Join Michael Patton, Tim Kimberley and Sam Storms as they continue their series “An Invitation to Calvinism.”

Summary: During this broadcasts the hosts discuss the second point in the TULIP acronym: Unconditional Election.


Other ways to get TUP:

C Michael Patton
C Michael Patton

C. Michael Patton is the primary contributor to the Parchment and Pen/Credo Blog. He has been in ministry for nearly twenty years as a pastor, author, speaker, and blogger. Find him on Patreon Th.M. Dallas Theological Seminary (2001), president of Credo House Ministries and Credo Courses, author of Now that I'm a Christian (Crossway, 2014) Increase My Faith (Credo House, 2011), and The Theology Program (Reclaiming the Mind Ministries, 2001-2006), host of Theology Unplugged, and primary blogger here at Parchment and Pen. But, most importantly, husband to a beautiful wife and father to four awesome children. Michael is available for speaking engagements. Join his Patreon and support his ministry

    14 replies to "Theology Unplugged: Invitation to Calvinism – Part 7"

    • Dr Michael

      Great audio. But it’s very frustrating when people don’t quote Matt. 23:37 correctly. Arminians will intentionally misquote this verse to prove their point. It’s “your children” that Jesus longs to gather. There are the Jewish leaders Jesus has been addressing and there are the “children”, the people, of Jerusalem. When interpreted correctly, there is a lot less tension in this verse than what appears.

    • david carlson

      I look forward to the discussion on limited atonement, a.k.a. defending the indefensible.

    • Ron

      “Arminians will intentionally misquote this verse to prove their point”

      Kindly demonstrate that “Arminians” misquote this verse intentionally.

    • Arminian

      Mt 23:37 militates against Calvinism. James White’s interpetation is untenable, followed by virtually no modern commentators. This article by Ben Henshaw explains the issue and the problem with White’s interpretation:

      Arminians don’t misquote the verse; they merely appeal to the same understanding of it the vast majority of scholars have held throughout history. In the Bible, Jerusalem is a standard way of referring to the people of the city, in line with the general practice of referring to the people of any city by the city’s name, not the leaders of the city. It may be that the leaders are especially in view at times, including Mt 23:37, but not to the exclusion of the people. Most commentators don’t even consider such a view because it is so unlikely and obviously wrong, out of sync with actual biblical usage. But even if were right, Henshaw explains why the vs would still counter C

    • Dr Michael

      Ron said, “Kindly demonstrate that “Arminians” misquote this verse intentionally.”

      How many proofs would you like Ron? Here are a couple to start on:

      Exhibit A: Look at this one closely, at 2:04 what Geisler says and what’s on the screen are both misquoted! Where did they get that misquote, as all translations that I’m aware of have “your children”.

      Exhibit B: Dave Hunt

      Exhibit C: President of Fuller Theological Seminary

      Exhibit D: Jack Graham of the SBC misquotes the verse against Calvinism.

    • Dr Michael

      @Arminian, they clearly do misquote the verse, as shown by all the evidence above and more. Clearly “you” and “your children” do not equate to the same person or group of people. The last 2/3’s of Matt. 23 is directed at the scribes and Pharisees. Also, keep in mind what Jesus says in 23:13. This is important when exegeting 23:37.

      So let’s be reasonable. The use of “you” and “your children” show there are two different groups in view here, yet when Arminians use this verse against Calvinists, they leave out “your children” and replace it with “you”. If it didn’t matter, why leave it out?

    • Ron

      “If it didn’t matter, why leave it out?”

      Why do Calvinists also leave it out? People just paraphrase the passage like they do many others. I’m sure a lot of the time it’s just carelessness. Unfortunately, Evangelical scholarship is often characterized by sloppiness– I notice it all the time when it comes to issues I’m particularly interested in.

      You and other Calvinists notice it when it happens here for obvious reasons. You still haven’t demonstrated that the misquotes are intentional, which is what I asked for.

    • Susan

      Sam said some good things, but I wish he would have spent more of that three minutes actually speaking the gospel as one would want to speak it to a nonbeliever. He didn’t actually spend much time telling the gospel (but rather he mostly talked ABOUT the gospel). For instance, it would have been helpful if he had explained what Christ’s death on the cross accomplished and why it was necessary.

    • Susan

      Ooops! I posted my comment on the wrong thread!!……transferring to the ‘gospel in three minutes’…..

    • Arminian

      DrM said: “they clearly do misquote the verse, as shown by all the evidence above and more”

      Obviously you can find some Arminians misquoting the vs, but that doesn’t mean all or even many Arms do. I would think you could find some Calvinists misquoting it too. In fact, one of the links you provide is about a Calvinst misquoting the vs! Moreover, many may be paraphrasing, as Ron points out, and it is an accurate paraphrase. See below.

      DrM said: “Clearly “you” and “your children” do not equate to the same person or group of people”

      No, that is what careful exegesis actually shows to be false. See my previous post. Since the names of cities like Jerusalem were routinely used in the Bible to refer to the people of the cities, and in Mt 23:37 Jerusalem is personified as a figure for the people, “your children” also refers to the people of the city. Cf. Rev 12, in which the people of God are personified as a woman, and the people of God are then referred to as her offspring

    • Ed Kratz

      Dr. Michael,

      I removed some of the links you posted to James White’s blog.

      He holds to views which extend beyond the scope of historic Calvinism.

      As a result, I don’t want the comment section here to be used to point to his blog as if it were a valid referent for explaining issues within Calvinism.

    • Susan

      Here’s a good look at the question, How do you know if you’re saved? (from a Calvinist perspective). I appreciate his clear gospel proclamation. By Justin Taylor:

    • Ron

      Susan, that was not written by Justin Taylor; he merely reprinted it on his blog.

      The author is deeply confused in a number of places. I find it humorous that he lists eternal torment (“others will spend eternity in hell”) an essential belief (i.e. if you don’t believe it, you’re not saved).

    • Brother Stumblefoot

      Dr. Michael and Arminian-

      Come on guys, you’re missing the whole point. An evangelical universal reconciliation of all men reduces the
      Cal/arm debate to near zero. Snoopy is barking up the wrong tree. Brother Stumblefoot

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.