The Power of Prayer

"Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much." (Jas 5:16 AV)

I was thinking earlier this morning on the responsibilities of the saint and came upon this passage. In this age when carnal religion and charismatic excess present themselves as mediocre counterfeits in the church, it becomes far too easy to miss the importance of charisma and responsibility in our relationship with Jesus Christ and the Father. As I type this I cannot help but experience another déjà vu as I know this matter has pressed me repeatedly in past discussions and experiences. It is always troubling when the solid ground is missed because of one's excess and another's dismissal. One cavorts in the midst of a money scheme while the latter wallows in his cessasionism. I think it is the latter that troubles me more. The hyper-Charismatic with his prayer cloths and anointing oils sold by the gallon is easily identifiable. The dogmatic cessasionist, on the other hand, hides his rejection of the work of God behind a cloak of presumed orthodoxy only to feign an allegiance of charisma with the presumption that the gifts of God must certainly exist but not in any way imaginable today. The church world is full of both kinds today but I have to wonder how many of those James refers to as righteous men are offering fervent prayers for the glorious healing powers of God? Ezekiel pushed the thought further in another context when the prophet offers … "And I sought for a man among them, that should make up the hedge, and stand in the gap before me for the land, that I should not destroy it: but I found none." (Eze 22:30 AV). The LORD desires those righteous men who know His power and His promises.

I was going to take this thought to a polemic against Calvinist determinism but will save it for another day. There is no shortage of opportunities to expose the poverty of such thoughts but too many times I fail to dial into these more important issues in our sanctifying walk in Christ. I am a fervent believer in the power of prayer. I know that I know that I know, endlessly repeated, that the LORD works through our prayers and grants the wishes of a faithful servant. Sometimes those fulfillments are not exactly what we expected but we find our position granted as we desired. I needed to find another job a couple of years ago, one located back where we had previously lived and where our grandchildren now live. It took several tries, several prayers and at the end of the day, we are where we desired. Now I had prayed to the LORD for a particular opportunity but he gave me something better. Had he granted my particular wish, we would be in a lesser position, in a place that might have proved difficult to us knowing what we now know. Instead, He placed us where we can accomplish our immediate goals with little impediment. I want to bring this back to the passage from James.

When I was a young boy, I was enamored of an elderly man who operated a small dry cleaner shop in the neighborhood I grew up in. He was in his late seventies at this time and he took ill one summer with his very life threatened. Suffering from pneumonia, his lungs were filling with fluid and I remember my mother discussing the dire condition with several of the neighborhood women. None gave him any hope and as I sat on the upper steps of our stairwell I wept. I wept for an old friend and cried out to the LORD asking Him to save his life and bring him back home. I was not ready to see my friend go. Now, I was raised as one who sought out his own faith while a child excepting my forced attendance at the local Congregational Church Sunday School classes. I knew much of the scripture and as a child I knew Jesus was LORD. I can be ashamed of my later life but at that time I believed and trusted that the LORD was true to His Word. So weeping on that step and praying to the LORD, I knew He listened. I knew that my prayers mattered. I knew there was an effect. The LORD brought that old man home, restoring his health when all others prepared for his death. He became a testimony to me of the power of prayer that I cannot shake today. I have come to believe and know today that as James stated, the prayers of the LORD's children have an effect on our walk, the people around us and in fulfillment of the desires we have as children of God.

 

Google Sites For Theological Documents

For the past couple of years I have found Google.com to offer a wealth of free or low cost utilities that really provide a great help to those who spend a lot of time with the web. One tool I have recently started using is Google Sites. Like most web pages, it allows the user to store files that might be too large to post on a blog and to provide a quick resource for pertinent materials used for research and sourcing. Since I use this blog predominantly to work out my thoughts and ideas for my own benefit and not particularly for an audience, it is a great tool to have something like Sites to keep those documents and resources handy and accessible from one location. It is pretty sparse at the moment but perhaps over time I will be able to collect several more articles of particular interest to me.

This blogs Google Site is located at Arminian Resources

Christ’s Atonement Never Saved a Single Calvinist

You know, I was thinking a bit this morning and I have to state that the atonement of Christ at Calvary failed to save John Calvin. Yes, that's right. It didn't do the trick. I was trying to think of some other Calvinists that were saved by Christ's atonement and as hard as I tried, I couldn't think of any. James White? Pffft … Not a chance. My good loving Calvinist buddies over on CARM? Man, I'd love to say yes but the truth is not a single one of them can entice me to say they were saved by Christ's atonement. Arthur Pink? Now I wanted to say yes but alas the answer can only be no, Pink was never saved by Christ's atonement. Then I struck upon Charles H. Spurgeon and I thought surely he had to be saved by Christ's atonement. But the more I thought about it (especially when his disparaging remarks concerning Arminianism came to mind) I had to admit that even Spurgeon fell short. The more I thought about this, the clearer it became. Now, Calvinists are fond of claiming to be saved by Christ's atonement but can the Christian really believe them? Those who love Christ had better not believe them because I am convinced that not a single Calvinist was saved by Christ's atonement. What a horrible predicament that would place a Calvinist in to come to the realization that he was never saved by Christ's atonement. It might even force him to relinquish himself to the FACTS and doctrines of Christ and become an Arminian. It sure might help him especially when he realizes that, come to think of it, not a single Arminian was saved by the atonement of Christ either. It takes faith to be a child of God.

"Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth [to be] a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;" (Ro 3:24-25 AV)

Thanks to William Birch at Classical Arminianism for a wonderful article this morning.

Arminius on Predestination




Arminius wrote a considerable article dealing with the aspects and implications of various Calvinist doctrines of Predestination in his Sentiments. Recently, I have found myself engaged in several contentious discussions regarding the orthodoxy of Calvinist predestination. In turning to Arminius' Sentiments I came to the unsettled conclusion that the predestination teaching of the various Calvinist churches cannot be deemed as an orthodox instruction in the body of Christ if Arminius argues on a solid ground (which I do indeed argue). While I would not deem such teachings to be heretical and I am certainly not in a position to do such, the degree of unorthodoxy is such that if Calvinistic Predestination were removed from the syllabus of Reformed thought, the entire catalogue of that systematic theology would crumble. Its foundation is premised on that arbitrary determinism called by another name, Predestination. The following is an extract from Arminius' comments on this matter and provides the Reformation Arminian view of predestination that readily agrees with the historic orthodoxy of the Christian Church without causing any manner of doctrinal conflict with that orthodoxy. Arminius' comments in whole are lengthy and those sections that address the objectionable tenets of Calvinist Predestination are not presented here although a link to those comments is provided. – A.M. Mallett

From Arminius' Declaration of Sentiments:

MY OWN SENTIMENTS ON PREDESTINATION.

I have hitherto been stating those opinions concerning the article of Predestination which are inculcated in our Churches and in the University of Leyden, and of which I disapprove. I have at the same time produced my own reasons, why I form such an unfavorable judgment concerning them; and I will now declare my own opinions on this subject, which are of such a description as, according to my views, appear most conformable to the word of God.

1. The first absolute decree of God concerning the salvation of sinful man, is that by which he decreed to appoint his Son, Jesus Christ, for a Mediator, Redeemer, Savior, Priest and King, who might destroy sin by his own death, might by his obedience obtain the salvation which had been lost, and might communicate it by his own virtue.

2. The second precise and absolute decree of God, is that in which he decreed to receive into favor those who repent and believe, and, in Christ, for his sake and through Him, to effect the salvation of such penitents and believers as persevered to the end; but to leave in sin, and under wrath, all impenitent persons and unbelievers, and to damn them as aliens from Christ.

3. The third Divine decree is that by which God decreed to administer in a sufficient and efficacious manner the means which were necessary for repentance and faith; and to have such administration instituted

(1.) according to the Divine Wisdom, by which God knows what is proper and becoming both to his mercy and his severity, and

(2.) according to Divine Justice, by which He is prepared to adopt whatever his wisdom may prescribe and put it in execution.

4. To these succeeds the fourth decree, by which God decreed to save and damn certain particular persons. This decree has its foundation in the foreknowledge of God, by which he knew from all eternity those individuals who would, through his preventing grace, believe, and, through his subsequent grace would persevere, according to the before described administration of those means which are suitable and proper for conversion and faith; and, by which foreknowledge, he likewise knew those who would not believe and persevere.

Predestination, when thus explained, is

1. The foundation of Christianity, and of salvation and its certainty.

2. It is the sum and the matter of the gospel; nay, it is the gospel itself, and on that account necessary to be believed in order to salvation, as far as the two first articles are concerned.

3. It has had no need of being examined or determined by any council, either general or particular, since it is contained in the scriptures clearly and expressly in so many words; and no contradiction has ever yet been offered to it by any orthodox Divine.

4. It has constantly been acknowledged and taught by all Christian teachers who held correct and orthodox sentiments.

5. It agrees with that harmony of all confessions, which has been published by the protestant Churches.

6. It likewise agrees most excellently with the Dutch Confession and Catechism. This concord is such, that if in the Sixteenth article these two expressions "those persons whom" and "others," be explained by the words "believers" and "unbelievers" these opinions of mine on Predestination will be comprehended in that article with the greatest clearness. This is the reason why I directed the thesis to be composed in the very words of the Confession, when, on one occasion, I had to hold a public disputation before my private class in the University. This kind of Predestination also agrees with the reasoning contained in the twentieth and the fifty-fourth question of the Catechism.

7. It is also in excellent accordance with the nature of God — with his wisdom, goodness, and righteousness; because it contains the principal matter of all of them, and is the clearest demonstration of the Divine wisdom, goodness, and righteousness [or justice]

8. It is agreeable in every point with the nature of man — in what form soever that nature may be contemplated, whether in the primitive state of creation, in that of the fall, or in that of restoration.

9. It is in complete concert with the act of creation, by affirming that the creation itself is a real communication of good, both from the intention of God, and with regard to the very end or event; that it had its origin in the goodness of God; that whatever has a reference to its continuance and preservation, proceeds from Divine love; and that this act of creation is a perfect and appropriate work of God, in which he is at complaisance with himself, and by which he obtained all things necessary for an unsinning state.

10. It agrees with the nature of life eternal, and with the honorable titles by which that life is designated in the scriptures.

11. It also agrees with the nature of death eternal, and with the names by which that death is distinguished in scripture.

12. It states sin to be a real disobedience, and the meritorious cause of condemnation; and on this account, it is in the most perfect agreement with the fall and with sin.

13. In every particular, it harmonizes with the nature of grace, by ascribing to it all those things which agree with it, [or adapted to it,] and by reconciling it most completely to the righteousness of God and to the nature and liberty of the human will.

14. It conduces most conspicuously to declare the glory of God, his justice and his mercy. It also represents God as the cause of all good and of our salvation, and man as the cause of sin and of his own damnation.

15. It contributes to the honor of Jesus Christ, by placing him for the foundation of Predestination and the meritorious as well as communicative cause of salvation.

16. It greatly promotes the salvation of men: It is also the power, and the very means which lead to salvation — by exciting and creating within the mind of man sorrow on account of sin, a solicitude about his conversion, faith in Jesus Christ, a studious desire to perform good works, and zeal in prayer — and by causing men to work out their salvation with fear and trembling. It likewise prevents despair, as far as such prevention is necessary.

17. It confirms and establishes that order according to which the gospel ought to be preached,

(1.) By requiring repentance and faith —

(2.) And then by promising remission of sins, the grace of the spirit, and life eternal.

18. It strengthens the ministry of the gospel, and renders it profitable with respect to preaching, the administration of the sacraments and public prayers.

19. It is the foundation of the Christian religion; because in it, the two-fold love of God may be united together — God's love of righteousness [or justice], and his love of men, may, with the greatest consistency, be reconciled to each other.

20. Lastly. This doctrine of Predestination, has always been approved by the great majority of professing Christians, and even now, in these days, it enjoys the same extensive patronage. It cannot afford any person just cause for expressing his aversion to it; nor can it give any pretext for contention in the Christian Church.

It is therefore much to be desired, that men would proceed no further in this matter, and would not attempt to investigate the unsearchable judgments of God — at least that they would not proceed beyond the point at which those judgments have been clearly revealed in the scriptures.

This, my most potent Lords, is all that I intend now to declare to your mightinesses, respecting the doctrine of Predestination, about which there exists such a great controversy in the Church of Christ. If it would not prove too tedious to your Lordships, I have some other propositions which I could wish to state, because they contribute to a full declaration of my sentiments, and tend to the same purpose as that for which I have been ordered to attend in this place by your mightinesses.

There are certain other articles of the Christian religion, which possess a close affinity to the doctrine of Predestination, and which are in a great measure dependent on it: Of this description are the providence of God, the free-will of man, the perseverance of saints, and the certainty of salvation. On these topics, if not disagreeable to your mightinesses, I will in a brief manner relate my opinion.


 

Antinomianism, A Calvinist Expectation

Antinomianism, while being more than a mouthful of syllables, is a state of philosophy I seem to encounter among the Calvinist bloggers and discussion sites. While John Fletcher penned an extensive discourse against the antinomian tendencies of Calvinist philosophy, the topic is not much discussed in our discourse with Calvinist brethren. It is one of those topics similar to the Calvinist insinuation of God authoring sin that brings out an astonishing denial. Let's look at a passage in scripture that recently brought this to light.

"Rejoice evermore. Pray without ceasing. In every thing give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you. Quench not the Spirit. Despise not prophesyings. Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. Abstain from all appearance of evil." (1Th 5:16-22 AV)

This passage came up during a discussion about whether or not we can frustrate the work of the Holy Spirit in our lives and in the lives of others. The faithful are entreated to avoid several things one of them being to not extinguish the work of the Holy Spirit, to not quench the Spirit. Now ironically this suggestion was offered by a Calvinist who then posited the idea that we cannot frustrate or extinguish the work of God. Further it was suggested that in agreeing with the scriptures directly, we would present ourselves as lessening the LORD to a tiny God with ourselves able to stop his omnipotence. It is an absurd suggestion yet it was the defense offered after he insisted that quench does not mean to extinguish or put out, stifle or subdue. Yet Paul expressly stated "Quench not the Spirit" and the term used in scripture is sbennumi meaning specifically to not extinguish, stifle or suppress. There is a purpose to this apparent madness in attempting to redefine terms and it is to promote the philosophy of a continuous struggle against the LORD. In the Calvinist mind, Christians have no victory over sin, that the struggle with flesh is a Christian expectation and as such desired of the LORD. We are to continuously fail in Christ. Contrast that with the admonitions of the Apostles to be holy as the LORD is Holy, to be instructed in the ways of holiness and cautioned against allowing the flesh to rear up in our lives. By surrendering themselves to the expectations of flesh, the Calvinist becomes a slave to his view of sin being the norm in his walk. He becomes what he denies, antinomian in mind and deed explained away as a normative struggle over which he is not expected victory.

John Fletcher's work is often forgotten in this modern age but it would be wise of us to freshen ourselves against this philosophy of antinomianism that is nothing short of an enemy within the church. It robs the believer of his faith in Christ and produces a dead church content with worldliness and fatalistic expectation and the church deserves better than such a poor lead.

John Fletcher's An Equal Check To Pharisaism And Antinomianism

 

It's time R.C. Sproul realized the Christian realm is not defined by Calvinist intellectual polemics and endeavors. He has a plug for the Calvinist counterpart to this book on his blog and of course as with any Calvinist argument there is always a more convincing position stated by the greater body of Christ. Such it is with Jerry Walls and Joseph Dongell's book Why I Am Not A Calvinist. It's available in many Christian bookstores and several online sites.

Christianbook.com

Arminius on the Free Will of Man

For the last 450 years since Christians began openly rejecting the religious philosophy of John Calvin, Theodore Beza and other Calvinists who formulated their assertions in the infancy of the Reformation, we have had to repeatedly cast down a false accusation, a spurious lie regarding the will of man. The charge of "free willism" or some great measure of Pelagianism has often infected the polemic of many Calvinists who either through theological ignorance or deliberate and willful deception slander and libel the greater body of Christ. Arminius addressed this falsehood spoken so easily off the lips of countless Calvinists in his day and ours in his Sentiments. When a modern version of the polemicists Beza, Gomarus and countless of their fellows spew the charges of Pelagianism and "free-willer" as if it damages one's Christianity, they are easily and irrefutably rebuked with the words of Arminius himself.

THE FREE-WILL OF MAN

This is my opinion concerning the free-will of man: In his primitive condition as he came out of the hands of his creator, man was endowed with such a portion of knowledge, holiness and power, as enabled him to understand, esteem, consider, will, and to perform the true good, according to the commandment delivered to him. Yet none of these acts could he do, except through the assistance of Divine Grace. But in his lapsed and sinful state, man is not capable, of and by himself, either to think, to will, or to do that which is really good; but it is necessary for him to be regenerated and renewed in his intellect, affections or will, and in all his powers, by God in Christ through the Holy Spirit, that he may be qualified rightly to understand, esteem, consider, will, and perform whatever is truly good. When he is made a partaker of this regeneration or renovation, I consider that, since he is delivered from sin, he is capable of thinking, willing and doing that which is good, but yet not without the continued aids of Divine Grace.

Why Would God Become Angry At What He Ordained?

I asked this question on a discussion board when a Calvinist rightly pointed out that the LORD gets angry at the sinful actions of fallen men. There is no doubt that sin angers the LORD. The anger of the LORD is expressed in numerous passages yet this truth causes me to ask the Calvinist "why"? How is it that an omniscient God could possibly get angry at what He supposedly (in the Calvinist tradition) causes or ordains? If God issues a commandment that He has purposefully ordained to be broken, is it not an expression of hypocrisy to become angry at what is His very design? I do not think the Calvinist can address this inquiry in an honest manner. In fact I know from my experiences with a few that the response is to engage in an ad hominem fallacy and accuse me of presenting a straw man albeit unidentified. Contrary to the diversions, the question I pose is valid and crucial to understanding the religious philosophy of Calvinism.

Imagine for a moment I have planned an outing for tomorrow knowing full well that there is a bad storm on the way with torrential rains forecasted at 100% probability. I can see the weather map and the red squalls and I know what tomorrow will bring yet I make my plans for the outing nonetheless. Now upon waking in the morning and being faced with an absolute deluge, I fly into a rage because now, my outing is to be cancelled. I had no hope it would clear. In fact I knew it was going to rain yet now I am angry for doing something I knew with complete certainty would fail. Such is the scenario with Calvinist determinism. It has the LORD becoming angry at the fulfillment of His Holy purpose. In Calvinist thought, the LORD has ordained everything that comes to pass, including the sinful actions of men. Now, there is an excuse offered in their defense. We must come to understand the significance of "primary and secondary causes", so the Calvinist states. Yet whether primary or secondary, sinfulness serves the Calvinistic view of the purpose of God and in that sense this is no excuse. Whether primary, secondary, compatibalist or hard determinism, the Calvinist continues to have a God angry at the fulfillment of His desires.

The following was a recent exchange I had with a Calvinist about this matter (his comments in Bold Italics).

Why would God get angry at what he purposed?

You mean aside from the fact He told them not too fully knowing that some would according to thier nature? I guess you'll just have to live with the fact that there is/was a purpose to it.

That doesn't answer the inquiry. How is it that God, being omniscient, could get angry at what He purposefully ordained (caused in some minds)?

Are you saying that God is the author of sin Trav? No...of course not. Are you then saying that Calvinists believe that God is the author of sin? This can't be the case since the Calvinist believes in primary and secondary causes. Are you then saying that our definition of causes is flawed? Well...no one is saying you can't but to do so you would need to prove it via Scripture.

No, I am looking for the Calvinist answer to this question: How is it that God, being omniscient, could get angry at what He purposefully ordained (caused in some minds)?

And I've called you on the straw man implicit in your question. Next?

You have called nothing. In fact you are running from addressing the question. You stated the LORD gets angry and that is true. My question still stands:

The strawman implicit in your question is the caused bit. You know as well as I that we believe in primary and secondary causes. The rest of my response comes logically. Your hand is still stuck in the cookie jar Trav.

Whether you call it primary & secondary causes, compatibalism or just plain hard determinism, it remains you cannot answer the question directly without convicting yourself of a poor religious philosophy. Instead, you refuse to address the question using the slander of strawman as your "defense".

Another Calvinist in the discussion thread had a great one-liner in response to the question and deserves an honorable mention.

Because He purposed to get angry at it..

Arminius on the Perfection of Believers

The scriptures instruct us to be holy as the LORD is holy yet we stumble in sin, some more than others, some it seems not at all. There is a doctrine in some circles claiming the sinless perfection of all true believers yet such an anger can be brewed in the souls that teach such things as to betray the state of their being. I do not believe the scriptures teach such things but I do believe the desire of the LORD is that we be holy in all things, to be brought to a place of Christian perfection where our thoughts and deeds are captured in Christ. Arminius dealt with this matter in the following comments – A.M. Mallett

THE PERFECTION OF BELIEVERS IN THIS LIFE

Beside those doctrines on which I have treated, there is now much discussion among us respecting the perfection of believers, or regenerated persons, in this life; and it is reported, that I entertain sentiments on this subject, which are very improper, and nearly allied to those of the Pelagians, viz: "that it is possible for the regenerate in this life perfectly to keep God's precepts." To this I reply, though these might have been my sentiments yet I ought not on this account to be considered a Pelagian, either partly or entirely, provided I had only added that "they could do this by the grace of Christ, and by no means without it." But while I never asserted, that a believer could perfectly keep the precepts of Christ in this life, I never denied it, but always left it as a matter which has still to be decided. For I have contented myself with those sentiments which St. Augustine has expressed on this subject, whose words have frequently quoted in the University, and have usually subjoined, that I had no addition to make to them.

Augustine says, "four questions may claim our attention on this topic. The first is, was there ever yet a man without sin, one who from the beginning of life to its termination never committed sin? The second, has there ever been, is there now, or can there possibly be, an individual who does not sin, that is, who has attained to such a state of perfection in this life as not to commit sin, but perfectly to fulfill the law of God? The third, is it possible for a man in this life to exist without sin? The fourth, if it be possible for a man to be without sin, why has such an individual never yet been found?" St. Augustine says, that such a person as is described in the first question never yet lived, or will hereafter be brought into existence, with the exception of Jesus Christ. He does not think, that any man has attained to such perfection in this life as is portrayed in the second question. With regard to the third, he thinks it possible for a man to be without sin, by means of the grace of Christ and free-will. In answer to the fourth, man does not do what it is possible for him by the grace of Christ to perform, either because that which is good escapes his observation, or because in it he places no part of his delight." From this quotation it is apparent, that St. Augustine, one of the most strenuous adversaries of the Pelagian doctrine, retained this sentiment, that "it is possible for a man to live in this world without sin."

Beside this, the same Christian father says, "let Pelagius confess, that it is possible for man to be without sin, in no other way than by the grace of Christ, and we will be at peace with each other." The opinion of Pelagius appeared to St. Augustine to be this — "that man could fulfill the law of God by his own proffer strength and ability; but with still "greater facility by means of the grace of Christ." I have already most abundantly stated the great distance at which I stand from such a sentiment; in addition to which I now declare, that I account this sentiment of Pelagius to be heretical, and diametrically opposed to these words of Christ, "Without me ye can do nothing:" (John 15:5.) It is likewise very destructive, and inflicts a most grievous wound on the glory of Christ. I cannot see that anything is contained in all I have hitherto produced respecting my sentiments, on account of which any person ought to be "afraid of appearing in the presence of God," and from which it might be feared that any mischievous consequences can possibly arise. Yet because every day brings me fresh information about reports concerning me, "that I carry in my breast destructive sentiments and heresies," I cannot possibly conceive to what points those charges can relate, except perhaps they draw some such pretext from my opinion concerning the Divinity of the Son of God, and the justification of man before God. Indeed, I have lately learnt, that there has been much public conversation, and many rumors have been circulated, respecting my opinion on both these points of doctrine, particularly since the last conference [between Gomarus and myself] before the Counselors of the Supreme Court. This is one reason why I think, that I shall not be acting unadvisedly if I disclose to your mightinesses the real state of the whole matter.

Arminius on Perseverance

I have never felt comfortable telling any soul that that he might lose his salvation as I have never met a Christian who lost a thing. At the same time, I think Arminius makes an expression of this issue well enough to guide me in my thoughts on the matter. - A.M. Mallett

THE PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS

My sentiments respecting the perseverance of the saints are, that those persons who have been grafted into Christ by true faith, and have thus been made partakers of his life-giving Spirit, possess sufficient powers [or strength] to fight against Satan, sin, the world and their own flesh, and to gain the victory over these enemies — yet not without the assistance of the grace of the same Holy Spirit. Jesus Christ also by his Spirit assists them in all their temptations, and affords them the ready aid of his hand; and, provided they stand prepared for the battle, implore his help, and be not wanting to themselves, Christ preserves them from falling. So that it is not possible for them, by any of the cunning craftiness or power of Satan, to be either seduced or dragged out of the hands of Christ. But I think it is useful and will be quite necessary in our first convention, [or Synod] to institute a diligent inquiry from the Scriptures, whether it is not possible for some individuals through negligence to desert the commencement of their existence in Christ, to cleave again to the present evil world, to decline from the sound doctrine which was once delivered to them, to lose a good conscience, and to cause Divine grace to be ineffectual. Though I here openly and ingenuously affirm, I never taught that a true believer can, either totally or finally fall away from the faith, and perish; yet I will not conceal, that there are passages of scripture which seem to me to wear this aspect; and those answers to them which I have been permitted to see, are not of such a kind as to approve themselves on all points to my understanding. On the other hand, certain passages are produced for the contrary doctrine [of unconditional perseverance] which are worthy of much consideration.

From The Works of Arminius, Declaration of Sentiments

Ben Witherington has an on-going review of George Barna and Frank Viola's book Pagan
Christianity that is of great interest. It is wonderful to see a noted Christian scholar tackle this misleading and ill-informed publication. This is another example of sound and orthodox Christianity refuting a neo-theological perspective that should have undergone a more thorough academic review before hitting the presses.

Review Part 1

Review Part 2

Review Part 3

Review Part 4

Prayers for the Family of David Shawn Blanton, Jr.

We had a tragedy in Haywood County, NC this past week. His victim's name was David Shawn Blanton, Jr. and he was a North Carolina State Trooper in our area. The tragedy was a man named Edwardo Wong II whose fallen and wicked heart brought him to kill Mr. Blanton with cold blooded calculation. Granted, he is only charged with this horrible crime and I am sure the details of this tragedy will come out in trial. Nonetheless, a young husband and father of a two week old baby died doing his duty for the citizens of our state. There was an amazing funeral service yesterday and after returning from bringing my wife her lunch at her workplace I decided to drive through the Lake Junaluska retreat on the way back to our home. I had forgotten about the funeral and when I came upon the auditorium by the lake, I was amazed. There were thousands of people there. There were hundreds of cars along Highway 19 with people milling about to pay respects when Mr. Blanton's body would be carried back to Cherokee, the place of his family's home. … and now, a new baby will go through this world never having known it's father and needlessly so.

The story of this young man is here.

The 91st Psalm

This is one of my personal favorites in all of the Bible and I meditate upon it here with the thoughts of my grandchildren fresh in mind …

 

1 ¶ He that dwelleth in the secret place of the most High shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty.

2 I will say of the LORD, He is my refuge and my fortress: my God; in him will I trust.

3 Surely he shall deliver thee from the snare of the fowler, and from the noisome pestilence.

4 He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust: his truth shall be thy shield and buckler.

5 Thou shalt not be afraid for the terror by night; nor for the arrow that flieth by day;

6 Nor for the pestilence that walketh in darkness; nor for the destruction that wasteth at noonday.

7 A thousand shall fall at thy side, and ten thousand at thy right hand; but it shall not come nigh thee.

8 Only with thine eyes shalt thou behold and see the reward of the wicked.

9 ¶ Because thou hast made the LORD, which is my refuge, even the most High, thy habitation;

10 There shall no evil befall thee, neither shall any plague come nigh thy dwelling.

11 For he shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways.

12 They shall bear thee up in their hands, lest thou dash thy foot against a stone.

13 Thou shalt tread upon the lion and adder: the young lion and the dragon shalt thou trample under feet.

14 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.

15 He shall call upon me, and I will answer him: I will be with him in trouble; I will deliver him, and honour him.

16 With long life will I satisfy him, and shew him my salvation.

 

Take time out of this hectic day and praise the LORD with every fibre of our being.

Are You Christocentric?

I was thinking of something I wrote on another forum a while ago and it continues to tug at me. In examining the Calvinist view of election, I am drawn to the notion that if one's focus and center of their soteriology is that of predestined election, from before the foundations of the world, can such a view truly be considered Christocentric? I realize that my perception of the beliefs expressed by Calvinists may be weighed down by an objection to their premise, yet if coming to save only the elect, chosen before Christ (not speaking of the Logos, but of the Messiah), then how can a Calvinist claim to be Christocentric at all? Christ serves the purpose of the Elect under such a scheme. It seems that Calvinism, rather than centered upon Christ, is focused instead on Election. The LORD's election of souls provides the purpose of Christ if the Calvinist view is to be believed. This strikes me as completely backwards. From the Arminian view (and the right Christian view in my opinion) Christ is The Elect and His purpose was to bring a provision for salvation to the world, not an elect world as our Calvinist friends assert, but to a fallen world in need of a savior. Our election is predicated upon being one in Him and we look to Him as the savior, the redeemer who provides a way for all men who hear the Gospel of His life, death, burial and resurrection to find salvation and eternal life.

The question I must ask is "Are you focused upon the predestined election of souls for whom you must believe is the purpose of Christ or is the focus and object of your faith upon the One who is The Elect of God and the purpose is your Christ centered service to Him"?

A Newborn Arminian

I cannot be a Calvinist with any measure of conscience. As I peered into this newborn's eyes I came to the stark realization that contrary to the Calvinist assertion that the LORD purposefully creates souls as fodder for hell, He brings souls in this world for the purpose of Love. I bring a bias here. This is my newborn grandson born on June 5, 2008 at 10 o'clock in the evening. His name is Benjamin Riley Mallett and I hold him daily bonding and letting him know his grandfather (Papa to him and my other three grandchildren) by sight and voice. I have fed him with breast milk (not mine obviously), burped him, changed him and talked to him of the LORD. He will be raised up in the LORD and taught the doctrines of Christ.

Why Am I An Arminian?

Having been away from this task for a while, I want to return to a quest of sorts. Who am I as an Arminian? This is not a question of what kind of Christian I am for there is only one kind of Christian, one who abides in Christ. Of course, we attach a myriad of labels, thoughts, outlooks, paradigms, viewpoints etc. to how we define our soteriology and hermeneutic. We are Arminian, Free-will Baptist, Particular Baptist, Calvinist, Presbyterian, Methodist, Pentecostal, Charismatic, Orthodox, synergistic, monergistic and a host of other descriptives. Yet, for those among the labels who abide in Christ and He in us, we are Christians. Simply put, we are one body. Even still, I am an Arminian within that body and that defines how I approach theological issues. Putting aside the vitriolic expression of sectarian theology that pervades many discussions of Arminian vs. them or Calvinist vs. us, I desire to fully understand why I call myself an Arminian.

There is an undisputable truth among this One body, that being God is Love. It is Agape, a kind of love that is an expression of the LORD and unattainable by His fleshly creation of our own merit. Naturally, we love our own kind, we love our children, our friends and our personal interests but lacking agape we have no love for our enemies. Such a love is not natural to the flesh except perhaps in an outward fashion yet strip the façade off the worldly purveyors of "brotherly love" and enmity will always show it's ugly face. Fallen man is fallen throughout his entire being and as such agape has no place. Now enter Love or God in the lives of fallen men. We become new creations, not just imputed with righteousness but imparted with the Love of God, that agape love that can only be comprehended with the mind of Christ. Only then can we love our enemies and it is because of that truth that I call myself an Arminian. God loves his enemies.

"For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." (Ro 5:6-8 AV)

As sinners we were at war with the LORD. We hated him. We were His enemy at every turn yet the LORD so loves the world that we have Christ in our midst. I am Arminian because God is Love and that love knows no bounds with regard to this fallen world. There is no man that God hates and cannot love. I am Arminian because I know that any man hearing the Gospel of Jesus Christ, having been freed by the grace of God, can turn to Him for salvation

A Great New Calvinist Dictionary

Kevin Jackson at Seekadoo has put together a great Calvinist dictionary to help us understand the "truths of Calvinism" better when we interact with our esteemed brethren. This should help us know our place when we engage in the debate.





Calvinist Dictionary

Rising In A Newness Of Life - Regeneration

"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 6:4 AV)

That perpetual battle popped up again today. This is one of those struggles between Calvinists and the rest of the Body of Christ that will never cease until the sound of the Trump. When are men regenerated? Before faith or after? Before rising in newness of life or after the old man and his foul deeds is buried? I cannot understand the mind that states the old man is regenerated before faith is evidenced and a new creation (which is what being regenerated refers to) rises in Christ. It makes faith of absolutely no consequence to being born again or saved. Of course our Calvinist friends attempt to separate being born again from being saved but they do so out of a philosophical construct rather than clear scripture. In effect, Calvinists must defend the unscriptural notion of two separate regenerations, one creating a "new old man" and a second regeneration, a new creation, rising out the death of the old man. In a discussion earlier today, a Calvinist fellow suggested that this rising as a new creation, this walking in newness of life following the death and burial of the old man was not being created new or regenerated but was a process of sanctification. While I do not doubt an on-going sanctification as a work of the Holy Spirit in every believer's life, at some point one has to acknowledge there is a newness of life following a death. To regenerate is not to kill but to make new, to recreate.

Paul uses the expression "walk in newness of life" to proclaim the Christian expectation in opposition to the charge of antinomianism. We are to be who we are, new creatures in Christ, born again with the Spirit of God as our guiding light. The passage noted above is not suggesting we will become something new at some point down the road. No, it is an admonishment to become what we are, to bring our condition in Christ at par with our position in Christ. We are already new creations in Christ and God Forbid, as the Apostle put it, that sin should be our norm, our desire or what gives cause to our thoughts and actions. Sinful is not who we are. We are the Righteousness of God by being in Christ and submissive to the desires of the Holy Spirit. We became new creations when that old man of ours, full of sin and deeds uncountable, was put to death through our faith in the LORD Jesus Christ and we rose out of that grave as something new, something not held by our sinful past and one with the LORD instead of enslaved to sinful desire.

Are Calvinists Open Theists?

Richard Coords of Examining Calvinism raised a fascinating question for our Calvinist brethren over on the CARM discussion boards. He asks “Are Calvinists Open Theists who believe that God MUST decree everything in order to know anything?”. The question seeks to examine whether Calvinists constrict the LORD’s omniscience to a pattern of decrees and I for one look forward to the replies IF there is a sound Calvinist willing to step up to the task.