✝ Jesus Follower. Theologian. Teacher. Freewill Baptist. Mutualist. Premill & Pretrib. P. Dispensational. 🫶Passionate about the Unity of Jesus' Church🩸
Canada
Joined March 2009
- Tweets25.7K
- Following1.8K
- Followers2.3K
- Likes18.8K
Pinned Tweet
Good news! With the assistance of Claude, I've been able to collect a bunch of resources and put together an app that you can use to review responses on various texts related to the egalitarian view and a non-Calvinist soteriology. Take a look!
theology-explorer.fly.dev
"Does 'all have sinned' (Ro 3:10-12) mean total depravity?
Ro 1:28 says God 'gave them over' to a depraved mind for rejecting Him. But if He had to give them over, doesn't that imply they didn't start out totally depraved?
What do you think?
I’m getting some pushback that my image doesn’t represent Calvinist teaching. How is this? Is it more accurate?
🤖 Made with AI
1. “Only MEN were created in the image and glory of God”
❌ No. Paul explicitly says both male and female are created in God’s image (Ge 1:27). If you don’t believe this, is every man after Adam a half breed? 🤔
2. “Women were created FOR men”
👍 Well, yes as explicitly the man was lacking and incomplete without her. This doesn’t establish hierarchy since they are one flesh and also every man is born through woman making them interdependent. And she is said to be man’s corresponding helper (Ge 2:18; 1Co 11:9), but Paul immediately balances the creation-order argument: “as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God” (1Co 11:12). “For” does not mean inferior or property.
3. “Women are absolutely the property of their fathers…”
❌ No. The Bible never says women are their fathers’ property or that wives are purchased for 50 shekels. (Ex 21:7) regulates an ancient institution and protects a vulnerable female servant. The fifty shekels in (Dt 22:28–29) is a penalty/obligation imposed upon a man who violated an unmarried woman, not her purchase price.
4. “Women are to obey their husbands…and submit to him as if he is Jesus Himself.”
❌ No. You’ve cited the wrong verse. (1Pe 3:7) commands husbands to honor their wives as “fellow heirs of the grace of life.” Sarah calling Abraham “lord” occurs in (1Pe 3:6), describing her example and is a term of endearment like “sir”; it is not a command for Christian wives to call their husbands “Lord.” And (Eph 5:22) follows “be subject to one another” (Eph 5:21), while husbands are commanded to love their wives sacrificially as Christ loved the church (Eph 5:25) which is an even higher submission calling.
5. “Churches are meant to be a MEN’S CLUB…”
❌ Obviously not! Women prayed and prophesied in the assembled church (1Co 11:5), so (1Co 14:34–35) cannot mean women may never “speak a word.” Paul is quoting from the letter the Corinthians wrote and rebuking those silencing half the church contrary to his commands “For you can *all* prophesy one by one, so that *all* may learn and *all* may be exhorted” (1Co 14:31). As for those who refuse to listen to Paul’s instruction he says “What? came the word of God out from you [men]? or came it unto you [men] only? (1Co 14:36, KJV)
Suggesting church is a boys club is preposterous and demeaning.
6. “Christian women as commanded to wear modest clothes”
✅ Yes. Christian women should dress modestly (1Ti 2:9). So should Christian men. Christian modesty isn’t controversial.
7. “Christian women are commanded to wear a veil…or have their heads shaved”
❌ No. Paul discusses head coverings in (1Co 11:5–6), but concludes that a woman’s long hair has been given to her “for a covering” (1Co 11:15), and then says, “we have no such practice, nor have the churches of God” (1Co 11:16) related to head coverings. Paul says that not even nature teaches you that long hair on a man is a dishonor! (1Co 11:14-15). We see many men in scripture who have long hair including Samson and John the Baptist at the command of God! Num 6 requires both long hair and a shaved head and applies to either a male or a female who enters into a Nazarite vow and so neither is dishonourable. Do you even have any idea why a man with an uncovered head shames Christ? I am willing to bet you have no idea, do you?
1. Only MEN were created in the image and glory of God (1 Corinthians 11:7). Women were created only in the glory of man (1 Corinthians 11:7).
2. Women were created FOR men (1 Corinthians 11:9).
3. Women absolutely are the property of their fathers (Exodus 21:7) until they're married through a purchase from their father valued at 50 shekels of silver (Deuteronomy 22:29).
4. Women are to obey their husbands, even calling him "Lord" (1 Peter 3:7), and submit to him as if he is Jesus himself (Ephesians 5:22).
5. Church is also meant to be a MEN'S CLUB, and women are NOT even allowed to speak a word (1 Corinthians 14:34-35).
6. Christian women are commanded to wear modest clothes (1 Timothy 2:9).
7. Christian women are commanded to wear a veil that covers all their hair or have their heads shaved (1 Corinthians 11:5-6).
Quite the intro song title “The Boy From Geneva” by none other than @The_Idol_Killer youtube.com/live/2g3A8A-vdaU
Ron Henzel says I have “misrepresented” his interpretation, treated it with contempt, and behaved like “swine” trampling the pearls of God’s Word.
Having followed the exchange, how would you characterize my treatment of @ronhenzel’s view?
67%Fairly represented it
0%Fair, but too mocking
22%Misrepresented his view
11%Treated 📖 with contempt
9 votes • Final resultsHere was my last post to Ron.
No, Ron. I rejected your interpretation and challenged its implications. You’re free to say I haven’t adequately answered your exegesis. But if I misrepresented your position, then identify the misrepresentation specifically.
Which of these do you deny?
1. Christ genuinely blood-purchased these unbelievers.
2. He did so without intending that purchase to save them.
3. Their resulting covenant relationship places them under greater liability and condemnation than had they remained outside it.
Those are the propositions I’ve been illustrating, and each is drawn from what you’ve explicitly said.
If one of them misrepresents you, tell me which one and I’ll correct it. But calling your interpretation “pearls” and me “swine” doesn’t identify a misrepresentation; it simply repeats the very conflation I pointed out, that your interpretation is not synonymous with God’s Word.
The sad story of Calvinism for so many people who find out through no fault of their own that they are the non-elect.
🤖 Made with AI
Ryan Schatz retweeted
We get it!
No one but you understands your particular brand of Calvinism.
Maybe you should do better at explaining it, or show a little grace to those first being introduced to arguably the most controversial doctrine throughout church history and that which even Calvin called “a dreadful doctrine.” 🤷♂️
It seems even pastors who admit they are Calvinists and have advanced degrees don’t know what Calvin taught.
In Institutes 3.2.11, Calvin discusses how Scripture can attribute “faith” to people who ultimately perish:
“The reprobate are sometimes affected in a way so similar to the elect, that even in their own judgment there is no difference between them.”
He says Christ therefore ascribes to them “a temporary faith.” He continues:
“The Lord… instills into their minds such a sense of his goodness as can be felt without the Spirit of adoption.”
And then:
“There is nothing inconsistent… with the fact of his enlightening some with a present sense of grace, which afterwards proves evanescent.”
Calvin further explains in his Institutes that evanescent grace may even last for a few years and produce fruit. Not sure how else to see this in Calvinism except as though God is toying with those He never intended to save…
Joey covers even more ground proving this is a pervasive Reformed teaching.
Evanescent grace and “temporary faith” are not ideas invented by critics of Calvinism like @Soteriology101. They appear repeatedly in the Reformed tradition itself.
John Calvin: “There is nothing inconsistent in this with the fact of his enlightening some with a present sense of grace, which afterwards proves evanescent.”
— Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book III, chapter 2, section 11.
Calvin distinguishes this from regeneration and saving faith. His claim is that the reprobate can nevertheless experience an “inferior operation of the Spirit” and a present awareness of God’s grace.
William Perkins taught what he called “temporary faith.” He described the temporary believer as one who “rejoices inwardly” in the Word and “brings forth some kind of fruit,” yet possesses “a faith that will fail in the end.”
— William Perkins, An Exposition of the Creed, in The Works of William Perkins, vol. 5, pp. 10–11.
John Owen likewise taught that some people receive “common gifts and graces of the Spirit,” including “temporary faith,” which are nevertheless “all true and real in their kind.” Owen also described this as a “lower… work of the Spirit” resembling regeneration, while insisting that it is not the saving faith of the elect.
— John Owen, The Doctrine of the Saints’ Perseverance Explained and Confirmed, chapter 1, Works, vol. 11, p. 150.
Francis Turretin wrote: “The latter (temporary faith) depends upon common grace which bestows even on the reprobate certain blessings… spiritual and initial gifts (although not saving).”
— Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Fifteenth Topic, Question XV, section II, vol. 2, p. 588.
Herman Witsius likewise described a “temporary faith” that goes beyond intellectual agreement and “stirs up many emotions in the heart and actions in the life.”
— Herman Witsius, The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man, Book III, chapter VII, sections 28–29.
To be precise, Calvin, Perkins, Owen, Turretin, and Witsius did not all use the phrase “evanescent grace.” Calvin used that language. Later Reformed writers more commonly spoke of temporary faith, common grace, common gifts of the Spirit, or a lower work of the Spirit.
But the underlying doctrine is clearly present: a non-elect person may experience real spiritual illumination, religious affection, joy, faith-like response, and even observable fruit through an operation of the Spirit, while never possessing the saving and persevering faith given to the elect.
Whatever one thinks of the doctrine, it should not be dismissed as a caricature of historic Calvinism. It is found in the writings of some of the most important theologians in the Reformed tradition. I’m sorry that such information has been hidden from some 😉
Is there any possibility that the text means what it says?
Ah, but there’s the problem: if people Christ bought can later deny Him and perish, a Calvinist premise fails. So apparently “bought” can’t mean bought.
But Peter says exactly that:
“There will be false teachers among you… even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction” (2Pe 2:1).
Peter does not say they professed to be bought, appeared to be bought, were regarded by the church as bought, or merely joined the outward community of the bought.
He says:
“the Master who bought them.”
Compare Paul:
“You were bought with a price; do not become bondservants of men” (1Co 7:23).
And the appeal to Dt 32:6, while creative, doesn’t establish the proposed distinction. It actually illustrates Peter’s point:
“Do you thus repay the LORD,
You foolish and unwise people?
Is He not your Father who has bought you?
He has made you and established you” (Dt 32:6).
Moses isn’t saying Israel was only apparently bought. He is rebuking Israel precisely because their response to God is utterly inconsistent with what God actually did for them.
Did God’s cheque bounce? Did His Visa say “DECLINED”? Did He tap His phone but forget to activate His wallet?
No. He bought them. They rebelled.
Their subsequent rebellion doesn’t turn God’s prior acquisition into an imaginary transaction.
In fact, the OT background reinforces Peter’s point:
People genuinely acquired by God can rebel against the God who acquired them and come under judgment.
Nor does Dt 29:4 change this:
“But to this day the LORD has not given you a heart to understand or eyes to see or ears to hear” (Dt 29:4).
Their spiritual condition doesn’t erase what God had objectively done in acquiring them as His people.
And Peter certainly doesn’t say the church considered them bought. The grammatical subject doing the purchasing is the Master:
δεσπότην … ἀγοράσαντα αὐτούς
despotēn … agorasanta autous
“the Master … having bought them.”
The Master did the buying.
They did the denying.
They brought destruction upon themselves.
And you can take that to the bank.
🤖 Made with AI
Here was @ronhenzel’s post
What Peter means by false teachers “even denying the Master who bought them” in 2 Peter 2:1, @ryanschatz, can be summed up as follows:
1. Like Old Testament Israel (Ex 15:16; cf. Dt 32:6 KJV, RV, ASV), they were outwardly “bought” out of the pagan world into the visible covenant community, enjoying its temporal privileges despite lacking internal regeneration (Dt 29:4).
2. Visibly, they professed to be Christians and were treated as blood-bought members by the church on the basis of that profession—the same way Simon the Sorcerer (Acts 8:9-24) and those who displayed a spurious, outward faith because of miracles (Jn 2:23-25) were.
3. So, they experienced a superficial moral reformation, “escaping the defilements of the world” (2 Pet 2:20) since through the external ministry of the Gospel they were temporarily delivered from pagan vices. Yet, being unregenerate, they ultimately returned to their old vomit (2:22), committing high treason against the Sovereign Master whose ownership they falsely claimed to honor.
4. So, assuming they never repent, they will clearly not be saved in the end (2Pet 2:2-22; Jude 4, 8, 10-16).
Ryan Schatz retweeted
A clear statement that the blood of Christ wasn’t just shed for the elect, as Calvinism presupposes—But also for those who commit the unpardonable sin of “trampling underfoot the Son of God”
Why would the Holy Spirit be outraged if an extraordinary offer wasn’t refused?
Ryan Schatz retweeted
While it is easy to be swayed by our feelings, it can also be just as easy to read something into scripture that it is not saying. As the saying goes, "A text taken out of its context becomes a pretext for a prooftext."
What is the context of 1Tim 2:12? What was Paul's purpose?+
And now truth is by a 75-25 vote. We know God forbade women because, well, the SBC voted on it and of the 69% who bothered to vote, 75% agreed. Slow clap guys.
Ryan Schatz retweeted
In 1Tim2:12, Paul does not use exousia, the standard Greek word for neutral or legitimate authority, which appears over 100x in the NT. Instead, he chooses authentein, a rare word (a hapax legomenon) that occurs only 1x in the entire NT.
That said, as far as I can tell, the patriarchalist/comp reading of the passage depends on treating authentein as ordinary, neutral authority. But the evidence that it means something different is strong.
First, if Paul had intended to prohibit women from exercising any ordinary form of authority in relation to men, he had a clear, common, & unambiguous word available: exousia. He chose not to use it.
Second, John Chrysostom (an early church father & native Greek speaker) used authentein to warn husbands against acting like despots/tyrants over their wives. He is not alone. Historical usage in other sources also reflects domineering, coercive, or even violent uses of power.
This creates a serious problem for those who claim the verse clearly & permanently bars women from teaching or leading men. If authentein refers to a domineering or oppressive kind of authority, then Paul is not forbidding women from exercising authority itself. He is forbidding a sinful, abusive version of it, one that he would condemn in men as well. In that case, Paul is correcting a particular situation in the church, not laying down a permanent rule against women teaching or leading.
This is not a small issue. If their reading of authentein is wrong, then this is not a harmless exegetical mistake. It means they have been defending & advancing a doctrine in the name of God/Scripture that, in practice, oppresses God’s daughters.