The Wittenberg Door: August 2011

Who’s Sovereign in Salvation? – Part 7 – Arminianism: Unlimited Atonement

In Part 6 we learned that, despite the teaching of Arminianism, God grants salvation to those whom He choses; and that His choice is not based upon any foreseen faith or works, but on His own sovereign will and gracious good pleasure.

In this installment we’ll consider the Arminian doctrine of Unlimited Atonement. According to this teaching, it was God’s intention to save every person without exception, even though the application of Christ’s death is made to believers only. Furthermore, Christ death did not actually save anyone; it just made salvation possible.

Conceptual Problems

The doctrine of Unlimited Atonement runs into various conceptual issues. The following are just a few:

Problem One: Universalism or Failure
If God intended for every person to be saved without exception, then every person would be saved. In Eph. 1:11 Paul tells us that God “works all things according to the council of His will.” Furthermore, Daniel tells us that nothing can keep God from accomplishing His intentions:

. . . He does according to His will in the army of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth. No one can restrain His hand…
(Daniel 4:35 )

Arminians reject Universalism—they do not believe that all are saved, even though God wanted to save all men. But what can we say about a god who wants to accomplish something but can’t because his creation won’t let him? Indeed, the god who emerges from this view is not a sovereign god whose hand can’t be restrained, but one who is impotent to accomplish His intentions.

John Owen (1616-1683) provides us with the only logical options:

Christ either paid for . . .

All of the sins of all men (Universalism)

Some of the sins of all men (no one would be saved on this view, for God requires perfect holiness, Mat. 5:48)

Or

All of the sins of some men (we’ll consider the Scriptures for this view in the next post)

Problem Two: Hell
Supposedly, the divine intention behind Christ’s death was to save every man, woman, and child who ever lived. The problem is, Christ’s death occurred 2,000 years ago. What about the people who lived in the preceding millenniums?

At the time of His death there were already millions, if not billions, of people in Hell. What about them? Did Christ die with the intention of saving the unsavable? He must have if the Arminian claim were true.

A common Arminian retort is that Christ made a post-crucifixion appearance in Hell where He offered them salvation. Apparently, though, they chose to stay in torment rather than accepting an invitation to paradise (I guess the rich man changed his mind, Luke 16:19-31).

Problem Tree: The Unjust Judge
One of the main problems with the Arminian view is that it makes God an unjust judge. Here's why: Say you are about to be sentenced for a crime you've committed and a man steps forward and says that he'll take your punishment upon himself. The judge agrees to accept the substitute and punishes the man accordingly.

What if, however, after punishing the substitute, the judge then exacts the same punishment upon you? Would that be just? Of course not. But this is exactly what Unlimited Atonement teaches—Christ paid the price for the unrepentant sinner, which God accepts; then, upon the man's death, he punishes the man for the same crimes already paid for by Christ. God wouldn't be a just judge, but a devil!

Conclusion

As we've seen so far, Unlimited Atonement carries with it serious doctrinal consequences. In my next post in this series we'll consider the Scriptures that address the questions, “For whom did Christ die?” and “Did Christ actually save anyone? Or did He simply make salvation possible?”

Labels: Calvinism vs. Arminianism

Today in History: William Penn Sets Sail for America

William Penn was a constant source of frustration for his father, a wealthy English admiral. The rebellious younger Penn got kicked out of Oxford University for refusing to attend Anglican (Church of England) services. The he joined the Society of Friends, a religious sect known as the Quakers because their leader had once told an English judge to “tremble at the Word of the Lord.” Quakers’ religious beliefs and refusal to swear allegiance to any king but God led to their persecution. William Penn found himself imprisoned more than once.

Admiral Penn was an old friend of King Charles II and loaned the monarch a good deal of money. When the admiral died, William asked that the debt be paid with land in America. The king liked William, despite his religious beliefs, and granted him a huge tract of wilderness, which Charles named Pennsylvania, meaning “Penn’s woods.”

On August 30, 1689, William Penn sailed for America to begin his “Holy Experiment”—a colony that would be a refuge for not only Quakers but settlers of various faiths. Penn’s guarantee of religious freedom was then one of the most comprehensive in the world. Indeed, his plan to include diverse populations while extending a broad measure of religious and political equality was nothing less than revolutionary for its time.

Catholics, Lutherans, Baptists, Presbyterians, French Huguenots, and even Anglicans rushed to settle the rich lands. By 1700, Pennsylvania had as many as 21,000 settlers. The capital, Philadelphia (“City of Brotherly Love”), became a thriving metropolis, soon the largest of North America’s colonial cities. As settlers arrived—English, Scots-Irish, Welch, German, Dutch, Swedish, and more—Penn’s woods began to resemble the famous American “melting pot.”

American History Parade

1682 - William Penn sets sail from Deal in Kent, England, for Pennsylvania.

1781 - A French fleet arrives at Yorktown, Virginia, with 3,000 troops to help the British army.

1836 - Brothers Augustus Chapman Allen and John Kirby Allen found Houston, Texas.

1862 - Confederate forces defeat Union troops at the Second Battle of Manassas, Virginia.

1967 - The Senate confirms Thurgood Marshall as the first black justice on the Supreme Court.

1983 - Guion S. Bluford Jr. becomes the first black American astronaut to travel in space when the shuttle Challenger lifts off.

The American Patriot's Almanac: Daily Readings on America

Labels: History

Today in Church History: Presbyterian Guardian

On August 30, 1979, the Board of Trustees of the Presbyterian Guardian voted to merge the magazine with the Presbyterian Journal.

Frustrated with a subscription base of about 3,500, the Trustees joined with the Presbyterian Journal in order to "reach a wider audience (well over 20,000) with the Reformed faith." In his article, "Toward the Future of the Presbyterian Church" in the Guardian's final issue, Edmund Clowney wrote, "there is no good reason for [the two magazines] to remain separate, and every good reason why there should be one clear journalistic voice serving Machen's hope for American Presbyterianism." For many, the merger was a precursor of a denominational union that was perceived on the horizon. In Clowney's words, the merger "marks the growing unity of Bible-believing Presbyterians in the United States." The anticipated church union, however, would not take place. The Presbyterian Journal, even with a united voice and expanded subscription base, would cease publication in 1987, with its Board of Trustees transferring its assets to World magazine.

The 1979 merger ended the remarkable 44-year life of a magazine founded by J. Gresham Machen in 1935, an independent monthly dedicated to a predominantly Orthodox Presbyterian readership. Numbered among its editors were Ned B. Stonehouse, Paul Woolley, Leslie Sloat, Robert Nicholas, and John Mitchell.

- John Muether

Labels: History

Who is Sovereign in Salvation? – Part 6 – Arminianism: Conditional Election

As we discovered in Part 5, man is dead in his sins and unable—and unwilling—to seek after God. Now we'll turn our attention to the Arminian doctrine of Conditional Election.

The doctrine of Conditional Election states that God “elects” men based upon His foreseeing their free-will choices. The following is typical of how Arminians explain this doctrine:

God looks down the corridor of time and sees who will choose Him. It's like a man peering out of a window in a tall building watching a parade pass below. He can see the parade from beginning to end. Likewise, God sees from the beginning of time until the end, and so He “elects” men based on what He sees them do.

Terms Considered

Is it true that “election” means that we “choose” our way into God's good graces? Consider the following:

Illustration One: The Adoption
A couple goes to an orphanage to adopt a child. They pick one, sign the necessary legal papers, and collect the child.

Did the child choose the parents? Did the parents make their choice based upon their knowledge that the little girl would choose them?
Illustration Two: The Politician
How about a man running for office: what if, instead of being elected by his constituents, he elects himself.

Was he really elected? Or did he seize power?

Indeed, you’ll be hard pressed to find anywhere in Scripture where men elect themselves to something. Just like how the term is used today, someone else always does the electing.

Tactical Note: The above illustrations employ a tactic called reductio ad absurdum (reduce to absurdity). In this tactic you assume your opponent's premises and then follow the logic of the premises to their absurd conclusion. In this case, we assume the Arminian definitions of “election” and “choice” and discover that they've changed the meaning of the terms to something nonsensical.

Who Chooses Whom?

The question is who does the choosing: God or man? Consider the following passages:

28) And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.

29) For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren;

30) and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.

(Romans 8:28-30)

just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him In love.

(Ephesians 1:4)

13) But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth.

14) It was for this He called you through our gospel, that you may gain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

(2 Thessalonians 2:13-14)

Also consider: Due. 10:14-15; Psm. 33:12, 65:4, 106:5; Mat. 11:27, 22:14; Mark 13:20; Rom. 11:28; Col. 3:12; 1 Thes. 5:9; 1 Pet. 2:8-9; Rev. 17:14.

Is the Choice Based Upon Foreseen Faith or Acts?

The next question we must consider is whether or not God's choice is based upon foreseen faith or upon foreseen works. Consider the following passages:

11) for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God's purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls,

12) it was said to her, "THE OLDER WILL SERVE THE YOUNGER."

13) Just as it is written, "JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED."

(Romans 9:11-13)

So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy.

(Romans 9:16)

who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity

(2 Timothy 1:9)

Also consider: Ex. 33:19; Acts 13:48, 18:27; Rom. 11:7; Phil. 1:29, 2:12-13; 1 Thes. 1:4-5; James 2:5

Conclusion

As we've seen above, the Scriptures are clear: God grants salvation to those whom He chooses. His choice is not based upon any foreseen faith or works, but on His own sovereign will and gracious good pleasure.

Stay tuned for Part 7 where we'll consider the Arminian doctrine of Unlimited Atonement.

Labels: Calvinism vs. Arminianism, Doctrine of Salvation

Graceless Calvinism

And I am afraid there are Calvinists, who, while they account it a proof of their humility that they are willing in words to debase the creature, and to all the glory of salvation to the Lord, yet know not what manner of spirit they are of. . . . Self righteousness can feed upon doctrines, as well as upon works; and a man may have the heart of a Pharisee, while his head is stored with orthodox notions of the unworthiness of the creature and the riches of free grace.
John Newton

Jared Wilson warns us against graceless Calvinism over at Between Two Worlds. Here’s how he begins:

I have discussed with other Calvinists just where the (well-earned) stereotype of the graceless Calvinist comes from. Shouldn’t belief in total depravity necessitate profound humility? Shouldn’t belief in unconditional election preclude a spirit of superiority? And yet there is a doctrinal arrogance infecting Calvinist Christianity. This culture then produces doctrinaires like Baum’s man of tin: squeaky and heartless.
Cold-hearted rigidity is not limited to those of the Reformed persuasion, of course. You can find it in Christian churches and traditions and cultures of all kinds. In fact, to be fair, I have found that those most enthralled with the idea of gospel-wakefulness, those who seem most prone to champion the centrality of the gospel for life and ministry, happen to be of the Reformed persuasion. So there’s that. But gracelessness is never as big a disappointment, to me anyway, as when it’s found among those who call themselves Calvinists, because it’s such a big waste of Calvinism.

Why is it such a waste? Find out here.

HT: The Contemporary Calvinist

Labels: Calvinism vs. Arminianism

C.S. Lewis and the Devil

Constantine, Dogma, even in South Park, Hollywood is want to portray a holy cold-war between God and Satan—Two superpowers, standing toe-to-toe, waiting for the other guy to blink. For the biblically literate, this description is absurd. Unfortunately, not many, even among Christians, are biblically literate. Consequently, caricatures of the devil fill our culture and minds. (Remember the little red guy with the pitch fork and horns?)

Prior to being published as a book, C.S. Lewis’ The Screwtape Letters appeared as a series in the UK paper Guardian in 1941. The story, which is in the form of letters between an inexperienced demon and his uncle, prompted questions regarding Lewis’ belief in the Devil. Does this academician and Oxford don really believe in a personal Devil? Does he believe that Satan is God’s opposite equal? John A. Murray, headmaster of Fourth Presbyterian School in Potomac, Md, answers this question and more over at the Opinion Journal. Here’s an excerpt:

When asked about "his belief in the Devil," Lewis addressed the question in a thought-provoking way in his preface to a revised edition of "Screwtape" in 1960: "Now, if by 'the Devil' you mean a power opposite to God and, like God, self existent from all eternity, the answer is certainly No."
That is, Lewis did not believe in the false theology and caricatures of the devil that have developed over the centuries—whether through art, literature or even today's sports mascots (think Duke and Arizona State).
As Lewis explained, "There is no uncreated being except God. God has no opposite. . . . The proper question is whether I believe in devils. I do. That is to say, I believe in angels, and I believe that some of these, by the abuse of their free will, have become enemies to God. . . . Satan, the leader or dictator of devils, is the opposite, not of God, but of Michael."
In his original preface written from Magdalen College at Oxford on July 5, 1941, Lewis warned of what he called "the two equal and opposite errors into which our race can fall about the devils." One error "is to disbelieve in their existence. The other is to believe and to feel an excessive and unhealthy interest in them." Lewis concluded that the devils "are equally pleased by both errors, and hail a materialist or a magician with the same delight."

You can read the entire article here.

Labels: Doctrine of God

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; John 11:24-26; 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

Ten Principles of Church Singing

O For a Thousand tongues or The Whippoorwill Song? An organ and a choir or drums and electric guitars? How do you choose what is appropriate for corporate worship? To help answer these questions, Kevin DeYoung offers 10 general principles to consider. Here they are in summary:

Love is indispensable to church singing that pleases God.

Our singing is for God’s glory and the edification of the body of Christ.

We ought to sing to the Lord new songs.

Church singing should swim in its own history of church singing.

Sing the Psalms.

We should strive for excellence in the musicality and the poetry of the songs we sing.

The main sound to be heard in the worship music is the sound of the congregation singing.

The congregation should also be stretched from time to time to learn new songs and broaden its musical horizons.

The texts of our songs should be matched with fitting musicality and instrumentation.

All of our songs should employ manifestly biblical lyrics.

You can read a full explanation of each here.

Labels: Worship

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

Today in Church History: Huguenots, St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre

On the night of August 23, 1572, thousands of French Calvinists (Huguenots) were massacred in Paris and other French cites in the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre.

In the preceding decades, Calvinism had spread rapidly in France despite fierce persecution. The French Wars of Religion had begun in 1562 and continued until 1594. The mass killing, ordered by Catherine de Medici, queen mother of France, and carried out by Roman Catholic nobles, was the most violent episode of the warfare. Estimates of the victims ranged from 5,000 to 10,000. Included among them was Huguenot leader Gaspard de Coligney, who had arranged for a short-lived peace agreement between Calvinists and Catholics in France in 1570.

The massacre prompted further development within Reformed thought of the principle of civil disobedience and rebellion against tyrannical civil authorities. In the years that followed, French Calvinists would continue to experience persecution and would not attain full religious toleration until the French Revolution under Napoleon.

- John Muether

Labels: History

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

Naturalism's God: Luck

We can accept a certain amount of luck in our explanations, but not too much…. We can allow ourselves the luxury of an extravagant theory [regarding the origin of life on our planet], provided that the odds of coincidence do not exceed 100 billion billion to one [10-20].
Richard Dawkins

Despite all of their intellectual and rhetorical smoke and mirrors, Darwinists are having to fess up: Luck is both the coin and the lever of the slot machine called Naturalism. Clay Jones, Associate Professor of Christian Apologetics at Biola University, provides some startling quotes to this effect at his blog. Here’s how he kicks things off:

So how did the universe, and all the complexity we find in living things, arise? There are only two explanations: God or luck. Now, if the Darwinists are correct, this luck is operated on by natural selection but don’t let that fool you: natural selection is still working upon lucky mutations. For the naturalist luck is still at the bottom of the origin of the universe, the origin of life, and the complexity found in living things. Naturalism is, at its core, based upon luck.
I’m going to just pass on some quotes with little commentary.

Try your luck and click here for the rest.

Labels: Evolution

Notable Quote: T.S. Eliot

Opening Stanza of T. S. Eliot's Choruses from the Rock:

The Eagle soars in the summit of Heaven,
The Hunter with his dogs pursues his circuit.
O perpetual revolution of configured stars,
O perpetual recurrence of determined seasons,
O world of spring and autumn, birth and dying
The endless cycle of idea and action,
Endless invention, endless experiment,
Brings knowledge of motion, but not of stillness;
Knowledge of speech, but not of silence;
Knowledge of words, and ignorance of the Word.
All our knowledge brings us nearer to our ignorance,
All our ignorance brings us nearer to death,
But nearness to death no nearer to GOD.
Where is the Life we have lost in living?
Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?
Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?
The cycles of Heaven in twenty centuries
Bring us farther from GOD and nearer to the Dust.

Labels: Quotes

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 take a look at the Five Points of Arminianism.

Labels: Calvinism vs. Arminianism, Heresy and False Religions

PC(USA) and Its Continued War Against Biblical Authority

For nearly a century the Presbyterian Church (USA) has been sliding towards the complete abandonment of Scripture as an authority. To ensure that they keep advancing towards that goal, the PC(USA) joins likeminded apostates in the Episcopal Church (US), the United Church of Christ, and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America in ordaining practicing homosexuals. Removed from their constitution is the ordination requirement of “fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman or chastity in singleness.”

Gradye Parsons, Stated Clerk of the PC(USA) General Assembly, explained the meaning of the change: “Clearly what has changed is that persons in a same-gender relationship can be considered for ordination . . . . The gist of our ordination standards is that officers submit to the Lordship of Jesus Christ and ordaining bodies (presbyteries for ministers and sessions for elders and deacons) have the responsibility to examine each candidate individually to ensure that all candidates do so with no blanket judgments.”

For further information on this change, plus insightful analysis, I recommend Dr. Albert Mohler’s article, Following Jesus While Rejecting the Bible? Yet Another Tragedy in Mainline Protestantism.

Labels: Homosexuality

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?

Universalism

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.

Meaning of All

In brief, the main scriptural support offered by Universalists are the “all” passages, such as 1 Tim. 2:4 (“who desires all men to be saved”) and 2 Pet. 3:9 (“not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance”). Their view of these passages is simple: all means all and that’s all all means. But can this approach be legitimately employed in interpreting these and other such passages? Considers these:

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

Later in this study we’ll take a closer look at the “all” passages. But suffice it to say, it is insufficient to isolate a few verses and repeat the mantra “all means all and that’s all all means.” But the clearest way to determine if Universalism is true is to see if the bible teaches that God will judge the wicked; for if it does, then clearly not all are saved. So 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

What is the Will of the Father?

In Matthew 7:21-23 we find our Lord saying that not everyone who claims Christ are actually His. He contrasts them with those “who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.” But what is the will of the Father? Committed Christian seeks to answers this question over at Against the Current:

This passage ought to produce in professing Christians a desire to examine oneself to see whether they are in the faith (2 Cor 13:5). This passage speaks to the possibility that some professing Christians are self-deceived regarding their salvation. The people who will say, “Lord, Lord” believe that they have a close relationship with God. There are several passages in the Bible that a name is spoken twice by someone to indicate a close (perceived) relationship. There is the instance when God spoke from the burning bush, “Moses, Moses” (Exo 3:4). Jesus with Martha, “Martha, Martha, you are anxious and troubled about many things, but one thing is necessary. Mary has chosen the good portion, which will not be taken away from her” (Luke 10:41). Also, most notably when Jesus was hanging on the cross, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me” (Matt 27:46)?
Those that Jesus spoke about who will be saying, “Lord, Lord”, outwardly look like true believers. They performed miracles, cast out demons, and even prophesied in His name. However, the Lord Jesus calls them “workers of lawlessness”. They did not truly know the Lord. Where did they go wrong? I believe that the answer is contained in Jesus statement, “but the one who does the will of my heavenly Father who is in heaven” will enter the kingdom of heaven. What is the will of the Father? To produce works of righteousness that flow out of love which originates from true repentance and faith in Jesus Christ alone?
Some may be asking, “What is true faith?” The Heidelberg Catechism puts it well in response to Question 21, “What is true faith?”, by saying, “True faith is not only a certain knowledge, whereby I hold for truth all that God has revealed to us in his word, but also an assured confidence, which the Holy Ghost works by the gospel in my heart; that not only to others, but to me also, remission of sin, everlasting righteousness and salvation, are freely given by God, merely of grace, only for the sake of Christ's merits.”

You can read the rest of the post here.

Labels: Doctrine of Salvation

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. 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

Today in History: The Liberty Tree

On August 14, 1765, a group of Bostonians calling themselves the Sons of Liberty gathered under a large elm tree to protest the Stamp Act imposed by England. From a branch they hung an effigy of the Boston official in charge of administering the hated Stamp Act tax. The elm became known as the Liberty Tree.

By the time of the Revolution, just about every American town had its own Liberty Tree, a living symbol of freedom and resistance to tyranny. Patriots met under the trees to swap information and plot rebellion. In some towns, folks erected a tall Liberty Pole to symbolize a tree.

Thomas Paine wrote a popular song called “The Liberty Tree” to rouse Patriots’ spirits. “From the east to the west, blow the trumpet to arms; through the land let the sound of it flee,” the song ran. “Let the far and the near, all unite with a cheer, in defense of our Liberty Tree.”

During the Revolutionary War, Patriot solders sometimes carried into battle flags emblazoned with a Liberty Tree. Some banners carried the words “An appeal to Heaven” to show that the colonists sought guidance from God for their cause.

A 1999 hurricane dealt a deathblow to the last of the Revolutionary War-era Liberty Trees, a 400-year-old giant tulip popular in Annapolis, Maryland. The conservation group American Forests grew fourteen from the tree’s seeds to plant in Washington, D.C., and the thirteen original states.

American History Parade

1755 - During the French and Indian War, George Washington is appointed commander in chief of Virginia forces protecting the frontier.

1765 - In Boston the Sons of Liberty protest the Stamp Act under the Liberty Tree.

1784 - On Kodiak Island, Russian fur traders found the first permanent Russian settlement in Alaska.

1848 - Congress creates the Oregon Territory, an area encompassing today’s Oregon, Idaho, Washington, and western Montana.

1945 - Japan surrenders unconditionally, ending World War II.

The American Patriot's Almanac: Daily Readings on America

Labels: History

Today in Church History: Geerhardus Vos

On August 13, 1949, Geerhardus Vos died in Grand Rapids, Michigan.

After a brief tenure at Calvin Seminary, Vos was Professor of Biblical Theology at Princeton Theological Seminary for nearly 40 years, where he taught most of the founding faculty of Westminster Seminary. Unlike his Princeton colleagues, Vos labored in relative obscurity. Charles Dennison wrote:

His Princeton years (1893-1932) had to be a disappointment to some. If they expected a man capable of hand-to-hand theological combat, what they received was a quiet, peaceful, even private man. He was more of an Isaac than an Abraham. A theologian's theologian, hardly an aggressive spokesman for the cause, hardly energetically engaged in the courts of the church, Vos spent his time out of the limelight in class preparation and in extensive reading and writing. The bibliography of his writings covers thirteen pages and it reveals a different sort of Christian soldier in the battle for Reformed orthodoxy. In Vos, we are face-to-face with a theological intelligence effort. He studied the enemies' movements so thoroughly that he was able to anticipate them. This is especially evident in the way he was answering Albert Schweitzer even before Schweitzer was publishing his most influential works. Positively, Vos remained a theologian capable of making even Murray and Van Til stretch.

In retirement, Vos fell into even greater obscurity. Moving first to Southern California and then to Grand Rapids, Vos devoted the last years of his life to writing poetry. The handful of attendees at his funeral in Roaring Branch, Pennsylvania included no representatives from Princeton Seminary. After his death, with the republication of many of his books, including Biblical Theology, there has developed a resurgence of interest in Vos within the OPC and beyond.

John Muether

Labels: History

Christianity, Inquisitions, and Heretic Burnings

Christianity is often charged with barbarism due to dark deeds done in her name, specifically the Spanish Inquisition and European and American witch trials. New atheist Sam Harris puts the charge this way in his book, Letter to a Christian Nation:

. . . You probably think the Inquisition was a perversion of the “true” Christianity. Perhaps it was. The problem, however, is that the teachings of the Bible are so muddled and self-contradictory that it was possible for Christians to happily burn heretics alive for five long centuries. . . . (page 11)

Because these crimes were done in the name of Christ, Christians need to answer accusers such as Mr. Harris. To do so, one question that is central to the matter must be answered: Were these actions at the behest of Christianity’s founder? Did Christ or His apostle advocate the “wholesale murder of heretics, apostates, Jews, and witches?” (pg. 12, Letter to a Christian Nation)

Who Bears the Sword?

In the Scriptures the “sword” is given to the state not the church (Rom. 13; Belgic Confession, article XXXVI). Instead of using the sword, the church is called to preach the law and the gospel to those on the outside, such as "Jews and witches" (Ps. 96:2–3; Acts 10:42–43; 2 Cor. 5:11; Westminster Larger Catechism, Q and A 59 – 61). For those who claim Christ, such as "heretics and apostates," they are to have the Lord’s Table withheld from them. Here’s how the Heidelberg Catechism (Q and A 82) puts it . . .

Are they then also to be admitted to this Supper, who show themselves to be, by their confession and life, unbelieving and ungodly?
No: for by this the covenant of God is profaned, and His wrath provoked against the whole congregation; wherefore the Christian Church is bound, according to the order of Christ and His Apostles, by the office of the keys to exclude such persons, until they amend their life.
(1 Cor. 11:17-32; Ps. 50:14-16; Isa. 1:11-17)

If they still refuse to repent of their errors they are removed from the church through excommunication. Again from the Heidelberg Catechism (Q and A 85) . . .

How is the kingdom of heaven shut and opened by Church Discipline?
In this way: that according to the command of Christ, if any under the Christian name show themselves unsound either in doctrine or life, and after repeated brotherly admonition refuse to turn from their errors of evil ways, they are complained of to the church or to its proper officers, and, if they neglect to hear them also, are by them excluded from the Holy Sacraments and the Christian communion, and by God Himself from the kingdom of Christ; and if they promise and show real amendment, they are again received as members of Christ and His Church.
(Matt. 18:15-20; 1 Cor. 5:3-5, 11-13; 2 Thess. 3:14-15; Luke 15:20-24; 2 Cor. 2:6-11)

Conclusion

An honest inquirer would do well to take some time to see what Christ and his apostles actually teach in the pages of Scripture, and what the church actually teaches through the creeds, confessions, and catechisms. That way he could compare those teachings to the actions of those he finds morally detestable and determine if Christianity is really to blame. Regarding this claim, Christianity is clean, while some who counted themselves among her ranks have blood on their hands.

Labels: Apologetics

Notable Quote: Herman Bavinck

Herman Bavinck (1854 – 1921) on so-called “natural theology”:

There is no such thing as a separate natural theology that could be obtained apart from any revelation solely on the basis of reflective considerations of the universe. The knowledge of God that is gathered up in so-called natural theology is not the product of human reason.
Rather, natural theology presupposes, first of all, that God reveals himself in his handiwork. It is not humans who seek God but God who seeks humans, also by means of his works in nature. That being the case, it further presupposes that it is not humans who, by the natural light of reason, understand and know this revelation of God. Although all pagan religions are positive [concrete], what is needed on the human side is a mind that has been sanctified and eyes that have been opened in order to be able to see God, the true and living God, in his creatures. And even this is not enough. Even Christian believers would not be able to understand God’s revelation in nature and reproduce it accurately had not God himself described in his Word how he revealed himself and what he revealed of himself in the universe as a whole. The natural knowledge of God is incorporated and set forth at length in Scripture itself. Accordingly, Christians follow a completely mistaken method when, in treating natural theology, they, as it were, divest themselves of God’s special revelation in Scripture and the illumination of the Holy Spirit, discuss it apart from any Christian presuppositions, and then move on to special revelation.
Even when Christians do theology, from the very beginning they stand with both feed on the foundation of special revelation. They are Christ-believers not only in the doctrine of Christ but equally in the doctrine of God. Standing on this foundation, they look around themselves, and armed with the spectacles of Holy Scripture, they see in all the world a revelation of the same God they know and confess in Christ as their Father in heaven.

Reformed Dogmatics, vol 2, Doctrine of God, 74-75

HT: Alpha and Omega Ministries

Labels: Quotes

Topical Bibles and Red-Letter Editions

For the first time ever, all of the statements Jesus made in the New Testament have been brought together and organized under more than 200 topics. When you want to know his will in a specific area of life, or you're seeking the answer to a perplexing question, or you are desperate for his encouragement, comfort, or wisdom-you can easily find the help you need.
The Greatest Words Ever Spoken: Everything Jesus Said About You, Your Life, and Everything Else

One of the church’s problems is biblical illiteracy. I think part of it is due to topical sermons. Before I became Reformed, I was treated to a steady diet of, “How Jesus Calms the Storms of Your Life, “How to Slay Your Personal Goliath,” “10 Spiritual Benefits to Regular Car Maintenance,” etc. In topical sermons, the topic drives the message, while the passages are brought in for support. This is in contradistinction to expository preaching, where you have the text driving the sermon. Reason being, in expository preaching you preach verse-by-verse through a book of the bible. By this method, the people learn what the verses mean in context. In other words, the preacher reads the passage and then explains it in context.

Like topical preaching, reading verses in isolation can cause the reader to misunderstand the passages; it can also contribute to the bad habit of proof-texting: using decontextualised verses to support a position. These are a few of my concerns with topical bibles. Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason has a great rule of thumb: Never read a bible verse. What he means is, to properly understand a text you must read it in context.

When I'm on the radio, I use this simple rule to help me answer the majority of Bible questions I'm asked, even when I'm totally unfamiliar with the verse. It's an amazingly effective technique you can use, too.
I read the paragraph, not just the verse. I take stock of the relevant material above and below. Since the context frames the verse and gives it specific meaning, I let it tell me what's going on.

The Words of Jesus

Another concern I have with The Greatest Words Ever Spoken is the same concern I have with red-letter editions of the bible. People sometimes think that the red words are more important than the black words. That is certainly what I take away for the book title: If Jesus’ words are the greatest ever spoken, then they’re greater than Paul’s, Peter’s, John’s, etc. But this isn’t true.

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;

so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

2 Timothy 3:16-17

All Scripture is God’s word. There is no “greatest” or “not as great,” which is what the book title implies. It’s the same implication drawn by some when they use red-letter bibles.

Conclusion

Topical bibles can be a good resource when studying, but they should never be used in isolation. When we study, or when we preach, we must take great care to protect the integrity of God’s word. And that means we must read passages in context, and that we don’t impose a hierarchy of value based on who uttered or wrote them.

Labels: Exegesis

Today in Church History: Gordon H. Clark

On August 9, 1944, the Presbytery of Philadelphia ordained Gordon Clark.

A complaint against his ordination, filed in the Presbytery and eventually reaching the General Assembly in 1945, launched the "Clark Controversy" within the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. The dispute took place on three levels. First, the complaints noted irregularities that attended the ordination (Clark was licensed to preach and ordained in the same meeting). The General Assembly agreed that the Presbytery erred, but it did not overturn the ordination. Secondly, there were concerns whether Clark's views on divine and human knowledge gave adequate account for the "incomprehensibility of God." Finally, the controversy was part of a larger debate over the direction of the denomination between more Reformed and more evangelical parties.

Convinced that the OPC was becoming too narrow and sectarian, Clark left in 1948, transferring his ministerial credentials into the United Presbyterian Church of North America. Later, he joined the Reformed Presbyterian Church, Evangelical Synod. At the time of his death in 1985, he was retired from teaching philosophy at Butler University and Covenant College.

John Muether

Labels: History

Tolerance

Classical tolerance was birthed by a Christian worldview. It’s founded upon the notion that man is created in God’s image. As His image bearer, man is expected to act in accordance with God’s moral standards. Man is also expected to treat his fellows with respect, since they too bear God’s image.

Modern tolerance has no such foundation. Consequently, it’s very fickle, changing from person to person. Because of this, you can never tell how it’s going to cash out—it’s like playing Pin the Tail on the Donkey with a living, highly agitated animal.

In the classical view, one shows tolerance even if the object of the tolerance is himself intolerant: I don’t have to tolerate someone who agrees with me. It’s only those with whom I don’t agree that I can show tolerance—this, of course, includes the intolerant.

The Intolerance of Tolerance

If I were to create a bumper sticker for the new-tolerance crowd it would read, “We don’t tolerate intolerance around here!” Reason being, those holding to modern tolerance have a tendency to vilify their detractors. For example, if you question the morality of homosexual behavior you run risk being labeled a “homophobe” or being accused of hating homosexuals.

True tolerance doesn’t name call, and it doesn’t cast aspersions upon the character of those on the other side. Even if the person is prejudiced in a bad way, or has an irrational hatred towards a person or group, the truly tolerant would respond with a well-reasoned argument, presented in a gracious, respectful manor. Of course, this is the difference between the classic definition and the new: the former, being founded upon a Christian ethic, has substance, while the later, having no foundation at all, is vacuous.

Labels: Ethics

Notable Quote: Herman Bavinck

Herman Bavinck (1854 – 1921) on sin and the world:

For if the history of the world clearly teaches us anything, it is this: that God has a quarrel with His creature. There is disagreement, separation, conflict between God and His world. God does not agree with man, and man does not agree with God. Each goes his own way, and each has his own idea and will about things. The thoughts of God are not our thoughts, and His ways are not our ways (Is. 55:8). Therefore the history of the world is also a judgment of the world...
The testimony of history to the justice of God is confirmed by the fact that mankind has always looked for, and still looks for, a lost Paradise, for a lasting bliss, and for a redemption from all evil that oppresses it. There is in all men a need for, and seeking after, redemption.
No matter how much effort makes the life of a man a pleasanter and richer thing, there lives in mankind a sense that all such progress and civilization does not satisfy for the deepest human needs nor rescue them from their worst distress.

Our Reasonable Faith

HT: Alpha and Omega Ministries

Labels: Quotes

Does Predestination Equal Fatalism?

Calvinism, whether it is 5 point or 4 or some derivative; it all leads to fatalism if followed through honestly.

This comment, left on a post, Was John Calvin a Murderer, reveals a typical charge against Calvinism: Predestination = fatalism. Responding to that claim is a fine post over at The Aristophrenium. Here’s how it begins:

One of the most common accusation that is hurled by Arminians and other non-Calvinists against Reformed theology is that it promotes fatalism. It is not uncommon to hear an Arminian charge that we teach that God “hinders people from coming to repentance when they really want to” and that believers are “forced to love God.” Of course, nobody who actually knows what the doctrines of grace entail would actually make such statements. The Bible is clear enough on how people become saved: Men are by nature sinful and in rebellion against God (Genesis 6:5, 8:21, Psalm 51:5, Jeremiah 17:9), and are rendered incapable of even desiring to come to Him because of this inclination (John 6:44, 65, Romans 3:10-12, 8:5-8), which is why it is necessary for Him to change their hearts and minds (Ezekiel 36:25-27). It is only after this change of heart takes places that a person becomes willing to come to Christ.
That being said, statements such as “whosoever will may come” are totally compatible with a Reformed understanding of salvation. In fact, John Calvin himself made a statement similar to this in his commentaries. He writes:
“Therefore, forasmuch as no man is excluded from calling upon God, the gate of salvation is set open unto all men; neither is there any other thing which keepeth us back from entering in, save only our own unbelief. I speak of all unto whom God doth make himself manifest by the gospel. But like as those which call upon the name of the Lord are sure of salvation, so we must think that, without the same, we are thrice miserable and undone. And when as our salvation is placed in calling upon God, there is nothing in the mean season taken from faith, forasmuch as this invocation is grounded on faith alone.”

You can read the entire post here.

Labels: Calvinism vs. Arminianism

Was Time Created?

Dr. Peter May has a fine article at bethinking.org titled, Has Science Disproved God? In it he fortifies the Cosmological argument with scientific discovery.

I do have one disagreement, though. In his article, Dr. May suggests that time is a created thing:

We cannot speak about time before time existed. God, if he created the universe, must live outside of space and time.

Time as the Movement of a Clock

For scientists such as Einstein or Hawking, time must be physical because their worldview rules-out the existence of abstract entities. Therefore, they ascribe a beginning to time and describe it as, basically, the movement of the hands of the clock.

Christians too typically fall into this line of reasoning when they speak of God being “outside of time.” Time is seen as a creation of God that will someday be done away with. Until then, He will content Himself with being a sort of jack-in-the-box, jumping in and out of this box called “time.”

Eternal Now?

Another Christian explanation of God and time, sometimes called “eternal now,” was held by many of our Church Fathers, including Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, and Methodius.

This view puts God in a window overlooking a parade—the ever-present spectator, God is perched high-above observing all events at once. Consequently, the creation of the earth, the crucifixion of Christ, and the consummation of the age are all happening at one time. As if all events were thrown into a cosmic Cuisinart.

Sequence

Is it the case that time is a creation of God’s, and an exclusively material one at that (I do think that there is a material aspect to time that was created)? I don’t think so. Time is usually defined as duration—that which passes between events. It seems to me that there is something else to consider: sequence, which includes the events themselves. Here’s what I mean:

There are two types of sequence: logical and temporal. An example of a logical sequence would be counting, 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. “2” logically follows “1.”

A temporal sequence would be a simple recounting of events. For example, if I numbered four Popsicle sticks and then randomly laid them out, they might turnout like this: 4, 2, 1, 3. That’s a temporal sequence.

Sequence and Temporality

Before God created the material universe there was a before. Before denotes a temporal sequence and is a hallmark of time. Therefore, since there was a before preceding the creation of the material universe, then time could not been part of that creation.

Here’s something else to consider: before that creation, God created a certain number of angles; and before He created them, He set a fixed number in His mind. This involves counting—logical sequences. Since God is not material, and since He is counting and creating, then neither logical nor temporal sequences are material; and since they necessarily precede His creative work, they themselves cannot be created; hence time cannot be material nor created.

The Challenge

Every Christian I’ve discussed this with has simply assumed that time is created and have offered no arguments for time’s creation and no valid refutations to my argument regarding sequences and time markers.

For those espousing the “time is a created thing” position, please tell us why we should accept your position? Why should we believe that before God engaged in His creative handiwork that He didn’t think (was He comatose?), plan (e.g., when would the consummation of the age be), add (e.g., establish the number of angels He’d create), love (inner-Trinitarian), etc.? Why should we believe something that is obviously self-refuting: that before before there was no before? Why would we believe that right now, to God, He is talking to Moses, bringing the plagues upon Egypt, being crucified in the person of Christ, bringing about the consummation of the age, ect?

What those of us who are skeptical of this position are looking for is a rational argument for time being created and not applying to God. (I'd also appreciate a refutation of the argument I've offered.)

It is a difficult issue, and highly speculative and mysterious, and we must take care not to create new mysteries. Those of us with these questions could be completely wrong about this, but to know that we are, we're going to need a valid argument (not an assumption) that time is a created thing.

Labels: Doctrine of Creation, Philosophy

John McArthur – Servant of the Word and Flock

Arminian Today offers a review of John McArthur – Servant of the Word and Flock by Iain Murray. This is a fine review, but there’s another reason I’m featuring it here at The Wittenberg Door: I’d like to take the opportunity to commend Arminian Today. We, Calvinists and Arminians, have important differences when it comes to man’s plight and how God reconciles His people to Himself. So what I’m about to say should not be construed as diminishing those differences. The reason that Arminian Today is the only Arminian blog to which I link is because I’ve found it to be thoughtful, honest, and charitable. Unfortunately, this is not typical of the Arminians who comment on my blog (and elsewhere) or of the Arminian sites that I visit.

Being a former Arminian, I am very sympathetic to their position. I think it was B.B. Warfield that said that we are born Arminian, so I certainly understand the inclination. As wrong as I think they are on these issues, we are still brothers in Christ. We Calvinists and Arminians must remember to treat each other as brothers in Christ. This means that we must take the time to understand each other’s views, carefully consider them, and respectfully respond. So, in that spirit, I am pleased—even excited—to feature a blog by an Arminian that I can respect. I pray that other Arminians will likewise follow the example of Arminian Today.

Here is how Arminian Today kicks off the book review:

Iain Murray is one of my favorite biography writers. His books on Evangelicalism history have always been good reading to me as was his book on the Holy Spirit. For Christmas 2010 I received Murray's book on John Wesley and the men who followed him after his death and the history of the early Methodist movement. Murray, despite being a Calvinist, was fair to Wesley and the early Methodist leaders even if he disagreed with their theology.
I was then excited when I first heard that Murray was writing a biography on John MacArthur . I enjoy Dr. MacArthur's ministry even if he and I don't see eye to eye on every point. I was thrilled then to learn more about Dr. MacArthur and his background. I was not disappointed with the book.

You can read the rest of the review here.

Labels: Miscellany

Eye for an Eye

From Time magazine . . .

HERE IS ONE OF PROTHERO'S FAVORITE stories of Bible ignorance. In 1995 a federal appeals court upheld the overturn of a death sentence in a Colorado kidnap-rape-murder case because jurors had inappropriately brought in extraneous material--Bibles--for an unsanctioned discussion of the Exodus verse "an eye for eye, tooth for tooth ... whoever ... kills a man shall be put to death." The Christian group Focus on the Family complained, "It is a sad day when the Bible is banned from the jury room." Who's most at fault here? The jurors, who perhaps hadn't noticed that in the Gospel of Matthew Jesus rejects the eye-for-an-eye rule, word for word, in favor of turning the other cheek? The Focus spokesman, who may well have known of Jesus' repudiation of the old law but chose to ignore it? Or any liberal who didn't know enough to bring it up?

Oftentimes, when capital punishment is being discussed, Jesus’ remarks regarding “an eye-for-an-eye” are pressed into service.

38) “You have heard that it was said, 'AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.'

39) "But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.

Matthew 5:38-39

But is it the case that, in this passage, Jesus was rejecting capital punishment?

What is “Eye-for-an-Eye?”

In figuring out what Jesus meant, we should first see what he was referencing. The relevant passages are Ex. 21:12–36, Lev. 24:17–23, and Deut. 19:14–21. In these passages God is laying out a principle of justice: the punishment should fit the crime. Consequently, if a man takes another man’s life without due cause, he forfeits his own life.

Whoever sheds man's blood, By man his blood shall be shed, For in the image of God He made man.

Genesis 9:6

Did Jesus Overturn This Principle?

For Jesus to “reject eye-for-an-eye” means that He rejects the principle that the punishment should fit the crime. The question that those, such as the person quoted above, need to answer is, “Is it your understanding that Jesus taught that the punishment should not fit the crime? Do you believe that Jesus rejected justice?” Indeed, such a teacher would be profoundly immoral, and not worthy of our attention.

Did Jesus Reject the Death Penalty?

God established the death penalty.

Jesus is God.

Therefore, Jesus established the death penalty.

The logic of the above syllogism is inescapable. The only way around it is to show that either the major premise (first sentence) or the minor (second) premise is false: either God didn’t establish the death penalty or Jesus isn’t God. Of course, if one takes the Scriptures seriously, then neither can be rejected.

With murder, there is one more thing that must be considered beyond just the “eye-for-an-eye” principle. As Genesis 6:9 points out, man is made in the image of God. Consequently, murder is not simply taking a man’s life, it’s destroying the very image of God. This profoundly compounds the sin.

So, the second question we must ask is, “Is man no longer God’s image bearer? Or, if he is, is it now no big deal to destroy that image?”

As with the earlier questions regarding the rejection of justice, these questions too cannot be answered in the affirmative.

What Jesus’ Words Do Not Mean?

First, what they don’t mean. Throughout the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus uses personal pronouns, such as “You are the salt of the earth,” Let your light shine,” For truly I say to you,” and, in the passage in question, “But I say to you.” This is important because it shows that He is addressing His immediate hearers and us (i.e., individuals). He is not talking to the government. Therefore, He’s not telling the government to turn the other check. Furthermore, the New Testament affirms the state’s right, as God’s minister, to execute judgment via the sword (Rom. 13:4; Acts 25:11). And since the New Testament came from Jesus, He affirms the state’s right to carryout capital punishment.

It also isn’t a call to passivism. Even the most cursory reading of the Old Testament will reveal that God isn’t a pacifist. Moreover, Jesus, who is God incarnate, instructed His disciples to arm themselves for journey (Luke 22:36). Why were they to buy a sword, even if it meant selling their garment? Answer: For self defense along the dangerous Roman highways. And, let us not forget what happened when the Temple Guard came to arrest Jesus:

50) And Jesus said to him, "Friend, do what you have come for." Then they came and laid hands on Jesus and seized Him.

51) And behold, one of those who were with Jesus reached and drew out his sword, and struck the slave of the high priest and cut off his ear.

52) Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword.

Matthew 26:50-52

Jesus didn’t respond, “Hey! Where did you get that thing? How long have you been carrying that? Get rid of it before it kills us all!” Instead, he told Peter to return it to its sheath, followed by the instruction that this was an inappropriate time for its use.

There’s one other problem with the pacifistic interpretation, and that’s with its application. Let’s say someone breaks into your house and steals one of your children. Do you offer the intruder your other child as well?

What Do Jesus’ Words Mean

I’m partial to an interpretation I heard from Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason. Since most people are right handed, how would someone slap you on the right cheek? He would do so by slapping you with the back of his hand. A back-handed slap is not meant to injure, but to insult. And let us not forget that when Jesus was struck by one of the temple guards, He did not turn the other cheek. Instead, He inquired as to the justice of the action (John 18:22–23).

“Turn the other cheek” is not a call to passivity, nor is it an overturning of the principle that the punishment should fit the crime (including capital punishment). It seems that what Jesus is actually calling us to do is to bear insults and to not respond in kind, just like in the verses following Mat. 5:39 where we are instructed to bear other such personal affronts.

Labels: Ethics, Exegesis

Must Read: Against Calvinism

Heads-up to readers: I am preparing to ditch my Calvinism. Two of my favorite bloggers, Jeff Peterson of The Lighthearted Calvinist and Eddie Eddings of Calvinistic Cartoons, have joined Jon Cardwell of Justification by Grace (I am just now familiarizing myself with his blog, but it looks like it’ll be joining my list of favorites) in writing a book against Calvinism: Against Calvinism: Logical Arguments to Disprove the Doctrines of Grace. The book is already getting rave reviews on Amazon:

This book has nothing "against" Calvinism in it. It is an apologetic for Calvinism with blank pages for the "arguments against" implying that there are no arguments against Calvinism (arrogant are we?)….
Disappointed would be an understatement in regards to this book. I will accept mild blame in that I should have researched the book a bit more. This is NOT a refutation of Calvinism. The logical arguments are actually blank pages….
This deceptive book that doesn't cover what its tile claims, and thus wastes the money & time of trusting customers who didn't take the time to read the reviews….

With such glowing recommendations, how could I not exhaust my vast fortune, all $11.92 of it, to own it? Especially since it claims the honor of having been banned by Arminians and Roman Catholics everywhere! Besides, for those of you familiar with Eddie Eddings, you can bet that you’re in for a wild ride, something that is hinted at in the product description:

DISCLAIMER/CAVEAT EMPTOR: As the people of God, we are to be seekers of the truth, students of the truth and proclaimers of the truth. In the interest of full disclosure, we do need to inform and remind you this book is filed in both the "Humor" and "Religion" categories of CreateSpace. There is good reason for this. Humor includes elements such as satire and irony and this book contains these from cover to cover. Therefore, please do not be disappointed when you find the book indeed contains these in its entirety…. Yes... this is ironic and satirical. Peterson, Eddings, and Cardwell fully embrace the Doctrines of Grace. In other words, all three are Calvinists. AGAINST CALVINISM was birthed from compiling, first, "The Definitive Scripture List Refuting Calvinism." Having every scripture for refuting Calvinism front and center, the time was ripe to build every premise from the scripture proofs for clear, logical arguments against Calvinistic Theology in order to disprove the teachings that are also referred to as the "doctrines of grace." After years of painstaking research, this endeavor is complete. This epic work will not only take you where you never thought you'd go Biblically, but it also gives you straight insights into clear Arminian thinking and logical deduction. Every pastor, teacher, Bible scholar, and seminary professor will certainly choose to place AGAINST CALVINISM next to every ready, reachable reference work in his study. You may enjoy AGAINST CALVINISM so much that you'll want to purchase several copies for your next Sunday school series. Decide now! The choice is, after all, based on your own free will.

So please join me in ordering Against Calvinism, which is available at The Wittenberg Door bookstore. Buy it. Live it. Love it. Annoy people with it—it’s been predestined.

Labels: Calvinism vs. Arminianism

Mary, Mother of God

What is the meaning of “conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the virgin Mary?"
That the eternal Son of God, who is and continues true and eternal God, took upon Himself the very nature of man, of the flesh and blood of the virgin Mary, by the operation of the Holy Ghost, so that He might also be the true seed of David, like unto His brethren in all things, except for sin.
The Heidelberg Catechism, Q & A 35

The Council of Ephesus (also known as the Third Ecumenical Council) met in 431 A.D. to confront a heresy called Nestorianism. The Nestorius controversy centered on the term “Mother of God.” Instead of Theotokos (Mother of God), Nestorius (c. 381–c. 451) taught that Mary was Christotokos, or “Mother of Christ.” In a nutshell, Nestorius claimed that Jesus was two persons (one human, the other divine) in one body, and that Mary only gave birth to the “human” part, not the divine.

The council declared Nestorianism heresy and affirmed the Nicene Creed (325, 381) which maintained that Christ was both human and divine and “incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary . . .”

What Say Protestants

Protestants affirm the Nicene Creed and the Council of Ephesus. Consequently, we affirm the statement that Mary is the mother of God. That being said, I do have a recommendation for when you’re discussing this: clearly define what you mean when you use the term. Here’s why. Consider the following syllogism:

Mary is the mother of Jesus.
Jesus is God.
Therefore, Mary is the mother of God.

So far so good; but then . . .

Mary is the mother of God.
God is a Trinity.
Therefore, Mary is the mother of the Trinity.

You can see how this can get away from you. For this reason it’s important that you understand and clearly communicate the doctrine of the incarnation, so that it’s clear what you mean by Mary being the mother of God. I particularly favor the Athanasian Creed (c. 500) on this topic.

Named after Athanasius (293–373 A.D.), defender of the Trinity against another Christological heresy, Arianism
(great granddaddy to the Jehovah Witnesses), the creed comprises two parts: the first sets forth the doctrine of the Trinity, and the second the incarnation and dual natures of Christ. Here’s a portion:

. . . The right faith therefore is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man. He is God of the substance of the Father begotten before the worlds, and He is man of the substance of His mother born in the world; perfect God, perfect man subsisting of a reasoning soul and human flesh; equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, inferior to the Father as touching His Manhood. Who although He be God and Man yet He is not two but one Christ; one however not by conversion of the Godhead in the flesh, but by taking of the Manhood in God; one altogether not by confusion of substance but by unity of Person. For as the reasoning soul and flesh is one man, so God and Man is one Christ . . .

Can’t Get Enough of Mary?

On a similar note, Rev. Lee Johnson at the Two-Edged Sword blog has two great posts pertaining to Mary:

Rejecting Mariology
Did the early church fathers believe that Mary was sinless? Did they worship her? In this post Rev. Johnson provides the history behind Mary’s rise to veneration.

Roman Degradation of Mary
Was Mary sinless? Was she perpetually a virgin? Here Rev. Johnson answers the charge that Protestants degrade Mary and shows that it’s actually Rome who’s doing the degrading by making her into something she’s not.

Labels: Creeds Confessions and Catechisms, Doctrine of God, Heresy and False Religions, History

About Me

Bookstore Visit The Wittenberg Door bookstore here Statement of Faith What does The Catechizer believe? Click here to find out.

Wednesday, August 31, 2011

Who’s Sovereign in Salvation? – Part 7 – Arminianism: Unlimited Atonement

Tuesday, August 30, 2011

Today in History: William Penn Sets Sail for America

Today in Church History: Presbyterian Guardian

Monday, August 29, 2011

Who is Sovereign in Salvation? – Part 6 – Arminianism: Conditional Election

Sunday, August 28, 2011

Graceless Calvinism

Saturday, August 27, 2011

C.S. Lewis and the Devil

Friday, August 26, 2011

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

Thursday, August 25, 2011

Ten Principles of Church Singing

Wednesday, August 24, 2011

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

Tuesday, August 23, 2011

Today in Church History: Huguenots, St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre

Monday, August 22, 2011

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

Sunday, August 21, 2011

Naturalism's God: Luck

Saturday, August 20, 2011

Notable Quote: T.S. Eliot

Friday, August 19, 2011

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

Thursday, August 18, 2011

PC(USA) and Its Continued War Against Biblical Authority

Wednesday, August 17, 2011

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

Tuesday, August 16, 2011

What is the Will of the Father?

Monday, August 15, 2011

Dressing for Worship

Sunday, August 14, 2011

Today in History: The Liberty Tree

Saturday, August 13, 2011

Today in Church History: Geerhardus Vos

Friday, August 12, 2011

Christianity, Inquisitions, and Heretic Burnings

Thursday, August 11, 2011

Notable Quote: Herman Bavinck

Wednesday, August 10, 2011

Topical Bibles and Red-Letter Editions

Tuesday, August 09, 2011

Today in Church History: Gordon H. Clark

Monday, August 08, 2011

Tolerance

Sunday, August 07, 2011

Notable Quote: Herman Bavinck

Saturday, August 06, 2011

Does Predestination Equal Fatalism?

Friday, August 05, 2011

Was Time Created?

Thursday, August 04, 2011

John McArthur – Servant of the Word and Flock

Wednesday, August 03, 2011

Eye for an Eye

Tuesday, August 02, 2011

Must Read: Against Calvinism

Monday, August 01, 2011

Mary, Mother of God

Bookstore

Visit The Wittenberg Door bookstore here

Statement of Faith

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