Of course, many of those who call themselves Christians believe in one of the versions of Calvinism or Arminianism, but these doctrines have been infiltrating the church for a few decades now, also. Brother Daniel Denham called attention to some in the “church” who were teaching Calvinism in his chapter, “Calvinism’s Influence On The Church” (389-410) for the 1994 Bellview Lectures, edited by Bobby Liddell. In 2005 he wrote a similar chapter, “Liberalism and Calvinism” (504-23), for the Bellview Lectures edited by Michael Hatcher. Quotes from these books will be noted by the date and page number.
In the 1994 book, some were already teaching forms of Calvinism. Liberals among us may not have been parroting “the sinful nature,” but they were teaching forms of Calvinism, such as Jack Exum’s insistence, “One hundred percent of salvation is by grace! We don’t deserve any of it. We can’t earn it, buy it, or in any way merit it…” (1994, p. 397). The last two sentences are true. We can’t earn God’s salvation, and truly, we don’t deserve it, but the first sentence is false. Does it occur to anyone else that, if salvation is 100% by grace, then we really don’t need to discuss the matter? It would be 100% up to God to save us; so why bother to even discuss it. God decides if we’re saved or lost and if we will receive His grace or not. Such an idea contradicts Titus 2:11: “For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men.”
The fact is that the offer of grace is 100% God’s doing; whether we receive it or not is 100% our decision. Another quote from Norman L. Bales objects to the idea that “grace is God’s part in salvation and that obedience is man’s part” (1994, p. 400). Again, if salvation is by grace alone, then we have no need to discuss it or try to convince each other concerning which view is correct. If God extends His grace toward us, then we can be saved; otherwise, we are lost.
A few men were teaching, especially in the 70s and 80s, like Richard Oster of Harding Graduate School, that “when one is baptized in water, he then also receives Holy Spirit baptism” (1994, p. 402). Since the mid-90s, Mac Deaver, a former student of the truth, has joined this gaggle of liberals, much to the surprise of most brethren. Rubel Shelly is so in harmony with Calvinistic thinking that he “ridiculed the idea of there being steps in salvation” (1994, p. 403). He continued by quoting someone who has obviously influenced him: “Dead men do not climb ladders.” What he basically means is that, since all people are dead in sin, they cannot climb a ladder of steps leading to salvation. Brother Denham points out that this is not from the Scriptures but from Calvinism’s total depravity and its “grace only” doctrine, adding that “dead men do not have faith either! Dead men do not repent!” (1994, p. 103).
Shelly’s thinking is based on Ephesians 2:1-2, where Paul writes that the Ephesians had been dead in trespasses and sins. Thus, man is unable to respond to God because he is dead. But Shelly teaches we must have faith and repent (2005, p. 520). How? If we are totally dead, then would we not need for God, by His grace, to choose to enable us to respond? Dead men (if Shelly was right about what Paul meant) cannot decide to obey the gospel. Obviously, Paul spoke of something other than what Shelly attributes to him.
The Holy Spirit
Every false doctrine regarding the Holy Spirit may not be linked to Calvinism, but both Calvinism and current errors on the Holy Spirit involve the Spirit operating on us directly. Mac Deaver, for example, has been defending the idea of direct involvement of the Holy Spirit upon man for more than two decades (2005, p. 518). A speaker at Freed-Hardeman just a few years ago took essentially the Deaver position, and Spiritual Perspectives spent three weeks refuting the errors presented at that time. These views are being taught now even in a Ladies’ class book, as the article on the front page notes (“Do Not Quench the Spirit,” August 18, 2019).
The So-Called “Sinful Nature”
Whether or not Pamela Stewart’s comments on the Holy Spirit in her book, Evangelistic Women, are related to Calvinism or not might be debated. What cannot be debated are some of her other comments included in her third chapter, “What Hinders Our Ministry?” Her main thesis is correct—that unrepented sin will keep someone from being an effective Christian. She does not use Psalm 66:18, but that Scripture is certainly relevant: “If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear.”
However, consider the way she tries to establish that truth: “The Holy Spirit can’t live in a body that continually practices a sin, one that is controlled by the sinful nature” (27). What? At this point the reader may be confused. She is talking about Christian women—women who have been washed, sanctified, and justified (1 Cor. 6:11). Yet these women still have a sinful nature, and that sinful nature can still control them! Of course, they never had a sinful nature to begin with, but according to these words, the alleged “sinful nature” does not seem to ever go away.
God did not talk to Cain about a sinful nature. He did not say, “You killed your brother because you were born a fallen man. You will always be a slave to your sinful nature, you poor pathetic human.” No, God told him he had the ability to choose to do right. He could either do right or give in to the enticement of sin and do wrong (Gen. 4:7).
Stewart continues: “Sometimes it is hard to harmonize the marvelous grace God extends to us, who live by the Spirit but sin out of weakness, with a person who is controlled by the sinful nature” (27). Has the author been engulfed with Calvinism or the NIV—or both? Women studying this book might wonder what she is supposed to do about this alleged sinful nature that Christians purportedly have? We are warned against Satan who “walks about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour” (1 Peter 5:8). We know that we must exercise self-control (Gal 5:22-23; 2 Peter 1:5-7) in order to resist him, but exactly what is a Christian supposed to do about this “sinful nature”?
Stewart continues by saying that if the Christian is not practicing sin, God’s grace can cover that. “However, if we are controlled by the sinful nature and our attitude is that God’s grace will cover whatever we do, we are in trouble” (28). This is now the third time in this one paragraph that the writer has invoked the sinful nature. Any woman studying this book should be asking herself, if she believes in this sinful nature, “Hey! How do I get rid of that accursed affliction?”
Unfortunately, there is not much help offered. The writer cites David from Psalm 51 and then advises everyone to repent, be cleansed, and be restored (28). Okay, that is what we would all say, but how does that affect the sinful nature? Christians, in order to become a child of God, already repented and were cleansed. If that didn’t do away with the sinful nature, why will it work any better now?
The only other suggestion involved an illustration of a Christian woman who refused to give up her sin until someone told her, “According to the Scripture, you are committing a willful sin. You won’t go to heaven unless you repent” (28). That’s all it took—one frank, honest statement—and the sinful nature was vanquished! The woman was restored!
The obvious point is that mankind does not need a sinful nature to explain any of these events, and certainly nothing is suggested as a remedy beyond what we have always taught. So why insist that we all have a sinful nature to begin with? Is it intentional—or just from too much immersion in the NIV?
And why did her husband not say anything about these things when she wrote them? Bill Stewart, at the time the book was written, was an instructor at Bear Valley, and Pamela taught “Women’s Ministries and Evangelism” classes. Didn’t any of the women in her class think this teaching was peculiar? Did none of the preachers know anything about this doctrine being taught? Or was it taught to the men, also? What about the faculty members? Do they all agree with her that Christians have a sinful nature, or are they totally unaware of what is being taught? Calvinism seems to be slowly creeping into the church and spreading. When it turns up (quite unnecessarily) in a women’s class book, it is probably later than we think. It seems we are being influenced by denominationalism.
“Power from the Indwelling Holy Spirit”
The above title is the second chapter of Mrs. Stewart’s book. She writes: “When we become Christians, the Father sends His Holy Spirit to indwell us” (15). These words provide no problem because many brethren believe precisely the same thing. However, much more is added. Since the Holy Spirit is living in our hearts, what “greater power could we imagine?” (16). Is that what the Scriptures teach—that the indwelling Spirit provides great power to us?
She writes that non-Christians try to be good on their own with limited success, but “the person who has the indwelling Holy Spirit has the capability to put to death the sinful things” (16). Wait a minute! If it takes the Holy Spirit living within a Christian to put away sinful things, then how do non-Christians repent? After the sinner believes, he repents, which is to put away sinful things. How can the non-Christian do that, but Christians cannot without the help of the Holy Spirit?
Oh, wait. She has an answer to this question: “The decision to put sin to death must be made before baptism (repentance), but the power to so do comes from the Holy Spirit that indwells us” (16). So, we don’t actually change before being baptized; we just make the decision to change. After we are baptized, then we get the power to repent. However, the fact is, if we don’t have the power to change before baptism, then we have not repented. Repentance is not just feeling sorry for our sins (although we need to do that, also), nor is it a promise to change after we get Holy Spirit power.
When Jesus told the Jews, “…unless you repent you will all likewise perish” (Luke 13:3), did He actually mean that they could only intend to repent now but would have to wait until Pentecost to have the power to repent? How did David ever repent without the power of the Holy Spirit? Or Manasseh? Or the prodigal son?
She also writes that “God’s Holy Spirit living in us should make a difference in everything we do: the way we act, the places we go, the way we dress…” (16). If she means the knowledge of the Spirit’s indwelling should cause us to be careful in the way we represent Jesus, most would probably agree—but not if she means that the Holy Spirit is going to cause us to live differently. From other things she writes, it is difficult to understand what she means by this statement.
To be fair, she also credits the Word. Proclaiming the truth that the Word was given by inspiration, she declares that it “gives us everything we need to be powerful women of God” (20). We agree totally, and if she had just written these words, no criticism would have been forthcoming. But what are we to make of all of the verbiage about “the sinful nature” and the power of the Holy Spirit helping us (directly, by implication)? Her views on the Holy Spirit are not necessarily Calvinistic—except that they both hold that the Spirit operates directly upon us. When combined with the “sinful nature” comments, it appears that Calvinism is creeping into the church.