Bitter Orange

Re-post from Dec 30, 2010 ...

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

The Arminian Takes on the Question of Universalism

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

My Final Post (maybe) Regarding Rob Bell

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

 

The Broad Way of Inclusive Theology

“ 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.

Redefining Orthodoxy in the Postmodern Church

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

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.

What’s his name, Rob

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.

Young Restless Reformed and Their Denials

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.

Would Calvin Have Burned Sproul Alive?

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.