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.

Arminius on Providence

Being caught up recently with a dispute over the equating of Calvinist descriptions of determinism and allowing, I found an examination of Arminius' Sentiments helpful in clarifying the distinction between determining or ordaining actions and allowing events to occur. Our Calvinist brethren have a tendency to blur the distinctions bringing themselves to the precipice of blasphemy against the character of God with regard to evil. One of our common scriptural objections to hard determinism is the passage in Jeremiah where the LORD expresses His clear distancing from the actions of men whose purpose is strange and separate from those of the LORD. … "Because they have forsaken me, and have estranged this place, and have burned incense in it unto other gods, whom neither they nor their fathers have known, nor the kings of Judah, and have filled this place with the blood of innocents; They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire [for] burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake [it], neither came [it] into my mind: Therefore, behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that this place shall no more be called Tophet, nor The valley of the son of Hinnom, but The valley of slaughter." (Jer 19:4-6 AV). The passage raises the issue of theological providence and how we bring ourselves to reconcile the allowances of God with His decrees. Arminius sets his thoughts on this matter of providence making clear the truth that a Arminians we do not question providence as some charge us but we instead define such away from the unscriptural distractions of hard determinism. The following comments provide that insight beneficial and substantial to understanding our Christian doctrine.

THE PROVIDENCE OF GOD

I consider Divine Providence to be "that solicitous, continued, and universally present inspection and oversight of God, according to which he exercises a general care over the whole world, but evinces a particular concern for all his [intelligent] creatures without any exception, with the design of preserving and governing them in their own essence, qualities, actions, and passions, in a manner that is at once worthy of himself and suitable to them, to the praise of his name and the salvation of believers. In this definition of Divine Providence, I by no means deprive it of any particle of those properties which agree with it or belong to it; but I declare that it preserves, regulates, governs and directs all things and that nothing in the world happens fortuitously or by chance. Beside this, I place in subjection to Divine Providence both the free-will and even the actions of a rational creature, so that nothing can be done without the will of God, not even any of those things which are done in opposition to it; only we must observe a distinction between good actions and evil ones, by saying, that "God both wills and performs good acts," but that "He only freely permits those which are evil." Still farther than this, I very readily grant, that even all actions whatever, concerning evil, that can possibly be devised or invented, may be attributed to Divine Providence Employing solely one caution, "not to conclude from this concession that God is the cause of sin." This I have testified with sufficient clearness, in a certain disputation concerning the Righteousness and Efficacy of Divine Providence concerning things that are evil, which was discussed at Leyden on two different occasions, as a divinity-act, at which I presided. In that disputation, I endeavored to ascribe to God whatever actions concerning sin I could possibly conclude from the scriptures to belong to him; and I proceeded to such a length in my attempt, that some persons thought proper on that account to charge me with having made God the author of sin. The same serious allegation has likewise been often produced against me, from the pulpit, in the city of Amsterdam, on account of those very theses; but with what show of justice such a charge was made, may be evident to any one, from the contents of my written answer to those Thirty-one Articles formerly mentioned, which have been falsely imputed to me, and of which this was one.

Arminius Sentiments on the Providence of God

 

Playing With Fire in the Tent of God

Apologia brings out a strange character in many souls. There is something about defending one's beliefs that easily crosses that invisible line separating what should be a scriptural call and instead feigning honor while offending another's beliefs and sensibilities. It happens a lot in the Arminian vs. Calvinist discussions. Just ask anybody on the other side regardless of your own and you will find a plethora of souls offended in some manner by the aggressiveness of an opponent's rhetoric. Most often, these offenses are the result of heated excitement and carrying the polemical thrust a bit further than originally intended. We all do it, perhaps I more than most yet at the end of the day we should be able to set aside those sectarian differences and recognize one another as fellow brethren in Christ. At least that is what we tell ourselves.

Something else is going on in some circles. There is a desire to kill, to consume and to dismember whole segments of the body of Christ in the guise of intellectual and theological curiosity. Somebody is lighting matches in the house of God with tinder in every crook and cranny. I was going to tackle a particular sectarian and zealous blog with full force when I began putting these thoughts together but as I began typing I realized that it is just one brick of an unholy wall. Remove one brick and there are a thousand zealots ready with trowel to patch it up and hurl further than before. I think the better response is a moat, keeping with the analogy. Isolate those whose zealotry and murder are an offense and do so with plain scriptural truth. Within the walls of the zealots keep is a language that bears little resemblance to our own and that of Christian orthodoxy. The language uses terms and phrases similar to our own yet communicates ideas foreign to us and our churches as understood for 2,000 years. Knowing this, carrying an intellectual discourse with them, an apologizing defense, becomes a fruitless endeavor for what is good has become bad and what is most undesirable seems to be admirable. I suspect it is a human trait and as with all things human, all is in a bad way lacking the grace of God. Yet the Apostle states "Let your speech be alway with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man." (Col 4:6 AV). Salt being a preservative, it strikes me as a hard thing to curse with feigned wit while thinking one as the salt of the earth.

I don't have a particular soul or group in mind as I close these thoughts. I did when I began but having come back to this as I let it settle in my own mind, I think these things are appropriate to all who pick up a sword, however tempered and controlled. I cannot see the LORD as kind to the zealot's reproach and this should strike some measure of fear in each of us when we lace up for theological battle.

Another Take on Christian Perfection

I encountered this interesting discussion of Christian Perfection while thinking about Arminius' comments in the previous post. This is a Mennonite perspective bringing an Anabaptist view of Holiness that seems to address the issue with civility and maturity. While it is relatively short, the author, Robert Friesen, sums up his conclusions rather well. Following is his conclusion with a link to the full article.

Christian Perfection - Robert Friesen

The Scope of the Call To Be Teleios

The call to be teleios is addressed to all believers. With the call to enter the kingdom comes the call to be one of the teleioi. It is a call to discipleship. The teleioi are to be perfect as the heavenly Father is perfect. Jesus, who came to show us the Father, is the example to be followed. The perfect ones are willing to take difficult, radical steps to follow their Lord.

Characteristics of the Teleioi

The teleioi are wise and possess knowledge which the immature do not have. This wisdom is not equivalent to what the world considers wisdom nor is there knowledge based on superior intelligence. Because of the Holy Spirit's enlightenment they are able to receive and understand the kind of solid teaching which Paul calls meat as opposed to milk (the elementary principles of the Gospel).

The wisdom and understanding of the teleioi is evident in their actions. They are able to distinguish right from wrong and they live according to what is right. The wisdom of the teleioi is knowledge turned into proper action in life.

The teleioi are those who love God. This love is demonstrated in a life of discipleship. They love their brothers and sisters in the Church and desire to use their Spirit-given gifts to edify them. They also love those who are not in the Church. Their love, in fact, extends even to those who are their opponents.

The teleioi are not portrayed as those who have attained absolute perfection. They always strive toward perfection and are not content to settle for less. The English word "mature" is often a good translation, but even that word does not catch all the nuances of the Greek teleios. The English "perfect" may be too absolute, but "mature" may be too mild. Jesus did not call us simply to be 'mature' as our heavenly Father is 'mature'. We consider people mature even though they have many imperfections which need not necessarily be changed. The teleioi have never arrived at their goal. They are mature, but they are moving on to a greater maturity. Because of this problem of finding the best word, the new translations use both "perfect" and "mature" to render teleios in different contexts. {31}

The Process of Becoming Teleios

The New Testament is clear that the teleioi are involved in a process of growth. Tomorrow they should be more closely conformed to Jesus' example of perfection than they were today.

The teleioi are dependent upon the rest of the body of Christ for the process of growth. All the members of the body have responsibilities to have others to mature. They carry out this work with the enablement of the various gifts which the Holy Spirit gives to the Church.

Paul warns that the work of teaching may be hard, wearisome toil. It is not a small task. He also indicates that teachers need to be wise. But it is not the world's wisdom that is needed. In order to do the work of the Church and to bring people to maturity, teachers need God's wisdom. James indicates that when the teleioi feel a lack of wisdom they are to pray with perseverance to God who will give the required wisdom.

In Colossians 4 Paul indicates that prayer can help to bring people to maturity even when a person is absent from the ones he prays for. This labour of prayer is an important task in the work.

The New Testament indicates that trials and suffering may be the context in which maturity is produced. It is essential that a person recognize these situations as possibilities for growth and use them as such.

In answer to the question "Who are the teleioi?" we must conclude: The teleioi are obedient disciples of Christ. The process of becoming teleios is a divine (i.e., God-empowered) process mediated by the members of the body of Christ in the context of prayer and love.

Christian Perfection by Robert Friesen

Arminius on Perfect Obedience

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

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

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

ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION

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

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

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

Arminius' Nine Questions

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

An Admonishment For All of Us

What in Blues Blazes?

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

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

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

 

A Calvary Focused Faith

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

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

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

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

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

The Apostle John’s World

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Word or Two to Consider

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

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

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

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

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

Roger Olson Hits A Triple Out Of The Park

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

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

Foxes Tending The Coup

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

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

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

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

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