Brandon A. Cox - Latest Comments in Free to Decide: Confessions of a Former Calvinist

Re: Free to Decide: Confessions of a Former Calvinist

Jon — Tue, 10 Sep 2013 19:51:34 -0000

The ultimate aim of Calvinism is to comfort a Christian heart by showing him that God saves to the utmost.

Re: Free to Decide: Confessions of a Former Calvinist

Brian Christensen — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 17:53:01 -0000

I just happend to stumble across while searching. Its only recently surfaced as a duscussion with it being more taught in the church I attend. During my years under a different church it was never mentioned (a very well know pastor). And even a trip to Urbana missions converence - not mentioned there as well. But in the bible study last night my wife and i attened it was mentioend...."God predistines people to heaven or hell".

I will be reading more.

Brian

Re: Free to Decide: Confessions of a Former Calvinist

rllawren — Mon, 14 May 2012 03:55:41 -0000

The main error of Augustinian-Calvinism is simple. God's sovereignty is Biblically an undefinable trait along with omniscience and the other Omni-'s. Man's freedom to choose on the other hand is not undefinable...choose freely and enjoy or suffer the consequences for your choice. In all of this God is still sovereign in the sense that He is above, higher, not affected by, outside of, and greater than any and all choices, not that he always directly pre-causes any choice. Can God? Yes, Does God? Not always. Scripture proves this true. The Calvinist simply thinks God directly or indirectly "pre-causes" all "after-effects"...this ignores the eternal aspect of God's knowledge and decrees which are done OUTSIDE OF TIME...thus there is no pre- or fore- for God...only when it is described as Paul does from OUR HUMAN perspective. So, for me, Sovereignty is the 'apple' being compared to the 'orange' of man's free will. There is no contradiction since one CAN be understood and the other "is further above us as the heavens are above the earth...beyond finding out."

Re: Free to Decide: Confessions of a Former Calvinist

Duane — Wed, 21 Sep 2011 08:27:30 -0000

Wow! there is so much to say about this subject. I whole heartedly agree that Calvanism is incorrect Biblically. I love how those who believe in Calvanism say the Bible "clearly" teaches it all the while ignoring countless number of versus that contradict (not paradoxes) the teaching of Calvinism.
The only point I want to make here is in response to your comments on logic. First off let's be very clear a paradox is not illogical and is in no way shape or form a contradiction. I'm not suggesting you are saying that, I just think it is necessary to point that out so there is no confusion. Everyone please take the time to look up the definition of paradox, even if you think you already know what it is.
Secondly, I agree with the premise of taking Calvanists to their logical conclusion, but be assured LOGIC comes from God just like we say TRUTH does. The problem with Calvinist's logic is that it is used incorrectly and ironically they defy LOGIC in some of their deductions from scripture. So the problem isn't they are using logic to support their teaching, the problem is they jump to what is called in logic, illigitimate inferences and therefore defy logic.

Re: Free to Decide: Confessions of a Former Calvinist

Bob Hadley — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 14:42:46 -0000

Although I am not familiar with this book nor its author, I argued this statement, almost verbatim last week...

"“There are two reasons, one grammatical and one syntactical, for insisting that “this” does not refer back to “faith”. Grammatically, “faith” is feminine and “this” is neuter. Only an unnatural stretching of the possibilities of Greek grammar can read “faith” as the antecedent of “this”. Syntactically, the fact (often overlooked) is that there are three complements of “this” which follow it: (1) “this” (is) not of you (2) “this” (is) God’s gift, (3) “this” (is) not of works, lest anyone boast. To read “faith” with “this” might make some kind of sense for the first two of these, but it will not work with the third: “this faith is not of works” would be nonsensical tautology in view of the fact that works is in contrast to faith already. In Ephesians 2:8, 9, therefore, “this” has for its antecedent the entire preceding clause. This fits the “rules” of Greek grammar that called for a neuter pronoun to refer to a verbal idea, and it makes perfectly good sense in the context. “By grace you have been saved by faith: and this saving experience is not of you but is the gift of God, not of works lest any boast.”

Thanks for this post!

Grateful to be in His Grip

><>

Re: Free to Decide: Confessions of a Former Calvinist

Brandon A. Cox — Thu, 26 May 2011 13:58:13 -0000

Thanks Barbara. I always tell people who are struggling with theological issues like this one to go ahead and struggle. Don't try to sweep the tough questions under the rug. It's in wrestling with these things that we not only find answers, but we find a process for finding answers and we grow in the midst of it.

Re: Free to Decide: Confessions of a Former Calvinist

Barbara Quinn — Thu, 26 May 2011 13:08:40 -0000

A wonderful article. So honest and humble. Thank you for posting it. reading it has helped me understand a christian's journey from one difficult theological 'camp' to what I believe to be a much better one. I read another personal journey change similar to your's though not as extensive. It's on the BJU Camille Lewsi exit from BJU web page. I can't remember the exact wording of it, but it's really insightful. I so enjoy reading people's stories of personal change. It helps me understan people better, ans thereore to have a deeper respect and love for them as Jesus has. Peace, Barbara

Re: Free to Decide: Confessions of a Former Calvinist

Brandon A. Cox — Wed, 18 May 2011 17:56:22 -0000

Chris, thanks so much for that. And I think when we land back in the middle of all of the extremes, we might have found the sweet spot.

Re: Free to Decide: Confessions of a Former Calvinist

Chris Fleury — Wed, 18 May 2011 17:25:37 -0000

Very well said Brandon. I debate and struggle with this issue regularly with my brothers in Christ and no matter which angle I go at it, I end up in a similar place as you.

By the way, I see you are planting a church(and therefore moving) in Arkansas. While i'ts our loss, I know God has a great deal in store for you. My prayers will remain with you.

God Bless,

Chris

Re: Free to Decide: Confessions of a Former Calvinist

Brandon — Tue, 23 Nov 2010 12:23:42 -0000

Phil, I'm afraid that while I agree with you doctrinally, I'm wary of your attitude toward some fellow believers. Many of the most evangelistic and missions-minded people I know are Calvinists. And according to Calvinistic theology, the gospel still needs to be presented to all the world so that all of God's elect may have the opportunity to respond, so that the glory of the Lord will fill the earth.

I'm not a Calvinist anymore, but I love my Calvinistic brothers and sisters and appreciate some of the great works they're doing in the world in Jesus' name.

Re: Free to Decide: Confessions of a Former Calvinist

Chaplain Phil — Tue, 23 Nov 2010 11:59:02 -0000

Amen...well put. I’d like to add that I find many Calvinists downright arrogant and smug. They take great pride in their ‘new’ illumination…because many of them were ‘free will’ people before. Now THEY know the truth and ‘free will’ simpletons like me just haven’t been enlightened yet. To borrow from Festus’ words to Paul, “Their great learning has driven them to conceit.”

I am dismayed to learn that among the Southern Baptist churches that embrace Calvinism there has been a drop in new believers and baptism. Under Calvinism the urgency to preach to ALL so that WHOSOEVER may come is gone. But that’s probably OK with them…why would people who are preselected to heaven ever want to worship with people predestined to damnation? I would rather give the Gospel invitation to all than to let one soul pass into a Christ-less eternity because I lacked vision for the lost. I would rather fellowship with sinners than with self-righteous saints.

Re: Free to Decide: Confessions of a Former Calvinist

Dr. James Willingham — Sun, 27 Jun 2010 17:12:42 -0000

Here is a story from Whitefield and Wesley who were on opposite sides on this issue. Whitefield went out of his way to be reconciled with Wesley, who admitted in a letter in his journal that there some elect, some who would reach a state from which they wouldnever fall, and I should add Wesley used language concerning compelling people to come to Christ that CH Spurgeon said he would neve use. In any case, Whitefield said he wanted Welsey to preach his funeral. Some asked, "Do you expect to see him in heaven/" Whitefield answered, "No." The person asked, "Why then dd you decided to have Welsey preach your funeral/" Whitefield replied, "I didn't say he wasn't going to be there. He will be so close to the throne and I so far away, that I won't be able to see him." Wesley preached Whitefield's funeral. Some one asked, "Why did you preach his funeral? You don't believe you'll see him in Heaven." Wesley answered, "No, I won't be able to see him in Heaven. He's be so close to the throne and I will be so far away, thatI on't be abl to see him." If you all will check it out, you will find that Calvinists have won people to Christ who became Arminians, and Arminians have won people who became calvinists. If you all understood it better,you would just laugh. The most evangelistic and missionary bunch in North Carolina were the calvinists, and the least evangelistic and missionary were the arminians. In the 1800s, after 1830 that began to change the other way. Now we are getting ready to change back. Your really can't have a Great Awakening with out the right theology, the Heavenly Presence, and humility. Anyone who is a calvinist and proud about it is a contradicton in terms and reality. Back when they argued this stuff in the 1700s they were winning souls right and left, securing religious liberty, uniting Separate and Regular Baptists, persuading General Baptists to become Particular Baptists (Regular), using both educated and uneducated men together in servicing, evangelizing in quality an quantity, founding educational institutions, initiating one o the early antisalvery efforts (Friends of Humanity), working with avante garde thinkers like Jefferson, Madison, etc., calling other Protestants their pedobaptist brethen. Note what I said, calvinism is the theology of paradoxes and the paradox is one of the therapeutic techniques for intervention in seemingly hopeless cases in counseling. If man can do that, what can God's paradoxes do. I was a member of the church where the first Southern Baptist missionary to China was from. In their abstract of principles they only knew of Christ dying for the church. so he must have set out to win China to Christ with the idea that Jesus only died for the church, the elect. Why did calvinism produce so much freedom, the great missionary movement, and the great awakenings? Why does the great conspiracy that runs the world today oppose calvinism so vociferously? Why were those early calvinists able to creae the greatest nation in history? Why are we about to lose it now, when the theology for the past century has been so arminian? Why are the paradoxes, regardless of what Gordon Clark has said, in calvinism? Why did the Separate and Regular Baptists agree that preaching that Christ died for he elect would be no bar to communion? Why were the calvinist so liberal? Why did Luther Rice, the father of missions for Southern Baptists, say in so many words that predestination is in the Bible and you had better preach it? Why did Dr. Danny Akin, the president of Southeastern Bap. Seminary, say the fathers of the missionary movement among Baptists were five point calvinists, and yet he is not one himself? Why did strong calvinists found the SBC and Southern Seminary? Why do I remember my ordaining pastor, a supralapsarian, hyper calvinist (his own terms for himself), as the strongest preacher on human response I ever heard? His subjects, "Why sit ye here until ye die?" and "The Great Supper." Why did Dr. R. G. Lee put it in his will for Dr. ErnestR. Campbell to preach his funeral? Why Jonathan Edwards have such a great sermon on "Pressing into the Kingdom.?" Why does predestination prvde such sense of freedom, such a sense of humility (as in the most famous of Christian hymns, Amazing Grace, "that save a wretch like me")?

Re: Free to Decide: Confessions of a Former Calvinist

Brandon — Sun, 27 Jun 2010 08:35:03 -0000

I'm afraid I'm actually moving to California, but I would get in touch with Love Worth Finding Ministries and get a couple of the resources offered in which Adrian Rogers addresses Calvinism. And I'd also check out Chosen But Free by Norm Geisler - an excellent work calling for balance and moderation on the issue.

Re: Free to Decide: Confessions of a Former Calvinist

Terry and Damita — Sat, 26 Jun 2010 00:39:26 -0000

Do you live anywhere close to OK, I would like to have an intervention with my son .He was raised southern baptist and he's involved in a fuel church. He completely attacks me with calvanist beliefs. Could you help us.

Re: Free to Decide: Confessions of a Former Calvinist

Dr. James Willingham — Tue, 15 Jun 2010 11:14:53 -0000

I was encouraged to apply to the Univ. of S. Africa in the early 90s to work on a D.Th. Since I had 5 degrees and work on number 6, they thought I had enough course work and all I had to do was do the research and write my dissertation which was to be on the subject "The Theology of The Great Awakenings." Unfortunately, I did not have the moola to do the degree. The work would have been on the Sovereign Grace theology that lay at the heart of the First and Second Great Awakenings and at the heart of the launching of the Great Century of Missions. Altho the latter was not a part of the thesis idea, it could have been as all three involved that Sovereign Grace. Now the reason for pursuing the same is that , if we are to have another awakning, we must have the theology and the other two items or elements that are in attendance at such events, namely, the presence and the humility. Google dr. james willingham, theology, and paradoxical interventions then click on what is usually listed first, namely, commentsbythirdgreatawakeningcom.blogspot...BACK TYPE. There you will find about 6 pages of my bloggings with about 15-16 per page which somebody evidently thought was something that ought to be gathered together in one place but why I don't know. Now as to the doctrines, everyone of them should be preached as the greatest and best and most intense invitations ever devised by the heart of God. they are the most dramatic, electric, dynamic, fascinating, compelling, attractive, magnetic, winsome, etc. In fact, by them I expect the whole earth to be won to the Lord Jesus
Christ, along with every soul on it at the time for a 1001 generations. Remember Abraham has to have a seed as numerous as the stars of heaven, the sand by all of the seashores of all the earth (and thrown in all the deserts for good measure), and the dust of the earth along with the number of the redeemed in Heaven which no man can number (even though he had all eternity in which to do it?). We had a bunch of General Baptists in NC who were neither very evangelistic or missionary minded back in the 1700s. They would take a person who would say he agreed with the confession and baptize him and admit him to membership. Then came two Regular Baptists of the Phila Assn which held then to particular redemption, etc., and they persuaded those General Baptists to become Particular Baptistss and require a saving experience of joiners and they went along from 1755-1801 baptizing 30-35 a year then in 1801 they baptized 872 (the Awakening). Sandy Creek Separate Baptists and the Regulars enjoyed the Great Awakening in 1801 (one church in Sandy Creek Assn is supposed to have had 500 converted on one Sunday Morning in 1801). Then in 1816 they launched the Great Mission effort under the leadership of Luther Rice, etc. And the rest as they say is history. What we fail to see is that the doctrines of grace are evangelistic; predestination, total depravity (and reprobation), unconditional election), particular redemption (limited atonement), irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints, all, are invitations, paradoxical interventions designed to restore power to the fallen individual. You might google principles of paradoxical thinking and also explore the psychologists who specialize in paradoxical psychotherapy. I will close with the thought that I had the privilege of bearing witness to a Spurgeon that grace is irresistible, and he did not believe it.. He happen to win a young lady to Christ who was about age 20 right after that. She responded so readily that he asked her why she had. She replied, "O it was so wonderful that I could not resist it." He said as soon as she said that what I had said about grace being irresistible popped into his mind. I asked him, if he had changed his mind. He said, no, but he was thinking about it. Long story made short: It took him about 40 years to change his mind. You will find his comment on my blog site, thirdgreatawakeningcom.blog... God bless.

Re: Free to Decide: Confessions of a Former Calvinist

Brandon — Mon, 14 Jun 2010 23:39:12 -0000

James, though I disagree that a third great awakening depends on a humanly devised theological system like Calvinism, I do agree with you that we desperately need this awakening, so I'll pray with you for it to happen. And if God uses a Calvinistic movement to awaken people to Himself, I'll praise Him for it.

Re: Free to Decide: Confessions of a Former Calvinist

Dr. James Willingham — Mon, 14 Jun 2010 23:04:43 -0000

When I first became persuaded that the Bible actually taught Sovereign Grace, it was puzzle to me as to how to preach it. In my history researches it was plainly evident that the theology of the First and Second Great Awakenings and the launching of the Great Century of Missions (Latourette's term) was Calvinism. The period from 1700-1820 comprises one of the great periods in world history. Religious liberty was secured, Protestantism moved from being a contentious, warring, Gospel recovery effort to an outgoing, persuasive missionary force. One day I stumbled across this statement in Dr. John Eusden's Introduction to his translation of William Ames' Marrow of Divinity, "Predestination is an invitation to begin one's spiritual pilgrimage...." I began looking at all of the doctrines of grace in the Bible to see if they were preached evangelistically. Behold, Jesus preaching tulip and predestination and reprobation as invitations. Look at Mt. 15:21-28 & Lk.4:18-31. to the woman of Canaan he spoke of being sent to the lost sheep of the house of israel, and she was not even a Jew. Her response was worship. To his fellow citizens in Nazareth he preached that Elijah and Elisha were sent to somebody else, some one who was not a Jew. here response was sort of like what Jesus gave as an invitation tot he woman of Canaan, when he said it is not right to take the children's bread and to cast it to dogs (little dogs), and she treated it as the greatest invitation in the world, agreeing that he spoke the truth and that she was a little dog. The folks of Nazareth acted like the wild dogs of the street, when they tried to murder the Lord Jesus. For 37 years I have been praying for a Third Great Awakening, and the theology of it must be the theology of the First two and the launching of the missionary movement. The folks who run things hated that theology; it almost cost them their power. They set in the sappers to misrepresent, weaken, and push to extremes so that people would not understand and see the truth. Read Carroll Quigley's Tragedy and Hope. NY: Macmillan Pubs., 1965. Somewhere around p. 1239 they outline the theology that the conspirators hold and the theology they oppose. Their's is pluralism, and they oppose determinism (they even use the word calvinism). As to the answer of Roms. 9, it is a chapter of invitations. My first message on Roms. 9:13 is that It is an invitation to receive God who does not think like we do, love like we do, or act like we do.

Re: Free to Decide: Confessions of a Former Calvinist

Tom — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 21:48:06 -0000

Our logic is not the same as God's wisdom? Sure, but wisdom and logic are entirely different things. I do not see how God's logic and our logic can differ. Can God truthfully declare that a thing exists and does not exist at the same time? Can he declare that some proposition is both true and false at the same moment? I do not think he can, anymore than we can. He wisdom exceeds ours, but to say that he has a different logic is to say that no revelation coming from God could have any meaning for us.

Re: Free to Decide: Confessions of a Former Calvinist

Brandon — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 15:52:45 -0000

Tom, I'm afraid I don't see your logic... ;)

Re: Free to Decide: Confessions of a Former Calvinist

Brandon — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 08:26:47 -0000

Ron, very good question, and I wish I had the perfect answer. I think one of the problems with intellectual pride is that it's subtle and very difficult to help someone see it, and we certainly don't classify it with other sins in our own minds.

I think the main goal is to promote humility and to hold up the guys who are humble in their approach about it. There are some great Calvinist folks who aren't so arrogant and I love them and lift them up as examples.

Re: Free to Decide: Confessions of a Former Calvinist

Ron Hale — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 08:09:19 -0000

Brandon,

Thanks so very much for your confession and sharing your journey!

As an older guy in the convention now (57 years old), I can say that I was never confronted with reform theology during my college and seminary days. So, I've had some catching up in my understandings.

Give me some pointers in relating to some of my younger Brothers in the SBC that haven't even pastored their first church as of yet, or baptized anyone, but they feel they are smarter/wiser than their old pastor back home in their country church -- because -- they have been enlightened by calvinism.

I have been personally offended by certain attitudes, but I'm truly wanting to be bridge builder. <Ron

Re: Free to Decide: Confessions of a Former Calvinist

Gordon — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 01:12:34 -0000

I, personally, believe in OSAS. I noticed some of the speakers you like, Ronnie Floyd and Jack Graham. I too enjoy their ministries. I enjoy watching the chapel sermons at SWBTS along with a host of others, like Dr. David Jeremiah, Graham, Hunt, Gains, and many more. I identify very closely with the views of Dr. Elmer Towns of Liberty University and I am a huge fan of the Falwells.

Re: Free to Decide: Confessions of a Former Calvinist

Brandon — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 00:41:49 -0000

You know, though I'm not an Arminianist, nor do I agree with all that Free Will Baptists believe, I do love Picirilli and his writings. His book on Paul's life is my textbook for a Wednesday night Bible study right now.

Excellent thought too. Very hard to present a compelling argument against what Picirilli asserted here.

Thanks for sharing!

Re: Free to Decide: Confessions of a Former Calvinist

Gordon — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 00:27:41 -0000

I have just recently read Robert E. Picirilli's book "Grace Faith Free Will - Contrasting Views of Salvation: Calvinism & Arminianism.

Dr. Picirilli is a very clear thinker and has the ability to discuss both sides without condemnation and ill will. His insight and understanding are worth all who struggle with the difference between these two theological views a necessary read.

Here is an example of his thinking as it pertains to the meaning of Eph. 2:8

“There are two reasons, one grammatical and one syntactical, for insisting that “this” does not refer back to “faith”. Grammatically, “faith” is feminine and “this” is neuter. Only an unnatural stretching of the possibilities of Greek grammar can read “faith” as the antecedent of “this”.

Syntactically, the fact (often overlooked) is that there are three complements of “this” which follow it:

(1) “this” (is) not of you

(2) “this” (is) God’s gift,

(3) “this” (is) not of works, lest anyone boast.

To read “faith” with “this” might make some kind of sense for the first two of these, but it will not work with the third: “this faith is not of works” would be nonsensical tautology in view of the fact that works is in contrast to faith already.

In Ephesians 2:8, 9, therefore, “this” has for its antecedent the entire preceding clause. This fits the “rules” of Greek grammar that called for a neuter pronoun to refer to a verbal idea, and it makes perfectly good sense in the context. “By grace you have been saved by faith: and this saving experience is not of you but is the gift of God, not of works lest any boast.”

End of Quote

Tautology defined by “Dictionary Dot Com”

noun, plural -gies.

1. needless repetition of an idea, esp. in words other than those of the immediate context, without imparting additional force or clearness, as in “widow woman.”

2. an instance of such repetition.

3. Logic.

a. a compound propositional form all of whose instances are true, as “A or not A.”

b. an instance of such a form, as “This candidate will win or will not win.”

Re: Free to Decide: Confessions of a Former Calvinist

Brandon — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 08:32:58 -0000

Yes, it is a very good and powerful point.