This Week in Calvinism - March 29, 2013

• Regarding Romans 9 Steve Gregg states, "There is nothing in the story of Esau and Jacob that pertains to election for salvation." No. God is simply deciding "which branch of the family line is going to be chosen to bring the Messiah into the world." I guess we're supposed to ignore Romans 8, where Paul just finished explaining how we believers are heirs with Christ, something he reiterates quite strongly in Galatians 3:29: "And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise." Limiting the discussion of election in Romans 9 to the physical nation of Israel is just the opposite of what Paul is saying.
  
  
• After hundreds of years, someone finally manages to refute Calvinism! Well, at least a straw man version of it. Now that I think about it, he doesn't even refute that. Oh, well. Back to the drawing board.
  
  
• David A. Williams, responding to an article in the Biblical Recorder, writes, "So the battle of [Baptist] traditionalists is not with 'Calvinists,' but with historical Baptists, and it is not a war of semantics. It is a struggle for Truth."
  
  
• "Calvinism is not Baptist theology!" Huh?
  
  
• Whether you're an Arminian, Molinist, or Calvinist, you can't get around dealing with that predestination thing.
  
  
• Steve Hays wonders what difference it makes to unbelievers if we tell them, "God loves you." He writes, "As far as preaching the Gospel is concerned, I think it stimulates self-examination if sinners don't presume that God loves them. If they don't take that for granted. Taking God's love for granted is a way of taking God for granted."