hiatus

hi·a·tus

   [hahy-ey-tuhs] 

noun, plural -tus·es, -tus.

1.

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

2.

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

3.

any gap or opening.

4.

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

5.

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

The Liberalism Straw Man of Young, Restless Reformers

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

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

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

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

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

Parsing Words and Thoughts and Nit Picking

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

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

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

Sometimes It Is Better To Slow Down

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

Calvinist Trees Blocking the Christian Forest

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

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

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

Campus Crusade for Christ International Dropping Christ

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

Calvinists Who Love Wesley

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

Calvinists Who Love Wesley - Fred Sanders

Odd Thought From the Net

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

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

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

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

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

The full text of this Sentiment is found here.

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

Arminius on the First Sin of the First Man

ON THE FIRST SIN OF THE FIRST MAN

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

Respondent: Abraham Appart

The use of the doctrine

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

The sin itself

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

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

The cause of this sin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The heinousness of this sin

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

The effects of this sin

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

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

Arminius on Justification

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Corollaries

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

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

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

The Blasphemy of Calvinist Predestination

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

Amen to that.

Redefining the Infallibility-Inerrancy Conflict

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

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

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

The Modern Inerrancy Debate

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

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

The full article can be read here.

Calvinists are Green Eco-Nuts … er … Seriously

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

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

My belly hurts from the laughter ...

The Fallible Doctrine of Inerrancy – Part II

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

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

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