Transparent heart icon with white outline and + sign.

Life's busy, read it when you're ready!

Create a free account to save articles for later, keep track of past articles you’ve read, and receive exclusive access to all RP resources.

White magnifying glass.

Search thousands of RP articles

Articles, news, and reviews that celebrate God's truth.

Open envelope icon with @ symbol

Get Articles Delivered!

Articles, news, and reviews that celebrate God's truth. delivered direct to your Inbox!



Pornography

How to lock your phone from pornography… 101

A taste of Into the Light Ministries’ TechSafe series

*****

Always lock the doors.” As a boy, this teaching served me well. We lived in a place with frequent break-ins, so the danger was real and present. We only had four doors in our home so “Always lock the doors” was an easy command to follow. Teaching us this was part of what my parents did to protect our home. And protecting the home front is what loving parents do, right?

But in 2025, there are new kinds of dangers. The most dangerous doorway into your house is no longer through your front entrance – it’s in your pocket. It is in our children’s pockets and hands. And there are often hundreds of doorways to pornography on your phone. It takes time and energy to find, monitor, and lock all of these.

I’m here to help. In this article, I will show you how to lock down your phones, protect yourself and your children, and live with a phone to the glory of God. Here are eight key steps that will make your devices far safer.

Step 1: Learn the phone

Think about how often you use your phone. Have you ever asked what a phone is? Have you ever asked how information gets to your phone?

Simply put, a smartphone is an information machine. Any time you use your phone to watch a video, listen to music, or read an article you are receiving video and audio information. But information can come into a phone through Wi-Fi, data, Bluetooth, the phone's camera, and other means. Each one of these represents a unique doorway into your device and, therefore, your home. And since smartphones can fit in your pocket, they are designed to be personal and private. Statistics show that most pornography is accessed on a smartphone.

What does this mean? You need to get to know your device. You do not need to be a tech wizard, but you do need to be generally familiar with it.

Step 2: Control Wi-Fi

The main way information enters the phone is through Wi-Fi. Every app on your phone uses Wi-Fi to access the internet to obtain whatever information it needs, whether that's Spotify to stream music or Google to find a new recipe.

We sometimes think of the internet as something that is in our home, but it’s not. The internet is way out in the wide world. We access the internet through our internet service providers (ISP), and we connect to the internet providers through Wi-Fi. How does that Wi-Fi get to our devices? A router.

A router makes Wi-Fi so that all your devices can connect to the internet. Without a router, your Wi-Fi could not travel from the wire in the wall, through the air, and into your phone. Your wireless devices couldn’t connect to the World Wide Web. The router creates a Wi-Fi signal and carries the internet service through the Wi-Fi signal to every part of your house so that all your devices can connect to the internet.

This access to the internet can be used for good, such as searching for a new recipe or for a used car on Facebook marketplace. It can also be used for evil, such as searching for pornography. Normal routers carry all of this information to your phone indiscriminately of what is good and what is evil.

A smart router, on the other hand, will monitor, filter, and (if necessary) block this content before it even sends it out over the Wi-Fi. This smart router will let that recipe reach any device that searches for it, but it might block Facebook for some of the younger teens' phones while allowing it for the parents’ phones. Best of all, it will block pornography for all devices, entirely. So your second step to locking doors on your phone is to buy a smart router like Bark or Gryphon to have powerful router-level monitoring, blocking and filtering tools.

If you want more information on routers, we have an entire video on this in the TechSafe router series.

Step 3: Install Covenant Eyes

Wi-Fi-level router monitoring systems are amazing, but they only work while on Wi-Fi. When a phone is not in your home or not on your Wi-Fi network, these smart routers can’t filter anything for you. This is why an accountability system that stays on the device at all times is essential. So step three is to install accountability software to monitor, filter, and block content on the smartphone device.

We recommend you install Covenant Eyes. This accountability software helps you keep your kids or yourself accountable to what is viewed online. It even sends reports to any ally of choice. Covenant Eyes enables you to block specific websites or apps that you don’t want your child browsing on, ranging from explicit websites to even benign websites that may waste time.

To learn how to set up and install Covenant Eyes on your phone, go to CovenantEyes.com, and they will walk you through the entire process. You can try it out and get your first month free by using the code: INTOTHELIGHT.

Step 4: Assess apps

In steps one through three, you have increased your security for the whole house, but there are many doors still left open on individual devices. The most common danger points show up in a phone's apps.

Apps are just roads to get you to the information you want to view, receive, or send. While some apps can be monitored by accountability software, some cannot. An app with open access to the internet that is not monitored, filtered, or blocked is simply too risky to leave unattended.

It is vital to go through all the apps on the phone and delete any that are unnecessary or could be a road to access explicit content. If you see apps that you or your child don’t need, then delete them! There are also app categories like social media, dating, or streaming services that are very dangerous to have on a device. Unless you or your child have demonstrated significant levels of self-control, these apps should not be on the phone. They often provide direct access to explicit material through their internal browsers.

Other app types like gaming or messaging can be dangerous for other reasons, like getting sent inappropriate pictures, being groomed by a predator, or seeing sexually provocative ads after a game. This is why every app must be assessed and reviewed before leaving it on your or your child's device. It will take some serious time to work through each app, testing links, looking for chat boxes, watching for ads, and assessing any other potential danger points, but it is worth it!

Step 5: Set up parental controls

Finally, step five is to set up parental controls. Many apps and phones have parental controls built into the phone – these are good and powerful tools. See our video on video smartphones to learn more about these parental controls and to find links to the websites of the specific devices you use.

What do parental controls do? Why are they helpful in protecting yourself and your home?

They keep you from losing all the work you did in step four. Without parental controls on the device level, locking down the app store or play store, the deleted apps can just be redownloaded!

Most phones have parental or screen time controls built in that allow you to disable the app store with a password that only you know. You can also set time limits for games or communication apps, set age-level content restrictions, block in-app purchases, and set device-specific downtime. For example, if you don't think that your children should be on their devices past 10:00 pm, you can set that up through parental controls on their devices.

Many of these parental controls can be found in the settings portion of the phone itself, or have their own accompanying app that can go on your phone, so you can monitor, block, and filter your child's phone from afar. Remember, these parental controls are not designed for tech wizards, they are made for you.

Step 6: Consider other devices

If you’ve not guessed it already, smartphones are complex and very difficult to lock down. They are very powerful devices, which make them powerful to accomplish good… but also evil. Because of this, you might want to question whether or not you or your child needs a smartphone. Step six, consider “dumbphones” and “child phones.”

On the outside, dumbphones look very similar to smartphones, but their operating system is hyper-minimalistic. They have black and white screens and only a handful of features like calling, text, GPS, and a few other basic functions. That's it.

Many adults love dumbphones because they are distraction-free. But because they are so limited, they are also a safe option for your child’s first phone. It's literally impossible to surf the internet on a dumbphone, unlike some old-school flip phones. We recommend looking at the LITE Phone and the WISE Phone. A quick Google search will bring you to their website, and you can also get a small discount on your order when you use the code: INTOTHELIGHT.

If the temptation to pornography or to doomscroll Instagram is an active struggle in your life, then you should consider a dumbphone or child phone.

Step 7: Change rhythms and rules

While all of these “tech” solutions are essential to making a smartphone safe to use, they are only one-half of the conversation. You need to think through household rhythms and rules that will bolster your ability to keep an eye on things and protect yourself. If your children want a particular app, allow them to make a case for it, and then evaluate together the dangers and benefits of the app.

Here is a list of ideas to get your brain working on the patterns you might want to put in place for your home. While this list isn’t comprehensive, it is a good place to start.

  1. No phones in the bedroom: personal devices need to be used in a common area in the house.
  2. Device curfew: All devices in the home get turned off at nine or ten at night. You can also have all devices charging in the kitchen overnight, even friends' devices.
  3. All apps, software, and media need to be approved by you, the parent, or your spouse before being downloaded or watched.
  4. You, not your children, own the devices in the home, and you have the authority to check on those devices as needed. Let your children know that you might look at their apps or search history from time to time.
  5. If there is a particular way you want your children to act with their smartphone, make sure you model that yourself.
  6. If you have children, invite your older children into the conversation. These ideas should just be a start to get your mind thinking.

Ultimately you know what's best for your home. Spend some time in prayer asking the Lord for wisdom as you set up rules for your house. If you are married, make sure you do this with your spouse.

Step 8: Rinse and repeat because it’s worth it

Step eight is to rinse and repeat. Imagine if you only locked your house’s doors one day in the year. You might say to yourself, “Alright, everything is safe and locked up!” Of course, this does not account for the other 364 days of the year or the regular unlocking that happens over time. The same is true for smartphones. This “how to” is not a one-time, fix-all solution. Rather, it’s a roadmap to a lifestyle change. And thankfully, God addresses the very work you’re doing here.

In Matthew 5, Jesus teaches us how to handle these temptations to sin – radical danger calls for radical measures. He says, “If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell.” Of course, Jesus does not want you to literally tear your eyes out. Rather, He wants you to take the necessary steps to protect yourself from sin. Where temptation is present, radical measures are necessary. In fact, the way Jesus describes the dangerous result of indulging in sin – which is the eternal judgment of God – makes radical measures appear normal, even necessary. In fact, to Jesus losing an eye is nominal compared to losing your whole body. If you are tempted to sin with your phone, Jesus is calling you to tear out your right eye by locking down the doorways to sin on your phone.

Be encouraged, Jesus never calls His people to do something without providing the grace to do it.

Conclusion

Whew. That’s a lot. We understand how overwhelming this can be, but be encouraged – the fact that you are reading this article shows that you have the desire to make changes and protect your family.

May God bless your efforts to secure your home, raise children of integrity, and glorify Him supremely.

Where can I get more help?

This article is a taste of what we’re doing at TechSafe, a tutorial series for protecting every device in your home. The help doesn’t stop with just your phone; we’ve also tackled your computer, tablets, Smart TVs, gaming consoles, routers, VR headsets and more. And we have a separate tutorial for each one.

So now you don’t have to be a tech wizard to protect your home! Whether you are a parent wanting to safeguard your family, a struggler seeking to cut off access, or a pastor looking to equip your church, this series is for you. These tutorials will equip you to safely live with and enjoy your technology to the glory of God.

Let us walk you through this complicated process on our website, where we will provide everything you need to know about every device that you own. It’s all at IntoTheLightMinistries.ca/TechSafe – we will ask you for your name and email, but that’s it. It’s all free.



News

9 reasons you should go to the Calgary Study Weekend this August

Calgary Study Weekend – it’s likely been a minute since you’ve heard that name, especially if you live outside of Alberta! So, who are we, and why should you (or your child) be interested in attending

Calgary Study Weekend (CSW) actually dates back to 1988! It was started by the Young People’s Society of the Calgary Canadian Reformed Church. Throughout the years, and with God’s blessing, this Bible study weekend has grown, and in 2021, we began hosting two weekends.

The first weekend, or “The Original,” is for youths ages 16 to 19, and the dates this year are August 21-25.

The second is designed for those over 19 and in the “College and Careers” era of their lives. Dates are August 14-18.

What's it like?

The weekend kicks off on Thursday evening with registration and icebreakers coordinated by the hosts of the weekend. Our hosts are young people from the Calgary congregation who will serve as leaders and tour guides for the attendees. The counselors lead campers each night in devotions and discussions, fostering mentorship between generations of believers.

Praising our God with instruments and songs is a significant element of the Calgary Study Weekend. It is assisted by campers with musical abilities who have volunteered to play piano, guitar, and lead the singing. Praise and Worship is held multiple times throughout the weekend and is a highlight for many of our campers.

Beyond speeches and sporting events, once the scheduled portion of the day has finished, campers spend the evening in a variety of activities. These include sitting around the campfire, singing songs, playing games (including life-size Dutch Blitz!), and having intense theological discussions that go well into the night.

Calgary CanRef Church has always been a transient, “small engine that could” type of church/school community. So why would our Reformed Christian camp be any different?

9 reasons to go

Our goal is to foster Christian growth and friendships in a much more intimate setting. But why should you be tempted to attend a smaller “camp” when there are larger conferences that boast of many other opportunities? Attending a small Reformed Christian camp offers several unique benefits that can deeply impact your spiritual growth, community connection, and personal development. Here are a few reasons why it could be a great choice for you (or your child):

  1. Intimate community: a small camp foster close-knit communities where relationships are more personal and meaningful. You get to know the campers and chaperones on a deeper level, which can lead to stronger bonds and accountability. It's easier to form lasting friendships and have genuine discussions about faith and life.
  2. Opportunity for personal growth: In a smaller setting, you have more opportunities for personal reflection and spiritual growth. The counselors are often able to spend more one-on-one time with campers, providing mentorship and guidance specific to your struggles and questions.
  3. Intentionality in activities: The activities at CSW are chosen with a purpose: whether it's speeches, Bible study, outdoor activities (go spikeball!), or praise + worship sessions, we always aiming to build character, encourage teamwork, and facilitate spiritual development.
  4. Supportive environment: CSW provides a more supportive and nurturing atmosphere. You'll find a group of people who genuinely care about each other's well-being, spiritually, emotionally, and mentally. It’s a place where you can feel safe, understood, and encouraged.
  5. Experiencing God's creation: CSW is set in a natural environment that invites reflection on God’s creation. This provides an excellent opportunity for quiet moments with God, whether during a hike, a campfire, or gazing at the stars.
  6. Faithful worship: On Sunday, we worship together with God’s people at the Calgary Canadian Reformed Church. In between the services all attendees are split into groups, and are hosted by a Calgary family; where the fellowship, mentorship, and fun continue (besides, who doesn’t love Dutch meatball soup)!
  7. Clear biblical foundation: Since it’s a Reformed Christian camp, CSW will have a strong commitment to Biblical authority and Reformed doctrine. You can come to this camp knowing that you have the same foundational beliefs as the person beside you. We are grounded in Scripture and theology.
  8. Lasting impact: The experiences and lessons you learn at a small Reformed Christian camp are often more impactful and memorable because of the personal setting. Many people leave with a deeper commitment to their faith, lasting friendships, and a clearer understanding of God’s calling in their life.
  9. Cost: last but not least! We love that we can offer all of this at a reasonable cost! Summer is “hay-making” season for most of you, and taking time off work is a big deal. In addition to this, we’ve structured the camp to be over a weekend, so your boss doesn’t have to get annoyed when you ask him for too much vacation time.

While the weekend itself has changed and adapted to the times over the years, one thing remains certain: it is a time focused on growth in the gospel and establishing friendships with believers across the country in a relaxed and God-glorifying atmosphere.

You can find out more about us at our website.

We hope to see you there!


Today's Devotional

April 25 - Joyful affliction

“The afflicted shall eat and be satisfied; those who seek him shall praise the LORD! May your hearts live forever!” - Psalm 22:26 

Scripture reading: Deuteronomy 24:19-22

The joy in this section of the psalm is such that all are blessed by it. Verse 26 affirms this as it speaks of the afflicted eating of this and being satisfied by it. This is something >

Today's Manna Podcast

Manna Podcast banner: Manna Daily Scripture Meditations and open Bible with jar logo

The Means of Grace: The Heidelberg Catechism

Serving #823 of Manna, prepared by Jake Torenvliet, is called "The Means of Grace" (The Heidelberg Catechism).











Red heart icon with + sign.
Theology

The sovereignty of God

Despite it being proclaimed as “back” by no less than Time magazine, Calvinism is not well-regarded by most Western Christians and particularly Americans. Calvinism does not, after all, fit the America mantra of “choice, choice and more choices.” Even to us, we can see that the much better theological fit for this type of thinking is certainly Arminianism. Of course we shouldn’t be so very concerned about what type of theology best fits with our culture's thinking, but should instead be seeking out what sort of theology best fits God’s revealed Word – we’re concerned with what is True, not what is popular. So what is true then, Calvinism or Arminianism? Well, both the core, and the most controversial element of Calvinism is the belief in God’s absolute sovereignty – He rules over all, including us, and the choices we make. In Arminianism the limits of salvation are based fundamentally on human responses – God invites us, and we decide whether we want to “let Jesus into our hearts.” Arminians hold that all people are sufficiently enabled to accept the gospel, if they’ll just decide to do so. Consequently, Arminianism tends to overestimate human ability. This debate is therefore basically about the relationship between divine action on the one hand, and human responsibility on the other, in salvation and history. Arminian critique of Calvinism Arminians are extremely critical of the Calvinist view of salvation. Some claim that, to be consistent, a Calvinist needs to be a thoroughgoing determinist – a fatalist even. They caricature Calvinists as believing, “God will do what He will do, and has already decided who He will save, so it doesn’t matter what we do.” We Calvinists, therefore, are hard-pressed to give an account for sin and evil in a way that is morally plausible. If God determines everything that happens, then it is hard to see why there is so much sin and evil in this world and why God is not responsible for it. If God determined all things, including our choices, surely He would not determine the sort of evil and atrocities that we have witnessed in history? Arminians charge that Calvinists can't make coherent sense of our claim that God makes a bona fide offer of salvation when he tells us to “repent and believe!” Furthermore, Arminians consider God's sovereignty over human affairs is a threat to human freedom and responsibility. They claim that the doctrine of election casts God in the role of an arbitrary despot who is indifferent to human choice. Arminians also claim that Calvinism offers the false hope of “once chosen, always chosen.” They caricature God’s predestination of the elect as a warrant to sin, since if you are elect, you will always remain elect, no matter what you do. Calvinism is said to lack the clear warrant to speak the most liberating word of encouragement available for persons struggling with their faith and doubt. How can anyone have assurance of salvation if you don't know whether or not you belong to the elect? Limiting the sovereignty of God It’s clear then that the dispute between Calvinism and Arminianism represents starkly opposing theological views, at the heart of which are profoundly different views of God. Though an emphasis on the sovereignty of God is frequently associated solely with Calvinism, it’s not unusual to hear Arminians also speaking about God’s supreme power and authority, and how He controls all things. That’s because Arminian pastors preach from the very same Bible we have, and there is no avoiding the conspicuous theme running through the Scriptures that God rules over all. Thus the Arminian’s objection to the doctrine of sovereignty arises not from the Bible, but rather from man’s basic dislike for this disturbing and humbling aspect of God's character. If God is in charge, we aren’t, and we don’t like that. An evangelical theologian claims that the kingly model for understanding God's authority is out-of-date. In our democratic times, he argues, it is more understandable and easier to comprehend God as Parent or as Friend, or even as Judge. We may call God Stronghold, Shield and Savior, but not King. I suggest that the wide variety of contemporary formulations of God to redefine His sovereignty are the direct result of denying a knowledge of God through His self-revelation in the Scriptures. So in evangelical sermons we seldom hear of God's demand for total submission to the authority of His appointed king, Christ Jesus. Another practical result of refusing to recognize God as the sovereign Lord over all is to carefully exclude Him from the decision-making institutions of our national life. If He is sovereign over all, then it’s clear there is no excluding Him from anything we do. But if we won’t acknowledge that, then we can pretend it is possible to exclude Him from certain parts of our life – we can kick Him out of our schools and workplace, and separate not just church from state, but God from government. Our limited minds So is God's sovereignty limited?  Absolutely not! The Bible everywhere declares that God is sovereign. All creation, from the falling of the smallest raindrop to the fate of the nations is in His hands and has a place in His plan.  As someone puts it, "Scripture contains no hint that God has limited his sovereignty in any degree. God is Lord, from Genesis 1 to Revelation 22.  He is always completely sovereign." Can we logically explain this doctrine?  As James Montgomery Boice notes, "We may not understand that doctrine.  We may still wonder why God tolerates sin.  But still we won't doubt the doctrine nor retreat from its consequences." This doctrine gives meaning and substance to all other doctrines. "It is," as Arthur Pink observes, "the foundation of Christian theology." But God's sovereignty also means we must acknowledge Christ as King over every sphere of human activity, over the entire domain of human life, whether in education, politics, or business. And if God is not sovereign, how can we then believe in the fulfillment of prophecy? God is fully sovereign. He is active in all events and He always accomplishes His will. He assures us that the world in which we live is not chaotic, without a future. Instead it is under His fatherly control.  He rules history and guides it to its goal. He restores and renews all things. He is the God who will one day consummate earthly judgment and redemption through the returning risen and ascended Savior. Sovereignty of God in salvation In Reformed theology God's sovereignty is the ground of predestination and election, and God's glory the chief goal of His decrees. The doctrine of election permeates and controls the whole Bible.  From the beginning of the Bible to its end we are presented with the story of a universal purpose carried out through a continuous series of particular choices.  For example, Abraham is chosen to be the pioneer of faith and so to receive the blessing through which all the nations will be blessed. The ground of election is not in those who are chosen, but in God Himself. The Bible states explicitly that God chose the redeemed "according to the good pleasure of His will" (Eph. 1:5).  While not coercing the will, God irresistibly and effectively draws the elect to faith. Without God reaching out to us, we would never become members of God's family.  On our own, we would not even think about the need for salvation.  We are sinful by nature. Sin is the wrong orientation of all human existence since Adam's fall, an orientation from which no one can free himself. The sinful inclination inherited from Adam pervasively impacts every area of our lives and bends every faculty toward the self and away from God.  As C.H. Spurgeon notes: "There is hardly any doctrine more humbling than that of human depravity or original sin...The evil nature of man brings with it the fact that his will is altogether perverted." God's gracious election, however, does not take away the need for individual  repentance and faith in Christ.  God's sovereignty is a reality, and man's responsibility is a reality too. God surely demands accountability for our actions (e.g. Acts 2:23).  In other words, when a sinner is saved, all the glory belongs to God; when a sinner is lost, the sinner must take all the blame. The blessings of sovereignty The Bible presents the doctrine of God's sovereignty as a source of great comfort and blessing to the saints.  The evil in our life is real evil; our suffering is real suffering. But God is still in control and has a good purpose in all of it, even though we probably cannot see it now. Knowing that God is sovereign provides a deep sense of security.  Christians will persevere in faith until the very end, when Jesus returns in glory or when they die.  God perseveres with them (l Pet.  5:10). The assurance that we will reach our eternal home gives us courage to keep walking with the Lord. Rev. Johan Tangelder (1936-2009) wrote for Reformed Perspective for 13 years and many of his writing has been collected at ReformedReflections.org....

two book covers
Red heart icon with + sign.
Adult non-fiction, Theology

Calvinist vs. Arminian: a tale of two books

Why revisit the debate between Arminianism and Calvinism? Isn't it a waste of precious time to discuss these differences even as the world is aflame with political unrest? No, this is a debate that should always generate interest and discussion. Dr. J. I. Packer once observed that the very terms Calvinism and Arminianism represent opposition: “The words are defined in terms of the antithesis, and the point is pressed that no Christian can avoid being on one side or the other." Arminianism had considerable influence in Anglo-American theological developments and, on the surface, Calvinism might seem to have lost the battle in the theatre of American evangelicalism. Many evangelicals even believe that Calvinism is “irrelevant.” They say, “Christianity cannot possibly teach that.” With a commitment to egalitarianism and the rejection of the traditional doctrine of original sin, American culture is receptive to Arminianism. The Arminian emphasis on individualism and self-determination dominated much of 20th century American evangelicalism. Billy Graham, for instance, uses the language of Arminianism in his crusades when he asks attendees to "make a decision for Christ" – language that Calvinists find utterly foreign to their understanding of salvation. Revival of Calvinism So it seems clear that Calvinism does not fit the American ideal. Why would anyone be a Calvinist then? The reason is quite simple. The gospel of Jesus Christ is countercultural. Perhaps this is why Calvinism seems to appeal to young people, especially college students. There is also a renewed interest in Calvinism among the Southern Baptists, the largest Protestant denomination in the United States. What is at stake? But why should we know the differences between Calvinism and Arminianism? Because they represent stark opposing theological visions, at the heart of which are profoundly different views of God. Two books, published as a set of sorts, highlight just how profound the differences are: What I am not a Calvinist, by Jerry Walls and Joseph Dongell, and Why I am not an Arminian by Robert Peterson and Michael Williams. The authors of Why I am not a Calvinist believe: “...the heart of the matter is how we understand the character of God. The issue is not how powerful God is but what it means to say he is perfectly loving and good.....The breathtaking vision of God's Trinitarian love is obscured by the Calvinist claim that God passes over persons he could just as easily save and thereby consigns them to eternal misery." The following questions then, are at issue: How are we saved from our sins and granted eternal life? Are human beings so fallen that they must be saved exclusively through the unilateral and unconditional actions of God? Is it possible for human beings to successfully resist the saving approaches of God's grace? Can any who were once truly redeemed through faith in Christ fail to receive final salvation? The tone of the debate Considering the seriousness of the differences, it shouldn't come as a surprise that the history of the debate between Calvinism and Arminianism has been one of intense and often "mean-spirited" confrontation. However, Why I am not an Arminian's authors aims to treat their Arminian brothers and sisters in Christ as they would want to be treated. They also note that the Synod of Dordt was right to condemn the Arminian misrepresentation of the saving ways of God. "Yet we do not think of Arminianism as a heresy or Arminian Christians as unregenerate." They observe that Calvinists and Arminians are brothers in Christ. In other words: “The issue of the debate is not between belief and unbelief but rather which of two Christian perspectives better represents the biblical portrayal of the divine-human relationship in salvation and the contribution of both God and man in human history." And Why I am not a Calvinist authors rightly say, "We should all speak with a measure of care and reserve when delivering our interpretative conclusions." Why I am not a Calvinist So what type of argument do the authors Why I am not a Calvinist make? They first provide some background. Arminianism has its roots in the work of Jacob Arminius (1560-1609). It teaches that salvation is available to anybody who exercises faith; it contrasts with the Calvinist understanding that God alone determines who is and who is not among the elect. Arminian popular belief tends toward the overestimation of human ability and the human redemptive contribution. Traditional Arminianism believes that the death of Christ provides grace for all persons and that, as result of his atonement, God extends sufficient grace to all persons through the Holy Spirit to counteract the influence of sin and to enable a response to God. But, they argue, it is possible for sinners to resist God's initiative and to persist in sin and rebellion. Arminianism believes that God's grace enables and encourages a positive and saving response for everyone, but it does not determine a saving response for anyone. Furthermore, an initial positive response of faith doesn't guarantee one's final salvation: “It is possible to begin a genuine relationship with God but then later turn from him and persist in evil so that one is finally lost.” In 1610, the disciples of Jacobus Arminius produced a manifesto called the Remonstrance, which they regarded as a corrective to the Calvinist doctrine of election. The authors view the divine election of Israel and Christ as “that tree of redemption into which all persons can be incorporated by faith.” They state: “God doesn't unconditionally predestine particular persons to salvation. Rather, election is in Christ, and all are saved who do not knowingly and persistently refuse God's gracious offer of life.” Interestingly, Why I am not Calvinist's authors go beyond traditional Arminianism, and seem favorably inclined to Openness Theology, also called Open Theism. Advocates of Open Theism have argued that while God knows everything that can be known, He cannot have exhaustively definite knowledge of the future. Since the future will involve decisions made by genuinely free creatures, knowledge of the future is said to be impossible, by definition. Since God doesn't know future free choices, the future is not completely settled. Clark Pinnock, a noted Open Theism advocate says, “Some prophecies are conditional, leaving the future open, and presumably, God's knowledge of it.” And Richard Rice argues, "Where human decision is presupposed, God cannot achieve his purpose unilaterally. He requires our cooperation.” Open Theist theologians acknowledge “the triune God of love has, in almighty power, created all that is and is sovereign over all,” but in His freedom and desire to enter into a relationship of love with humanity has “decided to make some of his actions contingent upon our requests and actions.” They also believe that God is “dependent on the world in certain respects.” Consequently, they propose that the traditional view of God's infallible foreknowledge is a conviction that should be dispensed with. Open Theist theologians seem to highly esteem people while limiting God. For example, according to Pinnock human freedom can be won only by surrendering divine foreknowledge. I agree with those theologians who call Open Theism radicalized Arminianism. And if our future free actions cannot be known with certainty, even by God, how can we believe in the fulfillment of prophecy? Why would God "promise" anything if He cannot know the future or guarantee it by His almighty power? For the authors, the doctrine of election does not seem to hold any mystery. In fact, an appeal to mystery scandalizes them. They claim that some Calvinists “make a hasty retreat to mystery” when faced with charges of inconsistency. And they argue, “It isn't a sign of true piety for one to be willing to dispense with logical coherence in the name of mystery.” They critique John Piper's declaration that the potter has absolute rights over the clay, and if God chooses not to save some persons, it is not for us to understand but simply to adore. Interestingly, on the one hand the authors state that Calvinists have been zealous evangelists and missionaries and have contributed powerfully to the cause of winning the lost for Christ. On the other hand, they argue that Calvinists can't make coherent sense of their claim that God makes a bona fide offer of salvation to persons he has not elected for salvation, nor can they explain how God can truly have compassion for such persons. They claim, “the consequences for evangelistic preaching are profound indeed.” Why I am not an Arminian What are the counter arguments from the authors of Why I am not an Arminian? In their carefully reasoned, understandable exposition of Calvinism, they address the historical context, theological concerns, and biblical texts in a readable manner. In fact, they are Bible-centered in their presentation. They point out that the question of ecclesiastical authority and the integrity of the church as a confessional body was an intense bone of contention for both sides in the struggle between the Calvinists and the Arminians within the Dutch church. The Calvinists argued that a Reformed church is a confessional church. Hence they pleaded for the maintenance of particular confessional standards. Following in the tradition of Erasmus of Rotterdam, however, the Arminians championed the liberty of the individual conscience relative to doctrinal standards. The authors show that Calvin was not the first one to talk about reprobation or the absolute sovereignty of God. They point to the church father Augustine who emphasized the utter dependence of man upon God alone for salvation and the supremacy of grace to the exclusion of all human contribution. His teaching has proven a problem for many Christians throughout the centuries, and it still lies at the heart of the Arminian rejection of Calvinism, which was in many ways a 16th century revival of Augustine's teaching on sin and grace. The authors show that Calvinism stands for the doctrine that all humankind is sinful. Human beings will not and cannot make their way to God, retrieve their own lives or earn their own salvation. If humankind is to be saved, God must act. God must be gracious. Human beings are utterly dependent upon the saving grace of God. And apparently, God has not acted on behalf of all. He has not chosen to be gracious to all human beings. Sovereign in His grace, God showered His redemptive love upon a Jacob but not on an Esau. It is a mistake, therefore, to pit individual and corporate election against each other. In other words, egalitarian fairness – treating all persons the same – may be a cultural ideal for the modern West, but there is no biblical reason to suppose that God shares it. The authors write: "For his own reasons, God assumes the right to save one and not another – a Jacob, for example, and not his older, more talented brother; for Esau, left to himself and his sinfulness, is deserving divine wrath.” Why does God elect some and others are passed by? God does not elect Abraham and Jacob based on foreseen merit or even foreseen faith. The basis of their election is God's love and will. The authors also show that both individual and corporate election are taught in the Old Testament. God chose Abraham and Jacob, also the nation of Israel. As fallen human beings, Calvinists struggle with a sovereignty that stretches and often transcends our abilities to discern the redemptive ways of God. Scripture leads us to the contention that divine sovereignty – God always prevails – is compatible with human freedom. God is not rendered idle by a world ruled by human freedom. Furthermore, in the new heaven and earth: “the ultimate life of the redeemed will not include libertarian freedom, the ability to choose sin rather than obedience, apostasy rather than faithfulness.” The authors also show that Calvinism is much broader in scope than the TULIP doctrine. The five points of Calvinism do not sufficiently define Calvinism, and certainly do not say all there is to be said about the Reformed faith. They affirm the five points of Calvinism but also a Reformed understanding of the church and sacraments. They explain the particular Reformed contribution to Christian reflection on the covenant and the kingdom of God. They also stress the church as the people of God with a call to seek a cultural life in the world that is typified by justice, mercy, and a transformational vision for individual vocational life. Both Arminians and Calvinists agree that not all believe. One person hears the gospel as the word of life; another sees it as foolishness. But the authors of Why I am not a Calvinist critique Piper's rejection of "the wider hope," which holds that saving grace is available to all persons, not just those who have heard the gospel in this life. The Cannons of Dordt follow Augustine in their explanation. God has sovereignly chosen to save some but not all. And unlike Arminianism, Calvinism believes in the perseverance of the saints. The Canons of Dordt judged the Arminian agnosticism regarding perseverance as a hopeless position. If our salvation depends on us, whether it be our merits, our will or even our striving to keep in step with God's grace, we are most surely lost. The authors of Why I am not a Calvinist claim that an emphasis on God's sovereignty in salvation hinders evangelism, yet that emphasis encouraged the apostle Paul to continue preaching. In the line of Paul, Calvinists believe that the message of the cross is to be presented to all in order that they may believe and be pardoned. The good news of a provided forgiveness is to be as universally proclaimed as is the command to repent. God commands us to take the gospel to the ends of the earth and to every person in it. The Synod of Dordt did not see the doctrine of particular atonement as compromising preaching in the slightest. "God wants all to hear the gospel, but He intends to save only some. Why that is the case, we don't know." As evidence of the compatibility of belief in limited atonement, and a fire for spreading the gospel, Calvinists can refer to Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield, Charles H. Spurgeon and Francis Schaeffer. They proclaimed a redemption that is definite and yet good news and offered an invitation addressed to all. Much more can be said about the differences between Calvinism and Arminians. I hope that this summary review will enhance our readers' love for our Calvinist heritage and the rich doctrines of sovereign grace. Rev. Johan Tangelder (1936-2009) wrote for Reformed Perspective for 13 years. Many more of his articles can be found on his blog Reformed Reflections....

Red heart icon with + sign.
People we should know

Jacobus Arminius: professed the confessions even as he opposed them

The baby, baptized Jacob Harmenszoon, lay contentedly in his mother's arms. Warmth, food and love sheltered his small physical being. Even though his father was only a poor man who made knives for a living, the little one snuggled in his sleep. It was 1560 in the Dutch city of Oudewater and there was much trouble in the land – Spanish trouble, church trouble – and before long young Jacob would have and make his share of them. When Jacob was only a little boy his father died. He was taken from his mother's home to live with a former pastor of Oudewater in the city of Utrecht. The small boy mourned his father's death and he missed his mother, (and only brother), very much. But this is what had been deemed best for him. Times were not easy for a widow with two sons to provide for. The old pastor tried to raise the lad as his own. However, when Jacob was fourteen this foster-father also died. Fatherless a second time, he returned to his mother in Oudewater. The reunion was not to be for long. Shortly after arriving home he was taken to Marburg, Germany by a friend. From there he received the news that the Spaniards had attacked and murdered all the inhabitants of Oudewater. Jacob Harmenszoon, whose name had been Latinized to Jacobus Arminius, was an orphan at the tender age of fifteen. It is difficult to imagine exactly how young Jacobus felt. He was not a child anymore, and yet not a man either at this point. It is Biblical to suppose that suffering can produce a steadfastness in the sovereignty of God. For Jacobus this was not the case. He did develop an intense dislike of any fighting or quarreling – and yet, strangely enough, the false doctrines he later came to espouse have brought about fighting and quarreling to this day. Early schooling When the teenager Jacobus Arminius was orphaned, several pastors took pity on the young man and one sent him to the recently established University of Leyden. Jacobus was at an impressionable age – the age that most of today's students leave for college or university. This is why it is so crucial that teachers at this point in life are solid and impart true knowledge. Unfortunately, in Jacobus' case, this was not to be. One of his professors taught, with power and conviction, man's “free will,” as opposed to God's divine election and reprobation. He taught so ably that Jacobus became both convinced and adept at convincing others. He was a good student. His thirst for knowledge plus his excellent study habits earned him a bursary which enabled him to further his studies in Geneva. Here he heard Beza, friend and successor of Calvin, lecture on election and reprobation. But it was too late. His young mind and soul had already totally absorbed “free will” and found it to be an attractive doctrine. Jacobus also traveled to Italy where he met the famous Jesuit priest Bellarmino (1542-1621). Impressed by the man's great knowledge, Jacobus was subconsciously strengthened in his desire to stretch atonement to include more than just the chosen sheep specified by Christ Himself in John 10:25ff. After all, this man Bellarmino was kind, generous, extremely knowledgeable, active in good works, and surely God could not reject him? “Free will” consequently whispered in Jacobus' ear that atonement was not limited but universal. A teacher of men In 1587, at the age of 27, Arminius returned to Holland. One year later he was installed as minister in Amsterdam. In 1590 he married Elizabeth Reael, daughter of one of the rich regents of that city – a regent, one might add, who was quite liberal in thought – and whose daughter was likely of the same frame of mind as her father. This marriage seemed to encourage him in verbalizing the wayward thoughts he had already been harboring. A series of rather unreformed sermons on the book of Romans was begun. Although he was a popular man, soft-spoken, cultured, good-natured and of impeccable character, these sermons stirred up a great deal of unrest in his congregation. He surmised, among other things, that death had not come into the world through sin but through nature. In chapters 8-11 he concluded that the reason God elected some and not others was because God knew beforehand what they would choose. Although Arminius was accused many times of preaching heresy, he continually maintained that he agreed with the Church's forms of unity, (which at that time were the Heidelberg Catechism and the Belgic Confession). The years passed and the regents, (of which his father-in-law was one), protected Arminius. In 1603 Arminius was appointed as professor of theology in the University of Leyden. It had become the most important university in Holland – the university from which the state church called its ministers. The appointment gave Arminius the opportunity to sow seeds of heresy throughout the entire Reformed community. He won approval of the students easily enough, for he was a congenial fellow and an able teacher. Between classes he gave private lectures at his house and criticized Calvin, convincing a great number that there were errors in the confessions. A sad end Understandably, there was quite a bit of discord within the university halls and in the church pews. There was a civil court in 1608, and again in 1609, at which these problems were discussed. It was obvious from these sessions that Arminius led a minority and would certainly lose out at a proposed synod. This is why the government, which looked on Arminius as a protégé, refused to call one. By the time the Synod of Dordt finally did take place, (1618-19), Arminius had been dead for almost ten years. The final months of Arminius' life were marked with physical distress. Ill with tuberculosis, he also suffered a stroke, paralyzing one side and blinding him. Popularity had waned and was seen in the fact that people applied Zechariah 11:17 to him: “Woe to the worthless shepherd, who deserts the flock! May the sword strike his arm and his right eye! May his arm be completely withered, his right eye totally blinded!” Jacobus Harmenszoon, alias Jacob Arminius, died in 1609 before the age of fifty. When the Synod of Dordt finally did meet, the Arminian point of view was eloquently defended by Episcopius, student and very able successor of Arminius. For six months issues were debated. The doctrine of sovereign grace was at stake. Representatives from Reformed churches all over Europe were present. In the end, Synod roundly condemned the views of Arminius in five canons, (or statements). These statements can be shortened into the acronym TULIP: Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace and Perseverance of the saints. Christine Farenhorst is the author of the just published Katharina, Katharina, about the times of Martin Luther. This article first appeared in the January 2006 issue. ...







Red heart icon with + sign.
Politics

Reforming Canada's electoral system?

During the 2015 federal election, the Liberals campaigned on bringing in electoral reform. While they didn't deliver on that promise, they weren't the first to propose fundamentally changing the way Canadians vote, and they likely won't be the last. So what prompted their promise? Why did they think voters wanted a new electoral system? What exactly needs fixing with our current system? And what are the advantages and disadvantages of the alternatives? THE CASE AGAINST FPTP The common complaint with our current First-Past-The-Post (FPTP) system is that it doesn’t seem to reflect voters’ wishes. Under it a candidate doesn’t need a majority of the vote to get elected; he only needs one vote more than the second-place finisher. So, for example, in the 2015 Federal election that meant one candidate – the NDP’s Brigette Sansoucy – was able to win a seat in the House of Commons even though she received only 28.7 percent of the vote. In her riding almost three-quarters of voters picked someone else, and yet she is still their elected representative. In 2015 the FPTP system also allowed the Liberals to win a decided majority of the seats (54.4 percent) even though they had a decided minority of the votes (only 39.5 percent). Situations like this are why our representative democracy can be criticized for not being all that representative. THE RANKED BALLOT: FOR So what sort of electoral reforms have been proposed? The Liberals' plans never got all that specific, but back in 2014, in an appearance at Ontario’s Western University, Justin Trudeau told students, “I like the idea of a ranked ballot.” There’s a clear reason why the Liberals would. Under a ranked ballot (or preferential) system voters would rank the candidates from first to last (see the picture). If no one got 50 per cent of the vote, then the candidate with the least 1st place votes would be dropped off, and his ballots would be redistributed according to who those voters had marked as their second choice. The advantage of this system is that the eventual winner can claim the legitimacy of having more than 50% of voters picking him. He may not have been their first pick, but he was at least someone they voted for. THE RANKED BALLOT: AGAINST The problem with the ranked ballot is that it gives an advantage to whatever parties are present in the "middle" of the political spectrum. Why? Because when voters on the right or left rank their second choices they aren’t going to pick the parties on the other side of the spectrum. Instead they are going to default to the candidate who is the closest to them. In Canada that means an NDP voter will likely rank the Liberals second (or third behind the Greens), and rank the Conservative last. Likewise, a Conservative voter is more likely to rank the Liberals second than he is to pick the NDP or Greens. So Liberals can count on getting far more of the second-pick votes than any of their political rivals. There is a systemic bias in their favor. CBC’s Eric Grenier estimated that under a ranked ballot the Liberals would have picked up an additional 40 seats last election (mostly at the expense of the Conservatives). No wonder then that the Prime Minister prefers ranked ballots. PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION: FOR Another alternative often proposed is proportional representation (PR). While there are many forms of PR, the basic premise is that all involve parties getting seats in proportion to their total vote total. Under this arrangement, if we use the 2015 election as our example again, since the Liberals took 39.5% of the popular vote they would have ended up with just 39.5% of the seats in Parliament. That means that, as Eric Grenier noted, under the most basic form of PR, in the 2015 election the Liberals would have lost 50 seats, while the Conservatives would have gained 10, the Green Party 11, and the NDP 23 more. Interestingly, it is under the PR system that the Christian Heritage Party (CHP) is most likely to prosper. While the CHP’s 15,284 votes in the 2015 election wouldn’t have been enough to garner them an MP, under a PR system, Christians who had previously wanted to vote for them but thought it a wasted ballot could now cast that vote knowing it would help elect at least an MP or two. PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION: AGAINST But PR also opens up possibilities for other smaller parties too. The CHP would finally be in the House of Commons but there would also be a representative or from the Marijuana Party. We’d likely see a Communist too, and maybe even a Rhinoceros Party MP (yes, there really is a federal Rhinoceros Party of Canada). In addition, it would become harder for any one party to win an outright majority. As the Fraser Institute reports in their booklet Electoral Rules and Fiscal Outcomes, from 2000-1015  In countries with PR election systems...83 percent of elections resulted in coalition governments. That might not sound like much of a problem – so what if some parties have to work together? Why wouldn’t that be a good thing? The reason its a problem is because when a coalition government is built, each participant does so on the condition that they get something out of it. And that “something” usually requires the outlay of money. In the same booklet, the Fraser Institute noted that PR governments spend an average of 29% of their country’s GDP, whereas other governments elected via means such as ranked ballots or the FPTP spend only 23% of the GDP. So a downside to any PR type of system is that taxes will likely go up. Coalition governments are costly! Another downside? It increases party leaders' power. Proportional Representation most often involves voting for a party, not a candidate. A party puts out a list of their candidates, in an order of their choosing, and if they get enough votes for, say, three MPs, then the three people at the top of their list will get in. Canadian party leaders already have dictatorial powers over their MPs, and the PR system would only increase that power – refuse to pick up your party leader's drycleaning and he'll bump you down your party's list, or take you off it entirely. The last thing we need is to strengthen party leaders' stranglehold over their party's MPs. CONCLUSION Some countries have adopted a mixture of these different systems, which means there are a limitless number of possibilities. But these three are the core sorts. So what system should we, as Christians, push for? Each has its own strengths and weaknesses and there isn't an electoral system free of flaws. Ranked ballots give the centrist Liberals an advantage over the other parties that they don’t deserve, while proportional representation seems likely to expand the size of government and strengthen party leaders' power. None of these are attractive alternatives. Meanwhile, even as FPTP frequently gives minorities a majority of seats, that bias isn't specific to one particular party. So I will say of our present system what Winston Churchill once said about democracy: First-Past-The-Post is the worst form of electoral system…except for all others. A version of this article first appeared in the September 2016 issue under the title "Canada's electoral reform."...

empty throne
Red heart icon with + sign.
Politics

Dethroning the dictator

A simple electoral reform that might actually make our democracy more representative **** Canada’s democratic system has been likened to a four-year “elected dictatorship.” Why? The fault is often lain at the feet of our First-Past-The-Post electoral system which allows a political party with only a minority of the popular vote to form a majority government. We saw that happen again in 2015, when the federal Liberal Party won a majority government – 54% of the seats in Parliament – with only 39.5% of the votes cast. But does this make Canada a dictatorship? No, not this alone. The bigger issue is the control that party leaders have over who gets to run for their party. Anger your party leader, and he won’t sign your nomination papers. Then your only option is to run as an independent. However, independents don’t win; there have only been two elected independents over the last three elections. So if you want a seat in Parliament, you’d best not do anything to annoy your party leader. That means that, while the Liberals control Parliament, Justin Trudeau controls the Liberals. That allows him to sets the agenda for Parliament. He also chooses who will get Cabinet positions, selects individuals to the Senate, and picks Supreme Court Justices. Three hundred and thirty-eight Members of Parliament are elected, but all the power of Parliament is concentrated into the hands of this one man. Canada is an elected dictatorship. This is a problem This would be a problem even with the best and most noble of men leading our country – unfettered power is a potent temptation to anyone. As Lord Acton put it, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Our neighbor to the south recognized this corrupting effect, and it led the American Founding Fathers to design a system of government that split power between three separate branches of government: Congress would vie with the President and with the Supreme Court. The three would compete with and hold the others in check to ensure that power was never concentrated in any one branch. But what holds the prime minister’s power in check? Theoretically, it’s the other Members of Parliament (MPs). The prime minister has only one vote, so if his MPs don’t like what he is doing, they could vote against it and stop him. But that’s not how it works. As party leader he has both carrots ands sticks with which he can control his party. An MP who stays loyal may eventually get rewarded with a Cabinet position. An MP who makes trouble may get demoted or even kicked out of the party. The result? MPs dare not disagree with their leader. More parties in control So what can be done? One frequently mentioned proposal is to replace our First-Past-The-Post electoral system with some form of Proportional Representation (PR). Though there are a number of different versions of PR, under the simplest version parties would receive seats in proportion to their popular vote. So if the Liberals received 39% of the popular vote across Canada they would receive 39% of the seats in Parliament. This would result in many more minority governments, forcing the PM to share his power with the other party leaders. Instead of dictating to them he’d be forced to cooperate with them to get his bills passed. The problem with Proportional Representation is that it most often involves voting for a party, not a candidate. A party puts out some sort of list, often with an order of their choosing. If they get enough votes for, say, three MPs, then the three people at the top of their list will get in. This gives the party leader even more power over his party because anyone who isn't willing to pick up his dry cleaning will get put far down the list, or not make it at all. It's true, PR would move us from a dictatorship, but to an oligarchy; instead of rule by one party leader we would be ruled by a council made up of two or three party leaders. However, those party leaders would have an even firmer grip on their parties. So that’s not much of an improvement. Empowering MPs A better option is to change the way a party leader is chosen. Presently, party leaders are chosen by the party members. This method means that, come the next leadership election, a party will be able to sell a lot of memberships. But this is what’s behind the power imbalance: a party leader still has his carrot and stick, and the MPs have no way to constrain their party leader because he is hired and fired not by them, but by their party’s membership. What if the party leader was chosen by the MPs? That’s how it used to be done in the United Kingdom, up until the early 1980s. Under such a system a party leader would still be able to exert considerable control over his caucus, but he wouldn’t be able to run roughshod over them. If he annoyed too many, then out he’d go. There would be some balance. Individual MPs might then feel free to occasionally vote as they think best, or as their constituents think best, and not simply as their party leader thought best. This is a change that the party membership can bring about, starting at the riding level, and the pushing it on to the annual convention. It would take time to win support – this would be a multi-year process – but it can happen. And if a party's membership demands this change, then we might well end up with a more representative democracy, and without any of the radical electoral reforms that have been proposed. Of course, in a sin-stained world a democracy isn't always ideal either: just consider how giving the people their say won’t put an end to either abortion or euthanasia any time soon. But a democracy is a step up from our dictatorship of one....