Get Your Hands On Mere Calvinism Penned By Jim Scott Orrick In Brochure

rating is based on whether this book is what the author intended it to be or not, He is extremely clear up front that this book is not meant to be a deep, theological treatise on the doctrines of grace, If you are a pastor and have preached the doctrines of grace for many years, you are not the target audience, This book is aimed at those who have never really been exposed to the doctrines of grace and desire to learn moreor have just recently come to embrace them.


There is much good in this book, Over theyears I've been pastoring, I have yet to talk to an opponent of the truths often nicknamed "Calvinism" who truly understood what it is.
Most have preconceived notions that turn them off before they ever hear an explanation, I recall listening to a man just a few months back explain to me why he rejected them, After hearing his explanation, I said, "If what you have described is Calvinism, I don't believe it either, " Bottom line, there are too many preconceived notions when we approach the Bible, especially concerning this subject, I thought the author did a really fine job of handling that,

I'll also say, he did a fine job of handling the common objections I hear from my Arminian friends yes, I have Arminian friends.
He didn't ignore the "other side" of the argument, He tried to answer their questions,

This book is written with a good attitude, There's no name calling. He isn't looking down his nose at those who disagree with them, He's simply explaining his view from Scripture,

The one thing I wish he hadn't included were a few obviously amillennial statements, I have enough respect for him to believe he knew fully what he was saying, Now admittedly, I am a premillennialist, That said, there really wasn't a good reason to include ANY statements that are even leading towards a prophetic position, That detracts from the purpose of the book to the cautious reader, I would think that even my amillennial friends and yes, I do have amillennial friends too! would agree that those things should be handled in another setting.
If I give this book to somebody, I don't want them to be sidetracked by those few statements, There were only but that'stoo many.

All that said, this is a fine book to give to somebody whom you want to share the doctrines of grace with, I dont think I was fair to Jim Orrick, My original review was pretty tough pasted below as the final note, Since reading Mere Calvinism, I read more John Calvin, Now I better understand Orrick on freedom of the will and persuasion/means, I'm still not sure Orrick's position or even Calvin's! is consistent with the doctrines of grace, but better to agree inconsistently than to disagree in one accord.



Notes.

Personal note: Calvinism is definitely popular now!

“Just because someone calls himself a Calvinist does not mean he knows what Calvinism is”

“.
. . most of the discussions she had heard about Calvinism were more philosophical than biblical”

"Well, in two sentences, . . First, a Calvinist believes that God always does whatever he pleases, Second, a Calvinist believes that God initiates, sustains, and completes the salvation of everyone who gets saved, "

"If the Bible asserts something about God to be true, and it could not possibly be true of your God, then you have the wrong god.
"

"While sinners may try to resist him, no one successfully resists him, God is the one “who works all things according to the counsel of his will” Eph,:.

Personal note: is Orrick priming the reader for unreasonable arguments

Personal note about reason versus revelation: Scripture is prior to reason, I agree with the author, If I come to a doctrine that seems unreasonable and yet is clearly taught, I bow my knee, However, this could also indicate Ive misunderstood the doctrine, If I find another interpretation that does justice to the passage while eliminating the logical problem, this interpretation should be preferred,

Dr. Orrick quotes a verse about Gods inscrutability, Ironic that the very preceding verse clarifies Romans, the chief Calvinist proof text,

Personal note: I love this idea, Calvinism explained using Lewiss model from Mere Christianity,pages in, and I notice a contrast, While Lewis was gentle, Orrick lays down the gauntlet,

"God has planned in advance for the success of the gospel"

"Admittedly, this is a great mystery, All persons think and act freely, yet all the while God is sovereignly superintending all things so that his eternal purpose is infallibly accomplished, "

"Our Lord summarizes the doctrine of total depravity in one sentence: “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him” John:.
Sin has so corrupted and disordered the human race that unless God intervenes in a persons life, he or she will never repent of sin and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ"

"perhaps it would be less confusing to call the doctrine total inability"

"The Components: Understanding, Will, and Affections
When God created humans, he created us in his image so that we loved him and were capable of fellowship with him.
He gave us the ability to understand the truth that he revealed, He made us so that we eagerly chose what was good, In this state of spiritual health, we loved God and loved all persons and things as God intended, In other words, he gave us enlightened understanding, free will, and healthy affections,Stated another way, God created humans in knowledge, righteousness, and holiness,These

three qualitiesunderstanding, will sometimes called volition, and affectionsare essential to what it means to be human, so we can say that these are the nonphysical components of human nature.
"Personal note: free will

"Even in human relationships we do not want to be friends with people who constantly disagree with our most fundamental and important beliefs.
If such people go beyond mere disagreement and persistently condemn us for what we love, we outright avoid them when we can, As long as it is our nature to love sin, we will not want to know intimately a God who hates sin, "

In this dead condition it is impossible for us to do anything that pleases God, because no matter what it is, and no matter how much it may look like a good deed to us and to other humans, God will not be pleased with it.
Why Because we will do our alleged good deeds for some reason other than love of God,Personal note: Orricks commentary on John:is great, Certainly true, but he leaves out an important detail, Why is the human will corrupted Yes, because the fall, but how do individuals participate Volitionally Yet Calvinism sacrifices volition on the altar of Gods sovereignty

Personal note: Helpful discussion on total depravity

It is true that whosoever will may come to Jesus.
Beyond merely permitting us, God commands us to believe in Jesus! “And this is his commandment, that we believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ”John:.


When humans reject Gods gracious offer of forgiveness through Christ, that refusal makes it obvious that God is just when he condemns the unrepentantIf we reject his offer of grace through Jesus, it becomes obvious that we deserve to fail and to suffer Gods condemnation.
. . Men have deliberately chosen to do evil deeds, and there are far reaching consequences to this,

Personal note: Orricks words on our stubborn love of sin and refusal to repent are spot on, But are they consistent with Calvinism This is a blind spot within reformed theology, When they're talking about God's sovereignty, the Calvinist insists that God causually determines man, This is conveniently forgotten when it comes to culpability, Calvinists assert the latter as a brute fact, but it doesnt flow from their view of God's sovereignty, Why is this a problem Consider the following, Calvinists affirm
I. God causually determines all things
ii, God does not causually determine sinful choices
The law of noncontradiction states that A cannot be both A and A at the same time and in the same way.
Yet this is the very trap Calvinists have set for themselves, They have embedded a contradiction at the heart of their theology, Christian apologists sieze these opportunities when they encounter them among the world's religions,

Human inability is the result of human disobedience, Yes!

Personal note: love the headphone illustration

Personal note: My note about the Law of NonContradiction was pretty aggressive, Let me step back. As I reflect on what Calvinists actually believe about free will, they think it comes down to this: If the topic is about God's sovereignty, Calvinists are quick to affirm a Lutheran, Edwardian understanding of causal determinism overlayed with compatiblism.
When the topic turns to human responsibility, they adopt a light libertarianism, As long as the creature cannot choose good but can only opt among evil alternatives, then this is sufficient, So Calvinists arent contradictory, only inconsistent,

learning that we cannot save ourselves is an indispensable first step in our salvation

Orricks Chapter on depravity could have been written by an Arminian.


Unconditional election: “The Bible teaches that before God had created anyone or anything, he decided that he would choose, or elect, some humans to be his adopted children.
No one deserved this honor God did not foresee any condition in them that prompted him to choose them, so we say that God chose them unconditionally.
God chose or elected them because he wanted to or, to put it another way, it was his will to elect them, ”

Why did the Lord choose you Because he loved you, Why did the Lord love you Because he loves you, ” There was simply no condition in Israel that attracted God to choose them, Is this fair

Fairness does not consist in treating everyone equally fairness consists in giving everyone what he deserves

Personal note: given Orricks annoyance with how Calvinism is often represented, his description of conditional election is unfortunate

Why evangelize given the doctrine of election “We do not believe that the elect will be saved apart from the means that God has appointed.
Rather, God uses his appointed means to save the elect,

Molinism “ God arranges all circumstances so that his elect hear the gospel, believe the gospel, and receive all that is necessary to obtain the inheritance.
“

Orrick lays out some presuppositions, based on an understanding of some passages, that informs his position on unconditional election, I dont find a hefty exposition of faith passages

Peter:, We must take Pharaoh into account when we interpret that verse, It must mean that God is not willing that any of his elect should perish,

If your version of election does not sound unjust to the natural man, it is almost certainly not the version of election we have here in Romans.


Personal note: Orricks comparison of double predestination to foreknowledge is unsatisfying, There is a world of difference between knowing a state of affairs and causing a state of affairs, Case in point. A parent may be aware that a bully is harassing her child at the bus stop, Yet she chooses to let her son walk anyway, She hopes the boy will learn a life lesson on handling these kind of people, But suppose we learn that the mother is paying the bully to beat up her child!

Election to everlasting life is unconditional, but election to eternal punishment is conditional.
God has “endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction” Rom,:. He must be patient with them, because they are rebelling against him, According to the Bible, God does not send anyone to hell because that person is nonelect he sends them to hell because they are sinners who willingly rebel against him.
Excellent

Every human deserves Gods wrath, and God would be just to send all humans to hell, Is it wrong for God to send rebellious sinners to hell Then why would it be wrong for him to plan to do so, This is great.

But if we are going to encounter perplexing mysteries in any system, let us encounter them through embracing what is plainly taught in the Scriptures and not because we are trying to explain away what is plainly taught there

Discretion is not deception, nor is it cowardice.
Jesus recognized that his disciples were not yet ready to receive everything that they needed to know, “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now” John:

Orrick thinks the "efficiency" and "sufficiency" of the atonement are coequal.
I agree that given the Calvinist understanding, this is consistent,

Orrick may be confusing foreknowledge with causation

Ooh, I like Orrick's argument for particular atonement, i Jesus died for all sins ii unbelief is a sin iii Therefore Jesus died for the sin of unbelief iv If God punished Jesus for the sins for which he died, then God will not punish the sinner for that sin v God punished Jesus for the sins for which He died vi Therefore God will not punish the sinner for unbelief.


Orrick says passages about God loving/saving "the world" do not mean universal atonement, World should be taken to mean "gentiles", That is, the point is that Jesus was not only saving Jews, but gentiles as well

“Christ purchased our redemption, but we partake of it only when the Spirit effectively applies it to us by working faith in us and thereby uniting us to Christ in our effectual calling“

As a result of the Spirit's work, the elect freely repent of sin and believe in Christ

Is Orricks point that God uses means to persuade men Even if the outcome is guaranteed, this is not Calvinism.
On Calvinism, regeneration is the means of persuasion,

“Some people erroneously suppose that when God calls a sinner to himself, he does no more than the turkey hunter, Similar to the hunter, God knows how to arrange circumstances skillfully, He knows how to capitalize on our desires for love, for security, and for meaning in life so that we see that these desirable things are found only in him.
He applies his skills of superior intellect, and then he sets up in a good hiding place to see if he can get a sinner to come in to him.
“Personal note: certainly Douberley match what he said in the note above,

Personal note: Orrick has fallen into a trap of his own making, How can God “really mean” a call to salvation on Orricks description of limited atonement God is calling the sinner to accept a provision that God has not supplied.


Personal note: this falls into a pattern Ive seen in Calvinism, One doctrine will be affirmed when its convenient, Then discarded when it no longer works

“Effectual calling is the work of Gods Spirit, whereby, convincing us of our sin and misery, enlightening our minds in the knowledge of Christ, and renewing our wills, he doth persuade and enable us to embrace Jesus Christ freely offered to us in the gospel.
Westminster Shorter Catechism, answer. ” Personal note: if this is all that is meant by effectual call, everyone should believe it,

“Faith is that persuasion of truth which is founded on testimony, ” Hodge. Personal note: there is a problem here, Orrick continually uses this verbiage, Persuade. Convince. “God has provided evidence. ” What do these words mean They entail an interplay between minds, How does this fit with monergism I think Orrick is playing both sides, He uses terms that suggest a classical understanding of faith, He overlays them on Calvinism, The question is, is faith causally determined in the sinner If no, then wherefor is Calvinism

To illustrate, Calvinists see “draw” from Johnas being more like “drag”, If I drag a man through a door, I havent persuaded him, I didnt convince him. I determined him. This speaks to my complaint that the Calvinist is inconsistent, He adopts terms that dont fit the intended meaning, He equivocates when it suits his needs,

“While faith, per se, is a human response, and therefore not a supernatural act, no human ever exercises saving faith apart from the supernatu ral work of God in him.
”

“Faith is a condition of salvation, but faith is not a work”

faith is a passive virtuefaith receives truth,

Personal note: Dr, Orrick has really opened Pandoras box in this last chapter, How is this in any way Calvinism His entire description of faith goes back and forth, Humbly, either Dr. Orrick or yours truly is confused, Hes describing the regenerative work of the spirit in ways every Arminian would celebrate, Persuade. Convince. Provide evidence. Its almost as if an Arminian wrote this book to trick us, Let me be gentle. Im not trying to insult Dr, Orrick.

If God is not sovereign over all, then there are some things, persons, and events that God either cannot or will not control, If that be the case, then future events must be uncertain, Personal note: i dont know an Arminian who would accept this characterization

“If unconditional election is not true, then Christ could not be confident that his work would save anyone”.
Personal note: again. This makes me wonder how much interaction Orrick has had with nonCalvinists


If irresistible grace is not true, then a sinner must be capable of responding to the gospel call, and the work of the Holy Spirit is not really necessary for salvation.
Personal note: this is a really bad nonsequitur and straw man, No Arminian would accept this

Original : I appreciate what Dr, Jim Orrick was trying to do here, Calvinism is rarely spoken of charitably by its detractors, If someone could apply C, S. Lewis's accessibility to the doctrines of grace, it would be helpful, Alas, Orrick has confused a simple presentation for a simplistic one, This is frustrating. He begins the book complaining that Calvinism is often misrepresented and misunderstood, He goes on to misrepresent and misunderstand Arminianism, Arminianists would accept very little of what Orrick attributes to them, Worse, I fear Calvinists would accept little of what Orrick attributes to Calvinism!
,