Arminius on Perfect Obedience

One of the Wesleyan teachings that causes some stir in a few circles is the idea of Christian perfection, oftentimes mistakenly represented as sinless perfection. Of course, the teaching of the Wesleyans is not one of sinless perfection with regard to perfect obedience to every aspect of law. Instead it is a doctrine of Christian perfection where faith is preeminent in all things subjecting every aspect of the believer in submission to Christ. This is not to say that all Christians are to find themselves in such a place but that the capability and means are evident through Christ. Wesley didn't invent something new with this. He explains much in his essay A Plain Account of Christian Perfection as well as with his similar sermon. While there are differences in the teachings of Arminius and Augustine for that matter, there are strong similarities in what Wesley presented as our expectation as saints in Christ knowing full well we most often fall short of those expectations. In the last of his Nine Questions, Arminius addressed this issue of perfect obedience with regard to the saint of God. His comments follow.

Can believers under the grace of the New Covenant, perfectly observe the law of God in this life?

May God, or may He not, require of those who are partakers of the New Covenant, that the flesh do not lust against the Spirit, as a duty corresponding with the grace of that covenant?

ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION

The performance of the law is to be estimated according to the mind of Him who requires it to be observed. The answer will be two-fold, since He either wills it to be rigidly observed in the highest degree of perfection, or only according to epieikeian clemency; that is, if he require this according to clemency, and if the strength or powers which he confers be proportionate to the demand.

(1.) Man cannot perfectly perform such a law of God, if it be considered as to be performed according to rigor.

(2.) But if he require it according to clemency, and if the powers conferred be proportionate, (which must be acknowledged, since He requires it according to the evangelical covenant,) the answer is, it can be perfectly observed. But the question about capability is not of such great importance, "provided a man confesses that it is possible to be done by the grace of Christ," as St. Augustine justly observes.

Arminius' Nine Questions

C. Michael Patton raised a poignant concern earlier in the following post on his blog. It is timely and appropriate in this internet age and I am thankful for his graciousness in this matter. We need to keep this brotherly example in the forefront for he reflects Christ as we should all.

An Admonishment For All of Us

What in Blues Blazes?

The internet does some funny things to people. It seems to give people a vaulted sense of importance to the point where they lose sight of who and what they are to be. I have briefly engaged an exchange with another blogger and in looking at his profile I found the following.

I'm a native of the greater Seattle area. I'm a TA at RTS. In theology, I'm a Calvinist, creationist, inerrantist, cessationist, classical Christian theist, and amil (with postmil sympathies). I'm a low churchman with a sympathy for a certain amount of high church symbolism. I'm a pragmatist about church polity. On the sacraments, I take them to be symbolic. I regard other issues in sacramentology as secondary to this primary position. In philosophy, I'm an Augustinian exemplarist. I'm a Cartesian dualist. I'm an alethic realist, but scientific antirealist. I believe in innate ideas, sense knowledge (I'm an indirect realist), and the primacy of divine revelation in Scripture. In ethics, I subscribe to traditional Christian morality, rooted God's revealed law as the source and standard of personal and social ethics. I also subscribe to a supralapsarian theodicy. Although I'm not a Lutheran, a traditional Lutheran service suits my taste in the style of worship.

At what point does one recognize they are simply a lowly servant of the LORD, a Christian? Having backed off my "blogging" knowing I do this as a personal therapy of sorts, I have come to realize that my service to Christ and the simplicity of being a Christian is far more important than listing all the edges of sword used to identify my arsenal. This needs to be kept forefront when teaching our children and fellows the doctrines we subscribe to. Christ rather than dogma must always prevail and when asked what we are, Christian should be our first response.

 

A Calvary Focused Faith

"And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; [And] having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it." (Col 2:13-15 AV)

During a recent discussion of the relevance of the resurrection with regard to Christ's crucifixion at Calvary, this passage from Paul's epistle to the Colossians came to mind. There is a thought I want to touch on dealing with the sufficiency of Christ's finished work at Calvary.

A pastor of mine from some years ago shared a wonderful teaching with his congregation regarding the proper faith of the Christian saint. We are of one body, crucified with Him, buried with Him in baptism and risen in newness of life as the scriptures teach, all of which is the result of a sinless and perfected sacrifice upon that rugged Cross of Calvary. Knowing this, we can understand our faith as needing both a proper object and as well, a proper focus. Being in Christ, Jesus is our proper object and realizing that the preaching of the Cross is indeed the power of God unto salvation, our focus must always be upon His finished work upon that Cross. It is where not only the power of God is made evident for salvation, it is where the Holy Spirit looks to affect His work of edifying and sanctifying the Body as it matures in faith. It is our Christocentric faith and direction as saints of the LORD. We need look to no other place, trust in no other person or work but that of Jesus of Nazareth.

Now it has been said by some that our salvation is not determined at Calvary but at the resurrection or some other consequential place or act. Of course it must be stated that the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ is essential doctrine in any Christian setting. What could our faith possibly endure had Christ not risen? There could be no Christian church nor Body to withstand the assault of this ungodly world should Jesus remain in the grave to this day. The faith of Christ could not be if such were the case so it is clear the resurrection is vital to our understandings and purpose as saints. However, it is also critical to understand that the resurrection of Jesus Christ was the evidence of Christ's perfection at Calvary and not the cause of it in some other manner. It is the proclamation of Christ's triumph rather than the triumph itself. The ordinances against us were not nailed to the rock blocking the tomb but to the cross. It was not the sunshine of that morning of first fruits that cleansed us but it was the blood of the slain Lamb. Our Word-Faith friends from the Charismatic sects seem to have a lot of trouble with these truths as do some of the full preterist heretical sects. There is a sense among some of these fellows that there was a further work to be performed by Christ after his crucifixion yet the scriptures declare His shed blood to be the basis for all that saves us. We can search the scriptures and become overwhelmed by the glosses of "by blood" or through blood, the blood of Christ etc. We can find nothing concerning through resurrection or by the resurrection.

There is a reason for my comments that I am trying to work out and apply to a direction I see much of the church world moving in. We are a Christocentric church, especially among my Arminian fellows and the manner in which we stay Christocentric is to ensure our faith is Calvary centered. We live in an age when the lyrics of The Old Rugged Cross are an offense to some in the church world and this should never be. There are churches that refuse to sing or talk about Calvary, reject discussions about blood, conviction and sin. A church that has moved from a sure Calvary focus is one that has found a miry clay to stand upon and no church can be sustained on such a foundation. We need voices to stand in the gap and never be moved from our first love, our object and focus being Jesus Christ and His finished work at Calvary.

The Apostle John’s World

Recently, I have found myself focusing on the effects of a word or two, sovereignty and dominion being the last foray. Today the word world comes into play. It is a long disputed term, used in several contexts and has been at the heart of a dispute between most Christians and our Neo-Calvinist brethren for a long time. Where this conflict seems to generate the greatest angst is with the Apostle John's usage of world or the phrase "whole world". The great evangelical cry is found in John's Gospel.

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God." (Joh 3:16-21 AV)

There are two thoughts being expressed here, among others of course, that bring to light the context of John's usage of world or kosmos in the Greek text. The first is salvation and what might be available through the propitiation and shedding of Christ's blood for the world. The second is an expression of condemnation through what was brought into the world. Men are condemned for rejecting the light of Christ in favor of their love of darkness. This is the same world as that which might receive salvation but is comprised of two different groups of souls, those who might be saved through Christ and those who are already condemned for their rejection of the light of Christ. Both thoughts are contained in the same contextual usage of kosmos. When John wrote God so loved the world in his Gospel account, he did so in the same context by declaring Christ to be a propitiation for the sins of the whole world as stated in his first pastoral epistle.

"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)

Now, it might be disputed among some that whole world again refers to classes of people among the world but John provides the context of his usage of whole world in the same epistle and remains true to his Gospel declaration in doing so.

"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." (1Jo 5:18-21 AV)

In John's mind, the whole world and God's love for the world is expressed in a universal manner. He does not teach that God only loves a subset of the world or that Christ's propitiation was only intended for the elect. Instead, the Apostle has expressed the very thoughts of Christ as seen in the synoptic Gospel accounts in encouraging those with the mind of Christ to love their enemies. This is not the filial love of men but love or agape of God.

Mt 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

Lu 6:27 But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you,

Lu 6:35 But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.

Unless the mind of Christ is diametrically opposed to the mind of the Father, we are to do as God in loving our enemies that constitute most of the whole world that God loves. There can be no other position we can scripturally take and be consistent with the whole witness of the New Testament of Jesus Christ. God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son to be a propitiation not for our sins alone, but the sins of the whole world. It is a universal thought with the Apostle, one that even John Calvin, the namesake of the Neo-Calvinists of today, acknowledged. He viewed the atonement of Christ as a universal offer for all of mankind, indiscriminately ⁽¹⁾. Such is the orthodox position of the church throughout its existence.

A couple thoughts come to mind regarding Calvinist thinking on this matter. Keep in mind the constraints our Neo-Calvinist brethren unwittingly place on God's love. They read into the passage the meaning of world referring to classes of people from many nations. However, they all either knowingly overlook the obvious or are blindly following the poor instruction of their leadership. Calvinists, by default, define the extent of God's love as that path of the obedient evangelical. If Calvinist thought is true, God's love is limited to only those places in the world where men obedient to the commission of Christ have preached the cross of Christ. Think about this for a moment. The "whole world" of John's day is redefined every time an evangelist steps into a new fertile evangelical field if Calvinism is true. The only place faith in Christ is found is where Christ has been preached and therefore the elect are only found in those places. Knowing this, the Calvinist should teach that John had no idea what "whole world" encompassed and of course it takes a Calvinist to help the church understand what "whole world" means here. Fortunately, most of the Body of Christ remains true to its orthodox foundation and the pastor of every church should find comfort in declaring the universal declarations of John the Beloved knowing he is in agreement with all of the Apostles, the early church leadership and every ecumenical body since.

1. That whosoever believeth on him may not perish. It is a remarkable commendation of faith, that it frees us from everlasting destruction. For he intended expressly to state that, though we appear to have been born to death, undoubted deliverance is offered to us by the faith of Christ; and, therefore, that we ought not to fear death, which otherwise hangs over us. And he has employed the universal termwhosoever, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers. Such is also the import of the term World, which he formerly used; for though nothing will be found in the world that is worthy of the favor of God, yet he shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when he invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life. – John Calvin, extract from his commentary on John 3:13-18.
   

A Word or Two to Consider

Ge 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

What is in a word? Many things are implicit in a word, some things are explicitly stated and other thoughts are, of course, excluded. God is sovereign. That word, sovereign, packs a lot of meaning into nine characters. It explicitly states God is in charge and is supreme. It implicitly states He is the ultimate authority over all things. What does it exclude? God said something above in that passage from Genesis. The King James translators used an English word, dominion, to express a given sovereignty. In fact, dominion and sovereignty mean very much the same thing, a supreme authority. However, from whence does man's authority over all things on this earth come and in what manner is it limited? The granted dominion man received was a provision by our sovereign LORD. In His sovereign exercise, He provided a measure of authority to man that in no way diminished His sovereignty or lessened His position as such. In other words, the granting of sovereignty, dominion, does not diminish or exclude His authority. The following offers a confirmation of this.

Job 38:33 Knowest thou the ordinances of heaven? canst thou set the dominion thereof in the earth?

While the LORD delegates and provides for a sovereign autonomy, such a delegation in no way detracts from His supremacy. It is He who still sets the rules, makes the course upon which we follow and determines the extent of our limited sovereignty or dominion. There are those among the brethren, particularly our Calvinist friends, who extol such a high and rigid presentation of sovereignty that the LORD's very sovereignty itself is threatened by the dogma. It is accused by such fellows that the non-Calvinist who recognizes the moral compass instilled in God's highest creation threatens the pedestal of sovereign rights when it is rightfully understood that man, by the grace of God, willfully chooses to serve the LORD. In accepting a free gift of salvation, men are accused of heinous actions, of denigrating the authority of God. In embracing what is explicitly and implicitly stated by the terms sovereignty and dominion, the Calvinist leaves the path of proper understanding and steps into error. As the opening passage indicates, our sovereign LORD is fully within His rights and privileges to grant any right and dominion He sees fit. Having created men in His image and knowing this imbues the recognition of an autonomous creation, it is no more threatening to the LORDs sovereignty to have men willingly turn to Him as it was for the LORD to grant men sovereignty over creation in Genesis. What mistakenly challenges God's sovereignty is the dogma teaching that it is a cheapening of God's position for Him to grant men a degree of dominion, accountability and, yes, capability, to do what He has commanded us to do and to do so by the grace of God.

There is richness in what constitutes a proper understanding of sovereignty or dominion and there is a greater richness found in comprehending how the LORD has shared some of Himself in making a creation in His likeness. That richness becomes poverty quickly when the LORD's sovereign right in such sharing is challenged. There should be no hesitation in stating clearly for the benefit of souls that the LORD desires a willful love on the part of all of us rather than an orchestrated gathering of automatons whose every move is calculated. When it is stated that we cheapen His sovereignty through a proper understanding of a freed will, let us simply state we love Him willingly out of our own desires for which there is no retort.

Roger Olson Hits A Triple Out Of The Park

I have come to appreciate Dr. Olson's perspectives on Arminian apologetics over the past few years. The Society of Evangelical Arminians recently posted a well written commentary by Olson considering Scot McKnight's recent blog posts taking the "Neo-Reformed" theological sects to task. There is a growing albeit relatively small sect prospering in some internet circles and among a handful of well known Calvinist ministries that has become somewhat militant in their sectarian zeal. Castigating non-Calvinists as being on the very edge of orthodoxy if not implying having been cast over the precipice, these zealous defenders of their mostly rejected dogma appear to have staked a claim of exclusiveness with regard to scriptural and Christian truth. These souls are encountered regularly on the various discussion boards and Calvinist blogs promoting an almost vitriolic assault on a broad expanse of Christian evangelicalism. Painted with mantras of Calvinist dogma, they present themselves as defenders of Sovereignty almost as if Sovereignty is God itself rather than a defining characteristic of who the LORD is. Of course, non-Calvinists are represented as those seeking to tear down the sovereign rights of God, upend the doctrines of grace and spew the poison of willingly loving the LORD. The campaign of these zealots is in a word, disturbing. Dr. Olson's commentary should be required reading for every adult Sunday class.

Now, as for the triple home run analogy, it is a paradox of sorts of course, impossible. I applaud his comments and conclusions and at the same time I find myself questioning a key focus of what we are all doing at times. We address ourselves to the zealot. We engage the zealots discourse. We implore, discuss, convince, argue and apologize ourselves until we are left with no further words to type, write, speak or read. The zealots mind remains closed to his own truth. Olson affirms this very conclusion with regard to the leadership of these "Neo-Reformed". They are not at all interested in evangelical and ecumenical discourse. So why are we so engaged and focused on this small minority in the Body of Christ? Here is a radical suggestion. Turn most of our efforts back to the 80% of the Body of Christ that is not mired in what we oppose. If our men and women of the church are well equipped to present the evangelical course of our faith, their children will follow, the evangelical commission will continue unimpeded and the Calvinist error is stopped in its place. By this, I do not mean ignore Calvinism. Instead I suggest that Calvinism and its errors be taught and understood as such in our churches so that when the dogma rears its head, it will be identifiable and soundly rejected. I am not as kind as the good Dr. Olson in my regard for the leadership of these sects. When somebody, well educated and supposedly versed in doctrine and apologetics, states I am a free will Pelagian, that is a somebody rightly identified as grossly ignorant and should be removed from a leadership position or they are a blatant liar. To be clear, I am referring to the "well educated" leadership and not the foolish minded follower caught up in their polemics and dogma. I have come to the conclusion that our fellow saints and children need to be educated about Calvinism just as they should be made aware of the dangers of a "money gospel" or the legalism of some of our Restorationist friends knowing there are many Christian brethren in their midst. This is not to state that Calvinism ever be presented as a heretical sect but that it be regarded and taught as having a collection of unique dogma at its core that we reject on scriptural grounds. Let's ensure we are well educated on the matter and our churches understand the issues involved and then turn our attentions to the followers of the Neo-Reformed leader.

Foxes Tending The Coup

Exploring a couple of links in a separate discussion, I came across a comment in a short article by a Calvinist on one of the more aggressive promotion sites. The author was attempting to chastise what he refers to as a "neo-gnostic Calvinism" in which Calvinism is expressed as the only true faith and gospel that the body of Christ can hold to. While agreeing with his concern over such schismatic fellows, the author tars himself with his own brush making grandiose claims that are actually nothing more than sectarian polemics. The following was the opening to one of his articles that I shall link to for reference.

Who among us who have been illuminated by the Spirit of God to heartily embrace that exalted system of Pauline Theology commonly called "Calvinism" can forget the sublime joy experienced when these verities became manifest in our believing heart? For many of us grasping these truths or better, being gripped by these truths, was the real "second blessing" in our Christian pilgrimage. For me personally, sovereign grace teaching revivified my entire demeanor as a saint and delivered me from the morbid introspection engendered by Arminian, fundamentalist pietism. I have a passionate commitment to Calvinistic soteriology and am quite emphatic in my apologia for these truths that so exalt and glorify the grandeur of the Sovereign Triune Lord. Thus, it is with both sadness and reticence that I issue this urgent caveat regarding an extreme chimerical form of Calvinism that is spreading great mischief among the elect of God and dear souls seeking spiritual solace. (1)

As a lover of Christ and Arminian, this stance is reprehensible to me. It is perhaps, no, it is, more dangerous than the bile presented by those neo-gnostic Calvinists he opposes. The Body of Christ does not take serious any threat from such foolish minded men as these "Gnostics" but the subtle heresy of the author in question is a dangerous seduction. There are people who might read such falsehoods thinking this is a moderate road when in fact it is a radical departure from orthodoxy. It is the sentiments expressed by the author that give birth to the very heresy he opposes. Calvinism is a systematic study and approach to the scriptures that is heavily opposed by most of the Body of Christ. To refer to Calvinism as being illuminated by the Spirit of God or representing the "second blessing" of the Christian experience is nothing but the chimera he opposes in others. The doctrines of Calvinism have fueled oppression and a murderous spirit since it's "illuminated" birth in the 16^th century. Rather than being the "exalted system of Pauline Theology commonly called Calvinism", it is instead the long musings of a handful of men based almost entirely on an extrapolation of Augustinian teaching rejected by the church of his day. How is it that men can posit a caste system within Christianity while chastising those of their own ilk who reject any tiered level of sanctification or salvation? The neo-gnostics are at least consistent in their rejection of non-Calvinists as brethren. Men such as the author of the article instead fabricate a special illumination and a special blessing that must be either hid from most of the Body or it must be stated that most of the Body is in rebellion against "God's Calvinism". Either position is untenable and inexcusable.

I can be thankful most of the great Body of Christ rejects such spurious thought, either that of the "neo-Gnostic Calvinists" or their ideological helpmates, "mainstream Calvinism", as the author seems to represent.

1. Greg Fields –The Bane of Neo-Gnostic Calvinism
   

My Steadfast Psalm

I have not engaged my thoughts as much as I might have preferred recently and in returning to this place of refuge, I feel led to focus only on the words of my favorite passage of the Psalms letting those words speak for my thoughts this afternoon.

"He that dwelleth in the secret place of the most High shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty. I will say of the LORD, He is my refuge and my fortress: my God; in him will I trust. Surely he shall deliver thee from the snare of the fowler, and from the noisome pestilence. He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust: his truth shall be thy shield and buckler. Thou shalt not be afraid for the terror by night; nor for the arrow that flieth by day; Nor for the pestilence that walketh in darkness; nor for the destruction that wasteth at noonday. A thousand shall fall at thy side, and ten thousand at thy right hand; but it shall not come nigh thee. Only with thine eyes shalt thou behold and see the reward of the wicked. Because thou hast made the LORD, which is my refuge, even the most High, thy habitation; There shall no evil befall thee, neither shall any plague come nigh thy dwelling. For he shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways. They shall bear thee up in their hands, lest thou dash thy foot against a stone. Thou shalt tread upon the lion and adder: the young lion and the dragon shalt thou trample under feet. Because he hath set his love upon me, therefore will I deliver him: I will set him on high, because he hath known my name. He shall call upon me, and I will answer him: I will be with him in trouble; I will deliver him, and honour him. With long life will I satisfy him, and shew him my salvation." (Ps 91:1-16 AV)

Faith Before Rising In Newness Of Life … A Sunday School Lesson

"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)

This is a glorious statement of the new birth experienced by souls who have placed their trust in the person and work of Jesus Christ. Jesus spoke of this regeneration in his conversation with Nicodemus referring to this as being born from above or born of the Spirit (our common expression of being born again). The analogy of death, burial and resurrection is a picture of Christ's atonement and resurrection. The faith through which this newness is realized is that of trusting Jesus and what He did for us in the same manner Jesus trusted His father in all things. It is through faith that we experience regeneration or the born again experience. To see this need for faith to precede regeneration or rising in newness of life, we can observe the following.

"For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ." (Ga 3:26-27 AV)

Many of our Calvinist friends are fond of insisting that men must be regenerated before they can believe because dead man can do nothing if not first becoming born from above. However, most Christians understand the texts provided above leave no room for regeneration (rising in newness of life) occurring before being baptized into Christ (itself preceding our rising in newness of life). The long-standing position of the church over these 2,000 years is that of faith in Christ through the preaching of the cross of Calvary as the precursor to baptism and regeneration as a child of God.

It Takes Faith To Be A Child Of God

An interesting charge was brought to light recently in a comment concerning the atonement as articulated by the Calvinist internet muse, James White. This is an old charge often repeated by many among our Calvinist brethren.

Let there be no misunderstanding at this point. The Arminian limits the atonement as certainly as does the Calvinist. The Calvinist limits the extent of it in that he says it does not apply to all persons...while the Arminian limits the power of it, for he says that in itself it does not actually save anybody. The Calvinist limits it quantitatively, but not qualitatively; the Arminian limits it qualitatively, but not quantitatively.
http://vintage.aomin.org/Was%20Anyone%20Saved.html

There is some measure of truth in what he stated but it is not in the denial of the power of God. The atonement in and of itself saves not one soul. I had commented on this recently in a post entitled Christ's Atonement Never Saved A Single Calvinist. As lovers of Christ who grasp the incredible purpose and need for the Gospel to be preached to a lost world, we know the unbounded power of God found in the preaching of the Cross. The scriptures declare it (1 Cor 1:18). Christ calls out for more of the few laborers needed for a plenteous harvest (Matt 9:37). John declares the extent of the atonement as for the whole world (1John 2:2). More importantly, the scriptures put James White's inference in the bucket of a multitude of lies spread about those who love Christ and refuse the unique distinctives of White's errant denominational teachings. It takes faith to be a child of God.

Ac 26:18 To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.

Ro 1:17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

Ro 3:22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

Ro 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

Ro 3:30 Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.

Ro 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:

Ro 5:2 By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

Ro 9:32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;

Ro 11:20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:

2Co 1:24 Not for that we have dominion over your faith, but are helpers of your joy: for by faith ye stand.

2Co 5:7 (For we walk by faith, not by sight:)

Ga 3:11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.

Ga 3:22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

Ga 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

Ga 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

Ga 5:5 For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.

Eph 3:17 That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love,

Php 3:9 And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:

Heb 10:38 Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him.

Heb 11:4 By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.

Heb 11:5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.

Heb 11:7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.

Heb 11:8 By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.

Heb 11:9 By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise:

Heb 11:17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,

Heb 11:20 By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau concerning things to come.

Heb 11:21 By faith Jacob, when he was a dying, blessed both the sons of Joseph; and worshipped, leaning upon the top of his staff.

Heb 11:22 By faith Joseph, when he died, made mention of the departing of the children of Israel; and gave commandment concerning his bones.

Heb 11:23 By faith Moses, when he was born, was hid three months of his parents, because they saw he was a proper child; and they were not afraid of the king's commandment.

Heb 11:24 By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter;

Heb 11:27 By faith he forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king: for he endured, as seeing him who is invisible.

Heb 11:29 By faith they passed through the Red sea as by dry land: which the Egyptians assaying to do were drowned.

Heb 11:30 By faith the walls of Jericho fell down, after they were compassed about seven days.

Heb 11:31 By faith the harlot Rahab perished not with them that believed not, when she had received the spies with peace.

Words To Die For

Liar, false, heresy, counterfeit, fake, fraud, imposter, unorthodox, profane, disgusting, error, apostate, inaccurate, synergist, Pelagian, semi-Pelagian, Molinist, open theist, Universalist, pagan, heathen, Roman, blasphemous, wicked, pious, irrelevant, immaterial, revolting, repulsive, deceitful, pseudo-Christian, pseudo-orthodox, enemy of Christ, another spirit, erroneous, undesirable, non-elect, reprobate, fallen, sinful, satanic, devilish, hell-bound, out of the pits of hell, seed of Satan, seed of Cain, Pharisee, unwelcome ….. Arminian …

Have you hugged a Calvinist today?

Arminius on Original Sin and Guilt

On one of the discussion boards, there is a self styled teacher who has made a point of building what he feels is a case against Arminians regarding the work of grace in this world, what we refer to as prevenient or preventing grace, inferring that as Arminians we instruct that grace has annulled the guilt of all men through the work of Christ. At its core is the Pelagian suggestion that men have been restored to that place where they may approach or disregard the LORD, the Gospel, the good things of God based on some measure of their own renewed merit. Of course this reflects a poor understanding of our Christian doctrine. Nonetheless men such as he persist in their claims in spite of protests to the contrary. Fortunately Arminius addressed this specific issue in his Nine Questions and made his sentiments clear regarding the effect of original sin and the state of natural man. The following are the questions posed and his succinct reply.

Does original sin, of itself, render man obnoxious to eternal death, even without the addition of any actual sin? Or is the guilt of original sin taken away from all and every one by the benefits of Christ the Mediator?

If some men are condemned solely on account of the sin committed by Adam, and others on account of their rejection of the Gospel, are there not two peremptory decrees concerning the damnation of men, and two judgments, one Legal, the other Evangelical?

ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION

Those things which in this question are placed in opposition to each other, easily agree together. For original sin can render man obnoxious to eternal death, and its guilt can be taken away from all men by Christ. Indeed, in order that guilt may be removed, it is necessary that men be previously rendered guilty. But to reply to each part separately: It is perversely said, that "original sin renders a man obnoxious to death," since that sin is the punishment of Adam's actual sin, which punishment is preceded by guilt, that is, an obligation to the punishment denounced by the law. With regard to the second member of the question, it is very easily answered by the distinction of the soliciting, obtaining, and the application of the benefits of Christ. For as a participation of Christ's benefits consists in faith alone, it follows that, if among these benefits "deliverance from this guilt" be one, believers only are delivered from it, since they are those upon whom the wrath of God does not abide.

From his statement, it is beyond refute that the proper Reformed Arminian position regarding the condition of man with regard to original sin is that natural man remains "obnoxious" in such a state. As with other Christian doctrine, faith plays a central role in the restoration of man, a faith specific to the finished work of Christ. Lacking this faith there can be no restoration of man's fallen condition. So with this understanding, it cannot be said that natural man outside of Christ has had his fallen nature annulled or has been restored to a place of revelation light. He remains in his obnoxious condition. The pastor or layman who faces such charges should take some strong comfort in knowing that these claims against us have been adequately addressed. Let the defense be as with Arminius, we defend our faith with faith itself.

 

Some People can Never Go Home

I changed pictures on the header of my blog again today. It's one of those things I do occasionally just to give myself a new splash or image to look at while I journalize thoughts. The snowy picture was taken of my hometown's main street from the vantage of the local newspaper office where my grandfather used to work as a printer. Looking at this picture I must admit I get homesick to a degree even though I have not had to live in such a wintry scene in many years. I remember the bitter cold January days, three feet of snow to shovel out from under. I remember this particular snowstorm and the couple days off from school we enjoyed. This storm was still winding down when the picture was taken. By the next morning, all the snow would be pushed to the center of the street and cars and trucks would pass each other sight unseen until approaching the intersection. This was the routine … massive amounts of snow, try to get through it, plow it up, haul it off to the steep river bank and dump it, wait for the next one in a few days.

To be honest I miss it on one hand and am glad not to have to go through it again on the other (at least not to that extent). What sparked my interest again today in this photograph was the steeple in the background. The structure underneath it sits in the town square and is an old and beautiful Congregational Church my mother used to force me to attend when I was a young child. I always hated going. Sometimes I would pretend to be fast asleep when my mother called, unable to respond to the "gospel call" yet as soon as she left the house up I bounded ready to watch whatever could be found on TV. The church had merged with another to become the United Church of Christ but it's doctrines and practices were unknown to me. I was a child not much interested in being dragged to a social gathering of the towns elites. It did not seem that God was tugging at me to run to that church. Looking back and knowing the teachings and practices of that church I can now understand why.

The church is still very much active, still very beautiful and still very much opposed to the truths of scripture. Many of the same families still attend sitting in the same long wooden pews their predecessors sat in their generations. There are some new faces and new names but I know none of them. I can barely remember the old. While I might return to the town, I cannot bring myself to return to that old Congregationalist Church with the tall white steeple in the middle of town.

Pyromaniac Simplicity or Simply Playing With Matches?

There is a sharp distinction between being simple and touting your own simpleton approach to logic. Simplicity is to be admired, if in its concise approach, it brings a defining resolution to the issue. Teampyro.blogspot.com offers up what they feel is a simple exoneration of their philosophical approach to God's Word. Instead, it appears to be yet another overly simplistic slow pitch falling short of home plate. Phil Johnson offers the following tidbit of bologna to whet our appetites.

If God knows the future with certainty, then the future is (by definition) already predetermined. If tomorrow is predetermined and you don't want to acknowledge that the plan was decreed by God, you have only two choices: Some being other than God determines the future and is therefore more sovereign than He. That is a kind of idolatry. Some impersonal force does the determining without reason or coherence. That is a kind of fatalism.

While clearly there is a problem with his false dilemma, such a statement exposes a greater problem with his lack of fully comprehending the matter of God's omniscience. Arminians are often accused of clinging to some notion of God having to peer down through the annals of time to know what will be. As silly as such a notion is, it is even worse still to observe those who make the charge fall prey to their own imaginations. The first sentence of Mr. Johnson's mistake has the LORD doing what? .. predetermining everything that will be as a prerequisite for his omniscience. I am sure he has not thought of this in such a manner but he should give further thought to his premise. The Calvinist omniscient LORD is such only through his predetermining all events. It is a silly notion and I am sure most Calvinists would agree yet they cling to their determinism with such fervor. Additionally, the notion of this false dilemma leading to the possibility of theistic fatalism on the part of Arminians is quite absurd given the theistic fatalism inherent in Calvinism's hard determinism. At best this is a sophomoric attempt to lob a poorly handled tar brush all the while painting one's face with irredeemable pitch. It is wiser for the Calvinist, Mr. Johnson and , yes, those Arminians predisposed as such, to understand that God's knowledge, His omniscience, is not a matter of peering though time in order to know or predetermine anything. The LORD is the Alpha and the Omega (sorry J. White, He beat you to it). He is the beginning and the ending of all things, of all knowledge. He is, in a word, eternal and transcends any notion we might have of time. He simply knows and in a manner that neither you or I can truly and fully comprehend. We can put words to it and attempt to describe it but the idea of an omniscient LORD peering through time or having his omniscience subject to predetermining every action is preposterous.

Let's demonstrate Mr. Johnson's absurdity with a simple example. I posit that God's omniscience is challenged under the Calvinist scheme if I choose my eggs over easy tomorrow morning rather than fried lightly or scrambled. Perhaps my choosing brown socks over grey will diminish His sovereignty over my dress? Of course this is silly yet if my choice of eggs has been predetermined rather than known and my grey socks were picked for me by the LORD before the foundations of the world (yes, an active or hard determinism for there is no other rational alternative in Calvinism) then the LORD has indeed constructed a fatalistic scheme in which men are given only the appearance of living lives. Instead we are fodder for destiny, some to be glorified board pieces, others the sawdust under the table. Such is the false dilemma Mr. Johnson presents. If Christians reject his theistic fatalism, his deterministic notion of omniscience and the enslavement of God's sovereignty to the wiles of Calvinist predestination, we are relegated to being either idolaters or fatalists (the latter charge still being an amusement in light of determinism). Not only that but in rejecting Calvinist philosophy, Mr. Johnson has us on the slippery slope to Open Theism. This has been a frequent charge in recent years but each and every one of those who sling such a charge around fail to realize many proponents of open theism have their roots in Calvinism rather than Arminianism, having been poorly grounded in plain truth, jumped feet first into a bigger cauldron.

The plain Christian truth is the LORD is Omniscient, He is Eternal and He is Sovereign. As such He has in His sovereign wisdom chosen to give men a synergistic plan of salvation in which He uses men to preach a gospel to men and frees their wills through grace to enable men to respond to the call of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. He has admonished, warned and extolled men to do and be what he desires men to be through Christ. He does not desire that men perish and rather than worry about labeling Christians as idolaters or worse for rejecting the philosophical musings of men raised up in dead bone churches, the Calvinist should have greater concern for the exalting of a philosophy that blasphemes the LORD as the author of sin. Hard words perhaps but they are in response to a calloused heart.

Arminius on the Authorship of Sin

One of the common objections to Calvinist doctrine is that determinism seems to make the LORD to be the author of sin. Our Calvinist brethren strenuously object to this characterization and probably for good cause. Who would wish to attribute wickedness to God? I recall a young Calvinist telling me that this charge against Calvinism is something that came out of the Finney school of thought and is relatively new representing a desperate charge on the part of Arminians. Whether the Finney ever made such charges or even whether Finney could rightly be called Arminian are questions for another discussion but one thing is certain. The perception that Calvinistic determinism places the LORD as author of sinfulness is nothing new in this debate. It was a concern very early in the Reformation as Beza began to shape Calvinist doctrine. Supralapsarian doctrines began to gain a strong hold in the Calvinist churches and the doctrinal difficulties with this issue of authorship was a question of interest in the days of Arminius. Arminians have long held that Calvinist determinism is grounded in grievous error placing the LORD as the author of sin or wickedness. In his defense of Christian doctrine, Arminius addressed this matter in his Nine Questions, the second of which went to the issue of the authoring of sin. Those comments follow.

If it be said, "that God, by his eternal decree, has determined and governs all things and every thing, even the depraved wills of men, to appointed good ends," does it follow from this, that God is the author of sin?

Is "to determine or direct all things and every thing, even the depraved wills of men, to appointed good ends," the same thing as "to determine that man be made corrupt, by which a way may be opened for executing God's absolute decree concerning damning some men through wrath, and saving others through mercy?"

ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION

Sin is the transgression of the law; therefore, God will be the author of sin, if He cause any man to transgress the law. This is done by denying or taking away what is necessary for fulfilling the law, or by impelling men to sin. But if this "determination" be that of a will which is already depraved, since it does not signify the denying or the removing of grace nor a corrupt impelling to sin, it follows, that the consequence of this cannot be that God is the author of sin. But if this "determination" denote the decree of God by which He resolved that the will should become depraved, and that man should commit sin, then it follows from this that God is the author of sin.

For those pastors who face troubled questions from their flock, Arminius provides a clear and concise path to follow regarding this matter. We can with a clear conscience declare that determinism of the hard variety found among many "High Calvinists" does indeed accuse the LORD of being the author of sin and therefore a promoter of the very wickedness He finds detestable.

Arminius on Election

In November of 1605, Arminius presented himself to the curators of the University of Leyden, the result of which was an affirmation of his Reformed Christian credentials. This presentation was a series of nine questions, each with a countering question regarding several doctrinal positions germane to Protestant understanding of the scriptures. The first of these inquiring questions and counters dealt directly with scriptural election and the following was Arminius' presentation on this matter.



1. Which is first, Election, or Faith Truly Foreseen, so that God elected his people according to faith foreseen?

1. Is the decree "for bestowing Faith on any one," previous to that by which is appointed "the Necessity of Faith to salvation?"

ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION

The equivocation in the word "Election," makes it impossible to answer this question in any other manner, than by distinction. If therefore "Election" denotes "the decree which is according to election concerning the justification and salvation of believers." I say Election is prior to Faith, as being that by which Faith is appointed as the means of obtaining salvation. But if it signifies "the decree by which God determines to bestow salvation on some one," then Faith foreseen is prior to Election. For as believers alone are saved, so only believers are predestinated to salvation. But the Scriptures know no Election, by which God precisely and absolutely has determined to save anyone without having first considered him as a believer. For such an Election would be at variance with the decree by which he hath determined to save none but believers.

Arminius, as a result of this reply, was deemed fully within the Reformed faith and his statement reflects a proper understanding of the scriptures by those of a classical or Reformation Arminian persuasion. Election should be viewed from at least a two-fold perspective as indicated in his reply. Every pastor approached by one of his flock with an eye toward receiving an answer regarding election can feel confident in presenting this Arminian view.

The Gospel of 1st Corinthians 15

Richard Coords of Examining Calvinism posted a thread on the CARM website regarding the Gospel as preached to the Corinthians by Paul. It goes right to the heart of the Calvinist error regarding what we are to preach and to whom. Consider the passage in discussion.

"Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time. For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which [was bestowed] upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me. Therefore whether [it were] I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed." (1Co 15:1-11 AV)

This is the Gospel that was preached not to the elect or to believers or even those sitting in a church on a Sunday morning (not that our 21^st century version was common in that day). No, this Gospel message was preached to unbelievers who hearing the Gospel of Jesus Christ were convicted and moved to embrace Christ. Christ died for their sins being the message. It was not a message of Christ perhaps dying for some of them. It was a universal declaration, one not to be mistaken for the philosophy promoted by our Calvinist brethren as an inappropriate support for their peculiar doctrines. We should take comfort and be emboldened by Paul's witness and never be swayed from the truth of the Gospel and scripture, it being a counter to the musings of revisionist Christianity.

Richard also included a link to Jerry Vine's website offering affordable DVD copies of the recent John 3:16 Conference where this matter also came up in presentation. I believe these materials will provide an invaluable resource for Christian studies in our church groups and to soundly rebut the philosophical attempts at influencing sound Christian thought in our churches.

An Atonement For All

There is a place in the scriptures I turn to when challenged by those of the limited atonement view. It is a picture and type of what Christ would do once and for all at Calvary. In the Old Testament, Israel was instructed to observe a particular day and a statute kept ever more and still kept to this day through Christ's fulfilled sacrifice. The High Priest offered a sacrifice to the LORD on the day of Atonement or Yom Kippur for the benefit of every soul within the borders of Israel including its strangers, the faithful and yes, those unfaithful. The sacrifice, being a picture of what Christ would do, presents Israel as a type of the world with all sorts of men within itself yet only a remnant truly known of the LORD as saints. There is nothing unlimited in this atonement except its efficacy through faith. This is a lesson I can only wish our Calvinist brethren would take to heart.

"And [this] shall be a statute for ever unto you: [that] in the seventh month, on the tenth [day] of the month, ye shall afflict your souls, and do no work at all, [whether it be] one of your own country, or a stranger that sojourneth among you: For on that day shall [the priest] make an atonement for you, to cleanse you, [that] ye may be clean from all your sins before the LORD. It [shall be] a sabbath of rest unto you, and ye shall afflict your souls, by a statute for ever. And the priest, whom he shall anoint, and whom he shall consecrate to minister in the priest's office in his father's stead, shall make the atonement, and shall put on the linen clothes, [even] the holy garments: And he shall make an atonement for the holy sanctuary, and he shall make an atonement for the tabernacle of the congregation, and for the altar, and he shall make an atonement for the priests, and for all the people of the congregation. And this shall be an everlasting statute unto you, to make an atonement for the children of Israel for all their sins once a year. And he did as the LORD commanded Moses." (Le 16:29-34 AV)

Drops of Blood

This idea has surfaced in the past on this blog and on others but the thought came to life again when I encountered a fellow stating "…Both bad and good... I guess it really is by grace through faith and not by works so that we can't boast. God justifies the ungodly... I am not advocating antinomianism, but just making an observation that God's grace is more powerful than any transgression. Just one drop of blood was enough to take away all sin forever as far as the east is from the west." This statement intrigues me to no end. The power is in the blood as the old Pentecostal song goes (at least that is where I heard it first) so it is not surprising to believe that just one drop of Christ's blood could remove the east from the west carrying a immeasurable multitude of sins with it. It sounds right yet if you think about it for a moment it also adds a quantity or limitation to it. Of course there are only so many drops of Christ's blood to go around unless we regard the blood as with the loaves and fishes. But is this a correct manner of thinking about Christ's blood?

Consider how many drops of blood it took to save that man across the street or myself. Could we squeeze out one drop for each of us as into a thimble and thank the LORD for the salvation given? I am beyond certain we would still be standing in our sins for to cover my own hideous innumerable sins requires a life, my own at least. The Hebrews used to offer live sacrifices of bulls, rams, goats, sheep and doves to carry themselves in the LORD's graces for a season yet even that was not enough after a lifetime of shed blood. Sin carries a great cost, the very life of men and it is knowing this that we can look upon not just the shedding of droplets of Christ's blood but his complete sacrifice necessary for cleansing us of sin. For that man across the street or myself it took every drop of Christ's blood, every sign of life in His glorious body to remove our sins as far as east is from the west. Not less than all of His blood and His life were required not by me or that other man or any man. Christ's life was required as propitiation by God the Father. So, where does this thought or idea lead?

I have listened to men tell me in so many words that there is only so much of Christ's blood to go around, only so many drops to save a limited number of people yet they seem not to consider that whether they alone are saved or the whole world, it took the death of Christ to accomplish what provides for salvation. If ten souls are found faithful by Christ and a thousand perish, it is suggested that Christ would have to be a failure if His blood was a provision for all one thousand and ten. I am astonished by such thinking knowing that one soul saved is a priceless treasure in the eyes of God and even more so by the knowledge that every sign of Christ's life was required for just that one soul. Rather than muse over the imaginary failings of Christ I would rather hold concern for the souls who fail to labor in a plentiful harvest knowing that the blood of Christ is sufficient for a harvest of infinite size. Pray for those whom the LORD has called to preach His Word that they be unhindered in their mission to bring the Good News of Jesus Christ to a world who's only Hope is the Man who shed every drop of blood just for them.