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

A Calvinist Ran Away This Morning

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

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

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

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

The Enabled Will of Cain

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

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

A Sketch of the Life of James Arminius

A SKETCH OF THE LIFE OF JAMES ARMINIUS

By W.R. Bagnall

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My Anger is Rekindled This Evening

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

Is Our Faith Grounded in Sectarian Creeds and Confessions?

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

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

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

Thinking of Dr. Albert Outler for a Moment …

The following is an interesting quote from the late theologian Albert C. Outler.

The happy dilettante, who believes in justification by faith and hope, prays to be judged by his intention as well as by his performance. He is as much concerned with what he can see as needful as with what he himself can provide. If I could choose my own epitaph I would want it to speak of one who was sustained in a rather strenuous career by the vision of a Christian theology that gives history its full due; that makes way for the future without having to murder the past; that begins and ends with the self-manifestation of God's Mystery in our flesh and our history; that binds itself to Scripture but also claims scriptural authority for a rational hermeneutics; that Opposes human pride and speaks of God's healing grace without despising or exalting the creature; that unites justice and mercy without resorting either to legalism or to antinomianism; that organizes the Christian life by the power of grace and the means of grace; that celebrates our redemption by the invincible love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord - in sum, a theology that does justice to the reality it reflects upon. It is enough for any man to believe that he has been called to labor in some such task as this, for he cannot doubt that whether it is given him to plant, to water or to harvest, God will give the increase. – from Ordeal of a Happy Dilettante

Wesley on Justification

As noted in a previous post, some of our more zealous opponents are quick to accuse most of the body of Christ as being ungainly wrapped up in the promotion of a works based salvation and justification. They seem eager to promote the falsehood that Arminians and others who question the dogma of Calvinist thought have removed ourselves from that great Protestant cry of justification by faith, proclaimed in opposition to Papal notions of meritorious value. Having disputed these falsehoods with the writings of Arminius, it is a common rebuttal to then claim that while Arminius may have been on the right course regarding justification, certainly he was unique and others have promoted a works salvation and justification. Nothing could be further from the truth and in examining the writings and sermons of that other great Arminian and Christian, John Wesley, we find an abundance of evidence to again demonstrate the futility and falseness of the Calvinist charge of works. Wesley preached a great sermon entitled Justification by Faith that lays out several of our sentiments quite clearly, so much so that if the zealot wishes to promote the charge of the mixing of grace and law, removing faith from it's essential place, he is quickly deemed a liar. The following is an excerpt from that sermon. The hyperlink above provides the full text of the sermon.

 

 … But on what terms, then, is he justified who is altogether "ungodly," and till that time "worketh not?" On one alone; which is faith: He "believeth in Him that justifieth the ungodly." And "he that believeth is not condemned;" yea, he is "passed from death unto life." "For the righteousness (or mercy) of God is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: --Whom God hath set forth for a propitiation, through faith in his blood; that he might be just, and" (consistently with his justice) "the Justifier of him which believeth in Jesus:" "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law;" without previous obedience to the moral law, which, indeed, he could not, till now, perform. That it is the moral law, and that alone, which is here intended, appears evidently from the words that follow: "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: Yea, we establish the law. What law do we establish by faith? Not the ritual law: Not the ceremonial law of Moses. In nowise; but the great, unchangeable law of love, the holy love of God and of our neighbour." …

More Thoughts of Arminius on Justification

This accompanies the previous post regarding justification of men before God.

DISPUTATION 19 ON THE JUSTIFICATION OF MAN BEFORE GOD RESPONDENT: ALARD DE VRIES

As frequent mention is made in Scripture of Justification, and since this doctrine is of great importance to salvation, and is in these days, not a little controverted, it seems that we shall not be acting unprofitably if we institute a disquisition on this subject from the Scriptures.

1. Since the word "justification" is deduced from justice, from this notion its signification will be appropriately derived. justice or righteousness, when properly considered, signifies rectitude or an agreement with right reason. (Psalm 11:7; Ephesians 6:14; Philippians 1:11; 1 John, 3:7.) And it is contemplated either as a quality or as an act — a quality inhering in a subject, an act produced by an efficient cause. The word "justification" denotes an act that is occupied either in infusing the quality of righteousness into some person or in acquiring it for him, or in forming a judgment on a person and his acts, and in pronouncing sentence on them.

2. If, therefore, according to its quality, justification be the acquisition of righteousness, it is the act of one who by repeated acts acquires a habit of righteousness, that is, the act of a rational creature. (Ephesians 4:24.) If it be the infusion of righteousness, it is the act of Him who infuses the habit of righteousness into a rational creature, that is, the act of God either as creator or regenerator. (Isaiah 5:23.) The justification which is occupied about a person and his acts, is the act of a Judge making an estimate in his own mind of the deed, and of the author of it, and according to that estimate, forming a judgment and pronouncing sentence, that is, the act of a man justifying the wisdom and the justice of God. (Matthew 11:19; Psalm 81,) of a Prince justifying the cause of his subject, of a Pharisee justifying himself, (Luke 16:15,) of God justifying the deed of Phinehas, (Psalm 106:31,) and our Lord's justification of the conduct of the publican. (Luke 18:14.)

3. From this necessary distinction of the words it appears that Bellarmine both admits an equivocation, and feigns an adversary for himself that is not adverse to him, when he proposes the state of the controversy which exists between him and us on this doctrine in these words: "Is the righteousness by which we are formally justified, inherent or imputative?"

(1.) The equivocation lies in this — that the word "justification," when it is occupied about inherent righteousness, signifies the infusion of righteousness; but when it is employed respecting imputative righteousness, it signifies the estimate of the mind, the judgment, and the pronouncing of the sentence.

(2.) He invents an adversary; because no one denies that the form by which any man is intrinsically righteous, and is declared to be so, is the habit or inherent quality of righteousness. But we deny that the word "justification" is received in this sense in St. Paul's disputation against the gentiles and the Jews, (Romans 2, 3, 4, 5,) and against the false brethren, (Galatians 2, 3, 5,) or even by St. James in his epistle. Wherefore, we must maintain, either that the controversy between the papists and us, is respecting justification when received as the act of a judge, or that our controversy has nothing in common with that of St. Paul. (James 2.)

4. The justification, therefore, of a man before God is that by which, when he is placed before the tribunal of God, he is considered and pronounced, by God as a judge, righteous and worthy of the reward of righteousness; whence also the recompense of reward itself follows by necessity of consequence. (Romans 2, 3; Luke 18:14.) But since three things come under consideration in this place — man who is to be judged, God the judge, and the law according to which judgment must be passed. Each of them may be variously considered, and it is also necessary, according to these three to vary justification itself.

(1.) For man may be considered either as having discharged the works of righteousness without sin, (Romans 2:16,) or as a sinner. (3:23.)

(2.) God may be viewed as seated on a throne of rigid and severe justice, (Psalm 143:2,) or on a throne of grace and mercy. (Hebrews 4:16.)

(3.) The law is either that of works, or that of faith; (Romans 3:27;) and since each of these has a natural correspondence together and mutually agree with each other, justification may be reduced to two opposite species or forms; of which the one is called that "of the law, in the law, or through the law, of the works of the law, of him that worketh and performs the law, of debt and not of grace." (Romans 2, 3, 4, 9, 11,. But the other is styled that "of faith, from faith, through faith, of a sinner who believes, freely bestowed, of grace and not of debt, and without the works of the law." (Galatians 2, 3, 5.)

5. But since the law is two-fold, of which mention is made in the question of justification, that is, the moral and the ceremonial, (for the judicial part of the law does not in this place come under discussion,) we must see how and in what sense justification is either attributed to each of them or taken away from it.

(1.) Justification is ascribed to the MORAL LAW because the works prescribed are of and in themselves pleasing to God, and are righteousness itself strictly and rigidly taken, so that he who does them is on that very account righteous, without absolution or gratuitous imputation. For this reason justification cannot be taken away from it, unless for its non-performance. (1 Samuel 15:21, 22; Amos 5:21-,3; Romans 10:5.) Hence justification by the moral law may be defined:

"It is that by which a man, having performed the duties of the moral law without transgression, and being placed before the tribunal of the severe justice of God, is accounted and declared by God to be righteous and worthy of the reward of eternal life, in himself, of debt, according to the law, and without grace, to his own salvation, and to the glory both of divine and human righteousness." (Romans 4:4; 3:27; Ephesians 2:8, 9.)

6. (2.) But the rule of the Ceremonial law is widely different. For its works are neither of themselves pleasing to God, to enable them to come under the name of righteousness; nor have they such a consideration that absolution from sins committed against the moral law can be obtained through them, or that they can be graciously imputed for righteousness. (Micah 6:6-8; Colossians 2:16, 20, 21.) For this reason, in the Scriptures, justification is taken away from it, not because it was not performed, but simply on account of the weakness of itself, and not of the flesh which sinned. (Acts 13:39; Hebrews 9:10.) Yet its use for justification is two-fold according to its double reference to the moral law and the offenses committed against it, and to Christ and faith in Him. According to the former, it is the hand-writing recording debts and sins. (Colossians 2:14 — 17.) According to the latter, it contains a shadow and type of Christ, and of "good things to come," that is, of righteousness and life. (Hebrews 10:1.) According to the latter, it shewed Christ typically; (Galatians 2:16;) according to the former, it compelled men to flee to Him, through faith in him. (Galatians 3:21-24.)

7. And this is the cause why the Apostle Paul takes away justification together and at once from the whole law, though for different causes which it is not always necessary to enumerate. (Romans 3:20, 28; Galatians 2:16; John 5:24; Psalm 143:2; Romans 3, 4.) But justification is attributed to faith, not because it is that very righteousness which can be opposed to the rigid and severe judgment of God, though it is pleasing to God; but because, through the judgment of mercy triumphing over justice, it obtains absolution from sins, and is graciously imputed for righteousness. (Acts 13:39.) The cause of this is, not only God who is both just and merciful, but also Christ by his obedience, offering, and intercession according to God through his good pleasure and command. But it may be thus defined, "it is a justification by which a man, who is a sinner, yet a believer, being placed before the throne of grace which is erected in Christ Jesus the Propitiation, is accounted and pronounced by God, the just and merciful Judge, righteous and worthy of the reward of righteousness, not in himself but in Christ, of grace, according to the gospel, to the praise of the righteousness and grace of God, and to the salvation of the justified person himself." (Romans 3:24-26; 3, 4, 5, 10, 11.)

8. It belongs to these two forms of justification, when considered in union and in opposition. First. To be so adverse as to render it impossible for both of them at once to meet together in one subject. For he who is justified by the law, neither is capable nor requires to be justified by faith; (Romans 4:14, 15;) and it is evident that the man who is justified by faith could not have been justified by the law. (11:6.) Thus the law previously excludes faith by the cause, and faith excludes the law by the consequence of conclusion. Secondly. They cannot be reconciled with each other, either by an unconfused union, or by admixture. For they are perfect simple forms, and separated in an individual point, so that by the addition of a single atom, a transition is made from the one to the other. (Romans 4:4, 5; 9:30-32.) Thirdly. Because a man must be justified by the one or the other of them, otherwise he will fall from righteousness and therefore from life. (Romans 10:3-6, Galatians 3:10; James 2:10.) Because the gospel is the last revelation; "for therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith;" and, after this, no other revelation must be expected. (Hebrews 1:1.)

9. From the premises thus laid down according to the Scriptures, we conclude, that justification, when used for the act of a Judge, is either purely the imputation of righteousness through mercy from the throne of grace in Christ the propitiation made to a sinner, but who is a believer; (Romans 1:16, 17; Galatians 3:6, 7;) or that man is justified before God, of debt, according to the rigor of justice without any forgiveness. (Romans 3, 4.) Because the Papists deny the latter, they ought to concede the former.

And this is such a truth, that, how high soever may be the endowments of any one of the Saints in faith, hope and charity, and however numerous and excellent the works of faith, hope and charity may be which he has performed, he will receive no sentence of justification from God the Judge, unless He quit the tribunal of his severe justice and ascend the throne of grace, and from it pronounce a sentence of absolution in his favor, and unless the Lord of his mercy and pity graciously account for righteousness the whole of that good with which the saint appears before Him. For, woe to a life of the utmost innocence, if it be judged without mercy. (Psalm 32:1, 2, 5, 6; 143:2; 1 John 1:7-10; 1 Corinthians 4:4.) This is a confession which even the Papists seem to make when they assert, that the works of the Saints cannot stand before the judgment of God unless they be sprinkled with the blood of Christ.

10. Hence we likewise deduce: That if the righteousness by which we are justified before God, the Judge, can be called formal, or that by which we are formally justified, (for the latter is Bellarmine's phraseology,) then the formal righteousness, and that by which we are formally justified, can on no account be called "inherent;" but that, according to the phrase of the Apostle, it may in an accommodated sense be denominated "imputed," as either being that which is righteousness in God's gracious account, since it does not merit this name according to the rigor of justice or of the law, or as being the righteousness of another, that is, of Christ, which is made ours by God's gracious imputation. Nor is there any reason why they should be so abhorrent from the use of this word, "imputed," since the apostle employs the same word eleven times in the fourth chapter of his Epistle to the Romans, where the seat of this point or argument lies, and since the efficacy to salvation of God's gracious estimation is the same, as that of His severe and rigid estimation would be if man had perfectly fulfilled the law without any transgression. (2. Corinthians 5:19, 21.)

11. And though Bellarmine, by confounding the word "justification," by distinguishing faith into that which is formed and unformed, by making a difference between the works of the law, and those performed by renewed persons through the virtue of the Holy Spirit, and by not ascribing a reward even to these works, unless because it has been promised gratuitously, and promised to those who are already placed in a state of grace and of the adoption of sons, by which he confesses they have likewise a right to the heavenly inheritance, by granting besides, that the reward itself exceeds the worthiness of the work, and by bringing down to a rigid examination the whole life of the man who is to be judged, though by these methods Bellarmine endeavors to explain the sentiments of the Romish Church so as to make them appear in unison with those of the apostle; (or, at least that they may not openly clash with those of St. Paul;) yet, since the Church of Rome asserts, that the good works of the Saints fully satisfy the law of God according to the state of this life, and really merit eternal life; that when we suffer for sins by rendering satisfaction, we are made conformable to Christ Jesus who gave satisfaction for sins; and that the works of the Saints, prayer, fasting, alms-giving, and others, are satisfactory [to divine justice] for temporal punishment, indeed for every punishment, and, what is more, for guilt itself, and are thus expiatory for sins; since she declares that the sacrifice of the mass is a propitiation for the sins and punishments both of the living and the dead; and since she says that the works of some men are super-erogatory, and extols them so much as to affirm that they are useful to others for salvation; since these are the assertions of the Church of Rome, we declare that her doctrine stands directly opposed to that of the apostle.

Arminius on Justification

It was another one of those days. Out of the blue, a fellow I have corresponded with made an assertion that must be addressed. He stated that unlike orthodox Protestants, Arminians pollute (my term) the grace of God by mixing grace with law. In tying the charge in with justification by faith, he was inadvertently making a grievous charge against most of the body of Christ, one that the Apostle Paul addressed in his epistle to the Galatians. Aside from the mistaken notion that Arminians are not part of the Reformation, he was also expressing a dire ignorance of Arminian theology. When this was pointed out to him and demonstrated that Arminian doctrine is quite comfortable within the realm of reformation theology, the reply was that all may be acceptable as far as Arminius is concerned by we "modern" Arminians must surely hold to his straw man presentation. Of course, there are varying degrees of Arminian thought and I am sure there are fellows who might reject the forensic imputation of the righteousness of Christ but such souls usually differ based on the callous antinomian tendencies of our opponents. Others take a different although amicable approach to righteousness seeing some measure of impartation although almost always associated with on-going sanctification. On the other hand, I am sure I could find many Calvinists who would be appalled to discover that John Calvin's theology is at great odds with their notion of how "world" should be understood in John chapter three. There is never a perfect agreement with any theologian. I am not comfortable with Arminius' understanding and teachings on Romans chapter seven however it doesn't negate my general agreement with him on nearly all soteriological matters. That great Reformed theologian, Arminius, offered his thoughts on justification in the following passage taken from his Declaration of Sentiments.

    

THE JUSTIFICATION OF MAN BEFORE GOD

I am not conscious to myself, of having taught or entertained any other sentiments concerning the justification of man before God, than those which are held unanimously by the Reformed and Protestant Churches, and which are in complete agreement with their expressed opinions.

There was lately a short controversy in relation to this subject, between John Piscator, Professor of Divinity in the University of Herborn in Nassau, and the French Churches. It consisted in the determination of these two questions:

1. "is the obedience or righteousness of Christ, which is imputed to believers and in which consists their righteousness before God, is this only the passive obedience of Christ?" which was Piscator's opinion. Or

2. "is it not, in addition to this, that active righteousness of Christ which he exhibited to the law of God in the whole course of his life, and that holiness in which he was conceived?" Which was the opinion of the French Churches. But I never durst mingle myself with the dispute, or undertake to decide it; for I thought it possible for the Professors of the same religion to hold different opinions on this point from others of their brethren, without any breach of Christian peace or the unity of faith. Similar peaceful thoughts appear to have been indulged by both the adverse parties in this dispute; for they exercised a friendly toleration towards each other, and did not make that a reason for mutually renouncing their fraternal concord. But concerning such an amicable plan of adjusting differences, certain individuals in our own country are of a different judgment.

A question has been raised from these words of the Apostle Paul: "Faith is imputed for righteousness." (Romans 4) The inquiry was,

1. Whether those expressions ought to be properly understood, "so that faith itself, as an act performed according to the command of the gospel, is imputed before God for or unto righteousness — and that of grace; since it is not the righteousness of the law."

2. Whether they ought to be figuratively and improperly understood, "that the righteousness of Christ, being apprehended by faith, is imputed to us for righteousness." Or

3. Whether it is to be understood "that the righteousness, for which, or unto which, faith is imputed, is the instrumental operation of faith;" which is asserted by some persons. In the theses on justification, which were disputed under me when I was moderator, I have adopted the former of these opinions not in a rigid manner, but simply, as I have likewise done in another passage which I wrote in a particular letter. It is on this ground that I am accounted to hold and to teach unsound opinions concerning the justification of man before God. But how unfounded such a supposition is, will be very evident at a proper season, and in a mutual conference. For the present, I will only briefly say, "I believe that sinners are accounted righteous solely by the obedience of Christ; and that the righteousness of Christ is the only meritorious cause on account of which God pardons the sins of believers and reckons them as righteous as if they had perfectly fulfilled the law. But since God imputes the righteousness of Christ to none except believers, I conclude that, in this sense, it may be well and properly said, to a man who believes, faith is imputed for righteousness through grace, because God hath set forth his Son, Jesus Christ, to be a propitiation, a throne of grace, [or mercy seat] through faith in his blood." Whatever interpretation may be put upon these expressions, none of our Divines blames Calvin or considers him to be heterodox on this point; yet my opinion is not so widely different from his as to prevent me from employing the signature of my own hand in subscribing to those things which he has delivered on this subject, in the third book of his Institutes; this I am prepared to do at any time, and to give them my full approval. Most noble and potent Lords, these are the principal articles, respecting which I have judged it necessary to declare my opinion before this august meeting, in obedience to your commands.

A Simple Distinctive

With the many discussions I have had, some enlightening and others divisive, regarding the distinctive differences we have as Arminians with our Calvinist brethren, I have struggled for the simple statement. Books have been written and tempers raised in trying to craft an understanding of these differences. I have lingered over election and predestination as the defining differences however I am moved to consider something else for now… I like old books. There is something treasured in a lot of them and I am especially drawn to 19^th century writings, produced from a time when books were the medium of any significance. The 19^th century produced a rich heritage of Wesleyan writings and in browsing through a few of them earlier, I came across this passage. It is taken from M.L. Scudder's American Methodism first published in 1867. The Wesley Center for Applied Theology has been gracious in providing several holiness works for research and enlightenment. This is one of them and I think the distinctives offered are right on the money.

The one controlling doctrine that gives distinctiveness to Methodism is, that the work of salvation by Christ depends on the enlightening, renewing, and sanctifying in-workings of the Holy Spirit; and hence, that the individual is saved, and saved only, as he becomes the subject of this work of the Spirit. In connection with this, it teaches also, that the atonement of Christ hath provided that every man may receive this Spirit, and become the subject of its sanctification.

Romanism asserts that sin can only be destroyed by the fires of purgatory. Calvinism and Lutheranism teach that it remains in the believer till death. Methodism asserts that the grace of Christ can "sanctify wholly," "here and now."

These distinctive doctrines that we have ascribed to Calvinism, Lutheranism, and Wesleyanism are not only true in their application to the churches that take their tenets from the men who give them names, but they can each be directly traced to the personal experience of the great Reformers themselves. Calvin sought for "subjection to the will of God," and taught his followers to seek more for submission to, than for reception of, the grace of God. Luther's struggle was for forgiveness of sin; but, with his interpretation, it was more "a work done for him than done in him," and his followers hold rather to "justification pro forma than pro spiritu." Wesley sought and gained a higher state, -- a religious consciousness that the " blood of Christ cleanseth from all sin:" he taught his followers that they were to know an inward, as well as outward holiness. - American Methodism, M.L. Scudder, S. S. Scranton & Co., Hartford, Connecticut, 1867, p.31

Arminius On Whether God Is Freely Good Or Through Necessity

On one of the fellowship boards I occasionally participate in, a discussion ensued around the question of whether God is freely good or good by the necessity of His Holy nature. It was related to another free will discussion but it spurred an exchange regarding Arminius sentiments on the matter. I tend to agree with Arminius regarding the source and existence of God's goodness. In the realm of truth and falsity, the LORD is the definition of goodness and the only yardstick by which goodness can be compared. Dare we ask can God sin? Can God be something other than what He is? If God can be something other than what He is by necessity and willfully depart from the truths and promises, then our hope and trust in an infallible LORD falls short of blessedness and instead becomes a mere convenience captive to the whims of a God freely able to be something other than our thrice Holy LORD. His Holiness is not a point in time. It is an eternal nature of an eternal LORD and unless we are willing to challenge His eternal nature then we cannot embrace the notion that God is free to pursue unrighteousness.

Arminius addressed this issue in detail below (from His Apology)

ARTICLE 22 (2.)

It is the summit of blasphemy to say, that God is freely good.

ANSWER

In this article likewise, our brethren disclose their own disgraceful proceedings, which I would gladly allow to remain buried in oblivion. But, because they recall this affair to my recollection, I will now relate how it occurred.

In a disputation, it was asked, "can necessity and liberty be so far reconciled to each other, that a person may be said necessarily or freely to produce one and the same effect?" These words being used properly according to their respective strict definitions, which are here subjoined. "An agent acts necessarily, who, when all the requisites for action are laid down, cannot do otherwise than act, or cannot suspend his acting. An agent acts freely, who, when all the requisites for action are laid down, can refrain from beginning to act, or can suspend his acting," I declared, "that the two terms could not meet in one subject." Other persons said, "that they could," evidently for the purpose of confirming the dogma which asserts, "Adam sinned freely indeed, and yet necessarily. FREELY, with respect to himself and according to his nature: NECESSARILY, with respect to the decree of God." Of this their explanation I did not admit, but said necessarily and freely differ not in respects, but in their entire essences, as do necessity and contingency, or what is necessary and what is contingent, which, because they divide the whole amplitude of being, cannot possibly coincide together, more than can finite and infinite. But Liberty appertains to Contingency.

To disprove this my opinion, they brought forward an instance, or example, in which Necessity and Liberty met together; and that was God, who is both necessarily and freely good. This assertion of theirs displeased me so exceedingly, as to cause me to say, that it was not far removed from blasphemy. At this time, I entertain a similar opinion about it; and in a few words I thus prove its falsity, absurdity, and the blasphemy [contained] in the falsity.

(1.) Its falsity. He who by natural necessity, and according to his very essence and the whole of his nature, is good, nay, who is Goodness itself, the Supreme Good, the First Good from whom all good proceeds, throughwhom every good comes, in whom every good exists, and by a participation of whom what things soever have any portion of good in them are good, and more or less good as they are nearer or more remote from it. He is not FREELY good. For it is a contradiction in an adjunct, or an opposition in an apposition. But God is good by natural necessity, according to his entire nature and essence, and is Goodness itself, the supreme and primary Good, from whom, through whom: and in whom is all good, etc. Therefore, God is not freely good.

(2.) Its absurdity. Liberty is an affection of the Divine Will; not of the Divine Essence, Understanding, or Power; and therefore it is not an affection of the Divine Nature, considered in its totality. It is indeed an effect of the will, according to which it is borne towards an object that is neither primary nor adequate, and that is different from God himself; and this effect of the will, therefore, is posterior in order to that affection of the will according to which God is borne towards a proper, primary and adequate object, which is himself. But Goodness is an affection of the whole of the Divine Nature, Essence, Life, Understanding, Will, Power, etc. Therefore, God is not freely good; that is, he is not good by the mode of liberty, but by that of natural necessity. I add, that it cannot be affirmed of anything in the nature of things, that it is freely, or that it is this or that freely, not even then when man was made what he is, by actions proceeding from free will: as no man is said to be "freely learned," although he has obtained erudition for himself by study which proceeded from free will.

(3.) I prove that blasphemy is contained in this assertion: because, if God be freely good, (that is, not by nature and natural necessity,) he can be or can be made not good. As whatever any one wills freely, he has it in his power not to will; and whatever any one does freely, he can refrain from doing. Consider the dispute between the ancient Fathers and Eunomius and his followers, who endeavored to prove that the Son was not eternally begotten of the Father, because the Father had neither willingly nor unwillingly begotten the Son. But the answer given to them by Cyril, Basil, and others, was this: "The Father was neither willing nor unwilling; that is, He begat the Son not by will, but by nature. The act of generation is not from the Divine Will, but from the Divine nature." If they say, "God may also be said to be freely good, because He is not good by co-action or force:" I reply, not only is co-action repugnant to liberty, but nature is likewise; and each of them, nature and co-action, constitutes an entire, total and sufficient cause for the exclusion of liberty. Nor does it follow, "co-action does not exclude liberty from this thing; therefore, it is freely that which it actually is. A stone does not fall downwards by co-action; it, therefore, falls by liberty. Man wills not his own salvation by force, therefore, he wills it freely." Such objections as these are unworthy to be produced by MEN; and in the refutation of them shall I expend my time and leisure, Thus, therefore, the Christian Fathers justly attached blasphemy to those who said, "the Father begat the Son willingly, or by his own will;" because from this it would follow, that the Son had an origin similar to that of the creatures. But with how much greater equity does blasphemy fasten itself upon those who declare, "that God is freely good? For if he be freely good, he likewise freely knows and loves himself, and besides does all things freely, even when He begets the Son and breathes forth the Holy Spirit.

What in blue blazes is a soul to make of this hard Calvinist statement?

In fact, the elect should desire and pray for the damnation of the non elect, for thats Gods appointment of them, and we should pray for Gods will to be done..

I don't know what to say about this other than if this is ever encountered in a scripture study or in the midst of a congregation, it should be tossed out without hesitation into the dank outside from where it came.

The Author of Sin, POE … To Be or Not to Be

Paul Copan, in writing on Parchment and Pen, recently commented on the controversial position of R.C. Sproul Jr. regarding the authorship of sin. It has made the rounds on various blogs and discussion groups, some behind closed doors, and as expected it has fueled objections and comparisons in several corners. The premise of God being the author of sin has been suggested countless times and objected to as many. Most Calvinists I have dialogued with take pains to distance themselves from the idea that God could be the author of sin. Others, whom I generally have little interaction with other than to become familiar with some of their writings have either openly embraced the idea or done so with the mask of avoidance. Vincent Cheung addresses the issue by asking an obvious question, why not? Of course asking the question in such a manner allows him to avoid in print what lays on his mind. John Frame is somewhat more direct in openly stating that God brings about sin rather than merely allowing it however even he shapes the discussion by reflecting the impetus of the inquiry choosing to qualify sin as something other than that which is authored or created in some sense. On the other hand, Sproul Jr. comes to the table with clear and unambiguous direction. God is the "culprit". God is the author of sin, I took that thought to one of the more carnal Calvinist discussion boards (one supposedly affiliated with John Frame or so that is the claim made by some). My perspective on this matter is shared by a lot of non-Calvinist observers. Sproul is merely stating openly what his supralapsarian leanings require if one is to be honest about what they believe. Lapsarian doctrines of the order of decrees regarding the fall of man provide the fodder for fueling Calvinist speculation of when God decreed the fall. Depending on how one defines decree, we end up with a disjointed presentation on the "problem of evil". Calvinists tend to view decree in absolute terms. A decree is an immovable determination , a defining of sovereign action, in many Calvinist minds. As such the question of whether God is the author of sin is inevitable.

It is not a new question nor can it be attributed to the modern Neo-Calvinism that has polluted the faith in so many quarters. We have to step back to Beza at least to understand how the idea of decrees can be carried away to making God the author of sin. Calvin was in theory a Supralapsarian theologian. Beza took it steps further and Calvinists following in their footsteps went further giving cause for Arminius, perhaps the most knowledgeable Reformed theologian of his day, to state the following regarding God and sin.

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.

Deterministic Coin Toss

To be, or not to be: that is the question: Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or to take arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing end them? …

I doubt Hamlet pondered over the musings of Calvinistic determinism and certainly Ophelia failed to measure the man against one man's truth versus another. "To be, or not to be" or restated as to do or not to do seems to go to a certain inquiry. Why do Calvinists pray? The question has been asked numerous times in uncountable circumstances. To do the will of God or to suffer in obedience seems to be the common reply in so many other words. How can the elect be outwardly known is another refrain. I have asked a question numerous times that never satisfies me with regard to the replies. What happens to men's souls if you refrain from prayer, from entreaties to the LORD, from seeking his favor with regard to the Gospel of Jesus Christ? One fellow replied in honest amazement "why would we not do that?". I considered his answer thinking of a coin toss. Should the coin land on its face, what would be the result? Did God determine how the coin should land and if the decision to evangelize or pray or do any of the things we consider Christian rests on the result of the toss, does it matter at all whether we evangelize or not, that decision also being a determined fate of our existence.

I thought about wearing brown socks today and having scrambled eggs but thinking the LORD had determined otherwise, I settled for no socks and fried eggs over easy. I should have flipped a coin and rolled over.

Continuing with E.M. Bounds

The last portion of his book, Power Through Prayer, is entitled "A Praying Pulpit Begets A Praying Pew". It is one of those crucial instructions made by men of God that bears witness to the truth long after they have passed. Its short words follow …

A PRAYING PULPIT BEGETS A PRAYING PEW

"I judge that my prayer is more than the devil himself; if it were otherwise, Luther would have fared differently long before this. Yet men will not see and acknowledge the great wonders or miracles God works in my behalf. If I should neglect prayer but a single day, I should lose a great deal of the fire of faith." - Martin Luther

ONLY glimpses of the great importance of prayer could the apostles get before Pentecost. But the Spirit coming and filling on Pentecost elevated prayer to its vital and all-commanding position in the gospel of Christ. The call now of prayer to every saint is the Spirit's loudest and most exigent call. Sainthood's piety is made, refined, perfected, by prayer. The gospel moves with slow and timid pace when the saints are not at their prayers early and late and long.

Where are the Christly leaders who can teach the modern saints how to pray and put them at it? Do we know we are raising up a prayerless set of saints? Where are the apostolic leaders who can put God's people to praying? Let them come to the front and do the work, and it will be the greatest work which can be done. An increase of educational facilities and a great increase of money force will be the direst curse to religion if they are not sanctified by more and better praying than we are doing. More praying will not come as a matter of course. The campaign for the twentieth or thirtieth century fund will not help our praying but hinder if we are not careful. Nothing but a specific effort from a praying leadership will avail. The chief ones must lead in the apostolic effort to radicate the vital importance and fact of prayer in the heart and life of the Church. None but praying leaders can have praying followers. Praying apostles will beget praying saints. A praying pulpit will beget praying pews. We do greatly need some body who can set the saints to this business of praying. We are not a generation of praying saints. Non-praying saints are a beggarly gang of saints who have neither the ardor nor the beauty nor the power of saints. Who will restore this breach? The greatest will he be of reformers and apostles, who can set the Church to praying.

We put it as our most sober judgment that the great need of the Church in this and all ages is men of such commanding faith, of such unsullied holiness, of such marked spiritual vigor and consuming zeal, that their prayers, faith, lives, and ministry will be of such a radical and aggressive form as to work spiritual revolutions which will form eras in individual and Church life.

We do not mean men who get up sensational stirs by novel devices, nor those who attract by a pleasing entertainment; but men who can stir things, and work revolutions by the preaching of God's Word and by the power of the Holy Ghost, revolutions which change the whole current of things.

Natural ability and educational advantages do not figure as factors in this matter; but capacity for faith, the ability to pray, the power of thorough consecration, the ability of self-littleness, an absolute losing of one's self in God's glory, and an ever-present and insatiable yearning and seeking after all the fullness of God -- men who can set the Church ablaze for God; not in a noisy, showy way, but with an intense and quiet heat that melts and moves everything for God.

God can work wonders if he can get a suitable man. Men can work wonders if they can get God to lead them. The full endowment of the spirit that turned the world upside down would be eminently useful in these latter days. Men who can stir things mightily for God, whose spiritual revolutions change the whole aspect of things, are the universal need of the Church.

The Church has never been without these men; they adorn its history; they are the standing miracles of the divinity of the Church; their example and history are an unfailing inspiration and blessing. An increase in their number and power should be our prayer.

That which has been done in spiritual matters can be done again, and be better done. This was Christ's view. He said "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father." The past has not exhausted the possibilities nor the demands for doing great things for God. The Church that is dependent on its past history for its miracles of power and grace is a fallen Church.

God wants elect men -- men out of whom self and the world have gone by a severe crucifixion, by a bankruptcy which has so totally ruined self and the world that there is neither hope nor desire of recovery; men who by this insolvency and crucifixion have turned toward God perfect hearts.

Let us pray ardently that God's promise to prayer may be more than realized.

The Power of Prayer

There is an interesting post at the Society of Evangelical Arminians today that addresses the objections some of our Calvinist brethren have with the causal impact prayer has in the life of the saint and those he or she interact with. I have long had difficulty grasping why Calvinists in general fail to understand the importance of prayer and the cost of lacking a prayer life. To be sure, this is not a problem limited to Calvinists as the same lack of insight into prayer is found in many corners. I can do nothing but marvel at the notion that failing to pray, to intercede, to petition are mere determined courses of events. How can one avail much if he fails at the means through which God responds? The short article is interesting as is the dialogue on the associated blogs.

One resource I have always turned to regarding prayer is E.M. Bounds, especially his work The Power Through Prayer. It is timeless and truly the work of a saint in love with the LORD.