The Wittenberg Door: December 2010

Who is Sovereign in Salvation?- Part 5 – Arminianism: Free Will with Partial Depravity

In our last post on this topic we took a look at two analogies (one from Billy Graham and the other from Hank Hanegraaff) that are pressed into service on behalf of the Arminian Free Will with Partial Depravity position. We also considered an excerpt from George Bryson written as part of a Christian Research Journal debate he had with Calvinist James White.

In this post we’ll take a closer look at the two analogies by comparing them to Scripture.

Analogies

Illustration One: Take and Drink
A man lies terribly ill in a hospital room. Next to him on a table is a medicine that will cure him. All he must do is take the vile, put it to his lips, and drink, and he’ll be made well.

Illustration Two: The Beggar and the King
A beggar sits at the side of the road as the king's procession approaches. When the king draws near, he, the king, extends his hand to the beggar and reveals a precious gift. All the beggar must do to avail himself of the treasure is to reach-out and take hold.

The question is, do the above illustrations truly represent the plight of fallen man? Is it the case that man is simply spiritually impoverished or just very ill? To answer these questions we must consider the extent and the result of the Fall.

Guilt Imputed. Corruption Imparted

In the third chapter of Genesis, we read of our first parents’ sin. Because Adam represented us as our federal head, we all sinned in him (Rom. 5:12–19). The resulting corruption is passed on to us all, and its extent is total—every aspect of our being has been affected:

Our heart (emotions and affections)—Rom.1:24–27; 1 Tim. 6:10; 2 Tim. 3:4

Our mind (thoughts and understanding)—Gen. 6:5; 1 Cor. 1:21; Eph. 4:17

Our will (constitution and moral vitality)—John 8:34; Rom 7:14–24; Eph.2:1–3; 2 Pet. 2:19

Furthermore, Scripture teaches that Adam’s sin brought spiritual death to us all (Gen. 2:16–17, 3:1–7; Rom. 5:12; Eph. 2:1–3; Col. 2:13). As a result, men are spiritually deaf, blind, and completely corrupted (Ecc. 9:3; Jer. 17:9; Rom. 8:7–8; 1 Cor. 2:14); also, men are slaves of sin (John. 8:34; Rom. 6:20; Tit. 3:3) and children of the devil (Eph. 2:1–2; 2 Tim. 2:25–26; 1 John 3:10).

Conclusion

As we have seen, man is not simply ill or spiritually impoverished—he’s dead. Dead men cannot “take and drink” or accept a free gift from a king, not unless they are first made alive. Crassly put, dead men do what dead men do—they rot; they don’t search for God.

as it is written,
"THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE;
THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS,
THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD;
ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS;
THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD,
THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE."

(Rom. 3:10–12)

In the next post in this series we’ll take a look at the Scriptures Mr. Bryson used to support his position to see if they make the case for Free Will with Partial Depravity (i.e., Even though fallen, man can, with God’s help, freely choose Christ) and thus trump the above case made for Total Depravity.

Labels: Calvinism vs. Arminianism, Doctrine of Salvation

Notable Quote: Charles H. Spurgeon

Charles Spurgeon (1834 – 1892) on the law-gospel distinction …

There cannot be a greater difference in the world between two things than there is between law and grace. And yet, strange to say, while the things are diametrically opposed and essentially different from each other, the human mind is so depraved, and the intellect, even when blessed by the Spirit, has become so turned aside from right judgment, that one of the most difficult things in the world is to discriminate properly between law and grace. He who knows the difference, and always recollects it—the essential difference between law and grace—has grasped the marrow of divinity. He is not far from understanding the gospel theme in all its ramifications, its outlets, and its branches, who can properly tell the difference between law and grace.
There is always in science some part which is very simple and easy when we have learned it, but which, in the commencement, stands like a high threshold before the porch. Now, the first difficulty in striving to learn the gospel is this, enough to every Christian, and especially to every enlightened and instructed one; but still, when most enlightened and instructed, there is always a tendency in us to confound the two things. They are as opposite as light and darkness, and can no more agree than fire and water; yet man will be perpetually striving to make a compound of them—often ignorantly, and sometimes willfully. They seek to blend the two, when God has positively put them asunder.

The New Park Street Pulpit

Labels: Doctrine of Salvation, Quotes

Today in Church History: Charles Hodge, Princeton Theological Seminary

On December 28, 1797, Charles Hodge was born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

After graduating from the College of New Jersey and Princeton Seminary, Hodge was ordained by the Presbytery of New Brunswick in 1821, and the General Assembly appointed him to the Princeton faculty in 1822. For the next 56 years he trained over 3,000 students at Princeton, including two of his sons who would eventually join the faculty. In 1825 he founded the Princeton Review and throughout the course of his career he would use it to publish on all the major theological controversies of his day, defending Reformed orthodoxy against New Divinity, European romanticism, frontier revivalism, and Darwinian evolution.

Hodge was also an active churchman. He lent his support to the Old School wing of the Presbyterian Church, supporting the 1837 division and opposing the 1869 reunion. In 1846 he served as the moderator of the Old School General Assembly.

On June 19, 1878, Hodge died at the age of 80. Alfred Nevin described him as "one of the brightest and best ornaments of the Presbyterian Church."

- John Muether

Labels: History

Who’s Sovereign in Salvation? – Part 4 – Arminianism: Free Will with Partial Depravity

As we learned in Part 3, Arminianism was developed to contrast the strong view of God’s sovereignty expressed in the Belgic Confession. In this post we’ll begin to take a closer look at the Five Articles of the Remonstrance.

Free Will with Partial Depravity

Partial Depravity teaches that although fallen, man is not totally helpless when it comes to salvation. He, by his own will, can either accept God’s gift of salvation, or he can resist the grace that is being extended him. Below are two popular Arminian illustrations. The first is from Billy Graham and the second from The Bible Answer Man, Hank Hanegraaff:

Illustration One: Take and Drink
A man lies terribly ill in a hospital room. Next to him on a table is a medicine that will cure him. All he must do is take the vile, put it to his lips, and drink, and he’ll be made well.

Illustration Two: The Beggar and the King
A beggar sits at the side of the road as the king's procession approaches. When the king draws near, he, the king, extends his hand to the beggar and reveals a precious gift. All the beggar must do to avail himself of the treasure is to reach-out and take hold.

Argument for Partial Depravity

In 2001, the Christian Research Journal hosted a debate on it’s pages between James White and George Bryson (volume 24, number 1) on the topic of Arminianism vs. Calvinism. In it, Mr. Bryson argued for the concept of free will with partial depravity. Here’s an excerpt (bold added):

. . . like Mr. White and all Calvinists, I believe all men, except our Lord Jesus Christ, are born spiritually dead. Like Mr. White and all Calvinists, I do not believe they are born partially dead; rather they are entirely dead. Like Mr. White and all Calvinists, I believe Scripture teaches that the only remedy for spiritual deadness is a spiritual resurrection. Along with Mr. White and all Calvinists, I believe regeneration or spiritual birth is a spiritual resurrection. Unless and until a spiritually dead person is born of the Spirit, he or she remains spiritually dead . . .
The Calvinist seems to fear that if he allows faith to be first (i.e., before regeneration), then he is making faith foremost. Just because a man must believe in Christ to be born again, however, does not suggest that there is regenerating power in a man’s faith, not even in a man’s faith in Christ. Only God can and does regenerate the spiritually dead, but He does so only (and always) for those who first put their faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. . . .

In the two earlier examples, man was not dead, but simply ill and spiritually impoverished. Mr. Bryson, however, takes it a step further and says that man is dead. The following is a summary of his argument:

Man is dead.
Man can only be made alive by the Spirit.
The Spirit will only make man alive if he, man, by an act of his own will, extends the arm of faith.
If man is so willing and extends the arm of faith, God will regenerate and resurrect him (i.e., make him alive).

Scriptures for Partial Depravity

Mr. Bryson supports his argument with the following Scriptures:

Acts 16:31
They said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household."

John 3:16-17
16)"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

17"For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.

John 20:31
but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.

John 1:12-13
12)But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name,

13)who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

"Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved," "whoever believes in Him," and "that believing you may have life." These verses clearly state that faith in Christ is necessary for salvation. No controversy here: Calvinist and Arminians are in hearty agreement. However, these verses shed no light upon the debate at hand, and certainly do not support Mr. Bryson's claim that dead men drum-up saving faith within themselves.

John 1:12–13 is a different matter. It does speak to the issue at hand. Where does vs. 12 say the "right to become children of God" came from? Christ. Furthermore, it clearly states that the new birth does not come by "the will of the flesh nor of the will of man," which is opposite of Mr. Bryson's claim that saving faith is an act of man's will. So if the new birth is not the result of man's will, then whose will is it? " . . . but of God."

Updated Analogies

To help us understand Mr. Bryson’s argument, I’ve updated the previous analogies to include the deadness of man:

Illustration One: Take and Drink
After succumbing to his illness, the man dies and his body is taken to the morgue. While there, on a table adjacent to the corps’s slab, appears a medicine that will cause him to come alive. All the corps must do is take-up the vile and drink, and the lifeless body will be regenerated and the man will come back to life.

Illustration Two: The Beggar and the King
While sitting by the road waiting for the king’s procession to pass, a beggar is hit by a bus and killed. As the king draws near the lifeless body, he, the king, extends his hand to the dead beggar and reveals a precious gift. All the corps must do to possess the treasure is to reach-out his lifeless hand and take hold.

In the next post in this series we’ll see what Scripture has to say about the extent and the result of the Fall.

Labels: Calvinism vs. Arminianism, Doctrine of Salvation

Notable Quote: John Calvin

John Calvin (1509–1564) on true piety . . .

I call “piety” that reverence joined with love of God which t he knowledge of his benefits induces. For until men recognize that they owe everything to God, that they are nourished by his fatherly care, that he is the Author of their every good, that they should seek nothing beyond him—they will never yield him willing service. Nay,, unless they establish their complete happiness in him, they will never give themselves truly and sincerely to him.

Labels: Quotes, Sanctification

Who’s Sovereign in Salvation? – Part 3 – Arminianism: An Introduction

Arminianism might best be called a theology in contrast. Developed by the students of Jacobus Arminius (1560-1609) from Arminius' teachings, the Arminian system stands against Calvinism’s teaching of God’s sovereignty in salvation.

God decreed to save and damn certain particular persons. This decree has its foundation in the foreknowledge of God, by which he knew from all eternity those individuals who would, through his preventing [going before] grace, believe, and, through his subsequent grace would persevere … by which foreknowledge, he likewise knew those who would not believe and persevere.
Jacobus Arminius (1560-1609)

In 1610, the Arminians put forth the Five Articles of the Remonstrance, which follow in summary:

Free Will with Partial Depravity
Even though fallen, man can, with God’s help, freely choose Christ

Conditional Election
God “elects” men based upon His forseeing their free-will choices

Unlimited Atonement
Christ died to save all men, but the application of His death is to believers only

Resistible Grace
God extends grace to all men, but that grace does not overcome the free will of man

Uncertain Perseverance
Although God’s grace has been extended to, and accepted by, the believer, he may still “fall from grace” and thus lose his salvation

Synod of Dort

The Five Articles of the Remonstrance were a reaction against the doctrines of sovereign grace put forth in the Belgic Confession (1561). The ensuing controversy was taken up by the national assembly of the Dutch Reformed Church in 1618. The participants represented reformed churches from eight countries.

The synod concluded its work in 1619 with the rejection of Arminianism and the creation of the Canons of Dort, which are an exposition of the points in dispute.

Conclusion

Now that we know what Arminianism is, in my next post in this series we’ll see how it comports with God’s sovereignty and the Fall. We’ll then consider the question as to whether or not the doing and dying of Christ merely made salvation possible; if God elects men to salvation based on foreseen faith; and if man is responsible for his perseverance in the faith.

Stay tuned for Part 4!

Labels: Calvinism vs. Arminianism, Doctrine of Salvation

Who’s Sovereign in Salvation? – Part 2 – Universalism Continued

In Part 1 we learned what Universalism was, and we considered the Scriptures pressed into service on its behalf. Here in Part 2 we’ll consider another argument given by Universalists, one that is particularly popular in our culture: that a loving God would never eternally punish people for their sins.

There are two problems with this view: first, the Scriptures expressly teach that God DOES judge people for their sins (Heb. 9:2 7, Ecc. 11:9, Acts 17:31, Rev. 20:11-15, 2 Pet. 2:9, Mat. 23:33, Prov. 11:2 1; Mark 9:43-46).

Second, Universalists pit God’s love against His justice. The Scriptures teach that God is both loving (1 John 4:8) and just (Rom. 3:26). However, God would not be loving if he allowed injustice to triumph, nor would He be just if He allowed sin to go unpunished or inadequately punished.

Here’s an example: Let’s say that someone kills your family. Later, in the name of love, the court releases the perpetrator. Would you be satisfied? Of course not. You would demand justice—and you should have it. For it would be unjust, and also unloving, for the man not have a penalty commensurate with his crime.

People are prone not to think about this. But God’s judgment exists and will be dreadful, terrible, and eternally destructive of everything that is not good.
John Owen (1616 - 1683)

Conclusion

As we saw in Part 1, the Scriptures put forth do not teach Universalism. We now see that Universalism is inconsistent with both God’s love and his just character. Therefore, all men are not saved, and God never intended on saving all men.

Stay tuned for Part 3 where we’ll consider the Five Points of Arminianism.

Labels: Calvinism vs. Arminianism, Doctrine of Salvation

Who's Sovereign in Salvation? – Part 1 – Universalism

At the time of the American Revolution, most American Christians were Calvinist. But after casting off the bonds of a monarchy, the new-found American individualism eventually cast off the bonds of the creedal church too—and the sovereignty of God in salvation. By the mid nineteenth century, Arminianism had gained a foothold in the American theological landscape.

Today, Arminianism is assumed—it’s the theological air modern Evangelicals breath—and Calvinism is looked upon with great suspicion, and even scorn. But is this justified? Who do the Scriptures say is sovereign in salvation, God or man? Did Christ’s work merely make salvation possible? Or did he actually save sinners? It is to questions like these that we’ll now turn our attention. But first, we’ll consider the question, Does God save all men?

Are All Saved?

The claim that in the end all men will be saved is known as Universalism (apokatastasis). This doctrine claims that all men, regardless of whether or not true faith is present, will be saved.

Universalism has been with us for a long time, tracing its history back to the Greek church fathers. The two best known proponents of this doctrine were Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 – c. 215) and his student Origen (c. 185 – c. 254). In 553, Universalism in general, and Origen’s theology in particular, were declared heretical at the fifth Ecumenical Council held in Constantinople.

Scriptures Used to Support Universalism

There are six verses commonly used to support Universalism. Here they are in summary:

Mark 1:5 – All went out to him and were baptized
Luke 3:15 – All wondered if John the Baptist was the Christ
John 3:26 – All were coming to John for Baptism
John 8:2 – All came to the temple to hear Christ teach
Acts 22:15 – Paul will be a witness to all men
2 Cor. 3:2 – “You are our letter, written in our hearts, known and read by all men”

Theologian A.W. Pink sheds light on these passages:

In none of the above passages has "all," "all men," "all the people" an unlimited scope. In each of those passages these general terms have only a relative meaning. In Scripture "all" is used in two ways: meaning "all without exception" (occurring infrequently), and "all without distinction" (its general significance), that is, all classes and kinds—old and young, men and women, rich and poor, educated and illiterate, and in many instances Jews and Gentiles, men of all nations . . .
A.W. Pink (1886–1952)

Were the Aztecs baptized by John? Did the Pygmies go to the temple to hear Christ? No. As A.W. Pink points out, these texts refer to “all” without distinction, not "all" without exception. Remember the following three rules of interpretation: context, context, context.

Conclusion

As we have seen, the Scriptural support is found wanting. In my next post in this series we'll see what Scripture has to say about God's judgment, and we'll consider the claim of Universalists that a loving God would never eternally punish people for their sins.

Stay tuned for part 2!

Labels: Calvinism vs. Arminianism, Doctrine of Salvation

Notable Quote: Albert Barnes

Albert Barnes (1798 – 1870) on 2 Cor. 4:18: while we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen; for the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal.

While we look . . . Or rather, we not looking at the things which are seen. The design of this is, to show in what way the afflictions which they endured became in their view light and momentary. It was by looking to the glories of the future world, and thus turning away the attention from the trials and sorrows of this life. If we look directly at our trials; if the mind is fixed wholly on them, and we think of nothing else, they often appear heavy and long.
Even comparatively light and brief sufferings will appear to be exceedingly difficult to bear. But if we can turn away the mind from them and contemplate future glory; if we can compare them with eternal blessedness, and feel that they will introduce us to perfect and everlasting happiness, they will appear to be transitory, and will be easily borne. And Paul here has stated the true secret of bearing trials with patience. It is to look at the things which are unseen. To anticipate the glories of the heavenly world. To fix the eye on the eternal happiness which is beyond the grave; and to reflect how short these trials are, compared with the eternal glories of heaven; and how short they will seem to be when we are there.

Labels: Quotes

Notable Quote: B.B. Warfield

They (Believers who do not accept a definite atonement)necessarily turn away from a substitutionary atonement altogether. Christ did not die in the sinners stead, it seems, to bear his penalties and purchase for him eternal life; He died rather to make the salvation of sinners possible, to open the way of salvation to sinners, to remove all the obstacles in the way of salvation. But what obstacle stands in the way of salvation besides the sinner's sin? And if this obstacle (their sin) is removed, are they not saved?
Benjamin B. Warfield (1851 – 1921)

Labels: Calvinism vs. Arminianism, Quotes

Dressing for Worship

I often wonder if people (myself included) would dress the way they dress at church were they meeting the President of the United States (of course there was those girls with the flip flops). Do we really realize the gravity of this event? Do we take a moment to consider that upon the announcement of the call to worship that a solemn occasion is ensuing? Indeed, this is no ordinary gathering. We, as the Living God’s people, are presenting ourselves to our King—to worship Him and to hear from Him through the preaching of His word.

I’ve tried to impress upon my children the gravity of the event—because it’s not a casual affair, we should dress accordingly. (I think of Moses taking off his shoes because the ground upon which he was standing was holy.)

For example, I wear shorts, filp flops, and a tee shirt to lounge on the beach. It’s a casual affair so casual attire is called for. If I had an audience with the President of the United States a coat and tie would be in order. Because of the gravity of the event, it would be flippant and disrespectful to wear beach cloths. How much more care should we take when gathering to worship our Savior?

A matter of conscience, though, to be sure, but, perhaps we would all do better to give a little more thought to our dress when entering the house of the Lord.

At the Wheat and Chaff blog, Pastor Matt Powell of Providence Reformed Chapel in Colorado reflects upon this topic:

But there is another spirit that one sees all too frequently in our society, and that is the spirit that says, "God doesn't care what I look like, so I can come to church dressed as slovenly as I want." "Sunday best" was an expression that had more meaning in our culture just a few years ago than it does now, for it used to be taken for granted that you should dress up in your nicest clothes to come to church. Why is that? Did people truly think that God would value them more highly for wearing a jacket and tie or a nice dress? Or perhaps people used to know something about church that has been well-nigh lost to the church today?

Labels: Worship

Notable Quote: William Perkins

William Perkins (1558 – 1602), father of Elizabethan Puritanism, on the law-gospel distinction …

The basic principle in application is to know whether the passage is a statement of the law or of the gospel. For when the Word is preached, the law and the gospel operate differently. The law exposes the disease of sin, and as a side-effect stimulates and stirs it up. But it provides no remedy for it…. The law is, therefore, first in the order of teaching; then comes the gospel.

The Art of Prophesying with The Calling of the Ministry

Labels: Doctrine of Salvation, Doctrine of Scripture, Quotes

Notable Quote: R.C. Sproul

R.C Sproul on the three purposes of the law:

The first purpose of the law is to be a mirror. On the one hand, the law of God reflects and mirrors the perfect righteousness of God. The law tells us much more about who God is. Perhaps more important, the illumines human sinfulness.
A second purpose for the law is the restraint of evil. The law, in and of itself, cannot change human hearts. It can, however, serve to protect the righteous from the unjust … The law allows for a limited measure of justice on this earth, until the last judgment is realized.
The third purpose of the is to reveal what is please to God. As born-again children of God, the law enlightens us as to what is pleasing to our Father, whom we seek to serve … This is the highest function of the law, to serve as an instrument for the people of God to give Him honor and Glory.

Labels: Quotes

Notable Quote: B.B. Warfield

They (Believers who do not accept a definite atonement)necessarily turn away from a substitutionary atonement altogether. Christ did not die in the sinners stead, it seems, to bear his penalties and purchase for him eternal life; He died rather to make the salvation of sinners possible, to open the way of salvation to sinners, to remove all the obstacles in the way of salvation. But what obstacle stands in the way of salvation besides the sinner's sin? And if this obstacle (their sin) is removed, are they not saved?
Benjamin B. Warfield (1851 – 1921)

Labels: Calvinism vs. Arminianism, Quotes

About Me

Bookstore

Visit The Wittenberg Door bookstore here

Statement of Faith

What does The Catechizer and The Deacon believe? Click here to find out.

Thursday, December 30, 2010

Who is Sovereign in Salvation?- Part 5 – Arminianism: Free Will with Partial Depravity