Arminian Baptist

Spirit, Baptists, and Low vs. High Church Liturgy

2011-07-11T08:34:00.000-07:00

Disclaimers

This is a longer article. If you don’t have 10 minutes to read it, come back later.
For brevity’s sake, I’ve not developed deeply my argumentation for “Low Church” against “High Church” worship and ministry. But perhaps some day I’ll write a book.
My depiction of High Church traditions is made with broad strokes. No doubt, there are many very healthy churches in those traditions that are doing great kingdom work—I wouldn’t dispute the possibility that their impact is greater than the Baptist tradition.
Fair warning: this is a polemical piece. I beg the indulgence of my friends outside the Low Church tradition. For the record, I’d be eager to join in ministry with any number of my friends who minister in the High church tradition.

Baptists on the road to Canterbury* can and should be reclaimed through clear theological reflection. A number of Baptist church leaders have found themselves enamored with cultural and even theological aspects of High Church life seen in the Anglican/Episcopal, Lutheran, and Presbyterian traditions. I myself was once on that road. I explain here the theological reason justifying my return to my Baptist roots, and urge Baptist churches to resist the trappings of High church.

I left my Baptist roots, tired of certain aspects of Baptist life which seemed pervasive in Baptist churches. I was sick of people thinking emotionalism was an accurate gage of spirituality. I despised preachers saying, “Sis. Suzie, could you sing a song for us this morning.” I was put out with emotional altar calls. I was worn out with hymns lacking substance in the lyrics or freshness in the music. There seemed to be a lack of appreciation for exceptional theological education and research, and this was often reflected in shallow prayers, shallow Sunday School classes, shallow worship, shallow sermons, and shallow ministry.

Moreover, I was drawn to High Church worship because the prayers that were prayed were well written and tested by time. Musicians who performed were professional or semi-professional, and satisfied my personal tastes toward the classical. Often, such churches had a sense of beauty—reflected in stained glass, architecture, and liturgical vestments. Worship elements were controlled much more strictly, giving a dignity which was often lacking in my Baptist background.

These kinds of cultural considerations drove me away from Baptist life and set me on the road to Canterbury.

Perhaps the most important reason for me being so susceptible to departing from my Baptist heritage was that I was Baptist by default. So many Baptists on the road to Canterbury grew up in the Bible belt where Christian culture is predominantly Baptist. So many of us grow up Baptist without having to justify our Baptist worship, and without having to think deeply about it.

Perhaps the evangelistic success of our Baptist forefathers made “being Baptist” too easy. There was a time when being Baptist meant certain persecution. In the early days, Baptist ministers often, perhaps regularly, languished and died in prison. It was hard being Baptist, and no one accepted Baptist principles by default. So, before we ourselves go down the road to Canterbury, we should think deeply about why our Baptist forefathers were so convinced to separate from the Anglicans that they were willing to put their lives and family at such risk.

At root of their commitment was the Baptist principle of the Priesthood of Every Believer, and the indwelling of the Spirit in every believer. This doctrine not only was behind their congregational ecclesiology, but also behind their commitment to Free Church worship.

While early Baptists did not reject ministerial training, their commitment to the Priesthood of Every Believer did lead them to encourage lay participation in worship. Whereas ministerial candidates within the Anglican Church almost always arose from the upper classes in England, Baptist emphasis on lay participation afforded ministerial calling to all classes. Bro. Pete’s spontaneous testimonies in church and fervent witness at his coal mining job would lead the congregation to think that perhaps God was calling him to ministry. The end result, at least here in the American frontier, was the rise of many Baptist preachers on the basis of the congregation’s recognition of calling, rather than M.Div. credentials. If our Baptist churches lag behind other mainline denominations in education, it does so because of our emphasis on the Priesthood of Every Believer.

It is true that prayers in Baptist churches may not be poetic or theologically profound, but again this is due to Baptist commitment to the Priesthood of Every Believer. Baptists believe that genuine prayer from one of the least of these maidservants who genuinely believes and is led by the Spirit is to be preferred over a well written prayer spoken by a rhetorician. Likewise, if the Lord has lain upon Suzie’s heart a song to be sung as her testimony, this is to be preferred over the professional or semi-professional vocalist’s performance of an aria written by someone like Handel. The development of Baptist hymnody likewise was more strongly influenced by a folk tradition within the congregation which understood that the Spirit could move and empower non-expert believers to compose and write hymns that speak to the congregation. In the same vein, Baptists gravitated toward more easily sung and played hymns precisely because they relied on their own lay members to lead them despite their lack of expertise that the professionals had in their counterparts in the High Church tradition. Baptists probably should not demagogue against professionally written prayers or fine music in worship, but they should rejoice in the freedom that they have to pray from their hearts and to allow their own congregants to minister in music even if their talent is less developed.

Likewise, while Baptists do appreciate thoughtfully prepared orders of worship, we recognize that the Spirit may also move spontaneously in the congregation. We recognize that sometimes spontaneous testimonies in worship have a powerful affect on the congregation, and that God’s power is often manifested through his People’s weaknesses.

To be sure, Baptists fail to capitalize on their theological commitment to the Priesthood of Every Believer and the indwelling of the Spirit on every believer. Often Baptist worship services are devoid of the Spirit, and often Sis. Suzie sings her specials out of the wrong motivation. Often Baptist worship services end up being so bound up with tradition as to choke out the Spirit’s work. Too often, prayers lack genuine faith and passion. In many cases, Baptists have an anti-educational bias and glorify ignorance. We can be plagued by a semi-Trinitarianism of “God the Father, God the Son, and, oh yeah, the Holy Spirit.”

Notwithstanding these problems, the commitment to the doctrine of the Priesthood of Every Believer affords the healthy Baptist church a ministerial framework that allows a certain freedom for lay ministry than possible in those churches with the imposition of a set liturgy.

*The phrase is a metaphor for those leaving the Baptist tradition for High Church worship in the Anglican Church (Canterbury), but I use it more generally for all High Church traditions. See Robert Webber's Evangelicals on the Canterbury Trail

Flags, Patriotism, and Christian Worship

2011-07-04T10:03:00.000-07:00

Should American flags, national holidays, and patriotism have a place in worship? Yes, but only with eyes wide open, with a biblical sensitivity.

The complaints are justified. Too often, our view of Christianity includes a lot of American baggage. Sometimes, patriotism is so unchecked as to confuse our first commitment to God’s kingdom. Frequently, we take away worship time from God and allot it to national glorification. Occasionally, we convey a “my country—right or wrong” menatality. At times, we display an unbridled enthusiasm for our country without introspection and without judging our nation against the standard of God’s Word.

Yet, we can incorporate into our worship services observances of patriotic days, if we follow some basic principles.

Here are some principles:

Christians are called to be good citizens.
Christians are called to pray for their country and their leaders, and to do their part to make their country better.
Christians are called to pray for national repentance in regard to the ills of their country’s society and in regard to faults in their country’s foreign policies.
Christians are to be thankful for the good things about their country.
Christians are to pray for their national enemies.
Christians are to pray for those in the military, for God’s protective care over them, for them to return home quickly and safely, and that the government would never send them into war without a necessary and just cause.

Even in the worst country, Christians can follow these principles, and display their country’s flags and observe national holidays.

Although the United States has its own set of problems, there are many good things about my country. We have freedom of worship. We have a country whose Founding Fathers based the protection of civil liberties on biblical principles. We enjoy peace and security within our borders so that the vast majority of us enjoy basic privileges, such as sending our children to school during the day, enjoying picnics at the park, and watching a ballgame, or practicing violin. We generally aren’t afraid that our children might be kidnapped to be used as child soldiers. We generally do not fear that militants in the next town over might attack us in the night. We generally have the opportunity to vote the bums out of office. If we see a policeman, we generally have a sense of respect and security, rather than fear and loathing.

For such things, and for many others, we can be proud to be American, but such pride must be flow with all due humility from the throne of God’s grace.

“Somebody Touched Me!” The Validity of Spontaneous Testimonies in Worship

2011-06-26T17:10:00.000-07:00

We used to sing “Somebody touched me! It musta been the hand of the Lord.” It was a participatory song, with each verse starting with a day of the week: “It was on a Monday, somebody touched me” (repeat 3x), going through all seven days and culminating on Sunday. As we sang, individuals would stand on whichever day of the week they were saved, and mosey on up toward the front of the church. By the time we came to Sunday, practically the whole congregation had come forward, shaking hands, hugging, and sometimes shouting (“glory to God!” “amen!” etc.). At the end of the song, several might recount their own salvation experience.

Perhaps we had too much fun with this, and perhaps it was too undignified for some. Whatever the reason, I haven’t experienced this participatory testimony song in years. Regardless, in this blog I want to set forth some good reasons why we ought not to shy away from spontaneous testimonies as part of the worship service.

Since we believe in the indwelling of the Spirit in every believer, we recognize that God can speak to the congregation even through the lowest maidservant. Hence, instead of controlling every aspect of every worship service, we should be sure to allow members of the congregation to respond spontaneously to the Spirit, and to encourage people to speak what the Spirit may have laid on their hearts.
The pastor speaks so much that it is easy for the congregation to become somewhat desensitized to his preaching. But when an ordinary member of the congregation speaks, everyone tunes in to the speaker. Sometimes what gets said might impact someone else in a much more profound way than the preacher’s words repeated week by week.
Testimonies will help the congregation get to know each other, strengthening the unity of the church.
When someone stands to give a testimony, this emboldens the person’s faith and often leads to greater things, including ministerial calling. The next thing you know, the person might be filling in for the pastor.

Some hints for worship leaders:

Announce in advance—at the beginning of worship—that there will be opportunities for testimonies.
Give a proper introduction to the testimony service—especially if your church isn’t in the habit of testimonies in worship. Use scripture to introduce testimonies, something from God’s word that talks about giving testimonies.
After each testimony, give a quick response of affirmation—perhaps quoting a scripture: “Amen, Bro. Bob. What you did in your situation at work is exactly what Peter was talking about when he wrote that we should be ready to give an answer for the hope that is in you.”
If the testimonies really do reflect the Spirit’s leading, don’t be too worried about cutting into your sermon time. Maybe the sermon should wait until next week.
If the whole service is oriented toward testimonies, transition from one testimony to the next with a short, familiar chorus.
To wrap up the service, be sure to find some common theme in the testimonies and re-visit them in a short sermonic summary.

Society of Evangelical Arminianism Adopts Constitution, Elects Officers

2011-06-21T06:34:00.000-07:00

Society of Evangelical Arminians adopts its constitution and elects its executive committee, including me as a vice president. Click here for the announcement.

Southern Baptist and the NIV Resolution

2011-06-17T06:21:00.000-07:00

A majority of the men at the Southern Baptist Convention today condemned the New International Version on the basis that it is not a faithful translation of the word of God. Continue reading....

Disciple Them First, Then Baptize Them

2011-06-06T06:23:00.000-07:00

An important verse for Baptists in the debate over Believer’s and Infant Baptism is the Great Commission passage in Matt 28:16-20.

The syntax and order of the phrases are important, for discipling precedes baptizing:

(All authority in heaven and earth is given to Jesus)

Therefore

(going)

1) make disciples

2) baptizing them

3) teaching them to keep Jesus’ commandments.

Note that the priority is on making disciples. There is not much point in baptizing if we’ve not made disciples of them.

Infant baptizers disregard this formula. First, they baptize non-disciples. Second and third, they attempt to make the non-disciples into disciples and try to teach such non-disciples to keep Jesus’ commands.

Of course, the attempt to make the baptized non-disciples into disciples often fails so that the baptism is meaningless, probably counterproductive, and definitely unbiblical.

An Appeal for Clarity in Discussing Baptist Elders

2011-05-31T17:31:00.000-07:00

A discussion of Elder rule is going on in some Southern Baptist circles (Elderizing the SBC), and it probably affects other Baptist groups as well.

In the discussion of church governance, I find that often people use the term “elder” without sufficient explanation of what they mean. We should first remember that terminology has little value in and of itself. It really doesn’t matter if you refer to those leading your church as a plurality of “elders” or a plurality of “gorillas.” The single issue is whether your church leaders have unilateral authority and are self-perpetuating (i.e., the leaders pick their own replacements).

I am amazed that some ministerial leaders scholars seem to argue for self-perpetuation and unilateral authority of the leadership group on the basis that the Bible uses the term “elders.” There is absolutely no evidence that the earliest churches were governed by the fiat of an elder board or that the elders were self-perpetuating.

In terms of biblical evidence, it appears from 1 Timothy that the indigenous church was expected to choose its own church leaders. In that very troubled church at Ephesus, Paul easily could have appointed church leaders to replace those who had been disfellowshiped (viz. Hymenaeus and Alexander). Or he could have written the church to confirm Timothy’s appointment of church leaders. Instead, he set forth a list of qualifications for church leadership to the congregation at Ephesus. Of course, the list was written ostensibly to Timothy, but as is the case for much of the letter, this was information was not so much written to Timothy as it was written to the congregation. (The church at Ephesus was in such turmoil that a letter written directly from Paul to the church probably would not have been received.) From this, we surmise that the church chose its own leaders.

The claim that the earliest church had a Presbyterian governance requires some far-fetched thinking. It assumes that the apostles appointed a group of church rulers in the infant churches, and that these church rulers continued to serve until they passed on their status to their successors. This really is little different from the notion of apostolic succession of bishops and popes and priests. There really is no indication that elders chose their own replacements.

Some rudimentary church history is important for the discussion. I suspect that early church governance quickly evolved toward an Episcopalian model very early simply because the Roman model of the Caesar was the prevalent model for governance. Thus, the bishop held all authority and ruled by fiat. When the Reformation rediscovered the theology of the priesthood of every believer, some Reformation elements reduced the power and authority of the ruling bishop, divesting it to a ruling Elder board.

Divestiture of the bishop’s power to the elder board was insufficient for Baptists—those who most fully embraced the priesthood of every believer, and the indwelling of the Spirit within every believer. Even the least believer might have insight and was capable of making prophetic contributions to the direction of the church. Consequently, as they strove to apply consistently the doctrine of the priesthood of every believer to ecclesiology, Baptists divested power away from the Presbytery and toward the congregation.

For Baptists, the congregation has all the authority. Indeed, I suspect that many early Baptists avoided the term “Elder” simply because it conveyed a status of too much authority in the church, preferring the term “Deacon,” and so emphasizing the leaders’ servant qualities. Regardless of how the term “Deacon” became the preferred term, Baptists set limits on their leaders.

On one Sunday, when I finished teaching Sunday School, I walked into the church sanctuary, preparing for worship. At the appropriate time, the chief elder (pastor) stood up and, to the absolute shock of the entire congregation, announced to the 150 or so members present that the elder board had decided to dissolve the church, and dispose of its assets, and that there would no longer be any services or ministries. Five minutes later as we sat dazed and astonished, he stood up and said that we must vacate the church building. Such is the authority of a ruling Elder Board.

Baptist congregations delegate responsibility and authority to various church leaders—call them elders (or deacons or trustees or gorillas) if you will. Some churches give greater authority to its leaders than other churches. But in the end, congregationalism gives authority to the congregation to remove its leaders and to appoint new ones when appropriate.

The Validity and Urgency of the Altar Call

2011-05-30T08:50:00.000-07:00

In recent years, many Calvinists have severely critiqued the altar call, claiming that it is an Arminian innovation designed to manipulate people into making a faith commitment. While many an altar call may indeed be characterized as manipulative and fleshly, there is such thing as a Spiritual altar call, and it is an appropriate part of Christian worship, arising not out of a misguided Arminianism, but out of biblical urgencies.

The altar call is a natural progression of the sermon. Whether the sermon is evangelistic or meant to challenge believers, the sermon is designed to move individuals toward change in their lives. There should be at least a little movement toward Christ-likeness in every listening believer’s life, and if the Spirit is calling individuals to make a significant decision, there should be an opportunity for people to make their decisions public. The altar call, then, is an opportunity for people to give public testimony, and this is right and good.

The altar call provides a unique Spiritual context which is not available at other times. To be sure, a person can be saved anywhere and at any time. However, the altar call has as its context the preached word and the praying congregation. These two elements, contemporary as they are with the altar call, are means by which the Spirit moves in the lives of people.

When the word has been preached, it is incumbent upon the congregation to pray mightily for the Spirit’s convicting power. This is often the missing ingredient in the altar call. We might have pensive music and other mood setting elements in play, but this is nothing, for the one thing which is relevant is the Spirit’s drawing. Thus, the congregation needs to be taught and urged to pray with all their strength for the salvation of those in attendance, or for their fellow believers who are being called to make decisions.

Again, I emphasize that it is not mood setting elements that make a difference. The real difference is when the congregation is gathered in the Spirit, and the power of the Lord Jesus is present. This is the ideal behind the altar call, with God’s people fervently praying with great expectation. If this element is lacking, I’d suggest getting rid of the altar call.

It is altogether insufficient for the minister to stand in front with the musicians quietly playing, and with the congregation reverently standing with heads bowed and eyes closed. No, every believing Christian must be called to pray with hearts heavily burdened for the lost. We must learn to pray as if it matters, for prayer really does matter. The model in Jonah 3:7-9 is instructive.

Arminians do believe that each one of our individual friends and loved ones can be saved, and that none is excluded from the offer of salvation on the basis of some unbiblical decree. Indeed, we believe that God is pleased for us to pray for the conversion of our individual friends and loved ones, and that he is eager to answer our prayers by sending his Spirit to convict them and to draw them to faith. No doubt, Calvinists often pray for their friends and loved ones, even though their theology tells them that some eternal degree may very well have excluded their loved ones from any hope of salvation. Arminians have no such deterrents to prayer.

Because we Arminians believe in a “whosever will” gospel, we should be all the more urgent in our praying for those in the altar call.

How Reformation Arminian Soteriology Safeguards Reformation Theology and the Character of God

2009-08-02T00:55:00.000-07:00

Reformation Arminian Urgencies (PDF)

Baptist Primary Distinctives: Soul Competency and “Believers’ Church”

2009-06-01T05:14:00.000-07:00

The Baptist movement was forged in an age when a kingdom’s subjects were required to belong to the monarch’s own religion, and in an age when that religion was being switched back and forth with every other new monarch. Moreover, the Baptist movement was forged in an age when infants were baptised into their parents’ religion. And finally, the Baptist movement was forged in an age when everyone belonged to the church. These cultural factors significantly influenced Baptist distinctives.

In broad categories, Baptist distinctives can be brought down to two urgencies. The first urgency has historically been known as Soul Competency. Soul competency arises out of the conviction that the Spirit dwells in every believer. To be sure, this was an emphasis in all the Reformation churches, providing the impetus for bypassing intermediaries such as priest, bishop, and pope for one’s access to God’s forgiveness of sin. However, Baptists thought more deeply and more consistently about the indwelling of the Spirit than other movements. This doctrine informed their polity in that they accepted “congregational governance,” refusing to accept the notion that a powerful bishop or powerful elder board should rule over the congregation by fiat; rather, they embraced the notion that the congregation itself was competent to make decisions about its own ministry. This also implied that Christians did not have to embrace the religion or theology of the Crown, resulting in the martyrdom of many Baptist preachers who languished under poor health conditions in jails throughout Britain in the 17th century, including, for example, John Bunyan. Thus, the concept of the separation of church and state historically was first espoused and cogently argued by Baptists, although the term has been much abused in recent American history and political life.

The second urgency was a view of the church as a “voluntary association.” That is to say, people were not members of the church on the basis of their parents’ decision to have them baptised as infants. Rather, inclusion in the church was on the basis of the individual’s decision to follow Jesus, and upon his profession of faith as he was immersed in the waters of baptism. Early Baptists recoiled at the notion of baptising unbelievers, which is precisely what happens when an infant is baptised.

These two urgencies had several practical outcomes in the local church. First, Baptist churches were countercultural; in a culture where everyone belonged to the official, State-sponsored church, Baptists withdrew and formed their own independent congregations. Secondly, Baptist churches often had a congregational intimacy and purity which was practically impossible with those churches which included into its membership the whole of society on the basis of infant baptism. Thus, while the term “Believers’ Church” ought to have been theologically redundant, it was a practical reality, given that membership in the “Cultural Church” did not even include a person’s own declaration of faith.

Regrettably, many Baptists today have no clue as to these two primary distinctives and urgencies.

Thomas Helwys' Declaration of Faith

2009-05-30T22:54:00.000-07:00

Thomas Helwys is known as the founder of the Baptist movement. He was an Arminian, and so history records that the first Baptists in Europe were Arminian. His Declaration of Faith is recorded below, although I have not checked it against a printed edition, and its domain source is no longer available.

***********************************************************************************

Declaration Of English People In Remaining in Holland

A DECLARATION OF FAITH OF ENGLISH PEOPLE REMAINING AT AMSTERDAM IN HOLLAND. Hebrews 11:6. Without Faith it is impossible to please GOD. Hebrews 11. Romans 14:23. Whatsoever is not of Faith is sin. 30/84
Printed. 1611. To All The Humble minded | which love the truth in simplicity Grace and | peace. [This is followed by two pages of preface.] A DECLARATION, ETC. WE BELEIVE AND CONFESS

1. That there are THREE which bear record in heaven, the FATHER, the WORD, and the SPIRIT; and these THREE are one GOD, in all equality, (1 John 5:7; Philippians 2:5, 6). By whom all things are created and preserved, in Heaven and in Earth. (Genesis 1).

2. That this GOD in the beginning created al things of nothing, (Genesis 1:1) and made man of the dust of the earth, (Genesis 2:7), in his own image, (Genesis 1:27), in righteousness and true Holiness. (Ephesians 4:24); yet being tempted, fell by disobedience. (Ephesians 3:1-7). Through whose disobedience, all men sinned. (Romans 5:12-19). His sin being imputed unto all; and so death went over all men.

3. That by the promised seed of the woman, JESUS CHRIST, [and by] his obedience, al are made righteous. (Romans 5:19). All are made alive, (1 Corinthians 15:22). His righteousness being imputed unto all.

4. That notwithstanding this, men are by nature the Children of wrath, (Ephesians 2:3) born in iniquity and in sin conceived. (Psalm 51:5) Wise to all evil, but to good they have no knowledge. (Jeremiah 4:22). The natural man perceives not the things of the Spirit of God. (1 Corinthians 2:14). And therefore man is not restored unto his former estate, but that as man, in his estate of innocence, having in himself all disposition unto good, & no disposition unto evil, yet being tempted might yield, or might resist: even so now being fallen, and having all disposition unto evil, and no disposition or will unto any good, yet GOD giving grace, man may receive grace, or my reject grace, according to that saying; (Deuteronomy 30:19) I call Heaven and Earth to record. This day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: Therefore choose life that both thou and thy seed may live.

5. That GOD before the Foundation of the World hath Predestinated that all that believe in him shall-be saved, (Ephesians 1:4, 12; Mark 16:16) and al that believe not shall be damned, (Mark 16:16) all which he knew before. (Romans 8:29) And this is the Election and reprobation spoken of in the Scriptures, concerning salvation, and condemnation, and not that GOD hath Predestinated men to be wicked, and so to be damned, but that men being wicked shall be damned, for GOD would have all men saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth, (1 Timothy 2:4) and would have no man to perish, but would have all men come to repentance. (2 Peter 3:9) and wills not the death of him that dies. (Ezekiel 18:32). And therefore GOD is the author of no mans condemnation; according to the saying of the Prophet. (Hosea 13). Thy destruction O Israel, is of thy self, but thy help is of me.

6. That man is justified only by the righteousness of CHRIST, apprehended by faith, (Romans 3:28. Galatians 2:16) yet faith without works is dead. (James 2:17)

7. That men may fall away from the grace of GOD, (Hebrews 12:15) and from the truth, which they have received &acknowledged, (Hebrews 10:26) after they have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the HOLY GHOST, and have tasted of the good word of GOD, &of the powers of the world to come. (Hebrews 6:4, 5). And after they have escaped from the filthiness of the World, may be tangled again therein &overcome. (2 Peter 2:20). That a righteous man may forsake his righteousness and perish (Ezekiel 18:24, 26). And therefore let no man presume to think that because he hath, or had once grace, therefore he shall always have grace: But let all men have assurance, that if they continue unto the end, they shall be saved: Let no man then presume; but let all work out their salvation with fear and trembling.

8. That JESUS CHRIST, the Son of GOD the second Person, or subsistence in the Trinity, in the Fullness of time was manifested in the Flesh, being the seed of David, and of the Israelites, according to the Flesh, (Romans 1:3 and Romans 8:5) the Son of Marie the Virgin, made of her substance, (Galatians 4:4) by the power of the HOLY GHOST overshadowing her, (Luke 1:35) and being thus true Man was like unto us in all thing, sin only excepted. Hebrews (4:15) being one person in two distinct natures, TRUE GOD, and TRUE MAN. 32/84

9. That JESUS CHRIST is Mediator of the New Testament between GOD and Man, (1 Timothy 2:5) having all power in Heaven and in Earth given unto him. (Matthew 28:18) Being the only KING, (Luke 1:33) PREIST, (Hebrews 7:24) and PROPHET. (Acts 3:22) Of his church, he also being the only Law-giver, hath in his Testament set down an absolute, and perfect rule of direction, for all persons, at all times, to be observed; Which no Prince, nor any whosoever, may add to, or diminish from as they will avoid the fearful judgments denounced against them that shall so do. (Revelation 22:18, 19).

10. That the church of CHRIST is a company of faithful people (1 Corinthians 1:2. Ephesians 1:1) separated from the world by the word &Spirit of GOD (2 Corinthians 6:17) being knit unto the LORD, &one unto another, by Baptism. (1 Corinthians 12:13). Upon their own confession of the faith (Acts 8:37) and sins. (Matthew 3:6).

11. That though in respect of CHRIST, the Church be one (Ephesians 4:4) yet it consists of divers particular congregations, even so many as there shall be in the World, every of which congregation, though they be but two or three, have CHRIST given them, with all the means of their salvation. (Matthew 18:20. Romans 8:32. 1 Corinthians 3:22). Are the Body of CHRIST (1 Corinthians 12:27) and a whole Church. (1 Corinthians 14:23) And therefore may, and ought, when they are come together, to Pray, Prophecy, break bread, and administer in all the holy ordinances, although as yet they have no Officers, or that their Officers should be in Prison, sick, or by any other means hindered from the Church. (1 Peter 4:10 &2:5).

12. That as one congregation hath CHRIST, so hath all, (2 Corinthians 10:7). And that the Word of GOD comes not out from any one, neither to any one congregation in particular. (1 Corinthians 14:36). But unto every particular Church, as it doth unto al the world. (Colossians 1:5. 6). And therefore no church ought to challenge any prerogative over any other.

13. That every Church is to receive in all their members by Baptism upon the Confession of their faith and sins wrought by the preaching of the Gospel, according to the primitive Institution, (Matthew 28:19) and practice, (Acts 2:41). And therefore Churches constituted after any other manner, or of any other persons are not according to CHRISTS Testament. 33/84

14. That Baptism or washing with water is the outward manifestation of dieing unto sin, and walking in newness of life. (Romans 6:2, 3, 4). And therefore in no wise appertains to infants.

15. That the LORDS Supper is the outward manifestation of the Spiritual communion between CHRIST and the faithful mutually (1 Corinthians 10:16, 17) to declare his death until he come. (1 Corinthians 11:26).

16. That the members of every Church or Congregation ought to know one another, so that they may perform all the duties of love one towards another, both to soul and body. (Matthew 18:15; 1 Thessalonians 5:14; 1 Corinthians 12:25). And especially the Elders ought to know the whole flock, whereof the HOLY GHOST hath made them overseers. (Acts 20:28; 1 Peter 5:2, 3). And therefore a Church ought not to consist of such a multitude as cannot have particular knowledge one of another.

17. That Brethren impenitent in one sin after the admonition of the Church, are to be excluded the communion of the Saints (Matthew 18:17; 1 Corinthians 5:4, 13) &therefore not the committing of sin doth cut of any from the Church, but refusing to hear the Church to reformation.

18. That Excommunicants in respect of civil society are not to be avoided, (2 Thessalonians 3:15. Matthew 18:17).

19. That every Church ought (according to the example of CHRISTS Disciples and primitive Churches) upon every first day of the week, being the LORDS day, to assemble together to pray, prophecy, praise GOD, and break Bread, and perform all other parts of Spiritual communion for the worship of GOD, their own mutual edification, and the preservation of true Religion, &piety in the church (John 20:19. Acts 2:42 and 20:7, 1 Corinthians 16:2) and that ought not to labor in their callings according to the equity of the moral law, which CHRIST came not to abolish, but to fulfill. (Exodus 20:8 &c).

20. That the Officers of every Church or congregation are either Elders, who by their office do especially feed the flock concerning their souls, (Acts 20:28, 1 Peter 5:2, 3) or Deacons Men, and Women who by their office relieve the necessities of the poor and impotent brethren concerning their bodies, (Acts 6:1-4). 34/84

21. That these Officers are to be chosen when there are persons qualified according to the rules in Christ’s Testament, (1 Timothy 3:2-7. Titus 1:6-9. Acts 6:3. 4) by Election and approbation of that Church or congregation whereof they are members, (Acts 6:3. 4 and 14:23), with Fasting, Prayer, and Laying on of hands, (Acts 13:3. and 14:23). And there being but one rule for Elders, therefore but one sort of Elders.

22. That the Officers of every Church or congregation are tied by Office only to that particular congregation whereof they are chosen, (Acts 14:23, and 20:17. Titus 1:5). And therefore they cannot challenge by office any authorities in any other congregation whatsoever except they would have an Apostleship.

23. That the scriptures of the Old and New Testament are written for our instruction, (2 Timothy 3:16) &that we ought to search them for they testify of CHRIST, (10:5. 39). And therefore to be used withal reverence, as containing the Holy Word of GOD, which only is our direction in al things whatsoever.

24. That Magistracy is a Holy ordinance of GOD, that every soul ought to be subject to it not for fear only, but for conscience sake. Magistrates are the ministers of GOD for our wealth, they bear not the sword for naught. They are the ministers of GOD to take vengeance on them that do evil, (Romans 13). That it is a fearful sin to speak evil of them that are in authority, and to despise Government. (2 Peter 2:10). We ought to pay tribute, custom and all other duties. That we are to pray for the, for GOD would have them saved and come to the knowledge of his truth. (1 Timothy 2:1. 4). And therefore they may be members of the Church of CHRIST, retaining their Magistracy, for no Holy Ordinance of GOD debars any from being a member of CHRISTS Church. They bear the sword of GOD, — which sword in all Lawful administrations is to be defended and supported by the servants of GOD that are under their Government with their lives and al that they have according as in the first Institution of that Holy Ordinance. And whosoever holds otherwise must hold, (if they understand themselves) that they are the ministers of the devil, and therefore not to be prayed for nor approved in any of their administrations, — seeing all things they do (as punishing offenders and defending their countries, state, and persons by the sword) is unlawful.

25. That it is Lawful in a just cause for the deciding of strife to take an oath by the Name of the Lord. (Hebrews 6:16; 2 Corinthians 1:23. Philippians 1:8). 35/84

26. That the dead shall rise again, and the living being changed in a moment, - having the same bodies in substance though divers in qualities. (1 Corinthians 15:52 and 38. Job 19:15-28. Luke 24:30).

27. That after the resurrection all men shall appear before the judgment seat of CHRIST to be judged according to their works, that the Godly shall enjoy life Eternal, the wicked being condemned shall be tormented everlastingly in Hell. (Matthew 25:46).

Finis

Last modified: 19.01.06 by GenBap 36/84

Rapping the Whole Gospel

2009-03-13T02:05:00.000-07:00

The Christian rapper Flame must not be your average rapper. I came across the lyrics of one of his songs. It is heavy with theology and is to be commended for being weighty. I suspect that his music must appeal to many younger people.

However, there are some basic problems with it in regard to the Calvinist-Arminian issue. Here are some of the words; a select few are chosen for discussion, as indicated in all-caps.

"who can pluck us?"

See what I'm about to mention some consider secondary
But never weary guarantee it's very necessary
When Jesus hit the wood and she'd His blood on the tree
He did something good He was atoning for me
AND ALL BELIEVERS WE SEE PETER WOULD CALL THE ELECT
And even Jesus said that His sheep could never be snatched
Out of His hands nor the Father cause He's greater than
All and they're one like a married woman and man
So listen up (listen up) I'm bout to make it plain
So you can hear me clearly and sincerely what I'm saying
Through Jesus sacrifice the Father was satisfied (run it back)
Through Jesus sacrifice the Father was satisfied (one more time)
Through Jesus sacrifice the Father was satisfied
Now He gives assurance to all those for whom He died

I'm trying to tell you something you probably have never heard
And if you have you probably perceive them as dirty words
WORDS LIKE ELECTION AND PREDESTINATION
CAN GET YOU STONED AND THROWN OUT OF A CONGREGATION
But there in the Bible we gotta talk ? talk about it (run it back)
But there in the Bible we gotta talk ? talk about it (one more time)
But there in the Bible we gotta talk ? talk about it
We can still love each other and share our thoughts about it
When Jesus died He drank the full cup of God's Wrath
WHEN HE WAS CRUCIFIED IT WAS ON OUR BEHALF
FOR ALL THOSE THE FATHER CHOSE IN ETERNITY PAST
To be redeemed that simply means to be bought back
SO WHEN CHRIST EXPIRED THE DEBT AND THE PRICE WAS PAID
FOR PARTICULAR PEOPLE ON THAT NIGHT TO BE SAVED

In regard to the Calvinist-Arminian issue, I think it is important to debunk the myth that just because I'm an Arminian doesn't mean that I don't affirm election and predestination. The difference is that Arminians don't teach that God elects a few people to believe; neither does the Bible. Rather, we think that all who BELIEVE are elect. Yes, from eternity past, God elected a select group of people to be saved: he elected believers.

In fact, Flame's words here illustrates the Arminian point: "And all believers we see Peter would call the elect." That is to say, if you believe, then you are elect! Flame sounds more Arminian than Calvinist here!

That God predestined the Elect to eternal salvation is good Arminian theology. We just don't believe that God predestined some people to believe or chose some people to believe. Biblical election is entirely centred in Christ: we are ELECT "in Christ," but no one gets "in Christ" unless he first believes. Calvinist err here in centring salvation in a decree back in eternity pass rather than "in Christ."

Flame's lyrics at one point overlooks this important doctrine of "Union with Christ." He writes, "So when Christ expired the debt and the price was paid For particular people on that night to be saved."

However, I am certain that the elect experience not even the first salvific benefit until they are united with Christ through faith. Flame claims in this line that the sin debt of all the elect was expired when Christ died on the cross. This simply isn't true. The sin debt is not expired until a person is united with Christ by faith.

Ironically, if the elect's sin debt was expired when Christ died on the cross, Flame (and many Calvinists) would end up teaching that the elect were born into this world without being guilty of sin, and the elect were born into this world already reconciled with God through Christ, and that the elect were never under wrath. Of course, Calvinists don't believe this, but this seems to be the inevitable conclusion if they strongly assert that atonement for the elect was actually effected on the cross.

To avoid such a heretical conclusion, a good Calvinist (something very rare these days) would say, Christ provided atonement on the cross, but atonement is not effected until a person is united with Christ. But this is exactly what Arminians believe.

Ultimately, sometimes Flame's lyrics unjustly read Calvinism into the biblical texts to which he alludes. Flame writes, "When He was crucified it was on our behalf For all those the Father chose in eternity past." These two lines state that God sent his Son to die (only) for the select few. This is not biblical election. Biblical election only teaches that a select few will be saved; it does not state or imply anything about the extent of the atonement. God could provide atonement for everyone, yet only elect believers.

This song seems to represent yet another means by which Calvinists are getting out their message to young Christians. Let me urge Arminians to counter this by producing good music which focuses on the Good News which is meant for all people. Perhaps someone could write a rap song on the theme, "Not willing that any should perish."

A Message from Arminian Theologian Roger Olson

2009-02-28T00:46:00.000-08:00

Prof. Olson writes about theological bullying and blatant misrepresentation of Arminians by present day Calvinists.

Feel free to copy and post this anywhere but only without editing it.
You may and should attach my name to it.

I appreciate and agree with everything Scot McKnight has written in his
blog postings "Who are the NeoReformed?" (See his blog The Jesus
Creed.) He was very judicious about naming names. Namely, naming names
would only inflame the controversy and make things worse. "If the shoe
fits [someone]...."

I would like to add that many contemporary Calvinists who are feeding
the "young, restless and Reformed" the fuel with which they go out and
cause trouble (one of them told me I'm not even saved because I'm an
Arminian!) totally misrepresent Arminianism (to say nothing of other
traditions).

Here is a quote from one Calvinist pastor's sermon on limited atonement:
"The Arminian limits the nature and value and effectiveness of the
atonement so that he can say that it was accomplished even for those who
die in unbelief and are condemned. In order to say that Christ died for
all men in the same way, the Arminian must limit the atonement to a
powerless opportunity for men to save themselves from their terrible
plight of depravity."

Now, either this well-educated pastor knows little about classical
Arminian theology or he is intentionally mispresenting it. But in the
former case he should have read at least my book Arminian Theology:
Myths and Realities. Because his statement is simply false. It
completely ignores the Arminian emphasis on prevenient grace.

One thing I find appalling but often practiced by the people Scot calls
"NeoReformed" is attributing to others beliefs the others not only do
not hold but explicitly deny. When confronted the NeoReformed say "But
that's the good and necessary consequence of what they do believe."
Then they should say that and also say "But they don't actually believe
that."

So the followers of these highly educated leaders of the NeoReformed
hear them or read them and go out thinking and saying "Arminians believe
people save themselves." That's poppycock and the leaders of the
NeoReformed movement know it.

There's a lot of dishonesty going on in this "Village Green" we call
evangelicalism. And frankly, as I see it, most of it is the result of
NeoReformed people blatantly misrepresenting Arminianism and by that
trying to marginalize Arminians (and Anabapts who basically hold the
same theology). How? By convincing the movers and shakers of the
evangelical movement that Arminianism is dangerously close to heresy.

I cannot read their hearts or minds, so I do not know whether they are
misrepresenting Arminianism intentionally or not. But I am sure they
are educated enough to have checked out their representations of
Arminianism to see if they are correct. Either they haven't done that
or they are intentionally misrepresenting Arminian theology (even if
only by saying only what they think Arminian theology leads to and
neglecting to make clear that is not what Arminians themselves believe).

I've been fighting this battle, to clear the good name of Arminian
theology (by showing how it different from Semi-Pelagianism) for years
now with very limited success. I find that most of the people doing the
misrepresenting of Arminianism and aggressively asserting the sole
theological correctness of Reformed theology (their version of it) have
little or no interest in being educated about real Arminian theology.
Their minds are already made up; don't confuse them with the facts.

Every year I have a group of Calvinist pastors from a local Reformed
church come to my class and speak. One of them started out by saying
"Arminianism is just Pelagianism." After several such unfortunate
encounters I gave them copies of Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities
on the condition they read it. To the best of my knowledge they never
have.

I have received e-mails and letters from scores of "young, restless and
Reformed" evangelicals thanking me for clearing up their misconceptions
(which they all say they were taught by leading Reformed evangelicals)
about Arminianism. But I have not heard from a single evangelical
Reformed leader saying that anything I wrote there made any difference
in the way they think or speak or write about Arminian theology.

Without any doubt in my mind, the "Village Green" metaphor for
evangelicalism is not a good one. After all, the Village Green in
England and then New England was simply a place where all the citizens
could come together and talk about the weather or politics or business.
Evangelicalism is a loose coalition of like-minded Christians who
acknowledge their differences. It's motto has always been "In
essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity."
(See the National Association of Evangelicals web site.) The
multi-denominational tent revival is a much better metaphor for
evangelicalism.

Lately, however, there's been trouble under the revival tent. Some
folks are trying to convince the organizers and sponsors of the revival
and newcomers as well that their particular theology is an essential and
not a non-essential. They are very careful how they choose their words;
they usually strictly avoid the lable "heresy" for other views such as
Arminianism and even open theism. But their rhetoric is the rhetoric of
exclusion: "Arminianism is profoundly mistaken" and "Arminianism is on
the precipice of heresy" and "all Arminians are on their way to open
theism," etc., etc.

It's time for evangelicalism's leaders to stand up and say no--not to
Calvinism but to those evangelical Calvinists who are causing trouble in
the evangelical camp by blatantly misrepresenting other evangelicals'
beliefs and by implying, if not asserting, that their theology is the
only authentic evangelical theology.

Roger E. Olson

Who Are Free Will Baptists?

2009-02-08T08:00:00.000-08:00

Free Will Baptists are an association of independent baptistic church congregations. Their 17th century origins are rooted in the rejection of infant baptism, and affirmation that believers only should be baptized.

The earliest Baptists were Arminian (), although Calvinist Baptists arose soon afterward. Both Calvinist and Arminian Baptists shared some sense of commonality with each other as they were persecuted by the infant baptists.

English Baptists had their origins under the heel of a repressive monarchy which insisted that its subjects submit to the King's religion. Baptist affirmation of soul competency and the indwelling of the Spirit brought them into serious conflict with the crown. Many, many Baptist pastors died in prison.

The theological commitment to soul competency and the indwelling of the Spirit informed and determined the shape of Baptist polity (http://treasuresoldandnewbiblicaltexts.blogspot.com/search/label/Baptist%20Polity). They rejected both bishop rule (episcopalianism) and elder rule (presbyterianism), and embraced congregationalism which divests authority away from the hand of one leader or several leaders into the hands of the congregation. Thus, Baptists choose their own leaders, rather than having them appointed by a higher human authority.

Under these conditions, Baptists migrated to America as early as the 17th century. Roger Williams who started the first Baptist church in the colonies (Providence, R.I.) was supposed to have been an Arminian Baptist, although his church quickly became a staunch Calvinist Baptist soon after his departure. Baptists were delineated along the Calvinist-Arminian controversy, with Calvinists known as Particular Baptists and Arminians known as General Baptists. Denominational names became more specific through the 18th and 19th centuries.

Early Baptists in America typically practiced feet washing as an act of fellowship in the context of worship, as commanded by Jesus. While most Baptists have abandoned this practice in the 20th century, Free Will Baptists have remained true to its Baptist historical roots in obeying this command.

In this early period, two FWB movements were distinguishable. In the north, a well organized denomination traced itself back to the ministry of Benjamin Randall. In the south, loosely organized churches can be traced to the ministry of Paul Palmer.

The Randall movement denominational apparatus facilitated considerable missions activity, theological publication, and hymnody. By 1907, the Randall movement could boast of seven theological colleges and about 1100 churches.

The Randall movement was influenced to some extent by Wesley's theology of continuance in salvation. The emphasis on continual repentance was such that historically, the Randall churches seemed to embrace a salvation of grace through faith, but a continuance in salvation by not sinning; if a believer were to die soon after committing a sin without having repented of it, he would presumably be condemned to hell. In contrast, the Palmer movement affirmed a salvation by grace through faith and continuance in salvation by grace through faith; the only way a person could forfeit his salvation is to make shipwreck of his faith. This description of the Randall view of continuance may be over stated, but at least serves to highlight an ongoing issue within the movement.

The Civil War exacerbated regional and theological differences, keeping the two movements ecclesially distant from each other. In contrast, arising out of the missions movement which needed denominational structure, many Baptist groups were forming closer formal alliances with each other.

In keeping with this trend toward ecclesial unity, from 1907-1911, about 1100 churches in the Randall movement voluntarily associated themselves with the newly formed Northern Baptist denomination. This voluntary merger included nearly every Freewill Baptist church in the north (a few churches in Scioto County Ohio did not vote for the merger, and FWBs in Oklahoma did not merge). The seven affiliated Freewill Baptist colleges also were involved with the merger.

The merger was designed to emphasize missional cooperation and to deemphasize theological differences. The result was the merger of Calvinist and Arminian Baptist churches. Practically speaking, churches typically embraced the Arminian doctrine of the extent of the atonement while embracing the Calvinist doctrine of unconditional continuance in salvation (eternal security). The Northern Baptist denomination later experienced several major splits along conservative-liberal issues, but is now known as American Baptist Churches--USA, consisting of over 5000 churches. Next to the Southern Baptist Convention, it is the second largest Baptist denomination in America.

Meanwhile, the Palmer movement seemed to languish due to a lack of denominational organization. To the extent that the Palmer movement was dependent upon northern Freewill Baptist literature, theological impetus, and cooperative ministry, the merger may have exacerbated this disorientation.

In 1935, FWB leaders came together and chartered the National Association of Free Will Baptists. In 1942, the FWB Bible College was established. In the 1950s, remnant Randall churches from West Virginia and Kentucky established many new FWB churches in OH MI IN and even IL; for example, in 1945, there were less than 10 FWB churches in OH, while 30 years later there were an astounding 150.

These roots in the rural south and hills of Appalachia are, for better or for worse, defining for modern FWBs. Culturally, the typical FWB church 1) is rural; 2) approaches worship without a prescribed liturgy or written prayers; 3) values informal, personal, and conversational worship; 4) eschews high church music; 5) is often dependent upon an uneducated clergy; and 6) has a genuine and natural sense of fellowship which impressively extends beyond the local church to the local association and beyond to various formal and informal networks on a national level.

FWBs have exerted considerable effort in expanding beyond its rural roots while at the same time retaining the best of its heritage. Despite some anti-educational elements in the denomination, FWBs have three colleges which are affiliated with either a state or the national association. Two additional colleges which have no direct ties to a state or the national association hold to FWB theology and have strong ties to a number of individual FWB churches. None of these colleges offers an MDiv which otherwise is the standard degree for ordination in many denominations. However, Hillsdale FWB College (Moore OK) offers a M.A. in ministry.

In recent years, FWBs have also seen many of its churches evolve away from its historical heritage in its ministerial approaches, some of which may be good or not so good. For example, National Ministries has a number of its church plants situated in major cities. Also, a number of churches have abandoned free church worship for contemporary worship. Moreover, a number of churches have moved away from congregational governance, embracing either an elder ruled governance or unilateral control by a single pastor. Consequently, visiting a FWB church, one probably should expect a genuinely friendly welcome, an informal welcome with announcements, three to five gospel hymns, special music and perhaps a choir number, a fervently preached sermon, and a hymn of invitation. Much of this will be led by non-professionals. A few individual churches may deviate from these expectations significantly. Sunday evening services often are more informal. Many churches regularly feature a time of personal sharing and testimonies.

One constant, however, has been FWB theology. It assumes a fierce, uncompromising commitment to the Bible which is unlikely to be challenged in the next generation or so. With this commitment comes a conservative hermeneutic, which is often practiced with some nuance, but not always. While a wide range of ministerial options is available for women, including single missionary service, there probably are currently no ordained women or women pastors in any affiliated FWB church. A good number of churches are opposed to or look suspiciously upon cooperative ministries with other denominations or churches; some churches hold to a “second line separation” which means that they will not fellowship with a sound, conservative believer who fellowships with someone who is a moderate or liberal Christian. The denomination voted to leave the National Association of Evangelicals, even though one of its own members (Billy Melvin) was instrumental in its initial founding and growth.

The most significant unique contribution FWBs have made to the annals of church history is to maintain and vigorously and effectively cultivate Reformation Arminian theology. This is all the more important in light of the Calvinist resurgence in the last decade. Reformation Arminianism poses an alternative to Calvinism which can be embraced by a large number of churches throughout evangelicalism. It affirms that 1) Jesus’ atonement paid the sin debt of all people; 2) that people enjoy this payment of their sin debt when they are united with Christ by faith; and 3) that God’s Spirit enables people who are totally depraved to believe in Jesus for salvation. The theological works of FWB theologians Stephen Ashby, Leroy Forlines, Robert Picirilli, and J. Matthew Pinson have had a major influence within the modern Arminian movement, as can be seen in the Society of Evangelical Arminians (http://arminians.org/).

Infant Baptism and Infant Communion?

2009-01-11T04:33:00.000-08:00

This is an honest question: Why is it that people who are paedo-baptists (infant baptisers) don't invite non-believers to share in the Lord's Supper?

As a Baptist, I don't baptise infants simply because infants do not have a clear profession of faith--they are not believers. And I'm as certain as can be that non-believers should not be baptised.

Paedo-baptists have their own theological explanation as to why infants should be baptised, but at this point in my theological acuity, I still can't quite grasp their argument.

Being that as it may, I now wonder why paedo-baptists don't invite non-believers to share in communion. Or, to ask it another way, Why don't paedo-baptists put a speck of bread and a drop of juice into an infants mouth, much in the same way as they baptise the infant. Just as the infant might share in the death, burial and resurrection as portrayed in baptism, the infant might also share in the body and blood of Christ through communion.

Although the covenantal argument for infant baptism is too complex for me to really grasp, I would think that it could also be applied to infant communion. So, with this in mind, why don't paedo-baptists believe in infant communion.

My argument against infant communion is the same as my argument against infant baptism: non-believers shouldn't take communion or be baptised.

95% Arminian

2008-12-10T00:46:00.000-08:00

Yesterday, I heard of yet another major Christian intellectual claiming to be a Calvinist yet who rejected limited atonement.

If you reject limited atonement, then there is a good chance you are 95% Arminian and are either afraid to admit it (due to the calumny imposed by Calvinists) or don't know enough about Arminianism to do so.

If you reject limited atonement, then what quarrel do you have with Arminianism? As one of my previous post indicates (Are You an Arminian?), you can be an Arminian and still believe in Total Depravity and even eternal security.

John MacArthur recently made the comment that Wesley was a messed up Calvinist (http://arminians.org/node/365). By this, MacArthur admits that Wesley was not semi-Pelagian, and that he is far more Reformed than not. Actually, this is why I call myself a Reformation Arminian. I accept penal satisfaction, total depravity, and that a person cannot come to Christ apart from the special work of the drawing of the Holy Spirit.

If you reject limited atonement, why not compare your beliefs to that of Reformation Arminians? Chances are, you are one of us.

Matt 1:21: How Calvinists Blind-side a Text

2008-12-08T02:41:00.000-08:00

He Will Save His People from Their Sins:
How Calvinists Don’t Bother Looking from the Other Side

One of the more inane prooftexts for Calvinism is Matt 1:21, “…for he will save his people from their sins.” Calvinists argue that this is a statement of definiteness, that it does not say that Jesus will merely provide the opportunity of salvation for “his people,” but instead, that Jesus will definitely save his people. They claim that this flies in the face of Arminian assertions that through Jesus, God provides a way for everyone to be saved.

The quick Arminian retort is simple: “What!? Do you Calvinists think that Arminians deny that Jesus will definitely save his people??? Of course, we Arminians affirm that Jesus will definitely save his people, just as the text says.”

The claim that this is a Calvinist proof text for definite atonement registers 9.8 on the silly scale.

The ultimate question is a matter of defining “his people.” Indeed, in Matthew’s Gospel, the issue which is pounded is whether “his people” consists of Abraham’s descendents only, or whether “his people” is actually the community of faith, consisting of both Jew and Gentile believers; obviously, Matthew favours the latter position.

This is instructive for us. In Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus saves his people, and his people are his true disciples—those who do the will of his Father in heaven. Matthew does not define “his people” in terms of a murky Calvinistic election as birthed in the dark secret counsels of God, but rather in very concrete terms of taking up ones cross and following Jesus. In Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus saves his people from their sins, but “his people” consists of his true brothers and sisters and mother—those who do the will of his Father in heaven (12:46-50).

So, Arminians do indeed believe that Jesus will definitely save every single one of his people. This does not prevent them from also affirming that Jesus died for everyone. Indeed, one gets the strong impression in every passage of Matthew’s Gospel, that Jesus preached to everyone, urging them to repent and believe the Gospel, even those whom he knew would reject him. After all, Jesus said to the scribes and Pharisees precisely because they would ultimately reject him, “Jerusalem, Jerusalem…, how often I have longed to gather your children…but you were not willing” (Matt 23:37).

Are You an Arminian?

2008-12-04T13:49:00.001-08:00

Over the centuries, Calvinists have so successfully vilified Arminianism that people who are Arminian are afraid to say so. This is true even though Arminianism is the default theological position of Christian Protestantism. Arminianism is so widespread that even the strongest Calvinist churches are filled with Arminians. It is ironic, then, that people are afraid to say they’re Arminian; for example, many Independent and Southern Baptists are typically Arminian, but nonetheless often call themselves Calvinists!

The purpose of this survey is to help people who have an Arminian theology realise that they are Arminians and to help them understand that it is okay to be Arminian. The questions deal with the most pertinent issues which define Arminianism and distinguish Arminianism from Calvinism.

1. Do you believe that Jesus died for every human being?
• This is the singular issue which ultimately divides Calvinism and Arminianism
• If you answered yes to the question, then almost certainly you are an Arminian (assuming that you hold to other historic doctrines and are a Protestant)
• If you believe that Jesus died only for those who would eventually believe, then you truly are a Calvinist and are not an Arminian

2. Do you believe that a person can resist the convicting power of God’s grace?
• If you answered yes, then you are almost certainly an Arminian, as is reflected in Jesus’ words, “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, how often I have longed to gather your children together…but you were not willing” (Matt 23:37)
• Calvinists insist that when God calls people to salvation, they have no ability to resist, and therefore conclude that God’s invitation to salvation goes out only to the few

3. Do you believe that humans are so depraved that they can do nothing to earn salvation and that they cannot choose to believe in Jesus without the intervention of God’s grace?
• If you answered yes, then you agree with Arminius and Arminianism
• Calvinists affirm the same doctrine, but often claim that Arminians do not, despite near, if not complete unanimity among Arminian theologians in affirming the doctrine

4. Do you believe in election?
• If you answered yes, then you might be an Arminian
• Calvinists believe in an election independent of faith
• Arminians believe that election is “in Christ;” i.e., anyone who is “in Christ” is elect, but that faith is essential to become united with Christ. Therefore, election is conditioned upon faith

5. Do you believe in predestination?
• If you answered yes, then you might be an Arminian
• Arminians assert that believers are predestined, not that people are predestined to believe

6. Do you believe in eternal security?
• If you answered yes, you might be an Arminian
• The Remonstrants—people who sided with Arminius in the theological debates of 17th century Holland—took no position on this issue
• Arminius’ position has often been said to be non-committal, although rumours of recently discovered unpublished “disputations” may suggest that he did embrace the possibility of the believer losing his salvation
• If you answered no, then you probably are an Arminian
• The official statement of faith of the Society of Evangelical Arminians does not require the belief in the possibility of the believer losing his salvation
• All Calvinists believe in unconditional eternal security
• Most Independent and Southern Baptists base their claim to be Calvinists on this sole issue; however, in light of historic agreement among Arminians to allow for disagreement on this issue, eternal security is not a determining factor in the question of whether one is an Arminian or a Calvinist

7. Do you believe in penal satisfaction view of the atonement?
• If you answered yes and if you answered no, you might be an Arminian
• The penal satisfaction view of the atonement asserts that Jesus’ death entailed a payment for sin. It assumes that the justice of God requires that sin be punished and that the just wrath of God was diverted away from deserving sinners and poured out instead upon Jesus as their substitute
• This view is held by most Calvinists and by a significant number of Arminians (especially those who claim the nomenclature “Reformation Arminianism”), although some Arminians reject the notion that God punished his Son Jesus

8. Do you believe that God exhaustively knows the future?
• If you answered yes, you might be an Arminian
• Calvinists and most Arminians believe that God exhaustively knows the future.
• Some Arminians think that a denial of this doctrine is a rejection of basic Theism, and that those who deny the doctrine cannot therefore be Arminian
• The Society of Evangelical Arminianism affirms the doctrine, and one cannot belong to the society unless one is in agreement with it

9. Do you believe in the sovereignty of God?
• If you answered yes, then you might be an Arminian
• All Calvinists and all Arminians affirm the sovereignty of God
• Some Calvinists define sovereignty as God ordaining all things, so that they openly deny any choice or ability of people in regard to any action; this is a denial of libertarian free will and raises the question of human culpability when they choose to sin
• Arminians affirm libertarian free will and that humans really do make genuine choices, undeniably affirming human culpability when they choose to sin
• The Arminian view of Sovereignty is that God is sovereign enough to endow his creatures with free will

In summary, you can be an Arminian and believe
• the doctrine of unlimited atonement (Jesus died for everyone)
• the doctrine of resistible grace (people have the power to resist God’s convicting grace)
• the doctrine of total depravity (people are incapable of believing in Jesus apart from the intervention of God’s grace)
• the doctrine of election (all those who are “in Christ” are elect)
• the doctrine of predestination (believers are predestined)
• the doctrine of eternal security
• the doctrine of the penal satisfaction atonement (God punished Jesus for the sins of the world)
• the doctrine of omniscience (including that God foreknows the future perfectly)
• the sovereignty of God (God endowed humans with a free will)

As I stated earlier, the default position of Christian evangelicalism is Arminianism. And as can be seen in this brief outline, it is okay to be Arminian.

For more reflection on these issues, read Roger Olson’s 10 Myths about Arminianism

Evangelical Theological Society's Proposed Doctrinal Statement

2008-11-15T01:31:00.000-08:00

ETS has basically two points that members must affirm: the Trinity and inerrancy. These are hardly enough to distinguish evangelical Christians from non-Evangelicals, prompting some people to urge a new statement of faith, which can be found here. Here are my thoughts....

FIRST, It seems that the proposed change is doomed to fail because 1) the executive committee opposes it; and 2) a super-supermajority of 80% is needed to pass it; 3) there were few big names on their list of supporters--I recognised only seven.

SECOND, let's talk about item 9 which reads, "The Holy Spirit alone makes the work of Christ effective to individual sinners, enabling them to turn to God from their sin and to trust in Jesus Christ."

The afore-linked webpage includes as one of its FAQ's a question in regard to C-A issues. The FAQ reads: "9. Is the reference to the Holy Spirit’s enabling work slanted towards Calvinism?" They reply, "We believe the statement on the Holy Spirit’s work in regeneration can accommodate the Calvinist view as well as Wesleyan/ Arminian notions of prevenient grace. Because the statement already unites Calvinist, Wesleyan, and Arminian evangelicals in England, we think that we have good reason not to interpret it as slanted towards either Calvinism or Arminianism. We have corresponded with at least one non-Calvinist long time member of the Tyndale Fellowship who has said he has never had a problem with this description of the Holy Spirit’s work."

Actually, upon a very, very close reading of the item, I have encountered a problem with this item. The participial phrase (enabling them to turn...and to trust) is ambiguous, and--as with all modifying participles, we are unsure of it being causal, temporal, sequential, etc. Here are the possibilities

temporal: The Holy Spirit alone makes the work of Christ effective to individual sinners at the same time that he enables them to turn to God from their sin....
telic: The Holy Spirit alone makes the work of Christ effective to individual sinners for the purpose of enabling them to turn to God from their sin...
causal: The Holy Spirit alone makes the work of Christ effective to individual sinners because he enables them to turn to God from their sin...
instrumental: The Holy Spirit alone makes the work of Christ effective to individual sinners by enabling them to turn to God from their sin...
circumstantial: The Holy Spirit alone makes the work of Christ effective to individual sinners while he enables them to turn to God from their sin...
sequential: The Holy Spirit alone makes the work of Christ effective to individual sinners then he enables them to turn to God from their sin...
resultative: The Holy Spirit alone makes the work of Christ effective to individual sinners resulting in them being enabled them to turn to God from their sin...

No doubt, English is much less ambiguous with its participles than Greek, and one or two or three of these possibilities is more probable than others.

However, after staring at these options for the last 30 minutes, I'm not sure which reading is more natural. One thing I'm sure of is that Arminians won't like some of them. For example we would reject the telic, sequential, and resultative interpretations. If pressed, Arminians would interpret the phrase instrumentally: The Holy Spirit alone makes the work of Christ effective to individual sinners by enabling them to turn to God from their sin....

Perhaps the ambiguity is deliberate and helpful, enabling both Calvinists and Arminians to interpret it in whatever way they wish.

THIRD, perhaps of equal interest is the item which reads, "The Holy Spirit lives in all those he has regenerated...." Hey, this is good for Arminians, but bad for some Calvinists. I would assume that this might make a few Calvinists twinge, especially those who think that there can be some time gap from the point of regeneration to the point of faith. I keep on hearing Calvinists claiming this insanity that a person may not actually believe until years after his regeneration. Calvinists who believe this insanity are faced then with accepting the notion not only that unbelievers can be regenerate, but that unbelievers can be indwelt by the Spirit. This being the case, perhaps we ought to adopt the amendment, and then go on a witch hunt to throw out a bunch of Calvinists from ETS. :)

Rethinking Hymnody: "In Christ Alone"

2008-09-09T01:48:00.000-07:00

We should re-write hymns which distort doctrines toward a Calvinist
slant. I think it's perfectly legal to do so, although I think you're
supposed to cite the hymn title with "alt." or "adpt." afterward,
which stand for altered or adapted, respectively.

For example: "In Christ Alone" (alt.)

Here's one version of a verse of "In Christ Alone" which alters the
one-sided emphasis on eternal security and determinism. The original
reads:

No guilt in life, no fear in death—
This is the pow'r of Christ in me;
From life's first cry to final breath;
Jesus commands my destiny.
No pow'r of hell, no scheme of man,
Can ever pluck me from His hand,
Producing fruit in Christ the Vine,
Faithfully for my Christ I’ll stand.

The obviously offensive lines are "Jesus commands my destiny" and the
reference to the impossibility of being plucked out of Christ's hand.
Of course, with caveats, Arminians can affirm them. But why sing
songs which might confuse people unnecessarily?

The altered version reads:

No guilt in life, no fear in death—
This is the pow'r of Christ in me;
From life's first cry to final breath,
Jesus, Command my destiny!
No pow'r of hell, no scheme of man,
Can ever pluck me from His hand,
Producing fruit in Christ the Vine,
Faithfully for my Christ I’ll stand.

The alteration about a deterministic destination is subtle. It
converts an indicative statement to an prayer of commitment. It does
so first by converting the previous semi-colon after "From life's
first cry to final breath" into a comma. Then, the utterance of
Jesus' name is converted into a vocative (as indicated by the comma
immediately after his name). Next, in good form befitting the
vocative, the first word Command is capitalised, and the final
punctuation converted to an exclamation point. Thus, the worshiper
emotively thrusts his life into Christ's control.

My resolution to the John 10 passage about plucking is to recognise
that Jesus publicly tells his opponents that no one can pluck his
sheep out of his hand, but that Jesus, in the intimacy of private
teaching, tells his disciples that if they don't continue in abiding
with him and bearing fruit, they will be cut off from the vine. The
alteration of the hymn has this in mind.

To be sure, nothing can pluck out of Jesus' hand those who abide in
Christ and produce fruit. This is reflected by the participle
"producing." The idea here is that producing is assumptive: the
promise of security is only for those who faithfully stand in Christ.

I wonder if anyone else might suggest a different alteration.

Recovering a Sense of Incredulity over Calvinism

2008-04-20T11:56:00.000-07:00

I have a couple friends of mine who are preparing for ministry and working on advanced theological degrees. However, in their prior studies they had been quite insulated from the Calvinist-Arminian debate, and have only recently encountered real live Calvinists. It is refreshing to hear their sense of incredulity and even shock at what Calvinists say.

I remember one of my first conversations with one of them. As it came up that I was not a Calvinist, he replied, "But there aren't any Calvinists around any more, are there?" I looked around at the various other theologians in the room and said, "We're surrounded by them." This came as a shock, since he simply could not conceive how anyone could hold to Calvinism.

In another conversation, my other friend said, after talking to a Calvinists, "You know, they actually believe that Jesus only died for the elect." I replied, "But of course." To which he responded that he knew this was a part of their theology, but couldn't conceive of anyone actually believing that God would withhold the atonement from the greatest part of mankind.

Another time, one of them said to me, "Do you realize that they think that we Arminians believe in a works salvation?"

All this is refreshingly assuring. These young men, well educated in theology as they are, nonetheless have a theological innocence about them untainted by the intricacies of a Calvinism which obfuscates the obvious and creates theosophical labyrinths from one's nose to one's elbow.
Oh to be shocked once more at hearing someone claim that God predestines some few people to believe, and leaves all others with no means of salvation! Oh to be astonished to hear someone claim that babies who die in infancy have no assurance of being ushered into the delights of heaven! Oh to be flabbergasted to hear someone claim that people have no choice in whether they put their faith in Christ or not.

We hear Calvinists repeat their disturbing theology so much that we gradually lose our proper sense of astonishment over people actually believing things so contrary to the nature of God and to the obvious meaning of Scripture. This is unfortunate. We need to recover a sense of theological innocence so that we do not dignify what is otherwise prima facie absurd.

On one hand, we want people to recognize our theological maturity, and so we make sure we never seem surprised at Calvinistic claims; and rightly so, because we've probably heard most of them more than a few times. But maybe this is a flawed response, for it tends to dignify that which should be not be dignified. Perhaps instead we should respond with an appropriate sense of incredulity at notions which could only be deduced from scripture by those who are twice too clever for the simplicity of the Gospel.

Congregational Approval of Out-of-Budget Expenditures

2008-04-18T09:14:00.000-07:00

Here's a procedure....

1) Set up a budget for approval. Any expenditure which has already been approved at the previous annual meeting need not be brought up again for specific approval. If you budget $2000 for church van maintenance and repair, and its transmission needs a $1000 overhaul, then go ahead and get it repaired.

2) Each board or church department should make a good faith effort to stay within its budget. But if a budget item is exceeded through ordinary but unexpected situations, then

report it at the next business meeting;
b) explain why;
c) move on--i.e., don't worry about passing a budget increase;
d) increase your budget for that particular item next year.

3) Special items not previously budgeted should be carefully considered as to whether or not they should be presented to the congregation for a vote. Here are some criteria:

The more unusual the item is, the greater the need to bring it to the congregation
The more expensive the item is, the greater the need to bring it to the congregation
The more time-sensitive the purchase is, the greater the need for the board to deal with it outside of congregational oversight
Sometimes difficult situations of a most sensitive nature need to be dealt with in the privacy of the board meeting, for example, a severance package for a dismissed ministerial professional. In which case, the board members stick their neck out and assume that the congregation will trust their judgment. After all, the board members are the supposed to be the most spiritual mature and Spirit-led members of the congregation. Moreover, the board members should carry enough voting weight as to control any future votes on the controversial issue.

All this to say, there must be some flexibility. The principles of congregational governance need to work together with the principles of board representation. The board members function for the purpose of facilitating church governance and should not compete against it.

Ultimately, instead of asking if you should make a rule that congregational approval is necessary for purchases over $500 (or over $5000...), you should leave the exact figure undecided, and allow for prudence according to the situation. You could use some less than precise language to convey this. "If an out-of-budget expenditure of pressing urgency cannot be brought before the congregation in an expedient manner, the board, if the nature of the circumstances deems it necessary, may authorize reasonable disbursements of limited amounts without prior consent of the congregation."

But sometimes things are better left unsaid.

Churches Beware! Calvinism on the Sly!

2008-04-06T14:16:00.000-07:00

Calvinist churches are but a small minority; most evangelical churches are Arminian or semi-Arminian. However, the Calvinist resurgence is producing full Five Point Calvinist pastors looking for work. The resurgence is also prompting Arminian and semi-Arminian pastors to embrace Calvinism. This dynamic is the source of considerable tension in the life of the local church, not to mention in the heart of such pastors as they hold to a view which is often at odds with their churches.

Of course, this is not a problem for those Calvinistic pastors who minister within the confines denominations which are pre-committed to Calvinism. However, this is a huge problem for Calvinistic pastors who minister in theologically mixed denominations. Such denominations would include Southern Baptist Convention, General Baptist Conference, Evangelical Free Church, American Baptist Churches and others, not to mention the many independent churches.

Since the majority of these churches are Arminian or semi-Arminian, and since the typical congregation is not theologically astute enough to detect various subtleties of the debate, Calvinistic pastors are prone to mute their theological particularities so as not to raise an outcry of opposition.

In my own case, as an interim music minister, I served under a new pastor at a thoroughly semi-Arminian congregation. That is to say, there was no one in the congregation who held to limited atonement or unconditional election, and everyone in the congregation would have dismissed such notions as pure unbiblical non-sense. Yet the new pastor came to the church already fully committed to Five Point Calvinism. We'll refer to him as Pastor X.

Pastor X taught Calvinism on the sly. He could not come right out and declare, "Jesus died only for the elect! Jesus did not die for everyone!" Rather, he would say, "Jesus died for the sins of his people." Of course, this language was nothing but pure obfuscation, but it duped the congregation to affirm his comments with many amens.

Pastor X could not teach Calvinism directly. He had to situate his theology at an angle, attempting to wedge it into the congregation in order to get some future leverage. So through a series of Bible studies, he hammered home the concept that salvation cannot be earned, which he hoped would pave the way for him to deny that salvation is granted on the condition of faith. Of course, this completely went over the head of the congregation, which held uncompromisingly that Jesus died for everyone and that all you have to do to be saved is believe.
Thus, Calvinism on the sly attempts to mute all phrases which teach a universal atonement. After a year or two, the Calvinistic pastor then starts teaching on the issues which are less obviously Calvinistic. For example, there will be a strong emphasis on Calvinistic particularities of Total Depravity, monergism, irresistibility of grace, and de-emphasis on faith as a condition of salvation. Still, the congregation remains typically ignorant on many of these issues as well. One or two might raise questions, but they will still be entirely unsuspecting of how this is all prelude to limited atonement.
Meanwhile, the Calvinistic pastor manages to network with other Calvinists in the area, and perhaps draws one or two into his congregation whom he promotes and with whom he forms a mutual support within the congregation. This creates a divide between those who are clued into the secret coded language of Calvinism and the main body of the congregation. The informed Calvinists, led by their pastor and aided by their knowledge of the coded language produce an in-crowd which puts them at odds with the rest of the congregation. Still, the congregation remains clueless, having no idea that the newly formed inner circle propagates the notion that Jesus only died for the few.
When the congregation finally does figure out that their pastor no longer believes that Jesus died for the world, then chaos and argumentation breaks out. Ultimately, in most cases, the result is some sort of church split or the unpleasant departure of the pastor.
For this reason, congregations looking for a new pastor should be clear on these important theological issues. Questions should be asked on various issues, and repeated from various angles. If the pastor responds, "Yes, I believe that Jesus died for the world," the follow up question needs to be, "Does this include those people who will never accept Jesus," for Calvinists define "world" and "all people" differently than most Christians.

Moreover, congregations should protect themselves by requiring a new pastor to enter into a covenantal agreement that would require a resignation if the pastor's theology were to change significantly during the course of the pastorate. This should apply to any theological issue, not just Calvinism and Arminianism.

Good pastoral ethics require full disclosure. There should be no attempt to teach divergent theology on the sly. This is true for both sides of the Calvinist-Arminian issue. However, there seem to be few, if any, Arminians who are trying to get jobs in Calvinistic churches. Because of the Calvinistic resurgence, however, those churches which embrace the gospel of God's love for the world and for every person must be on their guard against those who would restrict the atonement for the few.

Overcoming Total Depravity

2008-04-05T01:23:00.000-07:00

Perhaps no one view been established as a Reformation Arminian position to explain God's enabling grace.

In principle, I think that those who freely claim the appelation Reformation Arminianism. all believe that man cannot, of his own accord, believe in the Gospel. However, I think there are some Arminians who believe that the atonement actually accomplished a victory over the state of human depravity. Thus, they would claim that humanity WAS totally incapable of believing in Jesus UNTIL somehow God's grace in the cross removed it so that everyone may NOW freely respond to the Gospel presentation.

This might be plausible, but I'm inclined to think that man continues to be in a state of Total Depravity which cannot be overcome except by the specific drawing of specific individuals at specific moments by God's grace. If this is the case, then this is point of commonality with the theology of the reformers, in that God does not always draw all men at all times, but only at his own discretion and his own timing.

The caveat is that God generally desires to always draw all men at all times, but implements this general will in conjunction with and at the behest of the prayers and the actions of the saints. Thus, for example, when we pray urgently for someone's salvation, God impels his Spirit to bring conviction and drawing power.

Or, by way of another example, consider a remote people group which theoretically has never had access to the gospel message. In such a case, the sphere of operation for God's convicting grace would be seriously limited (although it is nonetheless operational through natural revelation). However, out of God's general desire to draw all men, God's Spirit might be sent to believers who have some sort of connection with the remote people group, prompting them to pray for the unreached people. Since God is eager to hear such prayers and promises to send more workers into the harvest field, this would increase the sphere of operation for God's convicting grace.

This is both similar to and different from Amyraldianism, if I understand Amyraldianism correctly. The similarity is that God is in control over who is convicted and when he is convicted. The difference is that 1) the Spirit's pre-egenerating grace is intended for all; and 2) his ministry is resistible.

Isa 53 and Penal Satisfaction View of the Atonement

2008-03-15T16:00:00.000-07:00

http://treasuresoldandnewbiblicaltexts.blogspot.com/2008/03/isaiah-53-and-penal-satisfaction-view.html

Commentary on a Universal Atonement Passage (1 Tim 2)

2008-03-01T03:19:00.000-08:00

For my somewhat detailed analysis of the pertinent features of 1 Tim 2:1-6, go here:

Commentary on a Universal Atonement Passage

The above commentary integrated into Greek and English Syntactical Sentence Flows: UnicodeGreekSentenceFlowof1Tim2.doc

What Part of "All" Do You Not Understand?

2008-02-28T05:40:00.000-08:00

George W. Knight, III, in his often disappointing commentary on 1 Timothy in the New International Greek Text Commentary series, attempts to argue that the "all men" passages of 1 Tim 2 is best understood as "all kinds of men."

He writes, "It is also the most natural understanding in a number of the Pauline passages where an absolute universalism is a virtual impossibility and a reference to all kinds of individuals is more likely." He then cites six passages which he thinks are better interpreted as all kinds. Here's the list, and you judge for yourself if "all kinds of people" really is the best interpretation. Fill in the blank accordingly.

Rom 12:17b—Take thought for things honorable in the sight of _____________.
A. all kinds of people.
B. everybody

Rom 12:18—If it be possible, as much as in you lieth, be at peace with __________________.
A. all kinds of people.
B. everybody

2 Cor 3:2—Ye are our epistle, written in our hearts, known and read by ____________.
A. all kinds of people.
B. everybody

Phil 4:5— Let your forbearance be known unto ___________________.
A. all kinds of people.
B. everybody

1 Thes 2:15— who both killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove out us, and pleased not God, and are contrary to ________________.
A. all kinds of people.
B. everybody

Knight's problem is that he thinks that if a text cannot possibly mean "all people" in an unqualified literal sense (as in the above examples), then the text must resort to meaning "all kinds of people (but not necessarily all people without exception." He fails to understand that "all people" can be taken more generally, in a non-literal fashion, as constrained by obvious practical considerations.

Paul was not saying in Rom 12:18, for example, that Christians should be at peace with all kinds of people such as Muslims, Japanese, red-headed children, etc—but not necessarily all people without exception. No, he was saying that Christians should be at peace with everybody with whom they possibly come in contact, without exception.

This latter meaning is adequately conveyed by the term everybody, so long as it is applied with some degree of common sense.

Commentary Survey on Soteriological Elitism in the Pastorals

2008-02-28T00:47:00.000-08:00

Earlier, I posted an article arguing that the universal atonement passages in the Pastorals reflected a polemic against the fallen church leaders who held a soteriological elitism. I'm glad to see that there is strong support for this view from the recent commentaries. I must have picked up this analysis from Gordon Fee almost 20 years ago, but didn't perceive his views in light of the Calvinist-Arminian debate until about 2003. Fee's reconstruction of the situation in Ephesus has won the day. I have culled a list of pertinent quotes from these commentaries.

These are the commentaries which argue that Paul's universal passages in the Pastorals are polemical to a soteriological elitism, in order of emphasis of this issue:

New International Commentary of the New Testament: The Letters to Timothy and Titus (2006) by Phillip Towner.

Word Biblical Commentary: Pastoral Epistles (2000) by William D. Mounce.

New International Bible Commentary: 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus (1984, 1988) by Gordon Fee.

International Critical Commentary: Pastoral Epistles (1999) by I. Howard Marshall.

New American Commentary: 1,2 Timothy Titus (1992) by Thomas D. Lea (Titus by Griffin).

Towner 163: "But the real concern [regarding the command to pray for all people and for government leaders], as close attention to the argument will show, is for the prayer that supports the church's universal mission to the world. That is, Paul urges Timothy to instruct the Ephesian church to reengage in an activity it had apparently been neglecting—prayer in support of Paul's own mandate to take the gospel to the whole world."

Towner 164: "Both the overall structure of the argument and the controlling thematic use of the term 'all' determine the soteriological-missiological thrust of the prayer enjoined in vv. 1-2."

Towner 164: See the diagram-outline

Towner 165: "Probably the speculative views of the false teachers or the general atmosphere surrounding the approach to the faith they promoted fostered either some sort of elitism or indifference to those outside the church."

Towner 167: "As noted, the term 'all' is intentionally universal in thrust (cf. vv. 2, 4, 6; 4:10), and probably calculated to counter a tendency toward insular thinking in the Ephesian church brought on by an elitist outlook or theology.

Towner 167: Other Pauline universal passages: Rom 15:11; 1 Cor 9:22; 2 Cor 5:19; cf. Acts 1:8

Towner 178 fn38: Against universalism, see 1 Tim 1:17; 3:16; 4:10; cf. 2 Tim 1:5

Towner 178 fn 42: "From the human side, the action is described with the verb 'to come to' (Gk ἐλθεῖν; 2:4; 2 Tim 3:7; in 1 Tim 4:3 the verbal form of the formula is equivalent); from God's side the action is described in terms of a gift: "to grant them repentance to the knowledge of the truth" (2 Tim 2:25).

Towner 180: "In Paul's missiology, the formula 'God is one' yields the logical corollary, 'therefore all have access to his salvation, both Jews and Gentiles.' It corrects Jewish or Judaizing exclusivist tendencies. The formula functions similarly here, supplying theological proof for the statement that God wills to save all people."

Towner 181: "'One God' implies universal access to salvation, and this implication is transferred via the concept of 'singularity' to the mediator; that is, 'one mediator' implies equally that all have access to what he mediates…. Paul anchors universal access to God's salvation in the one act of redemption and the one message about it."

Towner 183: He ties the saying that Jesus gave himself as a ransom for all people to the Son of Man saying in Mark 10:45 which says "for many." "Paul's usual preference to apply the work of Christ to 'us'(Gal 1:4 Eph 5:2; Titus 2:14) is shifted to 'all.' While this shift might be regarded as a clarification of the Marcan tradition's 'many,' we should rather think that Paul's widening of the scope from his more typical 'us' to 'all' is determined by the universal thrust of the passage."

Towner 143: "Although implicit in each occurrence of the formula, the expansion 'that deserves full acceptance' emphasizes the need for hearer to make an appropriate rational response to embrace and esteem what is said and to act accordingly."

Johnson 196: "Especially those who believe" corresponds to Gal 6:10.

Implication: then we must at least pray for all people that they be saved…. Or, merely, let's pray for all kinds of people that they be saved.

Marshall 420: "The use of πᾶς here and its repetition in vv. 2, 4 and 6 is thematic, establishing a universal emphasis which is probably polemical…. This universalistic thrust is most probably a corrective response to an exclusive elitist understanding of salvation connected with the false teaching."

Mounce 76: "Paul cites a creed perhaps solely because it asserts that Christ is a 'ransom for all.' Yet the creed implies in another way that the Ephesian church should pray for all people: there is (only) one God and (only) one mediator. If people are not offered Christian salvation, then there is no other God and no other mediator to save them, and all people are the proper objects of prayer."

Mounce 76: "It would appear that Paul's opponents are teaching an exclusive gospel that offers salvation only to a select few, and this exclusivism is made clear by their practice of praying for only certain people."

Mounce 78: "Therefore, the primary emphasis of v 1 lies on the statement "on behalf of all people" and not on prayer in general. Any theology that limits the scope of prayers for salvation is deficient."

Mounce 87: "Vv 3-4 contain the first of three reasons that the Ephesian church should pray for the salvation of all people and not just for a select few; it is pleasing to God because it in line with his basic desire that all people be saved."

See Marshall's "Universal Grace" in Pinnock.

Fee 64: "The appellation God our Savior…emphasizes that God is the originator of the saving event…and that Paul and the church have already experienced it. But neither our salvation, nor that of an elitist few, satisfies God, for God wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. The point of the text is clear: The gospel, by its very nature, as Paul will argue in verses 5-6, is universal in its scope, and any narrowing of that scope by a truncated theology or by 'novelties' that appeal to the intellectual curiosities of the few is not the gospel of Christ."

Fee 64: "And to say that God wants…all people to be saved, implies neither that all (meaning everybody) will be saved (against 3:6; 4:2; or 4:10, e.g.) nor that God's will is somehow frustrated since all, indeed, are not saved. The concern is simply with the universal scope of the gospel over against some form of heretical exclusivism or narrowness."

Fee 66: "God's desire for all to be saved is evidenced in the creed itself with its statement that Christ's death was for all people. The gospel, therefore, potentially provides salvation for all people, because Christ's atoning self-sacrifice was 'in behalf of' all people. Effectually, of course, it ends up being 'especially [for] those who believe (4:10).

Ten Myths about Arminian Theology

2008-02-24T00:52:00.000-08:00

Roger Olson has written a helpful volume entitled, Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities. Basically, he sets the record straight on a number of issues where Calvinist polemic has falsely depicted Arminian theology. He does this in a consistent and systematic way, first by detailing the false and extreme allegations made by mainstream Calvinists, and then refuting them by examining the theological trajectory on the given topic beginning with Arminius and passing through his earliest followers, then Wesley, and then the 19th century Wesleyan theologians, and then concluding with contemporary Arminian theologians.[1]

Here is a summation of the various myths about Arminian theology which Calvinists typically propagate, and the truth about Arminian theology. If you want to dispute whether mainstream Calvinists actually accuse Arminians of these positions, or whether Arminians are in fact guilty as charged, you should read the book in its entirety.

Myth #1: Arminian Theology is the Opposite of Calvinist/Reformed Theology. Reality: Arminian and Calvinists have much in common. In this regard, let me add my own comments that Arminian theology affirms the basic historic creeds of Christendom. One wonders how in the world that Arminius would have gained the staunch Calvinist Beza's support and have been called as pastor and university professor at Leiden by the Dutch Reformed Churches if he didn't share basic theology with his Calvinist colleagues. The common ground between Arminians and Calvinists will become more obvious as the subsequent myths are debunked.

Myth #2: A Hybrid of Calvinism and Arminianism Is Possible. In this chapter, Olson shows how "Calminianism" is illogical.

Myth #3: Arminianism Is Not an Orthodox Evangelical Option. In this chapter, Olson examines how mainstream Calvinists label Arminianism as either barely Christian or fully heretical. He then looks at the basic beliefs of Evangelicalism and shows how Arminianism affirms basic doctrines such as Divine Revelation, the Trinity, salvation by grace through faith, etc. I suppose this chapter could have been combined with Myth #1.

Myth #4: The Heart of Arminianism Is Belief in Free Will. In reality, Arminians are not driven to their position because they want to cling to free will, as if it were absolutely precious and the one non-negotiable of the debate. The real issue for Arminians is the character of God. Arminians are driven to their position because they see that Calvinism leads to making God the author and the effecting power of sin, and denying God's goodness.

Myth #5: Arminian Theology Denies the Sovereignty of God. Reality: Arminians view the Sovereignty of God differently than Calvinists, but they still affirm it. Arminians are amazed that Calvinist definitions of Sovereignty seem to imply an absolute determinism which logically leads to God being the author of sin.

Myth #6: Arminianism is a Human-Centered Theology. In refuting this myth, Olson discusses Arminius' pessimistic anthropology and how his view of Total Depravity continues in a trajectory down to our contemporary Arminian theologians.

Myth #7: Arminianism Is Not a Theology of Grace. This chapter exposes how Calvinists depict the particulars of their system as the exclusive domain of the biblical doctrines of grace. Olson goes on to explain how Arminian theology fully denies a salvation by works, and how God's grace brings a person to faith, and hence, to salvation.

Myth #8: Arminians Do Not Believe in Predestination. Reality: Arminians do affirm predestination, but they are unwilling to allow Calvinists to define the term. Arminian predestination is defined along the lines set forth by Arminius: "[Predestination] is an eternal and gracious decree of God in Christ, by which He determines to justify and adopt believers, and to endow them with life eternal, but to condemn unbelievers and impenitent persons." Olson explains that Arminian view of election is grounded "in Christ," and that the way in which Calvinists ground election in the divine decrees makes election insufficiently christocentric. Olson includes in this chapter a discussion of Open Theism and Middle Knowledge.

Myth #9: Arminian Theology Denies Justification by Grace Alone through Faith Alone. Calvinists are quick to assign what they think are the necessary implications of Arminian theology to Arminianism; thus the charge Arminians with adherence to a works-based salvation. This is somewhat akin to Myth #7 (Arminianism Is Not a Theology of Grace), but focuses on the issue of justification and imputed righteousness. Olson shows how Arminian theologians consistently emphasize justification through faith apart from works. I might add that since Arminians believe salvation is by grace through faith, they cannot simultaneously think that salvation is by works: if salvation is through faith, then it cannot be by works.

Myth #10: All Arminians Believe in the Governmental Theory of the Atonement. The question is whether or not Jesus actually "paid" our sin-debt on the cross, or if Jesus' death had some other divine meaning to it. In this case, Calvinists have managed to define the Arminian view of the atonement by pointing to exceptions in the Arminian trajectory, rather than by Arminius and the majority of Arminian theologians who do affirm the Penal Satisfaction View of the Atonement.

[1] The theologians who form this trajectory are the significant contributors to Arminian theology and should be the ones to define the movement. No doubt, there is such a think as Christian folk religion, and unfortunately, much of it veers off from the legitimate Arminian trajectory. However, any proper analysis of a theological system must be based on its best representatives, not its worst; this is true of both Arminianism and Calvinism. With this in mind, here are the theologians who Olson cites to refute the myths which Calvinists typically attribute to Arminianism: Arminius (1560-1609), Episcopius (1583-1643), John Wesley (1703-1791), Richard Watson (1781-1833), Thomas Summers (1812-1882), William Burton Pope (1822-1903), John Miley (1813-1895); H. Orton Wiley (1877-1961), and contemporary theologians H.C. Thiessen, Thomas Oden, Dale Moody, Stanley Grenz, Leroy Forlines, Jack Cotrell, I. Howard Marshall, Jerry Walls, and Ray Dunning.

A few comments are appropriate about this list. First, Olson does mention the Remonstrant Hugo Grotius (1583-1645), but does not factor into the discussion much. Secondly, Philip Limborch (1633-1712) is routinely and resoundingly condemned by evangelical Arminians for his human optimism which led to the Pelaginianism of later theological movements which is an entirely different creature from Evangelical and historic Arminianism. Thirdly, Olson should have given consideration to the extremely capable 17th century Arminian Baptist Thomas Grantham. Fourthly, Olson recognizes that John Miley may not have been the most exemplary Arminian; his innovations, however, still do not justify the typical Calvinistic mischaracterizations of Arminianism. Fifthly, Olson discusses the 19th century revivalist Charles Finney, but only to condemn him for his rejection of basic Arminian beliefs, stating that he is a good example of Christian folk religion which has little to do with legitimate Arminian theology. Sixthly, probably due to the success of Calvinists in mischaracterizing Arminians, Thomas Oden does not openly claim to be Arminian, although his theology certainly is Arminian. Seventhly, despite considerable erudition and his various contributions to the defense of Arminianism, Clark Pinnock and his open theism represent a significant and logically unnecessary departure from Arminius' Arminianism, and hence, Olson does not discuss his various positions in the Arminian trajectory. Eighthly, Robert E. Picirilli who has authored a number of biblical commentaries and written the important Arminian work Grace, Faith, and Free Will should have been included in the discussion of contemporary theologians. Despite these various caveats, if anyone wants to see how wrong Calvinists are in their mischaracterization of Arminianism, Olson's book is the right source to read.

Why Divine Foreknowledge Doesn't Determine the Future

2008-02-12T14:22:00.000-08:00

I'm re-reading Robert E. Picirilli's excellent work Grace, Faith, and Free Will. He broaches the subject of Divine Foreknowledge of future events.

He's very clear on the subject, and convincing. He draws from Arminius himself and from Richard Watson, although he admits that the 19th century theologian's style is belabored. I'm not sure what is original either to Dr. Picirilli or to his sources.

In particular, Dr. Picirilli cites the simple illustration that we ourselves know with certainty specific events which occurred yesterday, but that none of us would claim that our present knowledge of yesterday's events caused those things to happen or that such knowledge limited our choices when we were faced with them. In the same way, God's knowledge of the future doesn't cause events to happen or limit the human's freedom to choose to do one thing or another.

Dr. Picirilli explains further that God's knowledge of the future does not make those events necessary, only certain. He writes, "An event can be certain without being necessary: 'shall be' (certain) is not the same as 'must be' (necessary). Some events are 'necessary'; that is, they are inevitably caused by a prior influence. Others are 'contingent'; that is, they are free, capable of more than one possibility depending on an unforced choice. Both kinds are equally certain, as known to God" (p. 37).

A Calvinist acquaintance attempted to dismiss this argument by suggesting that God wouldn't send his Son to die for people whom he knew would certainly reject him. But this probably proves too much, for God likewise would know that you will commit adultery with someone the third Tuesday of next month; does this mean that he would not bother administering grace and sending his Spirit to enable you not to fall to temptation? In some respects, there is a speculative aspect to these sorts of questions. At any rate, Jesus' death is not something which can be reduced to a mathematical equation, as if God extracted some specific amount of suffering to atone the sins of a specifc number of the elect.

Ultimately, the issue is whether or not God foreordained the future. This is an issue which the Arminian and the Calvinist need to hash out. But the discussion cannot be short-cutted by the Calvinist's appeal to God's foreknowledge. As others have argued, future events would still be certain even if the Open Theists are right and God doesn't know the future.

Baptism Songs

2008-01-24T01:18:00.000-08:00

I'm collecting all hymns, gospel songs, contemporary songs, and worship choruses dealing with baptism.

Please help me out. If you know of any, please tell me in the comment section. Leave a title and other basic info: music composer, lyrics author, publisher, date of composition, name of tune (if a hymn), etc. A link to the lyrics would be helpful.

Your baptism videos

2008-01-22T04:10:00.000-08:00

I'm attempting to put together a collection of good videos of believers' baptism. For example, here's one:

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=1413974105139617122&q=baptism+baptist+church&total=222&start=100&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=5

I like this one for various reasons: 1) the baptisms were in a Baptist congregation; 2) the baptisms were done publicly--at a public beach; 3) there were testimonies involved which were concise but meaningful; 4) the video was underscored with music; 5) there were multiple baptisms involved in this service; 6) the video itself is a pretty good production.

There's nothing more celebrative than believers' baptism. One of the best arguments for believers' baptism (as opposed to infant baptism) is to simply practice it and let people see it for themselves. Just watching these baptisms in the above link makes me want to shout "Amen" despite the fact that I don't even know these new brothers and sisters in Christ! To this end, I hope to put together a collection of great baptism videos to help non-baptists understand the true meaning and true joy of believers' baptism.

Feel free to leave your link in the comment section.

Extreme Baptism

2008-01-20T15:56:00.001-08:00

These folks are really committed to Baptist theology! Or they ought to be committed! :)

http://youtube.com/watch?v=SWTk9L_bVrk

Down to the Water to Pray

2008-01-20T15:45:00.001-08:00

The parent blog Treasures Old and New features a weekly Pastor's Page formatted to fit the back side of a church bulletin. This week's Pastor's Page addresses the issue of baptism and can be viewed here: http://treasuresoldandnewbiblicaltexts.blogspot.com/2008/01/pastors-page-down-to-water-to-pray.html

An Outline of Arminian Baptist Soteriology from the Book of Hebrews

2008-01-16T15:41:00.000-08:00

An Outline of Arminian Baptist Soteriology from the Book of Hebrews

Wary of Wesley?

2008-01-14T23:12:00.000-08:00

For sure, you won't get a thorough and honest exegesis of Wesley's works out of me! Not that I wouldn't want to, but I have to rely upon secondary sources, some of which are slim and sometimes unpublished. I used to own Wesley's works back when I was working toward Systematics (I'm now in biblical exegesis/theology and textual criticism), and I was enthusiastic about reading him back in the late 1980s. I do remember arbitrarily coming across a particular passage which, regardless of how I looked at it, seemed to be an explicit statement that you lose your salvation by sinning--that if you were to die before you had a chance to repent of the sin, you would go to hell.

Wesley probably suffers from the reputation of popular or even folk Wesleyanism, and I suppose it is not fair to assume that Wesleyanism = Wesley. For better or for worse, there are denominations in North America which actually appropriate the name Wesleyanism and which use the term Wesleyanism to describe their theology, theologies which might not be exactly that of Wesley himself. But please--understand my deep appreciation and kindred-heartedness toward Wesleyan groups--I am zealous for them.

Still, there needs to be a full examination of Wesley and his view of continuance in salvation. Roger Olson, in his work Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities portrayed Wesley as Arminius' most faithful follower and defends him as a defender of Reformation theology at every corner, but one wonders if all this positive portrayal may take a different turn when it comes to the issue of continuance in salvation.

It is my understanding that Wesley believed in Penal Satisfaction View of the Atonement--but only for pre-Conversion sins (!), and that Jesus' death was not a propitiation for post-conversion sins. This suggests that Wesley modified Arminius' view of the Atonement so that post-conversions sins would be pardoned by God the governor rather than declared righteous by God the judge on the basis of Christ's propitiation . Thus, for Wesley--if my understanding is correct, once the Christian comes to faith and enjoys Christ's propitation for his sins, he must appear before God the governor and ask for forgiveness should he ever sin again--or perhaps for all the big sins, at least!

Along these lines, I am told that Wesley thought that Christ's passive obedience is imputed to the believer, but not Christ's active obedience--a departure from Arminius with repercussions for continuance in faith.

It should be noted that Weseleyan groups came up with the notion of repeat regeneration from somewhere. My portrait of Wesley--fraught with my own insecurities and lack of first hand information--does seem compatible with the theology of many Wesleyan groups.

I should hasten to say that I suppose it is possible that it is unfair for me to portray this view of continuance in terms of "saved by grace through faith; kept in salvation by not sinning." I suppose it is possible that Wesley wouldn't have explained things this way. It is possible, I suppose, that Wesley would have argued that the sin itself is indication of a failure of faith--that every sin or every significant sin or every recurrence of a persistent sin is a lapse of saving faith. In which case, a fuller formulaic expression would be "saved by grace through faith; kept in salvation by grace through faith as demonstrated by not sinning," or some such.

Works VI, 526 would seem to give a statement that believers can be in and out of grace like a well oiled piston. It would seem that for Wesley, apostasy was irremedial, but backsliding, in which a believer becomes hell-bound, could be remedied by sincere repentance and a request for pardon.

All this makes me question whether it is fair to call Wesley a classical Arminian. If my understanding of Wesley is accurate, then he represents an idiosyncratic departure from Arminius and from key elements of Reformation theology.

I would be glad to be proved wrong.

Assurance of Salvation in Calvinism?

2008-01-13T12:15:00.000-08:00

A major gun in the Calvinist arsenal against Arminianism is the issue of assurance of salvation. Calvinists relish pointing out that an Arminian never has assurance of his salvation. In contrast, they say, Calvinists are absolutely assured of their salvation since God has foreordained it from the deep dark, inscrutible counsels of God.

However, in this post, I would like to claim that Calvinists really have no assurance at all of their salvation.

Let me first hasten to say that, true to the accusations of Calvinists, we Arminians do believe in the possibility that we could neglect so great a salvation so as to make shipwreck of their faith. And I realize that we take seriously the apostolic warnings to their Christian brothers to hold fast to faith lest we turn away from the living God and trample the blood of the Son of God underfoot--after having received the knowledge of the truth. And so, I own all those Calvinistic charges that Arminians fear the possibility of apostasy and therefore have no absolute assurance of their final salvation. Moreover, I freely admit that we Arminians believe that Jesus' death doesn't save anyone who is not united with Christ by faith. I own all this—no point in reminding me.

I'm just saying Calvinists have a different problem with assurance. Let me explain what it is.
The Arminian has the Divinely bound assurance that Jesus died for him, for the Word clearly and unequivocally declares that God so loved the world that he sent his only Son to die on its behalf. And so, if you ask the Arminian, "Did Jesus die for you?" he will respond with absolute assurance, "Yes, Jesus died for me as well as for you."

But if you ask the Calvinist, "How do you know Jesus died for you?" his response is be-stuttered. He can't say, "I know Jesus died for me because the Bible tells me so." And so he retreats to the position that since he is a believer, he knows that Jesus died for him since the Bible teaches that Jesus died for the elect.

However, this argument is based on the Calvinist's personal experience. But isn't personal experience tainted by Total Depravity, by the Calvinist's own admission? What if Satan has merely tricked the Calvinist into thinking that he is a believer. It wouldn't be the first time that someone was mistaken about his salvation.

In this light, a Calvinist just doesn't seem capable of absolute assurance that Jesus died for him. Now to be sure, they can assure themselves on the basis of Scripture that Jesus died for the elect. But after that, Calvinistic assurance that Jesus died for him gets fuzzy. He has to say, "Well, I think I'm a believer, and if so, I must be elect, and so therefore, Christ must have died for me."Ultimately then, Calvinistic assurance that Jesus died for him is based penultimately on the fact (or mis-fact based on depraved misperception) that he is a believer. Calvinistic assurance all comes unhinged if the person is mistaken as to whether he truly is a believer.

Moreover, the Calvinist minister who wishes to encourage the regenerate person who starts wavering on assurance cannot make an absolute statement, "Brother Joe, I know Jesus died for your sins" since the minister cannot actually know for sure that the person, in fact, was regenerateThere you have it! Despite the thundering cannons of Calvinism on this issue, Calvinism really doesn't have absolute assurance of salvation.

So, pick your poison. Be an Arminian with assurance that you will be saved only if you continue to the end in faith, or be a Calvinist without the assurance that Jesus died for you.