Arminius on the Creation of Man after the Image of God

Arminius presented a well thought out view of man's creation as a dichotomous and creationist (as opposed to the traducianist) event expressing the image of God. Wesley would later build on this with his tri-fold perspective of this image (see this commentary for his particular thoughts). The following were Arminius's comments …

DISPUTATION 26 … ON THE CREATION OF MAN AFTER THE IMAGE OF GOD

1. Man is a creature of God; consisting of a body and a soul, rational, good, and created after the divine image — according to his body, created from pre-existing matter, that is, earth mixed and besprinkled with aqueous and ethereal moisture, — according to his soul, created out of nothing, by the breathing of breath into his nostrils.

2. But that body would have been incorruptible, and, by the grace of God, would not have been liable to death, if men had not sinned, and had not, by that deed, procured for himself the necessity of dying. And because it was to be the future receptacle of the soul, it was furnished by the wise Creator with various and excellent organs.

3. But the soul is entirely of an admirable nature, if you consider its origin, substance, faculties, and habits.

(1.) Its origin; for it is from nothing, created by infusion, and infused by creation, a body being duly prepared for its reception, that it might fashion matter as with form, and, being united to the body by a native bond, might, with it, compose one ufisamenon, production. Created, I say, by God in time, as he still daily creates a new soul in each body.

4. Its substance, which is simple, immaterial, and immortal. Simple, I say, not with respect to God; for it consists of act and power or capability, of being and essence, of subject and accidents; but it is simple with respect to material and compound things. It is immaterial, because it can subsist by itself, and, when separated from the body, can operate alone. It is immortal, not indeed from itself, but by the sustaining grace of God.

5. Its faculties, which are two, the understanding and the will, as in fact the object of the soul is two-fold. For the understanding apprehends eternity and truth both universal and particular, by a natural and necessary, and therefore by a uniform act. But the will has an inclination to good. Yet this is either, according to the mode of its nature, to universal good and to that which is the chief good; or, according to the mode of liberty, to all other [kinds of] good.

6. Lastly. In its habits, which are, First, wisdom, by which the intellect clearly and sufficiently understood the supernatural truth and goodness both of felicity and of righteousness. Secondly. Righteousness and the holiness of truth, by which the will was fitted and ready to follow what this wisdom commanded to be done, and what it showed to be desired. This righteousness and wisdom are called "original," both because man had them from his very origin, and because, if man had continued in his integrity, they would also have been communicated to his posterity.

7. In all these things, the image of God most wonderfully shone forth. We say that this is the likeness by which man resembled his Creator, and expressed it according to the mode of his capacity — in his soul, according to its substance, faculties and habits — in this body, though this cannot be properly said to have been created after the image of God who is pure spirit, yet it is something divine, both from the circumstance that, if man had not sinned, his body would never have died, and because it is capable of special incorruptibility and glory, of which the apostle treats in 1 Corinthians 15, because it displays some excellence and majesty beyond the bodies of other living creatures, and, lastly, because it is an instrument well fitted for admirable actions and operations — in his whole person, according to the excellence, integrity, and the dominion over the rest of the creatures, which were conferred upon him.

8. The parts of this image may be thus distinguished: Some of them may be called natural to man, and others supernatural; some, essential to him, and others accidental. It is natural and essential to the soul to be a spirit, and to be endowed with the power of understanding and of willing, both according to nature and the mode of liberty. But the knowledge of God, and of things pertaining to eternal salvation, is supernatural and accidental, as are likewise the rectitude and holiness of the will, according to that knowledge. Immortality is so far essential to the soul, that it cannot die unless it cease to be; but it is on this account supernatural and accidental, because it is through grace and the aid of preservation, which God is not bound to bestow on the soul.

9. But the immortality of the body is entirely supernatural and accidental; for it can be taken away from the body, and the body can return to the dust, from which it was taken. Its excellence above other living creatures, and its peculiar fitness to produce various effects, are natural to it, and essential. Its dominion over the creatures which belongs to the whole man as consisting of body and soul, may he partly considered as belonging to it according to the excellence of nature, and partly as conferred upon it by gracious gift, of which dominion this seems to be an evidence, that it is never taken wholly away from the soul, although it be varied, and be augmented and diminished according to degrees and parts.

10. Thus was man created, that he might know, love and worship his Creator, and might live with him for ever in a state of blessedness. By this act of creation, God most manifestly displayed the glory of his wisdom, goodness and power.

11. From this description of man, it appears, that he is both fitted to perform the act of religion to God, since such an act is required from him — that he is capable of the reward which may be properly adjudged to those who perform [acts of] religion to God, and of the punishment which may be justly inflicted on those who neglect religion; and therefore that religion may, by a deserved right, be required from man according to this relation; and this is the principal relation, according to which we must, in sacred theology, treat about the creation of man after the image of God.

12. In addition to this image of God, and this reference to supernatural and spiritual things, comes under our consideration the state of the natural life, in which the first man was created and constituted, according to the apostle Paul, "that which is natural was first, and afterwards, that which is spiritual." (1 Corinthians 15:46.) This state is founded in the natural union of body and soul, and in the life which the soul naturally lives in the body; from which union and life it is that the soul procures for its body, things which are good for it; and, on the other hand, the body is ready for offices which are congruous to its nature and desires. According to this state or condition, there is a mutual relation between man and the good things of this world, the effect of which is, that man can desire them, and, in procuring them for himself, can bestow that labor which he deems to be necessary and convenient.

Andy Heer’s “Does God Know the Future?”

The Spring 2010 edition of The Arminian Magazine has a short article by Andy Heer entitled "Does God Know the Future" challenging the notions of open theism that seems to make some inroads among a few of our Arminiam and non-predestinarian brethren. It is a profitable read and provides a well thought out synopsis against open theology. Following is an extract from that article and the rest of it can be found here.

… There is no question that Open Theology is not the position of historic Wesleyan Arminianism. Thomas Noble concluded that Pinnock's view is different from ours. "The immanence of God within the time-space creation is emphasized at the expense of his transcendence. God is not fully transcendent over time since he cannot know the future."

Classical Arminian theology has historically affirmed God's exhaustive foreknowledge of the future. While Open Theology is an attempt to reject Calvinistic determinism, both Open Theology and Calvinism have tied predestination and foreknowledge together. It seems for Open Theology to reject predestination one must also reject foreknowledge as well.

John Wesley, in his sermon "On Predestination," argued that the foreknowledge of God is the first point to be addressed in considering God's whole work in salvation. Wesley said that, "God foreknew those in every nation who would believe," and that, "In a word, God, looking on all ages, from the creation to the consummation, as a moment, and seeing at once whatever is in the hearts of all children of men, knows every one that does or does not believe, in every age or nation."

For Wesley this did not create a conflict between human moral freedom and divine foreknowledge. He affirmed that though God knew the future, he did not determine it. Wesley believed that we must not think that things are because God knows them; rather, God knows them because they are. Wesley said, "I now know the sun shines. Yet the sun does not shine because I know it: but I know it because he shines. My knowledge supposes the sun to shine, but does not in any wise cause it. In like manner God knows that man sins; for he knows all things. Yet we do not sin because he knows it: but he knows it because we sin. And his knowledge supposes our sin, but does not in any wise cause it."

Calvinism conflates foreknowledge with predestination, claiming that God foreknows the future because He has predetermined it. Wesley, like Arminius, saw God's divine foreknowledge as the ground of his predetermination to save those who believe and damn those who do not believe. Open Theology is a denial, not a development of historic Arminian theology. For that matter Open Theology is a denial of the historic position of the church. Open Theology seems to want to remove the mystery or the paradox of human freedom and divine foreknowledge, but in this attempt to limit God's knowledge they have created bigger problems and a smaller God. …

Open Theology, while I believe in error, should not be used as a wedge to deny fellowship to those who subscribe to it's tenets. Arminius stated something in one of his lectures I continue to view as profound and a wise choice for us to follow.

… first, it is very difficult to discover truth and avoid error; second, people who err are more

likely to be ignorant than malicious; third, those who err may be among the elect; and

fourth, it is possible that we ourselves are in error. (The Works of James Arminius, D.D., (American edition of 1956; Works), I, 183. Cited by Bangs, Op. cit.,276)

Wesley on the New Birth

By some accounts, John Wesley preached one of his more powerful and theologically distinct sermons in May of 1743. He preached on the subject of the New Birth, the born from above experience of the saint in Christ. I believe it is essential reading for all saints who wish to understand and be equipped to articulate why it is that we are to be born from above, to experience the New Birth, to be regenerated. As I read through this sermon earlier, the first paragraph stuck in my mind, particularly Wesley's note that justification precedes being born again in the manner of thinking. His logic is convincing and while I haven't questioned it, I ask only how it could be otherwise, God's wrath being turned away before the Spirit of God can work upon our hearts. The following is Wesley's opening to the sermon found here.

… If any doctrines within the whole compass of Christianity may be properly termed fundamental, they are doubtless these two, -- the doctrine of justification, and that of the new birth: The former relating to that great work which God does for us, in forgiving our sins; the latter, to the great work which God does in us, in renewing our fallen nature. In order of time, neither of these is before the other: in the moment we are justified by the grace of God, through the redemption that is in Jesus, we are also "born of the Spirit;" but in order of thinking, as it is termed, justification precedes the new birth. We first conceive his wrath to be turned away, and then his Spirit to work in our hearts….

 

Arminius on the Confidence of Eternal Security

On one of the discussion boards there is a thread making some rather rash statements regarding what Arminians believe and adhere to regarding the eternal security of the believer. The author of the thread stated the following that I thought was rather telling of his particular ignorance in this matter.

How does an Arminian have a true-pure-peace of mind knowing at any moment one could lose his/her eternal life and become damned?

Arminians believe salvation is lost depending upon what one does, or doesn't do. How can an Arminian have any peace knowing his/her salvation rests upon what they do, or don't do?

Arminius addressed these matters in his Nine Questions as noted below.

May everyone who is a true believer be assured in this life of his individual salvation; and is it his duty to have this assurance?

Does justifying faith precede, in the order of nature, remission of sins, or does it not? And can any man be bound to any other faith than that which justifies?

ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION

Since God promises eternal life to all who believe in Christ, it is impossible for him who believes, and who knows that he believes, to doubt of his own salvation, unless he doubts of this willingness of God [to perform his promise.] But God does not require him to be better assured of his individual salvation as a duty which must be performed to himself or to Christ; but it is a consequence of that promise, by which God engages to bestow eternal life on him who believes.

 

Presuppositional Excuses

Arminian Chronicles recently posted on presuppositionalism here. I have never been a fan of presuppositional apologetics and from what I have observed those who are tend to be anti-evangelicals. That is certainly not always the case. I am sure there are evangelicals who resort to basing their arguments on the premise that God and scripture are true and therefore they might proceed to arguing their case out of their own logic and assumed powers of persuasion. However, if we turn to the word of God, is there a case to be made for allowing the assumption of it's truth and setting it aside to allow our own intellectual prowess to have some measure of primacy? There is none that I know of. The LORD tells us  "So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it." (Isa 55:11 AV). Should we make an assumption that this truth should be set aside and we substitute our own words for those of God, whose power is evident in the very words we set aside? I cannot imagine an evangelical properly serving the kingdom of God through his own devices making the assumption that the Word of God is true and he can proceed without it. Paul clearly stated otherwise in several passages including this "For though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of: for necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel!" (1Co 9:16 AV). What woe could possibly fall upon Paul should he have substituted the gospel of Jesus Christ in favor of what I am sure were considerable intellectual capabilities? We do not know but woe be to those as well who shuck the Gospel of Jesus Christ aside to impress the world with intellectualism so as to make a temporal name for themselves. No souls are saved by a man's intellectual pursuits.

Reformed Presbyterians Jump Deep into Extreme Liberalism

A couple of misguided souls have recently suggested that Arminians are on a hard liberal path based on the theology we espouse. However, given the news out of the Calvinistic Reformed Presbyterian Church USA, I would suggest that perversion has set in deep among the Calvinists.

Presbyterian Church – USA votes to ordain practicing homosexuals and lesbians as pastors

Funny bunch of folks those Presbyterians are with their finger pointing and accusations and all.

Anti-Caner Websites?


James White posted the following today on his anti-Caner website.

Norman Geisler has posted a statement that, though unsigned, is supposed to represent a statement from Kregel Publications. It is the standard party-line statement, but it includes this amazing line: "Moreover, evidence presented on anti-Caner Web sites, such as the legal documents related to his parents' divorce proceedings, confirm that his father was a devout Muslim who did his utmost to insure his sons' training in the Muslim faith." There is no question of the fact, provided by Mr. Smathers' research, that Ergun's father was a Muslim who wanted his sons raised as Muslims. Such has, of course, never been in dispute. But truly, how balanced and fair is a statement that makes reference to "anti-Caner websites"? Anti-Caner websites? What on earth is that? 

What on earth is that? Well, it might be a site that has posted well over thirty negative attacks against a man he has never met, has no overseer or elder responsibilities for and can't seem to sit down and shut up after losing his bid to totally trash Dr. Ergun Caner's life.


As a side note, here is Dr. Norman Geisler's further defense of Dr. Ergun Caner, something that probably chews at Mr. White and will draw a few more meows, I am sure.

Disclaimer: this is an "anti-Whitehead mentality website", well, occasionally, for now at least and I am not going to claim God is making me do it opposed to my desires. This is probably my last or next to last comment regarding White's absurd hypocrisy on this issue.

Dr. Norman Geisler’s Defense of Dr. Ergun Caner

In light of the continuing and disgusting antichrist attacks by James White, his Islamic bedfellows and his likeminded sycophants against Dr. Ergun Caner, Liberty University and its leadership and now the respected Dr. Norman Geisler, I think it is appropriate to keep a link to Geisler's defense of Dr. Caner handy. White's self serving website has posted a new attack against Dr. Geisler in the hope of fanning the flames of their defeat even further. The reality here is that Liberty University, Dr. Ergun Caner and its Seminary body are putting this matter behind them, healing any rifts that might have occurred and moving back onto the path of serving the work of our LORD and Savior. The extreme Calvinists as Geisler considers them and their Islamic friends in this matter are doing their best to attack these efforts and sow even greater discord in the body of Christ.

Geisler's defense of Dr. Caner can be found here.

Perhaps It Is Time to Throw James White under the Bus

With Liberty University concluding its inquiry into James White and his Islamic bedfellows crusade against Dr. Ergun Caner, the results of that inquiry are not sitting well in some of the schismatic Calvinist camps. While I have no doubt White would be satisfied with nothing short of a summary dismissal of Caner from his employment along with LU prostrating itself before the White shrine, it seems LU took the appropriate Christian action by removing Caner from the Dean's post while allowing him to continue serving the LORD as a professor within the Seminary at LU. There is no doubt Dr Caner has been humbled by this experience and both he and LU will need to work to ensure each has the other's trust as well as that of the student body at LU. It is certainly expected that Dr. Caner's commentary and work going forward will be scrutinized heavily and that can only be a good thing. He is a fine apologist with legitimate credentials. What neither Dr. Caner or Liberty University need be concerned with are the near rabid frothing and carnal mudslinging dressed up as moral indignation that seem to be the hallmark of White's constant crusade. White has referred to Liberty's decision as an evangelical whitewash. He goes further in slandering and libeling the University by referring to its decision as "… obtuse, confusing, political language (that) has provided the basis upon which a cover-up has now been launched in Caner's service". White is essentially so disturbed with himself for not succeeding in destroying Dr. Caner he has resorted to calling Liberty University and its leadership nothing other than a pack of liars. While I do not think Liberty is concerned with Mr. White's indignation (and they certainly should not be), his fellow Calvinists should be greatly concerned. This is a man who wedded himself to Islamic enemies of Christ because of his personal feud with Caner over the past few years. He is a man who has consistently misrepresented the beliefs and faith of that many and greater body of Christ.

Given his penchant for aberrant doctrine, in particular his determinist Calvinist views, I am only surprised that he would consider it his God inspired duty to continue his personal vendetta in light of God's ordination of Liberty's decision (assuming White's doctrine is even remotely correct). In White's myopic theological world view he is kicking against the shins of God and he hasn't the modicum of sensibilities to recognize it. It is time to throw the carnal ministry under the bus, theologically speaking of course.

Vincent’s Maxim

Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus credituni est

This is the oft repeated maxim of Vincent of Lerins, a semi-Pelagian from the 5^th century, translated as "what has been believed everywhere, always, and by all". Used as a definition of Christian orthodoxy, it presents an ecumenical embrace of Christian doctrine that has its focus on the bare essentials of the Christian faith. It removes ecclesiastical dogma as the harbinger of salvation. Subscribing to this maxim, we cannot embrace several key doctrines as central to salvation and acceptance within the Christian community. The Calvinist acrostic TULIP could not be embraced as within the veil of orthodoxy established by the Vincentian Canon. Neither could certain aspects of the Arminian doctrine of Prevenient grace. There are traditions and creeds from several otherwise orthodox sects within the body of Christ that we cannot embrace as orthodoxy itself if we embrace Vincent's perspective.

If Vincent's maxim is received as presented, can we reject semi-Pelagianism as being outside the essential fold of Christian doctrine and therefore its adherents as unredeemed? The Augustinian doctrine of Grace and man's fallen condition oppose the semi-Pelagian notion of assisted inherency and Vincent was certainly opposed to Augustine's teachings on these matters. Yet, so were a great many others prior to Augustine's conflicts with Pelagiaus. It might be objected that Vincent argued a self interest although that alone does not negate his premise regarding orthodoxy. Instead, one must demonstrate that the exclusion of doctrine from the embrace of orthodoxy is done so with damage to essential soteriology as determined within scripture, this also being Vincent's premise. Can Oneness Pentecostalism be regarded as orthodox with regard to soteriology yet heterodox regarding the Godhead? Are Pelagians within the scope of justification? Do we consider intellectually driven high Calvinists with their notions of the Gospel defined as Calvinism to be fair game on the evangelical field?

Triabloke Cartoon Network

Mean, angry and unloving A.M Mallett wrote a while back on the Triabloke Cartoon Network ...

The quandary exists among both Calvinists and Arminians. For the Arminian, the tension is with explaining why one turns to the LORD and another resists. We do not know. However, with the Calvinist, the antinomy is irreconcilable. Divine determinism is excused from responsibility. From the Arminian perspective, the Calvinist conflict between divine determination and human accountability does far more damage to God's character and goodness than our lack of comprehension for why a man resists the grace of God and another does not resist.


The Triabloke cartoon character says to another Triabloke cartoon character ... "This here is an infamously bad argument against Calvinism. We better censor and delete it before anybody reads it."

United Methodist Seminary Steps into Apostasy with Both Feet

This is a sad note regarding the state of Methodist seminary education in the United States. Methodist Thinker, a website providing current events and news relative to the UMC, noted today that the Claremont School of Theology in southern California has decided to embrace the education and instruction of Islamic imams and Jewish rabbis. Claremont is one of thirteen United Methodist seminaries in the US. From my perspective this is really over the top especially given their desire to ultimately expand their educational mandate to other religions as well at some point.

The United Methodist Church' University Senate has not viewed this development in a favorable light. See here for the full article on this matter.

Breaking News …. Well, not really.

Breaking News …. Well, not really.

Triabloke calls A.M. Mallett mean, angry and unloving and infamous for bad arguments against Calvinism. Oh woe is me. It's not on the 6 0clock tonight.


update: Triabloke Cartoon Network Accuses Christian of using illegal drugs

Combating Schisms in the Methodist Body Politic

The following was a commentary prepared by Dr. Maxie Dunnam, Chancellor of Asbury Seminary, of August last year. He addresses a disturbing trend among the clergy and leadership of minority factions within the United Methodist Church to introduce schisms into the body politic.

 

In 1859, John Henry Newman wrote an article entitled, "On Consulting the Faithful in Matters of Doctrine." It was printed in a Roman Catholic periodical, The Rambler, of which Newman was the editor. The article caused such a controversy and the bishops of the church were so upset that they asked Newman to resign, which he did.

Newman not only affirmed the critical role of laity in the church, he insisted that the consensus of the faithful may preserve important doctrines even when the bishops fail.

This elevated view of the laity did not become important in the wider Roman Catholic Church until the Second Vatican Council, where it became a "big" issue and Newman's article played a significant role in the discussion.

Newman made the case that there is lodged in the Church — the Body of Christ which is comprised primarily of laity — a depository of profound practical theological wisdom.

If the Roman Catholics can positively entertain that notion, how much more should we be able to do so as Protestants who champion the priesthood of all believers and the ministry of the whole people of God?

It's an expansive issue that needs the attention of our United Methodist Church. I hope the issue will become a concern of our theological seminaries, the Study of Ministry Commission, the Committee on Faith and Order (PDF) — established by our last General Conference — and certainly the Connectional Table.

I believe our recent dealing with the Constitutional amendments is related in part to this issue. Our church is wise in requiring that our constitution can be changed upon the ratification by two thirds vote of annual conferences. Enough of the votes on these amendments have been reported by the annual conferences to make it possible to reasonably know the results. The sense of the faithful has been registered — not in terms of laity alone, but faithful lay and clergy across the connection.

Let me quickly register the fact that the doctrine of the church is not to be established by popular vote. That's the reason our General Conference, though it is the final authority for the church's life and ministry, cannot change our Articles of Religion and Confession of Faith. However, how our doctrines are lived out in the concrete realities of life and ministry are determined in large part by the sense of the faithful.

∞

In light of this issue of the "sense of the faithful," I have been reflecting on the dynamics of our recent involvement with the Constitutional Amendments. I believe that most members of the General Conference would agree that we gave far too little time to these amendments when they were debated in plenary. It was a travesty, really.

How could the General Conference approve (even barely so) what the church has now overwhelmingly refused to ratify? Could it be that we simply did not take enough time for study, prayer, and holy conferencing to discern the sense of the faithful? Could it be that ideological interest groups and small geographic areas of the church dominate the organizations and structures of influence? Or, could it be that the way the issues were brought to General Conference was prejudiced?

I'm thinking particularly of the amendments related to worldwide nature of the church.

These amendments came out of a non-representative task force (PDF) and were brought to the General Conference endorsed by the Council of Bishops and approved by the Connectional Table. Somewhere there is a disconnect — either in communication or in leadership.

There was little "public" support of these amendments by bishops other than those who were on the task force. It was clear early on that the bishops were not "of one mind" on this matter, yet that was never "publicly" registered.

I imagine the Council of Bishops might have a discussion as to why the church in its vote on this set of amendments did not follow their lead. Indeed, if it was their "lead" what does the vote say about the church's response to their leadership?

As I understand it, the vote of the Connectional Table was 75% in favor of the worldwide nature amendments. Early reports indicate that the vote of the church may be just the opposite — 60 to 75% in opposition. Where is the disconnect here? How representative of the church is this body, and to whom do they pay most attention?

The same questions are applicable to how the 2009-2012 Worldwide Nature of the Church Study Committee will function. This committee is composed primarily of persons who championed the amendments the church refused to ratify. Also, the vote not to ratify is a "universal" vote, reflecting the "whole" church, not a region of it. While it is very important that the task force address the issues important in how we express ourselves as a "world church," it is hoped they will not hold tenaciously to what the church has said "no" to.

∞

Another amendment of particular interest is the amendment that would change paragraph IV in the constitution. This amendment was "pitched" as an effort to open the doors of the church to everyone. The church is already open to everyone, but there are requirements for membership.

It was clear from the beginning, though some proponents tried to disguise it, that this was another effort on the part of a passionate minority to undermine the church's position on the practice of homosexuality.

Back in July, The Episcopal Church in the U.S. voted decisively to allow the appointment to all orders of ministry persons in active same-sex relationships, and to prepare liturgies of blessing for same sex unions.

In the wake of this deliberate schismatic action in relation to the worldwide Anglican family, the voting on the amendment that would have opened the door for the same schism within United Methodism, indicates that we will not go that way. At the last report, the amendment had not received 50% of the vote, when 66.7% is needed.

How long will bishops, pastors, seminaries, and general boards continue to force an issue which diverts focus, resources and energy from mission and ministry? Does the sense of the faithful not matter? Sure, there is the craving on the part of human kind for a variety of sexual expression. We have all sorts of deep-rooted, passionate desires and inclinations; the question is what do we do with them.

The Jewish and Muslim faiths, along with Christianity, have always insisted that marriage between a man and a woman is the proper context of sexual intercourse. This is not a matter of a "private response to Scripture," as some would claim; it is not the witness of a few verses in St. Paul, but the uniform teaching of the Bible, Jesus himself, and the entire Christian tradition.

A few in our family try to make the ordination of practicing homosexuals a justice issue. N.T. Wright, world-known New Testament scholar, Anglican Bishop of Durham in England, rightly says the appeal to justice begs the question of justice altogether.

"Justice never means 'treating everybody the same way," he writes, "but 'treating people appropriately,' which involves making distinctions between different people and different situations. Justice has never meant 'the right to give active expression to any and every sexual desire.'"

Isn't there a measure of arrogance in a small part of the body continuing to passionately push their convictions which they know threaten the vitality and unity of the church?

∞

I believe the vote on the amendments is a positive vote for the church, reflecting the "sense of the faithful." If we are going to fulfill our mission "to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world," then we must respect the integrity of the faithful in order to engage them in our kingdom ministry.

The American Methodist Articles of Religion

I have recently found myself referring to these articles of Religion enough that it is reasonable to store a copy of them here. They were first published in the Methodist Discipline of 1808. These articles make a fair representation of Wesley's position on the faith of Christ.

1. There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body or parts, of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; the maker and preserver of all things, both visible and invisible. And in unity of this Godhead there are three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.
   
2. The Son, who is the Word of the Father, the very and eternal God, of one substance with the Father, took man's nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin; so that two whole and perfect natures, that is to say, the Godhead and Manhood, were joined together in one person, never to be divided; whereof is one Christ, very God and very Man, who truly suffered, was crucified, dead, and buried, to reconcile his Father to us, and to be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for actual sins of men.
   
3. Christ did truly rise again from the dead, and took again his body, with all things appertaining to the perfection of man's nature, wherewith he ascended into heaven, and there sitteth until he return to judge all men at the last day.
   
4. The Holy Ghost, proceeding from the Father and the Son, is of one substance, majesty, and glory with the Father and the Son, very and eternal God.
   
5. The Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation; so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man that it should be believed as an article of faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical books of the Old and New Testament of whose authority was never any doubt in the church. The names of the canonical books are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, The First Book of Samuel, The Second Book of Samuel, The First Book of Kings, The Second Book of Kings, The First Book of Chronicles, The Second Book of Chronicles, The Book of Ezra, The Book of Nehemiah, The Book of Esther, The Book of Job, The Psalms, The Proverbs, Ecclesiastes or the Preacher, Cantica or Songs of Solomon, Four Prophets the Greater, Twelve Prophets the Less. All the books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive and account canonical.
   
6. The Old Testament is not contrary to the New; for both in the Old and New Testament everlasting life is offered to mankind by Christ, who is the only Mediator between God and man, being both God and Man. Wherefore they are not to be heard who feign that the old fathers did look only for transitory promises. Although the law given from God by Moses as touching ceremonies and rites doth not bind Christians, nor ought the civil precepts thereof of necessity be received in any commonwealth; yet notwithstanding, no Christian whatsoever is free from the obedience of the commandments which are called moral.
   
7. Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam (as the Pelagians do vainly talk), but it is the corruption of the nature of every man, that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam, whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and of his own nature inclined to evil, and that continually.
   
8. The condition of man after the fall of Adam is such that he cannot turn and prepare himself, by his own natural strength and works, to faith, and calling upon God; wherefore we have no power to do good works, pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God by Christ preventing us, that we may have a good will, and working with us, when we have that good will.
   
9. We are accounted righteous before God only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, by faith, and not for our own works or deservings. Wherefore, that we are justified by faith, only, is a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort.
   
10. Although good works, which are the fruits of faith, and follow after justification, cannot put away our sins, and endure the severity of God's judgment; yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ, and spring out of a true and lively faith, insomuch that by them a lively faith may be as evidently known as a tree is discerned by its fruit.
    
11. Voluntary works—besides, over and above God's commandments—which they call works of supererogation, cannot be taught without arrogancy and impiety. For by them men do declare that they do not only render unto God as much as they are bound to do, but that they do more for his sake than of bounden duty is required; whereas Christ saith plainly: When you have done all that is commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants.
    
12. Not every sin willingly committed after justification is the sin against the Holy Ghost, and unpardonable. Wherefore, the grant of repentance is not to be denied to such as fall into sin after justification. After we have received the Holy Ghost, we may depart from grace given, and fall into sin, and, by the grace of God, rise again and amend our lives. And therefore they are to be condemned who say they can no more sin as long as they live here; or deny the place of forgiveness to such as truly repent.
    
13. The visible church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men in which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments duly administered according to Christ's ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.
    
14. The Romish doctrine concerning purgatory, pardon, worshiping, and adoration, as well of images as of relics, and also invocation of saints, is a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warrant of Scripture, but repugnant to the Word of God.
    
15. It is a thing plainly repugnant to the Word of God, and the custom of the primitive church, to have public prayer in the church, or to minister the Sacraments, in a tongue not understood by the people.
    
16. Sacraments ordained of Christ are not only badges or tokens of Christian men's profession, but rather they are certain signs of grace, and God's good will toward us, by which he doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm, our faith in him. There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel; that is to say, Baptism and the Supper of the Lord. Those five commonly called sacraments, that is to say, confirmation, penance, orders, matrimony, and extreme unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel; being such as have partly grown out of the corrupt following of the apostles, and partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures, but yet have not the like nature of Baptism and the Lord's Supper, because they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God. The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon, or to be carried about; but that we should duly use them. And in such only as worthily receive the same, they have a wholesome effect or operation; but they that receive them unworthily, purchase to themselves condemnation, as St. Paul saith.
    
17. Baptism is not only a sign of profession and mark of difference whereby Christians are distinguished from others that are not baptized; but it is also a sign of regeneration or the new birth. The Baptism of young children is to be retained in the Church.
    
18. The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another, but rather is a sacrament of our redemption by Christ's death; insomuch that, to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith receive the same, the bread which we break is a partaking of the body of Christ; and likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking of the blood of Christ. Transubstantiation, or the change of the substance of bread and wine in the Supper of our Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ, but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions. The body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper, only after a heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is faith. The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshiped.
    
19. The cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the lay people; for both the parts of the Lord's Supper, by Christ's ordinance and commandment, ought to be administered to all Christians alike.
    
20. The offering of Christ, once made, is that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual; and there is none other satisfaction for sin but that alone. Wherefore the sacrifice of masses, in the which it is commonly said that the priest doth offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt, is a blasphemous fable and dangerous deceit.
    
21. The ministers of Christ are not commanded by God's law either to vow the estate of single life, or to abstain from marriage; therefore it is lawful for them, as for all other Christians, to marry at their own discretion, as they shall judge the same to serve best to godliness.
    
22. It is not necessary that rites and ceremonies should in all places be the same, or exactly alike; for they have been always different, and may be changed according to the diversity of countries, times, and men's manners, so that nothing be ordained against God's Word. Whosoever, through his private judgment, willingly and purposely doth openly break the rites and ceremonies of the church to which he belongs, which are not repugnant to the Word of God, and are ordained and approved by common authority, ought to be rebuked openly, that others may fear to do the like, as one that offendeth against the common order of the church, and woundeth the consciences of weak brethren. Every particular church may ordain, change, or abolish rites and ceremonies, so that all things may be done to edification.
    
23. The President, the Congress, the general assemblies, the governors, and the councils of state, as the delegates of the people, are the rulers of the United States of America, according to the division of power made to them by the Constitution of the United States and by the constitutions of their respective states. And the said states are a sovereign and independent nation, and ought not to be subject to any foreign jurisdiction.
    
24. The riches and goods of Christians are not common as touching the right, title, and possession of the same, as some do falsely boast. Notwithstanding, every man ought, of such things as he possesseth, liberally to give alms to the poor, according to his ability.
    
25. As we confess that vain and rash swearing is forbidden Christian men by our Lord Jesus Christ and James his apostle, so we judge that the Christian religion doth not prohibit, but that a man may swear when the magistrate requireth, in a cause of faith and charity, so it be done according to the prophet's teaching, in justice, judgment, and truth.
    

Sanctification is that renewal of our fallen nature by the Holy Ghost, received through faith in Jesus Christ, whose blood of atonement cleanseth from all sin; whereby we are not only delivered from the guilt of sin, but are washed from its pollution, saved from its power, and are enabled, through grace, to love God with all our hearts and to walk in his holy commandments blameless.

It is the duty of all Christians, and especially of all Christian ministers, to observe and obey the laws and commands of the governing or supreme authority of the country of which they are citizens or subjects or in which they reside, and to use all laudable means to encourage and enjoin obedience to the powers that be.

John 1:5-14 and Faith Preceding the Born Again Experience

I made these comments elsewhere and thought I might save them here.

"And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. There was a man sent from God, whose name [was] John. The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all [men] through him might believe. He was not that Light, but [was sent] to bear witness of that Light. [That] was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth." (John 1:5-14 AV)

There are several important facets to this passage, the first being who Christ is, the Light of the world. That is not the world of the elect for this world did not know Him and He certainly made more than the world of the elect. No, He is the Light of all the world. He lights every man that comes into the world. That is not just the elect world so it means all men regardless of their state or condition. Christ's purpose was to come so that all men might believe, to provide a provision not just for the elect of men, but all men as the passage states. Those who have received Him, believing on His name (trusting in Him) are given something, power the Apostle states, to become something, a child of God. It was not merit or works of the flesh or even their blood relationship in the nation of Israel that gave them a new birth as children of God. It was, as mentioned before, receiving Christ, believing on His name i.e. faith in the person and work of Christ. The passage demands one accept that it is by faith that one becomes born again, becomes a child of God.

There is no regeneration before faith. One believes in Jesus Christ by the grace of God to become born again. Even the little children know this much.

Verses All Christians Should Know

Bossmanham at Brennon's Thoughts has provided a wonderful selection of verse each of us should keep to mind to help understand the things of God. Hats off to him for this.

A Triabloke Molests 1 John 2:16

A Triabloke wrote the following that I thought was interesting.

Some Arminian epologists have been using 1 John 2:16 to argue that in no sense can the origination of a sinful action be determined by God. That is because John says those things don't come "from" the father. 

That is an odd statement. While I certainly cannot account for all Arminian arguments regarding the passage, I do not think I have ever encountered that argument. The source for the statement was not provided so I can only work with the Triabloke claim which strikes me as a straw man set up solely for the purpose of burning in some perverse joy. Here is the passage in full context.

"I write unto you, little children, because your sins are forgiven you for his name's sake. I write unto you, fathers, because ye have known him [that is] from the beginning. I write unto you, young men, because ye have overcome the wicked one. I write unto you, little children, because ye have known the Father. I have written unto you, fathers, because ye have known him [that is] from the beginning. I have written unto you, young men, because ye are strong, and the word of God abideth in you, and ye have overcome the wicked one. Love not the world, neither the things [that are] in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that [is] in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever." (1Jo 2:12-17 AV)

Rather than a discussion of the Calvinist philosophy of determinism, the passage in question is contrasting the carnal desires of the world with that of the love of the Father. Wesley framed verse 16 as:

…The desire of the flesh - Of the pleasure of the outward senses, whether of the taste, smell, or touch. The desire of the eye - Of the pleasures of imagination, to which the eye chiefly is subservient; of that internal sense whereby we relish whatever is grand, new, or beautiful. The pride of life - All that pomp in clothes, houses, furniture, equipage, manner of living, which generally procure honour from the bulk of mankind, and so gratify pride and vanity. It therefore directly includes the desire of praise, and, remotely, covetousness. All these desires are not from God, but from the prince of this world…

http://wesley.nnu.edu/john_wesley/notes/1John.htm#Chapter+II

While some Calvinist eisegesis practitioners may wish to make hay over a far fetched application and strawman of their own construction, they tend to look foolish doing so. The contrast between the world (outside of Christ) and abiding in Christ is what is intended with the passage. It is how most Arminians understand the passage and teach it.

 

Jimmy White Mumbles Again

What is it about this man who claims Christ that he continues with his perverse ministry of discord? His blog has been little more than an Ergun Caner hate fest with absolutely nothing of Christ to speak of. It now equates Peter Lumpkins with Alexander the coppersmith, an ungodly blasphemer noted in scripture. He posted the following recently that deserves some comment.

Can an atheist speak truth? If he says "2+2=4" is the statement less true than if a Christian said the same thing? Many Christians have been saying a Muslim could not possibly be saying something that is factually, really true. But this kind of epistemological bigotry is neither biblical nor rational. Christians should be people of truth in all spheres of life. In the following video I discuss the prejudice that has been expressed by every person who has refused to consider the facts and instead has defaulted to the "A Muslim said it, therefore, it must not be true" defense. I provide two further examples of errors on the part of Ergun Caner, both of which were pointed out by...GASP!...a Muslim! I should have caught them myself, they are pretty basic, but I missed them. If they had been pointed out by a Christian, would they be more, or less, mistakes on Caner's part? Think about it.

Link to post

Let's think about it. Not only does White misrepresent the objections many Christians have with his recent and years long obsession with bringing Ergun Caner down, but he refers to such souls as bigots and by inference irrational. Perhaps the man is not nearly as bright as he thinks himself to be and he actually believes the tripe he has presented. I suspect another reality here. White knows full well why many Christians object to the manner of his current crusade. It is not because everything Muslims state must be wrong. Instead what leaves a poor taste in the mouth is the truth that White and several of his cronies have crawled into bed with Islamic apologists and enemies of Christ in order to further a blood feud. White has displayed a personal animosity toward Caner evident through his almost cultic obsession with demeaning the man publicly on his blog. I believe this was fueled by White's umbrage over the lack of a debate with Caner some years ago, the lack of which was due to White's withdrawal rather than Caner's. I think this has been a festering sore point with White since. All that aside, there is no excuse for this public crusade allying internet Calvinists and Islamic enemies of Christ for the purpose of shaming another man who claims Christ. Caner may very well be guilty as charged and Liberty University should hold him accountable if such is the case. However, Christians are not bigoted and irrational for feeling disgust with the manner in which White, a sectarian zealot if ever there was one, is conducting himself in this manner.

Repentance is called for in this matter and by no means strictly in the Caner household should the charges be true. White has become an embarrassment to the body of Christ with his ungodly alliances. After repentance, an apology is called for.

Scriptural Extent of Christ’s Atonement

Speaking of the extent of the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ, John Wesley stated of its reach "…just as wide as sin extends, the propitiation extends also…"¹. To suggest otherwise would be to declare Christ insufficient for the His purpose revealed in scripture. If Jesus came to be a propitiation or appeasement, a satisfaction for the sin of the whole world, then His work cannot be limited to satisfy the philosophical demands of any theological perspective. A clear reading of scripture presents the work of Christ as a satisfaction for God on behalf of all mankind, the whole world. Robert Picirilli in quoting W.G.T. Shedd, a Calvinist, provides:

"Vicarious atonement without faith in it is powerless to save. It is not the making of this atonement, but the trusting in it, that saves the sinner… If it were made, but never imputed and appropriated, it would result in no salvation… In this state of things, the atonement of Christ is powerless to save. It remains in the possession of Christ who made it, and has not been transferred to the individual. In the scripture phrase it has not been imputed… After the vicarious atonement has been permitted and provided, there is still another condition in the case: namely, the sinner shall confess and repent of the sin for which atonement was made, and trust in the atonement itself²"

"The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." (Joh 1:29 AV)

"My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for [the sins of] the whole world." (1Jo 2:1-2 AV)

"And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son [to be] the Saviour of the world. Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God. And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him." (1Jo 4:14-16 AV)

"I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, [and] giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and [for] all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this [is] good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, [and] lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity. I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting." (1Ti 2:1-8 AV)

This last passage from Paul's fist letter to Timothy sums up the truth of Christ's atoning sacrifice as well as any other in scripture. We have an exhortation to pray for all without distinction to meet the expectations of the LORD who desires all to be saved. The provision for such is made by Christ as a ransom for all. For those who desire scripture to be first and philosophy second, there is little room for denying the universal extent of Christ's work of atonement.

1. Expository Notes on Ist John, John Wesley
   
2. Robert Picirilli, Grace Faith Free Will (Nashville, Randall House Publications, 2002), p132

A.W. Tozer on the Christian Doctrine of Prevenient Grace

I have long enjoyed and admired A.W. Tozer, in particular his book The Pursuit of God. We have taught it in our churches and introduced its insights to those who appreciate the simple and wise introspective of one of the LORD's elders. It is a wonderful read available in several places on the internet and readily available in book form from several retailers. The following is the introduction of chapter one.

Christian theology teaches the doctrine of prevenient grace, which briefly stated means this, that before a man can seek God, God must first have sought the man.

Before a sinful man can think a right thought of God, there must have been a work of enlightenment done within him; imperfect it may be, but a true work nonetheless, and the secret cause of all desiring and seeking and praying which may follow.

We pursue God because, and only because, He has first put an urge within us that spurs us to the pursuit. "No man can come to me," said our Lord, "except the Father which hath sent me draw him," and it is by this very prevenient drawing that God takes from us every vestige of credit for the act of coming. The impulse to pursue God originates with God, but the out working of that impulse is our following hard after Him; and all the time we are pursuing Him we are already in His hand: "Thy right hand upholdeth me."

A.W. Tozer, The Pursuit of God

A.W. Tozer, The Pursuit of God (Google Books)

A.W. Tozer, The Pursuit of God (Amazon retail)

John Fletcher’s Methodology in the Antinomian Controversy of 1770-76

The Society of Evangelical Arminians some time ago placed Robert Mattke's article published in the Wesleyan Theological Journal on the site for members and visitors to enjoy. Fletcher is an often overlooked Wesleyan theologian who offers systematic insight into our theology as it was being expressed during the 18^th century. The following links provide a resource to explore Mr. Fletcher and his gracious perspective.

John Fletcher's Methodology in the Antinomian Controversy of 1770-76

John Fletcher's Works at the Wesley Center Online

Arminius on the Grace of God

I have had a few discussions recently regarding the grace of God and again the ignorance of what so many of us in the body of Christ hold to regarding grace swallowed up any edification that might have come from the discussions. By the end of the discussion I was accused of denying the sovereignty of God and exalting men high above the LORD. Here is my apology from the writings of Arminius regarding grace. He stated it as clear as any man and I cannot improve upon his words.

ARMINIUS ON THE GRACE OF GOD

In reference to Divine Grace, I believe,

1. It is a gratuitous affection by which God is kindly affected towards a miserable sinner, and according to which he, in the first place, gives his Son, "that whosoever believes in him might have eternal life," and, afterwards, he justifies him in Christ Jesus and for his sake, and adopts him into the right of sons, unto salvation.

2. It is an infusion (both into the human understanding and into the will and affections,) of all those gifts of the Holy Spirit which appertain to the regeneration and renewing of man — such as faith, hope, charity, etc.; for, without these gracious gifts, man is not sufficient to think, will, or do anything that is good.

3. It is that perpetual assistance and continued aid of the Holy Spirit, according to which He acts upon and excites to good the man who has been already renewed, by infusing into him salutary cogitations, and by inspiring him with good desires, that he may thus actually will whatever is good; and according to which God may then will and work together with man, that man may perform whatever he wills.

In this manner, I ascribe to grace the commencement, the continuance and the consummation of all good, and to such an extent do I carry its influence, that a man, though already regenerate, can neither conceive, will, nor do any good at all, nor resist any evil temptation, without this preventing and exciting, this following and co-operating grace. From this statement it will clearly appear, that I by no means do injustice to grace, by attributing, as it is reported of me, too much to man's free-will. For the whole controversy reduces itself to the solution of this question, "is the grace of God a certain irresistible force?" That is, the controversy does not relate to those actions or operations which may be ascribed to grace, (for I acknowledge and inculcate as many of these actions or operations as any man ever did,) but it relates solely to the mode of operation, whether it be irresistible or not. With respect to which, I believe, according to the scriptures, that many persons resist the Holy Spirit and reject the grace that is offered.

Psalm 150

"Praise ye the LORD. Praise God in his sanctuary: praise him in the firmament of his power. Praise him for his mighty acts: praise him according to his excellent greatness. Praise him with the sound of the trumpet: praise him with the psaltery and harp. Praise him with the timbrel and dance: praise him with stringed instruments and organs. Praise him upon the loud cymbals: praise him upon the high sounding cymbals. Let every thing that hath breath praise the LORD. Praise ye the LORD." (Ps 150:1-6 AV)

Cain’s Conundrum

"And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee [shall be] his desire, and thou shalt rule over him." (Ge 4:6-7 AV)

This passage has always interested me especially in its preceding Abel's murder of his brother. This was a man who talked with God, not in prayer as we commune with the LORD but in discussion with the Living LORD. This was also a man who clearly was given a choice by God, a sincere choice to turn to Him and do what was right by God. Yet, he slew his brother nonetheless. Given the hand of opportunity by God, can we state that Cain was determined by God to kill Abel? If so, what does that speak to God's words and extension to Cain? Can we suggest the LORD was sincere if He had determined Cain's murderous actions? Certainly the LORD decreed the actions of Cain but in viewing His extended hand to Cain we should not consider that such decrees were necessary. Cain had a choice to make and he made the choice that suited him. The LORD decreed that choice and as such it was certain to occur yet because the LORD sincerely offered Cain an alternative that choice could not have been necessary but was omnisciently foreknown instead. Those comments made to Cain are certainly a conundrum of sorts but perhaps more so to those who advance determinist notions rather than those of us who understand the effect of God's grace upon the freed will of man.

Here is a great reason to thank God for the mundane things in life ... yoohoo ..

Do You Believe God created Everybody and Everything?

Jay Van Till responded to a post providing Arminius' comments on the authorship of sin and asked this opening question. For myself, it is very straightforward. It is an unequivocal yes. My reply goes further. I not only believe that, I will take it further and state there is not anything, any action, any occurrence now, before or to come that has not been ordained of the LORD. Now, that does not lend my sympathies to the necessity of determinism. Instead, as with Picirilli, I make the distinction between certainty and necessity. I have come to believe that is one of the chief stumbling stones between Calvinists and Arminians… a little removed from the original question but as Jay stated originally, I'm not being sneaky, I am leading somewhere.

Wesley’s “A Dialogue Between a Predestinarian and His Friend

The Society of Evangelical Arminians has an interesting post of one of John Wesley's articles that is a great timely read for myself. I think it goes to the very heart of the paradox and antinomy that exists between the Calvinist doctrines of predestination and the revealed character and goodness of God. Arminius addressed this as well regarding making God the author of sin.

A Dialogue Between a Predestinarian and His Friend

Arminius on the Authorship of Sin

The Proper Ergun Caner Inquiry

With all the trash talking Calvinist bloggers crucifying Dr. Ergun Caner following the discovery of some inconsistencies with his personal bio, it is refreshing to see his employer and spiritual home look into the matter themselves absent the biased innuendo and personal animosity and grievances of certain Calvinists, some of who relish in this controversy. If Caner is indeed guilty of various embellishments, he will need to repent of this and assess his current standing. It would be unfortunate because Dr. Caner is a talented and blessed evangelist for Christ from all reasonable accounts. I do not know the man and I have no connections with Liberty University except having lived off Candlers Mountain Road in Lynchburg when the University was still a fledgling school with a growing student body many years ago. Caner was still a young fellow then and the Moral Majority was still in its infancy. I was also not a Christian at the time so I viewed the school as an oddity and, well, just plain weird. I have since come to Christ and view schools such as Liberty to be beacons for Christ in the midst of squalor. It is a sad reflection on the church as a whole to have sectarian zealots airing their dirty laundry, especially so when one of the principle parties has been fostering a bickering animosity toward Caner, the late Jerry Falwell and Liberty University in general. While I am expressing an opinion, I'll just state it openly. The Calvinist community should be ashamed of this smearing campaign regardless of whether or not the allegations are true. James White has made a career of swinging his callous sword throughout the house of God for his own personal promotion and advancement. I believe the best thing Liberty University could do is proceed with their investigation and dismiss the self serving smear campaigns of the anti-evangelicals whose purpose strikes me as an intention to do harm to the body of Christ.

Here is a link to a local AP story on this matter.

I will make this last observation for my own purpose. Before I came to Christ, I would have relished what these Calvinists were doing to the Liberty University community. The reason for that is I was an enemy of Christ and anything that opposed the work of God would be stirred in my soul by the father of lies. Today, the Muslim anti-evangelicals, whom these zealots have utilized in their private battle, can only be pleased with what White and his sect are doing. The atheists, the God haters and the carnal, dead world in general are arm and arm with White and his mission. That should cast a pall over the whole stinking mess. When it is over, who is going to haul the schismatics before the elders of the church and hold them accountable for the entertainment they proffered to the world?

The Jimmy White of Reformed Apologetics

updated: One of the respondents in this post brought to my attention that there may have been a third elder at the time of the quoted comments regarding submission. If that is the case, Mr. White would have had another elder along with the Pastor to whom he considered himself accountable to. While I would still consider the ad hominem attack by White to have been unnecessary and disreputable, I cannot hold the eldership matter against him as an example of hypocrisy if the information is correct.

Peter Lumpkins has an interesting short piece concerning Mr. James White, one of the more active polemical Calvinists with a rather boisterous young Turk following on the internet. This is the same James White who has been fueling the attack against Liberty University and their Seminary President, Dr. Ergun Caner, regarding some alleged embellishments over the years concerning Caner's Muslim background. Well, the fruit does not fall far from the tree and Mr. White has a history of his own embellishments. In any event, Mr. Lumpkins has offered an interesting picture of a further hypocrisy regarding Mr. White. He has taken opponents and others in disagreement with his various stances to task for an alleged lack of biblical submission and oversight. Lumpkins linked to one of White's articles providing the following quote from White's website.

The reader is warned to beware of Marrs and his type. He is feeding off the body of Christ, drawing disciples away unto himself, spreading half-truths and pure lies at the expense of the sheep of Christ. He is a loner, not under the authority of a local church or elders, unaccountable to God-ordained authority. As for me (and the question is honestly asked, in light of what I just said), I am a member of the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church, under the authority of the eldership of that local assembly.

Now that would seem to be a rather innocuous statement except for the fact that if one looks at White's church website, it is discovered that he is the elder that runs the church along with the pastor (White teaches most of the classes at the church according to the website). That does not strike me as an accurate statement of being under anybody's authority. It actually places White in the position of being his own authority and answerable to nobody. Now, all this doesn't really amount to a hill of beans but with all the trash talk coming out of the White camp and its followers regarding Dr. Caner, I would think White would not want to stand too close to all those glass walls.

The Biblical Doctrine of Grace for Everybody Else

I have for years found the Calvinist use of the phrase "Doctrines of Grace" to be offensive to the Christian body. Perhaps it is because of the lack of any real set of doctrines derived out of scripture regarding grace that align with the caustic acronym TULIP. It could be that I just find Calvinist sectarians offensive when they start a sentence with the phrase and immediately launch into a diatribe against the greater body of Christ, especially when most Calvinist polemics reveal an astonishing lack of theological knowledge of nearly everything they oppose. William Birch recently noted in one of his articles
"Grace is by definition a special favor actively bestowed upon an undeserving individual. Thus when a Christian minister quotes Paul as saying, "For it is by grace you have been saved" Eph 2:5,8, he or she means that the one saved was saved not by merit but by grace, undeserved favor. This is how to use the word grace biblically. In this we do not go beyond its clear meaning, nor do we fall short of what the Bible teaches." Yet, if the Calvinist is to be believed (and I stridently argue he is terribly wrong) many unredeemed men have been granted an undeserved favor in being cast into hell, all for the imagined glory of God. If TULIP constitutes the doctrines of Grace, a limited atonement without provision for the whole world as argued for in 1 John 2:1-2 must be presented as an unmerited favor upon the lost and damned as well as the redeemed. What is graceful with this scenario and how does that square with the revealed character and goodness of God? Can we excuse such a callous disregard for true grace by dismissing our sensible objections as merely misguided excursions into the "mystery" of God?

As Arminians, Baptists, Methodists, Anglicans and many other orthodox church groups present the scriptural teachings regarding God's grace, we marvel at how distant the determinists have removed themselves from simple truths. The following presents one of the scriptural teachings we preach and exposit, never coming close to the near blasphemous regard for God's character represented by elements of TULIP. It is the simplicity of grace through faith without dismissing faith as an irrelevant condiment to the central message. It is the biblical doctrine of grace for everybody else.

"But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) And hath raised [us] up together, and made [us] sit together in heavenly [places] in Christ Jesus: That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in [his] kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them." (Eph 2:4-10 AV)

An Atonement for All the World

"My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." (1John 2:1-2 AV)

That seems to be a strong statement in support of the universal extent of the work of the atonement at Calvary however our Calvinist friends are quick to dismiss the scope of the atonement by insisting the phrase whole world is exclusive to the elect of the whole world. I have never understood how they think themselves capable of projecting such a philosophy upon the passage. Is it reasonable to suggest the Apostle John had such a scheme in mind when he wrote this epistle? I believe it is a very hard stretch to make this passage fit the Calvinist paradigm especially when we consider how John used "world" elsewhere in his epistle.

"I write unto you, little children, because your sins are forgiven you for his name's sake. I write unto you, fathers, because ye have known him [that is] from the beginning. I write unto you, young men, because ye have overcome the wicked one. I write unto you, little children, because ye have known the Father. I have written unto you, fathers, because ye have known him [that is] from the beginning. I have written unto you, young men, because ye are strong, and the word of God abideth in you, and ye have overcome the wicked one. Love not the world, neither the things [that are] in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that [is] in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever." (1John 2:12-17 AV)

The above passage, taken from the same letter makes a sharp contrast between the saints and the entirety of the world from which we came. It strikes me as incredulous that the Apostle could be referring to the unrevealed elect through the use of "whole world" when he made such a strong contrast shortly following that statement. We find this again latter in the same letter.

"We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not. [And] we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness. And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, [even] in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life. Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen." (1John 5:18-21 AV)

How could it be that the whole world could ever mean the unrevealed elect in our midst when the world, the whole world, that same whole world mentioned in 2:1-2 lies completely in wickedness. The contrast between those that lie in wickedness and the saints that have received an understanding through the coming of the LORD is stark and undeniable. The whole world spoken of by the Apostle can only represent that whole world each of the saints once was a part of and have now come out of. It commands an understanding of the universal provision of the atonement rather than the philosophical reaching of a limitation in order to buttress an aberrant view.

While I do not hold that a limited atonement as devised by Calvinists (married and one with the unconditional election of Dort) constitute an anathematized doctrine as the elders of Orange determined, it certainly sits as a rebutted, aberrant doctrine by the words of the Apostle and one teaching in particular that is justified in being completely rejected by the saints of God. ( Similar arguments have been made by others concerning these particular passages. I recently encountered Robert Picirilli making very much the same argument)

I sure would like to see more of these guys running the show (the liberal media that caught this on tape keeps trying to take it down but it is widespread and keeps popping up. I will continue to keep it as long as it sits out there publicly)

What is Orthodox in One Mind is Heterodox to Most

My recent discussions of heterodoxy vs. orthodoxy and the schisms inherent in any such discussion surfaced a common pattern I have observed among our Calvinist brethren. They seem to exhibit a narrow, almost myopic, opinion regarding orthodoxy, defining it most often as entirely within the realm of Calvinist thought and creed. Arminians, Baptists, Anglicans and others who refuse the dogma of John Calvin and Theodore Beza's religious philosophy are deemed heterodox among the moderate sectarians, outright heretics in the minds of its polemical advocates. This is not a new phenomenon in the church. Franciscus Gomarus metaphorically burned down the church in his day and several of Calvinism's leading lights have followed suit. Modern medievials have chased us with absurd slogans of "barely saved" not realizing that such is the proclamation of the Apostle with regard to each and every one of us. It is the price of ecclesiastics gone wild and I suppose at the end of the day, the joke is on the purveyor rather than the victim. While not one of the great ecumenical councils, the 2^nd Council of Orange is often cited by Calvinists as some sort of evidence against non-Calvinists with its semi-Pelagian pronouncements. What I find most interesting about that is the likelyhood few of the young Turk Calvinists have so much as read the canons of Orange on their own. Consider what the Council had to say about Calvin's cherished doctrine of predestined reprobation …

… 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 …

Perhaps an examination of what the term anathema infers is in order …

Some Thoughts on Heterodoxy

While browsing through the theological blog world recently, I stumbled into a discussion that was sidetracked onto other issues as is often the case. After several exchanges, I replied with the following comments.

The gentleman wrote:
You have me a bit confused here. Are you claiming that, contrary to the vast majority of both Classical and Evangelical Arminians I've met, that Calvinism is not heterodoxy? Unorthodox theology is heterodoxical theology, is it not? Isn't that what the term means?

I replied:
Before bowing out of this off track thread, allow me these observations. Evangelical Arminians generally do not consider Calvinists to be heterodox with regard to the essential doctrines of the faith. Of course there are some who take a strong polemical stance and refuse fellowship with Calvinists. Consider what heterodox infers. It is by definition schismatic. Now, there are individuals among Calvinists who I consider schismatic (heretics by definition) but neither I nor those I fellowship with hold Calvinism to be heretical. Unorthodoxy is not heterodoxy. There is much liturgical practice and tradition that has no witness in scripture and as such is unorthodox. That does not imply that such practices and traditions are by definition heterodox. I consider much of the unique doctrines of Calvinism to be unorthodox as do many other Christians. That does not imply that we hold Calvinists to be outside the pale of orthodoxy. The contrary opinions seem formed by those who spend too much time dueling on the internet and not enough time fellowshipping with Christ. That observation holds true regardless of what side of the fence you stand on.
Have a blessed day. This thread has digressed and the tin horns are being pulled out of the britches.

I need to expand on my qualifications concerning the use of the term heterodox. When discussing various doctrines and its relationship to orthodoxy, the term heterodox carries with it the context of creating schisms, of generating a departure from the orthodox truths of scripture. Just as often as not, heterodoxy fuels the actions of heretics and as such introduces schisms into the body from both within and without. Unorthodox teachings are not necessarily heterodox although heterodoxy is in all cases unorthodox. The example I gave in my comments above is one example. The liturgy of Methodist or Presbyterian services is not an orthodox practice i.e. it is not a practice and tradition always accepted as such by the Christian church. Another example would be the historical distinctions between observing the LORD's supper with a wafer and cup vs. participating in a full agape meal. Neither is heterodox except among schismatics demanding adherence to one or the other. A further example is the distinction between substitution and satisfaction atonement theories. Various groups have subscribed to both and each has its own distinctions as well as similarities. However, neither is heterodox in that as theories, neither have laid claim to being the historic doctrine that the church has always professed. This is a touchy subject, of course. Ecclesiastical bodies are far too quick to pull the trigger on the divisive label while the ecumenical church tends to focus on those diversions that are removed from essential doctrines as identified throughout the church age. Pelagianism is certainly heterodox and heresy. Semi-Pelagianism is heterodoxy when examined in accordance with historical Christian teachings. (Interestingly, the same councils addressing the semi-Pelagian matters, 2^nd Orange and Arles, deemed the foundations of Calvinist determinism to be anathema.) In summary, my point is that a simple dictionary definition of hetero-doxy as "other teaching" is insufficient to grasp the importance of the term and the dire implications of the leaven of heterodoxy. Heterodoxy is more than just something other. It is something opposed.

I've been playing this number by the Dave Brubeck Quartet from an old concert at Carnegie Hall many years ago on my mp3 player. For myself this is a great up tempo jazz tune to kick the day off well. Of course it doesn't have anything to do with libertarian free will except that I present it here of my own volition. A few facts regarding this ... It was recorded in Feb 1963 and the line up at that time was (I think I am getting this right) Dave Brubeck on piano, Paul Desmond on sax, Gene Wright on bass and Joe Morello on drums. This was the essential lineup for Brubeck's classic jazz period although he has been kicking good stuff out all these years.

N.T. Wright on his book, Justification: God's Plan and Paul's Vision

This reading was passed onto me recently and having had some interest in Wright's view in the midst of all the hullabaloo coming out of the neo-Calvinist camp, I think it is fair to read the source material rather than rely on the snippets and innuendo passed on second hand, sometimes third and fourth hand if not worse. Here are some of Wright's brief comments on this book.

This has nothing to do with Arminianism, Calvinism, Theology or anything for that matter, except of course showing us how to get mad as all get out at our new Government Motors.