I am Troubled About an ERLC Article on Abortion

Phoebe Cates wrote an article that is posted on the ERLC website entitled, “Why our hearts matter when talking about Abortion.”

I agree with the title of the article. We should have a broken heart over the tragedy of every abortion and a tender heart toward every person who needs Christ. We should approach the woman who is contemplating abortion or has had one with love, truth, and gentleness (Eph 4:15; 1 Pet 3:15). I appreciate Phoebe reminding us of the importance of our heart when we engage women who struggle with or have had an abortion. Continue reading →

Why Calvinism’s View of Free Will and Scripture are Irreconcilable

Calvinism rejects libertarian free will and believes in compatible moral freedom, which means everything and everyone is micro-determined. For that to be the biblically reflective approach to understanding Scripture (what the Bible actually portrays and teaches), Calvinists would have to explain why the Bible, from Genesis two through Revelation twenty-two, is absolutely permeated with verses, events, challenges, commands, offers, and judgments that clearly reflect that people have libertarian free will. That is to say; they can choose to act one way or differently in a myriad of passages.

Continue reading →

Answering Calvinism’s Claim That We Are All Determinists

Some Calvinists argue that Extensivists’ (non-Calvinists) belief in libertarian freedom, and God’s foreknowledge of what such beings will choose still results in determinism, and therefore, we are all determinists;[1] thus, we have the same deterministic problem as Calvinists.[2] Calvinists believe this argument assuages the significant problems that are unique to Calvinism because of its commitment to decretal theology and compatible moral freedom, a commitment that results in Calvinism’s micro-determinism of everything; there are no exceptions.

Calvinism’s view of free choice and moral responsibility is called compatibilism.[3] Compatibilism contends that determinism and moral responsibility are compatible; hence, the name. This compatibility is achieved by defining a free moral choice to exist so long as one chooses according to his greatest desire. But compatibilism entails that the desire from which one freely chooses is determined; thus, humans can only make micro-predetermined free choices. Therefore, given the same past, no one can choose differently in the moral moment of decision. So, is the argument legitimate that Extensivists are all ultimately determinists? Well No! Continue reading →

Why Some Theological Non-Calvinists Identify as Calvinists

While many don the designation Calvinist because they have endeavored to learn all aspects of Calvinism and are thereby convinced that it provides the most cogent, comprehensive, and consistent grid through which to understand Scripture, others adopt the label less nobly. Of this latter kind, it seems to me many assume the title Calvinist because they like certain components of Calvinism, which they are led to believe are unique to Calvinism. Such conclusions may arise from their exposure to the claims of some Calvinists, the inadequate explanations or responses of those they are familiar with who reject Calvinism, or even from their own subjective assumptions. Such aspects are exampled by God’s sovereignty, the preeminence of God’s glory, or the total depravity of fallen man. Continue reading →

God’s Essential Omniscience Does Not Require Calvinism’s Determinism

In both Calvinism and Extensivism, God knows all that could happen, and all that will happen.[1] The difference is in how he knows. According to Calvinism, his knowledge of what could and will happen is based upon his micro-determination.[2] Another way of saying God knows what could happen is God knows what he could determine to happen. Similarly, another way of saying God knows what will happen is God knows, out of the possibilities of what he could determine to happen, what he will determine to happen. This determinism is not merely God determining to create the universe because we all believe that if God did not determine to create, creation would not exist. Continue reading →

Setting The Record Straight On Dr. Patterson

Once again, the Houston Chronicle has endeavored to malign Dr. Patterson by their portrayal of his handling of a very public and difficult situation that happened in the 1980s regarding a young pastor named Darrell Gilyard.

Although Dr. Patterson did not ask me to post his response to the Houston Chronicle, I requested his permission to do so, which he granted. Here are two other articles regarding the character of Dr. Patterson, who I have known for almost forty years. Dr. Paige Patterson: Things You Need To Know and Dr. Patterson’s Counsel to Pray for My Enemies.

The following is Dr. Patterson’s response.

Dr. Patterson’s response to the Houston Chronicle article of August 23, 2019 re: Darrell Gilyard Continue reading →

The Undermining of Truth: The Danger of Unguarded Reliance Upon Science and Statistics

In the quest to seem with it in our present scientistic milieu, preachers and Christians often pursue fluency regarding the latest polls, statistics, and studies (punctiliar thinking) more than they seek understanding of the Scripture and linear thinking. This quest is often characterized by indiscriminate reliance upon and usage of these tools, which actually leads people further from the truth both in their thinking processes and in their conclusions. Although these tools are useful at times, they should be used judiciously and sparingly lest one unwittingly becomes a scientistic myrmidon, and by his example leads others to do likewise. Continue reading →

Did God Create Some People for Wrath? Well No! Romans 9:19–23

Romans 9:22–23 is often cited to demonstrate God’s sovereign choice in creating some people for eternal destruction so that he might demonstrate his wrath while making other people to be recipients of his eternal mercy. This understanding highlights God’s eternal, unconditional election. This way, God could put his wrath and mercy on display, which otherwise he would not be able to do. Those who hold this view do believe that God did desire sin and evil, and he created people that ultimately he damned to hell either by predeterminately creating them for such or actively or passively passing them by. Continue reading →

Did God Hardening Pharaoh Damn Him? Well No! Romans 9:17–18

As mentioned in my previous article on Jacob and Esau (Rom 9:10–13), Calvinists use Romans chapters 9­–11 as the undeniable evidence of Calvinistic soteriology, defending both unconditional election and reprobation. Regarding chapter 9, B.B. Warfield says, “It is safe to say that language cannot be chosen better adapted to teach Predestination at its height.”[1] As I demonstrated, while the passage regarding Jacob and Esau does show God’s sovereignty, it has nothing to do with salvific election and reprobation, Calvinism’s doctrine of unconditional election. The same is true with regard to Pharaoh. Continue reading →