Online Conversations About...

Gary Ezzo and Calvinism

The article below is...

A long and rambling response between friends to a theologian's correspondence with one of them about Gary Ezzo...

Hhhhmmmm....My Dear Friend and I spoke via phone at length about his letter. Several things bother me.

1. I didn't want to believe that Theologian X might be even semi-agreeing with any of the Ezzos' stuff. Sigh...I have such respect for the man, but now I'm disappointed that he thinks PCF is more Biblical. Somehow this doesn't make sense to me, logically. Look at it this way:

A. Children are born in depravity and have a sinful nature. This means, theologically, that they are totally incapable of doing anything that contributes to their salvation. Before salvation, they are in rebellion against God. Their hearts desire wickedness. They desperately need salvation and, without the grace of God, cannot even reach out to Him.

B. Therefore, we should put our children on a schedule. Not just any schedule, but the Ezzos' schedule.

???????? For what purpose? In order to overcome the depravity of our children? In order to help the Holy Spirit do His work? In order to make our children a little less depraved so that they can, on their own strength, reach out to God a little? In order not to, as our esteemed Theologian termed it, "feed their egos"? Are Ezzo and Theologian X trying to convince us that PCF (or PDF or whatever they'll call it next) is a "means of grace"? Where's the scripture that says, "How shall they believe without hearing? And how shall they be able to sit still and listen unless they've been raised the Ezzo way?"

Try this alternative on for size:

A. Our children are born in depravity.

B. Therefore, we should feed them on my alternative schedule of every two hours, in order not to feed their egos. Plus, the *2* hour interval will serve as a reminder to them--and us--of the importance of our marriage. We are two people, united into one. Feeding every *3* hours might convince the child that he belongs in the middle of our marriage.

Or...

A. Our children are born in depravity.

B. Therefore we should never say nice things about them, since this would feed their egos. We should call them by appropriately Biblical nicknames, "Wretched worm", "Sinner", "Lost sheep", etc. If they do obey us, we should recognize that they are being like Pharisees (outwardly obedient while their hearts were unregenerate) and borrow Jesus' term, "Whitened sepluchres". ("Yes, you did a wonderful job cleaning the kitchen, you whitened sepulchre. Not that it will do you any good. Repent.")

2. I'm concerned that Theologian X seems not to have read My Dear Friend's letter all that carefully.

3. I'm concerned that Theologian X quickly resorts to labeling. First, My Dear Friend is a hyper-Calvinist. (This is funny, because I don't think My Dear Friend is particularly Calvinistic and certainly isn't hyper about it!<g>) Then, she's antinomian. Labeling seems so...dismissive.

As I told My Dear Friend on the phone, it's almost as if Theologian X wasn't so much responding to her letter as he was responding to the previous letter he mentioned and every other letter he may have received on the same issue.

I've been trying to work through this whole issue of grace vs. works in parenting. Interestingly enough, another friend and I were discussing it on the phone before My Dear Friend called! She's been reading Galations with her children and is, as she put it, "falling in love with that book". A lot of it is convicting stuff, especially for us legalistic homeschoolers<g>.

What I've been thinking: all of us desperately want our children to go to Heaven. This is what any godly parent wants more than life itself. Let's face it, if we could die in order to guarantee the salvation of our children, wouldn't we be willing to do it? The idea that our children might end up in Hell is too horrific to contemplate.

So, over history, we've jumped at any assurance that our children are going to Heaven. The Jews, in Jesus' time [note: by this I am referring to those Jews whom our Lord rebuked---those with whom He took issue for claiming Abraham as their father in a spiritual sense that was not true in their case], thought they had it all sewn up. They were circumcised; they were sons of Abraham. They and their children were IN. Jesus and Paul had strong words for them. No, they weren't sons of Abraham. Their circumcision was meaningless. It was more of a judgment than a blessing. Their hearts were unchanged.

Fast forward to now. You have some parents, in some churches, who cling to the fact that their babes were baptized. Both Catholics and Lutherans believe that their baptized infants are saved and on their way to Heaven. Others rely on "covenantal succession"--"If I am faithful to raise my children right, God has promised to save them." Others rely on being able to convince their children to follow Jesus. ("I know that if I live the right kind of life in front of them, and if I make Jesus really attractive to them, they will want to follow Him.") Others are convinced that if we just homeschool...or send them to the right camp...or do this...or do that...we'll somehow be at least sending them down the road to salvation.

The truth is that we have been saved by grace through faith. It's not of ourselves. It's not of works, "lest any man should boast". Salvation works the same for our children. Their works are filthy rags. So are ours. We can't save them; we can't secure their salvation; we can't even help God save them.

CALVINISM ALERT!!!!!!! Now I'm going to get really Calvinistic. (Please...I don't want to debate Calvinism. I have neither the time nor the energy. My husband and I have been debating Calvinism for years now. "OK, now I'll be the Calvinist and you be the Arminian." "Now let's change places." "Now I'll be the 3-point Calvinist and you be the 5-pointer."<g>)

Theologian X, being Calvinistic, should agree with the following.

My Dear Friend, you might want to quote to him from the book, "Back to Basics: Rediscovering the Riches of the Reformed Faith". From pg. 6: "When you get back to basics, you have to start and stop somewhere, and for the Reformers and their heirs, that somewhere has always been the sovereign and gracious God who has revealed Himself in Scripture. Perhaps nothing brings our true starting and stopping point into sharper focus than the question of who gets the credit for our conversion. Does it go to God alone, or does man in some way share the spotlight with God?...God the Father appointed us to eternal life, God the Son bought us at the price of His own blood, and God the Spirit opened our hearts, enabling us to turn to Him in faith and repentance...From beginning to end, our conversion is the result of His sovereign and gracious work for us and in us as His people. In an age when many are tempted to edge their way on stage to share the spotlight with God, it is time to get back to basics--back to conversion."

The Calvinistic understanding of the nature of man is that, because of the Fall, the image of God has been corrupted--yet not destroyed or obliterated. However, man's nature is fallen. He is totally depraved, which means he is totally incapable of doing anything that in any way might contribute to his salvation. It is the grace of God that draws us unto Himself. God gives us the ability to repent and believe. We cannot do this on our own.

Thus, we can't "train" our children to repent. We can't secure their salvation. We can't do a single thing that will add anything to God's work. He doesn't need our help. In fact, He doesn't want us trying to horn in on the spotlight at all.

Homeschooling, the perfect baby schedule, all of our efforts...they cannot contribute to the salvation of our children. They can't even make our children want to be saved.

As a Calvinist, Theologian X believes in election--that God, before the foundations of the earth, chose a people to call His own. God, in His sovereignty, has already elected some to salvation. There's that troubling verse where God says, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." He makes clear that this decision was made before either boy was born. Jacob was elect. Esau wasn't. Isaac and Rebecca could have homeschooled Esau, used the best Bible curriculum in the world, followed the Ezzos to a letter, and obeyed every command in Scripture--and it wouldn't have done a bit of good where Esau was concerned. This is a harsh idea and I can understand if all of you recoil at me, shout "heresy!" and decide that you want nothing to do with me.<g>

So, does this mean that we give up? Theologian X writes:

>You seem to suggest that our efforts towards those goals are
>meaningless. You seem to affirm a hyper-Calvinism which denies that God works
>through means.

Maybe some wacko hyper-Calvinist who doesn't know his Bible might think God doesn't work through us. The mysterious thing is that God doesn't need us at all, yet He chooses to use us. The point is that we need to obey. As parents, we teach our children, train them in righteousness, pray for them, agonize over them, weep over them, teach them the Word of God, discipline them, instruct them in the way they should go, and do everything--by the grace of God--that God commands us to do. However, we recognize that our efforts are so puny, no matter how hard we try. God may, in His mercy, choose to work through our weak but well-meaning efforts, just as He works through evangelists, etc. But we must be quick to realize that our efforts don't contribute in any way to our children's salvation OR sanctification.

We are responsible to obey God. He is responsible for the results. We can't take the credit for children who follow Jesus. ("He's such a good boy and loves the Lord, thanks to his upbringing." Yuck!) We shouldn't blame others for having an Esau. ("Well, if they had just breastfed him and homeschooled him, he wouldn't be in such a mess.")

Theologian X writes:

>And so I labor for the
>salvation of my children, through prayer, through teaching them God's mighty
>works, through a host of means of grace through which God works.

I'm not sure I would use the phrase "labor for the salvation of my children". Maybe I'm so afraid of works-based parenting that this hits me the wrong way. However, when I hear "labor for salvation", it makes it sound as if I'm somehow contributing to that salvation and taking credit for it. ("How wonderful that your child make a profession of faith!" "Yes, well, his father and I have been laboring for his salvation ever since he was born.") It also implies that God owes us. ("Look, I've been laboring for his salvation for 30 years now. Why aren't You doing anything?")

>You then attack Mr. Ezzo for suggesting that we teach our children to obey
>the law of God. This is ironic. Did you forget point 1, that first we want
>them to come to faith, and then we want them to obey whatsoever He
>commandeth? You then present an antinomian heresy...

My Dear Friend, apparently your vicious and heretical attack on poor Gary was so subtle that I missed it. I would sum up your point this way: "The gospel is much more than a code of ethics. A code of ethics, even Biblical ethics, will not save anyone."

Does this make us all antinomians who would rather teach our children to ignore the law of God? No. "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for training, for reproof, etc." (My quickie quote) Our duty is to instruct our children in the Faith. That means we will teach them all of the Bible. If we overemphasize the Law, we fall into the trap of the Pharisees and the Judaizers. If we de-emphasize the Law, we fall into the trap of those who use their liberty in Christ as an excuse for sin. If we replace or augment the Law with our own manmade ethic, no matter how charming and polite and wonderful this ethic might be, we are legalists who usurp God's role as the Author of Justice.

>Mr. Ezzo wants us to work toward the salvation of our children (again I let
>too strong language get through here, I should have changed him to read
>something like, "Bring the means of grace to bear in the lives of our
>children, imploring God and working for their salvation in Christ.) Then he
>asks that we work for their sanctification. Then he asks that we teach them
>how to get along with others. This is what concerns you?

Maybe I'm just reacting to the word "work" here, but I think that salvation and sanctification are the works of the Holy Spirit. It's not our role to be mini-Holy Spirits in our children's lives. We can't sanctify them or help sanctify them, just as we can't go to our pastors and say, "Listen, you've not been working very hard towards my sanctification. It seems to me that I should be a lot further along and I think the problem is that you're not doing your end of the work." We shepherd our children; we instruct them; we teach them the Word of God. These are means that the Holy Spirit will use to sanctify our children--and us. But we can't claim to be doing the work ourselves!

So, it seems kind of a paradox. On the one hand, I'm encouraging parents--and, most of all, myself--to put our hearts and souls into...well "working" our socks off when it comes to raising our children as God instructs us to do. On the other hand, I'm saying that all the credit goes to God and that we need to realize that our efforts fall way, way short. When we get to Heaven, we'll be giving God all the glory. If any of us get any crowns, we'll gladly cast them at the feet of Jesus, realizing that He did it all. I think we need to have that attitude NOW. We need to glorify God now and give Him all the praise, rather than waiting for Heaven.

The pastor of the church we've been attending talks about "divine arithmetic". In salvation, we are 100% responsible to repent and believe, yet our salvation rests 100% on God's grace. (The same type of "arithmetic" as Jesus being 100% God and 100% man.) I would say that, in parenting, we are 100% responsible for obeying God and He is 100% responsible for the results.

Gary Ezzo would probably jump in at this point and say that I'm just hedging my bets and making excuses for the rotten way my children will turn out in the end (since I'm not following his program). Hardly. I'm giving God 100% glory for any good that comes out of my home. It is all His doing. I can't even attempt to be responsible without Him. It's all grace.

copyright 1997 by Rebecca Prewett

Return to the Online Conversations Page

Do you want to discuss this article? (Do you agree? disagree?) Visit The Family Corner Discussion Forum

Note: I would like to thank Karen Wallace for pointing out on the GFI Forum that I had over-generalized when referring to the Jews during Jesus' time. (I have added clarification in brackets to that section.) I would also like to assure her and others that, contrary to Mrs. Wallace's speculations, there is absolutely no connection between my imprecise language and the Holocaust. [My additional comments] Furthermore, I would like to thank those who came to me directly with their concerns and questions about this article, as well as those who relayed Mrs. Wallace's concerns to me.

You are the visitor to this page.

All articles authored by any member of the Prewett family are copyrighted. They may not be reproduced online or elsewhere without our expressed, written permission. Articles written by other authors contain copyright notices where appropriate.