedly get directly from God in order to guide the masses is called “orthodoxy.” Orthodoxy has its own metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and politics. The unenlightened masses sometimes have a choice as to what cult they may choose. Do I believe my infant should be boiled alive in oil to appease the gods, or stabbed through the heart by the High Priest? In contrast, a government will sometimes dictate the cult through the combination of force and faith.
In ancient times, God walked past all of the cults and spoke to his chosen subjects face to face. There were two authorities; one of your own choosing (if you had a choice), and God. Those who chose God are documented in the Bible, and the same also describes the personal interaction that God had with them. In ancient times, cults got a little out of control. Orthodoxy resulted in God being sorry that He created man, so He paid Noah a visit and told Him to build a boat. Not long after the flood waters went away, man once again gravitated to orthodoxy at the Tower of Babble.
Over time, and for His own reasons, God has changed His methods for communicating with His servants. But He has always promised that those seeking His truth would find it. This doesn’t include those seeking orthodoxy of their own desire. Neither does it include those who seek freedom from faith and force so they can choose orthodoxy suited to their own lusts. Those who flee worship with boiling oil for worship with the knife are not heroes. Not in God’s eyes anyway—God is in the truth business.
Orthodoxy and truth. Those are our choices. God’s eyes go to and fro throughout the earth constantly seeking those who worship Him according to spirit and what? TRUTH (JN 4:24). The one who Christ called “the rock” implores us to grow spiritually by feeding on the PURE milk of the what? WORD (1Peter 2:2). Pure milk is available, and God has made it available to all. He uses leaders, but their authority is bound up in His word as judged by the congregation of the saints. The saints follow leaders as they follow Christ.
One of the things we learn from the pure milk that is not mixed with orthodoxy is that lying about the truth is not love. Truisms and spiritual sound bites are the orthodoxy of the American church. They are cult orthodoxy. American pastors invent them to bring God’s truth down to a level where unenlightened congregants can understand it. The inability of the congregant is assumed and feared if not assumed. Even congregants that know something are believed to be equipped with enough knowledge to be dangerous like a loaded gun in the hands of a child. Therefore, orthodoxy proffers the virtue of “childlike faith” as opposed to hard thinking with the brains that God apparently gave the masses accidently.
“We are all just sinners saved by grace.” “God hates the sin, but loves the sinner.” And also popular contemporary “Christian” music: “Jesus, Friend of Sinners.” Is Jesus a friend of sinners? Jesus stated that His FRIENDS pattern their lives according to righteousness, not sin. A “sinner” patterns their life after the orthodoxy of choice, and that can be hedonism as well as any other religion. Who is Mark Hall to redefine who Christ says His friends are?
Only the truth sets us free. If you are a pastor who doesn’t challenge American orthodoxy in the form of spiritual sound bites, you are not a pastor; you are just another everyday cultist bent on having a manageable dumbed-down congregation. You comfort with instruction from the manual published by the Hemlock Society and your “love” is woefully misguided.
paul
Fundamentals of American Christianity, Calvinism, Covenants, and Election: The Potter’s House: 4/7/2013
Chart illustration for discussion at 00:45:31
If you are much like me as an average American Christian, you are pretty foggy on God’s overall plan for mankind involving Old Testament and New Testament tenets. Perhaps due to laziness, we accept broad generalizations concerning the differences between the testaments. For example, “Old Testament saints were saved by keeping the law—we are saved by grace,” “God gave the law to show us we can’t keep it—to drive us to resting in Christ alone,” etc.
There is no doubt that it takes diligent study to understand redemptive covenants, election, and sanctification paradigms. The complexities of these issues have not been taught in the American church. Why? Our American Christian heritage comes from the Puritans who arrived on our Eastern shores from Europe. They were Calvinistic, and part and parcel with European Calvinism comes theocracy and orthodoxy. Like ducks searching for bodies of water, European Calvinism will eventually head in this direction. There are no exceptions, and it is only a matter of time. If Calvinism is ultimately deprived of theocracy and orthodoxy, particularity the Puritan breed, it will die. Lesser forms of pure Calvinism can survive well on orthodoxy alone, but the more pure forms like Puritanism will die without theocracy. Hence, Puritanism today is merely folklore propagandized with spiritual sound bites.
What is orthodoxy? It’s the antithesis of Acts 17:11. It assumes a spiritual caste system where some are preordained to understand things that the average saint cannot understand. The average Christian searching the Scriptures to determine if a pastor is teaching truth was, and still is an unacceptable construct in European Calvinism. It is thought to prideful, unsubmissive, and a rejection of God-appointed authority. Orthodoxy is what the spiritually enlightened prepare for the unenlightened in creeds, confessions, and counsels. One advertisement I saw for a seminary announced that it was “confessional.” What does that mean? It means that it teaches and holds to historic confessions of faith. These confessions have authority, and were written by the, for example, “Westminster Divines.” Problem is, this passes a traditional interpretation from generation to generation on an assumptive basis; i.e., to rethink orthodoxy would be arrogantly reinventing the spiritual wheel. This is our heritage, and why we don’t know much. Creeds, confessions, and counsels do not deliver in-depth analysis on the aforementioned issues; primarily, they tell us how to think.
Therefore, the Potter’s House is a journey, and there is no looking back. We have learned astounding things from the book of Romans that Susan and I have never been taught in our combined eighty years of being Christians. But most importantly, what we have learned are building blocks that are keys to understanding more of God’s counsel. I think it is time in our study to look at some of these fundamental building blocks. Some speak directly to the chapter we are in. But first, let’s review some former ones:
1. The “gospel” is the good news of God’s full counsel for life and godliness. The death, burial, and resurrection of Christ is the gospel of “first importance” or “first order of importance.” “Word,” Scripture,” Gospel,” “holy writ,” etc., are all used interchangeably throughout the Bible.
2. Paul categorizes all people into two categories: under law, and under grace. Those under the law are enslaved to sin, provoked to sin by the law, and will be judged by the law. Those under grace are enslaved to righteousness, provoked to do good by the law, and will not be judged by the law.
3. The importance of angels in administering God’s covenants.
4. Salvation is Trinitarian, not Christocentric.
5. A major key to understanding the book of Revelation is Exodus 19-24.
6. The Bible interprets itself and identifies its own methods of interpretation.
7. The law is completely separate from justification, but informs our sanctification.
8. The difference between justification, definitive sanctification, progressive sanctification, and final sanctification.
9. The difference between salvation and justification.
10. Why Christians are truly righteous in the here and now.
11. Why Christians still struggle with sin.
12. The difference between our redeemed hearts and our mortality.
13. Motivation to share the gospel and better ways to do it.
14. Divine Anthropology: what makes mankind tick?
Other things are becoming clearer in our study concerning election and covenants which brings us closer to the issues at hand in chapter nine. I will save election for last because once that is discussed it will be all anybody is thinking about. I would like to use Ephesians 2:11-16 for our first point:
11 Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called “the uncircumcision” by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands— 12 remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14 For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility 15 by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, 16 and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility.
This passage makes separation from the covenants of promise synonymous with being alienated from God. There is also more than one covenant of promise.
“Covenants” is in the plural. So, we don’t want to think of Old Testament Covenants as being replaced by the New, but rather we want to think of all of these covenants as building on each other. Also, the covenants will have future elements, abolished elements, and elements that are being phased out with time. Paul states what part of the Mount Sinai Book of the Covenant was “abolished,” the ordinances regarding sin offerings since Christ fulfilled the propitiation for sin (vv. 14, 15).
To be separated from Christ is also likened to being separated from the “commonwealth” of Israel (v. 12). This speaks to Israel as a nation. As we discussed last week, this doesn’t mean that all of national Israel will be saved. They were an elect nation with elect people, but not all in the nation are elected individually. Allegorically, some are descendants of Hagar and others are from Sarah. This symbolizes slavery to sin versus heirs of the promise. Paul wanted to make sure the Gentiles at Rome understood that rebellion within Israel didn’t mean that God had revoked His promises to Israel as a nation.
As yet, none of the covenants have been abolished. Again, some elements are yet future, some are fading away, and some elements have been abolished. Even the New Covenant has such elements. Jeremiah 31 states that the law of God will be written on everyone’s heart and there will be no need to teach anybody about the Lord. Obviously, that is future. We read the following in 1Corintians 13:8-10;
8 Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away.
Prophesies, tongues, and knowledge are all under the New Covenant (past, present), and when the perfect comes knowledge will pass away. Nobody will have need to be taught as Jeremiah predicted. That’s future. The “perfect” is what Peter said we are ultimately looking for: the new heavens and new earth:
1Peter 3:13 – But according to his promise we are waiting for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.
The “promise” is another name for the Abrahamic covenant which, as we looked at last week, included the Gentiles from the beginning.
Another truth about the Old Covenant is that it was a will. It was like the inheritance that your parents leave you in their will. The inheritance is eternal life, and Christ, the testator, had to die for the will to be executed:
Hebrews 9:15 – Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant. 16 For where a will is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established. 17 For a will takes effect only at death, since it is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive. 18 Therefore not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood.
And like any will, the inheritance is promised. In this sense, sin was bound up or imputed to the covenant until Christ came:
Galatians 3:15 – To give a human example, brothers: even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified.
Galatians 3:21 – Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. 22 But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. 23 Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. 24 So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, 26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.
These are building blocks; neither do I have a full understanding about how all of this works together, but apparently sins were imputed to the covenat/will until Christ died. To be saved in the Old Testament was to acknowledge that you were an heir of salvation through Christ. So, Old Testament saints would have definitely been looking for the coming of Christ. Soon after Christ died, the Gentiles received the good news that they were part of the inheritance as well.
Furthermore, outside of the covenant there is a principle of reaping and sowing as well as a principle of reaping and sowing in the covenant as well. This is abundantly clear as Paul cites the Old Covenant in regard to blessings in this life:
Ephesians 6:1 – Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. 2 “Honor your father and mother” (this is the first commandment with a promise), 3 “that it may go well with you and that you may live long in the land.” 4 Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.
Hence, promises of spiritual wellbeing through obedience are an undeniable part of the Old Covenant and most definitely still in effect presently. There is a lot going on in these covenants and confusion in our day is not lacking. Nevertheless, the Scripture explains all of this in further detail, but it takes diligent study to show ourselves approved. The following chart may be helpful in encouraging you to study these things for yourself.
Lastly, the relationship between covenants and election. I get my share of grief over my present understanding of election. I take a paradoxical position. Election is 100% true and is crucial for keeping justification and sanctification separate as well as eternal security. Paul, as we saw last week, states the purpose of election is no uncertain terms: to exclude works from justification. On the other hand, I believe free will is also 100% true. I believe this because it is what I see in the Scriptures. It comes with special privilege as well: I get accused of being both a Calvinist and Arminian. But Calvinists don’t believe in election, that’s a myth. For example, though Israel was clearly elected by God (DEUT 7:6-8), most of them hold to Supersessionism. That’s the belief that God replaced Israel with the church because they violated their covenant with God. This is a denial of election. The promise is not contingent on anything we do. It’s not conditional. Blessings and cursing/reaping and sowing is conditional, but not election. This same Reformed take on Israel applies to the individual as well: we are elected to participate in the race, but must be faithful to the church in order to not be disqualified from the race of faith. Calvinists don’t believe in election. As if their doctrine wasn’t goofy enough already—you can add that: the supposed sultans of election don’t even hold to it.
Besides, this paradox can be seen in real life. We implore people with all passion to be reconciled to God, especially Arminians. Yet, Arminians always credit God with saving the person. Few Arminians will ever be heard crediting themselves or the redeemed person for his/her salvation. Nor have I ever heard an Arminian pray to God that anyone would save themselves.
In additon, to satisfy my John Locke Christian friends, its science. Susan and I have a friend who is in the process of writing a book on God’s sovereignty and man’s free will. I will share a small portion of his manuscript to make my point:
Of course, it must be admitted that finite mankind has a limited capacity for understanding the workings of our Infinite Creator. Consequently, one practical way to resolve this challenge to our faith is to face up to the reality of our finite ability to understand God’s workings. In this approach, it is necessary to accept by faith those things that seem beyond any rational understanding. For many, this may be a satisfactory solution to the dilemma. In fact, a similar approach is sometimes followed in the field of science. Consider, for example, the physics of light where two seemingly contradictory theories are used side-by-side to explain its different properties. The wave theory is used to understand the oscillation aspects of light (e.g., Polaroid sunglasses), while at the same time the particle theory is employed to explain other applications (e.g., photoelectric solar panels). Although these two theories are totally incompatible, each provides useful information in certain technical applications. To date, scientists simply use the appropriate theory as needed for a particular design problem. There is no worry about whether light actually exists as a wave, or as a particle, just because it is not yet fully understood. This same approach may be taken in the spiritual realm and is probably the best stance to take in dealing with the apparent contradiction between individual free will and God’s total sovereignty.
As an avid reader of the Bible since my conversion in 1983, I began to take this position in 1986 and have not abandoned it yet. The apostles and others evangelized like it depended on them, but yet made strong statements regarding the sovereignty of God in salvation.
paul
For a free DVD of this message mailed to you at no charge, click here.
The Potter’s House is a member of the Home Fellowship Network: homefellowship.net
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
1 comment