A Few Comments on Calvinism as "Christianity Without Jesus"

I am appreciative of the notes that I have gotten. I obviously touched a chord, I guess that's the term you should use. I obviously addressed something that a lot of people have wanted me to address. I don't even remember actually getting any emails saying you really should do this.

But there are a lot of folks who have gone through a lot because of the fact that they came to know the Lord in a context of the non-denominational denomination. And they are taught to trust the word of God, read the word of God, to have a high view of the word of God.

And then they start doing that. And they start living that out consistently. And the results are inevitable. And that is that they start seeing that the word of God teaches certain things. And when they start talking about these things, they run smack dab into the role of tradition.

Yes, tradition even in non-denominational denominations. And so when I went over the Chuck Smith, Stewart and a guy named Brian, I didn't put the names here on the screen in front of me, discussing reformed issues and doing so in a very shallow way and a very simplistic way.

The Problem of Shallow Critiques of Reformed Theology

And I think that's what really bothered me about it. I don't have problems with Arminians arguing their position. The problem that we see over and over and over again is that instead of knowingly responding to the best the other side has to offer, they knowingly limit themselves to the least the other side has to offer.

And call that good enough. And you know, in certain... You see that in politics. You see people doing that in politics all the time. But this should not be an issue where we use the world's standards.

We're talking here about the very glory of God and salvation. And so obviously I really struck a chord with a lot of folks when we addressed that particular issue. And I wanna just once again, I did this very briefly, but this last little statement that was made by, I think it was the Brian of the group in that first clip that I played.

It's just, it's less than 30 seconds. I played it last time, but I just wanted to add a little something to it.

Why “Christianity Without Jesus” Misses the Point of Calvinism

Jesus said it right there. You know, I've often said about Calvinism guys, Calvinism is Christianity without Jesus because they leave Jesus out of the equation. They just take certain statements of Paul and then of course, read their own theology into it.

There is, it sounds to me like a little bit of hyper red letterism there. There's also, and maybe you haven't, but I certainly have. And I think most people have had this experience. You try to start addressing scriptural foundations for believing that God is sovereign in the matter of salvation.

And what do you hear? Oh, that's in Paul. And as Peter said, there are things difficult to understand in Paul. See, why can't you just get it from Jesus? And I've told this story before, but we always have new listeners.

Many, many moons ago, back when I had lots of hair too, and was skinny after getting married. I stayed that way for a while, not forever, but stayed that way for a while. And I was invited to lunch with my wife who was working as a secretary at this Christian, I don't know if it was investments thing or financial planning thing.

I forget what the guy did, but we all went to the same church. And I was invited to lunch because not only was he not reformed, but he didn't even believe in the perseverance of the saints. And so we had lunch.

It was over somewhere on Seventh Avenue, as I recall. And we got ready to start talking about the issue. And so he said, why do you believe in this eternal security thing? And so I said, well, as Paul said here in Ephesians chapter one, and I was gonna read Ephesians 1, 14, describes the Holy Spirit as the down payment and start laying a foundation for viewing this as God's work and things like that.

And he immediately stopped me. And he said, look, that's Paul. I wanna see it in the red letters. If you can't find it in Jesus, then don't even bother showing it to me. And I was like, okay. And of course I ended up going to John six at that point, which makes sense.

But that was the attitude. And it really involves an implicit reduction of the inspired nature of a very large, important part of scripture. And that's what I'm hearing there. I mean, it's absurd to say Calvinism is Christianity without Jesus.

I mean, we're the ones who are actually saying Jesus actually saves. That he doesn't try to save, he actually saves. And he actually has the capacity that is his in that union with the Father. It's the Father's will that he lose none of those given to him.

And he actually can save all this. He actually can do the will of the Father. That's Calvinism. And that's not what's promoted by Chuck Smith and these leaders of Calvary Chapel. So to say that this is Christianity without Jesus is absurd on its face.

Jesus, Paul, and the Doctrine of Salvation

But it also seems to me to possibly throw some light on why it was that in about 1994, 95, somewhere around there, I listened to not the same people as Chuck Smith, but what was it, was it Hawking? David Hawking got in with him for a while after he had some problems.

And I think Chuck Smith was gonna take him under his wing and rehabilitate him and stuff like that. Well, I'm next to certain, I'd have to ask Algo to be absolutely certain because we all have to ask Algo to be absolutely certain of anything.

But I believe it was David Hawking. I know it's Chuck Smith and I'm 99 sure it was David Hawking. And I listened to them doing this entire program about this tremendous book they had discovered. And the scholarship was just incredible.

And man, we've been saying this for a long time, but now we've got the documentation. You all need to read this book by this great scholar by the name of G .A. Ripplinger. And the book's called New Age Bible Verses.

They didn't have a clue that this was Gail Ripplinger because she kept that hidden. But they were completely taken in by Ripplinger. Now, I'm sorry, I don't wanna sound like the mean person that everyone always assumes that I am.

But if you can be taken in by Ripplinger's book, there is something really wrong with your discernment skills. Because this stuff is, like I've said many times, New Age Bible Versions has more errors per page on it than anything I've ever seen produced by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society.

So it seems to go to the same thing. A real lack of in-depth analysis. And is that connected to what we see in a Dave Hunt where knowledge of the original languages, seminary training is put down? Well, then how come Norm Geisler gets along real well in those areas?

Well, because when he talks about this particular subject, he gives the exact same surface level responses that he learned back in Bible college or seminary someplace and has never gone beyond that in the level of the responses that he offers.

The Centrality of Christ in the Calvinistic View of Atonement

You know what I found, and you've played it now, I think three times, and I find so offensive in the ignorance of the statements that he made there is that number one, as you've already pointed out, John 6 is pivotal.

It is foundational to the Calvinistic worldview. And secondly, you don't have a substitutionary atonement in any other system. Not truly. Not a consistent one, anyway. Not a consistent one. And they would claim to hold to it, but the point is, Jesus is your substitute.

If you don't have Jesus, you don't have the substitute. And that is pivotal, core to the Calvinistic system. He takes my place.

Well, it also likewise has a very twisted view of Paul as if Christ is not the very center of Paul's theology as well. I mean, on every level, that was just one of the most inane statements ever seen, ever heard.

And I would call upon whoever that was, I don't believe it was Mr. Stewart, so it must've been the Bryan Fellow, to retract it and apologize and say, you know what, that was one of the dumbest things I've ever uttered on the air, and we'd like to withdraw that.

That'd be a wonderful thing, but I don't really think that they're probably listening to our webcast. But I'll bet you someone's informed them that we've been talking about it, though. I think there are ears to the ground going.