So, here’s a video that explains it all:
Help Me on Calvinism from Fred Lybrand on Vimeo.
So, here’s a copy of DORT (Dordt; from the Synod of Dordrecht): http://fredlybrand.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/canons-of-dort.pdf
Again, I need your agreements and disagreements and why…this project could turn out big!
Thanks,
Fred Lybrand
P.S. OBVIOUSLY…LOOK THROUGH THE COMMENTS BELOW AND ADD YOU OWN!
P.P.S. Please put an AGREE or a DISAGREE at the very top of your post…as it will make our reading easier.
I honestly stay stumped by those who think Calvin never made a mistake and those others who think he never said anything true. I also wonder how many out there are still interested in being objective and understanding both sides of any issue. I do not find that my rabid 5-point-DORT-calvinism-is-the-only-true-calvinism friends (both advocates and enemies believe this same indefensible point) are able to explain both sides of their issue-of-the-moment. It is embarrassing theologically not to be able to clearly explain both sides.
Here is Calvin’s error: We are saved by faith alone, but the faith that saves is not alone
Yes, he said it a little fancier, but it is the same point. Here is the idea…if you REALLY believe, then works MUST show up. DORT said it too…that you could fall into the most awful lifestyle for a long, long time; but eventually, if you are a TRUE believer, you will come back before you die.
Honestly, that is just simply made up.
And here’s the rub— if someone is in ‘sin’, how do you know he will ‘come back’ someday? You clearly do not.
And— If this same person may not REALLY be saved/justified, then he certainly can’t be assured of his destiny with God. True?
AND—WHAT ABOUT YOU? If you COULD fall into a sinful life in the future…and that would mean you COULD not really be saved…then HOW can you possibly be assured now?
Hence, Calvin’s error. Calvin was so defensive about the Catholic retort of “What about Works?” when he accurately explained FAITH ALONE IN CHRIST ALONE…that he compromised his theology and his logic. Don’t get me wrong…it does make sense…but only inside the framework of Calvin’s assumptions. Of course, it is mostly an issue of incongruence; Calvin did often stay away from co-mingling works and faith.
This view about works DOES NOT MAKE SENSE in reality. It is an assumption about the nature of faith AND and assumption about our ability to discern TRUE from FALSE works in others. Hey gang, God is the one who knows. But honestly, why don’t we see great populations of people getting ‘better’ in Christ as they age? Why don’t we see better doctrine over time (if people who are saved must get godlier and godlier)? It’s simple, people must also GROW SPIRITUALLY…which is a second choice / issue / concern. Salvation is apart from works, but spiritual growth is intimately connected to works.
Below is the info on my intensive labor on this issue…if you want to be loaded for bear (or for bearing witness)…300+ pages and 600+ footnotes lays it out. It also contains a mini-course in logic.
Recently a lady wrote me that she had studied this book and was in a small group meeting where she politely engaged the pastor who was trying to support Calvin’s Error. As she explained that assurance is only sustained when we look at Christ (and not ourselves) this lady spoke up in the meeting for that moment—testifying that she suddenly had assurance for the first time in 12 years! The wild thing was that it was her own pastor who was leading the group discussion.
Face it, as long as you look at yourself and your works, you will never be truly assured of heaven. And, as long as you look at others’ works, you will never be assured of heaven for them either.
THE POINT: LOOK TO CHRIST…AND KEEP LOOKING!
Now, please let’s get the word out. I’m finding this book is being used to convert both rabid Arminians and rabid Calvinists to the clarity found in affirming Faith Alone in Christ Alone, while dropping our lust for judging others. I know there are lots of questions…but most get addressed in the book.
Cheers,
Fred Lybrand
First, allow me to share my own empathy for John Piper and the struggles he alludes to (see: http://bit.ly/aTDmGg) as he takes a leave of absence from the ministry (altogether, including writing).
Having just recently retired from the pastorate, I know the strain on the soul and the family. I suppose I should add a lecture on how abusive most churches are of the pastor’s time, life, and energies…perhaps another day.
In the meantime, I want to offer a possibility for our own lives. Last year I released a book called Back to Faith, which explores and analyzes the mistaken assumptions about works proving faith. John Piper’s writings were my example; in fact, an entire chapter was dedicated to him alone. I also must add here (and you’ll see it if you get a copy of Back to Faith) that I affirm John Piper’s accuracy on the gospel…he clearly affirms faith alone in Christ alone. On the other hand, he has an incongruity in play.
In the straightest of terms, John Piper believes that we can look at our works (or those of other people) and conclude something about our faith in Christ for our destiny.
If that is true…then fine…except, what if your works don’t match up? In Piper’s thinking it should call your salvation into question. Now, that seem quite despair-growing. So, here is John Piper (in a classy and self-effacing way) looking at his faltering works and feeling grieved. The grief, however, is much more than sadness…if Piper is true to his theology, he can’t really be sure about his eternal salvation. Wouldn’t you need a leave of absence if you were haunted about your eternal destiny, and served as a pastor in a church? It would be easy to misunderstand me here and think I’m psycho-analyzing John Piper; I am not at all. I am saying, however, that one piece of his theology really does exactly match the nature of his open admissions and struggles over the past year or two.
Here are a few quotes of his from What Jesus Demands from the World [I discuss this in Back to Faith].
Sometimes I am asked whether my understanding
of Jesus implies that divorce is the unforgivable sin.
The answer is no. Jesus said that his blood will be
the basis for the forgiveness of all sins…
From these wonderful promises we learn
that forgiveness of sins is available on the basis of
the shed blood of Jesus. Forgiveness is available
for all sins, without exception. Forgiveness is
received freely through trusting Jesus to forgive our
sins. (What Jesus Demands from the World, 68)
So clearly Piper gets the importance of looking at the shed blood of Christ, which is awesome.
The only unforgivable sin is the sin that we refuse
to confess and forsake. We commit unforgivable
sin when we cleave to a sin so long and so
tenaciously that we can no longer confess it as sin
and turn from it. (What Jesus Demands from the World, 69)
Now, we are seeing a misstep here. The tendency with this incongruent piece of theology (works prove saving faith), all we can do is see our sin as unforgivable if it keeps showing up (even on occasion)…and if unforgivable, then you remain unforgiven. Piper knows it’s a problem because he addresses it on occasion. The issue will always come back to whether we are looking at Jesus or looking at our works.
Here’s a full statement from Back to Faith (Piper is in bold),
In fairness to Piper, he would completely deny the
incongruence, though he seems to realize others are concerned
about it
Some readers will see this stress on the necessity of
a change in obedience to Christ as ‘justification by
works.’ But that would be a misinterpretation of
what I am saying. That is why I wrote chapter 4
and put it near the front of this book,
“Brothers, Live and Preach Justification by Faith.” Obedience
is the evidence of faith that alone unites us to Christ
who is our justifying righteousness. Nothing I have
said here contradicts that truth.
Making the claim that one is misinterpreted is different from being
misinterpreted. It does not seem to have dawned on Piper that he
really may be communicating something scarily similar to
“justification by works” when he claims “obedience is the
evidence of faith…” It seems his theme is that one can tell true
faith (salvation) in an individual because of obedience, but Piper
again displays his incongruity,
It does imply that one can be called a ‘brother’ on
the basis of appearances but in the end prove not to
be a brother because of failing to persevere in the
end. (Back to Faith, 219)
I wouldn’t label John Piper’s theology as evil or bad, but it does have a harmful incongruency that haunts all Hyper-Calvinists (not all Calvinists).
If your works prove you have faith,
and your works are inconsistent or weak,
then…you MAY NOT (probably don’t) have faith.
I don’t know the intricacies of John Piper’s life and issues. I’ll pray for his leave of absence. I do know that if I look at my works, I lose assurance…and…when I look at Christ alone I am greatly assured. What else can you do with something so wonderfully clear?
Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.
Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God. (Romans 5:1–2) ESV
Fred Lybrand
P.S. Yes, I sent John a copy of Back to Faith (which he graciously had acknowledged to me).
Listen to a more detailed explanation of some of these matters at: https://www.backtofaith.com/LISTEN.html
[tweetmeme source=”fredlybrand” only_single=false]
What a big issue!
The Gospel, is it (?) —
Faith + Nothing
Faith + Works
Faith (that Works) + Nothing
The reason this is a big deal is that it (a) Will affect how we explain / offer the gospel to others; and, (b) Undermine our assurance as believers in Jesus Christ.
If you tell folks they must add works to their faith, then please know you do not believe in faith alone. This has been the mainstay and understanding of Bible believing Christians since the Reformation, however, the debate has has raged since then about what to do with works. Normally there is an incongruence in operation where it sounds like ‘faith alone’ at time, and like ‘faith + works’ at other times.
I think it is simple, but largely unrecognized:
Works have nothing to do with our salvation, but much to do with our sanctification (spiritual growth). Normally in the discussions those who disagree start throwing out labels such as “antinomianism”. Antinomianism has been used as throughout history as an inflammatory charge. The funny thing is that it has been used by Roman Catholics against the Reformers, by the Reformers against Evangelicals, and even Arminians against Evangelicals.
If you don’t know all these groups and terms don’t worry about it. Antinomianism simply means ‘against law’ and nothing more. So, any group which is against your group’s ‘law’ is antinomian to you. I really am fond of A.W. Tozer (who did not believe in the eternal security of Christians), but he misses it here:
In other words, Tozer offers that it is WRONG to say, ‘We are saved by faith alone; works have no place.” but that is exactly what Romans 4, Romans 11:6,29, and Ephesians 2:8&9) says (please read them yourself). Yet, simply put, if you look at your works rather than Christ, then you will doubt because your works will always be flawed. Looking at Christ alone (l00k = believe here), will always lead to assurance because of His promise (see John 3:16, 5:24).
So what do we do with being called ‘antinomian’ in the debate? Well I’ve suggested one solution as promoting our belief in Lordship Sanctification; however, there is another option. We can simply be against antinomianism, and pass it along as belonging to the the universalists (the ones who believe everyone is accepted by God with out regard to faith or works) where it belongs!
Another option is to explain what we really believe. I offer a fresh term called Necranomian. Necranomian means one is ‘dead to the law’ (see Romans 7 and 2 Corinthians 3) not ‘aganst’ the law.
I’ve explained this more completely in an appendix of Back to Faith (go get a copy).
In the meantime, it really is Faith Alone in Christ Alone. Please don’t drift. The truth is that our growth relates to works, but our acceptence and forgivenss comes through simple faith in Jesus Christ.
Grace,
Fred Lybrand
P.S. Here’s the Appendix on Antinomianism from Back To Faith (c) Fred R. Lybrand : Is This Antinomianism?
I had a recent discussion with someone who is apparently deeply dedicated to the idea that we must be perfect on earth in order to get into heaven (at least that’s what it all sounded like to me over a series of correspondences). So, I threw something I find interesting his way.
Notice these two lines are 29 verses apart in the same book of Luke:
Concerning the Rich Young Ruler: “When Jesus heard this, he said to him, “One thing you still lack. Sell all that you have and distribute to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.”” (Luke 18:22, ESV)
Concerning Zacchaeus: “And Zacchaeus stood and said to the Lord, “Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor. And if I have defrauded anyone of anything, I restore it fourfold.” And Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, since he also is a son of Abraham. For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.”” (Luke 19:8-10, ESV)
Then I said:
So here one person is told that he must give away ALL while the other is saved by giving HALF (etc.)….If your view is right, that people must become perfect in this life to get into heaven, then Christ must also have different standards for what this means for each person (Rich Young Ruler vs. Zacchaeus)…
Now, Luke knew good and well he was putting these events right next to each other. So, why would Christ require all of one person’s wealth, but only half of another person’s wealth, to get into heaven?
Frankly, I’m surprised someone in the political arena hasn’t misused this interesting situation to explain why we should all have the same amount of money (socialism?) or the same amount of ‘no money’ (communism?). Really, the point is evident. Jesus is not concerned about our money, but about our neediness. None of us ever takes nasty medicine or painful surgery until we need it. Even the folks who obsess on cosmetic surgery have become convinced it is necessary for some result (beauty / youth / job).
The Rich Young Ruler was quite clear that he had done all the law required, so Christ upped the ante. He offered the man an opportunity to see where his faith rested. With Zacchaeus, the kindness of Christ entering his home opened up his need for Christ, and shortly, his own need to be generous.
The lesson here is that we Christian-types often miss the point because of our obsession with works in other people’s lives (if you want to get free from this, please read Back To Faith, its truths cured me!). Lewis Sperry Chafer, the founder of Dallas Theological Seminary, said something really fascinating on an old cassette I found in a church closet one time. In this message (from 1946-ish) he said something like the following to a group of would-be preachers,
Gentlemen, don’t preach against the world. Don’t preach against the things in the world. To the spiritually dying, everything in the world is the anesthetic for their pain. To preach against is to preach more pain for those who don’t know the Savior. Instead, preach grace. Preach about the kindness of God and His love for them…this will be a better offer that will allow them to let go of their pain-killer as they embrace God’s answer in Jesus Christ by faith.”
Well, he said it better than that, but Paul said it even better—
“That is the way we should live, because God’s grace that can save everyone has come. It teaches us not to live against God nor to do the evil things the world wants to do. Instead, that grace teaches us to live in the present age in a wise and right way and in a way that shows we serve God. We should live like that while we wait for our great hope and the coming of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ. He gave himself for us so he might pay the price to free us from all evil and to make us pure people who belong only to him—people who are always wanting to do good deeds.” (Titus 2:11-14, NCV)
The point is that grace teaches us…and the result is that we seek to do ‘good’. How often do we get cause-and-effect twisted around to miss (completely) the power of God’s kindness…leading to change…leading to good deeds. When Christians walk well and do it right, they are taught by grace to do good…not to do good to see if God might be gracious.
Believe.
God bless,
Fred Lybrand