Monday, May 17, 2010

The Proper Ergun Caner Inquiry

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

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

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

Sunday, May 16, 2010


The Jimmy White of Reformed Apologetics

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

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

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

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

Saturday, May 15, 2010

The Biblical Doctrine of Grace for Everybody Else

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

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

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

An Atonement for All the World

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Friday, May 14, 2010

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

What is Orthodox in One Mind is Heterodox to Most

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

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

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

Thursday, May 13, 2010

Some Thoughts on Heterodoxy

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

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

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

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

Saturday, May 08, 2010

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

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

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

Wednesday, May 05, 2010

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

Friday, April 30, 2010

A Serious Resource for the Study of Arminius and Limborch

Dr. John Mark Hicks has made available his dissertation entitled The Theology of Grace in the Thought of Jacobus Arminius and Philip van Limborch: A Study in the Development of Seventeenth Century Dutch Arminianism.
While not published in book form at this time, the dissertation has been cited academically, notably in Dr. Roger Olson's Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities. I will certainly have this on my reading list for the coming weeks.

Censored by a Triabloke … drat, what will I ever do?

I generally avoid wasting bandwidth at a couple of internet sites run by some of the knuckleheaded extreme Calvinists out there. Marc Carpenter's "Outside The Camp" craziness and the Triabloke blogspot site run by a guy named Hays are a couple of them. Occasionally I will browse and toy with a response to a comment but I generally do so with fairly low expectations of receiving anything of merit to note. I jumped into the comment section of the latter site to reply to an inquiry made by a poor visitor who seemed unaware of what lurked in the Triabloke bushes.

He wrote:

Is there any mystery to the relationship between God's sovereignty and human action?
As you know, W.L. Craig cited Turretin to show that Reformed theologians are "self-confessedly left with a mystery." When I read your material, I get the impression that you don't think there is any mystery involved.

I replied with the following:

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

I guess it was too much to throw at the poor soul because Hays censored my remark to avoid giving him that kind of dangerous information. It's too bad the guy who made the inquiry didn't have an email or blog contact. I would have avoided the post.

Wednesday, April 28, 2010

Semper Reformanda! My Arminian Fellows

Thinking of this phrase earlier, I wondered how many Google hits I could find with this sedate phrase. I came up with 66,900, with safe search on obviously to keep the Triabloke bloggers at bay. At least the first two or three pages were mostly hardcore Calvinist websites obviously pleased to mouth a phrase few of them have paused to consider. Always reforming is the catch phrase or more historically, Ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda loosely translated as the church reformed, always reforming. I can understand Luther's purpose and his mindset that we should always have reform in mind when dealing with the doctrines of the church to guard against ingrained error. I have never understood the Calvinist entrenchment of their dogmatic instruction as anything to be held up as semper reformanda. If anything could be held to be consistent and accurate to the intent of the phrase, it would be Arminius and his challenge of what he demonstrated to be gross error and deviation from simple scriptural truths. Always examining scripture and reforming oneself from the poorly devised doctrines that call for review, the true Reformation minded soul should be open to examination, receptive to clearly expressed scriptural truths, averse to antinomic conclusions. If anything at all, the Arminian can proclaim Semper Reformanda and do so with clearer conviction than the Calvinist who never budges from long rebutted dogma. For that matter we might reclaim the phrase Doctrines of Grace and give it proper due.

Wednesday, April 21, 2010

Some Interesting Links to Keep Handy Regarding the Orthodoxy of Libertarian Free Will vs. Calvinist Determinism

Arminian Chronicles provides an interesting collection of quotes of the Early Church Fathers supporting the orthodoxy of libertarian free will.

Kevin Jackson of the Wesleyan Arminian blog offered a link of ECF quotes providing much the same as Dan at Arminian Chronicles.

The following offers another collection of quotes.

http://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=32378&forum=34

http://evangelicalarminians.org/node/128

Monday, April 12, 2010

Oh, How the World Hates Christ and His Disciples

"If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before [it hated] you. If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you. Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also. But all these things will they do unto you for my name's sake, because they know not him that sent me. If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloke for their sin. He that hateth me hateth my Father also. If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father. But [this cometh to pass], that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause. But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, [even] the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me: And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning. These things have I spoken unto you, that ye should not be offended. They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service. And these things will they do unto you, because they have not known the Father, nor me. But these things have I told you, that when the time shall come, ye may remember that I told you of them. And these things I said not unto you at the beginning, because I was with you." (Joh 15:18-16:4 AV)

Of course we should not be surprised but at times the vitriolic spite is shocking. Pray for those who hold you in contempt.

Signs and Wonders … A Quandary for the Neo-Calvinist

"And it came to pass, as Peter passed throughout all [quarters], he came down also to the saints which dwelt at Lydda. And there he found a certain man named Æneas, which had kept his bed eight years, and was sick of the palsy. And Peter said unto him, Æneas, Jesus Christ maketh thee whole: arise, and make thy bed. And he arose immediately. And all that dwelt at Lydda and Saron saw him, and turned to the Lord." (Ac 9:32-35 AV)

Let's marry that to this …

"Then said Jesus unto him, Except ye see signs and wonders, ye will not believe." (John 4:48 AV)

How is it that people can come to believe and turn to the LORD through the witness of signs and wonders? I suppose it is much the same as knowing that the power of God unto salvation is found through the Gospel of Jesus Christ (Rom 1:16). Our Calvinist fellows would have us believe that salvation is through some caricature of predestinated election independent of any response on the part of men and women yet here we see men and women witnessing miracles and believing because of it. How do Calvinists explain themselves to the children of God?

(Thanks to Richard Coords for the thought on this subject)

Sunday, April 11, 2010

An Outline of the FACTS of Arminianism vs. the TULIP of Calvinism

The Society of Evangelical Arminians provides this wonderful comparison of the facts of Christianity as most Christians understand them with the dogma derived from the machinations of Calvinism's Synod of Dordt. Dr. Brian Abasciano and Martin Glynn provide the comparison on the SEA website.

Sunday, January 03, 2010

Arminius on Grace

The following comments taken from Arminius' Sentiments touch not only on his defining of grace but upon the full fallen state of man, prevenient or preventing grace and the resistibility of God's grace.

THE GRACE OF GOD

In reference to Divine Grace, I believe,

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

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

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

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


 

Thursday, December 31, 2009

Francis Asbury

The following excerpt is taken from Methodist Heroes of Other Days by Samuel Gardiner Ayres, first published in 1916. The electronic version of this work has been produced by the Holiness Data Ministry and is represented by the Wesley Center Online. The entire work can be read there or purchased in CD format.


 

Chapter 1

FRANCIS ASBURY THE TRIUMPHANT

An English lad, whose principal "foible" was a love of play, and whose young apprentice manhood was pure and good, showed no particular sign that he was to act the great part which he did in later life. When but a mere lad he began to preach in England. He was not as closely attentive to his duties as he should have been, as is witnessed by a letter of reprimand written to him, and still preserved.

When only a little past twenty-six years of age he voluntarily left his native land and came to America and became a true American. From then on to the end of his career his was a life filled with pain and suffering. No year passed without his having a hurt or ailment of some sort. Sometimes he had to be lifted on and off his horse and put to bed like a child. At other times, with little strength to spare, he sat in his chair and preached to a small or a large congregation. He addressed a dozen or five thousand, as opportunity offered.

In 1772 Wesley appointed this handicapped young man of twenty-seven the superintendent of all the churches in America. He was only one of nine preachers, and there were only three hundred and sixteen members in all the American colonies, and so it did not seem such a great undertaking; but before John Wesley died he became almost jealous of Francis Asbury, so great had the work grown to be. When Francis Asbury died there were no less than six hundred preachers and two hundred and fourteen thousand members.

We have mentioned the personal physical hindrances which were always a thorn in the flesh. To these we must add the times of discouragement, which must come to every sick man. He had his sleepless nights over the state of the church, the debt on Cokesbury College, the indifference of the people, and the backslidden state of many members. He toiled over bad roads in winter, cold and heat, snow and rain, through swamps and over mountains, making the rounds of the Conferences and charges. At the beginning his tours extended to two thousand miles a year, and later they exceeded five thousand miles and even reached six thousand miles in eight months. He visited the South thirty times in thirty-one years. In some sections the houses were filthy and the fare poor. He shared the poverty of the people or enjoyed being entertained "like a President."

He and his companion frequently rode twenty-five, thirty, and even thirty-five miles in a day without food for man or beast. "I find it hard to ride eight or nine hours without any other nourishment but a little bread and tea," he remarks; but on one occasion he returns thanks over a handful of nuts, and on another over a crust of bread for two. He tells how he enjoyed some potato and bacon after a ride of twenty-seven miles without food. On one occasion the lunch was a peach pie. Of course he was tired. He records in his Journal: "Rest, rest, how sweet! Yet how often in labor I rest, and in rest labor!" After a hard ride of three days he records a poor time in preaching. He earned it. Sometimes he slept on the ground in the woods without even a tent over him, or, again, on the floor in a log cabin on a deerskin filled with fleas. He was glad when he had a bed, even if the snow or the rain came through the broken, leaking roof. He was sometimes obliged to associate with drunken and profane men. He was in dangers oft, yet he never ceased to do his duty, and his everlasting cry was for the souls of men, and no pain he had was so great as the heartache caused by the fall of a member of the flock.

His prayers as recorded in his Journal would make a book. One has a particularly pathetic note: "Lord, remember Francis Asbury in all his labors and afflictions." And who shall say that this prayer was not answered? So often he records his belief in a Divine Providence: "I can say hitherto the Lord hath helped us through deeps, deserts, dangers, and distresses. I have told but a small part of our labors and sufferings; let the great day of eternity reveal the rest." But this was only the setting for a life in which many hours were sweet and happy in praise and service: "O what sweetness I feel as I steal along through the solitary woods! I am sometimes ready to shout aloud and make all vocal with the praises of His grace who died, and lives and intercedes for me." "I have suffered much -- I am pained and sore, and poor Jane stumbled so often! but my limbs and my soul are safe. Glory! Glory!" "The prospects of doing good are glorious." "I groan one minute with pain, and shout glory the next." "The Lord was my helper and my mind was in peace." "I began and ended the day with God." There are other references, which might be quoted, showing the sweetness of his soul. All the time he was seeking the best and highest experience, and he finally found it in 1803: "My mind is in a great calm after the tumult of the Baltimore Conference . . . in addition to the charge of the superintendency to feel and to live in perfect love."

Only the year before his translation he said: "My mind enjoys great peace, and divine consolation. My health is better, but whether health, life, or death, good is the will of the Lord. I will trust him and will praise him. He is the strength of my heart, and my portion forever. Glory! Glory! Glory!" And this he said when he resigned to younger hands the burdens of his work, but he ceased not to toil until the last. He preached his last sermon in Richmond, Virginia, March 24, 1816, from the text: "For he will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth." He sat on a table prepared for him and preached for nearly an hour "with much feeling." He was carried from the church to his carriage. It is not the end of his journey, for he travels Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday. He came to the home of Mr. George Arnold and rested on Saturday, and on Sunday, the 31st day of March, 1816, he took his last long journey to the land of rest.

His legacy was a great one -- a life filled with toil and sacrifice, not devoid of faults, 'tis true, but ever striving for the best. He traveled about one hundred and fifty thousand miles in the thirty-seven years of his life as bishop, preached more than nineteen thousand times, ordained, appointed, and loved one thousand ministers, served four generations of laymen, winning fathers and mothers, sons and daughters, grandchildren and great-grandchildren for the kingdom of God. The number he won for the kingdom can never be told. He was the real founder of the Methodist Episcopal Church of America, and to him and his care it owes more than we can record. His triumph never ends.


I'm not sure what to make of this item. Rick Warren and his Saddleback Church in Orange County, California (one of the richest places in the world) is coming up short this year, $900 thousand short to be more accurate. Apparently giving is down among affluent church goers and the church went on a fund raising effort over the past couple days to meet the shortfall. I don't know yet how they made out but I have to ask myself a question. What in the world does a pastor do with all that money? Something strikes me as being a disconnect here. Churches used to serve a community or a neighborhood of like minded believers. One of the more precious places I remember from years ago was the small white frame church down the road that served as a backdrop for not just Sunday services but for community meetings, volunteer efforts and a host of fellowship activities geared for the service of Christ. There was community, there was personal acknowledgement. There was a sense of purpose that money cannot purchase. What has happened to the pastor and his church that it cannot exist except for being wallowed up in "big money"?

Rick Warren Looks For a Lot of Money By Year End

Update: It looks like the Mega Church might just be able to pull it off. The world awaits ...

Can they?

Growing Strong Opposition to Public Funding of Abortion

A contentious issue of abortion can always be expected to cause stirs among the American public but with the recent health care funding debate across the land, the funding of abortion is back at center stage. Contrary to liberal proclamations of support, a new poll by the Quinnipiac University shows strong opposition to any public funding. 72% of Americans are opposed to any public funding of abortion by the federal government. This is a good sign in the fight for the rights of the unborn.

See the CNSNews.com story here.

Wednesday, December 30, 2009

Sheep stealing …

God so loved a very few of His creation and knowing every man is totally corrupt He would unconditionally elect those few individuals to a certain salvation. Having already elected these few souls, He sent His own Son to die a death on the Cross at Calvary that would only be intended for those elect souls. Nobody else could ever benefit given God predestined the lost souls for the purpose of damnation. That atonement saves those elected to salvation and seals the condemnation of those predestined to damnation. This expressed grace of God cannot be resisted by those He elected nor can it be frustrated. For those whom God elected and Christ died for, they are dragged willingly into the Kingdom of God and persevere eternally. ... you sir might be one of those few that God loves.

Of course such a message cannot really be preached effectively because there is nothing of the LORD in it yet these thoughts comprise the Gospel for many Calvinists once they have been indoctrinated into their sect. Having been brought into the Kingdom via the Gospel preached by most in Christ, the new bought Christian soon falls prey to teachings that rub harshly against the grain of the very Gospel preached to them in the first place. I can't count the number of times I have heard or seen Calvinists claim to have been saved in an Arminian church setting but once they started to read their bibles they became Calvinists. Why is it that the LORD would see fit to bring souls into His Kingdom by the preaching and ministry of lovers of the LORD only to later through gnosis to reveal to them that the real truth lies down the road at the "other" church? I think it is merely the flesh of intellectualism that seduces souls away from their first love.

Friday, December 25, 2009

A Christmas Message From Our President (tongue in cheek)

Have a Merry Government-Regulated Christmas

Courtesy of Frank J. Fleming at Pajamas Media

The following is the transcript of the speech President Barack Obama gave for this holiday season.

My fellow Americans, as you spend time with your family this holiday season, I have an important proposal for you all to consider. Many of you like to celebrate Christmas. Children love to wake up Christmas morning and go see all the presents waiting under the tree. But what about the children who don't get any presents? What happens with them? The United States Marines have their Toys for Tots program but that just attacks the symptom. We need a real solution, and that means tackling what is at the heart of the problem: Santa Claus.

For too long, present-giving has been held hostage by the whims of this single man who is accountable to no one. Bearded, obese, and probably mentally unstable, Santa is someone we obviously don't want near our children. He's even somehow associated with known malcontent Jesus Christ (I'm not quite sure who he is, but I remember Jeremiah Wright mentioning him once or twice so I assume he has something to do with the creation of the AIDS virus).

Every year, Santa engages in some sort of domestic spying program, watching our children like a pedophile in wait, and he determines which children are "naughty" or "nice." His methods for determining this are unknown; we also can't know whether there is a racial disparity in these lists. He then makes his presents for the select few using non-union elf labor and comes to our neighborhoods in an unregistered sleigh pulled by disease-bearing caribou. Then Santa breaks into our houses and engages in his personal form of justice, leaving presents for the children he arbitrarily deems "good" and coal for the children he labels "bad." This is the worst form of vigilante justice — even worse than anything Batman would do — as it targets children.

Some would say we are helpless to fight the tyranny of Santa and must do nothing, lest he harms our kids; others say we must end Christmas and abolish all gift-giving. This is a false choice. We can have Christmas and presents, and we can be free of the judgmental madman known as Santa. What we need is a government takeover of the Christmas business.

Read the rest of this wonderful satire here.

My Fifty Second Christmas

Christmas this year in the Mallett household is a little different than in past years. We have focused on giving gifts to the grandchildren within the family. A couple of reasons drove this decision. Certainly financial reasons come into play as my wife and I have three of our adult children and our youngest grandchild living with us this season. We have also made a particular decision to try to downsize our lives financially and bring a greater simplicity to our days here. The second driver for this is really simple on my part. Christmas with all its commercial trappings appeals less and less to me. The television starts before Halloween in some cases. The Christmas exploitation runs strong to the point of nausea. While I didn't this year, my inclinations are moving more toward pulling my pots and pans together and putting my modest culinary interests to work for those in greater need. I am not one to make New Year's resolutions but if I were that might be my focus for 2010.

Christmas is not grounded in scripture but in tradition and perhaps it is time to establish new traditions. Our children are grown now. The grandchildren are still sure to receive plenty from Papa and Nana but something is missing for me. There isn't a sense of contribution that settles my soul. I look out on my front lawn and I see a blowup tall toy soldier, lots of lights, strands wrapped around a Palm. We are baking in the kitchen today which is a joy for me. Three more of our grandchildren arrive tomorrow and we will enjoy a family get together. Yet … I want to do something different for next year and I think I'll enjoy the preparation.

Wesley’s Eighty Sixth Christmas

Friday, December 25.--(Being Christmas Day.) We began the service in the new chapel at four o'clock, as usual; where I preached again in the evening, after having officiated in West Street at the common hour. Sunday, 27. I preached in St. Luke's, our parish church, in the afternoon, to a very numerous congregation on "The Spirit and the Bride say, Come" [Rev. 22:17]. So are the tables turned that I have now more invitations to preach in churches than I can accept. – December 25th, 1789 entry in John Wesley's Journal

Sunday, December 06, 2009

How Does A Christian Ever Justify Being Episcopalian?

The Episcopal Church seems to have driven another apostate nail into its side with the recent election of an openly homosexual woman to the position of assistant bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles. If confirmed this would be the second bishop in service with the Episcopal Church living in an outward and open reprobate lifestyle. While I have never had any interest in participating in this liberal and fallen organization, I have been curious to observe the parallels between this Anglican organization and the Presbyterian liberal factions noted most perversely among the PC-USA sect. I suppose it demonstrates that regardless of Calvinist or Arminian leanings, apostasy can gain a footing in any organization. Prayer for these souls is essential.

Episcopal Church Elects Second Homosexual Bishop

Wesley on the Creation of Man

John Wesley, when commenting on Gen 1:26-27, offers a well thought out discussion of what is entailed by the creation of man in the image of God. There are attributes, characteristics, that define us as something unique from the rest of creation. We are more than the sum of physical creation… in Wesley's words …


 

We have here the second part of the sixth day's work, the creation of man, which we are in a special manner concerned to take notice of. Observe,

  1. That man was made last of all the creatures, which was both an honour and a favour to him: an honour, for the creation was to advance from that which was less perfect, to that which was more so and a favour, for it was not fit he should be lodged in the palace designed for him, till it was completely fitted and furnished for his reception. Man, as soon as he was made, had the whole visible creation before him, both to contemplate, and to take the comfort of.
  2. That man's creation was a mere signal act of divine wisdom and power, than that of the other creatures. The narrative of it is introduced with solemnity, and a manifest distinction from the rest. Hitherto it had been said, Let there be light, and Let there be a firmament: but now the word of command is turned into a word of consultation, Let us make man - For whose sake the rest of the creatures were made. Man was to be a creature different from all that had been hitherto made. Flesh and spirit, heaven and earth must be put together in him, and he must be allied to both worlds. And therefore God himself not only undertakes to make, but is pleased so to express himself, as if he called a council to consider of the making of him; Let us make man - The three persons of the Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, consult about it, and concur in it; because man, when he was made, was to be dedicated and devoted to Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.
  3. That man was made in God's image, and after his likeness; two words to express the same thing. God's image upon man, consists,
  4. In his nature, not that of his body, for God has not a body, but that of his soul. The soul is a spirit, an intelligent, immortal spirit, an active spirit, herein resembling God, the Father of spirits, and the soul of the world.
  5. In his place and authority. Let us make man in our image, and let him have dominion. As he has the government of the inferior creatures, he is as it were God's representative on earth. Yet his government of himself by the freedom of his will, has in it more of God's image, than his government of the creatures.
  6. And chiefly in his purity and rectitude. God's image upon man consists in knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness, Ephesians 4:24; Col 3:10. He was upright, Ecclesiastes 7:29. He had an habitual conformity of all his natural powers to the whole will of God. His understanding saw divine things clearly, and there were no errors in his knowledge: his will complied readily and universally with the will of God; without reluctancy: his affections were all regular, and he had no inordinate appetites or passions: his thoughts were easily fixed to the best subjects, and there was no vanity or ungovernableness in them. And all the inferior powers were subject to the dictates of the superior. Thus holy, thus happy, were our first parents, in having the image of God upon them. But how art thou fallen, O son of the morning? How is this image of God upon man defaced! How small are the remains of it, and how great the ruins of it! The Lord renew it upon our souls by his sanctifying grace!
  7. That man was made male and female, and blessed with fruitfulness. He created him male and female, Adam and Eve: Adam first out of earth, and Eve out of his side. God made but one male and one female, that all the nations of men might know themselves to be made of one blood, descendants, from one common stock, and might thereby be induced to love one another. God having made them capable of transmitting the nature they had received, said to them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth - Here he gave them,
  8. A large inheritance; replenish the earth, in which God has set man to be the servant of his providence, in the government of the inferior creatures, and as it were the intelligence of this orb; to be likewise the collector of his praises in this lower world, and lastly, to be a probationer for a better state.
  9. A numerous lasting family to enjoy this inheritance; pronouncing a blessing upon them, in the virtue of which, their posterity should extend to the utmost corners of the earth, and continue to the utmost period of time.
  10. That God gave to man a dominion over the inferior creatures, over fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air - Though man provides for neither, he has power over both, much more over every living thing that moveth upon the earth - God designed hereby to put an honour upon man, that he might find himself the more strongly obliged to bring honour to his Maker.

Thursday, November 26, 2009





Washington, D.C.
October 3, 1863

By the President of the United States of America.

A Proclamation.

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

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

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

By the President: Abraham Lincoln

William H. Seward,
Secretary of State

Friday, November 20, 2009

The Holocaust of Ideas

These thoughts are going to carry me toward a different objective than I usually pursue. There is most often, if not nearly always, a theological pursuit, an exegetical notion, a contrasting sectarian idea that I seek out in this intimate space. At the moment however, I am piqued somewhat at the arrogance of false ideas, deliberate misrepresentations and the frustrating response of the typical worldly canard. We have each come out of this, some from a further reach than others, but each of us were at some time or another expert at the canard, the fraud perpetrated upon others in a desperate attempt to legitimize or present ourselves as meaningful in the discourse. Now nothing of this is surprising. In fact we know scripturally that the carnal mind is at enmity with God and who can craft the greatest deception than a mind at war? Wonderful … I now feel better having spewed my collective wisdom into the thimble.

What drove this to the page? I occasionally frequent a discussion board in the world, a world that is truly at war with God, with the nation, with sensible people of many persuasions. It is not generally a theological pursuit but at times the discussions lean toward the scriptural rebuttal. It is a natural event when the participants view faithful souls as "Holy Rollers", fundamentalist extremists, whacked out promoters of mythology. It is the nature of the unredeemed mind to cavort with foolishness. Obviously, the leftist-liberal with his Statist Fundamentalist mindset and a gross enmity toward God is not going to fathom the things of God. The spiritual things of God are all noise to him, nonsense and meaningless chatter. There is no understanding (Luke 24:45, Eph 1:18). Nonetheless, the unbeliever will quote Christ, pervert His words and attempt to turn Christ upon those who love Him and understand His teachings. Of course I know this going into the discussion yet it remains a frustrating experience to observe a lost, blaspheming soul heaping coals upon his own head especially in light of my own previous expertise at such.

The world is lost and it thinks itself well founded.

Thursday, November 19, 2009

An Inerrancy Resource …

Over the years I have not been a big fan of the term "inerrancy" regarding scripture preferring the use of "infallibility" as a better representative of the truth of scripture. The various arguments for and against inerrancy have not swayed my ground with regard to a full expression of the truths of scripture however the battle of the term and it's advocates and opponents has been on-going since Warfield first elevated the matter to church attention. Fundamentalism, as a political movement among various church groups, latched onto the inerrancy debate in the 19th century and has spawned several associated movements, in particular the King James Version Only adherents. The more extreme advocates of inerrancy tend to favor this latter group of believers while the polar opposites tend toward open theism and liberal excess.

I stumbled across this link on another site. It presents an interesting discussion and is a good reference for understanding some of the arguments and responses of both sides. In addition, the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy offers the modern background of this issue.

Tuesday, November 17, 2009

Something to Ponder

THERE are two extreme tendencies in the ministry. The one is to shut itself out from intercourse with the people. The monk, the hermit were illustrations of this; they shut themselves out from men to be more with God. They failed, of course. Our being with God is of use only as we expend its priceless benefits on men. This age, neither with preacher nor with people, is much intent on God. Our hankering is not that way. We shut ourselves to our study, we become students, bookworms, Bible worms, sermon makers, noted for literature, thought, and sermons; but the people and God, where are they? Out of heart, out of mind. Preachers who are great thinkers, great students must be the greatest of prayers, or else they will be the greatest of backsliders, heartless professionals, rationalistic, less than the least of preachers in God's estimate.

The other tendency is to thoroughly popularize the ministry. He is no longer God's man, but a man of affairs, of the people. He prays not, because his mission is to the people. If he can move the people, create an interest, a sensation in favor of religion, an interest in Church work -- he is satisfied. His personal relation to God is no factor in his work. Prayer has little or no place in his plans. The disaster and ruin of such a ministry cannot be computed by earthly arithmetic. What the preacher is in prayer to God, for himself, for his people, so is his power for real good to men, so is his true fruitfulness, his true fidelity to God, to man, for time, for eternity.
– E.M. Bounds

Thursday, October 01, 2009

All for Some and Some for All or Some Such …

I was browsing through a few articles earlier on the SEA site and came across a recent article looking at a few questions and troublesome scriptural passages that some of our Reformed brethren seem to struggle with. The entire piece is certainly worth running through but one intriguing question caught my attention. How do the Reformed explain 1 Tim 2:4? My experience has been that the Calvinist will defer "all men to be saved" to mean all classes of men yet the suggestion of classes does not seem to be suggested at all in the full context of the passage. When we examine the full context of Paul's instruction to Timothy it is notable that all men or simply all is a common theme from verses 1 through 8. Examining this further we see an exhortation by Paul for the benefit of all men and he focuses even on a subset of men that certainly are not all elect as we know there are ruthless rulers and authoritarians in our day as in his. He follows this with the clear instruction that God desires to see all men saved. Is there any rhyme or reason why the all men of God's desire should be any less than the all men of Paul's supplication? Let's look at the passage from the KJV.

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

One common objection I encounter with the statement "Who will have all men to be saved" is the rejoinder "Why are all men not saved if God will have them all saved?" I have heard this from the Universalists as well even though I make no connection between Calvinists and Universalists for their own sakes. The reply to such a line of reasoning is found in the context of the whole passage. The phrase does not address what God is going to do but rather offers what God desires and in noting this we also can see the encompassing purpose of the exhortation, that being the vehicle of prayer and supplication. I think it is important to note in grasping this urgency of prayer and intercessions the last phrase of the passage, "without wrath and doubting". The Christian should never pray for the deliverance of souls in any measure of anger at the soul or with so much as a doubt his prayer could be useful. How can we doubt our Gospel message to the soul on the other end of our reach? Paul's intent was to preach, pray, exhort, and entreat to every soul never doubting they too could be reached for he stated God's very word as …

"Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth …"


 


 


 

Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Two Kinds of Lost Souls

In several recent interactions and observations I have noticed two basic types of souls on the road to perdition, those who encountering the witness of Christ harden themselves to their own innate condition and the other group whose conscience has been sufficiently pricked to be known as seekers. The seekers grasp humility as the hardened seem to know only contempt for that which convicts. We all interact with many of each and if my own experience is any indication, we have seen the hardened brought to a place of redemption while many of the seeker types remain on that poor path. Of course the opposite is true as well with many seekers finding themselves among Christ's elect. Now, from this Christian perspective, all are dealt some measure of grace, many are the beneficiaries of fervent prayer and others have known nothing but the devil's backhand from birth. I like to think that our upbringing and environment have a lot to do with how we approach and deal with conviction but I see a mix of both kinds of people no matter what environment I observe. It is food for thought for a later introspective examination.

Tuesday, September 29, 2009

I was informed recently that one of the blogs I link to in my profile contained an offensive slur. I do not know all the circumstances of that particular site but until it is resolved I have removed the link. For those who might have followed the link, please accept my apologies for not monitoring my links more frequently.

A Calvinist Ran Away This Morning

… and I don't think his folks are looking real hard for him. In a long winded discussion the other day with a young zealous Calvinist on the topic of being born again as an unfaithful sinner, he was confronted with a question that was severely discomforting to him, so much so he called me a fool and refused to answer. Neo-Calvinists, particularly the internet active variety along with several hardshell Calvinists, generally subscribe to the unscriptural notion that God regenerates wicked men, raising them in newness of life, without any evidence of faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ. Now anybody who has peeled the plastic wrapper off a bible and cracked it's spine can discover that we rise in newness of life after having been buried by baptism in Christ (Rom 6:4). We know that our spiritual life in Christ is by faith. We know that all the blessings of being a child of God, yes, even being the child, is by faith (Rom 1:17, Rom 5:2, Gal 3:26). Peter and John proclaimed what it is that brings strength and by implication a new life, that being gained through faith in His name (Acts 3:16)… I asked …

Is it your position you were buried by baptism in Christ as an unbeliever?

I was called a fool. Some things never change and that is most certainly true of His Holy Word …

"Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life." (Ro 6:3-4 AV)

Sunday, September 20, 2009

The Enabled Will of Cain

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

Do you suppose Cain didn't believe the LORD before he killed his brother? We don't know of the conversations the LORD had with Cain prior to this but we can surmise that the same covenant sacrifice offered by Abel was also the expectation of Adam, Eve and Cain as well. Abel pleased the LORD with his offering and if this was the way presented to fallen men then it is clear Cain could have pleased the LORD as well. In fact the admonishment the LORD gave to Cain following his offering of groceries makes it very clear that Cain had a choice to make, a choice he was well capable of making. There are some who do not realize that fallen man by the grace of God, in this case the very presence of God and His Holy voice, is what enables otherwise cast down creatures to do the things pleasing to God. I emphasize this point again: Cain had a capable choice and the LORD admonished him to make the right choice. In continuing on his chosen path of unrighteousness and rebellion, he became a murderer and was held accountable for it. Now, the question can be asked "was the LORD sincere in His admonishment of Cain"? Did He truly desire Cain to repent and turn to Him? Unless the LORD is a hypocrite and God forbid any serious thought ever be forwarded as such, we can only subscribe to the truth that God is sincere in everything he presents to men. Because of the righteousness of God, the inability to be a hypocrite, we can know that Cain of his will, enabled by the Grace of God, had a free choice and he turned to his native self in seeing God's pleasure with his brother and the displeasure the LORD had with his own offerings. Cain rejected God … God did not reject Cain.

Sunday, September 13, 2009

A Sketch of the Life of James Arminius

A SKETCH OF THE LIFE OF JAMES ARMINIUS

By W.R. Bagnall

The following is taken from The Works of James Arminius; James Nichols and W.R. Bagnall; Derby, Orton and Mulligan, 1853.

James Arminius was born in Oudewater, a small town near Utrecht in Holland, in the year 1560. His parents were respectable persons of the middle rank in life, his father being an ingenious mechanic, by trade a cutler. His family name was Herman, or, according to some, Harmen. As was usual with learned men of that period, who either latinized their own names, or substituted for them such Latin names as agreed most nearly in sound or in signification with them, he selected the name of the celebrated leader of the Germans in the early part of the first century. While Arminius was yet an infant, his father died, and he, with a brother and sister, was left to the care of his widowed mother. Theodore Aemilius, a clergyman, distinguished for piety and learning, then resided at Utrecht, and, becoming acquainted with the circumstances of the family, he charged himself with the education of the child. With this excellent man Arminius resided till his fifteenth year, when death deprived him of his patron. During this period he exhibited traits of uncommon genius, and was thoroughly taught in the elements of science, and particularly in the rudiments of the Latin and Greek languages. He was led to dedicate himself to the service of God, and became, though so young, exemplary for piety. About this time, Rudolph Snellius, a native of Oudewater, then residing at Marpurg in Hessia, to which place he had retired from the tyranny of the Spaniards, and highly reputed for his learning, especially in mathematics and languages, visited his native land. Becoming acquainted with and interested in his young townsman, he invited him to go to Marpurg under his own patronage. Arminius accordingly accompanied him thither, but had been engaged in his studies at the University only a short time when the mournful intelligence reached him that his native town had been destroyed by the Spanish army. He returned to Holland, and found his worst fears realized in the information that his mother, brother and sister were among the victims of the indiscriminate slaughter, which had ensued on the capture of the town. He retraced his steps sadly to Marpurg, performing the whole journey on foot.

During the same year, 1575, the new Dutch University at Leyden was formed, under the auspices of William I, Prince of Orange. As soon as Arminius learned that the new institution had been opened for the admission of students, he at once prepared to return to Holland, and soon entered as a student at Leyden. He remained there six years, occupying the highest place in the estimation of his instructors, and of his fellow students. At the expiration of that period, in his twenty-second year, he was recommended to the municipal authorities of Amsterdam as a young man of the largest promise for future usefulness, and as especially worthy of their patronage. They at once assumed the expense of the completion of his academic studies, while Arminius, on his part, gave into their hands a written bond, by which he pledged himself to devote the remainder of his life, after his admission to holy orders, to the service of the church in that city, and to engage in no other work and in no other place without the special sanction of the Burgomasters.

He immediately went to Geneva, being attracted thither chiefly by the reputation of the celebrated Beza, who was then lecturing in that University. He remained there, however, but a short time, having given offense to some of the professors by defending Ramus and his system of dialectics in opposition to that of Aristotle. He now repaired to the University of Basle, and resided there a year, during a part of which, as was customary for undergraduates who had made the greatest proficiency, he delivered lectures on theological subjects out of the ordinary college course. By these and other exhibitions of his erudition, he acquired such reputation that, on the eve of his departure from Basle, the faculty of Theology in that University tendered him the title and degree of Doctor. This he modestly declined, alleging, as a reason, his youth. The feeling, which had been excited against him, in the University of Geneva, on account of his adherence to the philosophy of Ramus, having, to a considerable degree, subsided, he now returned to that University, and remained there three years, engaged in the study of divinity. About the end of this period, several of his young countrymen, who had also been pursuing their studies at Geneva, departed on a tour through Italy, and Arminius determined to make a similar excursion. He was particularly inclined to this by a desire to hear James Zabarella, at that time highly distinguished as Professor of Philosophy in the University of Padua. He remained at Padua a short time, and also visited Rome and some other places in Italy. This tour was of considerable advantage to him, as it afforded him an opportunity to become acquainted, by personal observation, with "the mystery of iniquity" and may account for the zeal and strenuousness with which he afterwards opposed many of the doctrines and assumptions of the papacy. It was, however, temporarily to his disadvantage as he incurred the displeasure of his patrons, the Senate of Amsterdam. This displeasure probably originated in, it was certainly increased by the efforts of certain mischievous persons, who grievously misrepresented his motives and conduct in visiting Italy, and it was readily removed by the statements of Arminius on his return to Holland, which occurred in the autumn of 1587. In the beginning of the following year, after an examination before the Amsterdam Classis, he was licensed to preach, and by the request of the authorities of the church, he began his public ministry in that city. His efforts in the pulpit were received with so much favor, that he was unanimously called to the pastorate of the Dutch church in Amsterdam, and was ordained on the eleventh of August, 1588. Circumstances occurred during the next year, which, in their result, exerted much influence on the doctrinal views of Arminius, and led, in the end, to his adoption of the system which bears his name. Coornhert, a deeply pious man, and one who had rendered important services to his country and the Reformation at the risk of his life, had in the year 1578, in a discussion with two Calvinistic ministers of Delft, in a masterly and popular manner, assailed the peculiar views of Calvin on Predestination, Justification, and the punishment of heretics by death. He afterwards published his views and advocated a theory substantially the same with that afterwards known as the Arminian theory, though some of his phraseology was not sufficiently guarded. His pamphlet was answered in 1589, by the ministers of Delft, but instead of defending the supralapsarian view of Calvin and Beza, which had been Coornhert's particular object of attack, they presented and defended the lower or sublapsarian views, and assailed the theory of Calvin and Beza. The pamphlet of the Delft ministers was transmitted by Martin Lydius, professor at Franeker, to Arminius, with the request that he would defend his former preceptor. At the same time, the ecclesiastical senate of Amsterdam requested him to expose and refute the errors of Coornhert. He at once commenced the work, but on accurately weighing the arguments in favor of the supralapsarian and sublapsarian views, he was at first inclined, instead of refuting, to embrace the latter. Continuing his researches, he betook himself to the most diligent study of the Scriptures, and carefully compared with them the writings of the early Fathers, and of later divines. The result of this investigation was his adoption of the particular theory of Predestination which bears his name. At first, for the sake of peace, he was very guarded in his expressions, and avoided special reference to the subject, but soon, becoming satisfied that such a course was inconsistent with his duty as a professed teacher of religion, he began modestly to testify his dissent from the received errors, especially in his occasional discourses on such passages of Scripture as obviously required an interpretation in accordance with his enlarged views of the Divine economy in the salvation of sinners. This became a settled practice with him in 1590.

Having been settled more than two years in the ministry at Amsterdam, he was united in marriage to a young lady of great accomplishments and eminent piety, to whom, for some time previously, he had paid his addresses. Her name was Elizabeth Real. Her father, Laurence Jacobson Real, was a judge and senator of Amsterdam, whose name is immortalized in the Dutch annals of that period, for the decided part which he took in promoting the Reformation in the Low Countries, often, during the Spanish tyranny, at the risk of his property and life. With this lady, to whom he was married on the sixteenth of September, 1590, Arminius enjoyed uninterrupted and enviable domestic felicity. Their children were seven sons and two daughters, all of whom died in the flower of their youth, except Laurence, who became a merchant in Amsterdam, and Daniel, who gained the highest reputation in the profession of medicine. The next thirteen years of Arminius' life, were spent in the ministry at Amsterdam, with eminent success and great popularity, especially with the laity. His occasional presentation of views different from those of ministers around him, who were, almost without exception, strongly Calvinistic, sometimes brought him into serious collision with them. In 1591, he expounded the seventh chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, and in 1593, the ninth chapter of the same epistle. In these expositions, he presented the views which are contained in his treatises on those chapters embraced in this edition of his works, and on each of these occasions, considerable excitement was produced against him. His interpretation of the seventh chapter, in particular, which is substantially the same with that adopted by a large proportion of the best modern commentators, including some who claim to be Calvinists, was then, and frequently afterwards, during his life, opposed with great acrimony. About the end of 1602, the death of Francis Junius, Professor of Divinity at Leyden, occurred. The attention of the Curators of the University was immediately directed to Arminius, as the person most suitable to fill the vacant chair. The invitation, which was accordingly extended to him, met the most strenuous opposition from the authorities of Amsterdam, at whose disposal, as has been stated, Arminius had, in youth, placed his services for life. Their acquiescence in his transfer to Leyden was finally obtained through the special intercession of Uytenbogardt, the celebrated minister at the Hague, of N. Cromhoutius, of the Supreme Court of Holland, and of the Stadtholder himself, Maurice, Prince of Orange. Many of the ultra-calvinistic ministers protested violently against the call, to a position of so much importance, of one, whose sentiments, on what they considered vital points, were so heterodox as they deemed those of Arminius. In this, they were joined by Francis Gomarus, the Professor at Leyden. This man, at that time and subsequently during the life of Arminius, as well as after his death, in the religious contests which ensued between the Remonstrants and Contra-Remonstrants, manifested a very narrow and bitter spirit.

Having received the degree of Doctor of Divinity for the University of Leyden on the eleventh of July, 1603, he at once began to discharge the functions of Professor of Divinity. He soon discovered that the students in theology were involved in the intricate controversies and knotty questions of the schoolmen, rather than devoted to the study of the Scriptures. He endeavored at once to correct this evil, and to recall them to the Bible, as the fountain of truth. These efforts, and the fact that his views on Predestination were unpalatable to many, furnished opportunity and a motive to accuse him of an attempt to introduce innovations. Injurious reports were spread, and most unwarrantable means were used to injure his reputation with the government and the churches. Arminius endured these attacks with great equanimity, but did not publicly defend himself till 1608, when he vindicated himself in three different ways; first, in a letter to Hippolytus, a Collibus, Ambassador to the United Provinces from the Elector Palatine; secondly, in an "apology against thirty-one articles, etc," which, though written in 1608, was not published till the following year; and lastly, in his noble "Declaration of Sentiments," delivered on the thirtieth of October, 1608, before the States in a full assembly at the Hague.

Early in the following year, a bilious disorder, contracted by unremitting labor and study, and continued sitting, and to which, without doubt, the disquietude and grief produced in his mind by the malevolence of his opponents contributed much, became so violent that he was hardly able to leave his bed; but for some months, at intervals, though with great difficulty, he continued his lectures and attended to other duties of his professorship, until the twenty-fifth of July, when he held a public disputation on "the vocation of men to salvation," (see p. 570,) which was the last of his labors in the University. The excitement caused by some circumstances connected with that disputation, produced a violent paroxysm of his disease, from which he never recovered. He remained in acute physical pain, but with no abatement of his usual cheerfulness, and with entire acquiescence in the will of God, till the nineteenth of October, 1609. On that day, about noon, in the words of Bertius, "with his eyes lifted up to heaven, amidst the earnest prayers of those present, he calmly rendered up his spirit unto God, while each of the spectators exclaimed, '0 my soul, let me die the death of the righteous.'"

Thus lived, and thus, at the age of forty-nine years, died James Arminius, distinguished among men, for the virtue and amiability of his private, domestic and social character; among Christians, for his charity towards those who differed from him in opinion; among preachers, for his zeal, eloquence and success; and among divines, for his acute, yet enlarged and comprehensive views of theology, his skill in argument, and his candor and courtesy in controversy. His motto was "BONA CONSCIENTIA PARADISUS." W.R.B.

Friday, September 11, 2009

My Anger is Rekindled This Evening

I know this is something that must be kept in check but this anniversary brings so much anger out in me towards anything Islamic that I just had to walk away from my television. This is September 11th and I do not want anybody in my family to ever forget.

Is Our Faith Grounded in Sectarian Creeds and Confessions?

This question strikes me as fundamental to understanding why some denominations and sects hold their organization's publications and affirmations in such high regard. My answer to the question is in a word, never. Can I trust an ecclesiastical document to guide me in matters of faith? There is certainly great value in the wisdom of men led by God to provide guidance to the church (1 Ti 3:15). However, the Protestant Reformation is guided by a fundamental acceptance that it is scripture alone that determines what we believe in. How can we hold to Sola Scriptura as many are quick to claim and at the same time pledge some sort of allegiance to Sectarian creeds. I recall a conversation with a high church Calvinist recently in which he made an interesting statement. As part of his becoming a member of that church he decided to participate in taking an oath of acceptance to God regarding the Westminster Confession of Faith. Aside from the disobedience to Christ for making such an oath (Mt 5:34-36), how is it that a mere man can swear to God to live by the fallible opinions of men gathered in the 17th century? Having lived a life sworn to an ecclesiastical document and rejected as ecumenical, how does such a soul answer the LORD if and when shown to be in error? Each of our churches have statements of faith identifying the ground upon which we stand. Most of us as Protestant embrace Sola Scriptura as the defining guide to what we are to believe yet none should in turn let our faith be grounded in what other fallible men determined in another age or in this age.

The Confessional period of the Protestant Reformation during the 17th century was a response to the state of competing ideologies among Calvinistic churches following the passing of the great early reformers. The English, Swiss, German and Low Country churches defined themselves with varying yet similar documents committing their beliefs to paper giving their adherents a sense of community. The Confessions are in a real sense the first denominating of the Protestant church into competing sects. Presbyterians compete with Baptists who in turn compete with Congregationalists and as Protestantism continued in growth, the denominations continued. The Confessions alone are not bad or ill-advised. We each as Christians hold to a Confession, one I regard as a true confession and necessary, infallible in every respect (Ro 10:8-11). That scriptural truth can be subscribed to by all Christians and represent the ground of our faith. Yet, can the Arminian turn around and include an affirmation of the various doctrines of Prevenient grace as a ground of his faith being a Christian? I would hope not even though I affirm that doctrine as best representing how God enables men to turn toward Him. By not doing so, we confirm scripture as the only infallible ground upon which we stand.

Sometimes looking at statements of faith is a good indication of what people believe. Just as often though such statements are merely generic, empty platitudes that do not reflect what is taught and held to. Occasionally we encounter statements that need further examination, not because those who subscribe to it are bad guys or heretics, but because it draws attention to things extra-biblical. Can we ground our faith by what we embrace as a statement of our faith in Christ? I was going to present a statement in particular but not wishing to offend any brethren I will condense my observation to this. Part of the statement of faith included a section declaring the creeds and confessions of the Calvinist Church determined in the 17th century as being led by the Holy Spirit and representing the wisdom and pillar of the church. Now, if a confession of faith is such that I as a Christian cannot in any way endorse it, is it really a Christian Confession. I cannot limit this objection to Calvinists. Arminians, Baptists and others do the same. I have done so. Everybody I can think of has done so but the question lingers. Is this proper in defining our faith? Now, I may reconsider and revise these thoughts as I dwell on them. I may even strike them completely if convinced otherwise. For now, I am inclined to avoid lifting any Confession other than that of scripture to a place of preeminence as I define my faith.