Commentary - Part 1

Forthcoming will be a series of posts in which I will focus on “the Advertiser letter” (see my previous post). Let me be clear up front - my purpose in this series is not to resort to personalities in an attack on the author, but rather, to address the contents of the letter itself. There are issues throughout the letter that I wish to address, so there will be many posts in this series, Lord willing. We who are Morningview have all heard enough rubbish and my aim herein is to entice of my readers a fair hearing and study of the matters I take up. My hope is that the body of Christ would be edified in this endeavor. May God make clear to us all what is true and right as well as what is fallacious and crooked.

What is meant by the author's use of the term “Calvinism”? What the author intends by the term “Calvinism” is most likely defined by what is found at the website which the author references later in the letter. I will not spend time or energy here critiquing the “baptistfire” website, but suffice it to say that its representation of Calvinism is perverted and ignorant and should not be trusted as a defining source on the subject. I would address the author(s) of that site directly if they would only reveal themselves (the mere fact that the site is authored anonymously should serve to discourage anyone from seeing it as a credible resource). If you want to get a quick feel for what Calvinism is really about, go here. It would appear that the author equates “Calvinism” with the doctrine of limited atonement. This is a practice which is a common occurrence when Calvinism is first encountered. The doctrine of limited atonement usually appears so offensive to people today because it is so diametrically opposed to the understanding of atonement that most folks today are in possession of (just because you possess an understanding of a thing does not necessarily mean it is a biblical understanding). To assert that Calvinism stands in opposition to the truth of John 3:16 is simply fallacious. There are hosts of Calvinists (of which I am one) who embrace and love every jot and tittle of the verse, and it in no way contradicts my Calvinistic theology, but rather establishes it. The argument then that Calvinism disregards or is contrary in any way to John 3:16 is on its face illogical. It has been my experience that most folks who are frenetically opposed to “Calvinism” are so because they see that either the doctrine of total depravity or the doctrine of limited atonement is holistically incompatible with their current system of theology. What this would mean in most cases is that the whole of their theology must be rebuilt from the foundation up, implying that their entire system was flawed. Very offensive stuff to the flesh.