An Introspective of an Arminian Christian

Episcopius on the Knowledge of the Will of God

2011-12-27T08:27:00.000-08:00

The Arminian Confessionof 1621

Chapter 9

On the Knowledge of God's Will,revealed in the new covenant

Further, the will of God, comprehended in the gracious covenant which our greatest prophet, the only begotten Son of God, clearly and fully revealed to us in his Gospel, is embraced in two principle heads. First, those things which God for his part decreed to do in us or about us through his Son Jesus Christ, that we may be made partakers of that eternal salvation offered by him. Second, those things which he wholly wills to be done by us through his own grace, if we really want to obtain eternal salvation.
Those things which God decreed to do for his part in order to provide our salvation, are principally two. 1. He decreed for the honor of his beloved Son to choose for himself sons through him to salvation and life eternal, to adopt, justify, seal with his Holy Spirit and finally to glorify all those and only those truly believing in his name, or obeying his gospel, and persevering in faith and obedience until death, and to the contrary, to reprobate unbelievers and the impenitent from life and salvation and to damn them perpetually. 2. He has decreed through his same Son, to confer to all that are called, although miserable sinners, such efficacious grace through which they may really believe in their Christ the Savior, obey his gospel and be freed from the dominion and guilt of sin, indeed also through which they may really believe, obey and be freed, unless by a new defiance and rebellion they reject the grace offered by God.
The first decree is the decree to predestination to salvation or election to glory, by which is established the true necessity and at the same time the usefulness of our faith and obedience for obtaining salvation and glory. But to dogmatically establish some other anterior, prior decree by which certain individual people were peremptorily elected by name to glory and all others were reprobated to eternal torture, is indeed to deny the true nature of this decree, to invert right order, to take away the merit of Jesus Christ, to obscure the glory of divine goodness, righteousness and wisdom, and indeed utterly to subvert the true power and efficacy of the whole sacred ministry, and thus of all religion.
The second decree is the decree of calling to faith or election to grace, by which is established the necessity and at the same time the usefulness of divine grace, or the means necessary for us to yield faith and obedience to Jesus Christ according to the will of God, revealed in his Gospel. Because truly we ought first to be sure about that will of God which he wants us to yield to him, than of the grace necessary for fulfilling that will, of the glory promised to be conferred to those performing the divine will. It is for this that we shall treat them all henceforth in the same order in which they have been proposed.

The Arminian Confession of 1621,trans & ed. Mark A. Ellis, Pickwick, Wipf & Stock, Eugene,Oregon, 2005, pp74-75

Arminius on the Will of God

2011-12-27T08:22:00.000-08:00

TheWorks of James Arminius - Vol. 2 (Private Disputations)

Disputation18: On The Will Of God

1.The will of God is spoken of in three ways: First, the faculty itselfof willing. Secondly, the act of willing. Thirdly, the object willed.The first signification is the principal and proper one, the twoothers are secondary and figurative.

2. It may be thusdescribed: It is the second faculty of the life of God, flowingthrough the understanding from the life that has an ulteriortendency; by which faculty God is borne towards a known good —towards a good, because this is an adequate object of every will —towards a known good, not only with regard to it as a being, butlikewise as a good, whether in reality or only in the act of thedivine understanding. Both, however, are shown by the understanding.But the evil which is called that of culpability, God does not simplyand absolutely will.

3. The good is two-fold. The chiefgood, and that which is from the chief. The first of these is theprimary, immediate, principal, direct, peculiar and adequate objectof the divine will; the latter is secondary and indirect, towardswhich the divine will does not tend, except by means of the chiefgood.

4. The will of God is borne towards its objects inthe following order:

(1.) He wills himself.

(2.)He wills all those things which, out of infinite things possible tohimself he has, by the last judgment of his wisdom, determined to bemade. And first, he wills to make them to be; then he is affectedtowards them by his will, according as they possess some likenesswith his nature, or some vestige of it.

(3.) The thirdobject of the will of God is those things which he judges fit andequitable to be done by creatures who are endowed with understandingand with free will, in which is included a prohibition of that whichhe wills not to be done.

(4.) The fourth object of thedivine will is his permission, that chiefly by which he permits arational creature to do what he has prohibited, and to omit what hehas commanded.

(5.) He wills those things which,according to his own wisdom, he judges to be done concerning the actsof his rational creatures.

5. There is out of God noinwardly moving cause of his will; nor out of him is there any end.But the creature, and its action or passion, may be the outwardlymoving cause, without which God would supersede or omit that volitionor act of willing.

6. But the cause of all other thingsis God, by His understanding and will, by means of His power orcapability; yet so, that when he acts either through his creatures,with them or in them, he does not take away the peculiar mode ofacting, or of suffering, which he has divinely placed within them;and that he suffers them, according to their peculiar mode, toproduce their own effects, and to receive in themselves the acts ofGod, either necessarily, contingently, or freely. As this contingencyand liberty do not make the prescience of God to be uncertain, sothey are destroyed by the volition of God, and by the certainfuturition of events with regard to the understanding of God.

Philosophical Determinism vs. Valley of Slaughter

2011-12-01T09:18:00.001-08:00

An extreme Calvinist writes ... “In biblical Calvinism, God predestines every event. That includes mental events.”

The Bible offers ... “Because they have forsaken me, and have estranged this place, and have burned incense in it unto other gods, whom neither they nor their fathers have known, nor the kings of Judah, and have filled this place with the blood of innocents; They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind: Therefore, behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that this place shall no more be called Tophet, nor The valley of the son of Hinnom, but The valley of slaughter.” (Jer 19:4-6 AV)

I am curious how God predestines a mental event that was never formed in His mind. This is not a challenge to His omniscience or even his decreed permissive will. Instead I call into question the conflict between hard determinst philosophy that has the LORD determining the very thoughts of men and the scriptural evidence that opposes such musings. In order to predestine, the thought has to be formed by the one decreeing such thoughts. This is a separate and more involved accountability than permissive will that is decreed via omniscience through the workings of a freely willed soul. Either the thought came into the mind of God (speaking anthropomorphically) satisfying a criteria for predestining anything or it did not. The Bible states it did not. The extreme Calvinist claims it does. Which shall we believe?

Lincoln's Thanksgiving Proclamation

2011-11-24T09:14:00.001-08:00

By the President of the United States of America.

A Proclamation.

The year that is drawing towards its close, has been filled with the blessings of fruitful fields and healthful skies. To these bounties, which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the source from which they come, others have been added, which are of so extraordinary a nature, that they cannot fail to penetrate and soften even the heart which is habitually insensible to the ever watchful providence of Almighty God. In the midst of a civil war of unequaled magnitude and severity, which has sometimes seemed to foreign States to invite and to provoke their aggression, peace has been preserved with all nations, order has been maintained, the laws have been respected and obeyed, and harmony has prevailed everywhere except in the theatre of military conflict; while that theatre has been greatly contracted by the advancing armies and navies of the Union. Needful diversions of wealth and of strength from the fields of peaceful industry to the national defence, have not arrested the plough, the shuttle or the ship; the axe has enlarged the borders of our settlements, and the mines, as well of iron and coal as of the precious metals, have yielded even more abundantly than heretofore. Population has steadily increased, notwithstanding the waste that has been made in the camp, the siege and the battle-field; and the country, rejoicing in the consiousness of augmented strength and vigor, is permitted to expect continuance of years with large increase of freedom. No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy. It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently and gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and one voice by the whole American People. I do therefore invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next, as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens. And I recommend to them that while offering up the ascriptions justly due to Him for such singular deliverances and blessings, they do also, with humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience, commend to His tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife in which we are unavoidably engaged, and fervently implore the interposition of the Almighty Hand to heal the wounds of the nation and to restore it as soon as may be consistent with the Divine purposes to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquillity and Union.

In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the United States to be affixed.

Done at the City of Washington, this Third day of October, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and of the Independence of the Unites States the Eighty-eighth.

By the President: Abraham Lincoln

William H. Seward,
Secretary of State

What Did Christ’s Death Accomplish?

2011-11-18T10:55:00.001-08:00

As never ending as this battle is between Calvinists andmost of the body of Christ, the answers provided never seem to satisfy therhetorical inquiries of our Calvinist friends. One of the reasons for this, Ibelieve, is due to the Calvinist tendency to view the extent of the atonementwith the purpose of confirming their particular soteriological perspective. “For God so loved the world” is forced tomean “God so loved His Elect or classes of men in the world”. It amounts to aread of theology into the text of scripture. By doing so, they reject responsesthat are logical and reasoned from the text of scripture itself. Forlinesoffers the following perspective and solution to the Calvinist insistence.

“Calvinists arguethat, if Jesus paid the full penalty for the sins of the whole race, all forwhom Christ died must of necessity be saved. This is true since His deathsettles their account and therefore forms the necessary basis for theirforgiveness. Either Christ died for everybody and everybody would be saved, orHe died only for the elect and only the elect will be saved, or so the argumentgoes. It is thought that for one who believes in the satisfaction view of theatonement that the only way to escape universal salvation is to believe inlimited atonement.

The answer is found inthe kind of substitution involved. Christ died for the whole world in aprovisionary sense. He suffered the penal wrath of God for sin, but that factalone does not place His death on everybody’s account. It is effectual for theindividual only as it is placed on a person’s account. It can be placed on aperson’s account only as a result of union with Christ. Union with Christ isconditioned on faith.

The Calvinists maywant to insist that the objection is valid and that Christ died only for theelect. The only way this argument could have any validity would be to deny thepossibility of provisionary atonement. If there can be no provisionary atonement,it does follow that if Christ died for a person his justification is neverprovisionary but always real.

In explaining the viewof the atonement, Louis Berkhof comments: “The Calvinist teach that the atonementmeritoriously secured the application of the work of redemption to those forwhom it was intended and their complete salvation is certain”.

A close look at whatBerkhof said will show that it does not rule out the provisionary principle inatonement. He says that the atonement “makes certain” the salvation of thosefor whom it was intended. He did not say that the atonement automatically savedeverybody for whom it was intended. Calvinists do not teach that the elect arejustified before they experience faith. They teach that the person for whom Christdied will of a certainty be justified, but they do not consider a personjustified until he experiences faith as the condition of justification. Thus,atonement is provisionary until the time it is applied. The only way to denythe provisionary nature of the atonement is to consider all people for whomChrist died to be justified before they experience faith.

Once we accept that atonementis provisionary, we invalidate the objection that penal satisfaction eitherleads to universalism or limited atonement. Provisionary atonement applied onthe condition of faith and on the grounds of a union with Christ answers thisobjection and sustains the penal satisfaction view.” 1

Therefore with that last portion of Forlines statement wecan turn to John 3:16 and accept it as given rather than reinterpret thepassage through any manner of sectarian lens. “For God so loved the world, thathe gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should notperish, but have everlasting life.” (John 3:16 AV)

To ask the question what did Christ’s death accomplish islittle different from asking for whom did Christ die for. Jesus accomplished apropitiatory sacrifice reconciling God with man and made individuallyefficacious through faith and union with Christ. He accomplished a great andglorious provision through which all men might be saved even though I believemost are not and that due to their love of their sins and rejection of thethings of God. Much more could be stated however I would recommend a particularresource in addition to Forlines. The Arminian Confession of 1621 wouldbe an excellent source to gain a much greater perspective of Arminian theologyon a number of topics. 2

1. Classical Arminianism, F. Leroy Forlines, ed. J.Matthew Pinson, Randall House, Nashville, 2011 pp 192-193

2. The Arminian Confession of 1621, trans & ed.Mark A. Ellis, Pickwick, Wipf and Stock, Eugene, 2005

Common Sense Christian Understanding of the Gift of Faith - Forlines

2011-10-29T11:34:00.000-07:00

F. Leroy Forlinesoffers what I have found to be one of the best concise explanations of the giftof faith in the brief statement below. It effectively silences the Calvinistharp of monergism with regard to faith and presents the common sense Christianunderstanding of the synergistic nature of faith.

I believe that saving faith is a gift of God in the sensethat the Holy Spirit gives divine enablement without which faith in Christwould be impossible (John 6:44). The difference between the Calvinistic conceptof faith and my concept of faith cannotbe that theirs is monergistic and mineis synergistic. In both cases it is synergistic. Activeparticipation in faith by the believer means that it must be synergistic. Humanresponse cannot be ruled out of faith. Justification and regeneration aremonergistic. Each is an act of God, not man. Faith is a human act by divineenablement and therefore cannot be monergistic. - Classical Arminianism: A Theology of Salvation, Forlines, ed.Pinson, Randall House Nashville, 2011, p.24

Lydia, A Woman of Faith and a Recipient of Prevenient Grace

2011-10-27T10:09:00.000-07:00

And a certain womannamed Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God,heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things whichwere spoken of Paul. (Ac 16:14 AV)

A proof text for those who advocate a pre-faithregeneration, the above passage is sometimes abused by those who tend to readtheir theology into the text, a careless exercise by any measure. Lydia has been presented as an unbeliever whoseworship was tainted by insincerity. Is there any truth to that? There isnothing in the text to indicate any sense of vain worship. There is norevelation of her being far from the heart of God. It merely tells us that sheworshiped God. Being from Thyatira or the modern city of Ahkisar in centralTurkey (to the north-northeast of Ephesus), Lydia was a Gentile proselyte to theHebrew faith. This tells us she came out of her heathen life and embraced theGod of the Hebrews. The passage tells us at least that much, she worshiped God.This indicates that rather than being regenerated when God “opened” her heartin this instance, she came out of whatever depravity she was born into prior tothe visit by Paul and the others of his entourage. By worshiping God, she wasalready a woman of faith. Granted, her faith had not been converted to Christat that point but then, neither had King David’s faith been such in his day.Should we suggest that David’s faith and worship was done in vain? God forbidfor the scriptures tell us he had a heart after the LORD.

It is important to recognize that not all of Judea wasswallowed up in vain worship tainted by the religious rulers of the day. Thebible tells us God has always had a remnant of believers among His people.Given the text, it seems entirely reasonable that God saw Lydia as one of thatfaithful remnant and when the time came for that Gospel to be preached, Heprovided the grace necessary to fully comprehend and embrace that Gospel. IfLydia is said to have worshiped God, it seems short sighted and rather hasty todelegate her to the spirit of this world rather than being of God the Father.To do so in order to further a philosophical, dogmatic teaching is, in myopinion, damaging to one’s faith in the veracity and infallibility ofscripture. A surprising defense of this reading into scripture has been thesuggestion that Luke was merely passing on his opinion of Lydia’s outwardappearance of religion rather than the indicated truth of Lydia being aworshiper of God. That is quite convenient but at what point do we accept what theBible instructs as truth rather than question that given truth? If the Bibletells us that someone worships God and gives absolutely no indication of a vainfaith, we should accept what scripture tells us rather than try to force itinto a poorly fitted argument.

The doctrine of pre-faith regeneration is forced upon thispassage because it has God’s work of grace preceding the delivery of the Gospelthrough which faith comes to those who hear. However, God’s prevenient gracebetter matches the narrative especially when regeneration is regarded as thatborn again experience proceeding from the burying of the old self throughconviction and repentance. As a proselyte,Lydia was converted from her heathenism and entered the fellowship of those whoworshiped the one true God, the God of the Hebrews. God tells us so in His veryword. Lydia worshiped God. Whether one wishes to argue that regenerationprecedes faith or not, it would have to go to the place where Lydia ceasedbeing an unbeliever in the God of the Hebrews under the old covenant. It has togo to the same place that such occurred to David and every other saint whoworshiped God, assumingly in truth and spirit.

The Enmity of the World Toward Christ - A.W. Tozer

2011-10-17T11:36:00.001-07:00

A.W. Tozer wrote a wonderful book entitled Man, The Dwelling Place of God. The following extract is of chapter 4 of this public domain publication and addresses the significance of two classes of human beings, the "born again" and the natural men of this world. The enmity of the latter toward the former and the characteristics of each identify the unique distinction of one from the other. It is as a result a contrast between an evangelical necessity and a contrary ecumenism.

http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/tozer/5j00.0010/5j00.0010.c.htm

The Once-born and the Twice-born

CLASSIFICATION IS ONE OF THE MOST DIFFICULT of all tasks. Even in the realm of religion there are enough lights and shades to make it injudicious to draw too fine a line between men and men. If the religious world were composed of squares of solid black and solid white classification would be easy; but unfortunately it is not.

It is a grave error for us evangelicals to assume that the children of God are all in our communion and that all who are not associated with us are ipso facto enemies of the Lord. The Pharisees made that mistake and crucified Christ as a consequence.

With all this in mind, and leaning over backwards to be fair and charitable, there is yet one distinction which we dare make, which indeed we must make if we are to think the thoughts of God after Him and bring our beliefs into harmony with the Holy Scriptures. That distinction is the one which exists between two classes of human beings, the once-born and the twice-born.

That such a distinction does in fact exist was taught by our Lord with great plainness of speech, in contexts which preclude the possibility that He was merely speaking figuratively. "Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God," He said, and the whole chapter where these words are found confirms that He was speaking precisely, setting forth meanings as blunt and downright as it is possible for language to convey.

"Ye must be born again," said Christ. "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." This clear line of demarcation runs through the entire New Testament, quite literally dividing one human being from another and making a distinction as sharp as that which exists between different genera of the animal kingdom.

Just who belongs to one class and who to the other it is not always possible to judge, though the two kinds of life ordinarily separate from each other. Those who are twice-born crystallize around the Person of Christ and cluster together in companies, while the once-born are held together only by the ties of nature, aided by the ties of race or by common political and social interests.

Our Lord warned His disciples that they would be persecuted. "In the world ye shall have tribulation," He said, and "Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake."

These are only two of many passages of the New Testament warning of persecution or recording the fact of harassment and attack suffered by the followers of the Lord. This same idea runs through the entire Bible from the once-born Cain who slew the twice-born Abel to the Book of the Revelation where the end of human history comes in a burst of blood and fire.

That hostility exists between the once-born and the twice-born is known to every student of the Bible; the reason for it was stated by Christ when He said, "If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you." The rule was laid down by the apostle Paul when he wrote, "But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now."

Difference of moral standards between the onceborn and the twice-born, and their opposite ways of life, may be contributing causes of this hostility; but the real cause lies deeper. There are two spirits abroad in the earth: the spirit that works in the children of disobedience and the Spirit of God. These two can never be reconciled in time or in eternity. The spirit that dwells in the once-born is forever opposed to the Spirit that inhabits the heart of the twice-born. This hostility began somewhere in the remote past before the creation of man and continues to this day. The modern effort to bring peace between these two spirits is not only futile but contrary to the moral laws of the universe.

To teach that the spirit of the once-born is at enmity with the Spirit of the twice-born is to bring down upon one's head every kind of violent abuse. No language is too bitter to hurl against the conceited bigot who would dare to draw such a line of distinction between men. Such malignant ideas are at odds with the brotherhood of man, says the once-born, and are held only by the apostles of disunity and hate. This mighty rage against the twice-born only serves to confirm the truth they teach. But this no one seems to notice.

What we need to restore power to the Christian testimony is not soft talk about brotherhood but an honest recognition that two human races occupy the earth simultaneously: a fallen race that sprang from the loins of Adam and a regenerate race that is born of the Spirit through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus.

To accept this truth requires a tough-mindedness and a spiritual maturity that modern Christians simply do not possess. To face up to it hardly contributes to that "peace of mind" after which our religious weaklings bleat so plaintively.

For myself, I long ago decided that I would rather know the truth than be happy in ignorance. If I cannot have both truth and happiness, give me truth. We'll have a long time to be happy in heaven.

The Importance of the Atonement - Forlines

2011-10-09T11:49:00.001-07:00

... Of all the events in the experience of Christ, His birth, His life, His death, His resurrection, and His return, His death stands central. As important as the other events are, both in themselves and in relation to His death, the death of Christ remains central, because apart from atonement there would be no forgiveness of sins. Christianity would be nonexistent. It is the birth that makes the death of Christ possible, but it is the death that makes the birth important. It is the resurrection that makes possible the application of the benefits of His death. It is the death that makes His resurrection important and makes the one who has been restored to life the Redeemer.

It is of the utmost importance that we maintain a sound doctrine of atonement. The study of the atonement must be done with the whole personality, not just the rational mind. While a study of atonement is fascinating in its logical consistency, it must go deeper than that to be comprehended. It must grip the heart also. There is nothing that sheds light on the serious of holiness and sin like the atonement that God provided to bring forgiveness of sin. A proper view of atonement puts seriousness into the whole study of theology. Any system of ethics that does not read from atonement the seriousness of sin and understanding of God's holiness and God's love that is seen in atonement will be grossly inadequate. Any view of grace that is not grounded in the understanding of sin, holiness, and the high regard for law that is manifested in atonement will be empty, shallow, and shot through with the tendencies of antinomianism…(1)

1. Classical Arminianism: A Theology of Salvation, F. Leroy Forlines, ed. Pinson, pp 199-200, (Nashville, Randall House, 2011)

FACTS vs TULIP

2011-10-07T10:51:00.000-07:00

The Society of Evangelical Arminians published an excellent reference chart to help explain the differences between the Arminian acronym FACTS and the common Calvinist doctrine expressed by TULIP.

FACTS vs TULIP

Old Earth Creationism: Orthodox, Heterodox or Neither?

2011-10-03T14:38:00.001-07:00

"You do not believe the Bible"! "You are calling Jesus a liar"! "You could not have much faith in the Word of God if you believe that"! "That is nothing but the presumptions of secularists"! Just about every empty argument that can be made has been leveled at one or other persons who have examined the physical evidence around us and concluded that the earth must be considerably greater than a mere six thousand years. While young in the faith I took my young earth creationist teachers at their word and agreed with them about such things however as I have aged and explored the faith and scriptures, that is no longer a proposition I can hold to. Perhaps "pragmatic creationist" is a preferred nomenclature for that seems to address the incorporation of physical evidence with the faith one has in the creation account of Genesis. This of course demands a reconciliation of what we deem physical evidence with that of faith being the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen. The former we can measure and observe. The latter we accept as truth from the LORD who has changed us from those who cannot fathom what is beyond the physical sense to those who trust their entire being in hope and what is not seen. Can this evidence be reconciled with the substance of faith? Unless the evidence is wrong or merely a great deception through God's handiwork, it must be and if creation is to be believed and hence the Bible itself, one must fit rationally and neatly with the other.

Could or would God work His hand in the construction of an elaborate deception intended to cause men to handle evidence that clearly indicates an age of the earth that rather than being a mere six thousand years old is instead, millions or billions of years in age? If this would somehow fit into an end picture of God's plan for creation, the thought can be entertained but for the intentional deception. The coal miner in West Virginia whose mechanical shovel just unturned a seam of coal littered with fossils of plants long known to be extinct has uncovered physical evidence of a very old earth. It is not evidence that stands on its own but when included among the varying layers of stratified coal, shale and sandstone formations above this particular seam, it conclusively eliminates a certain cause e.g. a global flood. The extensive reach of fossil fuel and petrochemical deposits testifies to the sheer volume of organic material needed to produce such large quantities of fossilized carbon. Something other than a singular global event must have occurred to produce stratified layers of rock formations and fossil fuels. The math does not work and the physical evidence is there for us to see. Did the hand of God place the fossil fern in the seam and was that meant to deceive? I have a difficult time believing that would be the case and I have yet to read a convincing argument to explain the physical evidence fitting a day one creation account.

Old earth creationism (OEC) has been an acceptable theological premise at least since being included in the notes to the Scofield Reference Bible in the 1940s. Not limited to dispensationist minded believers, the Gap theory associated with OEC gained acceptance among fundamentalists, Baptists and non-denominational believers of varying persuasions. In that sense, the viewpoint should be considered within the pale of orthodoxy and certainly not heterodoxy given that there is no damage to the orthodoxy of the person and work of Jesus Christ e.g soteriology, birth, death, burial and resurrection of Christ. While Young Earth Creationists (YEC) might disagree with that assessment and they are entitled to their opinion, problems do not seem to arise until creationism is challenged and the core truths of scripture cross a threshold of unbelief. While there are other streams of thought concerning OEC, the Gap theory sometimes referred to as "Ruin-Restoration" maintains belief in the creation account while making a purposeful distinction between Gen 1:2-3. Those of us accepting of this theory find no conflict with an old age of a previously ruined world and the restoration through the creation account provided at the beginning of the Bible. God did everything he stated in chapter one and restored this world in the six literal days mentioned. That is the Gap theory and it is reconciled with the abundant physical evidence all around us. There is no need to assume the impossible volume of organic fossil fuel through the global flood (something most GAP theorists also believe to be literally true). There is no need to imagine how Noah had a pair of T-Rex dinosaurs loaded onto the Ark. One fellow recently suggested that eggs were rolled onto the Ark rather than violently carnivorous adults. I am not sure how that works nor do I have any idea if T-Rex actually existed in the manner it is depicted in scientific "folklore". There is so much we truly do not know. However, we can be comfortable theorizing that there is a gap between a ruined world and a newly restored world that does not conflict with the creation account of Genesis and at the same time is wholly consistent with hard, physical evidence that cannot be reconciled with a 6,000 year age.

The argument of whether these matters are orthodox or heterodox really comes down to a question of essential doctrine. Is the rejection of Ruin-Restoration theory an essential position in the church? I do not believe so. Does orthodoxy hinge on the singular creation of all that has ever existed in eternity? I think it is silly to make such broad and sweeping generalizations . Instead, pragmatic creationism allows believers to incorporate the witness of the creation around us without conflict into the text of scripture itself. I do not have to consider the evidence to have been a heavenly trick played on "science" nor do I have any need or desire to reject creationism as some of our "theistic evolutionists" are forced to do. Both reconcile neatly into my understanding and acceptance of scripture.

Alzheimer’s Disease and Our Christian Commitments

2011-09-19T09:04:00.001-07:00

Listening to AM talk radio late one evening earlier this week, I tried dozing off to sleep as one of the shows had noted CBS correspondent Barry Petersen as a guest to discuss his recent book, Jan's Story. It is a hard to digest telling of his wife's ongoing struggle and fading of life with Alzheimer's disease. I suppose most of us are familiar with at least one person who has succumbed to this insidious disease. I lost my grandmother to it a few years ago after several years of diagnosis and my mother gave a considerable portion of her life to caring for her in those elder years. She lived into her early nineties before passing away with it but as with all cases of Alzheimer's, what is left at the end stages of such lives is really little more than an animated corpse of one's previous self. Having conversations with the reflection of yourself in a mirror and having no idea that the person looking back at yourself is you is a frightening reality for many in such conditions. Add to that the lost communication or even the ability to acknowledge who and what you are and our comprehension of the devastation of Alzheimer's becomes a bit clearer albeit still beyond our own personal experience to grasp. Even the primary caretaker faces phenomenal life changes that are difficult to express appropriately. Mr. Petersen discussed several of these life changes and rather than drift off to sleep, I lay there thinking of this matter later into the evening.

It might have been the next day or two when I encountered a short article by Dr. Russell Moore of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary discussing recent controversial comments by Pat Robertson of the Christian Coalition and "700 Club" television program. Dr. Moore was presenting a Christian challenge to Robertson's comment approving of the divorce of spouses who suffer from advanced stages of Alzheimer's. Moore's rebuttal of Robertson's position reminded me of Barry Petersen's comments concerning his current personal relationships. With his wife institutionalized at this point, Petersen met another woman with whom he established a personal and intimate relationship with and in his words, are now a family of three. I don't know what to think of that other than to suggest it strikes me wrong on every front. Robertson viewed the patient as essentially dead and with regard to what and who that person was cognitively, I suppose he is right in a sense. As I note, I use the phrase animated corpse as well. However, there is something more at stake than just an intimate and acknowledged relationship. Marriage is, as Dr. Moore notes, a type of the relationship Jesus Christ has with His church and that relationship is not destroyed or cast aside when one member of the church becomes "less useful". In that sense I can only second Moore's rebuttal and certainly in my own case, were such to occur, I could not turn my back on "for better and for worse, in sickness and in health". It is not in my "Christian constitution" to do so.

The difficulty I have with this is that I can understand the frustration of spouses faced with these ordeals. My grandfather had passed away many years prior to my grandmother's diagnosis and death so that circumstance was not an issue. Mr. Petersen's wife, Jan, was diagnosed when she was fifty five years old. I can understand why Mr. Petersen chose his current path knowing as well that he has not forsaken the care of his wife in doing so. I might not agree with it but I understand it. What I cannot understand is how a Christian evangelist can offer such unbiblical advice and opinion. A lot has been written on this immediate controversy and it is an issue of great interest to me but I believe that the commitment of one to the other regardless of health and illness means considerably more than the category of disease that some might use to qualify such commitments.

hiatus

2011-08-31T20:02:00.001-07:00

noun, plural -tus·es, -tus.

a break or interruption in the continuity of a work, series,action, etc.

a missing part; gap or lacuna: Scholars attempted to account for the hiatus in the medieval manuscript.

any gap or opening.

Grammar, Prosody . the coming together, with or withoutbreak or slight pause, and without contraction, of two vowels in successive words or syllables, as in see easily.

Anatomy . a natural fissure, cleft, or foramen in a bone orother structure.

The Liberalism Straw Man of Young, Restless Reformers

2011-08-12T11:04:00.000-07:00

As Arminians, we often have to deal with a number of scurrilous charges and various innuendoes inflicted upon our faith by an assortment of polemicists, predominantly at the hand of the young, restless Reformed variety and their elder teachers. Whether it is a straw man of “free willism”, salvation by works or open theism and a host of other unsupportable accusations, each is brought to nothing by the revelation of plain, simple truth. Truth will always bring to naught any straw man fabricated for divisive purposes. I came across another bale of straw dressed up as knowledge today. The following quote was offered to buttress another’s doctrine of mush and as always, truth will grind it to chaff.

"We are living in a day in which practically all of the historic
churches are being attacked from within by unbelief. Many
of them have already succumbed. And most invariably the
line of descent has been from Calvinism to Arminianism,
from Arminianism to Liberalism, and then to Unitarianism.
And the history of Liberalism and Unitarianism shows that
they deteriorate into a social gospel that is too weak to
sustain itself. We are convinced that the future of Christianity
is bound up with that system of theology historically called
"Calvinism." Where the God-centered principles of
Calvinism have been abandoned, there has been a strong
tendency downward into the depths of man-centered
naturalism or secularism. Some have declared -- rightly,
we believe -- that there is no consistent stopping place
between Calvinism and Atheism."

[Calvinism, hyper-Calvinism and Armimianism, pages 3-4,
by Kenneth G. Talbot & W. Gary Crampton; Still Waters
Revival books]

This is sheer ignorance. The "granddaddy of theological liberalism" was Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher who came out of the German Reformed theological stream and not Arminianism. The "daddy" of American Unitarianism is nothing but Calvinistic Puritanism. The United Church of Christ, the result of a merging of various Congregational Churches (previously Puritan), is one of the most liberal churches in the country. The Presbyterian Church - USA, straight out of the Calvinist Reformed tradition, rivals the UCC for promoting homosexuality in the pulpit and rejecting the infallibility of scripture among other liberal disasters.

Calvinists are quick to repeat the lie contained in this quote but as the above comments note, the greatest growth of theological liberalism in the church has come directly from Calvinistic Reformed sources without ever touching Arminianism. If we add other aberrant teachings to the mix we would also have to include the origins of the various Church of Christ sects that arose out of Calvinistic Presbyterians and Baptists (the Restoration movements of Campbell and Stone). If you are going to try to beat somebody with a propaganda lie, you better be prepared for the truth to knock some sense into you.

Parsing Words and Thoughts and Nit Picking

2011-07-27T10:02:00.001-07:00

I came across this short passage a bit ago and wondered why people sit and ruminate about such things. Half the time if not more they don't know what in the world they are talking about but just as often they puff up a reply to sound knowledgeable.

But if you preach the gospel, you just might discover that it is not quite so popular. But it is powerful and it is mysterious. Why? Because it was a mystery that God hid from previous generations in order that it might be displayed publicly at the time of the Lord Jesus Christ

Is the answer to the question regarding the mysteriousness of the Gospel found in stating that it was because it was a mystery? I don't think so but I'm just toying with the post. Having it be a mystery until Christ also doesn't address why it is powerful. It is like stating the beach is sandy because it has sand on it. Skim away the dross and the question remains unanswered yet it sounded good. Wise men can nod their heads with little wisdom pouts and feel good but the serious question remains. Why is the Gospel powerful and how is it that these words and this message of hope carry with it the power to change men's lives? I think the author should have simply said he didn't really know why instead of pretending he did with the reply given. I certainly do not have the grand reply but it is worth pondering for a while.

Sometimes It Is Better To Slow Down

2011-07-26T09:56:00.000-07:00

Occasionally while in a rush to respond to a comment we make foolish mistakes. I hate it when that happens. While replying to a poor soul in a rather hasty manner, I inserted something that sounded nice and biblical but wasn't even close. It was a lot like that familiar saying that some folk have heard a lot over the years, "God helps those that help themselves". It sounds nice but it's not scriptural. In my rush I tossed in an old and familiar saying and attributed it to the Word of God. "Feed a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime". Doesn't that sound wise and biblical? I should have known better but rushing to beat another at his own game, I shot myself in the foot. The old proverb is actually Chinese and I realized it shortly after replying however the damage was done. Roasted crow is on the table and in my embarrassment I must eat it.
The lesson here is to measure our words and reply with patience otherwise the fool gets his glory. That is not exactly scriptural or even close but the intent seems wise to me.

Calvinist Trees Blocking the Christian Forest

2011-07-25T09:26:00.001-07:00

Once in a while an argument is encountered or a speaker is engaged in a long monologue that you wish the presenter could have stepped back and taken a more sound approach with his argument. Instead we are left with a spurious design and empty, fallacious rhetoric. This is often the case with Calvinist apologetics and with a recent post by R.C. Sproul, the tradition continues. More than a few Calvinists have recommended Sproul's seminal book Chosen By God as a representative tome of modern Calvinist thought. I read it quite some time ago and found it to be a continuation of the expected arguments I've encountered far too many times from Calvinists of all stripes. A straw man is constructed, an argument devised to tear it down and the ensuing victory party all proceed from the same tainted arguments over and over again. The same is true with the brief extract from "Chosen" that Sproul has posted on his website.

Sproul has built an argument using John 3:16 to oppose a position that is rarely made i.e. that non-Reformed (non-Calvinists) stake a position on this passage to argue that man has some innate ability to freely choose to come to the LORD. He states "... What does this famous verse teach about fallen man's ability to choose Christ? The answer, simply, is nothing. The argument used by non-Reformed people is that the text teaches that everybody in the world has it in their power to accept or reject Christ ...". Unfortunately for Sproul, he has dedicated considerable capital to dispelling this straw man without addressing the more appropriate argument that Arminians such as myself make with John 3:16. No classical or Reformed Arminian I know of argues for the Pelagian position of innate goodness and ability on the part of fallen man to do anything whatsoever with regard to a first step or a last or any step in between. Instead, this universal passage and the most often quoted verse in scripture is a clear denunciation of the spurious Calvinist doctrine of Limited Atonement. It tears down the idea that God reprobated a large percentage of mankind for his glory and showed some sense of partiality for an "elect" independent of foreknowing their faith. Even John Calvin in his commentaries regarding this chapter of John acknowledges the universal application of Christ's atonement without exception.

R.C. Sproul, instead of taking another victory lap around the ashes of your little bonfire from several years ago, perhaps you could address the true importance of the passage and attempt to address actual Arminian doctrine instead of the fabrications of your rather ill-informed polemic.

Campus Crusade for Christ International Dropping Christ

2011-07-21T14:15:00.000-07:00

I would like to think I am surprised by things such as this but I no longer am. The Campus Crusade for Christ International is dropping the mention of Christ from it's name because it offends a small number of Christians and a lot of non-Christians. As with hiding a light under a basket, removing Christ as your first and foremost focus, especially for fear of offending those who find Christ offensive, is anti-missionary. The mention of Christ in their name somehow handicaps their "mission", whatever that might be. My take on this is that if Christ handicaps anything you are doing, you need to change what you are doing instead of distancing yourself from Jesus Christ. This move seems to be nothing but a compromise with those who neither know Christ nor love those who do.

Calvinists Who Love Wesley

2011-06-25T06:55:00.000-07:00

This is an excellent irenic article discussing the admiration several notable Calvinists have expressed for the Godly work of John Wesley. It has made a few rounds on the Net already, including SEA, but it is worth bookmarking here and saving for future use.

Calvinists Who Love Wesley - Fred Sanders

Odd Thought From the Net

2011-06-23T13:30:00.000-07:00

A Calvinist fellow made an unusual observation earlier that I thought deserved a bit of reflection. He stated ...

I think you may wish to revise your statement about being a follower of classic Arminianism: you deny predetermination in eternity by God, as well as other classic Arminian doctrines.

Suffice to state that while unusual it is also quite peculiar and in my opinion certainly inaccurate. The comment came completely out of the blue unrelated to the discussion at hand and as far as I can tell the gentleman has neither expressed Arminius view on predestination nor offered how I might possibly differ from those views. Several of Arminius' comments are noted in one of the sidebars including his comments on predestination taken from his Declaration of Sentiments. In reviewing those comments I can confirm my agreement with the whole of his presentation as can most other classical or Reformed Arminians.

Arminius viewed predestination as a Christocentric doctrine with the eternal foreknowledge of God being the indication of every man's destination. It is not a picture of God peering down through the annals of time to select believers. It is God eternally knowing those who trust in Christ. He knows because He is God and from our perspective, it is described as foreknowledge. Arminius offers this in the following manner.

To these succeeds the fourth decree, by which God decreed to save and damn certain particular persons. This decree has its foundation in the foreknowledge of God, by which he knew from all eternity those individuals who would, through his preventing grace, believe, and, through his subsequent grace would persevere, according to the before described administration of those means which are suitable and proper for conversion and faith; and, by which foreknowledge, he likewise knew those who would not believe and persevere.

The full text of this Sentiment is found here.

I've offered the curious fellow the opportunity to reply here if he wishes.

Arminius on the First Sin of the First Man

2011-06-15T08:19:00.000-07:00

ON THE FIRST SIN OF THE FIRST MAN

(taken from the Works of James Arminius, Vol I, Public Disputations (7))

Respondent: Abraham Appart

The use of the doctrine

I. When an inquiry is instituted concerning this first evil, we do not agitate the question for the purpose of unworthily exposing to disgrace the nakedness of the first formed pair, which had been closely covered up, as impious Ham did in reference to his father. (Gen 9:22) But we enter on this subject, that, after it is accurately known, as when the cause of a mortal disease is discovered, we may with the greater earnestness implore the hand which heals and cures. (Gal 2:16) In this discussion four things seem to be principally entitled to a consideration. (1.) The sin itself. (2.) Its causes. (3.) Its heinousness. (4.) Its effects.

The sin itself

II. This sin is most appropriately called by the Apostle, "disobedience," and "offense" or fall. (Rom 5:18-19) (1.). Disobedience; for, since the law against which the sin was committed, was symbolical, having been given to testify that man was under a law to God, and to prove his obedience, and since the subsequent performance of it was to be a confession of devoted submission and due obedience; the transgression of it cannot, in fact, be denoted by a more commodious name than that of "disobedience," which contains within itself the denial of subjection and the renunciation of obedience. (2.) Offense, or fall. Because as man, having been previously placed in a state of integrity, walked with unstumbling feet in the way of God’s commandments; by this foul deed he impinged or offended against the law itself, and fell from his state of innocence. (Rom 5:15-18)

III. This sin, therefore, is a transgression of the law which was delivered by God, to the first human beings, about not eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; perpetrated by the free will of man, from a desire to be like God, and through the persuasion of Satan that assumed the shape of a serpent. On account of this transgression, man fell under the displeasure and the wrath of God, rendered himself subject to a double death, and deserving to be deprived of the primeval righteousness and holiness, in which a great part of the image of God consisted. (Gen 2:17, Rom 5:19, Gen 3:3-6, Gen 3:23-24, Rom 5:12, Rom 5:16, Luke 19:26.)

The cause of this sin

IV. The efficient cause of this sin is two fold. The one immediate and near. The other remote and mediate. (1.) The former is Man himself, who, of his own free will and without any necessity either internal or external, (Gen 3:6) transgressed the law which had been proposed to him, (Rom 5:19) which had been sanctioned by a threatening and a promise, (Gen 2:16-17) and which it was possible for him to have observed (Gen 2:9,23,24) (2.) The remote and mediate efficient cause is the Devil, who, envying the Divine glory and the salvation of mankind, solicited man to a transgression of that law. (John 8:44) The instrumental cause is the Serpent, whose tongue Satan abused, for proposing to man these arguments which he considered suitable to persuade him. (Gen 3:1, 2 Cor 11:3) It is not improbable, that the grand deceiver made a conjecture from his own case; as he might himself have been enticed to the commission of sin by the same arguments. (Gen 3: 4-5)

V. Those arguments which may be called "both the inwardly moving" and "the outwardly-working causes," were two. (1.) The one, directly persuading, was deduced from a view of the advantage which man would obtain from it, that is, a likeness to God. (Gen 3:5-6) (2.) The other was a removing argument, one of dissuasion, taken from God’s threatening; lest the fear of punishment, prevailing over the desire of a similitude to God, should hinder man from eating. (Gen 3:4) Though the first of these two arguments occupies the first station, with regard to order, in the proposition; yet, we think, it obtained the last place with regard to efficiency. To these arguments may be added two qualities imparted by the Creator to the fruit of the tree, calculated blandly to affect and allure the senses of a human being; these qualities are intimated in the words, "that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes." (Gen 3:6) But there is this difference between the two principal arguments and these qualities. The former were proposed by the Devil to persuade to the commission of sin, as such; while the two qualities implanted by God were proposed only for the purpose of persuading [the woman] to eat, if that could have been done without sinning.

VI. The inwardly-moving causes, but which became such by accident, were two. (1.) Such an affection, or desire, for a likeness to God, as had been implanted in man by God himself; but it was to be exercised in a certain order and method. For the gracious image and likeness of God, according to which man was created, tended towards his glorious image and likeness. (2 Cor 3:18) (2.) A natural affection for the fruit which was good in its taste, pleasant in its aspect, and well adapted for preserving and recruiting animal life.

VII. But as it was the duty of man to resist the efficacy of all and each of these several causes, so was it likewise in power; for he had been "created after the image of God," and therefore, in "the knowledge of God," (Gen 1:27, Col 3:10) and endued with righteousness and true holiness. (Eph 4:24) This resistance might have been effected by his repelling and rejecting the causes which operated outwardly, and by reducing into order and subjecting to the Law and to the Spirit of God those which, impelled inwardly. If he had acted thus, the temptation, out of which he would have departed victorious, would not have been imputed to him as an offense against the violated law. (Gen 3:7-12)

VIII. But the guilt of this sin can by no means be transferred to God, either as an efficient or as a deficient cause. (1.) Not as an efficient cause. For He neither perpetrated this crime through man, nor employed against man any action, either internal or external, by which he might incite him to sin. (Psalm 5:5, James 1:13) (2.) Not as a deficient cause. For He neither denied nor withdrew any thing that was necessary for avoiding this sin and fulfilling the law; but He had endowed Him sufficiently with all things requisite for that purpose, and preserved him after he was thus endued.

IX. But the Divine permission intervened; not as having permitted that act to man’s legitimate right and power, that he might commit it without sin, for such a permission as this is contrary to legislation; (Gen 2:17) but as having permitted it to the free will and capability of man. This Divine permission is not the denial or the withdrawing of the grace necessary and sufficient for fulfilling the law; (Isa 5:4) for if a permission of this kind were joined to legislation, it would ascribe the efficiency of sin to God. But it is the suspension of some efficiency, which is possible to God both according to right and to capability, and which, if exerted, would prevent sin in its actual commission. This is commonly called "an efficacious hindrance." But God was not bound to employ this impediment, when He had already laid down those hindrances to sin which might and ought to have withheld and deterred man from sinning, and which consisted in the communication of his own image, in the appointment of his law, in the threat of punishments, and in the promise of rewards.

X. Though the cause of this permission may be reckoned in the number of those things which, such is the will of God, are hidden from us, (Deut 24:29) yet, while with modesty and reverence we inspect the acts of God, it appears to us that a two-fold cause may be maintained, the one a priori, the other a posteriori. (1.) We will enunciate the former in the words of Tertullian. "If God had once allowed to man the free exercise of his own will and had duly granted this permission, He undoubtedly had permitted the enjoyment of these things through the very authority of the institution. But they were to be enjoyed as in Him, and according to Him; that is, according to God, that is, for good. For who will permit any thing against himself? But as in man [they were to be enjoyed] according to the motions of his liberty." (2.) The cause a posteriori shall be given in the words of St. Augustine. "A good being would not suffer evil to be done, unless He was likewise Omnipotent, and capable of bringing good out of that evil."

XI. The material cause of this sin is the tasting of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, which is an act in its own nature indifferent, and easily avoidable by man in the midst of such abundant plenty of good and various fruits. From this shine forth the admirable benignity and kindness of God; whose will it was to have experience of the obedience of his creature, in an act which that creature could with the utmost facility omit, without injury to his nature, and even without any detriment to his pleasure. This seems to have been intimated by God himself when he propounded the precept in this manner. "Of every tree of the garden thou shalt freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat." (Gen 2:16-17)

XII. But the form of this sin is anomia "the transgression of the law," (1 John 3:4) which belongs to this act in reference to its having been forbidden by the law. And because this relation adhered to the act from the time when God circumscribed it by a law, the effect of it was that the act ought to be omitted. (Dan 3:18) For the moral evil, which adhered to it through the prohibition of God, was greater, than the natural good which was in the act by nature. There was also in man the image of God, according to which he ought to have been more abhorrent of that act because sin adhered to it, than to be inclined by a natural affection to the act itself, because some good was joined with it.

XIII. No end can be assigned to this sin. For evil, of itself, has not an end, since an end has always reference to a good. But the acts of the end were, that man might obtain a likeness to God in the knowledge of good and evil, and that he might satisfy his senses of taste and seeing. (Gen 3:5-6) But he did not suppose, that he would gain this similitude by sin as such, but by an act as it was a natural one. It had the boundary which the Divine determination placed round about it, and which was two-fold. The one, agreeing with the nature of sin, according to the severity of God. The other, transcending sin, nay, contravening it, according to the grace and mercy of God. (Rom 9:22-23)

The heinousness of this sin

XIV. From the particulars already discussed, some judgment may be formed of the heinousness of this sin, which seems principally to consist of these four things. (1) That it is the transgression of a law that is not peculiar [to one person, or only to a few,] but of a law which universally bears witness to the obligation of man towards God, and which is a test of his obedience. A contempt of this law has in it a renunciation of the covenant into which God has entered with man, and of the obedience which from that covenant is due to God. (Gen 17:14) (2.) That man perpetrated this crime, after he had been placed in a state of innocence and adorned by God with such excellent endowments as those of "the knowledge of God," and "righteousness and true holiness." (Gen 1:26-27, Col 3:10, Eph 4:24) (3.) That when so many facilities existed for not sinning, especially in the act itself, yet man did not abstain from this sin. (Gen 2:16-17)( 4.) That he committed this sin in a place that was sanctified as a type of the celestial Paradise. (Gen 2:15-16, Gen 3:23, Rev 2:7) There are some other things which may aggravate this sin; but since it has them in common with most other offenses, we shall not at present enter into a discussion of them.

The effects of this sin

XV. The proper and immediate effect of this sin was the offending of the Deity. For since the form of sin is "the transgression of the law," (1 John 3:4) it primarily and immediately strikes against the legislator himself, (Gen 3:11) and this with the offending of one whose express will it was that his law should not be offended. From this violation of his law, God conceives just displeasure, which is the second effect of sin. (Gen 3:16-19,23,24.) But to anger succeeds infliction of punishment, which was in this instance two-fold. (1.) A liability to two deaths. (Gen 2:17, Rom 6:23) (2.) The withdrawing of that primitive righteousness and holiness, which, because they are the effects of the Holy Spirit dwelling in man, ought not to have remained in him after he had fallen from the favour of God, and had incurred the Divine displeasure. (Luke 19:26) For this Spirit is a seal of God’s favour and good will. (Rom 8:14-15, 1 Cor 2:12)

XVI. The whole of this sin, however, is not peculiar to our first parents, but is common to the entire race and to all their posterity, who, at the time when this sin was committed, were in their loins, and who have since descended from them by the natural mode of propagation, according to the primitive benediction. For in Adam "all have sinned." (Rom 5:12) Wherefore, whatever punishment was brought down upon our first parents, has likewise pervaded and yet pursues all their posterity. So that all men "are by nature the children of wrath," (Eph 2:3) obnoxious to condemnation, and to temporal as well as to eternal death; they are also devoid of that original righteousness and holiness. (Rom 5:12,18-19) With these evils they would remain oppressed forever, unless they were liberated by Christ Jesus; to whom be glory forever.

Arminius on Justification

2011-06-02T09:44:00.000-07:00

Justification (taken from the Works of James Arminius, Vol II, Private Disputations (48))

I. The spiritual benefits which believers enjoy in the present life, from their union with Christ through communion with his death and life, may be properly referred to that of justification and sanctification, as in those two is comprehended the whole promise of the new covenant, in which God promises that he will pardon sins, and will write his laws in the hearts of believers, who have entered into covenant with him.

II. Justification is a just and gracious act of God as a judge, by which, from the throne of his grace and mercy, he absolves from his sins, man, a sinner, but who is a believer, on account of Christ, and the obedience and righteousness of Christ, and considers him righteous, to the salvation of the justified person, and to the glory of divine righteousness and grace.

III. We say that "it is the act of God as a judge," who though as the supreme legislator he could have issued regulations concerning his law, and actually did issue them, yet has not administered this direction through the absolute plenitude of infinite power, but contained himself within the bounds of justice which he demonstrated by two methods, First, because God would not justify, except as justification was preceded by reconciliation and satisfaction made through Christ in his blood; Secondly, because he would not justify any except those who acknowledged their sins and believed in Christ.

IV. We say that "it is a gracious and merciful act; "not with respect to Christ, as if the Father, through grace as distinguished from strict and rigid justice, had accepted the obedience of Christ for righteousness, but with respect to us, both because God, through his gracious mercy towards us, has made Christ to be sin for us, and righteousness to us, that we might be the righteousness of God in him, and because he has placed communion with Christ in the faith of the gospel, and has set forth Christ as a propitiation through faith.

V. The meritorious cause of justification is Christ through his obedience and righteousness, who may, therefore, be justly called the principal or outwardly moving cause. In his obedience and righteousness, Christ is also the material cause of our justification, so far as God bestows Christ on us for righteousness, and imputes his righteousness and obedience to us. In regard to this two-fold cause, that is, the meritorious and the material, we are said to be constituted righteous through the obedience of Christ.

VI. The object of justification is man, a sinner, acknowledging himself, with sorrow, to be such an one, and a believer, that is, believing in God who justifies the ungodly, and in Christ as having been delivered for our offenses, and raised again for our justification. As a sinner, man needs justification through grace, and, as a believer, he obtains justification through grace.

VII. Faith is the instrumental cause, or act, by which we apprehend Christ proposed to us by God for a propitiation and for righteousness, according to the command and promise of the gospel, in which it is said, "He who believes shall be justified and saved, and he who believeth not shall be damned."

VIII. The form is the gracious reckoning of God, by which he imputes to us the righteousness of Christ, and imputes faith to us for righteousness; that is, he remits our sins to us who are believers, on account of Christ apprehended by faith, and accounts us righteous in him. This estimation or reckoning, has, joined with it, adoption into sons, and the conferring of a right to the inheritance of life eternal.

IX. The end, for the sake of which is the salvation of the justified person; for that act is performed for the good of the man himself who is justified. The end which flows from justification without any advantage to God who justifies, is the glorious demonstration of divine justice and grace.

X. The most excellent effects of this justification are peace with God and tranquillity of conscience, rejoicing under afflictions in hope of the glory of God and in God himself, and an assured expectation of life eternal.

XI. The external seal of justification is baptism; the internal seal is the Holy Spirit, testifying together with our spirits that we are the children of God, and crying in our hearts, Abba, Father!

XII. But we have yet to consider justification, both about the beginning of conversion, when all preceding sins are for, given, and through the whole life, because God has promised remission of sins to believers, those who have entered into covenant with him, as often as they repent and flee by true faith to Christ their propitiator and expiator. But the end and completion of justification will be at the close of life, when God will grant to those who end their days in the faith of Christ, to find his mercy, absolving them from all the sins which had been perpetrated through the whole of their lives. The declaration and manifestation of justification will be in the future general judgment.

XIII. The opposite to justification is condemnation, and this by an immediate contrariety, so that between these two no medium can be imagined.

Corollaries

I. That faith and works concur together to justification, is a thing impossible.

II. Faith is not correctly denominated the formal cause of justification; and when it receives that appellation from some divines of our profession, it is then improperly so called.

III. Christ has not obtained by his merits that we should be justified by the worthiness and merit of faith, and much less that we should be justified by the merit of works: But the merit of Christ is opposed to justification by works; and, in the Scriptures, faith and merit are placed in opposition to each other.

The Blasphemy of Calvinist Predestination

2011-05-31T09:55:00.000-07:00

This is the blasphemy clearly contained in the horrible decree of predestination! And here I fix my foot. On this I join issue with every assertor of it. You represent God as worse than the devil; more false, more cruel, more unjust. But you say you will prove it by scripture. Hold! What will you prove by Scripture? that God is worse than the devil? I cannot be. Whatever that Scripture proves, it never an prove this; whatever its true meaning be. This cannot be its true meaning. Do you ask, "What is its true meaning then?" If I say, " I know not," you have gained nothing; for there are many scriptures the true sense whereof neither you nor I shall know till death is swallowed up in victory. But this I know, better it were to say it had no sense, than to say it had such a sense as this. It cannot mean, whatever it mean besides, that the God of truth is a liar. Let it mean what it will it cannot mean that the Judge of all the world is unjust. No scripture can mean that God is not love, or that his mercy is not over all his works; that is, whatever it prove beside, no scripture can prove predestination. - John Wesley from his sermon Free Grace.

Amen to that.

Redefining the Infallibility-Inerrancy Conflict

2011-05-24T09:28:00.000-07:00

Over the past few weeks, there have been several discussions I have involved myself with regarding infallibility and the inerrancy of the biblical text. Some have gone well. Others have been contentious and resulted in separation and enmity on the part of some. I share in the responsibility for some of these end results and certainly acknowledge the issues should have been discussed in a more amicable manner on my part as well as by others. The experience has caused a redefinition of the issue. While this conflict has been among the church for some time, there has been considerable discussion in several venues recently regarding inerrancy and its relationship to what the Bible actually presents as revealed divine truth. What seems to be missing in much of the debate is an acknowledgement in some quarters of the close agreement that both inerrantists and infallibilists share with regard to the truth of scripture. Conservative, evangelical Christians who prefer the term infallible will likely agree with nearly every position of the same who prefer “inerrancy”. I am baffled as to why this simple observation escapes some. To that end, I’ve redefined this conflict with the use of a simple line chart that I think expresses a realistic representation of how these two terms interact.

Those who find themselves on the far edges of this line most likely would not acknowledge it as such but I know from my own experience with such people that it is a fair representation of my perception of them. Liberals and many emergents would reject the notion that they suffer from unbelief of much of scripture but I think an examination of what they espouse argues otherwise. Of course, this is again from my own perspective which is theologically conservative. The same is true on the other direction. They do not regard themselves as separatists yet their actions witness that very thing. Recently, a disgruntled inerrantist took offense at my suggestion he was acting like a fundamentalist with his responses to my inquiries. I was not suggesting he is a fundamentalist but rather he was using fundamentalist tactics with his replies. Nonetheless he broke off the exchange in anger. True to separatist mindsets, he has since deleted me from his “friend” list on Facebook even though he likely has not considered that as such. I personally do not give two cents one way or the other regarding social networking media but it confirms for myself that this simple chart can be validated.

As a conservative evangelical, I strongly believe we need to be as a body united in the circle in order to avoid the unpleasant extremes of inerrancy and infallibility. Whether that collective of believers can grow depends much on amicable discussions without the animosity and misrepresentation from either side. I believe it can grow in fellowship and at the same time keep the church from straying into reactionary camps.

The Modern Inerrancy Debate

2011-05-20T10:56:00.000-07:00

Dennis Bratcher’s CRI/Voice website has an article addressing the issue of inerrancy that goes to the heart of the issue with regard to my own dislike of the term.

… Beyond the problem of communication, one of the main problems with the argument for inerrancy of Scripture, or even the companion argument for near total historical reliability of Scripture, is that it is based on a very modern and quite rationalistic premise. The modern debate arose between 1900 and the 1920s, and was developed into the 1970s, as a defense against historical skeptics who were launching some very scathing attacks against the authority of Scripture from the perspective of historical positivism and scientific naturalism. However, in the zeal to defend Scripture, many simply capitulated to the rationalistic mind set and tried to defend the Bible on that alien turf by ground rules set by the critics. The ensuing "battle for the Bible" is thus a battle largely fought in an area far removed from Scripture itself, and by the premises and logic of very rationalistic categories. …

The full article can be read here.

Calvinists are Green Eco-Nuts … er … Seriously

2011-05-18T11:24:00.000-07:00

According to the sages of Huffington Post, Calvinism is a green, ecologically benign faith that is a great Sunday excursion after a hard week of carbon cap and trading.

The ecological implications of a Calvinist spirituality of desire are particularly important today. They suggest a delight in the earth's reflection of God's beauty as a foundation for environmental ethics. The world in the end will be saved by beauty. "We will not fight to save what we do not love," says Stephen Jay Gould. Desire, therefore, is both the problem and the solution of our ecological crisis. The Reformed tradition, through its careful attention to desire and its distortions, has resources for criticizing the twisted desires of a consumer society. In its call for a reorientation of desire, delighting in the created world as a mirror of exquisite beauty, it offers a surprisingly green and passionate theology. – Beldon C. Lane, Huffington Post

My belly hurts from the laughter ...

The Fallible Doctrine of Inerrancy – Part II

2011-05-17T09:31:00.000-07:00

From the outset it needs to be stated that I am an “Infallibilist” in the sense that there is no single error in the teaching or instruction of revealed Divine truth in what we deem the sixty six books of our Protestant Bible. I am not willing to state that the Apocryphal or pseudo-canonical books assembled over the centuries and millennia can be held to that same standard. I certainly would not rule out other books and writings that have been lost to the ages for I have nothing to base that decision on. The Book of Enoch as an example is quoted in Jude but not included or generally regarded as canonical except among the Ethiopian and Eritrean Orthodox churches. I am involved with neither of those churches so I have no background to comment on their canon. It is important to make this distinction of holding to the infallibility of scripture but it is equally important to distinguish this infallibility from that espoused by other certain elements of Christendom. The infallibility stances arising out of the Princeton and Fuller seminaries in reaction to the modern inerrancy debates is a separate issue from the infallibility expressed here. Those of Princeton and Fuller consider that the Bible may indeed contain mistakes, both in the original autographs and in the various copied manuscripts although not with regard to faith and morals. My own infallibility stance regarding the integrity and reliability of scripture is hardly a hair’s breadth of difference (to borrow from Wesley) from most inerrantist positions.

The Bible provides teachings about a variety of events and circumstances that I believe are true in every respect. The creation of Adam and a woman formed from Adam are true, very real happenings in my belief in the infallible scriptures. We all have our origins in a single man called Adam in scripture. A lot of the Princeton and Fuller infallibilists might reject that Biblical teaching but I do not. There is a diversity of beliefs within the fold of infallibility as should be obvious. It was this thought in mind that spurred me to title these musings as the fallible doctrine of inerrancy for we find the same degree of diversity of beliefs among the inerantists. How can that be among those who hold there is not one single “error” in scripture? Well, the dichotomy of inerrancy is easily demonstrated with the varying opinions regarding the “world flood”. I know several inerrantists who believe as I do that the great flood of Genesis was global and occurred literally as the Bible teaches. I also know inerrantists who reject a global flood dismissing it as lacking a context that must be added to the discussion in order to understand what God meant by the “world”. There are others whose opinions are held in reserve because as inerrantists they just don’t know what to believe. So, with the various fallible doctrines of inerrancy, we have varying opinions of what is true and what is not. Somebody believes the truth and somebody else believes a falsehood. Which inerrantist is correct?

Lastly, there is the accusation among inerrantists that if we reject their stance (whatever that stance of the day is) we are somehow stating that God makes mistakes. Let’s be clear about this. God does not make mistakes (even though some will point to language in scripture indicating that God repented of making man and then proceeded to destroy all but eight souls but let’s not go there). Did Jesus err (make a mistake) by using the mustard seed example as the smallest of seed sown in the earth? Unless one denies the omniscience of God, Jesus was certainly cognizant of the fact that the orchid is much smaller so there was no mistake if we hold the scriptures infallible. Instead, Jesus allowed the error to make a much greater point. Whether the Hebrews were familiar with orchids or not is beside the point. It is all speculation in any event. What remains true is the infallible teaching regarding faith and in the fullness of that teaching there is no mistake even though by empirical measures there is an intentional deviation from absolute “correctness”. Again, it is an intentional deviation most likely for the benefit of the audience and their limitations but we can only speculate on that matter. Unfortunately for reasonable Christian apologetics, speculation becomes the ground for dogmatic assertion and dust flies, clothes tear and brothers turn away angry.

The Fallible Doctrine of Inerrancy

2011-05-16T08:49:00.000-07:00

Is there really such a thing as a doctrine of inerrancy? I suppose if we open a dictionary and provide the definition of “inerrancy” we could state that there is a teaching as such. However, if we take that dictionary definition and build a teaching that requires us to qualify the term to allow varying circumstances that excuse empirical falsification, we are shifting the proverbial goalposts. Sometimes that shift is mere inches. Other times it is half the field. Regardless of the motive for the qualification, Christians are usurping terminology. We are redefining a term that disallows meaningful and rational discussion with skeptics and unbelievers. Determining something to be an error is the result of verifiable observation and/or measurement. Inversely, stating something to be inerrant demands that it not be falsified. From a scientific perspective and the realm in which the term inerrant originates, the claim must be empirically testable. The question asked is “Can this statement or evidence be falsified”? Inerrancy cannot logically rest upon a foundation of faith and have credibility with those you are disputing with. Of course one could dismiss the objection without care for what the skeptic considers and if that is the case then the discussion need not occur at all. However, if we are going to insist on using “inerrancy” then we by association are acknowledging an intellectual discussion with those who challenge such.

One of the difficulties I believe theological inerrantists have to come to terms with is the understanding that a statement must be true in every aspect, that it cannot be falsified in whole or in part. Every sentence must be empirically true unless it is accompanied with a qualifier in context. If a skeptic demonstrates with empirical evidence that a sentence or part of a sentence is not factually true and there is no qualifier accompanying that sentence in the context of that instruction, that sentence has failed its falsification test. It is not inerrant regardless of how much dust is tossed in the air and how many clothes are torn. Inerrancy demands reliance on a TRUE/FALSE test remedied only by an accompanying qualifier (itself being verifiable). This is the price of playing with terminology that has no place in matters of faith and philosophy.

Perhaps a distinction should be made between error and mistake. Error indicates a deviation from accuracy whereas a mistake indicates faultiness. With this in mind, an observable error could represent either a mistake or be incorporated within a true doctrine. Claiming inerrancy as a philosophical ground “hard codes” the former while promoting the doctrine of infallibility allows the “error” to fit within the auspices of the latter. Given that inerrancy was not used as a theological device until the early 19th century and only then in response to the growth of rational scientific and humanist thought, I think it is more than appropriate to stay focused on a faith based doctrine of infallibility rather than the empirical measure of inerrancy.

Choking on Ecumenical Bones

2011-05-06T10:20:00.001-07:00

Are Mormons Christian? Well, without writing an insufferably long post, my reply is, in a word ...

No.

I still can hardly believe I read a supposedly orthodox Christian theologian claim otherwise but then this is an age when definitions shift to suit the desires of the day.

A Daily Proverbs Study by Pumice

2011-04-22T09:00:00.000-07:00

Athanasian Creed

2011-04-21T09:54:00.000-07:00

(6^th Century)

1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith;

2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.

3. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;

4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.

5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.

6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.

7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.

8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.

9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.

10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.

11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.

12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.

13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.

14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.

15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;

16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.

17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;

18. And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.

19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;

20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.

21. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.

22. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.

23. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.

24. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.

25. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another.

26. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal.

27. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.

28. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.

29. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.

30. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.

31. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world.

32. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.

33. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.

34. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.

35. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God.

36. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.

37. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;

38. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead;

39. He ascended into heaven, He sits on the right hand of the Father, God, Almighty;

40. From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

41. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;

42. and shall give account of their own works.

43. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.

44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.

If Capital Punishment is a Sin, Is God a Sinner?

2011-04-18T09:42:00.000-07:00

Roger Olson has made the charge that capital punishment is a sin. Well, I think he can make a good case that justice has been denied several times in the state of Texas and elsewhere but it seems quite a stretch to make such a blanket statement regarding a penalty that was given by God Himself well before the law of Moses.

“ And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man’s brother will I require the life of man. Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.” (Ge 9:5-6 AV)

Was the LORD sinful in making this a requirement of His standard of Justice? God forbid and if that, why would any pastor, teacher, theologian or elder make such a preposterous statement? The death penalty debate has been a long simmering issue among various church factions and a case of mercy can be made by both sides of the issue. However it behooves us to keep in mind that God’s standard of Justice might strike us as harsh but there is a purpose behind it and for it. The law of Moses as an example was to establish the laws and regulations for a covenant relationship between God and His chosen people. It was intended for that people, both Hebrew and foreign within her borders. On the other hand, the Noahide laws were given to mankind through Moses establishing the need and right of civil governance among mankind. Genesis 9 is as much a part of our expectation today as it was when it was given. We find all of it encoded within Moses law as well. So can we call realistically capital punishment to be sin? In my opinion, not if we believe and love the Word of God for to do so is to call the LORD a sinner. I believe Roger’s caption is ill-advised.

The following is my reply to his blog post which for his own reasons chooses not to reply.

From Roger Olson’s Blog Post …

Texas seems to have serious problems with how it tries, convicts and investigates it’s capital murder cases. I am of the opinion that capital punishment be suspended there and other places with similar problems until these serious breaches of justice can be dealt with. However, I think your argument against capital punishment is flawed in several ways.

First, it ends a person’s opportunity to exonerate himself or herself.

That is true but death itself ends the same opportunity for all

Second, it ends a person’s opportunity to accept Christ and live a God-honoring life in prison ministering to other inmates and guards.

I think it is more appropriate to state that the criminal ended his or her own opportunities with the commission of the crime.

Third, it usurps God’s place and assume’s a God-like right and power to take the life of a person created in God’s image and likeness.

God established this punishment as far back as the Noahide laws and it is codified in Moses law as well as expectations set in Romans 13 (with some disputing that latter interpretation) - added to state that the command given in Gen 9 states the very reason for demanding the death penalty is because man was created in the image of God and this turns Roger's argument onto its head.

Fourth, it has no social benefit. It only serves a blood thirst for vengeance.

It’s purpose is justice and properly executed justice always has social benefit.

Fifth, no modern, Western country still has capital punishment.

That is neither a theological or ethical objection and it assumes the modern, Western cultural mindset to be ethically superior to those other cultures.

Sixth, capital punishment is barbaric and cruel–if not to the person being executed (and who can know for sure?), to his or her family.

Is it any more barbaric and cruel than sticking someone in a cage for the rest of their life? Is God barbaric and cruel for instituting capital punishment?

Seventh, innocent people are executed.

This is probably your best argument against it although it is not a theological argument. Innocent Hebrew men could have been put to death at the testimony of several witnesses and while those witnesses might be morally culpable for their falsehoods, the state is not. However, as I noted in opening. I think the process needs to be halted until the means of justice is more thoroughly examined.

Justification Other Than by Faith?

2011-04-14T12:06:00.000-07:00

And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. – Gal 3:8

Is there a justification before the LORD grounded in light received? If Jobal, a man on the other side of the world, has received any measure of spiritual light, is this general revelation a ground of justification? Jobal, a non-believer in Jesus Christ, is certainly one of the heathen mentioned above yet some would have a doctrine promoted that God will justify a man based on what measure of light he has received rather than an explicit faith. Some will state that Jobal is justified by the work of Christ on the cross without an explicit faith in the person of that work. However, the scriptures seem to state something quite different.

Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; - Ro 3:24-25

Here we find the work of the cross, the shed blood of Jesus Christ, made efficacious by faith in that particular work. It was not the work or atonement alone that saves. Faith is also required. Our Calvinist fellows are often found to equate the atonement with salvation itself using that distinction to oppose unlimited atonement. The passage from Romans not only sets that error aside but it also goes to the heart of the inclusivist error that some of us have been engaged in recently. There is no propitiation lacking faith and therefore it is not the work of Calvary that saves. The work of Christ is a provision made effective only through faith and in that it is not appropriate for the inclusivist to state that this atonement satisfies the requirement for justification. This is clearly applicable to the heathen as well as the Hebrew as noted in Gal 3:8. Was Rahab of Jericho saved by general revelation or did she find redemption through faith? The scriptures tell us she found her refuge by faith.

By faith the harlot Rahab perished not with them that believed not, when she had received the spies with peace. - Heb 11:31

Why is it that the inclusivist relies on philosophy and emotional appeals yet cannot present a scriptural argument supporting a general revelation salvation? If a scriptural case cannot be made, why argue against the scriptural case that can easily be presented?

The Arminian Takes on the Question of Universalism

2011-04-12T08:05:00.000-07:00

William Birch, one of classical Arminianism’s more august bloggers with his site, The Arminian, has been commenting of late on the issues of inclusivism and universalism. Both have been at the forefront of theological discussion recently due in no small measure to a rather contentious book entitled Love Wins by Rob Bell. This is not about Bell or his book and I have convinced myself to avoid both the book and the author unless compelled through other related issues. Instead, it is the idea of universalism and Birch’s response to it that intrigued me. Dr. Roger Olson, a noted Baptist professor of theology at Baylor University, posed a question recently that prompted William to respond. To paraphrase (although the question can be found here), if God somehow irrefutably convinced you that He was going to ultimately save all persons regardless of the life they lived, how would this affect your Christian faith? Olson certainly refutes the Universalist position and to summarize William, I understand him to state it would be “devastating” to his faith. I certainly concur with that assessment and his post goes right to the heart of the matter.

I look at this issue of Universalism from another perspective as well. Aside from its devastating impact on evangelism i.e. no need for such if all are ultimately saved, it moves the focus of salvation from a decidedly Christocentric perspective to one grounded in universal election. Election becomes paramount and Christ subservient to an already elect humanity. Christ no longer died to save souls but died to be a cog in the wheel of God’s plan of salvation. All the typology and purpose of a chosen people in scripture becomes filler for the grist mill and the Bible itself mere empty pages devoid of purpose. Whether with a bible in hand or a primer provided by Aton LeVey, truth and falsehood lose any purpose or distinction and each ultimately become equal lies. Dr. Olson’s question probes the very edge of the worse blasphemy imaginable, that God is a liar and that the Christian faith is a canard. Because of that I have no alternative but to consider Universalism to be antichrist and damnable and that conclusion brings me to consider Olson’s question dangerous and inappropriate if it is left open ended without a discussion of it’s true impact on Christian faith.

What If God Confessed He Was Going to Save Everyone – William Birch

More About Universalism – Roger Olson

Does God Owe You a Chance?

2011-04-11T09:57:00.000-07:00

Some people on the other side of the street are going to hell. Just as likely, some people on this side of the street will accompany them. By the grace of God and knowing I work out my salvation with reverent fear and silent trembling, I trust in Christ for salvation knowing He is my kinsman redeemer. In this modern world, an evangelized nation, city and street, everybody from one end to the other has had a “chance”. They have heard the Gospel. They know of Jesus Christ. Yet, most reject that “chance” and remain ensconced in their sins and with others like minded. However, there are people and have been through the ages that have not heard the Gospel of Jesus Christ. What of them?

There is a fresh faced kumbaya singer on the street corner. She has a big toothy smile and is all happy and joyful. She seems like she would be a pleasant neighbor and doesn’t present any threat at all. Doesn’t she deserve a chance? Well, she lives in Asheville, NC and she has heard of Jesus. There is another likable person on the other side of the world whether in China or India or some remote place that hasn’t heard of Jesus. That person didn’t get a “chance”. While the two people might not share in their “chances”, they both share in something else. If we remove the façade of goodness, that outward mask of civility, and present Christ, it is likely to generate a common response, one of enmity. The street corner singer has a real hatred for Christ. She hates everything associated with God’s justice, with the need for repentance and the essential requirement of submitting to the Lordship of Jesus Christ. She will sing songs of peace but it is not the peace of Christ. She will sing about love but it is the lust of an intolerant and carnal love she has in mind. In rejecting both the witness of God in this world and the specific Gospel of Jesus, God has given her over to her inclinations (Rom 1). The person who has not heard of Christ can be joyful and pleasant as well and might even acknowledge that there is a god. The god might look like a fat man squatting or could be 18 feet tall, carved out of a single tree trunk. Does this person have a love and desire for the true God who demands faith? Not any more than the singer in Asheville. They both share an enmity with God (Rom 8:7). Even the souls seeking an unknown god at Mars Hill had no love for the God of Paul. Scripture instructs us that no man seeks after the LORD, no man does good (Rom 2).

The heart of men is desperately wicked (Jer 17:9) and the only thing that brings a change to the wickedness of fallen man is the glorious gospel of Jesus Christ (John 14:6). “Does God owe you a chance?” we are sometimes asked. The liberal and emergent man might state yes, God owes every man a fair chance otherwise He is not just. Yet, hasn’t He already given every man a witness to Him, given every evidence of His existence to every man that comes into this world? (Rom 1) Hasn’t God already provided what is necessary to seek Him and yet, men continue to reject Him and hate Him as well as those who love Him. Will their excuse for hating Him be they didn’t have a chance? The street singer has been given innumerable chances and continues in her enmity. What gives cause for some to think it is otherwise for those souls on the other side of the world?

Crazy Calvinist Corner

2011-04-09T09:24:00.000-07:00

Along with a myriad of troubles reconciling the goodness and Justice of God with Calvinist doctrine, occasionally one of today’s neo-Reformed will offer an interpretation that just falls flat on its face from the weight of its eisegesis. Consider the following passage from the Apostle Peter.

“ ¶ But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.” (2Pe 2:1-2 AV)

This is a particular teaching that is used to refute Calvinist limited atonement as well as lend some support for the falling away of souls once saved. The former issue seems the stronger application in this case. The phrase “the Lord that bought them” is generally seen by most commentators to refer to the purchase of souls or the redemption secured by Christ. John Calvin stated the following in his commentary regarding this passage.

Even denying the Lord that bought them. Though Christ may be denied in various ways, yet Peter, as I think, refers here to what is expressed by Jude, that is, when the grace of God is turned into lasciviousness; for Christ redeemed us, that he might have a people separated from all the pollutions of the world, and devoted to holiness and innocency. They, then, who throw off the bridle, and give themselves up to all kinds of licentiousness, are not unjustly said to deny Christ by whom they have been redeemed. Hence, that the doctrine of the gospel may remain whole and complete among us, let this be fixed in our minds, that we have been redeemed by Christ, that he may be the Lord of our life and of our death, and that our main object ought to be, to live to him and to die to him. He then says, that their swift destruction was at hand, lest others should be ensnared by them.

Aside from the apparent contradiction between Calvin’s thoughts and the limited atonement position of today’s neo-Reformed, Calvin is clearly referring to the purchase as redemption and attaches this redemption to the very false teachers warned about in the passage. It is an odd Calvinist commentary given the dogma of TULIP however I think most Arminians would generally agree with him.

To avoid the outwardly Arminian inclinations of the passage, today’s crazy Calvinist in the corner insisted that the redemption acquired through Christ’s purchase was a non-atoning redemption. How he arrived at that without reading a book of his theology into the text is beyond me but nonetheless that is the defense. I cannot find a non-atoning redemption or purchase in my bible. Perhaps my Calvinist fellow will help me.

My Final Post (maybe) Regarding Rob Bell

2011-04-03T15:51:00.000-07:00

The following links provide a four part series on Rob Bell’s recent book, Love Wins, by Timothy C. Tennent, Ph.D., President of Asbury Theological Seminary. This is an excellent commentary. Tennent writes "... In my estimation, Rob Bell, and apparently quite a few evangelical pastors, need a thorough re-grounding in the biblical doctrines of God’s love, sin, the kingdom of God, the necessity of human response and ecclesiology...”.

Part One: Why Rob Bell needs to return to Seminary… and bring along quite a few contemporary evangelical pastors

Part Two: Why Rob Bell needs to return to Seminary… and bring along quite a few contemporary evangelical pastors

Part Three: Why Rob Bell needs to return to Seminary… and bring along quite a few contemporary evangelical pastors (cont.)

Part Four: Why Rob Bell needs to return to Seminary… and bring along quite a few contemporary evangelical pastors

A Guide to Internet Discussion and Debate

2011-04-02T20:25:00.000-07:00

From Simoleon Sense

The Broad Way of Inclusive Theology

2011-04-02T08:16:00.000-07:00

“ Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.” (Mt 7:13-14 AV)

The words of Jesus in the above passage seem fairly straight forward so that most should be able to understand that the road to salvation is a far less traveled path than the highway to hell. Looking around my community, neighborhood and workplace, I know from the above that it is likely the majority of souls in my particular corner of the world will have nothing to do with the scriptural presentation of Jesus. They will continue with their lust and their vices and will even do a lot of “good things”. The worst of the devils seem to have a knack for looking real good when they are up to their worse. My community is full of churches. It has its mosques. It even has a fair contingent of far eastern religions. What it doesn’t have a lot of are Christocentric, orthodox fellowships that take the Bible to actually be representative of the Word of God, believing what is contained therein. I can think of half a dozen emergent, “seeker-sensitive” churches all within a twenty minute ride of my home that will put on quite a show on Saturday evenings and Sunday mornings but the leadership of not one of them will accept the above verse in its literal importance. It is more important to the “seeker-sensitive” emergent pastor to fill his comfortable seats sometimes two and three times on a Sunday morning and there is no shortage of people willing to go to the show. You can feel really good, listen to good ‘jams’ and find out what good things are going on in the community this week. You can even get a good cup of java and a muffin to hold you over until your Sunday after meeting brunch. What you don’t get is profound. What is not stated is the Truth. What is not stated at all is the above passage and it is kept quiet because it offends the ear of those comfortable with their philosophies and their brittle clay selves. The Apostle called it satisfying the “itching ear”.

Jesus went on after stating the above.

“ Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.” (Mt 7:15-20 AV)

One of the defining characteristics of the Inclusivist theology, at least as proposed by men such as John Sanders, co-author of What About Those Who Have Never Heard? Three Views on the Destiny of the Unevangelized ( Ed. by John Sanders. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1995. ) is the idea that men can be saved by whatever measure of faith they have even within the false religions of the world. It is not faith specifically in Christ but a general faith in a generic god. Muslims, because they supposedly worship the “God of Abraham”, are recipients of a faith in God and therefore can have a salvation in Christ due to that portion of “light” revealed to them. Of course this is not a scriptural argument but as with the seekers, it satisfies an itching ear. By any reasonable scriptural standard, Muhammad is a false prophet who relegated Jesus to a secondary status. Paul referred to such men as those who present “another Jesus” and we are to have nothing to do with them. They are of the world. Why would saints be called to remove themselves from the influences of the world only to have the world itself and its false religions promoted as another way to Christ and His salvation (2 Cor 6:17)? The truth is there is no other way to Christ but through Christianity and its covenant relationships with a people called, predestined, justified and sanctified in Jesus Christ. That is an offense to the world and a hard cup to swallow for those who dwell on fairness and “chance”. Suppose the opening scriptural passage had been written differently?

“ Enter ye in at the broad gate: for straight is the gate, and narrow is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and few there be which go in thereat: Because wide is the gate, and broad is the way, which leadeth unto life, and nearly all there be that find it.” (Wishful Thinking 7:13-14 AV)

That is the mantra of the inclusivist church but it has nothing in common with the truth of Jesus’ words.

*I want to point out and make clear that by inclusivist I and most other exclusivists do not refer to the issues of accountability i.e. children, the mentally infirm and abortions. There are some who insist on making that a measure of their defense of general revelation and post-mortem inclusivism however it is a special pleading that is inappropriate to bring into the matter.

Justification by Faith and Inclusivism

2011-04-01T05:59:00.000-07:00

One of the foundation stones of Christianity is that no man can work himself into the good graces of God. Something else is required for God to look favorably upon a sinner. It is not the law written in letters or the law written in the heart of men everywhere that offers any suggestion of salvation. Instead, the Word of God instructs us, without question, that we are justified in the eyes of God by His grace through faith, for the New Testament believer, in the person and work of Jesus Christ. It is faith that is a requisite of God’s judgment bringing salvation to a sinner (Rom 3:19-31, Rom 5:1, Gal 3:19-29). It is faith by which Abraham was deemed righteous by God, a faith in God’s promises (Heb 11). Is this something found through the general revelation of God as expressed in the Book of Romans (Rom 1:1-32)? The text does not state such. Instead these passages explain why God gives men over to a reprobate mind and why God’s justice is fair. No man seeks after the LORD and there are none that do good (Rom 3:10-12). Even with the marvelous revelation of God’s creation, none seek Him lacking His grace and no one finds His refuge lacking faith in His Son. So how is it that a man with general revelation yet never affirming faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ attains any measure of justification in the eyes of God? James Arminius addressed the matter of the will and the necessity of Grace for any man to do anything pleasing to God.

This is my opinion concerning the free-will of man: In his primitive condition as he came out of the hands of his creator, man was endowed with such a portion of knowledge, holiness and power, as enabled him to understand, esteem, consider, will, and to perform the true good, according to the commandment delivered to him. Yet none of these acts could he do, except through the assistance of Divine Grace. But in his lapsed and sinful state, man is not capable, of and by himself, either to think, to will, or to do that which is really good; but it is necessary for him to be regenerated and renewed in his intellect, affections or will, and in all his powers, by God in Christ through the Holy Spirit, that he may be qualified rightly to understand, esteem, consider, will, and perform whatever is truly good. When he is made a partaker of this regeneration or renovation, I consider that, since he is delivered from sin, he is capable of thinking, willing and doing that which is good, but yet not without the continued aids of Divine Grace. - Sentiments

Is the general revelation of Romans 1 that of salvation, a work of saving grace men refuse lacking the Gospel of Jesus Christ? Has God granted a measure of grace that allows fallen men without any sense of the Gospel to affect their own salvation? That is the position of the semi-Pelagians but it is not an Arminian doctrine. Perhaps an Arminian can hold to inclusivist theology but what damage is done to his understanding of justification? My own opinion, worth only as much as I value it, is that Justification by Faith and Inclusivist theology (i.e. Salvific general revelation and post-mortem evangelizing) cannot stand together. At some point one saved by “general revelation” is going to be held to the standard of justification God has revealed to men, that of faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ.

An Elusive Inclusivism

2011-03-31T08:30:00.001-07:00

There is a thorn in the side of modern Arminianism and it seems to aggravate a recurring injury inflicted upon us by various adversaries. Our Calvinist brethren are often quick to suggest the end of Arminianism is a Universalist theology, much to our consternation. Arminians, at least those adhering to the classical Arminianism of Episcopius and the Remonstrant as well as James Arminius, are not in any fashion shadowed by the umbrella of a doctrine that maintains all will eventually be saved. Universalism is heresy, acknowledged as such by all of orthodox Protestantism. The charge usually is derived through a misrepresentation of the doctrine of the atonement i.e. our rejection of Calvinist limited atonement. Fortunately, the writings and evidence of James Arminius and others soundly refute these suggestions. The charge becomes another false representation made by a rather divisive sect within Christendom that is added to several others. These include not only universalism but open theism, semi-Pelagianism, liberalism, postmodern theology, process theology and radical inclusivism. This last error, inclusivism, has been the topic of several discussions lately, both public and private.

Terminology is sometimes an elusive beast. What is inclusivism? In simple terms, it is the belief that souls might be saved via the light that they have received absent explicit affirmation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Inclusivism can include several facets and variations. In a sense, all but the hardest determinists, the hard Calvinists, incorporate some measure of inclusion in their theological Weltanschauung. Our young children, the mentally infirm among us, aborted children, all fall into a category of inclusion as it regards the assent of explicit faith. Whether the inclusion is via covenant theology, innocence with regard to accountability or the teachings specific to Christ regarding children, conservatives, liberals, Protestants and Catholics alike embrace some form of inclusivism in their theology. The difficulty arises when salvation becomes attainable through general revelation rather than by the means of evangelization. The matter becomes much worse when the inclusivist embraces a post-mortem evangelization allowing the soul who dies lost to be rescued from hell itself. It is these latter notions of inclusivism, salvation through general revelation and post-mortem evangelizing, that are the focus of this aggravating thorn.

By making the accusation of universalism, Calvinists suggest that Arminian soteriology makes universalism possible through an atonement that pays the price of sin for all men and that, if true, condemning men to hell would be an unjust double jeopardy. The Arminian replies that the atonement is an unlimited provision made by Christ to the Father that is efficacious only through faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ. This understanding is the predominant position in the church and, remarkably, was also held by Calvinists namesake, John Calvin. However, when the inclusivist introduces post-mortem evangelization, what I refer to as radical inclusivism, he brings his soteriology right to the brink of the Calvinist charge of universalism. He has a soul lingering in hell responding to the “great second chance” at salvation. It is convenient to suggest that some souls might prefer the eternity of death to the bliss of glory but I think the suggestion smacks of incredulity. At the very least, such a theology turns the teaching of Jesus on its head and promotes a wide, broadest road to salvation and the tiniest sliver of a path, if at all, to destruction. It becomes an elusive inclusivism that reaches for the universalist ideal while attempting to dismiss what is obvious, it’s own glaring heterodoxy. The radical inclusivist is nothing but a hairs breadth from a Universalist philosophically and for practical purposes is nothing but a Universalist. The moderate inclusivist who denies post-mortem evangelization has other problems, not the least being an inability to reconcile his philosophy with the scriptural teachings of justification by faith. How does a salvation via general revelation bring any sense of justification by faith unless the moderate inclusivist accedes to a post-mortem faith and justification? Logically, the moderate inclusivist is in just as tight a place as the radical. He must embrace either post-mortem evangelizing or reject justification by faith.

With all these things in mind, a passage from the prophet Ezekiel seems proper to close with. It goes to the very heart of our urgency in seeing souls saved and declares without a doubt the eternal importance of salvation now in this mortal life.

“ But if the watchman see the sword come, and blow not the trumpet, and the people be not warned; if the sword come, and take any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at the watchman’s hand. So thou, O son of man, I have set thee a watchman unto the house of Israel; therefore thou shalt hear the word at my mouth, and warn them from me. When I say unto the wicked, O wicked man, thou shalt surely die; if thou dost not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand. Nevertheless, if thou warn the wicked of his way to turn from it; if he do not turn from his way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul.” (Eze 33:6-9 AV)

Redefining Orthodoxy in the Postmodern Church

2011-03-22T10:07:00.001-07:00

In light of the Rob Bell controversy and the various accusations and defenses that are dominating the theological blogosphere of late, there has been a lot of discussion (and accusation) concerning the doctrines of hell and salvation. Some of it has been interesting and a lot of it is mere stirring the pot. Admittedly, I am as guilty of the latter as the next fellow. Making no secret of my dislike of Bell and his postmodern emergent theology, I approach this contentious issue with a considerable bias. Universalism is heresy. That is an orthodox judgment. While dogmatic to state it outright, it remains true that anybody who advocates "Universalism" with regard to all souls ultimately being saved is a heretic. Of course one man's heretic is another's mentor but at least not in orthodox circles. So, how does a liberal, emergent postmodern theologian avoid the label of heresy? He covers it up with an endless array of open ended questions. Worse still, he might attempt to redefine orthodoxy itself. The former method is Rob Bell's tried and true tactic and on all reasonable accounts that is what he has done with his latest book. I had not planned on purchasing Love Wins however a loner copy has been made available to me and at some point I will run through it. For now, I have more serious reading material to digest. The latter strategy is far more dangerous because it is being utilized by some who insist they are themselves orthodox.

Mars Hill church in Grand Rapids, MI (Bell's church) makes the follow statement regarding Bell's position on heaven and hell.

Love Wins recognizes heaven and hell to be realities all around us. We see hell everyday through the atrocities of war, famine, human trafficking, broken relationships, and abuse. We also see heaven all around us through acts of love, kindness, and compassion. There is also the reality of heaven and hell in the future. Our ultimate future hope is a restored creation under Christ where God will dwell with us forever on a restored heaven and earth [Rev 21-22]. There are many who accept the invitation of the life of heaven and many who reject the invitation. Those who reject the invitation experience a purifying "fire" of judgment in hell, yet there is hope. We live in the hope that the redemptive work of Christ is beyond what we can ask or imagine. Love Wins helps us have a biblical imagination that leaves room for the hope of the redemption of all while recognizing humanities free will to continue to reject God.

That perspective might be a lot of things but orthodox is not one of them. Redefining "scriptural" hell as essentially "hell on earth" is how this carnal world defines hell if they venture as much at all. Love, kindness and compassion are certainly the fruit of the spirit of God but Buddhist or Hindu love and compassion, while outwardly appearing so, are not the fruits of the spirit of our LORD. They are "niceties" manifested through the worship of false gods. They are a façade outside of Christ. Strip the façade away and pure unadulterated enmity is exposed. The world hates Christ and those in Him (John 15:18-19). There is nothing good about this world. Instead we are called to separate ourselves from it (2 Co 6:17). Heaven is not the nice folks living next door however charming they might be. Looking at what comes next in the above statement from Mars Hill is the nail in the doorpost. A life of faith in this world matters not, according to Bell. There is always the purifying purgatory in hell for unbelievers giving them a chance to have faith in Christ. Now, this did not come out of scripture for the Bible teaches us that you do not get a shot in the grave (Heb 9:27). The folks at Mars Hill make it plainly clear where such thoughts come from, the imagination. So, where are the liberal and emergents, the postmodern "thinkers" on this matter? There seems to be an embrace of Bell and worse still, a redefining of what orthodoxy entails. Consider the words of the liberal emergent President of Fuller Theological Seminary (Bell's alma mater) in this comment from the Mars Hill website FAQ.

Richard Mouw, president of the world's largest Protestant seminary, Fuller Theological Seminary based in Pasadena, Calif., calls Love Wins "a great book, well within the bounds of orthodox Christianity and passionate about Jesus. The real hellacious fight, says Mouw, a friend of Bell, a Fuller graduate, is between "generous orthodoxy and stingy orthodoxy. There are stingy people who just want to consign many others to hell and only a few to heaven and take delight in the idea. But Rob Bell allows for a lot of mystery in how Jesus reaches people. - Richard Mouw, president of the world's largest Protestant seminary, Fuller Theological Seminary, as quoted in USA TODAY

How does such a man consider Bell's theology as "well within the bounds of orthodox Christianity"? He redefines it of course. If you cast true orthodox theology as a "stingy orthodoxy", it leaves room for the Universalist and heterodox to contrast it with their "generous orthodoxy". Having done that, other Postmoderns can then castigate orthodox Christianity as "fundamentalist", "stingy", "harsh", "unforgiving" etc. Eventually, what is good is called bad and bad becomes good. I call it apostasy, whether it sits at Fuller, Mars Hill or for that matter any church or seminary.

http://marshill.org/pdf/LoveWinsFAQs.pdf

A Must Read Book Review of Rob Bell’s Utter Foolishness

2011-03-14T10:39:00.001-07:00

I don't think I need to read fourteen versions of Dick and Jane to get the overall thrust of the story and that is pretty much how I feel about Rob Bell and his latest pile of liberal, emergent jibberish. I've read the same putrid assembly from the fellow before. For that sentiment, some of our esteemed postmodern "senior evangelical theologians" would brand me a fundamentalist but then, these are some of the same fellows who would embrace the adorers of Ellen G. White as within the fold of Arminian thought. Some of them, such as Richard Mouw, president of what has become the largest bastion of liberal, emergent theology in the world, Fuller, extol the virtues of Rob Bell with comments that in my opinion smack of unadulterated ignorance. Quoting from that great theological treasure trove, USA Today, Mouw stated the real hellacious fight is between "generous orthodoxy and stingy orthodoxy. There are stingy people who just want to consign many others to hell and only a few to heaven and take delight in the idea. But Rob Bell allows for a lot of mystery in how Jesus reaches people." Of course, Rob Bell is one of the star products of Fuller's current liberal soup theology so should anything less be expected from Mouw?

Kevin DeYoung on the Gospel Coalition blog has written an excellent book review of Bell's Love Wins. It is more than enough to give me cause to keep this book out of the hands of children and impressionable adults. I do have a good use for it with regard to young pets, however.

The Meaning of the Will – F. Leroy Forlines

2011-03-13T15:04:00.001-07:00

This concise and logical explanation of the will of man represents the classical Arminian perspective of the will and is an excellent reply to the Calvinist inquiry regarding what a great many non-Calvinists adhere to. Forlines distills the thoughts on this matter to an undeniable and logical simplicity.

The New Testament does not use the noun form of will to refer to the faculty of choice in man. However, the verb form (thelo) is used (Matt. 16:24, 21:29, 23:37; Mk 8:34; John 7:17; Rev 22:17; and others). By will, we mean power of choice. Every command, every prohibition, every exhortation, and every entreaty in the Bible made to people presupposes they are capable of making choices.

Whether we want to think of the act of willing as the function of a faculty of the person or simply the person making a choice, the fact remains that the ability to choose is part of being a person. That ability of choice is what we call will. In his totality, man is a thinking, feeling, acting being. He thinks with his mind, feels with his heart, and acts with his will.

Classical Arminianism, A Theology of Salvation, p.6, F. Leroy Forlenes, ed. J.M. Pinson, Randall House, Nashville 2010

Arminius on the Predestination of Believers

2011-03-12T21:25:00.001-08:00

The following is taken from Arminius' private disputations as one contribution addressing predestination. There is a following disputation of predestination as the means to the end i.e. to faith.

DISPUTATION XL-ON THE PREDESTINATION OF BELIEVERS

I. As we have hitherto treated on the object of the Christian religion, that is, on Christ and God, and on the formal reasons why religion may be usefully performed to them, and ought to be, among which reasons, the last is the will of God and his command that prescribes religion by the conditions of a covenant; and as it will be necessary now to subjoin to this a discourse on the vocation of men to a participation in that covenant, it will not be improper for us, in this place, to insert one on the Predestination, by which God determined to treat with men according to that prescript, and by which he decreed to administer that vocation, and the means to it. First, concerning the former of these.

II. That predestination is the decree of the good pleasure of God, in Christ, by which he determined, within himself, from all eternity, to justify believers, to adopt them, and to endow them with eternal life, "to the praise of the glory of his grace," and even for the declaration of his justice.

III. This predestination is evangelical, and, therefore, per- emptory and irrevocable; and, as the gospel is purely gracious, this predestination is also gracious, according to the benevolent inclination of God in Christ. But that grace excludes every cause which can possibly be imagined to be capable of having proceeded from man, and by which God may be moved to make this decree.

IV. But we place Christ as the foundation of this predestination, and as the meritorious cause of those blessings which have been destined to believers by that decree. For the love with which God loves men absolutely to salvation, and according to which he absolutely intends to bestow on them eternal life, this love has no existence except in Jesus Christ, the Son of his love, who, both by his efficacious communication, and by his most worthy merits, is the cause of salvation, and not only the dispenser of recovered salvation, but likewise the solicitor, obtainer, and restorer of that salvation which was lost. Therefore, sufficient is not attributed to Christ, when he is called executor of the decree which had been previously made, and without the consideration of him as [the person] on whom that decree is founded.

V. We lay down a two-fold matter for this predestination — divine things, and the persons to whom the communication of them has been predestinated. (1.) Those divine things are the spiritual blessings which usually receive the appellations of grace and glory. (2.) The persons are the faithful, or believers; that is, they believe in God who justifies the ungodly, and in Christ raised from the dead. But faith, that is, the faith which is on Christ, the mediator between God and men, presupposes sin, and likewise the knowledge or acknowledgment of it.

VI. We place the form of this predestination in the internal act itself of God, who foreordains to believers this union with Christ their Head, and a participation in his benefits. But we place the end in "the praise of the glory of the grace of God"; and as this grace is the cause of that decree, it is equitable that it should be celebrated by glory, though God, by using it, has rendered it illustrious and glorious. In this place, too, occurs the mention of justice itself, as that by the intervention of which Christ was given as mediator, and faith in him was required; because, without this mediator, God has neither willed to shew mercy, nor to save men without faith in him.

VII. But, as this decree of predestination is according to election, which necessarily includes reprobation, we must likewise advert to it. As opposed to election, therefore, we define reprobation to be the decree of God's anger or of his severe will, by which, from all eternity, he determined to condemn to eternal death all unbelievers and impenitent persons, for the declaration of his power and anger; yet so, that unbelievers are visited with this punishment, not only on account of unbelief, but likewise on account of other sins from which they might have been delivered through faith in Christ.

VIII. To both these is severally subjoined the execution of each; the acts of which are performed in that order in which they have been ordained by God in the decree itself; and the objects, both of the decree and of its execution, are completely the same and uniform, or they are invested with the same formal reason, though they are considered in the decree, as in the mind of God, through the understanding, but, in the execution of it, as such, actually in existence.

IX. This predestination is the foundation of Christianity, of salvation, and of the certainty of salvation; and St. Paul treats upon it in his epistle to the Romans, (viii, 28-30) in the ninth and following chapters of the same epistle, and in the first chapter of that to the Ephesians.

What’s his name, Rob

2011-03-11T11:23:00.001-08:00

I've tried to read this guys junk in the past and I think I would rather read War & Peace in the dark while hungry instead of torturing myself through his latest book that has certain bloggers up in arms on both sides of the fence. Liberal emergent types don't have much to offer the church world other than what they think is another way to Jesus and Rob Bell is no exception. To be fair, all the criticism concerning his suspected and strongly hinted at universalism seems to have been made within its own veiled darkness. The critics had not read his book although Bell and his promoters certainly didn't attempt to still the flames with their early teaser. However with the book now available and a few bloggers providing comments, I suspect the criticism was well deserved. What is more interesting for myself will be the reaction from the sympathizers, some of whom attempt to mask their liberal, emergent tendencies behind the pretty picture label of postmodern evangelicalism. I think their battle is not so much against undue criticism but against their boogey monster of theological conservatives. Conservative bloggers picked up on Bell's implied heterodoxy and therefore theological conservatives receive the tar brush of the irenic postmoderns. Of course, one man's melody is another's screeching disdain. There is something about the liberal emergent sympathizers, the postmoderns, that bothers me a great deal. Aside from their ready embrace of the heterodox messengers, they strike me as particularly intolerant and bigoted, quite the opposite of irenic. I've been labeled an interlocutor (in a poor sense), a fundamentalist, by a couple of them. As I don't share a pew with either, I'll not be concerned with their bad gas nor they with mine. Nonetheless, I'll be very curious to observe how they substitute pheasant for crow in their mental gymnastics regarding this Rob Bell foolishness.

James 4:1-10

2011-03-06T09:27:00.001-08:00

The LORD gave me the opportunity to reflect on this passage for a while this morning. Being a great offender in this regard, it is timely for me to take the whole import of it under consideration. Humility is not weakness. It is a strength rewarded by the grace of God. Blustery indignation is a weakness contrary to the outward flexing and puffing up of the carnal man and it stifles the work of God in a believers life. Humble yourselves in the sight of the LORD, and He shall lift you up, the Apostle states.

" ¶ From whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members? Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because ye ask not. Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts. Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God. Do ye think that the scripture saith in vain, The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy? But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble. Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded. Be afflicted, and mourn, and weep: let your laughter be turned to mourning, and your joy to heaviness. Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up." (Jas 4:1-10 AV)

Nopes and Nots

2011-03-05T07:53:00.001-08:00

This is brief.

Universalism ... nope

Annihilationism ... nope

Arianism ... Not

Liberal-Emergent ... Not for me

Open Theism ... nope

New Wave ... No way

Egalitarianism ... Nah

Calvinism .... well, I'd have to succumb to all of the above first.

An Essay by J. Matthew Pinson Addressing the Theology and Inclinations of Jacobus Arminius

2011-03-02T10:17:00.001-08:00

The Society of Evangelical Arminians has provided an excellent essay written by J. Mathew Pinson entitled "Will the Real Arminus Please Stand Up? A Study of the Theology of Jacobus Arminius in Light of His Interpreters. This should be required reading of anybody who wishes to understand and discuss the theological inclinations of Arminius and I am thankful SEA has provided this with the author's permission. The essay can be accessed here.

Lest You Think Calvinists Wise

2011-03-01T15:53:00.001-08:00

I was browsing through one of the polemical websites, being somewhat polemical myself, and came across a brief column presented by one Jamin Hubner regarding a commonly discussed passage from Matthew's Gospel.

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord." (Mt 23:37-39 AV)

Arminians, myself included, often point to this passage (and its second witness, Luke 13:34) as a lamentation of Christ for the rejection of the LORD's willing embrace of a people He desired. The willingness and desire of God to gather together the children of Jerusalem (representing the people of Israel's loins and not just a physical city on a hill) demonstrates His love and purpose in raising up a people to call His own. This is not a passage extolling the virtues of an imagined free will. Instead it is a confirmation of God's own sorrow at being rejected and thwarted by a people and its leaders, its various kings, the false prophets over the years. It is a picture of true remorse and not the expression of crocodile tears as John Wesley once phrased it.

This brings me to my browsing. Hubner was taking issue with how the passage was presented in a non-Calvinist text, objecting to a feigned presentation of "free will" doctrine. That is generally the objection of most Calvinists, that the passage demands some support of "free will" in opposition to the deterministic theology of the Calvinist. In one sense, they are correct however it is a freed will that must be discussed and not an innate, libertine free will as is often misrepresented. The fellow represented this particular passage as Jesus bemoaning the Pharisees interference in keeping the people of the city away from Him, ultimately preventing Him from embracing them. Now, this raises a striking quandary that goes unaddressed but before doing so, let's see Hubner's understanding of the passage through the words of James White (Hubner's quote of White).

The ones the Lord desired to gather are not the ones who "were not willing"! Jesus speaks to the leaders about their children that they, the leaders, would not allow Him to "gather." Jesus was not seeking to gather the leaders, but their children. This one consideration alone renders the passage useless for the Arminian seeking to establish freewillism. The "children" of the leaders would be Jews who were hindered by the Jewish leaders from hearing Christ. (Potter's Freedom, 138, 2nd ed.)

Now the quandary comes into play. How is it that the Pharisees are able to thwart the will and desires of God? How is it that the leaders of Jerusalem were able to prevent a single soul from turning to the LORD? Calvinism has no room for such antics. It is an impossibility to thwart the will of God, according to the Calvinist philosopher. Yet, Hubner, through White, has the LORD Jesus Christ in submission to ungodly Pharisees and a people that He desires kept from being His people! Hubris is a term that comes to mind regarding such understanding. Certainly there is a poverty of insight into the passage on the part of the Calvinist if not an outright deception. Oh often God would have gathered the children like a hen and her chicks but not for the all powerful Pharisees who have the power over spiritual life and death were the Calvinist "interpretation" correct. I hesitate to call it an interpretation for I see it more as willful deceit in an effort to cling to a disreputable philosophy.

Hubner's short column can be found here.

Strict Calvinism's Absurd Denial of Moral Free Will by Peter Lumpkins

2011-02-05T16:53:00.000-08:00

Peter Lumpkins has an excellent short article addressing the shortcomings of a common strict Calvinist argument against libertarian free will. It is certainly well worth bookmarking for future reference.

Arminian Theology is Evangelical Theology - Olson

2011-01-29T09:14:00.001-08:00

Roger Olson has a lengthy post on his blog entitled Arminian Theology is Evangelical Theology. It is well worth reading and contemplating. I don't know if the Young, Restless and Reformed will ever come to terms with their schisms but those irenic Calvinists with a love for Christ should give the article considerable thought.

Roger Olson's Arminian Theology is Evangelical Theology

The Apostles Creed

2011-01-15T08:16:00.001-08:00

There is an informative article on Wikipedia that provides a good background for this particular creed of the Christian Church.

As taken from the Anglican Book of Common Prayer.

I believe in God the Father Almighty,

Maker of heaven and earth:

And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord,

Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost,

Born of the Virgin Mary,

Suffered under Pontius Pilate,

Was crucified, dead, and buried:

He descended into hell;

The third day he rose again from the dead;

He ascended into heaven,

And sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty;

From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Ghost;

The holy Catholick Church;

The Communion of Saints;

The Forgiveness of sins;

The Resurrection of the body,

And the Life everlasting.

Amen.

A Jazz Break - Joe Lovano

2011-01-11T19:56:00.000-08:00

The History of Anglicanism and Arminianism

2011-01-11T19:44:00.000-08:00

The Society of Evangelical Arminians has an excellent post by William Birch providing an overview of the history and development of Protestant Arminianism in England during the formative and early years of the Protestant Reformation.
The History of Anglicanism and Arminianism

Creed of the Council of Nicaea, 325 AD

2011-01-10T16:01:00.001-08:00

It seemed appropriate to attach the following which was expounded at Nicaea:

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things seen and unseen.

And in one Lord, Jesus Christ the Son of God, begotten of the Father, the only-begotten, that is, of the essence of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of the same being as the Father, through whom all things came to be, both the things in heaven and on earth, who for us humans and for our salvation came down and was made flesh, becoming human, who suffered and rose again on the third day, ascended into heaven, who is coming to judge the living and the dead.

And in the Holy Spirit.

The catholic and apostolic church condemns those who say concerning the Son of God that "there was a time when he was not" or "he did not exist before he was begotten" or "he came to be from nothing" or who claim that he is of another subsistence (hypostasis) or essence (ousia), or a creation (ktistos), or changeable (alloiōtos), or alterable (treptos).

Creed of the Council of Constantinople, 360 AD

2011-01-09T09:20:00.001-08:00

An effort to document and provide a reference for the various creeds and confessions of the early church, particularly those associated with the Ecumenical Councils and those that promulgated what we consider orthodox doctrine today …

The Homoian Creed of the Council of Constantinople, 360 AD

We believe in one God, Father Almighty, from whom are all things.

And in the only-begotten Son of God, begotten from God before all ages and before every beginning, by whom all things were made, visible and invisible, and begotten as only-begotten, only from the Father only, God from God, like to the Father that begat Him according to the Scriptures; whose origin no one knows, except the Father alone who begat Him. He as we acknowledge the only-begotten Son of God, the Father having sent Him, came here from the heavens, as it is written, for the undoing of sin and death, and was born of the Holy Ghost, of Mary the virgin according to the flesh, as it is written, and conversed with the disciples, and having fulfilled the whole Economy according to the Father's will, was crucified and died and was buried and ascended to the parts below the earth, at whom hades itself shuddered; who also rose from the dead on the third day, and abode with the disciples, and forty days being fulfilled, was taken up into the heavens, and sits on the right hand of the Father to come in the last day of the resurrection in the Father's glory, that He may render to every man according to his works.

And in the Holy Ghost, whom the only-begotten Son of God Himself, Christ, our Lord and God, promised to send to the race of man, as Paraclete, as it is written, 'the Spirit of truth' (John 16:13), which He sent to them when He had ascended into the heavens.

But the name of 'essence,' which was set down by the Fathers in simplicity, and, being unknown by the people, caused offense, because the Scriptures do not contain it, it has seemed good to abolish, and for the future to make no mention of it at all; since the divine scriptures have made no mention of the essence of Father and Son. For neither ought 'subsistence' to be named concerning Father, Son and Holy Ghost. But we say that the Son is like the Father, as the divine Scriptures say and teach; and all the heresies, both those which have been already condemned, and whatever are of modern date, being contrary to this published statement, be they anathema.

Resource

Young Restless Reformed and Their Denials

2011-01-02T17:47:00.001-08:00

I have been having a fascinating exchange with a challenged fellow recently or at least one passing himself off as such. We have been discussing the anathemas of the 2nd Council of Orange particularly with regard to that body's concern with those who promoted an extended version of Augustine's determinism commonly called double predestination today. As I noted in a previous post Orange dealt primarily with the Pelagian and semi-Pelagian errors. They also found themselves having to address a hard determinism that was bringing schisms into the church. Philip Schaff has a definitive summary of these events in his History of the Christian Church. The apparently offending passage from the Canons of Orange is We not only do not believe that any are foreordained to evil by the power of God, but even state with utter abhorrence that if there are those who want to believe so evil a thing, they are anathema. Now this is a fairly straight forward comment that has been well understood for nearly the past 1,500 years as addressing strict determinism. When I related that the strict determinism of these earlier fellows surfaced as the double predestination of Calvinist soteriology, it was met with further denials. Well, the wonderful thing about Calvinist theology is that several of its articulate adherents graced us with an abundance of written evidence to help explain these beliefs to their later followers who apparently do not read what they profess to believe. One of those adherents of this theology is the namesake himself, John Calvin. He offered the following comment from his Instituters of the Christian Religion.

By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms,but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation. And accordingly, as each has been created for one of other of these ends, we say that he as been predestinated to life or to death - John Calvin, Institutes book III ch 21

Now, I underlined the clarifying portion of the passage to emphasize to the young, restless Reformed fellow to help him see what he was missing in his understanding. He further astounded me with the following reply ...

Please point out in that quote of Calvin where he claims that "men are predestined to wickedness, evil, sin with that end being determined before hand by God".

Maybe this is a new trick that James White or Phil Johnson have come up with to confound Christians into wild eyed lunacy or perhaps the fellow really is as dense as he seems. I had to leave off with him as he has taxed my patience.

The discussion thread to this can be found here.

Bitter Orange

2010-12-30T08:40:00.001-08:00

We not only do not believe that any are foreordained to evil by the power of God, but even state with utter abhorrence that if there are those who want to believe so evil a thing, they are anathema.

The 2^nd Council of Orange met to stir the pot of contention. Well, perhaps they didn't think of it like that but looking back at the canon pronouncements that came out of that council in 529 AD, they covered considerable controversial ground. Prevenient grace, total depravity, semi-Augustinianism, semi-Pelagianism, strict determinism, baptism, free will and all the questions swirling around these topics continue to generate a lot of controversy today. Perhaps the most notable contribution of 2^nd Orange was its affirmation of the total depravity of man in his natural state and the necessity of prevenient grace to give any impetus to natural man to accomplish or perform any good. The council determined that faith itself and every aspect of salvation is by grace and not through any innate capability of men. These decisions form the basis for western orthodox understandings of total depravity as it regards fallen man and present the case against the predilections of the Pelagians or semi-Pelagians. As orthodox Arminians, we can be grateful for the distinctions made by this council and turn to the document to refute misplaced allegations made against us by the Neo-Reformed in accusing us of the errors of Pelagius and his close follower, Caelestius.

It is the allegations made by Neo-Reformed polemicists that raise the hackles of non-Calvinists and give cause to question their knowledge of the document they brandish. Along with the challenges to the doctrines of man's fallen condition via the semi-Pelagians, 2^nd Orange also addressed the aberrant teachings of some who took Augustine's predestination teachings to infer that the LORD predestined all men, some to salvation and others to eternal reprobation. Such teachings were regarded by the elders of the church to have God foreordaining or predestining men to sin and were abhorred as such. Essentially, double predestination was deemed to be anathema and equivalent of making God to be the effecter or author of sin. Today's moderate Calvinists strenuously object to the implication made by this examination while some of their harsher advocates make little effort to distance themselves from the hard determinism that brought about this anathematizing. None of this would really matter were it not for the abuse of 2^nd Orange against non-Calvinists through the accusation of Pelagianism. These accusations have always rung hollow but they continue even to this day, among those that intellectually know better than to repeat the charges. Oddly, every time the Calvinist swings his accusing club relying on Orange, he receives a doubly disabling return blow by his own hand. Every instance of shouting "free will Pelagian" gives the retort of "damnable heretic" if the canons of 2^nd Orange are his weapon of choice. Eventually, the Calvinist clubs himself senseless, rhetorically speaking. The following provide further links and information on this matter.

The Canons of the Council of 2^nd Orange

Philip Schaff's Account in his History of the Christian Church

R.C. Sproul's "What is the Gospel?"

2010-12-29T10:12:00.001-08:00

While I'm still juiced on the R.C. Sproul mode, I want to offer something from Sr. that I whole heartedly agree with. He had a short article earlier this year on Ligonier called What is the Gospel. Being classically Arminian in soteriology I half expected to object upon reading it. However, I think he hit the nail on the head and kept the matter rather simple. It is about faith in the one sent to redeem. Here is a short excerpt.

… The great misconception in our day is this: that God isn't concerned to protect His own integrity. He's a kind of wishy-washy deity, who just waves a wand of forgiveness over everybody. No. For God to forgive you is a very costly matter. It cost the sacrifice of His own Son. So valuable was that sacrifice that God pronounced it valuable by raising Him from the dead – so that Christ died for us, He was raised for our justification. So the Gospel is something objective. It is the message of who Jesus is and what He did. And it also has a subjective dimension. How are the benefits of Jesus subjectively appropriated to us? How do I get it? The Bible makes it clear that we are justified not by our works, not by our efforts, not by our deeds, but by faith – and by faith alone. The only way you can receive the benefit of Christ's life and death is by putting your trust in Him – and in Him alone. You do that, you're declared just by God, you're adopted into His family, you're forgiven of all of your sins, and you have begun your pilgrimage for eternity.

This is pretty much the Arminian and non-Calvinist view of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. From an evangelical perspective, I am pleased to see R.C. preach this word as an Arminian stating that the receipt of the benefits of Christ is made by placing our faith in Him. I emphasize our faith for a purpose here. Most of the body of Christ recognizes that even the ability to believe is by the grace of God. It is a core tenet of James Arminius and the other early Reformers that natural man has no innate functionality, no desire or quest for the things of God and can make no move of his own lacking the effectual grace of God (see here). We believe because we have been enabled to do so. We believe because the grace of God did precede our surrender and bring us to a point where faith brought about a repentance and new birth or regeneration, scripturally a new creation. This is not only the position of Arminius, Wesley and a great many other theologians and pastors before and after but it is also the classical position of John Calvin (see here) and reaching well before, Augustine of Hippo.

It is putting our trust in Him that reaps the benefits of salvation, of redemption from a spoiled life. It is not God's belief in us. He did not drag us kicking and screaming. We are not forced into the Kingdom of God. Instead, it is as R.C extolled in his best Arminian prose, our trust placed in Him. Now, rather than waxing golden over a supposed conversion of a noted Calvinist theologian embracing the Arminian and orthodox way, I'm not going to suppose that R.C. has now abandoned his creedal albeit misguided beliefs. Instead, R.C. merely confirms what many of us have suggested all along. The Calvinist preaches the good news of Jesus Christ, the Gospel, as an Arminian (or non-Calvinist for those that do not prefer the label). For that we are grateful.

Normative Sin?

2010-12-27T11:58:00.001-08:00

The subtly of antinomianism is such that it is easy to mistake it for something good. Perhaps we should examine our hearts to see our condition even though the heart, lacking the grace of God, is desperately wicked and none of us can know it. It sounds good but can we really do it? Add to that the idea that we are, still, wicked and perverse, totally depraved even as born again children of God and that self examination seems a defeatist endeavor. It strikes me as an antinomian admission of failure. ... The latter point I don't believe. I do not believe the redeemed soul, with the new heart promised by the LORD, is still the same wretched, perverse, totally depraved soul he once was. The scriptures teach us we are new creations with newness of life. We are regenerated or recreated into something new. That rebirth is essentially a restoration effective and kept through faith. Let faith slip and that old man with his perverse nature stirs to life again. Perhaps those who still consider themselves to be perverse whores of the world while claiming the mantle of Christianity have grown accustomed to sharing their bed with the world thinking that is the normal Christian expectation. The scriptures tell us to go and sin no more. Christ and the Apostles did not tell us we are to be sinners so why should we walk around with piety while throwing dust in the air and tearing our clothes at how wicked we are and how sin has a lifelong stranglehold on us? From my perspective, such a person gives justification to his sins as the norm in his life. As such he lives the model.

What stirred these thoughts was a short commentary by R.C. Sproul Jr. on the Ligonier website entitled Consorting with Whores. It is a pious report, no question, and I have no reason to doubt the man believes what he wrote. I merely marvel at such expectations from somebody who had victory over sin given to him by the grace of God. Even the analogy of prostitution seems unfitting. I am not being prudish and I can fully understand the analogy of spiritual whoredom but the analogy is dispensed abundantly with almost relish like embrace. Mr. Sproul truly considers himself a whore of sorts, swallowed up in spiritual whoredom that require God to come in and clean him up on occasion. He expects himself to be no less. While I have never embraced sinless perfection as a doctrine of the church I also have disregard for the teaching that we are essentially the same after the Christian rebirth as before. It strikes me as an excuse, in this case, an excuse for sin. Maybe he means something different but I keep running into this expected state of sinfulness on the part of some, as if flesh and blood, skin and bones, is the cause of sin. Mr. Sproul can continue to regard himself as a normative whore. I'll continue to view the child of God as a washed and redeemed child of God who is not to be regarded as a sinner the likes of the reprobate.

Would Calvin Have Burned Sproul Alive?

2010-12-27T07:27:00.001-08:00

William Birch provided an interesting examination of the Neo-Reformed charges against Non-Calvinistic believers regarding the order of faith and regeneration on his website recently. He, with irenic grace seemed lacking in our opponents, points out the attitude and opinion of men such as R.C. Sproul who hold Arminians and others in low regard for adhering to the orthodox understanding of faith preceding the regeneration of believers unto salvation. From the beginnings of the Christian era to the present, faith has been the stated condition of salvation, the means through which the grace of God brings souls into a proper relationship with Him. It is taught in scripture. It has been believed by the church throughout the centuries and millennia. It defines the Christian evangelical call and commission of Christ. It is through faith that we have new life. There is no new life preceding faith or the belief in the person and work of Jesus Christ. For Sproul and others to state we are "barely saved" as Arminians because we adhere to orthodoxy is foolhardiness. It is also evidence of an inexcusable ignorance of the teachings of their own tradition's founders. I am astounded that Sproul and his likeminded fellows lack sufficient knowledge of John Calvin's teachings as to spend such energy chasing after imaginary enemies in the Body of Christ. In their denigration of non-Calvinists, they have failed to include their namesake who, in his Institutes of the Christian Religion, taught specifically that faith precedes regeneration and defined regeneration as synonymous with initial repentance (Institututes, Book III, ch 3, ix). Was John Calvin on a road to Rome when he wrote "… In one word, then, by repentance I understand regeneration (spiritual regeneration) , the only aim of which is to form in us anew the image of God, which was sullied, and all but effaced by the transgression of Adam"? Do Sproul and others consider Calvin and every preceding theologian of worthy note prior to have been "semi-Pelagian"? In the same passage of his Institutes, Calvin affirmed the orthodox teaching of faith preceding regeneration. The following passage is important to and in some measure directed at the musings of men such as Sproul who seem to not understand the tradition they claim as a mantle.

That repentance not only always follows faith, but is produced by it, ought to be without controversy. For since pardon and forgiveness are offered by the preaching of the Gospel, in order that the sinner, delivered from the tyranny of Satan, the yoke of sin, and the miserable bondage of iniquity, may pass into the kingdom of God, it is certain that no man can embrace the grace of the Gospel without retaking himself from the errors of his former life into the right path, and making it his whole study to practice repentance. Those who think that repentance precedes faith instead of flowing from, or being produced by it, as the fruit by the tree, have never understood its nature, and are moved to adopt that view on very insufficient grounds. (Institutes, Book III, ch 3, i)

From the previous quotation regarding regeneration from the same source, it is fairly clear that Calvin would have considered Sproul and other Neo-Reformed to be in error. Now, how he might have regarded their charges of semi-Pelagianism and being back on the road to Rome can only be speculative. However, I ask the pertinent question. Would Geneva have burned Sproul and his fellow accusers alive at the stake with the same green wood that ignited Servetus? Granted, Sproul might consider Calvin to have been "barely saved" and thus speculatively avoided the stern hand of Geneva justice, it is clear he would have made himself an enemy of the founder and namesake of his own religious persuasion.

John Owen’s Polemical Lie

2010-12-25T19:20:00.001-08:00

John Owen, a hyper-Calvinist of some repute, wrote a short book entitled A Display of Arminianism. It is in a word, a lie. I do not know if the popular Calvinist ever repented of his dastardly lies but if not, he died as a wretched liar. Some of our Neo-Reformed apologists are fond of pointing to Owen as an exemplar of Reformed thought. I believe they do so out of sheer ignorance. If not, they share in what Owen was.

The Realities of the Christ Child’s Day

2010-12-25T18:50:00.001-08:00

I know the Christmas tree looks nice, all lit up and with ornaments hanging from its branches. Good will and peace on earth are sung and hoped for in many corners. We think of joy and blessings upon the birth of the Christ and well we should. Having said that, I don't really like this thing we call Christmas. I'm not speaking of the bah humbugs of Scrooge. I don't like the commercialization of Christmas but I suspect there are a lot of people with similar sentiments. There is something else that goes unstated around these events. Something remains hidden and kept out of most discussions. Not here. I want this to be my remembrance of the purpose of Christ. Man is totally depraved and but for the grace of God would be utterly depraved, base in all his being. Jesus came into this world to save it, to bring out of despair the foul workings of what follows from Eusebius' History of the Church. When the grace of God is removed from fallen man, the stench of what we are capable of becoming is beyond horrible. Jesus came into a world ruled by that stench of reprobation without even an appearance of a façade to give some false assurance of goodness. A man named Herod ruled Palestine with Roman governance and authority. The same man exhibited a degree of wickedness that each one of us should pray we never encounter although many in this world suffer under the same today. Herod's is a wickedness that the LORD ordained and allowed and one that brought terrible judgment upon the sinner. While we might not envision ourselves caught up in the slaughter of innocents, it is not far from our own fallen human condition to partake in worse. The cradle of western civilization gave birth to the most horrendous slaughtering of the 20^th century, not once but three times (WWI, WWII, Stalin's purges). The façade of goodness in man is only skin deep, if that. This is reason for the season, the coming of the Messiah, so that men who will believe in Him might be saved.

Consider what world the Christ came into …

The Cruelty of Herod toward the Infants, and the Manner of his Death.

1. When Christ was born, according to the prophecies, in Bethlehem of Judea, at the time indicated, Herod was not a little disturbed by the enquiry of the magi who came from the east, asking where he who was born King of the Jews was to be found,—for they had seen his star, and this was their reason for taking so long a journey; for they earnestly desired to worship the infant as God.—for he imagined that his kingdom might be endangered; and he enquired therefore of the doctors of the law, who belonged to the Jewish nation, where they expected Christ to be born. When he learned that the prophecy of Micah announced that Bethlehem was to be his birthplace he commanded, in a single edict, all the male infants in Bethlehem, and all its borders, that were two years of age or less, according to the time which he had accurately ascertained from the magi, to be slain, supposing that Jesus, as was indeed likely, would share the same fate as the others of his own age.

2. But the child anticipated the snare, being carried into Egypt by his parents, who had learned from an angel that appeared unto them what was about to happen. These things are recorded by the Holy Scriptures in the Gospel.

3. It is worth while, in addition to this, to observe the reward which Herod received for his daring crime against Christ and those of the same age. For immediately, without the least delay, the divine vengeance overtook him while he was still alive, and gave him a foretaste of what he was to receive after death.

4. It is not possible to relate here how he tarnished the supposed felicity of his reign by successive calamities in his family, by the murder of wife and children, and others of his nearest relatives and dearest friends. The account, which casts every other tragic drama into the shade, is detailed at length in the histories of Josephus.

5. How, immediately after his crime against our Saviour and the other infants, the punishment sent by God drove him on to his death, we can best learn from the words of that historian who, in the seventeenth book of his Antiquities of the Jews, writes as follows concerning his end:

6. "But the disease of Herod grew more severe, God inflicting punishment for his crimes. For a slow fire burned in him which was not so apparent to those who touched him, but augmented his internal distress; for he had a terrible desire for food which it was not possible to resist. He was affected also with ulceration of the intestines, and with especially severe pains in the colon, while a watery and transparent humor settled about his feet.

7. He suffered also from a similar trouble in his abdomen. Nay more, his privy member was putrefied and produced worms. He found also excessive difficulty in breathing, and it was particularly disagreeable because of the offensiveness of the odor and the rapidity of respiration.

8. He had convulsions also in every limb, which gave him uncontrollable strength. It was said, indeed, by those who possessed the power of divination and wisdom to explain such events, that God had inflicted this punishment upon the King on account of his great impiety."

9. The writer mentioned above recounts these things in the work referred to. And in the second book of his History he gives a similar account of the same Herod, which runs as follows: "The disease then seized upon his whole body and distracted it by various torments. For he had a slow fever, and the itching of the skin of his whole body was insupportable. He suffered also from continuous pains in his colon, and there were swellings on his feet like those of a person suffering from dropsy, while his abdomen was inflamed and his privy member so putrefied as to produce worms. Besides this he could breathe only in an upright posture, and then only with difficulty, and he had convulsions in all his limbs, so that the diviners said that his diseases were a punishment.

10. But he, although wrestling with such sufferings, nevertheless clung to life and hoped for safety, and devised methods of cure. For instance, crossing over Jordan he used the warm baths at Callirhoë, but are themselves sweet enough to drink.

11. His physicians here thought that they could warm his whole body again by means of heated oil. But when they had let him down into a tub filled with oil, his eyes became weak and turned up like the eyes of a dead person. But when his attendants raised an outcry, he recovered at the noise; but finally, despairing of a cure, he commanded about fifty drachms to be distributed among the soldiers, and great sums to be given to his generals and friends.

12. Then returning he came to Jericho, where, being seized with melancholy, he planned to commit an impious deed, as if challenging death itself. For, collecting from every town the most illustrious men of all Judea, he commanded that they be shut up in the so-called hippodrome.

13. And having summoned Salome, his sister, and her husband, Alexander, he said: 'I know that the Jews will rejoice at my death. But I may be lamented by others and have a splendid funeral if you are willing to perform my commands. When I shall expire surround these men, who are now under guard, as quickly as possible with soldiers, and slay them, in order that all Judea and every house may weep for me even against their will.'"

14. And after a little Josephus says, "And again he was so tortured by want of food and by a convulsive cough that, overcome by his pains, he planned to anticipate his fate. Taking an apple he asked also for a knife, for he was accustomed to cut apples and eat them. Then looking round to see that there was no one to hinder, he raised his right hand as if to stab himself."

15. In addition to these things the same writer records that he slew another of his own sons before his death, the third one slain by his command, and that immediately afterward he breathed his last, not without excessive pain.

16. Such was the end of Herod, who suffered a just punishment for his slaughter of the children of Bethlehem, which was the result of his plots against our Saviour.

17. After this an angel appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt and commanded him to go to Judea with the child and its mother, revealing to him that those who had sought the life of the child were dead. To this the evangelist adds, "But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in the room of his father Herod he was afraid to go thither; notwithstanding being warned of God in a dream he turned aside into the parts of Galilee.

A Jazz Break - Bill Evans

2010-12-25T12:08:00.000-08:00

Bill Evans - "My Foolish Heart"

Neo-Calvinist Apologetics ... I can hardly stand the suspense of the next thrilling moment.

2010-12-20T19:03:00.000-08:00

One of the recent neo-Calvinst devotees on CARM had the following to state that I think deserves a special mention and recognition of achievement.

"Wasn't it a group of people that was opposing the Calvinist by writing the TULIP to present to the courts of the Dort or Worms.
I think I'm right on that one or at least I'm close. Correct me if I'm wrong on this historical moment."

Gregory Koukl on the Practical Aspects of Christian Liberty

2010-12-18T09:30:00.001-08:00

A popular Christian radio personality and internet presence with Stand To Reason, Gregory Koukl discussed the practical application of Christian liberty on one of his radio shows several years ago. I am not well acquainted with Mr. Koukl's ministry other than knowing he is a strong pro-Life advocate and apologist. His approach on this liberty of ours focuses on what I call "fence laws", man-made rules and regulations that are not specifically scripturally evidenced.

Christian Liberty

Gregory Koukl

Is there a reliable way to know when someone is restricting your Christian liberty?

The very nature of Christian liberty is such that you can't really draw the line. Where the line is drawn is in the direct, specific, and explicit commands of God. The danger that we take things that are not actually commands, maybe general principles, and find an applicational rule, and we make that rule equal with God's law.

God tells us not to be worldly. Some people determine that dancing is worldly, so they make dancing a sin. They make that application incumbent upon everybody else. Fundamentalism is characteristic of those kinds of things, so we have the familiar saying "Don't drink or smoke or chew, or go with those that do." Obviously, you don't want to fall into that trap because that kind of genuine legalism does not build Christian maturity.

The way to build Christian maturity is not to pass a bunch of new rules that aren't God's rules but man's rules. Rather, Christian maturity is to teach Christians to exercise judicial judgment in the way they exercise their own liberty. Give them principles and then leave them to themselves to decide for themselves. Often these rules by men end up taking precedence even over God's rules. We make a rule: People in our church can't drink alcohol. If you drink, you are sinning. Then somebody drinks and everybody judges him when the Bible does not explicitly say that we should not drink. It says we should not get drunk, but not that we shouldn't drink. However, the Bible does explicitly say that we should not judge our Christian brother exercising his liberty, and no one should be our judge with regards to food or drink. That is explicit in the Scriptures.

People exalt man's rules to the level of God's law, and in so doing violate God's explicit law.

When I was in Eastern European 20 years ago preparing to travel in the Soviet Union, one of the Christian leaders told me, "Don't tell them that we are playing basketball today because the Russians believe that basketball is worldly. Sports are worldly and it is a sin. They don't allow it." That sounds bizarre to us because we love sports, but that is just their thing. It is an example of their particular rule at the time that they made equal with God's law. They are very sensitive about it.

If you are going to adopt a rule that applies to all Christians, you ought to be able to identify an explicit Biblical prohibition.

I'll tell you with regards to movies, I don't look at the ratings, per se . I don't automatically rule out R-rated movies. That's me. I tend to be judicious with the movies I see, but I don't simply ask the question of whether it is R-rated. Some people don't go to R-rated movies as a matter of principle, and God bless them.

I'm sure Paul would say that sorcery, hatred, fornication, lewdness and those sorts of things mentioned in Galatians 5 are sinful. They were then, they are now. How that informs our behaviors and our particulars in life, I'm not sure. Keep in mind that even if Paul himself said, "I, for one, am not going to ever watch a TV show," it wouldn't mean that because he has chosen not to do so, that we are obliged not to do so either. Paul can still operate within the context of his own conscience, but that doesn't mean that is a law for the rest of us. After all, Paul was the one who wrote about Christian liberty in Corinthians and Romans. Unless Paul himself said, "This is the direct teaching of the Lord. This isn't my personal opinion or advice. This is God speaking," I wouldn't take that as incumbent on me. That's a different story.

I'll pass on something that one of my first Christian teachers passed on to me some 20 plus years ago. His name is Bill Counts. He's a Pastor now in Dallas, Texas. Bill said this to avoid legalism: Find an explicit Biblical prohibition for every rule you adopt for the church. If you are going to adopt a rule that applies to all Christians, you ought to be able to identify an explicit Biblical prohibition. If you say, "The rule is Christians should not get drunk," then you could page through to Ephesians 5 and read where it says, "Do not get drunk on wine." There you have the rule. It is explicitly stated in the Bible so you are justified in applying that to all Christians because the Biblical writers have done that.

However, if you say, "The rule is that you should not ever smoke or take something that hurts your body," then you are going to have to find a Biblical verse that says that it is immoral to take anything into your body that causes damage to your body. I don't know of any moral verse like that. Some people might say that the Bible says your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit. You're right, but the body being a fit temple has nothing to do with the physical qualities of my body, because if that were the case then people who were exercising a lot would be more spiritual than those people who don't because they have a better looking temple. And people who are sick and diseased would be less fit temples because their bodies are less attractive or are compromised by the disease. If it doesn't seem to make any sense to say that sick people are less qualified because something is wrong with their physical body as a temple to the Holy Spirit, then it doesn't seem to make any sense to say that you can't smoke or drink because it might harm your body and invoke this verse about being a temple of the Holy Spirit either. It is interesting that people who want to do that about smoking or drinking don't do that about calories or sugar or over-eating.

Paul isn't talking about being physically fit in any way, shape or form. He is talking about moral behavior. He says, don't go to bed with a prostitute. Why? Your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit. You are bringing God into participation since He dwells inside the temple of your body in the Person of the Holy Spirit. You are bringing Him into direct contact in an intimate way with immorality. You are joining Jesus to a harlot, Paul says. Paul's comment about having a fit temple has nothing to do with physical qualities. It has everything to do with moral qualities. That's the issue there.

To avoid legalism, make sure that you have an explicit Biblical prohibition for every rule you adopt for others.

This is a transcript of a commentary from the radio show "Stand to Reason," with Gregory Koukl. It is made available to you at no charge through the faithful giving of those who support Stand to Reason. Reproduction permitted for non-commercial use only. ©1996 Gregory Koukl

Green Chri$tma$ by Stan Freberg (1958)

2010-12-16T15:26:00.000-08:00

This old Chri$tma$ routine goes back to 1958 but it is as relevant today as then. I guess some of us have disliked the commercialization of Christmas for a long time now. (Thanks to Methodist Thinker for the reminder)

The Wesleyan Church Statement on Christian Liberty

2010-12-14T19:24:00.001-08:00

The Wesleyan Church, with offices in Fishers, Indiana, has previously articulated a position regarding Christian Liberty that is generally in agreement with most conservative Wesleyan church groups. This statement comes close to my own perspective on this matter, in particular with the passage from Galatians and its applicability to all Christians, Jew and Gentile. Paul's epistle to Galatia expresses with great clarity much of the issue of law and commandment that was the focus of the council at Jerusalem as recorded in Acts 15. This liberty and lack of bondage is at the heart of life in Christ and is threaded throughout the New Testament.

ChristianLiberty. Christ, through His death on the cross, has freed His followers from sin and from bondage to the law. Christians are "called unto liberty" (Galatians 5:13 KJV), and are not under the law as a means of salvation. They are rather exhorted, "Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage" (Galatians 5:1 KJV).

This liberty, however, is not to be construed as license (Galatians 5:13). Rather, love for Christconstrains the Christian to live righteously and holily as God demands. By the Spirit of God, His laws are written on the heart (Hebrews 8:10). So Christians resist evil and cleave to the good, not in order to be saved, but because they have been saved. Within the bounds of Christian liberty, there will be differences of opinion. In such cases, the believer seeks to avoid offending other believers. The stronger one is mindful of the opinions of the one with the weaker conscience (1 Corinthians 8 and 10), and is careful not to put a stumbling block in another's way (1 Corinthians10:24; Galatians 5:13). On the other hand, the weak does not criticize the strong (1 Corinthians10:29-30), for the conscience of the weak may need instruction. The recognition and exercise of that liberty which Christ affords will glorify God and promote the unity of the Church.

A Jazz Break ... Melody Gardot

2010-12-13T16:14:00.000-08:00

Melody Gardot is an amazing story. Severely injured in a hit and run accident at the age of 19, she is in constant pain, suffers from noise and light sensitivities and uses a cane requiring special seating and a TENS device to manage the pain. As a result of music therapy, she does this Jazz thing ... I consider it prevenient grace.

John Wesley on Christian Liberty, A Letter to Susanna Wesley

2010-12-13T10:07:00.001-08:00

Continuing with an interest of exploring Christian liberty, specifically within the Arminian traditions, a particular letter written by John Wesley to his mother dated January 13^th, 1735 provides a somewhat more pastoral perspective on the subject matter than the theological discourse James Arminius provided. Both bring well grounded opinions to the table and for my purposes, both need to be examined. There are other works on this subject from other traditions perhaps most notably Martin Luther's Christian Liberty however for now the Arminian perspective has my attention.

John Wesley's Letter to his Mother, January 13^th, 1735

DEAR MOTHER, -- Give my leave to say once more that our folks do, and will I supose to the end of the chapter, mistake the question.

Supposing him changed Say they. Right: but that supposition has not proof yet – whether it may have: when it has, then we may come to our other point, whether all this be not providence, i.e. blessing. And whether we are empowered so to judge, condemn, and execute an imprudent Christian, as God forbid I should ever use a Turk or Deist.

I have had a great deal of a conversation lately on the subject of Christian liberty, and should be glad of your thoughts as to the several notions of it which good men entertain. I perceive different persons take it in at least six different senses: (1) For liberty from willful sin, in opposition to the bondage of natural corruption. (2) For liberty as to rites and points of discipline. So Mr. Whiston says, though the stations were constituted by the Apostles, yet the liberty of the Christian law dispenses with them on extraordinary occasions. [William Whiston (1667-1752) succeeded Newton as Lucasian Professor in 1703. The reference is to his book, The Primitive Eucharist Revived; or, an account of the doctrine and practice of the two first centuries. The ' stations' were the fasts: see letter of June 13, 1753, n.] (3) For liberty from denying ourselves in little things; for trifles, 'tis commonly thought, we may indulge in safety, because Christ hath made us free. This notion, I a little doubt, is not sound. (4) For liberty from fear, or a filial freedom in our intercourse with God. A Christian, says Dr. Knight, [ James Knight, Vicar of St. Sepulchre's, London. See letter of May 8, 1739.] is free from fear on account of his past sins; for he believes in Christ, and hope frees him from fear of losing his present labor or of being a castaway hereafter. (5) Christian liberty is taken by some for a freedom from restraint as to sleep or food. So they would say, your drinking but one glass of wine, or my rising at a fixed hour, was contrary to Christian liberty. Lastly, it is taken for freedom from rules. If by this be meant making our rules yield to extraordinary occasions, well: if the having no prudential rules, this liberty is as yet too high for me; I cannot attain unto it.

We join in begging yours and my father's blessing, and wishing you an Happy Year. -- I am, dear mother,

Your dutiful and affectionate Son.

To Mrs. Wesley, At Epworth. To be left at the Post-house in Gainsborough. By London.

Arminius on Christian Liberty

2010-12-12T21:28:00.001-08:00

An area of theological understanding that seems to bring a lot of dispute among fellows is Christian liberty. It seems odd that liberty in Christ could fuel passionate disagreements but if one begins asking another why he is sinning and why another isn't, a large can of worms appears to open up. It is a topic of great interest to me particularly how this Christian liberty interacts and sheds light on the whole matter of sin and law with its implications on sanctification and our Christian expectation. Arminius made the following comments in his Public Disputations and I feel this is an appropriate starting point for a topic I feel inclined to explore further.

DISPUTATION 20 ON CHRISTIAN LIBERTY RESPONDENT: ENGELBERT SIBELIUS

1. Liberty, generally, is a state according to which every one is at his own disposal, and not bound to another person. Bondage or slavery is opposed to it, according to which a man is not his own master, but is subject to another, either to do what he commands, to omit what he forbids, or to endure what he inflicts. Christian Liberty is so called chiefly from Christ the Author, who procured it; it has received this appellation also from its subjects, because it belongs to Christians, that is, to believers in Christ.

But it pre-supposes servitude; because Christ was not necessary for any, except for

"those who, through fear of death, were all their life-time subject to bondage." (Hebrews 2:15.)

2. Christian Liberty is that state of the fullness of grace and truth in which believers are placed by God through Christ, and are sealed by the Holy Spirit. It consists partly of a deliverance from both the real and the economic bondage of sin and the law, and partly of adoption into the right of the sons of God, and of the mission of the Spirit of the Son into their hearts. Its end is the praise of the glorious grace of God in Christ, and the eternal salvation of believers.

3. The efficient cause of Christian Liberty is God the Father, who offers it; (Colossians 1:12, 13;) the Son, who, as Mediator, confers it; (John 8:36; Galatians 5:1;) and the Holy Spirit, who inwardly seals it. (2 Corinthians 3:17, 18.) The internal cause is the grace of God, and his love for man in Christ Jesus. (Luke 1:78.) The external cause is the ransom, or the price of redemption, and the satisfaction, which Christ has paid. (Romans 5:6-21; 7:2, 3.) The sealing and preserving cause is the Holy Spirit, who is both the earnest and the witness in the hearts of believers. (Romans 8:15, 16, Ephesians 1:13, 14.) The instrument is two-fold. One on the part of God, who exhibits this liberty; the other on the part of man, who receives it.

(1.) On the part of God, the instrument is the saving doctrine concerning the mercy of God in Christ, which is therefore called "the ministry of reconciliation." (2 Corinthians 5:19.)

(2.) On the part of man, it is faith in Christ. (John 1:12; Romans 5:2; Galatians 3:26.) The matter about which it is exercised is not only sin, and the law "which is the strength of sin;" but also the power or privilege of the sons of God, and the Spirit of Christ.

4. The form consists in deliverance from the spiritual bondage of sin and the law, both real and economical, in the donation of the right to be the sons of God, (Colossians 1:13,) and in the sending forth of the Holy Spirit into the hearts of believers. (Galatians 4:6.) Its subjects are all believers, who are freed from the tyranny of sin and of the law, and received by God on account of Christ as sons, through the grace of adoption. (Galatians 3:26.) The chief end is the praise of the glorious grace of God; (Ephesians 1:14;) the subordinate end is the salvation of believers. (Romans 6:22.) The effects or fruits are two: The first serves for consolation. (Hebrews 6:18- 20.) The other, for admonition, that

"being made free from sin, we may become the servants of righteousness." (Romans 6:18-22; 1 Peter 2:16.)

5. But because this liberty is opposed to the bondage which preceded it, we must on this account treat in the first place about that bondage, that the design of this liberty may be the more easily rendered evident. We must know, that the first man was created free by God; but that, having abused his liberty, he lost it, and was made the slave of him to whom he yielded obedience, that is, to sin, both as it respects the guilt of condemnation and its dominion; which is real bondage and consummate misery. To this succeeded the economical bondage, [or that of the dispensation of Moses,] which God introduced by the repetition of the Moral Law, and by the imposition of the Ceremonial. The bondage under the Moral Law was its rigid demands, by which man, being reduced to despair of fulfilling it, might acknowledge the tyranny of sin which reigned or held dominion over him. The bondage under the Ceremonial Law was its testifying to condemnation; by which man might be convinced of guilt, and thus through both these kinds of bondage might flee to Christ, who could deliver him from the guilt of sin and from its dominion.

6. Let us now see how believers are delivered from this bondage by Christian liberty. We will restrict this consideration to the church of the New Testament, to which the whole of this liberty belongs, omitting the believers under the Old Testament. Though to these likewise belonged, through the promise of the blessed seed and through faith in Him, (Genesis 3:15; 15:6,) a deliverance from real bondage, the privilege of the sons of God, and the Spirit of adoption, which was intermixed with the spirit of economical bondage. (Galatians 4:1-3.)

7. We circumscribe Christian liberty within four ranks or degrees. The First degree consists in a freedom from the guilt and condemnation of sin, which has been expiated by the blood of Christ, by faith in which we obtain remission of sins, and justification from those things from which we could not be absolved by the law of Moses. The Second degree consists in the deliverance from the dominion and tyranny of indwelling sin; because its power is mortified and weakened by the Spirit of Christ dwelling in us, that it may no longer have dominion over those who are under grace.

(Romans 6:14.) But both these degrees of Christian Liberty have their origin in this — that sin was condemned in the flesh of Christ, and it therefore does not possess the power either to condemn or to command. (Romans 8:3.)

8. We place the Third degree in the attempering of that rigor by which God demanded the observance of the Moral Law in the primeval state, and could afterwards have demanded it, if it had been his pleasure still to act towards men in the same manner. Indeed, God did actually demand it, but in an economical way, from the people of the Old Testament; of which he gave manifest indications in that terrific legislation on Mount Sinai. (Exodus 20:18; Galatians 4:24, 25.) "But we are come unto Mount Sion, and to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant," whose "yoke is easy and his burden light;" (Isaiah 2:3; Micah 4:2; Hebrews 12:18-24; Matthew 11:30;) because Christ has broken the yoke of exaction, and it has been the good pleasure of God to treat with man according to clemency in the compact of the New Testament.

9. We place the Fourth degree in a freedom from the economical bondage of the ceremonial law, which had a fourfold respect under the Old Testament.

(1.) For it was the seal of condemnation, and the hand-writing, or bond of our debt. (Galatians 3:21; Hebrews 10:3, 4.)

(2.) It was a symbol and token, by which the Jews might be distinguished from all other nations till the advent of Christ. (Genesis 17:13. 14.)

(3.) It was a typical shadowing forth of Christ, and a prefiguration of his benefits. (Hebrews 9:9, 10; 10:1.)

(4.) Lastly, it resembled a sentinel or guard, a schoolmaster and tutor, by whom the church might be safely kept, in its state of infancy, under the elements of the world, in hopes of the promised and approaching Messiah, and might be led to faith in Him, and be conducted to Him, as St. Paul teaches at the conclusion of the third chapter of his Epistle to the Galatians, and at the commencement of the fourth.

10. The First of these respects of the Ceremonial Law must have been removed, after the condemnation of sin was taken away, of which it was the seal. But we have already shewn in the seventh Thesis, that this condemnation has been abolished by Christ. The consequence, therefore is, that it has also obtained its end or purpose; as St. Paul teaches us in Colossians 2:14, where he says, Christ has blotted out the hand-writing of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross." He sprinkled it over with his own blood and obliterated it. For the Second also of these respects, a place can no longer be found, since the Gentiles, "who were formerly far off, have been made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us.

Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself, of twain, One New Man, so making peace," etc. (Ephesians 2:13-15.) The Third respect consisted of types and shadows which prefigured Christ with his benefits. This can on no account continue after the body or substance itself has been already displayed. (Colossians 2:17.) And, lastly, the Fourth respect, since the advent of Christ, is useless. For when the heir has arrived at the age of maturity, he no longer requires a governor, tutor and schoolmaster, but is himself capable of managing his inheritance, of being his own adviser, and of consulting his own judgment in the things to be possessed. Thus, after the church has passed through the years of infancy, and has entered on the age of maturity in Christ, it is no longer held under the Mosaic worship, under the beggarly elements of this world," but is subject to the guidance of the Spirit of Christ. (Romans 8:15; Galatians 4:4-7.)

Grievous, therefore, is the error of the Pharisees and the Ebionites, in which they maintained, that the observance of the ceremonial law must be joined to the gospel, even by those Christians who had previously been Gentiles.

11. To this Fourth degree of Christian Liberty we add, the free use and exercise of things indifferent. Yet it has been the will of God, that this liberty should be circumscribed by two laws, that of charity and that of faith, (Romans 14:5, 14; 13,) thus consulting his own glory and the salvation of his church. The law of faith prescribes that you be rightly instructed concerning the legitimate use of things indifferent; and sufficiently confirmed [or "fully persuaded in your own mind."] The law of charity commands you to procure the edification of your neighbor, whether he be a weak brother or one who is confirmed. You have examples in Romans 14; 1 Corinthians 8; 9; 10:27-33; Acts 16:3. It is a part of the same law, that you should abide by the ceremonies which are received in the church, lest by an outrageous and unseasonable change you produce a schism in the church, or be the cause of much trouble.

1. Those persons, therefore, err greatly who, in abstaining from this liberty, prefer their own private advantage and happiness to the edification of their neighbor.

2. They err still more grievously who abuse this liberty to satiate the lusts of the flesh, (Galatians 5:13,) or by an unseasonable zeal to despise and offend their weak brethren. (Romans 14:3, 10.)

3. But those err the most grievously of all who either affix the observance of necessity to things indifferent, or suppose those things to be indifferent which are by no means such.

12. To these, perhaps not without profit, we shall add a Fifth degree of liberty, that is, an immunity from the judicial laws of the Jewish courts.

On this subject we must hold, that the political laws of Moses contain, (1.) The political common law of nature.

(2.) A particular law suited to the Jewish nation. The common law of nature embraces the universal notions of justice, equity and honesty. The particular law, as it was peculiar to the Jewish nation, was so far defined by certain determinations, according to the persons for whose benefit it was confirmed, according to the affairs and transactions concerning which it was confirmed, and the circumstances with which it was confirmed.

Hence a judgment ought to be formed of the immutability and mutability of these laws. Whatever has been appointed for the general good, according to the universal principles of nature and the common design of the moral law, either by commanding or forbidding, by rewarding or punishing, it is immutable. Therefore, to such a thing Christian Liberty does not extend itself. What portion soever of the particular law has a particular respect, it is changeable. Christians, therefore, are not bound by these laws, so far as they are determined by a particular law after the manner of the Jewish Commonwealth, that is, of particular persons, actions, and of a particular end or good. But with regard to those portions of these laws which are of a mixed kind, we must distinguish in them that which is moral from that which is political. Whatever is moral, is binding, and remains either by common reason or by analogy. Whatever is political, is not binding with regard to particular determinations.

Therefore, we disapprove of the ridiculous imitation adopted by Monetarius and Carolastadius, who obliged Christian magistrates to the necessity of observing the peculiar forensic laws of Moses in their administration of justice.

13. The privilege or right of the sons of God, and the sending of the spirit of adoption into the hearts of believers follow this liberty from the bondage of sin and the law, to which is annexed peace of conscience. (Romans 8:15; Galatians 4:5, 6.) That right consists in their being constituted heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ; and to this privilege belongs not only the blessed immortality of their souls, but likewise the deliverance of their bodies from vanity, and from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God; which also comes under the name of adoption, and is called "the redemption of our bodies." (Romans 8:15-23.) Hence, likewise those who shall be "the children of the resurrection," are called "the children of God." (Luke 20:36.) But the Spirit of adoption is sent into the hearts of the sons of God, as being the Spirit of the Son, that He may be the earnest, the seal, and the first-fruits of this inheritance; (Galatians 4:6; 2 Corinthians 1:22; Ephesians 1:14;) by which we are assured, that, as

"our life is hidden with Christ in God, when Christ shall gloriously appear we shall also be manifested with him in glory." (Colossians 3:4.)

And thus the liberty of glory, that will endure forever, will succeed to this liberty of grace, which we obtain in this world by Christ Jesus our Lord, through faith in his blood: To whom be praise forever! In the place of a conclusion it is inquired,

1. Whether freedom from the bondage of sin, and from economical bondage, be effected by one and the same act, or by two acts We affirm the former.

2. Whether it is lawful to eat those things which are offered in sacrifice to idols We make a distinction.

To Politic or not to Politic

2010-12-12T17:42:00.000-08:00

I've been playing around with political blogging for a while and gave it a half hearted try recently. However, I cannot seem to get myself into it with enough interest to sustain it. Aside from that, there are just too many political blogs out there and given the nature of the battle, it is very easy to get pulled and pushed into rather ugly frays. I despise the current administration in Washington and that really shades my perspective when I comment on such matters. So for now, at least in this mindset this evening, I'm going to leave off the political blogging and see if I can turn my introspective examinations upon things Arminian. The fire has gone out a bit and the lukewarm musings have tended upon the trivial rather than the things that really matter to me.
As Arminians we do not spend enough time examining what historical Arminians have believed and written. I have tried to keep a working list of theological positions that James Arminius articulated during his ministry and I'll continue with that. The same should be done with Wesley and others so that we can capture what has actually been taught rather than the allowing the lies and misrepresentations of neo-Calvinists to distort the true record of Christian evidence and testimony.
Now having said all that, I'm still cognizant enough of reality to know that I am a political junkie at heart and will still post and comment in a variety of places unrelated to this theological endeavor. As for trying to fuel the fire so to speak, I'll leave that to more competent and skilled sword swingers.

Remembering Pearl Harbor

2010-12-07T08:04:00.001-08:00

Sixty nine years ago today ...

Remembering Pearl Harbor

2010-12-05T16:04:00.000-08:00

Food Court Choir

This is great. ( you can get a better view of the video if you click on the link in the top of the video screen)

Arminianism is God-Centered Theology

2010-11-29T17:41:00.001-08:00

The Society of Evangelical Arminians has posted an article by Prof. Roger Olson of Baylor University entitled Arminianism is God-Centered Theology. Of course Arminians such as myself will heartedly agree with it's premise and I am convinced this article will receive widespread attention, at least among the apologists.

Roger Olson's Blog

2010-11-28T19:53:00.001-08:00

Isaiah 29 and a Heartfelt Drawing Near

William Birch provided a post from Clement concerning confessing Christ, especially a confession from the heart and not merely from the lips. It was this latter thought that provided the impetus to turn to Isaiah and ponder what being stated. Our LORD brought this prophesy closer to home in Matthews Gospel (Matt 15:8 ).

" ¶ Stay yourselves, and wonder; cry ye out, and cry: they are drunken, but not with wine; they stagger, but not with strong drink. For the LORD hath poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes: the prophets and your rulers, the seers hath he covered. And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed: And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned. Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men: Therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvellous work among this people, even a marvellous work and a wonder: for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid. Woe unto them that seek deep to hide their counsel from the LORD, and their works are in the dark, and they say, Who seeth us? and who knoweth us? Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding?" (Isa 29:9-16 AV)

" ¶ Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying, Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." (Mt 15:1-9 AV)

An Introspective of an Arminian Christian

Episcopius on the Knowledge of the Will of God

Arminius on the Will of God

TheWorks of James Arminius - Vol. 2 (Private Disputations)

Disputation18: On The Will Of God

Philosophical Determinism vs. Valley of Slaughter

Lincoln's Thanksgiving Proclamation

What Did Christ’s Death Accomplish?

Common Sense Christian Understanding of the Gift of Faith - Forlines

Lydia, A Woman of Faith and a Recipient of Prevenient Grace

The Enmity of the World Toward Christ - A.W. Tozer

The Importance of the Atonement - Forlines

FACTS vs TULIP

Old Earth Creationism: Orthodox, Heterodox or Neither?

Alzheimer’s Disease and Our Christian Commitments

hiatus

hi·a·tus

The Liberalism Straw Man of Young, Restless Reformers

Parsing Words and Thoughts and Nit Picking

Sometimes It Is Better To Slow Down

Calvinist Trees Blocking the Christian Forest

Campus Crusade for Christ International Dropping Christ

Calvinists Who Love Wesley

Odd Thought From the Net

Arminius on the First Sin of the First Man

Arminius on Justification

The Blasphemy of Calvinist Predestination

Redefining the Infallibility-Inerrancy Conflict

The Modern Inerrancy Debate

Calvinists are Green Eco-Nuts … er … Seriously

The Fallible Doctrine of Inerrancy – Part II

The Fallible Doctrine of Inerrancy

Choking on Ecumenical Bones

A Daily Proverbs Study by Pumice

Athanasian Creed

If Capital Punishment is a Sin, Is God a Sinner?

Justification Other Than by Faith?

The Arminian Takes on the Question of Universalism

Does God Owe You a Chance?

Crazy Calvinist Corner

My Final Post (maybe) Regarding Rob Bell

Part One: Why Rob Bell needs to return to Seminary… and bring along quite a few contemporary evangelical pastors

Part Two: Why Rob Bell needs to return to Seminary… and bring along quite a few contemporary evangelical pastors

Part Three: Why Rob Bell needs to return to Seminary… and bring along quite a few contemporary evangelical pastors (cont.)

Part Four: Why Rob Bell needs to return to Seminary… and bring along quite a few contemporary evangelical pastors

A Guide to Internet Discussion and Debate

The Broad Way of Inclusive Theology

Justification by Faith and Inclusivism

An Elusive Inclusivism

Redefining Orthodoxy in the Postmodern Church

A Must Read Book Review of Rob Bell’s Utter Foolishness

The Meaning of the Will – F. Leroy Forlines

Arminius on the Predestination of Believers

What’s his name, Rob

James 4:1-10

Nopes and Nots

An Essay by J. Matthew Pinson Addressing the Theology and Inclinations of Jacobus Arminius

Lest You Think Calvinists Wise

Strict Calvinism's Absurd Denial of Moral Free Will by Peter Lumpkins

Arminian Theology is Evangelical Theology - Olson

The Apostles Creed

A Jazz Break - Joe Lovano

The History of Anglicanism and Arminianism

Creed of the Council of Nicaea, 325 AD

Creed of the Council of Constantinople, 360 AD

Young Restless Reformed and Their Denials

Bitter Orange

R.C. Sproul's "What is the Gospel?"

Normative Sin?

Would Calvin Have Burned Sproul Alive?

John Owen’s Polemical Lie

The Realities of the Christ Child’s Day

A Jazz Break - Bill Evans

Neo-Calvinist Apologetics ... I can hardly stand the suspense of the next thrilling moment.

Gregory Koukl on the Practical Aspects of Christian Liberty

Green Chri$tma$ by Stan Freberg (1958)

The Wesleyan Church Statement on Christian Liberty

A Jazz Break ... Melody Gardot

John Wesley on Christian Liberty, A Letter to Susanna Wesley

Arminius on Christian Liberty