THE ARMINIAN CONFESSION OF FAITH - 1622

1. ON PREDESTINATION.

1. God never decreed to elect any man to eternal life, or to reprobate him from it, by his mere will and pleasure, without any regard to his foreseen obedience or disobedience, in order to demonstrate the glory of his mercy and justice, or of his power or absolute dominion.

2. As the decree of God concerning both the salvation and the destruction of every man is not the decree of an end absolutely fixed, it follows that neither are such means subordinated to that decree as through them both the elect and the reprobate may efficaciously and inevitably be brought to the destined end.

3. Wherefore, neither did God with this design in one man, Adam, create all men in an upright condition, nor did he ordain the fall or even its permission, nor did he withdraw from Adam necessary and sufficient grace, nor does he now cause the Gospel, to be preached and men to be outwardly called, nor does he confer on them the gifts of the Holy Spirit,-(he has done none of these things with the design) that they should be means by which he might bring some of mankind to life everlasting, and leave others of them destitute of eternal life. Christ the Mediator is not only the executor of election, but also the foundation of the very decree of election itself. The reason why some men are efficaciously called, justified, persevere in faith, and are glorified, is not because they are absolutely elected to life eternal: nor is the reason why others are deserted and left in the fall, have not Christ bestowed upon them, or, farther, why they are inefficaciously called, are hardened and damned, because these men are absolutely reprobated from eternal life.

4. God has not decreed, without the intervening of actual sins, to leave by far the greater part of mankind in the fall, and excluded from all hope of salvation.

5. God has ordained that Christ shall be the propitiation for the sins of the whole world; and, in virtue of this decree, he has determined to justify and save those who believe in him, and to administer to men the means which are necessary and sufficient for faith, in such a manner as he knows to be befitting his wisdom and justice. But he has not in any wise determined, in virtue of an absolute decree, to give Christ as a Mediator for the elect only, and to endow them alone with faith through an effectual call, to justify them, to preserve them in the faith, and to glorify them.

6. Neither is any man by some absolute antecedent decree rejected from life eternal, nor from means sufficient to attain it: so that the merits of Christ, calling, and all the gifts of the Spirit, are capable of profiting all men for their salvation, and are in reality profitable to all men, unless by an abuse of these blessings they pervert them to their own destruction. But no man whatever is destined to unbelief, impiety, or the commission of sin, as the means and causes of his damnation.

7. The election of particular persons is absolute, from consideration of their faith in Jesus Christ and their perseverance, but not without consideration of their faith and of their perseverance in true faith as a prerequisite condition in electing them.

8. Reprobation from eternal life is made according to the consideration of preceding unbelief and perseverance in the same, but not without consideration of preceding unbelief or perseverance in it.

9. All the children of believers are sanctified in Christ; so that not one of them perishes who departs out of this life prior to the use of reason. But no children of believers who depart out of this life in their infancy and before they have in their own persons committed any sin, are on any account to be reckoned in the number of the reprobate! So as that neither the sacred laver of baptism is, nor are the prayer of the Church, by any means capable of profiting them to salvation.

10. No children of believers who have been baptized in the name of the Father, of the Son, of the Holy Ghost, and while in the state of infancy, are by an absolute decree numbered among the reprobate.

II. ON THE UNIVERSALITY OF THE MERIT OF CHRIST.

1. The price of redemption which Christ offered to his Father is in and of itself not only sufficient for the redemption of the whole human race, but it has also, through the decree, the will, and the grace of God the Father, been paid for all men and every man; and therefore no one is by an absolute and antecedent decree of God positively excluded from all participation in the fruits of the death of Christ.

2. Christ, by the merit of his death, has thus far reconciled God the Father to the whole of mankind, -that he can and will, without injury to his justice and truth, enter into and establish a new covenant of grace with sinners and men obnoxious to damnation.

3. Though Christ has merited for all men and for every man reconciliation with God and forgiveness of sins, yet, according to the tenor or terms of the new and gracious covenant, no man is in reality made a partaker of the benefits procured by the death of Christ in any other way than through faith; neither are the trespasses and offenses of sinful men forgiven prior to their actually and truly believing in Christ.

4. Those only for whom Christ has died are obliged to believe that Christ has died for them. But those whom they call reprobates, and for who Christ has not died, can neither be obliged so to believe, nor can they be justly condemned for the contrary unbelief; but if such persons were reprobates, they would be obliged to believe that Christ has not died for them.

III. and IV. ON THE OPERATION OF GRACE IN THE CONVERSION OF MAN.

1. Man has not saving faith from and of himself, nor has he it from the powers of his own free will; because in a state of sin he is able for and of himself to think, will, or do nothing that is good, nothing that is indeed savingly good; of which description., in the first place, is saving faith. But it is necessary that, by God in Christ through his Holy Spirit, he should be regenerated and renewed in his understanding, affections, will, and in all his powers, that he may be capable of rightly understanding, meditating, willing, and performing such things as are savingly good.

2. We propound the grace of God to be the beginning, the progress, and the completion of every good thing; so that even the man who is born again is not able without this preceding and prevenient, this exciting and following, this accompanying and co-operating grace, to think, to will, or to perform any good, or to resist any temptations to evil: so that good works, and the good actions which any one is able to find out by thinking, are to be ascribed to the grace of God in Christ.

3. Yet we do not believe that all the zeal, care, study, and pains, which are employed to obtain salvation, before faith and the Spirit of renovation, are vain and useless; much less do we believe that they are more hurtful to man than profitable. But, on the contrary, we consider that to hear the word of God, to mourn on account of the commission of sin, and earnestly to seek and desire saving grace and the Spirit of renovation, (none of which is any man capable of doing without Divine grace,) are not only not hurtful and useless, but that they are rather most useful and exceedingly necessary for obtaining faith and the Spirit of renovation.

4. The will of man in a lapsed or fallen state, and before the call of God, has not the capability and liberty of willing any good that is of a saving nature, and therefore we deny that the liberty of willing as well what is a saving good as what is an evil, is present to the human will in every state or condition.

5. Efficacious grace, by which any man is converted, is not irresistible: and though God so affects the will of man by his word and the inward operation of his Spirit, as to confer upon him a capability of believing , or supernatural power, and actually causes man to believe; yet man is of himself capable to spurn and reject this grace, and not believe; and, therefore, also, to perish through his own culpability.

6. Although, according to the most free and unrestrained will of God, there is very great disparity or inequality of Divine grace, yet the Holy Spirit either bestows, or is ready to bestow, upon all and upon every one to whom the word of faith is preached, as much grace as is sufficient to promote in its gradations the conversion of men; and therefore grace sufficient for faith and conversion is conceded not only to those who God is said to be willing to save according to his decree of absolute election, but likewise to those who are in reality not converted.

7. Man is able, by the grace of the Holy Spirit, to do more good than he actually does, and to omit more evil than he actually omits. Neither do we believe that God absolutely wills that man should do no more good than that which he does, and to omit no more evil than that which he omits; nor do we believe it to have been determinately decreed from all eternity that each of such acts should be so done or omitted.

8. Whomsoever God calls, he calls them seriously, that is, with a sincere and not with a dissembled intention and will of saving them. Neither do we subscribe to the opinion of those persons who assert that God outwardly calls certain men whom he does not will to call inwardly, that is, whom he is unwilling to be truly converted, even prior to their rejection of the grace of calling.

9. There is not in God a secret will of that kind which is so opposed to his will revealed in his word, that according to this same secret will he does not will the conversion and salvation of the greatest part of those whom, by the word of his Gospel, and by his revealed will, he seriously calls and invites to faith and salvation.

10. Neither on this point do we admit of a holy dissimulation, as it is the manner of some men to speak, or of a twofold person in the Deity.

11. It is not true that, through the force and efficacy of the secret will of God or of the Divine decree, not only are all good things necessarily done, but likewise all evil things; so that whosoever commit sin, they are not able, in respect of the Divine decree, to do otherwise than commit sin; and that God wills, decrees, and is the manager of men's sins, and of their insane, foolish, and cruel actions, also of the sacrilegious blasphemy of his own name; that he moves the tongues of men to blaspheme, etc.

12. We also consider it to be a false and horrible dogma, that God by secret means impels men to the commission of those sins which he openly prohibits; that those who sin do not act in opposition to the true will of God, and that which is properly so called; that what is unjust, that is, what is contrary to God's command, is agreeable to his will; nay, farther, that it is a real and capital fault to do the will of God.

V. ON THE PERSEVERANCE OF TRUE BELIEVERS IN FAITH.

1. The perseverance of believers in faith is not the effect of that absolute decree of God by which he is said to have elected or chosen particular persons circumscribed with no condition of their obedience.

2. God furnishes true believers with supernatural powers or strength of grace, as much as according to his infinite wisdom he judges to suffice for their perseverance, and for their overcoming the temptations of the devil, the flesh, and the world; and on the part of God stands nothing to hinder them from persevering.

3. It is possible for true believers to fall away from true faith, and to fall into sins of such a description as cannot consist with a true and justifying faith; nor is it only possible for them thus to fall, but such lapses not infrequently occur.

4. True believers are capable by their own fault of falling into flagrant crimes and atrocious wickedness, to persevere and die in them, and therefore finally to fall away and to perish.

5. Yet though true believers sometimes fall into grievous sins, and such as destroy the conscience, we do not believe that they immediately fall away from all hope of repentance; but we acknowledge this to be an event not impossible to occur, -that God, according to the multitude of his mercies, may again call them by his grace to repentance; nay, we are of opinion that such a recalling has often occurred, although such fallen believers cannot be "most fully persuaded" about this matter, that it will certainly and undoubtedly take place.

6. Therefore do we with our whole heart and soul reject the following dogmas, which are daily affirmed in various publications extensively circulated among the people, namely: (1.) "True believers cannot possibly sin with deliberate counsel and design, but only through ignorance and infirmity." (2.) "It is impossible for true believers, through any sins of theirs, to fall away from the grace of God." (3.) "A thousand sins, nay, all the sins of the whole world, are not capable of rendering election vain and void." If to this be added, "Men of every description are bound to believe that they are elected to salvation, and therefore are incapable of falling from that election," we leave men to think what a wide window such a dogma opens to carnal security. (4.) "No sins, however great and grievous they may be, are imputed to believers; nay, farther, all sins, both present and future, are remitted to them." (5.) "Though true believers fall into destructive heresies, into dreadful and most atrocious sins, such as adultery and murder, on account of which the Church, according to the institution of Christ, is compelled to testify that it cannot tolerate them in its outward communion, and that unless such persons be converted, they will have no part in the kingdom of Christ; yet it is impossible for them totally and finally to fall away from faith."

7. As a true believer is capable at the present time of being assured concerning the integrity of his faith and conscience, so he is able and ought to be at this time assured of this own salvation and of the saving good will of God toward him. On this point we highly disapprove of the opinion of the Papists.

8. A true believer, respecting the time to come, can and ought, indeed, to be assured that he is able, by means of watching, prayer, and other holy exercises, to persevere in the true faith; and that Divine grace will never fail to assist him in persevering. But we cannot see how it is possible for him to be assured that he will never afterward be deficient in his duty, but that he will persevere, in this school of Christian warfare, in the performance of acts of faith, piety, and charity, as becomes believers; neither do we consider it to be a matter of necessity that a believer should be assured of such perseverance.

ON THE HOLY TRINITY.

1. God is moreover to be considered distinctly in three persons or substances, as he has exhibited himself in the word of God, and as such to be known and contemplated by us. This Trinity of persons is known to us as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. One of these Divine persons or hypostases in the Godhead is avaitios, that is, unoriginated or unbegotten; the other begotten or generated by the Father, or the Father's only begotten; and the other proceeding alike and emanating from the Father by the Son.

2. The father alone is underived or unbegotten, but hath from all eternity communicated his own Divinity to his only begotten Son, made a Son, not indeed by creation, as angels were made the sons of God; not be adoption, as we, who are believers, are constituted sons of God; nor merely by a gracious communication of Divine might or glory as being mediator, but by a real, though mysterious and ineffable, generation; and also to the Holy Spirit, who hath, from all eternity, proceeded from both, by an incomprehensible emanation or spirationem. Therefore the Father is justly held to be the fountain or original of the whole Deity.

3. The Son, therefore, and Holy Spirit, as to their real being or substance, are truly distinct from the Father; nevertheless, they are really partakes of the same Godhead and absolutely distinguished by the same Divine essence with the Father, which appears most evident from the holy Scripture giving them the same titles, and attributing to them the same properties as to the Father. Hence the Apostles' Creed on this subject, which we cordially believe, and whose declarations we adopt; that is, we "believe in God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ his only Son, etc. - And in the Holy Ghost, etc."

4. The above declarations are sufficient in relation to this holy mystery, a subject which we think it is expedient and becoming always to treat with modesty, prudence, and religious reverence; and we hold it to be the safest course, when speaking of this profound subject, to express ourselves, as much as possible, in the very words, and according to the mode and phrases in which it is presented to us by the Holy Ghost himself, seeing that the Spirit of God himself must best know himself, and is the most capable of stating and exhibiting his own nature and being; and so far as it was necessary to be declared and revealed, it has pleased him to reveal it to us. It is therefore especially becoming of us, that with reverence, humility, and devout feeling, we follow the mode thus presented to us of speaking on this subject, until we be permitted to see God face to face, when in the glory of that bright and celestial world, he will perfectly make known himself to us, amid the unclouded visions and manifestations of his being and will.

THE END

SIMON EPISCOPIUS, D.D. - 1623.

MEMORIAL TO JAMES ARMINIUS

Arminius, that servant of Christ, in order to approve himself before God, chose to endure the hatred and contradiction of all mankind, rather than to violate his conscience. - He held out to the whole Christian world the ensign of peace and concord, and he wished a commencement to be made in the Reformed Churches. Being a man of prudence and mild in spirit, he perceived that those Churches were distracted and separated from each other in many ways, and that in these days neither measure nor end was observed in making secessions; that endeavours were therefore to be used to induce the contending parties to lay aside animosity, and to sing a funeral song over their unnecessary enmities and quarrels; that every exertion was then to be employed, to take an accurate account of such doctrines as are absolutely necessary, and each party to confine itself within those limits; that, with regard to all the rest, whatever was capable of being tolerated, or did not hinder salvation, should receive toleration; that the rule of Prudence and Charity alone is sufficient for this purpose; and that, without these, continual strife and hatred must be perpetuated, which would cause the tears of the Church afresh to flow. This was the design of Arminius; and he persisted in it to the close of his life, nothing being such a source of grief and sorrow to him, as the obstinate resistance of those who ought to have shewn themselves the most favourable to this design. Whether it was laudable or not, let those judge who are affected with commiseration at the sight of the whole of Christendom divided into most minute parties: I entertain no doubt myself of its being a pious purpose.

Arminius was too great an admirer and practiser of that Apostolic direction, Let your moderation be known to all men, ever to indulge in bitter or reviling expressions. He will never be detected in having traduced, much less in having rendered odious and infamous, or in having injured by a single word, those whom Capellus calls "the Reformers." Indeed, no one ever dissented from them with greater moderation. Let the writings of Arminius be inspected, and my assertion will be found correct. Such, in fact, was the modesty of this pious and learned man, that he thought all errors, especially those which he accounted to be injurious to piety, ought to be attacked with boldness and according to the meaning of their authors; but that the wanderers in error themselves ought to be treated with mildness and according to the mind of Christ Jesus. For he knew, how easy it is to commit a mistake, how unjust to visit with reproaches him who is in error, how disgraceful to speak evil of a pious man, and how necessary it is for a Christian, and particularly for a Bishop, to be no striker, but patient, (1 Tim. iii.3,) gentle to all men, and in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves. (2 Tim. ii.24.) Such were his sentiments, such was his conduct, - most opposite to those opprobrious arts which Capellus employs!

Arminius was as averse to a new Confession, as he was to a schism. Those things which he considered as desiderata in the Church, he wished to be corrected by the Church and within herself; and he thought those things could be amended there more efficaciously and with greater safety. From new Confessions he did not hope for a remedy, but feared more dangerous paroxysms. To adhere to the scriptures alone; or, where any Confession was established, to tolerate certain improper phrases, solely through a hatred of schism, and either to reconcile them with scripture by the benefit of a mild interpretation, or to correct them by the aid of a lawful revisions, - was, in his opinion, a much better course than to expend labour upon new Confessions which might serve to foment schisms. For as a prudent man he perceived, in this age fruitful in strifes and quarrels, the usual consequence is, that wherever new Confessions are formed, there the minds of men are separated and distracted by their different opinion. - At no period of his life did he assert, much less did he contend, that the article on Predestination in the Dutch Confessions was false or bore evident marks of falsehood, that it contained heresies or abounded with them, much less that it abounded with a multitude of them: As an unexceptionable proof of this it may be stated, that he always endeavoured to establish his sentiments by many and strong arguments from the Dutch Confession itself; and he professed that he was prepared to retire from the ministry, if at any time, either in secret or in public, he had spoken or written any thing contrary to that formulary. He always denied, that the sentiments which he opposed were those of the Confession: He said, they were those of some particular divines, from which he was perfectly at liberty to dissent.

Arminius never said, that the whole human race was at the same time reconciled and healed by the satisfaction of Christ. He was a man of greater accuracy, than to speak in that manner. He has said, that mankind were reconciled by the satisfaction of Christ: But who, except a dotard, would say that they were healed? Arminius only teaches, that God for Christ's sake bestows, on those who are reconciled to Him through Christ, a new power (ability), when they are called by the Gospel, that they may be enabled to free themselves from that servitude, provided they use diligent endeavours, and be not wanting to themselves and to the grace of God. But he who teaches this, teaches a doctrine contrary to that which Capellus wishes. For such a man teaches, that those who are reconciled are still under the servitude of sin; but that, by the aid of grace which is newly bestowed on them by God, it is possible for them to be gradually healed of that servitude. For it is one thing to impart an ability to any one, by which he may come out of his servitude: It is another thing, actually to come out of servitude, or to be healed of it.

Those persons who have lived with Arminius, and who, as the phrase is, have eaten a bushel of salt in his company, can bear testimony to his candour and integrity. France, your country, never produced a spirit possessed of greater integrity. Unless he had been studious of these virtues, he would neither have incurred the chance of so much hatred, no have subjected himself to the peril of such obstinate contradiction. If he occasionally used prudence, out of a greater regard to his own conscience and to the public peace, he did nothing more than what was the duty of a good man and a Christian. He could do this, and he actually did it, without any design to deceive; nay, he did it with the design to approve himself the more to God, who alone inwardly inspects the heart, and to whom, he knew, a hypocrite is more hateful than a man that is openly wicked: For when a bad man wishes to appear a good one, he is then the worst of all.

What could any one desire that was more open, candid, and nervous, than the Declaration of Arminius before the states of Holland? I wish his adversaries had, with equal candour and ingenuousness, declared their sentiments on Reprobation, at the Hague Conference, and more recently at the Synod of Dort! But if ever any persons employed dissimulation, or declined to disclose their sentiments, they were certainly the members of those two assemblies. Indeed it is a thing common in its occurrence, - for a man, when he perceives himself to be guilty of a crime, to use indecent haste in boldly charging it upon others, that he may seem to be at the greatest possible distance from it himself.

In conclusion therefore I say, that Arminius acted in all things with perfect good faith and candour; that he openly professed the doctrine which he held; that according to his own declaration, he always ingeniously believed this doctrine to be contained in the formularies of the Churches; that he never condemned those formularies; and that he never disclosed, except in the assembly of the States and at their command, the considerations which he had marked down according to the decree of the Supreme Magistrate and at the request of the Synod. Capellus therefore, without any just cause, laments the absence of candour in this most candid breast. -Examen Thesium I. Capelli

The Question, "What Is an Arminian?" Answered by a Lover of Free Grace
by John Wesley

1. To say, "This man is an Arminian," has the same effect on many hearers, as to say, "This is a mad dog." It puts them into a fright at once: They run away from him with all speed and diligence; and will hardly stop, unless it be to throw a stone at the dreadful and mischievous animal.

2. The more unintelligible the word is, the better it answers the purpose. Those on whom it is fixed know not what to do: Not understanding what it means, they cannot tell what defence to make, or how to clear themselves from the charge. And it is not easy to remove the prejudice which others have imbibed, who know no more of it, than that it is "something very bad," if not "all that is bad!"

3. To clear the meaning, therefore, of this ambiguous term, may be of use to many: To those who so freely pin this name upon others, that they may not say what they do not understand; to those that hear them, that they may be no longer abused by men saying they know not what; and to those upon whom the name is fixed, that they may know how to answer for themselves.

4. It may be necessary to observe, First, that many confound Arminians with Arians. But this is entirely a different thing; the one has no resemblance to the other. An Arian is one who denies the Godhead of Christ; we scarce need say, the supreme, eternal Godhead; because there can be no God but the supreme, eternal God, unless we will make two Gods, a great God and a little one. Now, none have ever more firmly believed, or more strongly asserted, the Godhead of Christ, than many of the (so called) Arminians have done; yea, and do at this day. Arminianism therefore (whatever it be) is totally different from Arianism.

5. The rise of the word was this: JAMES HARMENS, in Latin, Jacobes Arminius, was first one of the Ministers of Amsterdam, and afterwards Professor of Divinity at Leyden. He was educated at Geneva; but in the year 1591 began to doubt of the principles which he had till then received. And being more and more convinced that they were wrong, when he was vested with the Professorship, he publicly taught what he believed the truth, till, in the year 1609, he died in peace. But a few years after his death, some zealous men with the Prince of Orange at their head, furiously assaulted all that held what were called his opinions; and having procured them to be solemnly condemned, in the famous Synod of Dort, (not so numerous or learned, but full as impartial, as the Council or Synod of Trent,) some were put to death, some banished, some imprisoned for life, all turned out of their employments, and made incapable of holding any office, either in Church or State.

6. The errors charged upon these (usually termed Arminians) by their opponents, are five: (1.) That they deny original sin; (2.) That they deny justification by faith; (3.) That they deny absolute predestination; (4.) That they deny the grace of God to be irresistible; and, (5.) That they affirm, a believer may fall from grace.
With regard to the two first of these charges, they plead, Not Guilty. They are entirely false. No man that ever lived, not John Calvin himself, ever asserted either original sin, or justification by faith, in more strong, more clear and express terms, than Arminius has done. These two points, therefore, are to be set out of the question: In these both parties agree. In this respect, there is not a hair's breadth difference between Mr. Wesley and Mr. Whitefield.

7. But there is an undeniable difference between the Calvinists and Arminians, with regard to the three other questions. Here they divide; the former believe absolute, the latter only conditional, predestination. The Calvinists hold, (1.) God has absolutely decreed, from all eternity, to save such and such persons, and no others; and that Christ died for these, and none else. The Arminians hold, God has decreed, from all eternity, touching all that have the written word, "He that believeth shall be saved: He that believeth not, shall be condemned:" And in order to this, "Christ died for all, all that were dead in trespasses and sins;" that is, for every child of Adam, since "in Adam all died."

8. The Calvinists hold, Secondly, that the saving grace of God is absolutely irresistible; that no man is any more able to resist it, than to resist the stroke of lightning. The Arminians hold, that although there may be some moments wherein the grace of God acts irresistibly, yet, in general, any man may resist, and that to his eternal ruin, the grace whereby it was the will of God he should have been eternally saved.

9. The Calvinists hold, Thirdly, that a true believer in Christ cannot possibly fall from grace. The Arminians hold, that a true believer may "make shipwreck of faith and a good conscience;" that he may fall, not only foully, but finally, so as to perish for ever.

10. Indeed, the two latter points, irresistible grace and infallible perseverance, are the natural consequence of the former, of the unconditional decree. For if God has eternally and absolutely decreed to save such and such persons, it follows, both that they cannot resist his saving grace, (else they might miss of salvation,) and that they cannot finally fall from that grace which they cannot resist. So that, in effect, the three questions come into one, "Is predestination absolute or conditional?" The Arminians believe, it is conditional; the Calvinists, that it is absolute.

11. Away, then, with all ambiguity! Away with all expressions which only puzzle the cause! Let honest men speak out, and not play with hard words which they do not understand. And how can any man know what Arminius held, who has never read one page of his writings? Let no man bawl against Arminians, till he knows what the term means; and then he will know that Arminians and Calvinists are just upon a level. And Arminians have as much right to be angry at Calvinists, as Calvinists have to be angry at Arminians. John Calvin was a pious, learned, sensible man; and so was James Harmens. Many Calvinists are pious, learned, sensible men; and so are many Arminians. Only the former hold absolute predestination; the latter, conditional.

12. One word more: Is it not the duty of every Arminian Preacher, First, never, in public or in private, to use the word Calvinist as a term of reproach; seeing it is neither better nor worse than calling names? -- a practice no more consistent with good sense or good manners, than it is with Christianity. Secondly. To do all that in him lies to prevent his hearers from doing it, by showing them the sin and folly of it? And is it not equally the duty of every Calvinist Preacher, First, never in public or in private, in preaching or in conversation, to use the word Arminian as a term of reproach? Secondly. To do all that in him lies to prevent his hearers from doing it, by showing them the sin and folly thereof; and that the more earnestly and diligently, if they have been accustomed so to do? perhaps encouraged therein by his own example!

From the Thomas Jackson edition of The Works of John Wesley, 1872.

The Lesser Offense of Those Barely Saved

I was sitting in my disheveled office, if it can be called that in the corner of our "community room" or den, listening to several releases by Matt Redman and The Passion Worship band in the midst of this Passion Weekend. Browsing through several sites this afternoon, I came across a piece posted on James Swan's blog at Beggars All. I did not see a place for posting comments so I thought it appropriate to respond here. The title of his posting was "Semi-Pelagianism 101 – Arminians Are Christians? Yes, Barely!" and it was an excerpt from R.C. Sproul's book Willing To Believe that Mr. Swan apparently spent time in Sunday School discussing. It was this Sunday School study that grabbed my attention this weekend of all weeks in the year. Now many in the Body of Christ have become accustomed to zealots on the fringes attacking us with abandon however what many Christians do not realize is that many of these attacks emanate from within "orthodoxy", from within what should be the ecumenical church. In the mind of many of these "moderate" Calvinists, most of Christ's Body is "barely saved", to use Sproul's phrase and Swan's echo. Quite recently, it was John Piper leading the charge of anathemas against the elders and pastors of most of Christ with a posting on his site that caused quite a stir on several blogs (see my related thread on CARM.org). Rather than these attacks and gross misrepresentations being carried out by fringe groups on the outer edges of Christendom, we, the Body of Christ, are being attacked from a cancer within. Yes, we are barely saved, Mr. Swan and Mr. Sproul. We are scarcely saved as the Apostle Peter phrased it and knowingly stand ready for the falsehoods spoken of us, the innuendo fashioned against us and the musings of those who study the techniques of carnal religion employed against the Body of Christ. Certainly the lover of Christ should be engaged in the study of the LORD's Word, especially so when gathered in fellowship for study and preaching. Speaking falsehoods and generating avarice toward His Body is not a function of fellowship and study of the scriptures. It is instead a display of religious zealotry with one purpose: to throw seeds of schism and dissention. In a word it is anti-orthodox if not outright enmity towards the ecumenical church of Jesus Christ.

Christians would do well to recognize this cancer in its midst and respond appropriately. Our families and friends need to be aware of this enmity against them for it seeks to make inroads into our churches and our Christian outlook. Given we are indeed barely saved even though a haughty and arrogant mind would view this as an inferior position, it is a far lesser offense if any offense at all to be considered as such. It is our expectation to be the recipient of offenses rather than being the offense as intended by Sproul and Swan. Perhaps the words of Peter are best for a close and I will leave the dry bones exegesis for the brothers Sproul and Swan.

"Beloved, think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened unto you: But rejoice, inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ's sufferings; that, when his glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad also with exceeding joy. If ye be reproached for the name of Christ, happy [are ye]; for the spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you: on their part he is evil spoken of, but on your part he is glorified. But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or [as] a thief, or [as] an evildoer, or as a busybody in other men's matters. Yet if [any man suffer] as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf. For the time [is come] that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if [it] first [begin] at us, what shall the end [be] of them that obey not the gospel of God? And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear? Wherefore let them that suffer according to the will of God commit the keeping of their souls [to him] in well doing, as unto a faithful Creator." (1Pe 4:12-19 AV)

Arminian Manifesto

Mr. Billy Birch at Arminian Manifesto has started a new site and has a wonderful article addressing the Synod of Dordt as well as an ongoing series on Arminius. It would behoove our Calvinist brethren to read it although I am not holding out a great deal of hope on that count. The truth of Dordt has been hidden and glossed over too many times and it is good to see the truth of the matter discussed once again.

Appealing To The Body

Recently I have come under a bit of disgruntled complaining from some of my Calvinist brethren for using an argument that, in the secular world, would be considered a fallacy of appealing to a majority. Now, if I were to make the claim that something must be correct since 80% of the people agree, I would normally agree with them that this would a fallacious appeal albeit possibly truthful nonetheless. However when we are discussing the things of the Holy Spirit and scriptural truths, being in the Body of Christ counts for something. When the large majority of believers, faithful and lovers of the LORD, reject the unique distinctives of Calvinist doctrine the church and it's Calvinist members should take heed.

Orthodoxy is founded upon a common and historic agreement in the creeds, the fathers and general acceptance in the church at large. Most Calvinists and non-Calvinists would agree with this premise when it comes to determining what is orthodox doctrine in the church yet Calvinists seem to balk when the same premise is applied to their particular doctrines. To be fair I am sure there are Baptists and Wesleyans that react in a similar manner. Within our own tradition we view "Once Saved Always Saved" and it's Presbyterian accompaniment "Perseverance of the Saints" as questionable and not well founded on scripture. Yet we generally do not declare our opponents to be undermining the Gospel as Dr. John Piper recently declared of us. Instead we consider those doctrines to be in error and as well view them as unessential doctrine.

The connection between how we determine orthodoxy and an appeal to a large majority of the saints, particularly those called to pastor and teach, to keep us from being tossed to and fro, becomes apparent when we realize that nobody taught anything resembling any point of Calvinist TULIP until Augustine. Even then the doctrines that formed much of the Calvinist distinctive were not generally accepted within orthodoxy in Augustine's day nor any other time until Wycliffe embraced predestination. The early Calvinist Reformation built itself upon Augustine and not orthodoxy and it's scriptural understanding. Hence, I appeal to the historicity of the church in particular the early church fathers, the writings of the Apostles and the continued agreement that the strong majority of the Body in Christ has today in refusing the Calvinist viewpoint.

Of course the argument from a lot of Calvinists is to point to the church at Rome and make the claim that they too were once orthodoxy and had a lock on what would be considered a majority. That is only true if you believe the Roman Catholic Church represents the orthodox Christian church. I do not hold that opinion and when I refer to orthodoxy I am appealing to the entire church age. Another reply has been the suggestion that the church might well be wrong with baptismal regeneration being an example and adhered to by most of the church throughout its post Nicene years until the Confessional period of the Reformation. That is probably the strongest argument I have encountered yet even this falls by the wayside when we realize that the large majority of the body of Christ agrees that baptismal regeneration is not essential doctrine. The issue is not over what we agree on but over what is in disagreement. With that in mind, it remains a fact that most of the church today refuses the Calvinist distinctives on solid historic and orthodox grounds. It is proper to turn to the church today, it's predominant pastors and teachers grounded in the scriptures and orthodoxy, to assist us in determining what is proper doctrine and practice in the church today. On that count, Calvinism is refused.

Whats Wrong With This Picture?

One of my little quirks and pet peeves has long been a distaste for those people who find it perfectly well to present themselves as possessing credentials that they have not earned, in particular doctorate or graduate degrees in theological fields. The Word-Faith sect (i.e. Kenneth Copeland, Creflo Dollar, Kenneth Hagin and their fellows) is a particularly grievous offender of this practice but it is not limited to those on the heretical fringe. On one of the discussion boards, somebody started a thread with "Dr. James White" in the title. Now, I admittedly do not care much for Mr. White's tactics nor his theological and exegetical acumen, but his presented academic credentials are a bothersome issue. I was accused of slandering the man with misinformation today and I don't take kindly to that inference so I thought I would quickly take a look at Mr. White's alma mater. The truth of the matter is this is an embarrassment to the body of Christ as it took a Mormon apologist to flush this out a few years ago. Mr. White received for all practical purposes a correspondence degree from an unaccredited store front "institution" called Columbia Evangelical Seminary (formerly called Faraston Theological Seminary). Here are a few pictures of this "esteemed University" and I reluctantly provide a link to a site presented by a Mormon who has researched the issue extensively.

Mormon apologist expose

Columbia Evangelical Seminary Website

No, not that picture ... These pictures ...

Rome Discovers New Batch of Sins Under Miter

It seems our Roman Catholic friends are redefining sin for the benefit of a new list of "deadly sins". Now, rather than just being concerned about whether neighbor George is coveting somebody else's wife or if another has told tales out of school, we must now be concerned over environmentalism from a "mortal sin" perspective. This could be excused as a silly exercise but unfortunately there are a billion or so souls out there that listen to and regard these pronouncements as some edict from on high as in the heavenlies. Fortunately, most Christians understand that sin is a matter of faith or the lack thereof rather than the lack of compliance with the Pope's opinion on environmental matters. See the Fox News article here.

Kangaroo Attacked By Angry Observer

Ben (kangaroodort) over at Arminian Perspectives linked into a Calvinist "critique" ( Triablogue: Captain Kangaroo ) of one of his posts I thought was interesting. It is unfortunate that our Calvinist brother chose such a sanctimonious manner in addressing Ben's well thought out address. I am not sure I can take the time to respond in this spat but it is a sad reflection on the state of Calvinist apologetics to witness such a callous disregard for scriptural humility. It is my hope that we Arminians can reflect on this example and take the high road in our methods and seasoning lest we find ourselves measured by the same response given to brother Ben.

… A follow-up on An Opinion.

A participant on a discussion board asked the following inquiry regarding something I had posted here several days ago.

I was reading a bit of your blog and stumbled across this in the first few entries...

Over these same several years I have also noted an entitlement attitude among Calvinists meaning they have staked out the position that they are the bastion of truth and take an offensive posture with regard to non-Calvinists. Many souls who disagree with Calvinist doctrine are "forced" to defend their non-Calvinist beliefs to a minority sect in Christendom of whom most Christians reject with regard to their unique doctrine. This situation should be reversed and it should be the Calvinist who must convince and defend his doctrines to the overwhelming body of Christ who see no comfort or truth in much of these doctrines. In other words, Calvinists do not get and do not deserve a free ride in Christendom with regard to what they insist is the truth. They are to be put under the spotlight, on the defensive and insisted upon to make a convincing case for their doctrines rather than continuously attack the doctrines of much of the body of Christ.

Can you explain what you mean further? Are you saying they have an "elitist" attitude?....Because I beg to differ. I can give you an example of what happened to me on an Arminian board. It wasn't pretty...and this was from people who claimed to be Christians.

And was much of the body of Christ Arminian in the 1500's?

Also, can you show that with people who UNDERSTAND both of these theologies THOROUGHLY, they believe "the Arminian way?" I find it telling that in my thread "Used to be" that it overwhelmingly went from Arminian to Calvinist, and not the other way around.

My reply on that board was as follows.

Thank you for your inquiry. The thought I am conveying through the use of "entitlement" is one of historical preeminence within the Protestant tradition. Calvinist apologetics begin from a perspective that assumes not an elitist view (although that could be shown to be a significant problem among several internet based Calvinist ministries) but from an historical Protestant or Evangelical outlook. The term "Reformed" for example has been co opted by Calvinists to represent Calvinistic dogmas. The phrase "doctrines of Grace" has been high jacked from the ecumenical body of Christ which itself embraces scriptural doctrines of grace and instead is used to represent unique and particular doctrines not adhered to by the significant majority of Christians. The Calvinist faith has a long and storied history and has played a fundamental role in taking evangelical Christianity away from and freeing from the influence and stifling practices of it's Roman predecessors. Early Calvinists and other Reformers deserve much credit for this and it should not be overlooked. However, this is not a license to project absolutism in the body yet Calvinism claims this for itself and views those who differ within the Protestant tradition to have strayed from the foundation of truth as defined by it's particular doctrines. Instead, I maintain Calvinism must defend itself and be denied preeminence if only because most Christians do not identify nor accept it's doctrines.

As to how much of the body of Christ was Arminian in the 16th century, I would answer that much of the body of Christ was not Calvinist in that age. Arminian pertains to a particular view established in response to what we regard as improper doctrine in the Calvinist camp. I would further address that inquiry by asking how much of the body of Christ was Calvinist in the 15th century and how much is Calvinist today?

With regard to your thread, I may have misread it as I thought you were asking Calvinists in particular and as such I refrained from addressing your central inquiry. I hold strongly to the opinion that Calvinism has to be taught from a systematic viewpoint rather than gained from reading the scriptures. Now I realize that many Calvinists will disagree with that opinion but I think it is sustainable by examining the arguments and language employed by Calvinists (particularly here in this internet media).

I hope that helped address your inquiry.

Blessings in Christ

Trav

What is This New Perspective Thing?

I noticed a comment on one of the discussion boards concerning the "New Perspectives of Paul", in particular the writings of N.T. Wright. I have not studied a great deal on this matter however I have dabble enough into it to have serious questions. In any event, I thought it might be profitable to gain some direct insight from the writings of N.T. Wright himself in order to approach the matter with an open ear to the issue. There tends to be an amazing degree of internal bias in the church regarding this issue and I have determined myself to not take another man's word on these matters, instead examining the issue and a myriad of writings. The following is the opening of an address Mr. Wright made in a 2003 conference.

New Perspectives on Paul

N. T. Wright, Bishop of Durham

Introduction

I am grateful for the invitation to this conference, and for the sensitive way in which the organizers responded to my comments on the initial outline of the programme. I am aware that fresh interpretations of Paul, including my own, have caused controversy in evangelical circles, and particularly reformed circles. My own name has been linked with proposals which have been variously dismissed, scorned, vilified and anathematized. Having heard the papers yesterday morning and afternoon I suggested to David Searle that I should take two hours not one to say what needs to be said just now; but when I heard Tony Lane last night I realized I would need, like Cardinal Seripando at Trent, two days to establish my own orthodoxy. We shall see.

There are several different agendas coming together at this point. The issue is sometimes treated as a variation on old modernist controversies, at other times as a clash between a Christian absolutism and a religious relativism, and at other times as a variation on a perceived protestant/catholic divide (or even a high-church/low-church divide), with the so-called new perspective focusing on ecclesiology rather than soteriology and being condemned for so doing. And that's just the beginning. From time to time correspondents draw my attention to various websites on which you can find scathing denunciations of me for abandoning traditional protestant orthodoxy and puzzled rejoinders from people who have studied my work and know that I'm not saying what many of my critics say I'm saying. Go to amazon.com and look at the comments which anonymous correspondents have appended to some of my books.

Faced with that kind of problem, it would take a whole book to unpick the strands, to disentangle them from other issues, to explain what the so-called New Perspective is and isn't, and to argue exegetically step by step for a particular reading of Paul. Clearly I can't do that here. What I shall do instead is to make two opening remarks about my aim and method on the one hand and the problem of the New Perspective on the other, and then to attempt once more to say briefly what I think needs to be said about Paul and justification, sharpening up the issues here and there.

First, as to aim and method. When I began research on Paul, thirty years ago this autumn, my aim was to understand Paul in general and Romans in particular better than I had done before, as part of my heartfelt and lifelong commitment to scripture, and to the sola scriptura principle, believing that the better the church understands and lives by scripture the better its worship, preaching and common life will be. I was conscious of thereby standing methodologically in the tradition of the reformers, for whom exegesis was the lifeblood of the church, and who believed that scripture should stand over against all human traditions. I have not changed this aim and this method, nor do I intend to. Indeed, the present controversy, from my own point of view, often appears to me in terms of a battle for the Reformers' aims and methods – going back to scripture over against all human tradition – against some of their theological positions (and, equally, those of their opponents, since I believe that often both sides were operating with mistaken understandings of Paul). I believe that Luther, Calvin, and many of the others would tell us to read scripture afresh, with all the tools available to us – which is after all what they did – and to treat their own doctrinal conclusions as important but not as important as scripture itself. That is what I have tried to do, and I believe I am honoring them thereby.

The full text of this address can be found here.

Our Words or Lack of Words Do Haunt Us

Have you wondered what significance a man's last words have? I cannot say that I have an answer to that question and here in this frenzied internet environment, our words can sometimes haunt us for their lack of reflection amidst this two dimensional simplistic realm. We cannot read the nuances private to a man's thoughts and we certainly cannot know a man's heart. In this scarred world of internet apologetics, we commit ourselves to what we fancy without knowing what the day will bring. One certainty pervades our very existence; The LORD knows the very number of our hairs and the days and minutes of our lives. For that reason alone our words should be carefully measured and our opinions kept as opinions and not dogmatic declarations. I have battled with a number of souls over these years in this world we log onto. For most of those battles, we picked up our marbles and returned to our "other" reality nonetheless for wear knowing each openly embraces Jesus Christ. Then there are those few souls who part with enmity of sorts against the other or a whole class of others having made judgments that were questionable. Of course we return to the fray and we make our points and our counterpoints until … there is no point or counterpoint or even a hand to guide one's thoughts to the page however ill advised those thoughts might be.

A man died on Wednesday and I cannot say that I knew him other than to state I did not like him. I cared nothing for his rhetoric, his ill advised opinions cast as certainties and his embrace of a sectarian schism in place of the truth. Even still he declared Jesus Christ as his savior and in spite of his rejection of the faith I and millions of others share, an Arminian faith, I kept him in mind as a brother in Christ. His last post on CARM was the following:

Arminianism is the antithesis of the gospel … Yeah...I believe that unregenerate man's religion is arminian or some form of arminianism. It is a self righteous religion just as all other religions of the world. Arminianism is the antithesis of the gospel. I know most would disagree with me, however most unbelievers would. – "Nicholas Heath"

My last post to him was a blank sheet. I did not bless him and that is to my discredit.

A Great Big Tree!

This is a great site for those looking to explore the denominational tree of their particular church background. It is amazing how many branches we have in this relationship called Christianity. Click on the expanded tree of our Methodist faith to enlarge the chart.

http://www.thearda.com/Denoms/Families/trees.asp

An Opinion

After several years of challenging Calvinists on various internet forums, I have come to a conclusion that I think is irrefutable. Calvinism suffers from a plethora of neophytes who having garnered a year or two of Calvinist “experience” present themselves ready to slay the Arminian dragon. Unfortunately, they seem to lack the ability to step beyond rhetoric and empty polemics all the while constructing and re-constructing the same tired straw men that have been refuted time and time again. Now this dilemma is not entirely the fault of these neophytes. They have been schooled in this purpose and encouraged by the rhetoric of their mentors, most of whom are internet based or associated with internet-active ministries. I think it is becoming clear after 450 years of practice that one of the essential doctrines of Calvinism is opposition to anything not Calvinistic. Of course, polemics are engaged on all sides of these issues and certainly by myself however I think it would be accurate to state that the Arminian camp (with some exceptions) has not built it’s opposition to TULIP on rhetoric and polemical arguments. We see clear contradictions in the scriptures if the Calvinist paradigm is to be accepted.

Over these same several years I have also noted an entitlement attitude among Calvinists meaning they have staked out the position that they are the bastion of truth and take an offensive posture with regard to non-Calvinists. Many souls who disagree with Calvinist doctrine are “forced” to defend their non-Calvinist beliefs to a minority sect in Christendom of whom most Christians reject with regard to their unique doctrine. This situation should be reversed and it should be the Calvinist who must convince and defend his doctrines to the overwhelming body of Christ who see no comfort or truth in much of these doctrines. In other words, Calvinists do not get and do not deserve a free ride in Christendom with regard to what they insist is the truth. They are to be put under the spotlight, on the defensive and insisted upon to make a convincing case for their doctrines rather than continuously attack the doctrines of much of the body of Christ.

Taking Up My Cross

"Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me." (Mt 16:24 AV)

On one of the discussion boards I browse through, I noticed a comment by a hard determinist (extremist in my view) who made a bold statement regarding this passage. He indicated that Arminians use this verse to somehow justify a free will mindset focused on doing good works. The comment struck me as uniquely ignorant of how Arminians and most of the body of Christ view this passage. Of course there are variations upon this theme and differences in how the verse should be applied to us however I have never conversed with a fellow Arminian who viewed the passage as focused on works born out of our "free will".

I have been churched with the understanding that to deny oneself is to deny the flesh or the ways of the world or perhaps our own notions of what is good and pleasing to the LORD. Upon denying self, we embrace Christ and Him crucified, hence the cross reference made by Christ. We essentially become sacrificed to what is good and Holy, that being Jesus.

John Wesley offered the following comment on this verse in his Explanatory Notes.

If any man be willing to come after me - None is forced; but if any will be a Christian, it must be on these terms, Let him deny himself, and take up his cross - A rule that can never be too much observed: let him in all things deny his own will, however pleasing, and do the will of God, however painful. Should we not consider all crosses, all things grievous to flesh and blood, as what they really are, as opportunities of embracing God's will at the expense of our own? And consequently as so many steps by which we may advance toward perfection? We should make a swift progress in the spiritual life, if we were faithful in this practice. Crosses are so frequent, that whoever makes advantage of them, will soon be a great gainer. Great crosses are occasions of great improvement: and the little ones, which come daily, and even hourly, make up in number what they want in weight. We may in these daily and hourly crosses make effectual oblations of our will to God; which oblations, so frequently repeated, will soon amount to a great sum. Let us remember then (what can never be sufficiently inculcated) that God is the author of all events: that none is so small or inconsiderable, as to escape his notice and direction. Every event therefore declares to us the will of God, to which thus declared we should heartily submit. We should renounce our own to embrace it; we should approve and choose what his choice warrants as best for us. Herein should we exercise ourselves continually; this should be our practice all the day long. We should in humility accept the little crosses that are dispensed to us, as those that best suit our weakness. Let us bear these little things, at least for God's sake, and prefer his will to our own in matters of so small importance. And his goodness will accept these mean oblations; for he despiseth not the day of small things.

Christian Fatalism - Part I

“Jesus said unto him, Let the dead bury their dead: but go thou and preach the kingdom of God.” (Lu 9:60 AV)

For the past 2,000 years Christians have stepped into this world having been liberated from the shackles of sinful desires and preached the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Souls have heard the message and many have turned from the pleasures of a season to an eternal life in Christ Jesus. Many more have refused and stayed upon their path of sin and death oblivious to the consequences of their choices. Regardless of those outcomes, the faithful servant of Jesus, obedient to the commission of Christ, has engaged the Gospel, presented it, preached it, declared it, promoted it and laid it out so that the power of God through His Word will bring salvation to men.

"For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God." (1Co 1:18 AV)

How could any of us have found the peace and joy of abiding in Christ if the preacher had not preached? Is this not a matter of life and death so that if one soul called to spread His Word should sit on his hands, men would perish? In the Old Testament Prophets, The LORD charged Ezekiel with the responsibilities of His watchman, one who declares and warns His people. Should the watchman sit still and not voice his responsibilities, the scriptures tell us that the blood of the people shall be upon his hands (Ezekiel 33). That is a sobering thought with regard to our responsibilities in this world. It also clearly establishes the means by which the LORD works with men in a manner our Calvinist brethren derisively refer to as synergism. The Apostle Paul exhorts the brethren along similar lines in the following passage.

"For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? So then faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." (Ro 10:12-17 AV)

I have been pursuing this line of thought on the CARM discussion boards recently with the premise being the preaching of the Gospel is essential to salvation. At the same time if this Gospel is not preached, men will perish. I do not think most rational Calvinists would oppose these notions but there is more to this inquiry. What happens if one is disobedient to the commission to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ? From the Calvinist perspective of determinism, all those whom the LORD has elected from before the foundations of the world will be saved otherwise the LORD's decree will fail, an impossibility. Assuming this Calvinist position is reasonably stated, it demands an examination. If one disobeys the commission to preach His Word yet elect souls are saved nonetheless, can this determinism be defined as anything other than theistic fatalism? Many Calvinists (hyper-Calvinist souls excluded) reject the idea that their beliefs are fatalist claiming instead that the LORD's predestination of all things does not nullify man's responsibility for what the LORD has predestined. Aside from the conflict such a statement presents with regard to predestination vs. willful choice, it does not address how souls are saved aside from the preaching of the Gospel unless theistic fatalism is embraced rather than held at distance.

Now, from the Arminian perspective, there is no conflict because it is readily accepted that souls are saved through the preaching of the Gospel and souls perish when the Gospel is silenced. This is why the commission to preach the Word of God is so solemn and essential. In the words of Jesus …

"Then saith he unto his disciples, The harvest truly [is] plenteous, but the labourers [are] few;" (Mt 9:37 AV)

I came across another interesting quiz this evening that "tests" theological worldviews. I tried taking the 63 question test without reading my biases into the questions. It came out much as expected being a Wesleyan Arminian although Reformed Evangelical came in second. The results and link to the site are below.

Quiz results:

What's your theological worldview?

You scored as a Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan

You are an evangelical in the Wesleyan tradition. You believe that God's grace enables you to choose to believe in him, even though you yourself are totally depraved. The gift of the Holy Spirit gives you assurance of your salvation, and he also enables you to live the life of obedience to which God has called us. You are influenced heavily by John Wesley and the Methodists.

Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan 82% Reformed Evangelical 68% Emergent/Postmodern 64% Neo orthodox 64% Fundamentalist 57% Charismatic/Pentecostal 39% Classical Liberal 36% Roman Catholic 21% Modern Liberal 11%

Take this quiz here

I popped back into an old haunt last night just to take a look around. I found Paltalk several years ago after the demise of Firetalk and a growing disgust with the text chat of AOL Online. The funny thing about Paltalk is that it was just as bad if not worse than the theological neophytes fueling so many "cock fights" on AOL but like so many of my fellow internet addicts, I hung around, an observer and occasional commentator. I never did have much to say but I sure typed a lot! Well, last night was the advent of an epiphany of sorts. It's still the same as when I left! Imagine that. Willy 162, the Calvinist character that "woke up saved" was still there with his theological "no slop" room and the poor souls who don't realize that Jesus is the LORD were still trying to entice room numbers in competition with the Universalist All Paths To Jesus Eternity folks who have their own revised bible consisting of three verses. It was too late in the evening for Matt Slick to be there telling listeners that he knew what he was talking about because he has a Masters degree from Westminster Seminary and you don't! There was no James White aka Dr. Oakley chastising people for suggesting he debate people who do not have the theological pedigree he enjoys even though he acquired his out of the seminary equivalent of a large box of CrackerJack. Yet, there were several familiar names I had long forgotten. There was still the "kick back" Christian room with many new names and a smattering of old familiar ones. I did not see Gina Dee around who was one of the sane voices nor Potters Freedom, a reasonable Reformed pastor. Most disappointing was that I did not see any sign of that old curmudgeon Promoe conducting one of his infamously absurd circuses parodying Oneness Pentecostalism or some giant straw man construction of Calvinist doctrine. After a few minutes, I clicked Paltalk off and went to bed. I might return but now that I've had a vision of what Paltalk is still like, it might be a while.

Edited to add: I did run across Promoe on Paltalk last night and he has tamed himself somewhat. I enjoyed the brief discussion and he was quite cordial towards me and I wish him nothing but blessings in Christ. 2/8/08

Who's Your Theological Daddy?

Now I've gone and done it. My next step is to go to Barnes & Nobles or Amazon and find a good read concerning Karl Barth. I must admit I have read next to nothing of the gentleman so I cannot speak for his theology however in taking this test I discovered that Barth must be my theological daddy of sorts. Now I generally do not take these kinds of exercises with any great seriousness but my curiosity is piqued. I wonder what I shall find. I ran across this test from a link on another wonderful blog located at Arminian Perspectives.

The results of my test?

Which theologian are you? You scored as a Karl Barth The daddy of 20th Century theology. You perceive liberal theology to be a disaster and so you insist that the revelation of Christ, not human experience, should be the starting point for all theology.

Karl Barth		93%
Anselm		87%
Martin Luther		80%
John Calvin		73%
Jonathan Edwards		67%
Friedrich Schleiermacher		53%
Charles Finney		40%
Augustine		33%
Jürgen Moltmann		27%
Paul Tillich		27%

Take this Test

Choosing to Obey and Irresistible Too?

As is often the case during my lunch break today I found myself exchanging questions with a Calvinist fellow over another never ending word game topic. For as long as I have been exploring the often sharp differences between Calvinists and Arminians I have been fascinated with the concept of choice. Not being a libertarian free will advocate, naturally I shy from the phrase free will if it is attached to the baggage of libertarian thought as it drags me uncomfortably close to Charles Finney's over stuffed and under supported armchair of Pelagian discomfort. In any event, the issue was about choice and the inevitable question "Does man make moral choices?" I have found that unless the person is a hard determinist of an extreme position, every Calvinist will answer in the affirmative, that men make choices particularly choosing to obey the Gospel (if they happen to be regenerated in the Calvinist sense). I think I asked the question "What are the choices that such men have?" to which the reply was "limited or "very limited". Aside from not being an answer to the question, it also revealed a mindset that is common when logic interferes with one's presuppositions. This person could not or would not allow himself to address the question. An answer to the question would have required at least a provision for an alternative. To choose "A", there must be at a minimum one alternative to decline otherwise it was not a choice. So I am left to ask my Calvinist friends "What is the alternative to choosing to obey the Gospel if you truly believe man chooses to do so?"

To be fair, I must state that I believe every man who chooses to obey the Gospel may also choose not to do so and most who hear the Word of God choose the latter. It is this truth that denies the doctrine of irresistible grace and presents the quandary Calvinists place themselves in when they state that men choose while at the same time affirm their doctrine of irresistible grace. The two thoughts are not compatible.

By Whose Stripes Ye Were Healed

"Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed." (1Pe 2:24 AV)

This wondrous statement carries such importance in our Christian lives that to understate it is to do an injustice to the faith we live. It was the passion of Christ that brought life to each of us, restoring our spiritually dead condition to that of a healed servant of God whose every thought should now turn to the things of God. We were healed of every spiritual affliction in that moment that faith brought us into the Kingdom of God. The Apostle Peter was teaching the saints through his epistle to endure and trust completely in what Christ had done for them. The particular verse above comes near the end of a passage encouraging obedience and humility toward whatever powers we find ourselves under all the while knowing that while we may suffer indignities as servants of Christ, we can be comforted in knowing that Jesus suffered worse and fully for our benefit. It was this suffering endured by Christ that healed us through the faith we have in Him.

Lately I have been heatedly engaged in a running dispute with a Calvinist fellow who has taken upon himself the disingenuous task of subjecting this passage as a support for the unique notion that Jesus performed the actual work of healing all elect souls at Calvary 2,000 years ago before any of us ever existed. Aside from the Gnostic inclinations of such a theory, the idea lends itself to the doctrine of a pre-existent soul or at a minimum a healing occurring in the past that is only effectively manifested when one is saved. Further, when pressed on the matter, identifying what specifically was healed at that time becomes a gymnastics exercise in illogic finally settling on "mystery" as the only answer that can be submitted. Of course this doctrine the fine gentleman is promoting is silly at best and heretical if carried to its logical end. We know what we were healed of when we were saved and there is no mystery in that knowledge. We know as well that the doctrine of a pre-existent soul has no scriptural basis except among the Mormon fellows and other various cultic entities. Now, I cannot state with clarity that the Calvinist with whom I was conversing endorses the pre-existence of the soul for the discussion meandered into a time and eternity exploration and the topic soon muddied into a tangled morass. In any event I am certain we will not see eye to eye on this matter and I have resolved to let the matter go between us. However, it may be profitable to formulate a proper Christian exposition on the passage to offer a sound Christian understanding. Suffice to state however that such a doctrine as employed by this fellow offers no legitimate support for his Limited Atonement position (that being the true motive for his eclectic manner).

Is Jesus Blood Wasted On Those Not Saved?

It has been some time since posting to this blog having abandoned it in a manner of speaking. Hopefully, I can make better use of the resource in the coming months. While perusing several threads on the Arminian-Calvinist board on CARM I came across a somewhat rhetorical question presented by one of the Calvinist participants. It was asked in response to an Arminian challenge to a posting related to limited atonement. These sorts of arguments are a routine occurrence on the board as are the standard rhetorical replies. However there was a response to the question that struck me as absolutely wonderful and I cannot get it out of the way without first offering some thoughts on the matter.

The question was "Is Jesus' blood wasted on those not saved?" This is not the first time I had seen the question asked nor will it be the last. I can think of several occurrences over the years where that question or one similar had been asked as if the question itself was a showstopper, a ringer if you will that is intended to bring to a grinding halt any intellectual challenge of one's opinion. Another participant answered the question with a question of his own. "How much of Jesus' blood was needed to save just you?" Now, Calvinists have long argued that if the atonement is not limited in some fashion, it must logically follow that Jesus either failed in his mission or some aspect of His finished work was wasted on those not intended to benefit from that work. The initial question was an extension of that common argument. Yet, by turning the question around, the premise of the original inquirer is stripped of any importance. How is a single drop of Christ blood wasted if it is applied to you and I?

The clear answer to the second question is "all of it". Yes, all of Jesus Christ's blood was needed to save just one single soul without a single drop of it going to waste. Whether for one or one hundred million souls, every single ounce or drop of the shed blood of the Lamb of God was put to a perfecting use. Not a single spec of His poured out life left His body without being applied for the benefit of mankind. Now, we can argue limited atonement vs. unlimited atonement until the second advent of Christ and I am sure we will however whether unlimited or not, the blood of Christ is not wasted under either opinion.

This is often the case with rhetorical devices employed against rational discourse. Such questions make for a good sound bite in a debate format but as the reply demonstrated they fall just as quickly and loudly as when uttered.