Wesleyan Arminian

An Explanation of Simple Foreknowledge

2011-11-24T17:11:00.000-08:00

See Wordpress post here.

The Ghost at Epworth

2011-10-26T18:42:00.000-07:00

A ghost story involving the Wesley family, as reported by Samuel Wesley (John's father). See Wordpress post here.

The Idiot's Guide to Augustine

2011-10-03T13:55:00.000-07:00

See Wordpress post here: The Idiot's Guide to Augustine.

Stuff Liberal Christians Like (Satire)

2011-07-26T17:13:00.001-07:00

An attempt at humor. Post here: Stuff Liberal Christians Like

Cleveland Fans and Corporate Election

2011-06-14T09:48:00.000-07:00

See Wordpress post here: Cleveland Fans and Corporate Election.

Top 10 Reasons the World Won't End on May 21, 2011

2011-05-18T13:19:00.000-07:00

A little humor. :) See Wordpress post here: Top 10 Reasons the World Won't End on May 21, 2011

Calvinism and Harold Camping

2011-05-12T13:01:00.000-07:00

See Wordpress post here: Calvinism and Harold Camping

Women are Called to Preach – Part 2 – Scriptural Prohibitions?

2011-05-06T18:28:00.000-07:00

See Wordpress post here: Women are Called to Preach – Part 2 – Scriptural Prohibitions?

An Examination of James White’s Parable: The King and the Castle

2011-05-04T18:22:00.000-07:00

See Wordpress post here: An Examination of James White’s Parable: The King and the Castle

Inclusivist Theologians

2011-04-29T16:47:00.000-07:00

A list of theologians that have held to inclusivism. See Wordpress post here: Inclusivist Theologians.

The Bible and John Wesley

2011-04-14T11:48:00.001-07:00

See Wordpress post here: The Bible and John Wesley

Inclusivism: Myths and Realities

2011-04-11T20:17:00.000-07:00

See Wordpress post here: Inclusivism: Myths and Realities.

Wesley the Inclusivist

2011-04-07T22:53:00.001-07:00

See Wordpress post here: Wesley the Inclusivist

The Hardening of Pharaoh's Heart

2011-03-09T15:19:00.000-08:00

See Wordpress post here: The Hardening of Pharaoh's Heart

Is Universalism Possible? An Arminian Perspective

2011-03-01T16:58:00.000-08:00

See wordpress post here: Is Universalism Possible? An Arminian Perspective

Killing Ants

2011-02-03T14:52:00.000-08:00

A little satire from my childhood. :) See Wordpress post here: Killing Ants.

"When in Rome" and Irresistable Grace

2011-01-08T21:55:00.000-08:00

See Wordpress post here: "When in Rome" and Irresistable Grace

The Meaning of "World" in First John

2011-01-04T14:13:00.000-08:00

See Wordpress post here: The Meaning of "World" in First John

Questions for Calvinists

2010-12-30T16:47:00.001-08:00

See Wordpress post here.

Differnences in Calvinism and Arminianism

2010-12-02T21:56:00.000-08:00

See wordpress post here: Differnences in Calvinism and Arminianism

Burning of the Koran: Some Random Thoughts

2010-09-08T00:24:00.000-07:00

See wordpress post here: Burning of the Koran: Some Random Thoughts

Women are Called to Preach - Part 1

2010-08-22T15:04:00.000-07:00

See post at Wordpress: Women are Called to Preach - Part 1

Moved to Wordpress

2010-08-11T08:47:00.000-07:00

My blog is moving to: http://wesleyanarminian.wordpress.com. If you follow the blog, please update your links!

I have become increasingly disappointed with blogger, particularly withe the comment moderation options. Nick Norelli gets the props for the move. He often preaches of the merits of Wordpress and gets another convert. :)

The blogspot blog will stay up (to help with link backs, etc). I'm turning on comment moderation here. And of course all new posts will go wordpress. Thanks for following the blog, and God bless! -Kevin

How Revelation 3:20 Creates a Dilemma for Calvinism

2010-08-10T19:05:00.000-07:00

In Revelation 1,2, and 3 John prophesies to the seven churches in Asia. The last group he addresses is the church in Laodicea. After addressing the Ladocians, he concludes with the following prophesy:

(Jesus speaking) Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me. To him who overcomes, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I overcame and sat down with my Father on his throne. He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. -Revelation 3:20-22

This passage can be interpreted in two ways, both of which present problems for Calvinism.

Interpretation #1: This passage is applicable to everyone. Although Jesus is addressing the Ladocians, he uses universal language ("If anyone..", "he who has an ear..."). Thus this passage has application to everyone and helps to establish the doctrine of prevenient grace. This is usually the Arminian position.

Interpretation #2: Jesus is speaking only to the church in Laodicea, or to only to the seven churches in Asia. This passage is meant to apply to the original audience, and has no application to non-believers today. This is usually the Calvinist position.

If interpretation #1 is correct, we have a clear example of prevenient grace. The passage illustrates both the universal scope of grace, and the ability to resist grace. Jesus knocks on the door of each person, and the person can choose whether or not to open the door.

If interpretation #2 is correct, the Calvinist unwittingly creates another problem for himself. He disproves the doctrine of eternal security. Immediately prior Jesus speaks of "spitting out" the Ladocians because they are neither hot nor cold. If Jesus is addressing only Ladocian believers, the passage indicates that those same believers can become apostate (bold mine):

To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God's creation. I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth. -Revelation 3:14-16

So the Calvinist is left with a dilemma. If the passage applies to non-believers, it teaches prevenient grace. If the passage applies to Ladocian believers, it teaches the possibility of apostasy.

Roger Olson's New Blog

2010-07-30T08:37:00.001-07:00

Theologian Roger Olson has started a blog. He has a couple of posts up already. You can check the blog out here: www.rogereolson.com. HT: John Guthrie

Olson has authored a number of books, including, The Story of Christian Theology (an overview of the history of Christianity) and Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities. I appreciate Dr Olson's work, because he writes at a level I can understand.

And as a completely irrelevant side note, I think Olson and my father-in-law look alike. See if you agree.

Wired Article on Free Will

2010-07-28T10:12:00.000-07:00

Wired Magazine has an interesting article on libertarian freedom: My First Act of Free Will.

The author Jonah Lehrer addresses the problems of scientific determinism - or having a purely mechanical view of freedom.

He notes that:

There’s a certain frivolousness to all these eloquent arguments over free will. The fact is, we are deeply wired to believe in our freedom. We feel like willful creatures, blessed with elbow room and endowed with the capacity to pick our own breakfast cereal.

The question is, why do we feel free? Why are we "deeply wired" to believe in our freedom? Perhaps it is because as creatures created in the image of God we really do have genuine freedom.

The article also referenced a study that correlated libertarian freedom with ethics. People who don't believe in libertarian freedom are more likely to engage in unethical behavior. In the study "the amount of cheating was directly correlated with the extent to which the subjects rejected free will."

What we believe about free will actually impacts the decisions we make.

Jerry Walls on Problems With Calvinism

2010-07-18T21:30:00.000-07:00

Here is a great video clip by Jerry Walls where he addresses some of the inconsistencies of Calvinism. The clip runs about 10 minutes, and is well worth the viewing. HT: Brennon Hartshorn.

Walls is a professor at Asbury seminary. He is also co-author of the book Why I'm not a Calvinist. If you have read the book, you will recognize some of his arguments here.

Comment by George Bryson

2010-07-17T14:02:00.000-07:00

George Bryson left a comment on my other blog. I'm cross posting it here, where it is more likely to be read. Bryson is associated with Calvary Chapel, and is a non-Calvinist who does not consider himself Arminian. His comment deals with why he writes against Calvinism and not Arminianism.

Bryson is the author of several books that deal with the problems of Reformed Theology.(Calvinism: Weighed and Found Wanting, and The Dark Side of Calvinism: The Calvinist Caste System).

I just happened on your site (or as our Reformed friends would say, was foreordained to find you. One of the questions I hear a lot is "why don't you write a book against Arminianism" or why not explain "why it is that you are not an Arminian"?

For many years I thought about writing a book explaining why I am not an Arminian but never felt a need to write a book against Arminianism. The reason is that I am not against Arminianism the way I am against Calvinism. It never offends me and I do not see it as a threat to the health and well being of the church of Jesus Christ.

I do not see Arminianism on a agressive campain trying to win everone over to their views, even if it means misleading their potential converts. For these and many other reasons, I do not see Arminianism as a threat. So it is difficult for me to justify the kind of time it takes me to write a book that I would be happy with.

My disagreements with Arminians are real but not usually serious. When an Arminian scholar represents his views, he does not usually feel a need to hide anything or to hold anything back. They tell you what they believe and why

This is not always so for many Calvinists. I am happy to see a lot of Arminians representing themselves and I do not think they will find a need to become rude, personally attack those they disagree with, deliberately attempt to insult or offend non-Arminians. I am sure there are exceptions.

On many Calvinist websites to be rude and crude is considered cool and hip. May it never be so with Evangelical Arminians. In Christ, George

Answers to Common Calvinist Questions

2010-07-07T05:00:00.000-07:00

Some answers to common Calvinist questions:

Q: Why does one person believe in Jesus and not another?
Q: Man is dead. How can a dead person believe or do anything?
Q: If man is dead in sin, how can he believe outside of the grace of God?
Q: If man can make choices, doesn't that weaken God's sovereignty?
Q: If man can make choices, how can God have exhaustive knowledge of the future?
Q: Here are [insert list of scriptures] to prove that Calvinism is true.
Q: Doesn't Arminian Theology leads to boasting because man contributed to his salvation?

Q: Why does one person believe in Jesus and not another?
This question assumes a deterministic framework. Each person is a unique being who has the God given capability to make his own choices ex nihilio. One person believes and not another because one chose to believe, and the other did not.

Q: Man is dead. How can a dead person believe or do anything?
A: This is a non-scriptural definition of death. Death does not mean "unable to respond", rather, it means "separated from God". In the parable of the lost son (Luke 15), the father states "my son was dead, but now is alive. He was lost, and now is found." The son was able make decisions, including the decision to go home. Yet, he was separated from relationship with his father, and dependent on his father for reconciliation. To be dead is to be separated from Christ. To be alive is to be in relationship with Christ. Making choices does not give one the ability to be reconciled to Christ absent his consent.

Q: If man is dead in sin, how can he believe outside of the grace of God?
This is a statement that Arminians fully agree with! Arminians believe in prevenient grace, that God is in the process of drawing non-believers to himself. It is God's drawing that enables the sinner to believe. We differ with Calvinists in that 1)We believe scripture teaches that God gives a measure of genuine grace to everyone (Titus 2:11), and 2)We believe that grace is resistible (John 5:34,39-40).

Q: If man can make choices, doesn't that weaken God's sovereignty?
Sovereignty is not synonymous with determinism or meticulous control. Rather, it means that God does what he pleases (Psalms 115:3). It pleases God to endow mankind with a measure of genuine freedom. A.W. Tozer stated it like this: "God sovereignly decreed that man should be free to exercise moral choice, and man from the beginning has fulfilled that decree by making his choice between good and evil. When he chooses to do evil, he does not thereby countervail the sovereign will of God but fulfills it, inasmuch as the eternal decree decided not which choice the man should make but that he should be free to make it. If in His absolute freedom God has willed to give man limited freedom, who is there to stay His hand or say, “What doest thou?” Man’s will is free because God is sovereign. A God less than sovereign could not bestow moral freedom upon His creatures. He would be afraid to do so. "(1)

Q: If man can make choices, how can God have exhaustive knowledge of the future?
Arminians believe that God can know our choices without causing them. Some Arminians believe that God exists outside of time and sees the future as present (The Eternal Now theory). Others believe that God exists in the present but can see into the future. In this case, man's actions are the cause of God's foreknowledge, not the other way around. All man's actions are certain but not necessary.(2)

Q: Here are [insert list of scriptures] to prove that Calvinism is true!
A: This is a debate tactic. While it may result in a Calvinist winning an argument, it is not a reasonable or contextual approach to reading and understanding the Bible. For a detailed and funny description of this tactic, check out The Machine Gun Hermeneutic, by Martin Glynn.

Q: Doesn't Arminian Theology leads to boasting because man contributed to his salvation?
Arminian Theology is an entirely grace centered theology. We are saved by the work of Jesus Christ. By grace through faith. In order to be saved one must believe in Jesus and accept his sacrifice on his behalf. Since Jesus died for everyone, we have no grounds for boasting. Rather, we are motivated to share the gospel with everyone, so that they can also believe. On the other hand, Calvinism can easily lead to a haughty attitude. Calvinism teaches adherents that there are two classes of people: those who will be saved and those who cannot be saved. John Wesley correctly stated: "As directly does this doctrine [Calvinism] tend to destroy several particular branches of holiness. Such are meekness and love, -- love, I mean, of our enemies, -- of the evil and unthankful. I say not, that none who hold it have meekness and love (for as is the power of God, so is his mercy;) but that it naturally tends to inspire, or increase, a sharpness or eagerness of temper, which is quite contrary to the meekness of Christ; as then especially appears, when they are opposed on this head. And it as naturally inspires contempt or coldness towards those whom we suppose outcast from God."(3)

(1) A.W. Tozer, The Sovereignty of God
(2) See Thomas Ralston, Elements of Divinity
(3) John Wesley, Free Grace, Section II

A Wesleyan Criticism of Theistic Evolution

2010-06-22T15:49:00.000-07:00

The purpose of this post is to argue that Wesleyans should reject theistic evolution. To do so doesn't require defending a literal view of the Genesis creation account.

Theistic evolution functions on principles that are contrary to God's revealed character. It is absurd to argue that a good God who is involved with His creation would create a world that runs on principles that contradict His nature.

As Wesleyans we believe that everyone has great value. We have value not because of our genes, but because God created us.

As Wesleyans we believe that God cares for the weak. He hears the prayers of the widow. He protects the fatherless. He defends the poor.

As Wesleyans we believe that God heals the sick. He gives sight to the blind, and speech to the mute. God makes us whole.

All of these values contradict the principles of natural selection. Natural selection rewards the strong, the powerful, the aggressive, the fertile, the selfish, the genetically perfect. Natural selection is efficient, but it is not loving.

Jesus says that the last will be first. Jesus says that blessed are the poor in spirit, blessed are those who mourn, blessed are the meek. Jesus says that the meek will inherit the earth.

Jesus himself was not physically attractive, and he had no physical descendants (Isaiah 53). Yet he was also perfect. God's definition of perfection does not include the attributes that are required for natural selection.

Natural selection is a result of the fall. God created a perfect world, a world without death. Yet we live in a world in decay. We live in a world where the strong survive and the weak often perish. The fallen world we live in is not the way God originally created it. When we argue on behalf of theistic evolution, we are arguing for a world that has always been fallen, and we are arguing that God created a world that contrary to his intrinsic character.

For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. -Romans 8:20-21

Trailer for Wesley the Movie

2010-05-29T19:15:00.000-07:00

Here's a new trailer for "Wesley the Movie". It looks pretty good. The production looks to be about the caliber of Luther.

What's wrong with this picture?

2010-05-26T21:42:00.001-07:00

This place is near where I live. Can you find the problem? Hint: Proverbs 22:22

Audio Series on Romans 9-11

2010-05-17T10:00:00.000-07:00

HT:Onesimus

Here is a good audio series on Romans 9, 10, and 11 by historian / preacher David Pawson. Pawson argues that Paul wrote the epistle to the Romans in order to address the problem of antisemitism among the Gentile Christians in Rome.

The Roman Church was initially exclusively Jewish, then over time Gentile converts were added. At some point Emperor Claudius ordered all Jews to leave Rome (likely because they were bickering over whether or not Jesus was the Christ). After the death of Claudius, Nero permitted the Jews to again return to Rome.

These edicts impacted the demographics of the Roman church. The church was first Jewish, then because a mixture of Jewish and Gentile, then became exclusively Gentile, then finally was again a mixture of Jews and Gentiles. When the Jewish Christians returned they were not welcomed by the Gentile Christians. The Gentiles were arguing that the Jews were now rejected by God. Pawson argues that the purpose of Paul's letter was to address the exclusion of the Jews, and that Romans 9-11 in particular addresses this issue.

Romans 9
Romans 10
Romans 11

"The Prodigal Son" and Arminian Theology

2010-05-02T14:45:00.000-07:00

One of Jesus' best known parables is the story of "The Prodigal Son" (Luke 15:11-32). The parable is particularly relevant to Arminian theology. It shows the extent of freedom that God gives to his children. It illustrates the nature of his love. And it shows how He goes about reconciliation.

The parable presents a picture that is in harmony with the Arminian understanding of God. Restored relationship is what is important to God. It is so important that he will set aside his rights and his honor in order to be reconciled with his children. Let's take a look at the parable:

The Father gives the younger son what he requests.
"The younger one said to his father, 'Father, give me my share of the estate.' So he divided his property between them." (Luke 15:12) The younger son demanded his inheritance from the father. In effect, the son wishes that his father was dead. The father would have been well within his rights to deny this demand, but instead he gives the son what he asks for.

The Father doesn't worry about his glory.
"Not long after that, the younger son got together all he had, set off for a distant country and there squandered his wealth in wild living." (Luke 15:13) In the culture of the time, the father had the ability to prevent the son from leaving. The son's freedom was more important to the father than the fact that the son's actions would shame the father. The father permitted the son's behavior out of love.

The Father did not force the son home, the son chooses to go home.
I will set out and go back to my father and say to him: Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son; make me like one of your hired men.' So he got up and went to his father. (Luke 15:18-20). The father did not effectually cause the son to go back home, rather the son made the decision to return on his own. The son's ability to make this decision did not make him proud. The son was instead humbled because he knew he had wronged his father. Even though the son made the decision to return, he was still at the complete mercy of the father. The son could not restore the relationship, only the father could.

The Father RUNS to the son.
"But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion for him; he ran to his son, threw his arms around him and kissed him." (Luke 15:20) In the culture of the time it was unthinkable for a father to run to a son, particularly in a situation where he had been wronged. It was undignified. The father would stand and wait, and the son would walk to him and beg. But we see in this parable the father runs to his son. Reconciliation was more important to the father than appearance or position.

Death means separation. Alive means reconciliation.
For this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.' So they began to celebrate. (Luke 15:24, also see 15:32) The father throws a party for his son who was dead. Twice in the parable we are given the scriptural definition of "dead". Dead does not mean inability. The son was able to able to make decisions, including the decision to go home to his father. What the son was not able to do was to unilaterally restore his relationship with his father. So he was dead in relationship to his father. In order to be alive again, he was dependent on the mercy of his father. Thankfully, the father valued relationship over personal glory.

The Father shows genuine love to the older son too.
"The older brother became angry and refused to go in. So his father went out and pleaded with him." (Luke 15:28). The father shows that he desires genuine relationship with both of his sons. Again we see that the father is unconcerned with appearances. He leaves the celebration and seeks out his older son.

The older son misunderstands the Father.
"[The older son] answered his father, 'Look! All these years I've been slaving for you and never disobeyed your orders. Yet you never gave me even a young goat so I could celebrate with my friends.'" (Luke 15:29). The older son misunderstands two things about his relationship with his father. First, he views himself as a slave to the master rather than as a son of the father. Second, he fails to recognize the love and generosity of his father.

The older son wants exclusive treatment.
"But when this son of yours who has squandered your property with prostitutes comes home, you kill the fattened calf for him!" (Luke 15:30). Perhaps the older son was a Calvinist. He was not glad for the return of his brother, or for the generosity of his father. Yet he fails to recognize that he too is in the wrong. How so? First by devaluing his relationship to his brother. "This son of yours" he calls him. And second by ignoring his father's wishes and pouting instead of celebrating. A paraphrase of Romans 9:20 is relevant here. "Who are you, oh son to talk back to your father?" The father valued both of his sons and desired relationship with both of them. It was not the place of the older son to demand exclusive treatment.

The father corrects the older brother regarding the value of the younger son.
"My son,' the father said, 'you are always with me, and everything I have is yours. But we had to celebrate and be glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.' " (Luke 15:31-32). The older son would not recognize the value of his brother. His father corrects him. "This brother of yours was dead and is alive again." Both sons are valuable to the father.

In conclusion, we have a father who loves us all. We have a father who desires reconciliation so much that he is willing to become vulnerable and to make himself look bad. We do not have a father who stands by and watches us suffer. We have a father who runs to us. We are made alive again by being in relationship with Him.

Wesley Study Bible on Sale

2010-04-10T21:48:00.001-07:00

Cokesbury is running a special on the Wesley Study Bible. If you're interested in getting one, now's the time to do it. Link here. Cost is $19.95, half off the regular price. On sale through April 30, 2010.

As a bit of side trivia, Cokesbury is named after two famous Methodists. The first two American bishops in the American church were Thomas Coke and Francis Asbury. They were appointed by John Wesley after the pesky Americans decided to have a revolution.

Good-bye to the Internet Monk

2010-04-05T23:05:00.000-07:00

Thanks for all the good reads, even if I didn't always agree. Michael Spencer 1956-2010

The Meaning of the Christian Fish - ΙΧΘΥΣ

2010-04-05T05:00:00.000-07:00

One of the first symbols of early Christianity was the fish. The Greek word for fish is "ichthus" (ΙΧΘΥΣ). It is pronounced "ik thoos". ΙΧΘΥΣ spells an acronym in Greek. It was an early statement of faith.

The acronym means "Jesus, Christ, Son of God, Savior". The Greek letters break down as follows:

I - Iota is the first letter of Iesous (Jesus)
X - Chi is the first letter of Christos (Christ)
Θ - Theta is the first letter of Theos (God)
Y - Upsilon is the first letter of Yios (Son)
Σ - Sigma is the fist letter of Soter (Savior)

The Greek letters Alpha and Omega also both look like fish. The little alpha looks like a fish swimming right to left, and the Omega looks like a fish swimming up. Jesus is the Alpha and Omega (Rev 1:8).
The fish has Biblical significance. Jonah was swallowed by a fish (Jonah 1:17). Several of the disciples were fishermen (Peter, Andrew, James, John). Jesus told his disciples to be be "fishers of men" (Mark 1:17). Jesus did miracles involving fish - feeding the 5000 (Matt 14:18-21), and helping the disciples to catch fish (John 21:6). Jesus also proved he was physically risen by eating a fish (Luke 24:40-43).

Tradition has it that that early Christians used the fish symbol to identify each other during times of persecution. If a believer met a stranger and thought the stranger might also be a believer, he would draw the top half of the fish in the dirt.

If the stranger was a believer he would know to complete the other half of the symbol, and the two believers would be safe to acknowledge each other. If not, the non-believer would just think the other person was a little loopy for drawing in the dirt. Hopefully the early Christians were better at drawing than I am.

In early Christianity the fish and dove were common Christian symbols, more so than the cross. Clement of Alexandria was the first Christian to mention the fish in writing. The Catholic Encyclopedia notes that:

the earliest literary reference to the symbolic fish is made by Clement of Alexandria, born about 150, who recommends his readers (The Pedagogue III.11) to have their seals engraved with a dove or a fish. Clement did not consider it necessary to give any reason for this recommendation, from which it may be safely be inferred that the meaning of both symbols was unnecessary.

(Early Coptic Art)

Today the fish is quickly recognizable as part of the Christian subculture. According to Wikipedia, the modern fish movement was started by some Australian university students. Over the last forty years the symbol has become common again. Today it is cliche. You can get your fish auto emblem, fish T-shirt, or fish jewelry.

Darwinians have their fish too. Perhaps you have seen it on a car or two. The Darwinian fish swims from left to right, whereas the Christian fish always swims from right to left. The Darwinian fish has feet, emphasizing their belief that humans evolved from sea creatures.

And of course the Christian subculture never misses a beat. Not to be outdone, you can buy a Christian fish eating a Darwin fish.

The fish has evolved a long way over the years, and that is no fish story. :)

Good Article on Open Theism

2010-03-29T00:19:00.000-07:00

Here's a good article Open Theism written from an Arminian perspective. It has some criticisms, yet also presents the system fairly. It is by James Railey, an Assemblies of God seminary professor.

HT: Steve Noel

Open Theism, an Arminian Pentecostal Response

They Must Be Arminian...

2010-03-18T08:46:00.000-07:00

Sign at a nearby church.

The FACTS of Arminianism

2010-03-13T21:26:00.000-08:00

The Society of Evangelical Arminians has put together a nice article that summarizes and compares the five points of Arminianism to the five points of Calvinism.

An Outline of the FACTS of Arminianism vs. The TULIP of Calvinism

The FACTS acronym is based on the original Five articles of the Remonstrants. The Remonstrants were the Dutch followers of Jacob Arminius.

Freed by Grace (to Believe)
Atonement for All
Conditional Election
Total Depravity
Security in Christ

Addressing a Boettner Quote About Limited Atonement

2010-03-10T23:00:00.000-08:00

If you surf the Calvinist blogoshpere, you will have probably seen the following quote by Loraine Boettner. It it is frequently used to argue for Limited Atonement:

"Let there be no misunderstanding at this point. The Arminian limits the atonement as certainly as does the Calvinist. The Calvinist limits the extent of it in that he says it does not apply to all persons (although as has already been shown, he believes that it is efficacious for the salvation of the large proportion of the human race); while the Arminian limits the power of it, for he says that in itself it does not actually save anybody. The Calvinist limits it quantitatively, but not qualitatively; the Arminian limits it qualitatively, but not quantitatively. For the Calvinist it is like a narrow bridge which goes all the way across the stream; for the Arminian it is like a great wide bridge which goes only half-way across. As a matter of fact, the Arminian places more severe limitations on the work of Christ than does the Calvinist." (1)

Boettner's representation of Arminianism is demonstrably false. Let's take a more detailed look at this quote.

"Let there be no misunderstanding at this point. The Arminian limits the atonement as certainly as does the Calvinist."

The Calvinist limits the atonement by claiming that God only intends to save a few. No way of salvation is provided for the majority of humanity. The Calvinist believes that God does not care enough about the reprobate to provide a way for them to be saved. God cares only about himself. He does not save anyone out of love, but rather saves a few as a means of demonstrating his control and power. The reprobate are left without help and without hope. They were created to be damned. There is no scriptural support for this view, and it distorts the scriptural teaching that God does not want anyone to perish, but wants all to come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9).

Scripture teaches that God loves the world and that Jesus died for all (John 3:16, 1 Tim 2:5-6). Jesus' sacrifice genuinely provided the means for all to be saved (1 John 2:2). Scripture teaches that God does not show favoritism (Romans 2:9-11) Jesus did not die selfishly, rather, he did so willingly and for all (Isaiah 5:6-7). Jesus' death demonstrated his unfathomable love for all of sinful humanity (Romans 5). Jesus' sacrifice was for everyone (Heb 2:9). His love is genuine for all. His sacrifice is applied to those who accept it in faith (John 1:12-13). All are provided for and those who believe are saved (Acts 16:31, John 3:16).

"The Calvinist limits the extent of it in that he says it does not apply to all persons (although as has already been shown, he believes that it is efficacious for the salvation of the large proportion of the human race);"

It is true that the Calvinist limits the extent of the atonement. However, in Calvinism salvation is not "efficacious for the salvation of the large proportion of the human race". Rather, only a few will be saved. The large proportion of the human race is deliberately left helpless by God. Most of humanity has been damned from all eternity and for all eternity(2), and Calvinists claim this demonstrates God's love. Boettner also contradicts a point from earlier in his essay where he argues that the wider the atonement, the less valuable it is. "The things we have to choose between are an atonement of high value, or an atonement of wide extension. The two cannot go together." (B.B. Warfield). Thus in Calvinism if Jesus death was for the large proportion of the human race, then it was also of less value.

Arminians see no conflict here. Scripture clearly teaches that Jesus' death was of both high value and universal extension. Who are we to talk back to God? :)

"while the Arminian limits the power of it, for he says that in itself it does not actually save anybody."

Bottner treats Jesus death as an act of power rather than an act of love. God did not send his son to show how powerful he was, rather, he sent his son because of his love for the world. By misunderstanding the nature and application of God's power, Boettner misunderstands the nature of God's love. It is false that Arminians believe that the atonement "does not actually save anybody". We believe Jesus died for all and saves everyone who believes in him. Since God has exhaustive knowledge, he also knew that his sacrifice would be effectual for those who would believe in him.

"The Calvinist limits it quantitatively, but not qualitatively; the Arminian limits it qualitatively, but not quantitatively."

The atonement is universal in scope and provisional in application. Jesus death on the cross atoned for all sin, but only those who repent will benefit(3). To be forgiven there is a requirement of repentance. Without repentance there can be no forgiveness of sins (Acts 3:19). The Calvinist divorces the atonement from the Biblical teaching that Jesus doesn't save us unless we believe.

"For the Calvinist it is like a narrow bridge which goes all the way across the stream; for the Arminian it is like a great wide bridge which goes only half-way across."

This is perhaps the silliest accusation made by Boettner. No one believes in a bridge that goes halfway across. The narrow bridge analogy much better describes the Arminian view of atonement than it does the Calvinist view. In Arminianism, Jesus Christ is the bridge. He beckons all to cross. Those who believe in him are the ones who cross the bridge and benefit. For a bridge to be of benefit one must cross it. A bridge is provisionally useful. Not everyone crosses a bridge, but anyone can. This is the Arminian understanding of the atonement. In Calvinism the reprobate are dead and have no way to cross the bridge, and yet are still commanded to do so. The "elect" do not cross the bridge either. They are somehow irresistibly dragged across. The Calvinist view of the atonement is more akin to an invisible and random wormhole that teleports a few lucky ones to the other side.

As a matter of fact, the Arminian places more severe limitations on the work of Christ than does the Calvinist.

Bottner does not explain what the "severe limitations" are that Arminians place on the atonement. Arminians believe that anyone can be saved, and that those who believe will be saved. The atonement is universal in scope, and provisional in application. This is the scriptural teaching of atonement.

1 Limited Atonement by Loraine Boettner.
2 This is a paraphrase of a quote from The Five points of Calvinism by George Bryson. "You will be saved or damned for all eternity because you were saved or damned from all eternity."
3 See the Provisional Atonement series on the Arminian Perspectives blog for a detailed treatment of this subject.

Added Word Verification

2010-03-05T10:10:00.000-08:00

I added "word verification" for comments. This is to help reduce the amount of Chinese link spam that unfortunately comes. Anyone can still comment, it will just ask for the word verification now. If this sort of nonsense continues, I will switch to wordpress. :)

Fasting

2010-02-21T21:05:00.000-08:00

The church has a long history of fasting, especially during Lent. Now is an appropriate time to look at the discipline of fasting. Lent is the 40 days prior to Easter (not counting Sundays). It is a time when through self denial we especially take note of the death of Jesus and his victorious resurrection.

Fasting is Biblical
Jesus fasted regularly (Luke 4:1, John 4:31-34). He spoke of fasting as something that was expected ("When you fast..." Matt 6:17).

Fasting is Combined with Prayer.
Daniel prayed and fasted (Daniel 9:3). The Israelites prayed and fasted when returning from exile (Ezra 8:21-23). The early church fasted and prayed when seeking guidance (Acts 13:2-3).

Fasting May be Corporate, Especially When Seeking God's Mercy.
The whole city of Nineveh fasted (even livestock!) after the prophet Jonah warned them of their pending destruction (Jonah 3:6-9). Judah fasted when destruction was imminent (2 Chron 20:1-4). During Esther's time the Jews fasted when Haman plotted against them (Esther 4:1-3).

No Extra Points for Fasting.
Jesus saves us by grace through faith. We can't save ourselves by fasting or by any other discipline. Some people think that by their work of self denial they can make God do something that He wouldn't do otherwise. That is self centered, and doesn't move God. Some think they can sin and then fast to cancel it out. Again, this doesn't impress God. God prefers mercy over sacrifice (Hosea 6:6), and justice over fasting (Isaiah 58:3-8).

Fasting Should be God Centered and Combined With Obedience.
Fasting can have health benefits, but the main reason we do it is to seek God's face. When we fast, we wait to hear from God. If He speaks to us, we obey and do what He says. Charles Spurgeon wrote: "Our seasons of fasting and prayer at the tabernacle have been high days indeed; ever has Heaven's gate stood wider; never have our hearts been nearer to the central glory." (quoted in Celebration of Discipline by Richard Foster, p 55)

Fasting Allows God to Work in Us With Power.
Fasting is a type of special dependence on God. God can use it to work in us with power and authority. Jesus said that certain types of demons cannot be exorcised without prayer and fasting (Mark 9:29).

Fasting Will Reveal the Sin Inside of Us.
Richard Foster writes: "More than any other Discipline, fasting reveals the things that control us. This is a wonderful benefit for the true disciple who longs to be transformed into the image of Christ. We cover up what is inside of us with food and other good things, but in fasting these things surface. If pride controls us, it will be revealed almost immediately...Anger, bitterness, jealousy, strife, fear - if they are within us, they will surface during fasting. At first we will rationalize that our anger is due to our hunger; then we will realize that we are angry because the spirit of anger is within us. We can rejoice in the knowledge because we know that healing is available through the power of Christ."

Give Something Up, Add Something to Replace It.
Usually the focus on fasting is on giving something up. Thus, a person might fast food. An additional focus can be to add something new to replace what has been given up. Thus, a person might spend more time in prayer, Bible reading, or in service to others. For example, if you fast TV, you could replace the TV time with prayer.

You Can Fast Anything.
Some people can't do a food fast because of heath issues. Is there something else in your life that is too high of a priority? It may be a good candidate for fasting. TV, facebook, blogging, theology books, coffee (these are all things that could apply to me). Ask God to show you something to fast and He will. Replace the time you spent doing the activity with something else, like prayer, worship, or service.

Done in Private
Fasting should only be between the participating parties and the Lord. The only people who should know about your fast are those who must know. If you fast to try and impress others, that will be your only reward (Matt 6:16-18).

Fasting has a long History in the Church
Our society has become accustomed to ease and a "have it now" mentality. Fasting is a largely neglected discipline. But the church has fasted since the beginning, as the book of Acts records. The Didache (an early church manual written around AD 100) encouraged fasting every Wednesday and Friday.

Wesley Advocated Fasting
John Wesley fasted every Friday and sometimes on Wednesdays. He encouraged all of his Methodist pastors to do likewise. For those who don't like Wesley, you can look to Augustine, Luther, Calvin or Spurgeon - who all advocated fasting. As this is the Wesleyan Arminian blog, Wesley gets his props here. :)

Wesley was convinced that fasting, abstaining from food or drink, was a practice firmly grounded in the Bible. People in Old Testament times fasted (Ezra 8:23). So did Jesus and his followers (Matthew 4:2; Acts 13:3), and Wesley saw no reason why modern Christians should not follow the same pattern. His plan of fasting sometimes allowed for limited eating and drinking. He found that fasting advanced holiness. (John Wesley: Holiness of Heart and Life, Charles Yrigoyen)

Tips for an Extended Food Fast (largely borrowed from Celebration of Discipline by Richard Foster).

Don't beat yourself up if you fail on the fast. Ask for God's help, and try again.
Don't try to stock up with a big meal before fasting. It is better to work into it with light meals of fruits and vegetables.
Start with a short fast of just a meal or two "...it is wise to learn to walk well before we try to run."
Drink lots of water.
During a long fast, the first few days will be the most difficult. You will feel hungry. The body is like a child, and needs to be put in its place. The body will be ridding itself of toxins, you may have bad breath for a day or two. If you fast caffeine you may have withdrawal headaches.
As you fast, you will see a progression from the superficial aspects of fasting to the more rewarding ones. You will go from congratulating yourself to reflecting on Christ, to surrender and prayer.
"By the sixth or seventh day you will begin to feel stronger and more alert. Hunger pains will continue to diminish until...they are only a minor irritation."
"Anywhere between twenty-one and forty days or longer...hunger pains will return. This is the first stage of starvation...the fast should be broken at this time."
When you end an extended fast, do it gently. Your digestive system will be out of practice. End the fast with a small meal or two, and with healthy and easily digested foods.

Arminian Audio: Brown / White Discussion

2010-02-14T13:45:00.000-08:00

Christian radio host Dr. Michael Brown recently did a debate with Dr. James White. The debate lasted two days, and took place on Brown's call in show: The Line of Fire. Brown argued from a Non-Calvinist position, and White came from the Calvinist position. The questions included: Does God love everyone? Does God give everyone a genuine opportunity to be saved? What did Christ's atonement accomplish? Are the number of elect fixed? Does God reprobate specific individuals? Does Calvinism result in pride for its adherents?

Here are the link to Brown's blog (where you can also comment), and the direct mp3 links.
January 26, 2010 (mp3) - Brown and White discuss Calvinism - part #1
January 27, 2010 (mp3) - Brown and White discuss Calvinism - part #2
January 28, 2010 (mp3) - Calvinists call into Brown's show and ask him questions.

My thoughts:
Both theologians clearly had respect for each other and accepted each other as believers. Brown went out of his way to point out that Arminians and Calvinists agree on 99%, and that we are all brothers in Christ.

James White is an excellent debater, and I was afraid that he would clobber Brown. However, Brown did quite well. It no doubt helped that he was hosting the show, chose the format, and was the one asking the questions.

White depended very heavily on the "Two wills of God" theory - This is the Calvinist theory that God has a hidden decretive will that overrides and contradicts his revealed will. Thus God says that he doesn't want us to sin, and commands us not to sin, but he has secretly decreed that we will sin, and then damns us for doing what he has decreed (so goes the theory). I think the scriptural support for this theory is non-existent, and I would have like to have seen Brown point this out in stronger terms.

I would also have liked to see Brown better develop the concept of Prevenient Grace. PG largly mitigates many of the complaints that Calvinists often have about Arminian theology (that we believe we save ourselves, etc). Brown did develop this a little more on day two.

Haiti - Why do Disasters Happen?

2010-01-18T22:25:00.000-08:00

Why do disasters happen? What should Christians do when disasters happen? The recent earthquake in Haiti was catastrophic. Perhaps it has caused you to wonder if it was caused by God. I don't think that it was.

When a disaster occurs, sometimes Christians rush to judgment. We think that the disaster happend because the people who lived there were sinful, or perhaps their ancestors were sinful.

Something happened a long time ago in Haiti, and people might not want to talk about it, They were under the heel of the French. You know, Napoleon the third, or whatever. And they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said, ‘we will serve you if you will get us free from the French. True story. And so, the devil said, ‘OK, it's a deal.’ -Pat Robertson on the Haiti Earthquake

There are also some Christians who believe that God directly or indirectly causes all disasters. John Piper is one who holds to this view:

Jesus Christ controls the wind, including all tornados....The tornado in Minneapolis was a gentle but firm warning to the ELCA and all of us: Turn from the approval of sin. Turn from the promotion of behaviors that lead to destruction. -John Piper on the ELCA tornado.

God had a purpose for not holding up that bridge, knowing all that would happen, and he is infinitely wise in all that he wills. -John Piper on the Minnesota bridge collapse.

This type of speculation from Robertson and Piper is counterproductive because it attributes destructive events to God when God has not spoken. In reality the events can reasonably be attributed to other root causes. Earthquakes happen where there are fault lines. Tornadoes happen in tornado alley. Bridges and buildings collapse when they are not properly built or maintained.

In Haiti there were two factors that contributed to the disaster. First, there was a shallow fault line near to Port Au Prince. Second, many of the buildings were built poorly. These two factors adequately explain why the disaster occurred. There is no reason to attribute it to a curse or anything else.

Speculation like Roberson's and Piper's is also quite selective. When a disaster fits our paradigm we quickly assign blame. But when it strikes us personally, we respond differently. If Robertson's house was destroyed by hurricane, would he blame that on a curse? Probably not. If Piper's church was destroyed by a tornado, would he attribute it to sinful doctrine being taught? Probably not.

When Christians speak in such ways we damage ourselves. Rather than being salt and light to a world that needs us, we are seen as hypocritical and selectively judgmental. Pat Robertson perhaps meant well, but he damaged his Christian witness and held all believers up to ridicule. When disaster comes, Christian help. We grieve for those who are hungry and hurt. We give to those in need. We do not assign blame.

So why do disasters happen? There is not an easy answer, and perhaps it is dangerous to look for one. One thing that can be said is that we live in a fallen physical world. Creation is in decay and is awaiting liberation (Romans 8:18-21). God's will is not always done on earth, that is why we pray "Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven." (Matt 6:10)

Theologian Roger Olson argues that:

...what if God limits himself so that much of what happens in the world is due to human finitude and fallenness? What if God is in charge but not in control? What if God wishes that things could be otherwise and someday will make all things perfect?

And:

In this world, because of our ignorance and sinfulness, really bad things sometimes happen and people do really evil and wicked things. Not because God secretly plans and prods them, but because God has said to fallen, sinful people, "OK, not my will then, but thine be done -- for now." -Olson On the Minnesota bridge collapse.

Does God ever cause disaster? First and formost we should remember that Jesus came to bring life (John 10:10). When Jesus died he paid for the sins of the entire world. That includes the people of Haiti.

God can cause disaster as a form of judgment, however, he makes his intent known when he judges, he does not leave it wide open to interpretation. Greg Boyd notes that:

...the model of God bringing about disasters to punish people is rooted in the Old Testament. Here we several times find God using nature and human agents to punish people. (Though even back then this wasn’t God’s normal mode of operation). But in these contexts, God first gives ample warning about a coming judgment and he tells people exactly what he is doing. Punishment without teaching is not pedagogically effective.

Imagine a parent saying to their child, “I’m going to spank you whenever I want to but not tell you why.” It just doesn’t work! -Boyd, Why Did the 35W Collapse?

As noted above, John Piper has stated that "Jesus Christ controls the wind, including all tornados." This explanation does not line up with the scriptural account. In fact, scripture records that Jesus rebuked a storm (Mark 4:35-41). If Jesus causes all storms, he was rebuking himself.

In a fallen and decaying world bad things happen. Even to good people. If it greives us, we can be certain that it grieves God as well. In the meantime, we help those in need and we pray for the coming of God's kingdom. Only then will God's will be fully done on earth, just as it is in heaven.

Patty Thomas - Haiti

2010-01-17T13:37:00.000-08:00

Here is a blog with updates about what's going on in an orphanage in Haiti: Patty Thomas, News and Updates. Patty Thomas is connected to my local church, her two grown boys attend there.

Patty works in an orphanage near Port Au Prince. The orphanage takes care of about 90 children. The orphanage building was not damaged during the recent quake, however, the wall that surrounds it fell down. Given the general lawlessness going on there, it is a high priority to get the wall rebuilt.

The boys John and Todd Thomas will be leaving on Tuesday 1-19-10 to go down there and help out their mom. They will be taking at least one nurse with them. There have been some great things happening in our community related to this. One organization donated a large number of medical supplies, a credit union is raising money, and Home Depot donated building supplies and tools. They will be sending the supplies down with them.

Please keep the orphanage in your prayers! Here is a slide show of Patty and the kids.

The Meaning of "The Man Comes Around" by Johnny Cash

2010-01-08T03:00:00.000-08:00

"The Man Comes Around" is a song about judgment day. It was released in 2002, and was the title song for Johnny Cash's last album. The song has numerous Biblical references, many of which are cryptic.

The following is an interpretation. All Bible references are King James, since that's the version Cash quotes in the song.

And I heard, as it were, the noise of thunder: One of the four beasts saying: "Come and see." And I saw. And behold, a white horse.

This is a quote from Revelation 6:1-2. It references John's vision of the four horsemen of the Apocalypse, who bring disaster at the end of the world. "¹And I saw when the Lamb opened one of the seals, and I heard, as it were the noise of thunder, one of the four beasts saying, Come and see. ²And I saw, and behold a white horse: and he that sat on him had a bow; and a crown was given unto him: and he went forth conquering, and to conquer. "

There's a man going round taking names. And he decides who to free and who to blame. Everybody won't be treated all the same. There'll be a golden ladder reaching down. When the man comes around.

The "man going round taking names" has double meaning. It is a reference to a song by folk singer Lead Belly. It is also clearly a reference to Jesus and the Book of Life where the names of believers are recorded (Revelation 20:12, 15).

God decides who to free and who to blame. Those who believe in Jesus will be saved and will escape punishment. The ladder reaching down refers to Jacob's ladder (Genesis 28:12). It could also refer to Jesus (John 1:51). He is the ladder that gives us a way of escape from judgment.

The hairs on your arm will stand up. At the terror in each sip and in each sup. For you partake of that last offered cup, Or disappear into the potter's ground. When the man comes around.

The hairs on your arm will stand up. This is a reminder of the fear that God will command on judgment day. The terror in each sip and sup refers to body and blood of Christ which we symbolically take during communion (Matt 26:26-28). To partake of the last offered cup means to be saved at your last opportunity. On judgment day believers who are covered by the blood of Jesus will be saved. Non-believers will be lost and disappear into the potter's ground. The potter's ground is a reference to the field that the chief priest bought with Judas' betrayal money (Matt 27:5-7).

Hear the trumpets, hear the pipers. One hundred million angels singing. Multitudes are marching to the big kettle drum. Voices calling, voices crying. Some are born and some are dying. It's Alpha's and Omega's Kingdom come.

Hear the trumpets. In Biblical times important news was announced with trumpets. Revelation records seven plagues which are all hailed by trumpets. Trumpets will also announce Christ's new kingdom, and the raising of the dead (1 Cor 15:52).

Angels singing - Cash's brother Jack died in a terrible accident at a young age. His brother had a vision of angels while he was dying, and Johnny remembered this throughout his life. The Bible records there will be angels singing in heaven: "And I beheld, and I heard the voice of many angels round about the throne and the beasts and the elders: and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands;" (Rev 5:11). The multitudes marching probably refers to Revelation 5, where multitudes are worshiping God.

Voices calling, voices crying. One must follow Jesus in this life. It will be too late to turn on judgment day (Matt 7:22-23 , Heb 9:27).

Alpha and Omega are the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet, and are a name for God. "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last." (Rev 22:13). Kingdom come refers to when Jesus will return and establish his kingdom on earth (Rev 21). It is also part of the Lords prayer. "Thy kingdom come, thy will be done..." (Matt 6:10).

And the whirlwind is in the thorn tree. The virgins are all trimming their wicks. The whirlwind is in the thorn tree. It's hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

The whirlwind and thorn tree is a self reference. Cash had a dream where he saw Queen Elizabeth. She said to him, "Johnny, you're like a thorn tree in a whirlwind." Job 38:1 also references a whirlwind. The virgins trimming their wicks are a reference to a parable told by Jesus in Matthew 25. There are wise and foolish virgins. The wise ones have their wicks trimmed and wait for the bridegroom. The foolish ones miss out. The point of the parable is that we need to be ready for Jesus' return or we will miss out.

"It's hard for thee to kick against the pricks" may be a self reference, about how it was hard for Cash to follow God, but God kept calling him back. It is also a reference to the apostle Paul's conversion experience on the Damascus road (Acts 9:5 , 26:14). A prick (or goad) is a sharp stick used to prod livestock. The phrase in context means that it's hard for Paul to fight back against what Jesus is calling him to do. Cash identified with Paul, and wrote a book about Paul's conversion experience.

Till Armageddon, no Shalam, no Shalom. Then the father hen will call his chickens home. The wise men will bow down before the throne. And at his feet they'll cast their golden crown. When the man comes around.

Armageddon is a location in Israel, and a site of a huge battle that will take place before Christ returns to earth (Rev 16). Shalom is a Hebrew word that means peace. Shalam is a variation that probably means the same thing. There will be no peace until Jesus returns after Armageddon.

Then the father hen will call his chickens home. This echos Jesus' lament in Luke 13:34: "how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!". Jesus wanted to gather the people of Jerusalem up to follow him, like a hen gathers her chicks, but they would not. In the end, God will call his followers home. The chickens will come home to roost. :)

The wise men bow down and cast their crowns. The wise men may represent the church. This is a reference to Rev 4:10: "The four and twenty elders fall down before him that sat on the throne, and worship him that liveth for ever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne..."

Whoever is unjust, let him be unjust still. Whoever is righteous, let him be righteous still. Whoever is filthy, let him be filthy still. Listen to the words long written down, When the man comes around.

Whoever is unjust.... This is a quote from Revelation 22:11: "He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still." This portion of Rev 22 refers to the coming of Jesus. When he comes people will be found as they are, there will be no time for them to change at that point.

Listen to the words long written down. This means to listen and to follow what the Bible says.

And the whirlwind is in the thorn tree. The virgins are all trimming their wicks. The whirlwind is in the thorn tree. It's hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

In measured hundredweight and penny pound. When the man comes around.

In measured hundredweight... refers to Rev 6:6: "...A measure of wheat for a penny, and three measures of barley for a penny..." There is severe famine in the last days. A person has to work all day for a loaf of bread. A penny is what a person made in a day, and a measure of wheat is how much one would need for a loaf of bread.

And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts, And I looked and behold: a pale horse. And his name, that sat on him, was Death. And Hell followed with him.

The song closes with with the last of the four horsemen recorded in Revelation 6:7-8:⁷And when he had opened the fourth seal, I heard the voice of the fourth beast say, Come and see. ⁸And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth.

If you are interested in more about Cash's faith, see this article from Christianity today.

Arminian Audio - Jack Cottrell

2010-01-04T13:15:00.000-08:00

Here is a link to some audio resources by Jack Cottrell. Cottrell is a well known theologian from the Conservative Christian Church / Restoration movement. There is one link entitled "Once in Grace" that is a refutation of eternal security.

[17 Jan 2010, made correction of denomination]

HT: Steve Noel

Arminian and Calvinist Christmas Cards

2009-12-24T10:30:00.000-08:00

(This is a repost from last year. Merry Christmas!)

Arminian Christmas Card:

Calvinist Christmas Card:

Interesting Links - 12/19/09

2009-12-19T04:00:00.000-08:00

Ben Witherington has Handel's Messiah, the Story Behind the Classic. He notes that, "John Wesley was one of the ones who saw an early performance of this work. In his Journal he commented "there were some parts that were affecting, but I doubt it has staying power"."

The history of Hark the Herald Angels Sing. The original lyrics were written by Charles Wesley and then modified by George Whitefield (which reportedly made Charles furious). "Hark! how all the welkin ring", I think Whitefield was right on this one. It's good to see that a combined Arminian / Calvinist effort turned out a great classic Christmas song, even if Charles was displeased.

Check out the newly updated Wikipedia article: Conditional Perseverance of the Saints. Arminian Steve Witzki has spent time expanding the entry and adding primary sources references for everything.

Dan from Arminian Chronicles is doing a series on Romans 9, 10, and 11. For our Calvinist friends, Romans 10 and 11 are the chapters after Romans 9. ;)

A youtuber named by the name of Providential1611 has done a pretty funny presentation called FREE WILL Answering silly Calvinist challenges. HT: James Brown

Book Review: John Calvin Goes to Berkely

2009-12-18T12:32:00.000-08:00

Theology Made Accessible in a Novel.

John Calvin Goes to Berkely (author's website)
John Calvin Goes to Berkely (Amazon link)

This book is the first in a series from University Christian Fellowship. It is a novel that weaves the age old questions of predestination and election into an interesting story line. The local University Christian Fellowship in Cal Berkeley is fractured. One of the members is a staunch high Calvinist. He is attempting to “convert” the rest of the leadership to his point of view, and is receiving outside pressure from his pastor to make this happen. The story revolves around the UCF leadership. Can they be salt and light? How does the fellowship respond to the challenges of a secular university? Can they understand the mystery of predestination? Is it solvable? How will the president Alex Kim cope with the division this issue causes? Can he bring peace and make everyone in the fellowship happy? Or is conflict and separation unavoidable?

The author James McCarthy does a fine job in presenting the major points of Calvinism and Arminianism, and the history behind these movements. The story is written in such a way that these theological points of view are made interesting and accessible to the average reader. It is fair to state that the author comes to basically Arminian conclusions regarding the issues at hand. The book also contains a bit of interesting history about Berkeley. The motto of Berkeley is: Fiat Lux. “Let there be light”. The author is obviously familiar with the campus. The reader will come away with a better understanding of how this rather unique college works.

Book Giveaway - John Calvin Goes to Berkely

2009-12-10T20:55:00.000-08:00

I have an extra review copy of the novel John Calvin Goes to Berkely, signed by the author. It is a fictional account about what happens when a staunch Calvinist pushes his agenda in the local college Christian fellowship. Richard Coords has a review here.

I will give the book to the first person who leaves a comment and meets the following conditions:

1) You run an Arminian friendly blog
2) You are willing to post a review.
3) You live in the USA.

If interested, leave a comment and drop me an email with your mail address. I can be reached at: nampamarinerfan_at_gmail_dot_com

A Comparison of Wesleyanism and Classical Arminianism

2009-12-08T10:30:00.000-08:00

Wesleyanism and Classical Arminianism have much in common, however, there are a few differences. Here's a list that compares some of the differences in belief. These are generalities, as particular beliefs often vary from person to person. And some of these categories overlap a bit. For example: One's view of sanctification influences one's view of righteousness.

Sanctification / Holiness: Wesleyans place an emphasis on entire sanctification (although perhaps less so though than they used to). Classical Arminians do not hold to entire sanctification. Wesleyans teach that Christians can be completely sanctified in this lifetime, and can live a holy life. Sanctification is not only inward, it is also outward, and motivates a life of service. John Wesley called this "Holiness of Heart and Life". Some Wesleyans see this as a process. Some see it as an instant second work of grace. Some a combination of the two. J Kenneth Grider has a book about this. Entire Sanctification: The Distinctive Doctrine of Wesleyanism.

Atonement: Wesleyans often hold to the moral government view of the atonement. Jesus suffered and died as a governmental act to show that God was displeased with the sin of man. Anyone who accepts the suffering of Jesus will be saved. Classical Arminians usually hold to substitutionary atonement. Jesus died as a substitute for mankind, taking our place. Those who believe will be saved. It should be noted that John Wesley himself held to substitutionary atonement. However, most of his followers have held to the governmental view, particularly since the late 1800's. This was the view originally articulated by the Remonstrant Hugo Grotius, and later advocated by evangelist Charles Finney, and Methodist theologian John Miley.

Forfeiting Salvation: Wesleyans believe salvation can be forfeited by a deliberately sinful life. It can be regained by repentance. Classical Arminians have different opinions on the matter. Some agree with Wesleyans that salvation can be forfeited and regained. Some believe that if salvation is forfeited it cannot be regained again. Some believe that salvation cannot be forfeited. Arminius himself never took a position on this issue. As a side note, I think there is a trend toward identifying with Classical Arminianism among some in the SBC, because they can still hold to "once saved always saved". This is good. Calvinism has become very divisive among the SBC and the folks who believe that Jesus died for the world are taking another look at Arminianism.

Righteousness: Wesleyans believe in imputed righteousness and imparted righteousness. Classical Arminians generally hold to only imputed righteousness. Imputed righteousness is a forensic righteousness before God. It teaches that that we are still sinful at heart after becoming Christians, but God the Father ignores our sin because of our faith in Jesus. When he looks at us he sees the righteousness of Jesus instead of our sin. Imparted righteousness teaches that we are acceptable to the Father because the blood of Jesus has really made us pure and has changed us inside. We are holy in God's sight because Jesus has genuinely made us so.

Spirit Focus: Wesleyans place a priority on the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and gifts of the Spirit (healing, prophesy, etc). Charismatic Wesleyans also hold that the gift of tongues is one of the evidences of the filling of the Spirit. Classical Arminians believe in the filling of the Spirit, but generally have less focus on gifts of the Spirit.

Foreknowledge: Wesleyans are more friendly to open theism, although many also hold to classical foreknowledge. Open theism teaches that God does not exhaustively know the future because the future is open and cannot be known. Classical Arminians believe that God exhaustively knows the future.

Life is Hard - by Heidi Jackson

2009-11-30T00:30:00.000-08:00

Here is a song written and sung by my daughter Heidi. I hope it blesses you as it has me.

Life is hard ‘cause we make mistakes.
Life is hard ‘cause we sin.
Life is hard ‘cause we have bad days.
And it’s hard ‘cause we’re far from God.

But God gave us a gift.
For whoever believes in him,
Shall not die, but have eternal life.
There’s no doubt when God’s around
‘cause he loves us, and he’s with us.

Life is hard ‘cause we’re getting sick.
Life is hard ‘cause we’re sad.
Life is hard, cause we’re getting mad.
And it’s hard ‘cause we’re far from God.

Life is hard, cause we get bullied.
Life is hard, cause we’re scared
Life is hard, cause we lose our friends.
And it’s hard ‘cause we’re far from God.

Interesting Links - 11/29/09

2009-11-29T00:00:00.000-08:00

Dr. Jeffrey E. Greenway, a UMC Pastor gives a review of the Wesley Study Bible. He comments on the Calvinist resurgence. "In my opinion, the trend of the majority of modern evangelicalism has a Calvinist/Reformed bent...However, I also believe that the world and culture in which most of us find ourselves is ripe for a resurgence of a Wesleyan approach to faith and practice."

Looks like Bill O'Reilly is not a Calvinist. In this video he mentions (in passing) some of the problems of Calvinism. Go to 2:45 for the pithy version. (HT: Contemporary Calvinist)

Blogger Peter Churcher is doing a series called "Out of the Closet", where he gives his reasons for holding to certain doctrines. In this post he explains why he is an Arminian. "Arminianism is a belief in God's grace first and foremost, with an acceptance of our God given free will and responsibility. Arminianism is the belief that we are all spiritually blind and are in need to God's grace."

William Birch gives three reasons why Calvinism should be rejected: Historical Verity Belongs to Arminianism, God is to be Glorified, and Scripture and the Significance of Hermeneutics.

According to Nick Norelli, Christian radio hosts James White (Calvinist) and Michael Brown (Arminian) are looking into a possible debate.

Fun Little Poem

2009-11-22T16:40:00.000-08:00

A little poetry about a certain opponent of Arminius. :)

Franciscus Gomarus was a Superlapsarius;
He actually gave Adam an excuse,
God had decreed, foreordained Adam's deed
God had precooked Adam's Goose!

(Author unknown, quoted by Vic Reasoner in his audio series on systematic theology, "Attributes of God, part 1")

Servetus the Evangelical out of the Closet?

2009-11-18T12:47:00.000-08:00

Hat tip to Steve Noel.

According to Steve, "Apparently Servetus the Evangelical is a golfer named Kermit Zarley. Never heard of him before but his clues match up with this fellow."

If you don't know who Servetus the Evangelical is, his website is here. Mr Zarley's website is here.

Interesting Links - 11/14/09

2009-11-14T12:45:00.000-08:00

Wesley the Movie premiers tonight in Winston-Salem, NC. The Winston-Salem Journal has an article about the production. For more info see the movie website or Facebook page.

Vision.org has a good short biography about Calvin: John Calvin - Geneva's Iron Hand.

SLW presents a cure for the TULIP.

The New American (a conservative opinion site) has an article that is critical of Al Gore and his climate change theories. The author, James Heiser, ties Gore's theory to Arminianism. "In a style suited for a culture swamped by typically Arminian thinking, Mr. Gore assures his readers that salvation is in their hands."

Calvinist Tim Haufler takes a look at 1 John 2:2. What does "whole world" mean?

Arminian Audio: Dr. Michael Brown

2009-11-11T10:20:00.000-08:00

Here is an audio link to a Christian radio call in show hosted by a person named Dr. Michael Brown. He explains why he is not a Calvinist.

Calvinism vs Arminianism - Part 1: November 4, 2009
Calvinism vs Arminianism - Part 2: November 5, 2009
Why I Am Not a Calvinist – Part 1: November 9, 2009
Why I Am Not a Calvinist – Part 2: November 10, 2009

Also available by podcast

Of interest:

He gives an account how he was a Calvinist for five years and then later rejected the system.
He became a Calvinist through intellectual studies and not by "being on his knees".
For him Calvinism promoted intellectual pride and a lack of spiritual vitality.
He noted the tendency of Calvinists to have a fixation on certain doctrines.

HT: Arminian Today

John Goodwin's "Redemption Redeemed" Online!

2009-11-05T11:59:00.001-08:00

The Society of Evangelical Arminians has obtained a PDF of "Redemption Redeemed" by John Goodwin. It can be found here.

From the website:

John Goodwin's Redemption Redeemed may be the best defense of Arminianism ever written. Published in 1651 by the Arminian Puritan John Goodwin (1593-1665), it is written in seventeenth century English with a Puritan writing style, which can make for challenging reading. But it contains tremendous biblical exegesis. The patient reader will be rewarded with a powerful, classic, comprehensive, biblical defense of five point Reformation Arminian theology.

And also:

A revised, shortened edition has been produced, which mildly updates the language and provides excerpts concentrated on defending unlimited atonement from the much larger work made available here: Redemption Redeemed: A Puritan Defense of Unlimited Atonement

Thanks to John Wagner for all the hard work he has done to make these resources available.

Women Leaders in the Wesleyan Movements

2009-11-01T20:30:00.000-08:00

This post contains some short biographies of women who were early leaders (prior to 1900) in the various Wesleyan inspired movements. The Methodist, Holiness, and Charismatic movements all have a rich egalitarian history.

Due to the length of this post, many worthy names are omitted. This list should not be considered exhaustive.

Sarah Crosby (1729-1804) Sarah was born in Leeds, Yorkshire. A former Calvinist, she became a Methodist after hearing John Wesley preach. In 1761 she became one of the first female preachers in Methodism. She traveled and preached extensively, with the encouragement of John Wesley.

Barbara Heck (1734-1804) An immigrant from Ireland, Barbara was instrumental in the founding of the Methodist movement in New York state. She is known as the mother of American Methodism. She was a loyalist (supporter of England). After the American Revolution, her family relocated to Canada and she continued her work there.

Mary Bosanquet Fletcher (1739-1815) Mary was an early leader in the Methodist movement. She was a preacher and teacher. She managed a house in London to take care of the poor and destitute. Later in life she married John Fletcher (a close associate of John Wesley). After Mr. Fletcher's death, she continued in ministry for another 30 years.

Jarena Lee (1783-1849) Lee was the first female preacher in the African Methodist Episcopal Church. She was born in New Jersey (a free state). In 1819 she received permission from the AME to preach. She was an evangelist who traveled throughout the East and Midwestern United States, including the slave states of Virginia and Maryland. She wrote a small autobiography (online here), where she gives a moving account of her conversion, and how she was called to preach. " For as unseemly as it may appear now-a-days for a woman to preach, it should be remembered that nothing is impossible with God. And why should it be thought impossible, heterodox, or improper for a woman to preach? seeing the Savior died for the woman as well as for the man."

Fanny Butterfield Newell (1793-1824) Fanny was the wife of a well known Methodist preacher, and also preached herself. They helped found a Methodist church in Sydney Maine, Fanny preached in the New England states.

Sojourner Truth (1797-1883) Sojourner was was a fiery Methodist, who spoke on the topics of abolition, women's suffrage, prison reform, and capital punishment. Her early life contains the awful stories common to slave women. She was born in New York and became emancipated when New York outlawed slavery. "Where did Christ come from? From God and a woman. Man had nothing to do with Him!"

Juliann Jane Tillman (?-?) Tillman was preacher in the AME in the early part of the 19th century. She was probably an itinerant evangelist. In the early days of the AME, women were permitted to preach, but not to be in leadership in the local church. The lithograph on the left was done in 1844.

Phoebe Palmer (1807-1874) Palmer was an evangelist, author, and prayer warrior. She was instrumental in the founding of the American Holiness movement. She had a heart for the poor, and started an inner city mission in New York City. She wrote a book entitled "The Promise of the Father" which advocated women in leadership. "Earnest prayers, long fasting, and burning tears may seem befitting, but cannot move the heart of infinite love to a greater willingness to save. God's time is now. The question is not, What have I been? or What do I expect to be? But, Am I now trusting in Jesus to save to the uttermost? If so, I am now saved from all sin."

Laura Smith Haviland (1808-1898) Laura was the daughter of Quaker leaders and later worked with the Wesleyan Methodists in the fight against slavery. She was a well known abolitionist, and active in the underground railroad (helping African slaves escape to free states). The Wesleyan Methodist church recognized her work by giving her a district appointment (the same authority that a pastor of a church would receive).

Fanny J. Crosby (1820-1915) Crosby penned the lyrics for more than 8000 poems and hymns. She sometimes used pseudonyms when writing because publishers were reluctant to fill their hymnals entirely with her work. Crosby memorized long passages of scripture. She was a frequent public speaker, and a sought after revival preacher. She was an advocate of education for the blind (being blinded herself in early childhood). Blessed assurance, Jesus is mine! Oh, what a foretaste of glory divine! Heir of salvation, purchase of God, Born of His Spirit, washed in His blood.

Sarah Smith (1822-1908) Known as "Mother Smith", Sarah was a believer in the power of God. She had little formal eduction, knowing only how to write simple print. Originally a timid person, she became a bold prayer warrior after a sanctification experience. At the age of 61, she first felt the call to preach. She joined a group of holiness evangelists who held revival meetings and planted new churches in many different states. These churches eventually formed the "Anderson Church of God" denomination.

Julia Foote (1823-1900) Julia was born in New york, a child of former slaves. She was a longtime member of the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church (AMEZ). By the late 1840's she felt a call to preach, and became a traveling evangelist.

Mary Clarke Nind (1825-1905) Mary was a leader in the Methodist missionary movement. She founded the "Woman's Foreign Missionary Society". Originally a Congregationalist, Mary became a Methodist because of her interest in holiness doctrine, and because of her desire to preach the Gospel. She was affectionately called "Our Little Bishop".

Annie Wittenmyer (1827-1900) Nicknamed "God's angel", Annie was best known for her work assisting wounded Union soldiers during the American civil war. President Grant is quoted as saying "No soldier on the firing line gave more heroic service than she did." Annie had a special heart for children. She wrote children's hymns, established Sunday schools, and dedicated time to assisting war orphans. She was was a writer and leader in the Temperance movement. She was active in leadership in the development of the state of Iowa.

Catherine Booth (1829-1890) William and Catherine Booth founded the Salvation Army. Catherine's leadership skills and strong Wesleyan theology were instrumental in the formation of the organization. She often preached to to more affluent audiences, urging them to minister to the poor. She was involved in the temperance movement, seeing the effects of alcohol abuse. Catherine was known as the "Army Mother".

Jennie Fowler Willing (1834-1916) Willing founded the "New York Evangelistic Training School", which was a missionary training center. She was ordained in 1873. She was an early Christian expert on Mormonism, and wrote a book entitled: Mormonism: The Mohammedanism of the West.

Mary Depew (1836-1892) Mary was an evangelist for the Wesleyan Methodists, and was a major influence in the Wesleyan Holiness revival. She preached throughout Indiana, Ohio and Michigan.

Amanda Berry Smith (1837-1915) Amanda was known as "the colored evangelist". Born a slave, by 1840 her parents had saved enough money to purchase the family's freedom. They moved from Maryland to Pennsylvania, and joined the abolitionist movement. Amanda taught herself to read by cutting letters from the newspapers that her father brought home. By the 1870's Amanda had become a well known holiness evangelist, frequently preaching at revivals and camp meetings. She traveled throughout the United States. She spent 12 years abroad, doing missionary work in Europe, India, and Africa. She founded an orphanage in Chicago.

Elizabeth Sisson (1843-1934) Elizabeth was a writer, missionary, and preacher. She was an early missionary to India, where she ministered among the Hindus. After returning to the USA she became a popular evangelist and speaker in the young charismatic movement. She was a co-editor for a publication called "Triumph of Faith" (with Carrie Judd, see below). Elizabeth was involved in the founding of the Assemblies of God, and was ordained in 1917.

Anna (Annie) Hanscome (1845? - 1899) Annie was a holiness preacher. In 1890, she founded a church in Malden, Massachusetts. She was ordained in 1892 by a holiness group that would later join the Nazarene church, thus making her the first of many ordained females in the denomination. The church she founded continues today, and is one of the oldest Nazarene churches in existence.

Emma Whittemore (1850-1931) Emma Whittemore was an unlikely leader. She and her husband Sydney and were wealthy New York socialites. They both felt called to serve the poor. Emma was quite timid and shy, until the Holy Spirit called her into service. She founded the "Door of Hope" mission in New York City, which ministered to street girls. The Whittemores became leaders in the Salvation Army, and were also active in the foundation of Gospel Rescue Missions. Emma was a popular public speaker.

Carrie Judd Montgomery (1858-1946) After being bedridden for a number of years, Carrie had an amazing healing experience. Afterwords she began to share her story with others. She was a well respected person, and preached to widely different audiences. She shared her message with multiracial groups, and with any church who would open their doors. She was involved with the Salvation Army, and was acquainted with many leaders in the various Wesleyan-Holiness movements. She was involved in the founding of the Christian Missionary Alliance, and of the Assemblies of God. At a time when many were suspicious of the new Charismatic movement, Carrie was a unifier who helped to promote unity between Holiness and Charismatic groups.

Rachel Bradley. Rachel's motto was "The World for Jesus". She was a Free Methodist. She founded a number of missions and outreach programs in Chicago, the oldest of which was the Olive Branch Mission, established in 1867. At the time, prostitution was rampant in the city, even among young girls, who were bought and sold by the brothels. Rachel took girls off the street and taught them skills in order to give them an alternate means to provide for themselves. The mission is still in operation today.

Helenor M. Davison Helenor M. Davison was a Methodist, and was ordained in 1866 by the North Indiana Conference of the Methodist Protestant Church, probably making her the first ordained woman in the American Methodist tradition.

Florence Lee (1859-1958) Florence was an ordained minister in the Pilgrim Holiness Church (A parent body of the Wesleyan Church). She was an evangelist, ran a rescue home in Colorado, was active in the PCH Bible college, and was an editor of a magazine called "The Mission Advance".

Fannie McDowell Hunter (1860-1912?) Fannie was the grand daughter of a Methodist circuit rider. She was a holiness evangelist, and was involved in the founding of the Church of the Nazarene. She wrote a book entitled "Women preachers" which was a compilation of stories of contemporary women preachers.

Dr Lilian Yeomans (1861-1942) Lilian and her mother Amelia were physicians in Manitoba. They learned medicine in Michigan, as Canada did not admit women into med school at the time. They provided health care for women and children, the poor in their community. Lilian became addicted to morphine after using it on the job. After nearly dying, she was healed from the addiction. She gave up her medical practice, and became an evangelist and a missionary to the Cree Indians. She wrote about diving healing and how God had healed her addition. She was a popular speaker on the topic of healing.

Alma B. White (1862-1946) Alma was an amazing woman, yet not without controversy because of her racism. She founded the "Pillar of Fire" church denomination. She was the first female bishop of a denomination in the United States. She was involved in the temperance and woman's suffrage movements.

Rachel Sizelove (1864-1941) Rachel was an itinerant evangelist. Initially a Free Methodist, she became Charismatic after hearing William Seymour preach at the Azuza Street revival in Los Angeles. She founded the original Assembly of God church in Springfield, Missouri.

Mary Lee Cagle (1864-1955) Mary was a holiness preacher from Alabama. She felt the call to preach at a young age, but was discouraged by her family from following the call. She married an evangelist named Robert Lee Harris, and first learned to preach by observing him. After Harris died of tuberculosis, Mary began preaching on her own. She traveled with a group of women evangelists. She also often preached to black congregations. This was quite unusual at the time for a white woman from rural Alabama. She helped to found a number of holiness churches in Alabama, Texas and New Mexico. She was involved in the formation of the Church of the Nazarene.

Santos Elizondo (1867-1941) Santos was born in Mexico. She became a Christian at one of Phineas Bresee's Holiness revivals in Los Angeles. She founded at least two churches, one in El Paso, TX, and another in Juarez, Mexico. She lead Nazarene missions in Mexico for 35 years. While there, she founded orphanages and ministered to the poorest of the poor. Because of her servant heart, she was able to overcome much of the initial Mexican cultural hostility to her work (being Protestant and female were two big strikes). A number of prominent priests and officials attended her funeral.

Elsie Wallace (?-?) In 1897 Elsie founded a holiness mission in Spokane, WA. The mission was "literally filled on its four sides with saloons and places of wickedness." In 1902 the mission was reorganized as a church, and Elsie was unanimously called to become the first pastor. The church exists today as "Spokane First Nazarene Church". Elsie also started churches in Ashland, OR; Boise, ID; Walla Walla, WA and Seattle, WA. In addition, she was a district superintendent (in charge of all churches in a region). The Pentecostal Messenger reported that Pastor Wallace “is indeed one of the best pastors we ha[ve] ever seen anywhere, and is doing a great work."

References:

Spiritual Chain Reactions: Women Used of God - A list of early Assembly of God leaders.
Wesleyan Holiness Women - The history of women preachers in the Holiness movement.
Living the Legacy - An article about Women Missions in the Methodist Church
Empowered Foremothers - An article about how today's Christian feminists can learn from the leadership of early Wesleyan women.
American Women in Mission - Online Google book.
Turn the Pulpit Loose - Article on women preachers from the last two centuries.
Why I Favor Women in Ministry - by Ken Schenk (Professor from Indiana Wesleyan)
God's Word to Women - A brief history of some women in ministry.
A Woman's Place? - Online book by C.S. Cowles.

In memory of my grandmother Lela Jackson. G'ma was an ordained minister (and many other things).

Interesting Links - 11/01/09

2009-11-01T05:00:00.000-08:00

The Spokane Examiner has an article entitled: A Methodist's Take on Predestination and Free Will. (HT: Wesley Wong)

Richard Coords takes a look at a dissertation that explores the potential Gnostic influence on Augustine’s doctrine of Predestination.

Blogger Josh Taylor has an excellent piece on Justification by Faith.

Calvinist Kevin DeYoung asks: Can God Know Everything and Still Give Us Free Will? Be sure to see Adam O's comment.

Hyper-Calvinist Bill Parker says Calvinists aren't saved if they defend Arminians.

Destiny or Free Will? Christianity Today's Todd Hertz writes about a new ABC TV series that will "explore the nature of destiny and the human condition."

A Problem for Open Theism

2009-10-29T11:55:00.000-07:00

Open Theists deny God's foreknowledge because they believe that if the future is known it is determined. Calvinists and Open Theists agree on a principle of foreknowledge. If the future is certain, it is necessary.

Calvinists affirm the exhaustive foreknowledge of God, and thereby deny the possibility of libertarian free will. Open Theists take the other route. They affirm libertarian free will, and thereby deny the possibility of God's exhaustive foreknowledge.

Arminians make a distinction between certainty and necessity. This enables us to affirm both exhaustive foreknowledge and libertarian free will. The fact that something is foreknown by God makes it certain, but it does not make it necessary. If an event is certain but not necessary, libertarian free will is maintained. God knows everything we will do, but his knowing is not the cause of us doing it. Rather, our doing it is the cause of his knowing it. His knowing is dependent on our actions.¹

If it's possible for God to know the future with certainty and for man to have free will, there is no reason to be an Open Theist. If the Open Theist recognizes this Arminian distinction, he loses the justification for his system. And in the end, the fact that Open Theism does not recognize the distinction creates big problems for the system.

The Open system is not always open. In order to account for prophesy, Open Theists make a distinction that God can settle portions of the future if he wants to. In the Open system anytime the future is settled, the event is necessary. Or put another way, anytime God has foreknowledge it is because God is going to cause an event to take place. Greg Boyd states it like this:

The open view holds that some of the future is open, not all of it. God can pre-settle as much of the future as he wants to pre-settle. If, in order to fulfill specific prophecies, God needed to providentially orchestrate things so that certain people with evil characters played out their evil intentions in specific ways, he could easily do this, and do so with impunity.²

Notice how what Boyd says sounds exactly like Calvinism! In his view the only way certain foreknowledge can be achieved is by God providentially orchestrating evil people to do evil things. His use of the word "orchestrating" is equivocation. In his view, the only way God can know the future is by settling it himself. God makes certain aspects of the future necessary, and accomplishes this by causing evil people to do evil things. Boyd does not explain how libertarian free will is maintained in this view. He cannot, because God "settling" the future in this way is not compatible with libertarian free will.

Scripture indicates that Jesus had specific foreknowledge of what his disciples would do. This presents problems for the open view given their claim that foreknowledge equals necessity.

Here are two specific examples from Matthew 26:

[Judas' betrayal] When evening came, Jesus was reclining at the table with the Twelve. And while they were eating, he said, "I tell you the truth, one of you will betray me." They were very sad and began to say to him one after the other, "Surely not I, Lord? Jesus replied, "The one who has dipped his hand into the bowl with me will betray me. The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born." Then Judas, the one who would betray him, said, "Surely not I, Rabbi?" Jesus answered, "Yes, it is you." Matthew 26:20-25 (NIV)

[Peter's denial and the falling away of the disciples] Then Jesus told them, "This very night you will all fall away on account of me, for it is written: " 'I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered.' But after I have risen, I will go ahead of you into Galilee." Peter replied, "Even if all fall away on account of you, I never will." "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "this very night, before the rooster crows, you will disown me three times." But Peter declared, "Even if I have to die with you, I will never disown you." And all the other disciples said the same. Matthew 26:31-35 (NIV)

We see here several examples of the genuine foreknowledge of Jesus - the betrayal of Judas, the denial of Peter, and the falling away of the disciples. If the open view is true, Jesus foreknowledge made these events necessary. The disciples had no free will on any of these matters. By knowing their actions, Jesus made Judas betray him, he made Peter deny him, and he made all of the disciples fall away. Just like in Calvinism, Open Theism has God causing people to do evil things. Remember that in the open view there is no free will if the future is settled.

The only other option is for Open Theists is to contort this passage into some sort of elaborate prediction. This is untenable for several reasons. First, Jesus says "you will" not "I predict that you will". Second, Jesus quotes prophesy: "This very night you will all fall away on account of me, for it is written..." Third, the nature of Jesus foreknowledge is too specific for a prediction: Peter will deny Jesus three times before the rooster crows. The only reasonable reading of this passage is that Jesus had genuine foreknowledge of his disciples actions before they made them.

The Arminian view of this passage has no difficulties. The Arminian view imputes no evil to Jesus. Arminians believe that foreknowledge is dependent on the act. Jesus knew that his disciples would do these things, but he did not cause their actions. His knowledge was certain, but it was dependent on the free will actions of the disciples themselves. Thus, Judas is at fault for betraying Jesus. Judas betrayed Jesus because he freely chose to. Likewise, Peter is at fault for denying Jesus. Peter denied Jesus because he freely chose to.

In conclusion Open Theism is in error when it does not make a distinction between certainty and necessity. If Open Theists made such a distinction, their system would not be necessary. And by ignoring the distinction, they impugn the goodness of God in the same way Calvinists do.

In the Open view, any time that the future is "settled", God turns into a Calvinist.

-------------------------

¹ For a more detailed explanation of the difference between certainty and necessity, see Thomas Ralston, Can Free Agency be Harmonized With Divine Foreknowledge?

² Greg Boyd, How does an Open Theist explain all the prophecies fulfulled in the life of Jesus?

The Roy Houser Gospel Band

2009-10-24T15:55:00.000-07:00

Growing up my family always went to church on Sunday nights. Sunday nights were less formal than Sunday mornings. Choruses would be sung, there would be a time for testimonies, the message would be shorter. I liked Sunday nights. I was allowed to wear shorts on Sunday nights.

Occasionally we would be treated to a performance by the Roy Houser Gospel band. More about the band in a moment, but first a little about Roy. He was a saint in his early seventies. He was married and had children and grandchildren who attended our church. Roy was a great guy, his love for the Lord was obvious. He was a person who reached out to others, and declared the love of Jesus.

Roy had his own gospel band. He was the leader, and played the bass guitar. Another lady played the accordion, someone else would play the piano. They had a somewhat folksy style. The band was not terribly talented, probably the reason they always performed on Sunday nights.

The band irritated my mom a little bit. When she heard that they were going to play she would say "oh brother!". I liked the band, but not so much for the quality of music. It was nice to see a group of people playing who obviously loved the Lord.

I first realized that electric guitars weren't evil because Roy had one. He had a bass guitar. It looked like something a rock band might use. My keen young mind realized that if Roy had an electric guitar and brought it to church, electric guitars must not be so bad.

Over the years it seemed like Roy's band might die out. Some of the other performers aged and were unable to play. The band played less often. It made me sad.

But the band was going to live on.

One day Roy came up to me and said "Hey boy! How would you like to play in my band?" Roy never called me by my name. He always said "Hey boy!". I don't think he knew my name. Nonetheless I was honored to play in the band (I played the trumpet). I wasn't the only new person to join. Roy was busy recruiting. The band would survive. A younger group now, with Roy still at bass. We still weren't terribly talented.

One day I realized that fine music wasn't the point of the band. It never had been. For Roy it was about praising the Lord and reaching out to others. He found people, like me, who enjoyed playing music, and who he could minister to. He brought us together. He told us how Jesus had worked in his life, and how Jesus could work in our lives too.

I played in the band until I went to college. After I left, Roy was still busy recruiting other band members.

Roy died about 10 years ago. Today he is no doubt playing his bass guitar for the Lord. I look forward to the day too when I go to heaven. I will see Roy there. I know what he will say too. "Hey boy! How would you like to play in my band?". Then we will play music for the Lord.

400 Years Since the Death of Arminius

2009-10-19T08:35:00.000-07:00

Today marks 400 years since the death of Jacob Arminius. It seems an appropriate day to recognize him because it means that he has been in heaven with the Lord for 400 years!

Here are a some sites that are recognizing the day:

SEA and Classical Arminianism: ARMINIUS 400: The Legacy of Jacob Arminius
Arminian Today: The 400th Anniversary of Arminius' death
de Remonstranten: Arminius, Arminianism, and Europe. An International Conference
Brennon's Thoughts: In Memory of Jacob Arminius
The Scriptorium: Arminius the Calvinist
Arminian Chronicles: Arminius' Impact on Calvinism

Reformed Blogs giving props (Hats off to our Reformed brothers!)
Pilgrim People: How Reformed must a Reformed minister be?
Reformed Insights: Calvinists and This Month of October: Some Opportunities

Know of any other sites recognizing the day? Drop me a comment and I'll add it!

Interesting Links - 10/18/09

2009-10-18T12:00:00.000-07:00

Dr. Tim Pierce (pastor and professor) is doing an ongoing series about his journey out of Calvinism - what originally attracted him to it, and why he is no longer a Calvinist. " Part 1, Part2, Part3

Pastor George Zeller writes about the danger of teaching that Christ died only for the elect.

Calvinist Roy Orlund writes about placing love of brethren ahead of doctrinal distinctives. "Whatever divides us emotionally from other Bible-believing, Christ-honoring Christians is a “plus” we’re adding to the gospel. " HT: Seeking Disciple

Who were the Sadducees? Here is a nice little overview by Ken Schenk.

Blogger Jonathan Robinson explains what is wrong with TULIP.

The Jealousy of God and Calvinism

2009-10-15T06:00:00.000-07:00

Do not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God. -Exodus 34:14

A disturbing aspect of Calvinism is how it does damage to God's character. By improperly defining the sovereignty of God, Calvinists cannot adequately account for other aspects of God's character.

Calvinism is not compatible with the jealousy of God. If depraved humanity is doing what God has decreed, the jealousy of God is not real. If God's jealousy is genuine, determinism must be false. God's is jealous because his people, whom he loves, are not in relationship with him as he would prefer.

One of the Hebrew names for God is El Kanna (or El Qanna). Jealous God. El is a title, and indicates an intrinsic aspect of who God is.

El Shaddi - Mighty God
El Olam - Eternal God
El Elyon - Most High God
El Roi - All Seeing God
El Kanna - Jealous God

God's jealousy is on the same level as his qualities that we typically associate with sovereignty - qualities like might and omnipresence.

God is jealous because he is sovereign and his people behave like he is not. God created us and sustains us. He is the only one worthy to be praised and worshiped. He does not settle for being one of many. He is THE one, there is no other. "Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength." (Deut 6:5). When we fall short of this command, God is jealous. And rightfully so. Do not follow other gods, the gods of the peoples around you; for the LORD your God, who is among you, is a jealous God and his anger will burn against you, and he will destroy you from the face of the land. (Deut 6:13-15)

The prominence of the jealous God is apparent in the second commandment: "You shall not make for yourself an idol....You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God." (Literally: I Yahweh Elohim-of you El Kanna -Exodus 20:4-5 Hebrew interlinear)

The jealous nature of the Lord is often spoken of in scripture (Ex 20:5, 34:14; Deut 4:24; 5:9; 6:15; Jos 24:19; Isa. 9:7; Zech. 1:14, 8:2.)

God's jealousy indicates his commitment. He cannot be jealous if he does not care. God's jealousy indicates his involvement. He cannot be jealous if he created a world that is on fatalistic auto-pilot.

God's jealousy is active. Kanna communicates a sense of being committed to a course of action. It is sometimes translated as zealous. "Of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end...The zeal of the LORD Almighty will accomplish this." (literally - kanna of Yahweh Isaiah 9:7 Hebrew interlinear).

In the New Testament, a zealot (like Simon the zealot) was called Kananaios. The zealots were willing to die to free Israel from Rome. God is willing to die to free us from sin. The jealousy of God is not the sort where he sits and pouts. God's jealousy motivated him to send Jesus as the atoning sacrifice for our sins. God's jealousy is always a catalyst to action.

Human jealousy is usually a bad thing. It is self-centered and covetous. We want something that is not ours. We selfishly desire someone who does not rightfully belong to us. In relationships, human jealousy is interested in self gratification and not the well being of the other. God desires our well being. He is jealous for our completeness in him. He knows that to be in relationship with him is the only thing that will ever truly fulfill us. God is jealous when we don't follow him. He is jealous for us (Zech 8:2). He is jealous when our loyalties are divided. God wants us to be the people that he intended us to be.

The book of Hoesa gives insight into the jealousy of God. God's relationship with Israel was likened to Hosea's relationship with Gomer.

The LORD said to me, "Go, show your love to your wife again, though she is loved by another and is an adulteress. Love her as the LORD loves the Israelites, though they turn to other gods and love the sacred raisin cakes." (Hosea 3:1)

The jealousy of God shows his vulnerability. The God of the Bible is hurt and experiences pain when we reject him. As Gomer was unfaithful to Hosea and caused him pain, Israel was unfaithful to God and caused him pain. God's relationship with Israel was based in love, and was like a marriage covenant. When Israel violated its marriage vow, God was jealous. He was jealous because he was rejected by his covenant people whom he loved and cared for.

Jealousy does not make sense in the Calvinist system. Determinism mocks it. Detachment makes it impossible. Arbitrary wrath makes it irrelevant.

The jealousy of God is not genuine in a world where events are inevitably determined. A.W. Pink wrote that:

God did not merely decree to make man, place him upon the earth, and then leave him to his own uncontrolled guidance; instead, He fixed all the circumstances in the lot of individuals, and all the particulars which will comprise the history of the human race from its commencement to its close.

John Calvin wrote:

men do nothing save at the secret instigation of God, and do not discuss and deliberate on any thing but what he has previously decreed with himself and brings to pass by his secret direction.

Louis Berkhof wrote:

The decree of God however, carries with it necessity. God has decreed to effectuate all things or, if He has not decreed that, He has at least determined that they must come to pass. He has decided the course of man's life for him.

In Calvinism, God becomes jealous of the course of man's life that he has decided for him! God is jealous that his creatures are behaving in a way that he has inevitably caused. How absurd. Such a shallow concept of jealousy mocks the heart of God.

Jealousy is not genuine if God is detached. Just as Hosea was jealous when Gomer was unfaithful to him, God was jealous when Israel was unfaithful to him. If God was not concerned with Israel, or if God is not concerned with what or who we give affection to, he could not and cannot be jealous. God is jealous because he is affected by our rejection of him. If God is detached and aloof, if he does not participate in genuine relationship, he is not jealous.

Jealousy is not genuine if God's wrath is arbitrary. God is wrathful because he is jealous, and he is jealous because we are separated from him. It is important to remember the active zeal of God's jealousy. God's wrath is displayed in his zealous pursuit of humanity, and is instigated by the possibility of of reconciliation. When God punishes it comes about as a result to his spurned affection (Hosea 7:13). In Calvinism, God's wrath is divorced from reality. It is based on secret arbitrary decrees rather than from the identifiable motivations given in scripture.

In summary, the jealousy of God is genuine. Jealousy is an intrinsic part of God's character. In Calvinism, the jealousy of God is not genuine. Determinism, detachment, and arbitrary punishment make it impossible for God to have genuine jealousy. God's jealousy occurs because he created people for genuine relationship with him, and those people have rejected him instead. The fact that Calvinism cannot account for the jealousy of God demonstrates that the system is false.

Delegates to the Synod of Dort

2009-10-07T21:30:00.000-07:00

Below is a complete list of the delegates to the Synod of Dort. The list is pulled from two different sources, so the spelling is not consistent (Some names are Latinized, others Anglicized).

There were no official delegates from several regions. The Dutch states of Holland and West Freisland were excluded. They had attempted to send Simon Episcopius as their delegate, and one of the first acts of the synod was to revoke his status. In France, Louis XIII opposed the synod and prohibited French participation. In Brandenburg (Germany), the Lutherans prohibited representation.

Only official delegates are listed. This excludes deputies, secretaries, observers, etc.

England:
George Carleton (1559–1628)
Joseph Hall (replaced by Goad) (1574–1657)
Thomas Goad (1576–1638)
John Davenant (1576–1641)
Lancelot Andrewes (1555–1626).

Scotland:
Walter Balcanqual (1586–1645)
Samuël Ward (died in 1643)
William Ames (Guilielmus Amesius) (1576–1633).

Heidelberg (Palatine, Germany):
Abraham Scultetus (1566–1624)
Paul Tossanus (1572–1634)
Hendrik Alting (1583–1644).

Hessen (Germany):
Georg Cruciger (1575–1637)
Paul Stein (1585–1643)
Rudolph Goclenius (1547–1628)
Daniel Anglocrator (1569–1635).

Switzerland:
Johann Jakob Breitinger (1575–1645)
Wolfgang Mayer (1577–1653)
Sebastian Beck (1583–1654)
Mark Rütimeyer (1580–1647)
Hans Conrad Koch (1564–1643)

Krefeld (Germany):
Herman op den Graeff (1585-1642)

Geneva:
Giovanni Diodati (1576–1649)
Theodore Trochin (1582–1657)

Bremen (Germany):
Ludwig Crocius (1586–1653)
Matthiuas Martinius (1572–1630)
Heinrich Isselburg (1577–1628)

Wetterau (Germany):
Johann Heinrich Alsted (1588–1638)
John Bisterfeld (died in 1619)
Georg Fabricius.

Emden (Germany):
Ritzius Lucas Grimersheim (1568–1631)
Daniël Bernard Eilshemius (1555–1622).

Dutch Theologians (at large)
Johannes Polyander, (1568-1646)
Sibrandus Lubbertus, Professor, Friesland
Franciscus Gomarus, (1563-1641)
Antonius Tysius, Professor, Gelderland
Antonius Walaeus, Professor, Middelburg

Gelderland-Zutphen (The Netherlands)
Gulielmus Stephani, Pastor, Arnhelm
Ellardus a Mehen, Pastor, Harderwick
Johannes Bouillet, Minister, Warnesfield
Jacobus Verheyden, Elder, School Rector, Numeghen

South Holland (The Netherlands)
Balthasar Lydius, Pastor, Dort
Henricus Arnoldi, Preacher, Delf
Gisbertus Voetius, Pastor, Huysden.
Arnoldus Musius, Elder, Dort
Johannes Latius, Elder, Leiden

North Holland (The Netherlands)
Iacobus Triglandius, Minister, Amsterdam
Abrahamus à Dooreslaer, Minister, Enchusen
Samuel Bartholdus, Pastor, Monichodam
Theodorus Heyngius, Elder, Amsterdam
Dominicus ab Heemskerck, Elder, Amsterdam

Zeeland (The Netherlands)
Godefridus Udemannus, Pastor, Zurick-zee
Cornelius Regius, Pastor, Tergoose
Lambertus de Rycke, Pastor, Bergen up Zoon
Josias Vosbergius, Elder, Middleburg
Adrianus Hofferus, Elder, Zurick-zee

Utrecht (The Netherlands)
Johannes Dibbezius, Minister, Utrecht
Arnoldus Oortcampius, Pastor, Amersfoort

Friesland (The Netherlands)
Florentius Johannis, Church member, Snek
Philippus Danielis Eilshemius, Pastor, Harling
Kempo Harinxma à Donia, Elder, Leuerdin
Tacitus ab Aysma, Elder, Buirgirt

Overijssel (The Netherlands)
Casparus Sibelius, Pastor, Deventer
Hermannus Wiferding, Minister, Swoll
Hieronymus Vogelius, Pastor, Hasselt
Iohannes Langius, Preacher, Woolenhoof.
Wilhelmus à Broickhuysenten Doerne, Elder's deputy
Johannes à Lauwick, Elder's deputy

Groningen (The Netherlands)
Cornelius Hillenius, church member, Groningen
Georgius Placius, Pastor, Apingdam
Wolfgangus Agricola, Minister, Bedam
Wigboldus Homerus, Minister, Midwold
Egbertus Halbes, Elder, Groningen
Ioannes Rufelaert, Elder, Stedum

Drenthe (The Netherlands)
Themo ab Asscheberg, Pastor, Meppelen
Patroclus Romelingius, Pastor, Rhuine

Wallon (The Netherlands)
Daniel Colonius, Minister and regent, Leyden
Joannes Crucius, Minister, Harleim
Joannes Doucher, Minister, Vluisshing.
Jeremias de Pours, Minister, Wallon
Everardus Beckerus, Elder, Wallon
Petrus Pontanus, Elder of the Church in Amsterdam

Sources used:
Dutch Delegates: English Translation of the Synod of Dort, 1619
Foreign Delegates: Answers.com

Arminian Resource: Libarary of Theology

2009-10-05T13:19:00.001-07:00

I just ran across this web site: Library of Theology. They have quite a bit of good information relating to the Calvinist / Arminian debate. There are lots of video and audio links.

Much of the content is not classical Arminian (ie open theism, moral government, rejection of original sin, etc). Still, it is a worthwhile resource.

I've listened to some of the audio, which is by a fellow named Kerrigan Skelly. He has a series arguing against the TULIP. He presents to a group of little kids, so he dumbs things down quite a bit. I found his explanation of moral government theory helpful. A good understanding of MGT has always eluded me. :)

Interesting Links - 10/03/09

2009-10-03T05:00:00.000-07:00

All Arminius, all month! William Birch will be recognizing the work of Arminius on his blog Classical Arminianism. October 19, 2009 marks the 400th anniversary of the death of Jacob Arminius.

Calvinist Joshua is becoming increasingly appalled at the behavior of Calvinists on the web.

On the same note, Ryan D. McConnell writes a letter to his Reformed brothers. "Be familiar with the work of Classical Arminians...how can you accurately discuss theology with an opposing theological camp if you don't know what they actually believe?"

Thomas Twitchell states that Southern Baptists will lose the inerrancy war because of Armininans low view of scripture.

Does the Calvinist concept of providence originate from Islam? Blogger Diana West thinks so, She refers to a book that documents Islams' influence on the West. She also notes that tulips come from Turkey. Who knew?

C. Michael Patton tackles the question: Should a Calvinist marry an Arminian? The obvious answer is, "only if he's destined to".

Southern Baptist Robin Foster officially resigns from being a Calvinist. HT: William Birch

Why do Reformed churches serve "deplorably tiny portions of Communion bread and wine"? This blogger speculates.

Move aside Greg Boyd and Babe Ruth. Mariners announcer Mike Blowers provides proof that there is such a thing as divine foreknowledge. Well, maybe not divine, but still unbelievable.

Mosaic Bible Giveaway - Nick's Blog

2009-10-02T11:25:00.000-07:00

Nick from Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth is giving away a certificate for a free copy of the Holy Bible - Mosaic. Go sign up for your chance! He will decide the winner on October 8th, and announce on October 9th.

You Might be a Calvinist If...

2009-09-28T11:30:00.000-07:00

I ran across this list on Tom in the Box, which is pretty good. Billy's comment was great. Here are a few more. Mostly charitable. :)

You might be a Calvinist if....

You rented King Arthur, and turned if off half way through.

You haven't actually read The Shack, but have read several books on why it's heretical.

You got goose bumps on Calvin's 500th birthday.

Pyromania makes you think of Phil Johnson, not Def Leppard.

You can decipher this code: 29:29, 21:1, 6:37, 6:43, 10:26, 8:30, 9:20, 1:4, 2:8

You found the error.

It irritates you when someone says the solas in English.

You added the unreached people widget to your blog, to head off Arminians at the pass.

When someone mentions New Zealand, the first thing you think of is particular redemption.

You hate rap, but listen to Lecrae because his lyrics are so good.

You have a plaque commemorating the Synod of Dort.

You're biggest complaint about John MacArthur is that he doesn't use the ESV.

You've come up with a working theory on how the Holocaust gives God glory.

You've considered moving to Minneapolis.

You initially didn't get the King Arthur reference, but looked it up and now strongly agree.

Roger Olson Challenges Calvinists to Rewrite "The Shack"

2009-09-23T11:35:00.000-07:00

The Society of Evangelical Armininians has a post today by Roger Olson, where he issues a challenge to Calvinists: Rewrite "The Shack" from the Calvinist view.

Olson writes:

Since most Calvinists are harshly critical of the novel The Shack (which takes a similar approach to theodicy as Greg Boyd in Is God to Blame?) because of its alleged undermining of God's glory and sovereignty, why don't they (or one of them) write a similar novel in which God explains to Mack (or someone like him) why his daughter was kidnapped, raped and murdered--and avoid language about God permitting or allowing it (which is really Arminian language)?

Quite a tall order. I would not relish the idea of explaining why God decrees the rape and murder of a little girl. And that is one of the root problems with Calvinism. If God ordains everything and he is good, then why do evil things happen?

I personally nominate Tim Challies to write the book.

If you are unfamiliar with "The Shack", you have been living in a cave. :) It is a popular and controversial Christian novel. My review is here.

The ESV and Romans 16:7

2009-09-22T17:50:00.000-07:00

Does anyone know why the ESV translates Romans 16:7 differently than the other major translations? I'm referring to where the ESV says that Andronicus and Junia (a female) were well known to the apostles. All the other major translations make it sound as if they WERE apostles (rather than merely known to them). Is this a legitimate interpretation?

Bold added by me.

ESV: Greet Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners. They are well known to the apostles, and they were in Christ before me.

NASB: Greet Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners, who are outstanding among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

KJV: Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellow-prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

NRSV: Greet Andronicus and Junia, my relatives who were in prison with me; they are prominent among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.

NIV: Greet Andronicus and Junias, my relatives who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.

TNIV: Greet Andronicus and Junia, my fellow Jews who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.

NLT: Greet Andronicus and Junia, my fellow Jews, who were in prison with me. They are highly respected among the apostles and became followers of Christ before I did.

ASV: Salute Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen, and my fellow-prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also have been in Christ before me.

(Click to enlarge and see the Greek interlinear text)

How to Worship (Funny Video)

2009-09-21T15:00:00.000-07:00

This is funny, particularly since most of it applies pretty close to home. :)

Interesting Links - 9/19/09

2009-09-19T03:00:00.000-07:00

This month's Christianity Today has some articles by Arminians in praise of John Calvin (yes, you read that right). Man of the Bible: What Calvin gets Right, by Ben Witherington. Theologian of the Spirit, by Roger Olson.

This pastor hates Obama, and preached a sermon on why he wishes the president dead. Although the article doesn't state it, I'm going to go way out on a limb and guess that the good reverend is not an Arminian. [update 10-2-09 : the pastor is NOT a Calvinist, although probably not an Arminian either: link - thanks to Rev for pointing this out]

Tim Challies has an article about his visit to Saddleback Church. He attended a service and met with Rick Warren for about 30 minutes.

Ben Witherington previews the NIV 2011.

Calvinist witnessing and Arminian witnessing. If you haven't already seen these clips, they're pretty funny. The Calvinist witnessing one is better of course. :)

The Calvinists Who Became Arminians at Dort

2009-09-16T22:25:00.000-07:00

One of the fascinating facts of history is the "conversion" to Arminianism of several of the Calvinists who participated in the proceedings at the Synod of Dort. Below are accounts of three Calvinists, two whom changed their views during the actual proceedings, and one who had already changed his opinion prior.

John Hales (1584-1656): Hales was an English theologian. He was a quiet and gentle man. He was well read, had an excellent memory, and is reported to have had an "exact knowledge of the Greek tongue".¹ For some time he was a professor at the college of Eton, where he taught Greek. He was affectionately referred to as "The Ever Memorable Hales". During the proceedings at Dort, Hales was a chaplain for Sir Dudley Carlton, the English ambassador to the Netherlands. He attended Dort at the request of Sir Carlton. During Dort, Hales is reported to have "bade John Calvin good night"^.2 He became convinced of the merits of Arminianism after hearing Simon Episcopius' defense of Unlimited Atonement and exposition of John 3:16.

Thomas Goad (1576-1638): Goad was an English clergyman. He was fond of poetry and known for his skill in verse. He was a chaplain for George Abbot, archbishop of Canterbury. He was a rector in several locations, and was also precentor (music leader) at Saint Paul's Cathedral. Goad was sent to Dort by King James at the request of Abbot. Goad went to the Dort as a Calvinist, but like Hales, he became convinced of Arminianism during the course of the synod. He switched sides and began to defend the Arminians. As a result, he lost much prestige among his colleagues, and his name was omitted (perhaps accidentally) from the acts of the synod. After the synod, Goad returned to his chaplaincy.³

Daniel Tilenus (1563-1633): Tilenus was a Huguenot (French Calvinist). He was a professor at the Presbyterian college of Sedan. He was a staunch Calvinist in his earlier days, but had already embraced the Remonstrants by the time of Dort. Risking his position at Sedan, Tilenus strongly criticized the behavior of the Calvinists at Dort, stating that they treated their Arminian brethren according to "the methods of the Turks"⁴. As a result of supporting and identifying with Arminians, Tilenus was deposed from his professorship at Sedan. He moved to England at the request of King James, and became a capable defender of Arminian theology.⁵

(1) The 1917 Harvard Theological Review, Volume 10 Short biography about the life of John Hales.
(2) The Life of John Goodwin by Thomas Jackson, 1872, page 441
(3) Dictionary of National Biography (British) 1885-1900, entry on Thomas Goad
(4) Religious currents and cross-currents: essays on early modern Protestantism, 1999, page 9
(5) Memoirs of Simon Episcopius, By Frederick Calder, 1838, page 456

Great Wesley Quotes

2009-09-10T06:00:00.000-07:00

Beware you be not swallowed up in books! An ounce of love is worth a pound of knowledge.

Catch on fire with enthusiasm and people will come for miles to watch you burn.

The world is my parish.

You may be as orthodox as the devil and as wicked.

My ground is the Bible. Yea, I am a Bible-bigot. I follow it in all things, both great and small.

Think not the bigotry of another is any excuse for your own.

I am not afraid that the people called Methodists should ever cease to exist either in Europe or America. But I am afraid lest they should only exist as a dead sect, having the form of religion without the power. And this undoubtedly will be the case unless they hold fast both the doctrine, spirit, and discipline with which they first set out.

I value all things only by the price they shall gain in eternity.

When I have money, I get rid of it quickly, lest it find a way into my heart.

Once in seven years I burn all my sermons; for it is a shame if I cannot write better sermons now than I did seven years ago.

If there be any mistakes in the Bible, there may as well be a thousand. If there is one falsehood in that book, it did not come from the God of truth.

Though I am always in haste, I am never in a hurry.

Having, First, gained all you can, and, Secondly saved all you can, Then give all you can. (Dave Ramsey's motto also)

Believe nothing they say, unless it is clearly confirmed by plain passages of holy writ.

The Bible knows nothing of solitary religion.

In all cases, the Church is to be judged by the Scripture, not the Scripture by the Church.

The best of it all is, God is with us. (possibly his last words)

Interesting Links - 9/5/09

2009-09-05T05:00:00.000-07:00

The NIV and TNIV are going away. A new NIV will be out in 2011. Christianity Today has an explanation here. Scot McKnight has a different explanation here. (HT: William Birch).

The blog "Truth is a Man" has an excellent post entitled: Molinism is not Open Theism: A Critique of Dr. McMahon’s Assessment. He refers to a piece written by high Calvinist C.M. McMahon. McMahon also claims that Arminianism is "a deceiving doctrine of demons wrought up from the pit of hell".

Oldenbarnevelt the ship (Netherlands: 1930-1963). The cruise ship was named after the well known Remonstrant, and also carried troops for the Dutch during WWII. Oldenbarnevelt the person is perhaps best known for being beheaded after the Synod of Dort.

Blogger Churchmouse has an interesting article on the history of Calvinism in the West.

Need a funny Arminian phone message? Check out Bob Passantino's Supercalvinisticexpialidocious Link is in the middle of the page (HT: Bob from SEA)

ELCA (sung to the tune of YMCA)

2009-09-04T15:23:00.000-07:00

This is pretty funny - Although I don't necessarily approve of all of the lyrics. (found here)

"Luth'ran"
Doesn't mean quite the same
As what you've been
Taught to know by that name.
We're removin'
All the scandal and shame
Of a church that stands for something.

Luth'ran,
No, you're not misinformed,
Yes, it's true now,
We commune the Reformed.
No forced union
Made us bow or conform,
Just a warm and fuzzy feeling.

It's fun to be in the E.L.C.A.
It's fun to be in the E.L.C.A.
We have women in black,
Now there's no turning back
To the hang-ups of dead white guys.

It's fun to be in the E.L.C.A.
It's fun to be in the E.L.C.A.
You can set yourself free
From dead orthodoxy,
You can do whatever you please.

Luth'ran,
Won't you please come along
To the Elca,
Where's there's no right or wrong.
In the Elca,
Heretics can belong,
They can teach at seminary.

"Luth'ran,"
But our fingers were crossed,
All our doctrine
Has been totally lost.
All that's Luth'ran
Is what we have embossed
On our cards and stationery.

It's fun to be in the E.L.C.A.
It's fun to be in the E.L.C.A.
We have women in black,
Now there's no turning back
To the hang-ups of dead white guys.

It's fun to be in the E.L.C.A.
It's fun to be in the E.L.C.A.
You can set yourself free
From dead orthodoxy,
You can do whatever you please.

Elca,
Where it's very uncouth
And unwelcome
To say you have the truth
And where seldom
Is a word ever heard
To discourage sin or error.

Elca,
Where it's all shades of gray,
I said, Elca,
Where it's hip to be gay.
Our umbrella
Is as big as a tent,
There's no need for you to repent.

It's fun to be in the E.L.C.A.
It's fun to be in the E.L.C.A.
We have women in black,
Now there's no turning back
To the hang-ups of dead white guys.

It's fun to be in the E.L.C.A.
It's fun to be in the E.L.C.A.
You can set yourself free
From dead orthodoxy,
You can do whatever you please. . . .

Interesting Links - 8/29/09

2009-08-29T05:00:00.000-07:00

Did God send a tornado as a warning to the Evangelical Lutheran Church? John Piper says yes. Greg Boyd says no.

Blogger Ed Thompkins has a post entitled: What is Arminianism and Why am I an Arminian?

Blogger "cpyeager" thinks that John MacArthur has misrepresented Arminian theology.

A Nazarene/Wesleyan/Free Methodist merger? The Nazarenes have a motion to explore this. A Nazarene discussion board comments on it here. Wesleyan Keith Drury muses here.

Peter Lumpkins thinks that there is a tendency among some Calvinists for "artificial exegesis which leads to overstated conclusions. " He gives an example of R.C. Sproul and John 6:44.

For whom did Christ die? Three views: Calvinist (Paul Helm), Amyraldian (Michael Jensen), Arminian (Ben Witherington).

You Might be a Presbyterian if... (a little good natured Presbyterian humor)

Audio Link: Ephesians 1 Sermon by Greg Boyd

2009-08-26T22:43:00.000-07:00

Here is an mp3 link to a sermon by Greg Boyd where he preaches on Ephesians 1: 3-10. He critiques Calvinistic predestination. Boyd is the pastor of the Woodland Hills Church in Minneapolis, MN. He's a well known open theist.

Link: 6/26/1994 – Predestination: Good News or Bad?

Boyd makes the following points against the Calvinist interpretation of Eph 1.
1. One must believe to be saved. Whoever believes is saved.
2. Human beings are moral agents, and are responsible for their sins. God does not program what our decisions are.
3. God doesn't always get what he wants from humanity. Because of our moral agency, things happen that God does not prefer. Hell is a testimony of this fact.
4. God is love. God loves every person. God's loving nature is incompatible with Calvinistic election.

Boyd positively interprets Ephesians 1 as follows:
1. Predestination is corporate, not individual - he gives a funny analogy here about eating chicken.
2. God chooses us in Christ. If you are in Christ, you are predestined.
3. We are not worthy of predestination, but in God's eyes we are worth it.

Search Queries

2009-08-19T13:49:00.000-07:00

Here are some of the more interesting search queries that have lead people to this blog. (My comments are in italics)

arminians don't like to be called fundamentalists (True enough)
are all the tenth avenue north boys married?
are muslims allowed to touch a pig?
arminians burn stake (I hope they mean Arminians burn steak)
c.s. lewis calvinist quotes (good luck on that one)
calvinists vs arminians football audio
can an egyptian touch a pig (what is it with pigs?)
can demons be sent to the pit now?
catholic saints with name reed, jackson, or jack
cool arminian
does romans 9 talk about israel
frankenstein vs. bible
green baggins enns (tricksy hobbitses!)
indiana wesleyan greek witherington blog (sounds interesting!)
iranian arminian news (it's nice to see someone misspell Armenian)
is wesleyan arminianism heresy (I hope not)
jesus brings the pizza painting
john piper is an idiot (Piper is a lot of things, idiot is not one of them)
quotes with the word felicitous in it (I have one in mind)
slave owners preached eternal security (really?)
swine flu pizza substitition
what is samantha jones saying to richard (several queries for "samantha jones", odd.)
where is peter enns now? (Where is Waldo now?)
why arminians are idiots (Because God decreed it?)

Pursuing Righteousness by Faith

2009-08-18T11:24:00.001-07:00

What is pursuing righteousness by faith? In Romans 9, Paul speaks of pursuing righteousness by faith rather than works:

What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone. -Romans 9:30-32 ESV

First, it is helpful to be familiar with the Biblical definition of righteousness. In English we often define righteousness as being moral and upright. This is something that a person must do himself. However, Paul had a different understanding than the English context. Biblically speaking, righteousness means to have a right standing before God. While righteousness also carries a sense of being moral, it is secondary and based not on ourselves, but our standing with God. Understanding this context helps to explain the problem that Israel had. Israel was trying to earn the right to stand before God by working for it with their self righteousness. In this they failed. It is impossible to earn a right standing before God by one's self righteousness.

One might reasonably ask, how then can righteousness (right relationship) be pursued at all, given that we cannot work towards it? It is possible through faith in Jesus. Paul goes on to explain:

Romans 10:8-13: The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart" (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. For the Scripture says, "Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame." For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. For "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."

We learn in this passage that a right standing before God is possible. Not by works, but by faith in Jesus Christ. The Lord saves those who call on his name. The faith described here is ongoing. It is available to everyone who believes and confesses Jesus Christ. Faith is possible for all! Not because of our goodness, but because God desires to be in right relationship with us, and is already at work in us. His word is near to us and in us.

Pursing righteousness by faith is to pursue Jesus Christ himself. We are promised that everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.

Faith is not something that a person intellectually assents to once and is then is finished with. Rather, faith is an ongoing dependence on the Lord Jesus Christ. What distinguishes faith from works? It is trust in Jesus instead of ourselves. Faith by definition is Christ centered. We trust in Jesus to keep us in right standing with the Father. We trust in Jesus to conform us to his own image.

Moses under the inspiration of the Spirit wrote about this kind of faith in Deuteronomy 30. Paul had this passage in mind and quoted parts of it in Romans 10. In Deut 30 we learn that:

Faith is not too difficult or beyond our reach
It is very near to us, in our mouth and heart so that we may obey.
It is set before us.
It is God (Christ) centered. We are to love God, walk in his ways, and to keep his decrees.
It is something that we can forfeit, by turning our dependence away from God or allowing ourselves to be drawn from him.
It is a choice. We are admonished to chose life, for the LORD is our life.

What is striking about Romans 10 and Deut 30 is that the faith described in these chapters is precisely the Arminian definition of faith. Faith is not given to a few and hidden from most. Instead, faith is possible for all, because God wants to be in a right relationship with all of his creation. Faith in Jesus is not beyond our reach because God has made it possible through his work in us. It is genuinely available to all.

Pursuing righteousness by faith is a choice to trust Jesus Christ instead of ourselves. Not because of who we are, but because of what Jesus Christ has done. He will never fail us.

Arminian Audio: James White / Roger and Faith Forster

2009-08-15T10:00:00.000-07:00

Justin Brierly, host of the UK program Unbelievable, recently hosted two discussions between James White (Calvinist) and Roger and Faith Forster (Arminians). Rumor has it that that Greg Boyd was originally supposed to participate too, but was unable to make it. (HT: darinhouston)

The broadcasts are available to download as a podcasts, or by clicking on the audio links on the front page of the site. Go to the August 1 and August 8, 2009 episodes. Run time is an hour and 20 minutes for each episode.

James White is a well known Calvinist apologist. Roger and Faith Forster are Arminians, they pastor Ichthus Fellowship in London. Roger also co-authored the book "God's Strategy in Human History".

I have listened to the first episode, but not the second. The debate was pretty good. James White was his typical self (long winded and imputing incorrect positions to his opponents). The Forsters capably represented the Arminian view. I was particularly impressed with Faith Forster, who was not afraid of calling White out on his usual tactics.

Interesting Links - 8/15/09

2009-08-15T04:00:00.000-07:00

Calvin Leaves a Divided Legacy in South Africa. "Now, as Protestants worldwide mark the 500th anniversary of Calvin's birth, South Africans are remembering how the followers of the Protestant reformer were counted among the most strident supporters of apartheid, and eventually also among its most vociferous opponents."

Christianity Today has an interesting article about mega church seminaries. It mentions Mars Hill Seattle (Driscoll), Bethlehem Baptist (Piper) and Saddlback (Warren).

The blog Forest View is doing a detailed review of Roger Olson's book, Arminian Theology, Myths and Realities. Parts: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Lutheran Paul T. McCain argues that Calvin hijacked the Reformation. "I consider it a great tragedy that John Calvin did so much to corrupt the genuine evangelical Reformation of the Western Church. The errors that flow from Calvin’s theology of a limited atonement, an irresistible grace and a predestination of some to hell, are a corruption of the Scriptures and the Gospel of Christ." (HT: Wesley Wong)

Rev. Ronnie W. Rogers, who identifies himself as Calvinistic, has an excellent post that illustrates the problems with the "different types of love" argument that Calvinists sometimes make. He writes, "If God does not love everyone enough to at least offer a real chance to receive the help that they desperately need, e.g. salvation, how can we do so, based on the commands to love as He loves?"

Christian Traditions Selector Quiz

2009-08-11T19:16:00.000-07:00

Here's a pretty good "what church tradition are you" type quiz. At least it pegged me about right. :) I had to view the source code to post the results, don't know if I missed an easier way.

HT: Nick Norelli

Your Christian Traditions Selector Results

(100%) 1: Methodist/Wesleyan/Nazarene

(97%) 2: Pentecostal/Charismatic/
Assemblies of God

(91%) 3: Anabaptist (Mennonite/Quaker etc.)

(77%) 4: Church of Christ/Campbellite

(76%) 5: Baptist (non-Calvinistic)/Plymouth
Brethren/Fundamentalist

(67%) 6: Congregational/United Church of Christ

(64%) 7: Baptist (Reformed/Particular/
Calvinistic)

(56%) 8: Anglican/Episcopal/Church of England

(53%) 9: Presbyterian/Reformed

(53%) 10: Seventh-Day Adventist

(50%) 11: Eastern Orthodox

(42%) 12: Lutheran

(36%) 13: Roman Catholic

Interesting Links 8-8-09

2009-08-08T04:00:00.000-07:00

Peter Lumpkins writes about the misuse of the word "monergism" among Calvinistic Southern Baptists.

Ben Henshaw asks: Do you really want to claim John Calvin as your homeboy ? Check out the reply thread on this one.

Speaking of which, you can get your Arminian homeboy apparel here.

Chris Skinner asks, does all mean all?

Between Two Worlds (Justin Taylor's Calvinist blog) has a link to a series by Colin Hansen that looks at the dynamics of the Reformed Resurgence. (HT: Brian Abasciano)

Were the tunes to Wesley brother's hymns based on tavern songs? That's not true says Larry Withham. It is a wide spread misconception.

Don Heatly writes about the "myth" of the young progressive Christian. "I have been astounded by the disconnect between what I read younger generations are looking for in a church, and what many actually gravitate toward."

Scot McKnight has re-posted a letter regarding how a pastor should deal with "pesky Calvinists". There are lots of interesting comments in the thread.

"Fun" Calvinist Quotes on Arminian Theology

2009-07-31T21:00:00.000-07:00

Here are some less than flattering quotes about Arminian theology from various Calvinists. You can click on the author's name if you're interested in the original context. As an Arminian there's really not much to say in reply to this kind of stuff. I have decided to use my God given free will to make fun of the quotes. My random thoughts are in italics. Don't take them any more seriously than you take the Calvinist quotes. :)

Agustus Toplady: If we sum up the evidence that has been given, we shall find its amount to be, that Arminianism came from the Church of Rome, and leads back again to the pit whence it was digged.

Now there you go again playing the Catholic card. If you can't successfully debate your opponents, you can always fall back and call them Catholics. By the way, "Agustus" sounds pretty ROMAN to me. You might want to take a look in the mirror buddy. Mind if I call you Gus for short? Growing up I had a dog named Gus. He was a cool little schnauzer. He could urinate on command. That chubby chocolate eating kid from Willy Wonka was also named "Agustus". That movie is one of my favorites. The Gene Wilder one, not the lame Johnny Depp one. Favorite Augustus line: "I feel very sorry for Wonka. It's gonna cost him a fortune in fudge!"

John Owen: Who would have thought that our church would ever have given entertainment to these Belgic semi-Pelagians, who have cast dirt upon the faces and raked up the ashes of all those great and pious souls whom God magnified, in using as his instruments to reform his church; to the least of which the whole troop of Arminians shall never make themselves equal, though they swell till they break?

But Gus said that the Arminians were dug from the pit of Rome. Now you think that they're entertained dirt casting Belgic semi-Pelagians? What the hey? Arminius was DUTCH, not Belgic. Belgic = Catholic. I hope you're not trying to play the Catholic card again. To help you remember the difference between Belgium and Holland, try memorizing the following: "If it ain't Dutch, it ain't much." Or here's another: "Remonstrants, common sense." Or you can simply visualize a windmill. At any rate, at least Arminius wasn't French. No pious souls have ever come from France. Well, there was Joan of Arc. But she was Catholic AND a female leader - no doubt that's two strikes in your book.

Christopher Ness: Lest this overflowing deluge of Arminianism should bring destruction upon us, there is great need that some servants of Christ should run to stop the further spreading of this plague and leprosy.

I like the word "deluge". It looks like "fudge" and makes me hungry for chocolate. Anyway, you're forgetting your theology again dude. Leprous Arminianism was decreed by God for his glory. Who are you oh man to talk back to the overflowing deluge? Besides, if someone tried to run and stop it, that would be a WORK, and that would give him something to boast about. Not to mention that he would get all wet. Also, I like your last name. It reminds me of Nessie.

Charles Spurgeon: And what is the heresy of Arminianism but the addition of something to the work of the Redeemer? Every heresy, if brought to the touchstone, will discover itself here. I have my own private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else.

Can I call you Chuck? You're right, the work of the Redeemer is nothing without the the gratuitous addition of exhaustive determinism. And don't even get me going about those heretical Arminians, a bunch of tramps and thieves - the whole lot of them. As a side note, your own private opinion isn't private anymore if you put it into print. And what does Touchstone have to do with anything? Touchstone is just the front for Disney's R-rated movies. I fail to see how that is relevant. Oh wait...R-minian. I get it. Cute word play there Chuck.

John Piper: Here’s my rule of thumb: the more responsible a person is to shape the thoughts of others about God, the less Arminianism should be tolerated. Therefore church members should not be excommunicated for this view but elders and pastors and seminary and college teachers should be expected to hold the more fully biblical view of grace.

Whew, I had a scare there for a second. Glad I'm just a lowly church member! That means that you have to tolerate me. I'll stick to warming pews so that you can't kick me out. Don't worry, I won't do something rash like become an elder. Don't tell Chuck, but I have my own private opinion that we should run off the Supralapsarians. By the way, since y'all live in the same town, you should stop and have coffee some time with Greg Boyd. It could be a teaching moment, as Obama likes to say. You could discuss something interesting, like whether or not God decreed the Minnesota bridge collapse.

R.C. Sproul: I agree with Packer and Johnston that Arminianism contains un-Christian elements in it and that their view of the relationship between faith and regeneration is fundamentally un-Christian. Is this error so egregious that it is fatal to salvation? People often ask if I believe Arminians are Christians? I usually answer, "Yes, barely." They are Christians by what we call a felicitous inconsistency.

I'm curious, what does R.C. stand for? I'm guessing that it doesn't stand for Roman Catholic. Maybe Remote Control? "Remote Control Sproul" has a very nice flow to it, plus it is consistent with your theology. Whatever R.C stands for, it makes me thirsty for a cola. Back to the subject at hand. Weren't the egregious un-Christian elements of Arminianism decreed by God? And since your answer must be 'yes', I want to know was what was God thinking of when he came up with that particular felicitous inconsistency? Can you answer that without referring to Deut 29:29? Another thing I'm wondering about: how can anything be fatal to a fatalist?

John MacArthur: The question comes, “Can somebody who holds an Arminian view be a Christian?” And I would hate to say they couldn’t be. I really believe that it is possible to be Arminian and to be a Christian…to misunderstand your human capability, to misunderstand the election, to misunderstand the extent of the atonement, even to misunderstand the irresistible nature of God’s saving grace, and even to think you could lose your salvation. But, at the same time--while being confused or ignorant of those things--to know that you’re a sinner and know that the only way of salvation is through Jesus Christ. I guess you could say that someone could be an Arminian and push those points far enough, where they could jeopardize my confidence that they really are a Christian. You could push the point of not being totally depraved far enough where you’re actually being saved by your own works, by your own belief, by your own ingenuity, by your own self-induced faith. And you could get to the point where you could really wonder whether someone understands that it’s all a work of God.

Uh oh, the last thing I want to do is jeopardize your confidence, John. I'm probably going to lose some self-induced sleep over that one. By the way, it almost sounds like you think that Arminians can lose their salvation by thinking that they can lose their salvation. Now THAT would be a felicitous inconsistency.

C Matthew McMahon: Arminianism is not something hidden under a stone, but lives in full view, and in direct opposition, to the Gospel. It is a deceiving doctrine of demons wrought up from the pit of hell, where, in the consummation of the age, it will be cast for all eternity with the devil that spawned it and the false teachers who propagated it.

Devil spawned doctrine of demons huh? Tell me how you really feel C Matthew. Hmm, what does C stand for? Catholic? Sorry, redundant joke. Do you know how you can easily recognize demons? They're the ones who like to burn human beings at the stake. By the way, are you any relation to Ed or Jim? Naw, probably not, they're a lot nicer. And how did a hyper-Calvinist get on this list? Oh well, what's done is done. Que sera sera I always say.

Interesting Links 7-25-09

2009-07-25T04:00:00.000-07:00

British Calvinist Peter Masters criticizes the new American Calvinism. "The new Calvinism is not a resurgence but an entirely novel formula which strips the doctrine of its historic practice, and unites it with the world." Masters is the current pastor of Charles Spurgeon's church.

God in the Hands of Angry Calvinists. Describing the angry behavior of some Calvinists, William Birch writes that "How we view God affects how we think and act."

New Testament Scholar Craig Bloomberg explains why he is a Calminian. He holds to middle knowledge (Molinism). HT: Robert

Nate rightly points out that you don't have to be Calvinist to be Reformed. Both Arminians and Calvinists are Reformed. "The difference in the end is that Arminians believe God gives a resistible grace unto all men..."

Methodist Dr. Riley Case has some praise for the new Calvinism. "Evangelical United Methodists should welcome the new interest in Calvinism. When we debate Calvinists we can appeal to Scripture, and talk about truth, and discuss meaningfully matters like salvation and grace and the blood of Jesus. Those who call themselves Progressive Christians, on the other hand, are a moving target."

A Meal on the Moon

2009-07-20T13:10:00.001-07:00

Today is the 40th anniversary of the Apollo 11 moon landing. It is not often told, but one of the first things Buzz Aldrin did after landing on the moon was to take communion. He originally planned to quote scripture (John 15:5 - "I am the vine and you are the branches..."). He was asked by NASA not to do this because they were involved in a legal dispute with Madelyn Murray O'Hare. So Aldrin simply asked for a moment of silence, and then privately gave thanks to God.

Here is an account of the story from Guideposts: A Meal on the Moon

Here is a more detailed account: First Communion on the Moon

Interesting Links 7-18-09

2009-07-18T04:00:00.000-07:00

The Albert Mohler program interviews Matt Pinson (Arminian) and Mark Dever (Calvinist) on Calvin's 500 year legacy. They amicably address their theological differences.

Were the 18th century (largely Arminian) revival movements based on Enlightenment thought? A book entitled "Advent of Evangelism" argues that they were, and that this was bad. Colin Hansen at Christianity Today gives a critical review of the book. Scot McKnight gives his thoughts here.

Calvinist Alexandre Costa is reading the book Arminian Theology by Roger Olson. He is enjoying it and has found it to be helpful in clearing up misconceptions.

Is it possible for an Arminian to be a Christian Hedonist? John Piper says yes, even though Arminians believe in "grace plus their will".

Ben Witherington of Asbury airs some concerns about a new M.Div. program at Indiana Wesleyan (he doesn't mention the school name in the post). Ken Schenck from IWU responds here.

Reformed Pastor Joey Rogers enjoys James White, but sometimes find's White style a bit much, especially when he's debating Arminians.

Methodist instructor Donald Haynes writes about the causes of the Calvinist resurgence. "When spiritual seekers with no theological foundations bring their broken lives to this theological oracle [Calvinism], they can easily be blocked from the shining sun of God’s abiding love."

Essay About Calvinism by Roger Olson

2009-07-17T04:00:00.000-07:00

[The following is an essay by Roger Olson, author of the book Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities. Dr. Olson has made this available to the Society of Evangelical Arminians. William Birch has posted some interesting commentary on the background of the essay, which can be found here.]

My Biggest Problem with Calvin/Calvinism

Roger E. Olson
Professor of Theology
George W. Truett Theological Seminary
Baylor University

Above all I want to make clear that I admire and respect my Calvinist friends and colleagues. We disagree strongly about some points of theology, but I hold them in high esteem for their commitment to the authority of God’s Word and their obvious love for Jesus Christ and his church as well as for evangelism.

However, I do not admire or respect John Calvin. I have been told that he should not be held responsible for the burning of the heretic Servetus because, after all, he warned the Spanish doctor and theologian not to come to Geneva and he urged the city council to behead him rather than burn him. And, after all, Calvin was a child of his times and everyone was doing the same. Nevertheless, I still struggle with placing a man complicit in murder on a pedestal.

Furthermore, I find Calvin’s doctrine of God repulsive. It elevates God’s sovereignty over his love, leaving God’s reputation in question. What I mean is that Calvin’s all-determining, predestining deity is at best morally ambiguous and at worst morally repugnant.

Much to the chagrin of some contemporary Calvinists, Calvin clearly taught that God foreordained the fall and rendered it certain. (Institutes of the Christian Religion III:XXIII.8) He also affirmed double predestination (III:XXI.5) and displayed callous disregard for the reprobate who he admitted God compelled to obedience (disobedience). (I:XVIII.2) Calvin distinguished between two modes of God’s will—what later Calvinists have called God’s decretive and preceptive wills. (III:XXIV.17) God decrees that the sinner shall sin while at the same time commanding him not to sin and condemning him for doing what he was determined by God to do. To Calvin this all lies in the secret purposes of God into which we should not peer too deeply, but it leaves a bitter taste in the mouth of anyone who regards God as above all love.

John Wesley commented on the Calvinists’ claim that God loves even the reprobate in some way. As one contemporary Calvinist put it, “God loves all people in some ways but only some people in all ways.” Wesley said that this is a love such as makes the blood run cold.

Calvin’s successor in Geneva, Theodore Beza, commented that those who find themselves suffering in the flames of hell for eternity can at least take comfort in the fact that they are there for the greater glory of God. To paraphrase Wesley, that is a glory such as sends chills down the spine. God foreordains some of his own creatures, created in his own image, to eternal hell for his own glory? Calvin may not have put it quite that bluntly, but many Calvinists have and it is a necessary extrapolation of the inner logic of consistent Calvinism. (Institutes III:XXII.11)

I have been heavily criticized by some of my Calvinist friends for saying that my biggest problem with Calvinism (by which I mean consistent divine determinism) is that it makes it difficult for me to tell the difference between God and the devil. (I am not saying Calvinists worship the devil!)

For me nothing about the Christian worldview is more important than regarding God and the devil as absolute competitors in this universe and its tragic history. God is good and desires the good of every creature. As church father Irenaeus said “The glory of God is man fully alive.” The devil is bad and desires harm for every creature. To view the devil as God’s instrument makes a mockery of the entire biblical narrative.

Two Views of Regeneration by John Hendyx

2009-07-14T17:26:00.001-07:00

I just ran across this little beauty: Two Views of Regeneration, by John Hendryx. I don't know too much about Hendryx, other than that J.C. Thibodaux likes to take him to task. I see why now.

Simply put, Hendryx's representation of Arminian Theology is about the most biased that one will ever run across. His descriptions are worthless for accurately representing what Arminians hold to. These descriptions are not even an accurate representation of Semi-Pelagianism.

Either Hendrix is uninformed, or is completely dishonest. I hope the former. He really needs to read Arminian Theology, by Roger Olson.

Ok, I'm done ranting now. Stuff like this really ticks me off. :)

Interesting Bible Transalation Chart

2009-07-13T15:58:00.000-07:00

I ran across this Bible translation chart. I found it helpful in visually explaining the goal of different English translations. The number in parenthesis is the grade level readability. The chart comes from Lion Track Ministries. I can't speak to it's accuracy.

Six Ways Calvin is Better than Arminius

2009-07-10T09:16:00.000-07:00

Well, today is the big 5-0-0 for Mr. John Calvin. Although he isn't my favorite theologian, he deserves special recognition in honor of his big day. So I humbly offer six ways that Calvin is better than Arminius.

Better Name. Calvin is a great sounding name. It's stylish enough to have its own clothing line. Arminius does not role off the tongue, and is too easily confused with a small Asian country.

Sure of Himself. Calvin knew he was right, and never changed his views. Arminius changed his theology over the years. Pretty wishy washy if you ask me.

Better Chess Player. Calvin would smoke Arminius in a game of chess. He would plan his game from beginning to end and execute it to perfection. Arminius would no doubt waste his time worrying about the pawns.

The Beard. Calvin has the way cool Z.Z. Top beard thing going. Arminius' beard is respectable, but nothing to phone home about. As a side note: Z.Z. Top would be executed if they ever showed up in Calvin's Geneva. And rightfully so.

Political Power. Calvin ran his own city-state with an iron fist. Arminius could hardly hold down a job at Leiden.

No Weenie Frill Collar. Calvin has a stylish fur collar. Arminius deserves a butt kicking for his collar. Enough said.

Happy Birthday John Calvin!

Interesting Links 07-01-09

2009-07-01T12:30:00.000-07:00

Arminian Today is doing a series on different interpretations of Romans 7.

Nick Norelli has a great book review on How to Choose a [Bible] Translation for All It's Worth.

The Road to Rome? Calvinists who have converted to Catholicism.

James White grabs some low hanging fruit.

Have they found the remains of Saint Paul? Maybe.

Ken Schenck has a thought provoking post on the nature of original sin.

Governor Mark Sanford employs the King David defense.

Oy vey! The Israeli Supreme court rules that a Christian Jew can sell kosher food.

Very Good Article on John 6, 10

2009-06-29T09:50:00.000-07:00

Here is a great article on the order of faith and election in the Gospel of John. Thanks to Brian Abasciano for making me aware of this work.

Robert Hamilton, "The Order of Faith and Election in John's Gospel: You Do Not Believe Because You Are Not My Sheep"

Summary Review:
Calvinists use portions of the Gospel of John to establish the concept of unconditional particular election. For example this passage:

Jesus answered, "I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father's name speak for me, but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. John 10:25-26 (NIV)

Calvinists point to this passage to prove particular election before faith - that the non-believing Jews didn't follow Jesus because God didn't elect them to believe.

Hamilton argues that this is a misinterpretation of the passage, and doesn't take into account the historical context. He argues that the sheep were God fearing Jews who seeking after the Father prior to the arrival of Jesus. When Jesus came, all these God fearing Jews (and later Gentiles) were given by the Father to the son, and these are the sheep Jesus speaks of.

On the other hand, the non-believing Jews were not following God prior to the coming of Jesus, and therefore were not given to him by the Father.

So the passage is not about particular election before faith. It is simply Jesus explaining to the Pharisees that they were not following him because they were not following the Father in the first place.

The Greek Word Diakonos in Romans 16:1

2009-06-26T00:20:00.000-07:00

The Greek word diakonos is often translated as deacon. It is a New Testament term that refers to leaders or ministers in the local church body. This post is about how the term is translated in Romans 16:1, when it refers to the person of Phoebe.

Here's the NIV translation of diakonos when referring to Phoebe: Romans 16:1 I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant of the church in Cenchrea.

Here' the NIV translation of diakonos elsewhere when referring to a man: 1 Timothy 3:12 A deacon must be faithful to his wife and must manage his children and his household well.

I was curious how different English translations would handle these two passages, given the possible relevance to women in leadership. Here are the results:

Notice that in 1 Tim 3:12 diakonos is always translated as deacon. But in Romans 16:1 when it refers to Phoebe it is frequently translated as servant.

Servant does not at all convey the idea of leadership, while the word deacon does. We can't be certain what Phoebe's role was in the church in Cenchrea, however, I don't believe that the word servant adequately conveys the leadership aspect of her role.

Specifically, I wonder if there is translation bias going on here. The translators who are suspicious of female leadership pick the word "servant". The translators who advocate female leadership pick the word "deacon".

The gender specific translations (ESV, NASB, NKJV) go with servant (which interestingly is also a gender neutral term). The usually more gender neutral translations (NRSV, TNIV, NLT) go with deacon. None go with the female specific term of deaconess, although the NIV and ESV do list that as a footnote alternative (to their credit).

Interesting Links - 06/23/09

2009-06-23T10:00:00.000-07:00

What "makes" us chose one way or the other? J.C. Thibodaux at the Arminian Perspectives blog is doing a multiple part series on the fallacies of Calvinist apologetics. part1, part2, part3,

Dan at Arminian Chronicles is working on a comprehensive list of Arminian resources for Romans 9.

David Nilsen askes Arminian Molinists: If God's plan is to get the maximum number of people saved, then why would He ever return?

Iranian Christians are praying for their homeland. So am I. May this current unrest point the people of Iran to Jesus Christ - the source of freedom.

The (conservative) Presbyterian Church of America rejects studying the role of women in the denomination.