Calvin on Suppressing Predestination

"For Scripture is the school of the Holy Spirit, in which, as nothing is omitted that is both necessary and useful to know, so nothing is taught but what is expedient to know. Therefore we must guard against depriving believers of anything disclosed about predestination in Scripture, lest we seem either wickedly to defraud them of the blessing of their God or to accuse and scoff at the Holy Spirit for having published what is in any way profitable to suppress." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion 3.21.3

Calvinism maintains True Evangelism

As I was browsing the book, By His Grace and For His Glory, I came across a quote that I really like and thought it was worthy to be quoted. Many men want to say that Calvinism kills Evangelism or that Evangelical Calvinism is an oxymoron. This quote speaks the opposite:

Why is Calvinism the only system that can maintain true evangelism without surrendering theological, biblical, and philosophical consistency? Two reasons suffice for an answer. One, the glory of God is the goal of Calvinism, and they system refuses to surrender to any truth that heightens awe and and reverence for His holiness. Two, for the Calvinist, the message of the gospel is the only method of evangelism. ~Tom Nettles, By His Grace and For His Glory

As I have been studying evangelism this semester to write my senior paper, I have come to the conclusion that the system known as calvinism, is the only system that truly maintains biblical evangelism. For these doctrines of grace do not cater to man's felt needs, but to man's greatest need. These doctrines do not enploy wordly principles to present its message, but are grounded in biblical theology. That is why I believe as Nettles does, that Calvinism maintains true evangelism.

Reformed Mafia: Subversive Chess Club?

In the comments section on another blog a guy suggested that we here at the Mafia are more fittingly called a "subversive chess club." I know he meant that as a slight, however good-natured. To his credit, though, it is a slight that is quite funny.

His reason for saying this: we have decided not to turn the Mafia blog into an endless argument with him individually. I believe he'd be perfectly happy to argue all day long. So, the Mafia is a group of wimps, really, because we won't "wrangle with the rival gangs." Rival gangs apparently defined as anyone with a chip on his shoulder.

So, I raise my hand and say, "Guilty as charged. I probably really do belong in a chess tournament as opposed to a gang turf war. Ya got me there."

This is simply my own clarification of what I personally see as the purpose for this blog's existence: as it now says above in our motto, we are "joyfully preaching."

It'd be wrong, and I admit it openly, to assume that because we've taken the Mafia moniker, that means we're committed to endless debates over speculative philosophy with any individual who wants to walk up and sock us in the nose.

What it means is that in an environment in which very prominent Baptist leaders can stand up and accuse Calvinists of believing "heresy," or of being "worse than Muslims," or even of being like the actual Mafia, we're willing to keep fomenting revolution in the ranks. We're willing to continue "joyfully preaching" while they apply those labels to us, and accuse us of splitting churches and killing evangelism. If we have to go "underground" we will, and we intend to keep "joyfully preaching" until they pry our Bibles from our cold, dead fingers. Call us subversive. Call us heretics. Sling all the mud you can and burn all the straw men in the world. But you cannot steal our joy in the Gospel of Jesus Christ; nor can you make us believe it is anything less than the power of God unto salvation. We won't be silenced.

But we also won't be goaded into useless debate. So there.

The Perils of Pentecostalism

Well, the controversy here at Brewton Parker of my harsh comment regarding pentecostalism has reached it's maximum. I even have some people who will not even look me in the eye and speak to me. Though that hurts, I am not through. Although, I will not go on a raid in public at this point, lest I be stoned, I am taking this a step further by going to speak to our church relations director. The official church of God website says:

Realizing the futility of reforming their own churches, they established a new church whose objective would be to restore sound scriptural doctrines of the Bible, encourage deeper consecration and promote evangelism and Christian service.

Basically, they are admitting that sound doctrine had been lost for centuries. It is interesting that groups who have broken off of them openly admit that they believe themself to be the "true" church, and that their group is the fulfillment of prohesy in Isaiah. Thanks to my friend Rhett, I have done some research and I believe I have enough grounds to have this organization removed from our campus. When someone claims to have "restored" sound doctrine, as if the reformation didn't do anything, then we have serious problems. When people claim to be the only "true" church, excluding any other group, then we might have a cult. Here are some of the radical "denominations" I have found:

Church of God of North Carolina
Church of God of Charleston, TN
Church of God in Divine Order

These three, and perhaps more, claim to be the "true" church. Please visit these websites and check out their history. You will be surprised.

A Quick Word on Comments

Alright. Probably some folks are wondering why their comments aren't getting posted in the speak-easy.

Its' really simple, so let me explain...

Apart from the other Enforcers who write for the Mafia, if your comments are going to be allowed in the Speak-Easy, you gotta go through me!

This is not a total "prohibition" on dissension; I will allow some of that in the Speak-Easy, especially among our orthodox Christian siblings that have an honest gripe with Reformed Theology and want to speak to those issues from the Scripture.

Remember: This is a Mafia! Do you really think that every Tom, Dick, or Harry was allowed to run up in Al Capone's place and talk smack about his ways? I bet if a guy tried, he'd end up wearing cement shoes or something. So just be glad all I'm doing is deleting your comments pal!

*** For a better idea of what gets approved and what doesn't, please see the comment moderation guidelines of my personal blog.

The Reformed Mafia Jihad

Free Love vs. Free Will

How many times have you heard something like this from a modern pulpit?

"God loves you enough to let you go to hell if that is your choice."

You certainly don't have to hang around Evangelicals long before you will. The thought is, that allowing you do the choosing when it comes to your eternal destiny is the ultimate expression of free love (agape) from a loving God.

My question is: What Love is This?

I mean, as soon as I hear that, I wonder if the one who said it was ever a child with a loving parent, or if they themselves are parents. Because the axiomatic truth is, when you're a parent, it is quite often the case that the most loving thing you can do for your child is over-ride their stupid, idiotic, free-will decisions, in favor of making them to do something that is more conducive to their long-term health and well-being.

An illustration: two sets of parents of two small children are both walking with their child on the sidewalk. Both toddlers decide they want to run into the street. One set of parents sees the traffic and says, "No you may not do this thing that you have chosen to do." Their child persists and tries to run from them. The Dad catches the kid and picks it up and carries it back to the sidewalk. The child kicks and screams and doesn't understand and is obviously not happy. The child of the other parents says he wants to run in the street. They say, "We really wish that you would not do this thing that you have chosen, for we can see that you will certainly be squashed in the grill of an oncoming car." The child persists and runs into the street. His loving parents stand there and wave to him, tears beginning to fall down their cheeks. As he goes, they call out after him, "We love you enough to let you go, if this is what you choose."

Now, pretty clearly, one set of parents above needs to be locked up and have their child taken from them and given into the hands of someone who will love him enough to keep him from destroying himself.

And yet, this illustrates the Arminian version of the roll of God's love in the salvation of man. They can't stand the thought that maybe they're not playing in the street because God loved them enough to pick them up and move them, contrary to their desires. God must stand back and weep as those He loves choose hell. He loves them that much.

Are you kidding me? You really think this is the loving thing to do? Well, then, I just pray you don't have children.

(P.S. I don't want to be guilty of the Calvinist version of Nelson Price's infamous "bus illustration." If you're an Arminian and you think my illustration is unfair, I wish you'd point out to me where I've erred, which would, by the way, be the loving thing to do.)