Combating Schisms in the Methodist Body Politic

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

∞

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

∞

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

∞

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

The American Methodist Articles of Religion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Verses All Christians Should Know

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

A Triabloke Molests 1 John 2:16

A Triabloke wrote the following that I thought was interesting.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Jimmy White Mumbles Again

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

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

Link to post

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

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

Scriptural Extent of Christ’s Atonement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A.W. Tozer, The Pursuit of God

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

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

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

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

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

John Fletcher's Works at the Wesley Center Online

Arminius on the Grace of God

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

ARMINIUS ON THE GRACE OF GOD

In reference to Divine Grace, I believe,

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

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

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

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

Psalm 150

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

Cain’s Conundrum

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

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

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

Do You Believe God created Everybody and Everything?

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

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

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

A Dialogue Between a Predestinarian and His Friend

Arminius on the Authorship of Sin

The Proper Ergun Caner Inquiry

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

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

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

The Jimmy White of Reformed Apologetics

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

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

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

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

The Biblical Doctrine of Grace for Everybody Else

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

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

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

An Atonement for All the World

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is Orthodox in One Mind is Heterodox to Most

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

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

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

Some Thoughts on Heterodoxy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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)

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.

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.

 

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.

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.

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 25^th, 1789 entry in John Wesley's Journal

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