Response to Calvinist's E-Mail
Several years ago (2004, 2005), a certain Calvinist
visited the 'Cures for Calvinism' section of this website, and sent
a caustic e-mail that denigrated me for my anti-Calvinistic views.
While his sentiment is not reflective of all Calvinists, it was
certainly in line with what I have encountered from ardent
Calvinists who equate the Five Points of Calvinism with the Gospel
itself. In their minds, a rejection of Calvinism is tantamount to a
rejection of Christ himself. Such skewed thinking borders on a cult
mentality.
After several e-mail exchanges, in which he was
unable to win an argument and repeatedly called me a LIAR, he called
my home. My wife answered the phone. He feigned to be someone else
and requested to speak with me. When my wife passed off the phone,
he identified himself. When I asked him why he misrepresented who he
was, he said: "I wanted to talk to you, and thought that, if you
knew who I really was, you wouldn't speak with me." I responded:
"Well, I guess that makes you the LIAR, doesn't it?" With that
comment, I hung up the phone. I do not tolerate intellectually
dishonesty in any form!
Several years passed
without another word from this man...until August 10, 2011. On that
date, out of the blue clear sky, I received the following e-mail
message.
His E-mail
"Mr. Roberts:
"But we are bound to give thanks to God for you,
brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning
chosen you to (EIS, to, into) salvation through (EN, through)
sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth."
I am curious...are you
still dumb enough to think His choosing the elect was conditioned on
their receiving Christ? Do you still HATE the truth, as it is in
Jesus? Are you still the HIRELING that you were some 6-7 years ago?"
My Response
"Mr. Smith:
Wow, you must really have a heart problem to send
such a vitriolic e-mail to me after all these years. As I recall,
you are the guy that LIED to my wife by feigning to be someone else
in order to get me on the phone. If you had humbled yourself, and
sought God’s forgiveness for your deception, you would have called
back (as you) and asked forgiveness from my wife and me. Moreover,
you would have NEVER sent such a message.
Normally I would have deleted your e-mail without
responding. But I decided to include some expository-exegetical
comments. Perhaps you can derive some benefit from reading a
treatment of the truth that is both accurate and intellectually
honest.
Regarding 2 Thessalonians 2:13, here are the
expository facts:
-
The reference to “salvation” in the context has
in view deliverance from the Day of the Lord (Tribulation). It
has nothing to do with justification. Paul was addressing folk
who had been justified by faith, and, because of God’s elective
purpose, were NOT to be concerned about enduring the
Tribulation. One of the flaws inherent in Calvinism is reading
into this verse what the context disallows. Election in
scripture has to do with privileges bestowed upon
believers by virtue of their union with Christ, who Himself is
the Elect One (1 Peter 2:6). Men who are IN Christ are elected
(Ephesians 1:4). Lost elect men do not exist! Missing this
fundamental truth leads to intellectual dishonesty and
ultimately the bastardization of the Word of God. Calvinism is
guilty of both.
-
God’s election (choosing) is “through
sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth.” The Greek
preposition ‘en’ is used in connection with two objects in
dative case. The two possible senses are dative of instrument
and dative of sphere. If we allow the first sense, which the KJV
translators did, it means that both sanctification and faith
were instrumental in (served as a means to) the elective act.
Without conviction and persuasion, there is no election. It’s as
simple as saying that a traveler passed through Memphis
(conviction) and Nashville (belief) before he arrived in
Knoxville (election). If we allow the second sense, it signifies
that election took place within the sphere of sanctification and
faith. If either or both are missing, election cannot take
place. In either case, proper exegesis demands that both
conviction and persuasion be seen as prerequisites to election,
which takes place in an historical context.
-
The phrase “from the beginning” has two primary
usages in scripture. The first refers to the beginning of time,
the creation of all things. The second usage has to do with
historical beginnings. Of its 38 usages, it’s roughly a 50-50
split between the two. So, to which did Paul refer to in our
text? Well, since faith is one of the two prerequisites to
election, it can have ONLY ONE meaning: The beginning of Paul’s
ministry among the Thessalonians.
Mr. Smith, keep in mind
that embracing Calvinism has no relationship whatsoever to the
embrace of Jesus Christ. Moreover, it’s entirely possible to please God
while rejecting the tenets of Calvinism as pure philosophical
speculation."
A Few Thoughts
I'll admit I was a little tough on this guy, but he
was deserving of some stern-straight talk. As I said, the manner in
which this man reacted to me is not representative of Calvinists at
large. But he does represent a significant number in that movement
who equate Calvinism to the Gospel. In that respect, there is little
difference between a die-hard Calvinist and a member of the Masonic
Lodge. When the scriptures are handled aright in their
context, no expository or exegetical treatment of the truth will
ever render a meaning that supports the tenets of Calvinism.
Top
| Back to Cures for Calvinism |
