Ben over at Arminian Perspectives has a good post on "eternal security" and how this doctrine does violence to the plain reading of numerous passages of scripture. Check it out.
Never Really Saved to Begin With
2 weeks ago
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Monday, October 13, 2008
More than Dreams (Islam)
I recently had the pleasure of seeing a new believer get baptized. This young person came from an Islamic background. His testimony brought tears to my eyes. It is such a joy to hear the life story of a new follower of Christ. It is particularly amazing when the testimony comes from someone who risks everything to follow Him.
Here is a site with video testimonies from former Muslims who have become Christians. These are professionally done reenactments telling the story of these individuals, and how they came to know Isa (Jesus). They are spoken in the native languages (Arabic, Farsi, etc) of the believers. There are English subtitles also.
More than Dreams
These particular testimonies have several things in common:
Here is a site with video testimonies from former Muslims who have become Christians. These are professionally done reenactments telling the story of these individuals, and how they came to know Isa (Jesus). They are spoken in the native languages (Arabic, Farsi, etc) of the believers. There are English subtitles also.
More than Dreams
These particular testimonies have several things in common:
- All were seeking to know Allah better.
- All had visions and dreams about Isa.
- All sacrificed much to follow Isa.
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Romans 11
Recap
In the previous posts (1, 2, 3) we looked at Romans 9 and 10. The focus throughout the passage is the nation of Israel. Has God broken his promises to the Jewish people? No, he has not.
We noted the following: The election described in Romans 9 is for the human ancestry of Christ (9:5). Jacob and Esau are nations (9:11-13). Pharaoh is a parallel to the nation of Israel (9:14-17). Pharaoh was used by God to proclaim his name to the world (9:17). Israel depended on their works instead of believing in Jesus (10:1-4). Anyone can be saved by confessing and believing that Jesus is Lord (10:9-13). God genuinely desired to save Israel, yet they resisted his grace (10:16-21).
Romans 11
In the opening of Romans 11 we see that God still loves Israel, even though they have been disobedient. In addition, not all of Israel has turned away from God. Some have remained faithful. Others have become faithful. Paul gives himself as an example (11:1-6).
Also discussed is the election and hardening of Israel:
What then? What Israel sought so earnestly it did not obtain, but the elect did. The others were hardened...(11:7)
The "hardening" here is not by arbitrary decree. Rather, Israel has been hardened by God because of their disobedience. The hardening is also not without purpose. Through it the Gentiles have been shown mercy. Importantly for Israel, the hardening is not a permanent condition. Salvation is available for them too. They have not stumbled beyond recovery.
Romans 11:11-12
Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their fullness bring!
Ingrafted Branches
In Romans 11:13 Paul makes a transition from Israel to addressing Gentiles. He gives an analogy of some branches being cut off and other branches being grafted in. Salvation is now available to the non-Jew. Israel has been "cut off" due to their disobedience, and the Gentiles have been "grafted in" as a result. Importantly to Arminians, Paul makes it clear that we can lose our salvation through unbelief. We should not take our current standing for granted. Just as Israel was cut off, so we can be too.
Romans 11:17-21 (bold and parenthesis mine)
If some of the branches have been broken off (Israel), and you (gentiles), though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, 1do not boast over those branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in." Granted. But they (Israel) were broken off because of unbelief, and you (gentiles) stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.
There is still good news for Israel. If they do not persist in disbelief, they can be grafted back into a relationship with God. Since they are the original branches, it is more all the more natural for them.
Romans 11:22-24
Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree!
Mercy for All
Paul closes his argument in Romans 11:28-32. He concludes that Israel will be saved in the end, because God is faithful to keep his promises. God has mercy on all of us! This conclusion is the opposite of what Calvinism teaches.
Romans 11:28-32 (bold mine)
As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies on your account; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, for God's gifts and his call are irrevocable. Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now receive mercy as a result of God's mercy to you. For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.”
Romans 9-11 is very unfriendly to Calvinism when read in context. Consider the following:
Conclusion
Isn't it interesting that Paul concludes his argument by stating that God has mercy on us all? The whole point of Paul's argument throughout Romans 9-11 is that our God is faithful! He is good. He is genuine. He keeps his promises. He is merciful to Israel. He is merciful all. Amen to that!
In the previous posts (1, 2, 3) we looked at Romans 9 and 10. The focus throughout the passage is the nation of Israel. Has God broken his promises to the Jewish people? No, he has not.
We noted the following: The election described in Romans 9 is for the human ancestry of Christ (9:5). Jacob and Esau are nations (9:11-13). Pharaoh is a parallel to the nation of Israel (9:14-17). Pharaoh was used by God to proclaim his name to the world (9:17). Israel depended on their works instead of believing in Jesus (10:1-4). Anyone can be saved by confessing and believing that Jesus is Lord (10:9-13). God genuinely desired to save Israel, yet they resisted his grace (10:16-21).
Romans 11
In the opening of Romans 11 we see that God still loves Israel, even though they have been disobedient. In addition, not all of Israel has turned away from God. Some have remained faithful. Others have become faithful. Paul gives himself as an example (11:1-6).
Also discussed is the election and hardening of Israel:
What then? What Israel sought so earnestly it did not obtain, but the elect did. The others were hardened...(11:7)
The "hardening" here is not by arbitrary decree. Rather, Israel has been hardened by God because of their disobedience. The hardening is also not without purpose. Through it the Gentiles have been shown mercy. Importantly for Israel, the hardening is not a permanent condition. Salvation is available for them too. They have not stumbled beyond recovery.
Romans 11:11-12
Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their fullness bring!
Ingrafted Branches
In Romans 11:13 Paul makes a transition from Israel to addressing Gentiles. He gives an analogy of some branches being cut off and other branches being grafted in. Salvation is now available to the non-Jew. Israel has been "cut off" due to their disobedience, and the Gentiles have been "grafted in" as a result. Importantly to Arminians, Paul makes it clear that we can lose our salvation through unbelief. We should not take our current standing for granted. Just as Israel was cut off, so we can be too.
Romans 11:17-21 (bold and parenthesis mine)
If some of the branches have been broken off (Israel), and you (gentiles), though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, 1do not boast over those branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in." Granted. But they (Israel) were broken off because of unbelief, and you (gentiles) stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.
There is still good news for Israel. If they do not persist in disbelief, they can be grafted back into a relationship with God. Since they are the original branches, it is more all the more natural for them.
Romans 11:22-24
Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree!
Mercy for All
Paul closes his argument in Romans 11:28-32. He concludes that Israel will be saved in the end, because God is faithful to keep his promises. God has mercy on all of us! This conclusion is the opposite of what Calvinism teaches.
Romans 11:28-32 (bold mine)
As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies on your account; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, for God's gifts and his call are irrevocable. Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now receive mercy as a result of God's mercy to you. For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.”
Romans 9-11 is very unfriendly to Calvinism when read in context. Consider the following:
- God wants everyone to know who he is (9:17).
- Anyone can be saved (10:9-13).
- Grace is resistible (10:16-21).
- Hardening is not arbitrary, it is a punishment for transgression (11:11).
- The accepted can become rejected (11:22).
- The rejected can become accepted (11:23)
- God has mercy on all (11:32).
Conclusion
Isn't it interesting that Paul concludes his argument by stating that God has mercy on us all? The whole point of Paul's argument throughout Romans 9-11 is that our God is faithful! He is good. He is genuine. He keeps his promises. He is merciful to Israel. He is merciful all. Amen to that!
Monday, October 6, 2008
The Life of John Wesley
YouTube has a three part video series about the life of John Wesley. It is well worth the watch. Run time is about 3 minutes per clip. (HT: Arminian Today)
The author Chris Denne has done some other interesting series as well (William J Seymour for example)
The author Chris Denne has done some other interesting series as well (William J Seymour for example)
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Romans 10
Recap of Romans 9
In the previous two posts (1,2) we looked at the context of Romans 9. It addresses the question: Has God broken his promises to the Jewish people? We noted that Jacob and Esau (9:11-13) were nations, and that the election described was for the human ancestry of Christ (9:5). We observed that both Pharaoh and Israel were chosen by God to proclaim his name to the world, and that God showed mercy to Pharaoh (Exodus 9:13-16).
More to the story: Romans 10 and 11
Typically, Calvinists are only interested in a portion of Romans 9. However, Romans 9, 10, and 11 are one argument. Romans 10 and 11 teach a very non-Calvinistic view of faith.
The opening of Romans 10 shows that Paul still has Israel in mind. We now learn why not all of Abraham's descendants are God's children (first addressed in Romans 9:6). It is because Israel is depending on its own works, instead of the righteousness that comes through faith in Jesus. God offers salvation to everyone who has faith in Jesus and calls on his name.
Romans 10:1-4
Brothers, my heart's desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved. For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness. Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.
How are we saved?
Salvation and justification are presented in Romans 10:9-13. To be saved one must confess that Jesus is Lord and believe in his heart that God raised Jesus from the dead. Importantly, anyone can be saved.
That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame." For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."
Amen! No wonder the Calvinists never go on to read Romans 10. There is nothing here about "secret decrees" or the elect being zapped with faith. Instead we see that it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.
Irresistible Grace Refuted?
In Romans 10:16-21 the Calvinistic teaching of "Irresistible Grace" is contradicted by the word of God. God genuinely desired to save Israel. Not only that, Israel heard and understood the message of Christ. Yet they still resisted.
Romans 10:16-21: But not all the Israelites accepted the good news. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed our message?" Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ. But I ask: Did they not hear? Of course they did:
"Their voice has gone out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world."Again I ask: Did Israel not understand? First, Moses says, "I will make you envious by those who are not a nation; I will make you angry by a nation that has no understanding." And Isaiah boldly says,
"I was found by those who did not seek me; I revealed myself to those who did not ask for me." But concerning Israel he says, "All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and obstinate people."
God desired for Israel to accept Christ. In fact it states that God was holding out his hands to them all day long. Israel heard the good news, and they understood the message. If "Irresistible Grace" was true they would have been saved. But Israel did resist. They remained disobedient and obstinate.
Next up: Romans 11.
In the previous two posts (1,2) we looked at the context of Romans 9. It addresses the question: Has God broken his promises to the Jewish people? We noted that Jacob and Esau (9:11-13) were nations, and that the election described was for the human ancestry of Christ (9:5). We observed that both Pharaoh and Israel were chosen by God to proclaim his name to the world, and that God showed mercy to Pharaoh (Exodus 9:13-16).
More to the story: Romans 10 and 11
Typically, Calvinists are only interested in a portion of Romans 9. However, Romans 9, 10, and 11 are one argument. Romans 10 and 11 teach a very non-Calvinistic view of faith.
The opening of Romans 10 shows that Paul still has Israel in mind. We now learn why not all of Abraham's descendants are God's children (first addressed in Romans 9:6). It is because Israel is depending on its own works, instead of the righteousness that comes through faith in Jesus. God offers salvation to everyone who has faith in Jesus and calls on his name.
Romans 10:1-4
Brothers, my heart's desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved. For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness. Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.
How are we saved?
Salvation and justification are presented in Romans 10:9-13. To be saved one must confess that Jesus is Lord and believe in his heart that God raised Jesus from the dead. Importantly, anyone can be saved.
That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame." For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."
Amen! No wonder the Calvinists never go on to read Romans 10. There is nothing here about "secret decrees" or the elect being zapped with faith. Instead we see that it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.
Irresistible Grace Refuted?
In Romans 10:16-21 the Calvinistic teaching of "Irresistible Grace" is contradicted by the word of God. God genuinely desired to save Israel. Not only that, Israel heard and understood the message of Christ. Yet they still resisted.
Romans 10:16-21: But not all the Israelites accepted the good news. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed our message?" Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ. But I ask: Did they not hear? Of course they did:
"Their voice has gone out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world."Again I ask: Did Israel not understand? First, Moses says, "I will make you envious by those who are not a nation; I will make you angry by a nation that has no understanding." And Isaiah boldly says,
"I was found by those who did not seek me; I revealed myself to those who did not ask for me." But concerning Israel he says, "All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and obstinate people."
God desired for Israel to accept Christ. In fact it states that God was holding out his hands to them all day long. Israel heard the good news, and they understood the message. If "Irresistible Grace" was true they would have been saved. But Israel did resist. They remained disobedient and obstinate.
Next up: Romans 11.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
100 Years: Church of the Nazarene
Happy 100th birthday Nazarenes!
(I come from a Nazarene background)
Some facts:
Challanges for Nazarenes (my opinions)
(I come from a Nazarene background)
Some facts:
- The denomination was founded in 1908, in Pilot Point Texas.
- The denomination started through the merger of 15 small Holiness denominations.
- Nazarenes are Wesleyan Arminian in orientation
- The church has always permitted the ordination of women. In 1925, 12% of the ordained ministers were women. Currently the number is about 2%. source
- The church has always been racially integrated (whites and blacks).
- The church currently has 1.7 million members, 640,000 in the USA.
- The founder was Phineas F. Bresee. Bresee came from a Methodist background, and was active in the Los Angeles community.
- Some of the better known theogians include: H Orton Wiley, Mildred Bangs Wynkoop, and J Kenneth Grider
Challanges for Nazarenes (my opinions)
- Liberal trends: The belief in the infallibility of the Bible is under attack
- Slowed growth in the USA
- closing of churches in the USA (the small ones are being closed, while the big ones are getting bigger)
- Ministering to postmodern society
- Ministering to minorities, adjusting to changing racial demographics in our communities
- The encroach of Calvinistic concepts
- Decreased emphasis on Holiness
- There seems to less focus on world missions.
- "Silo" of the denomination, Nazarenes need to work more with other groups who have closely related theology (like Assembly of God, Wesleyan, Methodist, Free Methodist, Church of God, etc)
Monday, September 29, 2008
Calvinist Proof Text Series: Romans 9 (part 2)
I'm doing a series to address the major Calvinist proof texts: Romans 9, John 6, and Ephesians 1.
Recap of Romans 9 (part 1)
In the previous post we looked at the context of Romans 9: Has God broken his promises to the Jewish people? He has not. We also noted that Jacob and Esau (9:11-13) were nations, and that the election spoken of for the patriarchs is in regards to the human ancestry of Christ (9:5).
Romans 9:14-17 - What's up with Pharaoh?
Paul has been speaking of Israel. Pharaoh is referenced because he provides a parallel to the Jewish nation. Both Pharaoh and Israel are used by God to accomplish His purposes, despite their disobedience. The way God deals with Pharaoh in Exodus is similar to the way he later deals with Israel.
The Israelites had been disobedient throughout their history. They had broken their covenant with God. However, God showed mercy to them over and over again. Why? Because he wanted to make his name known to the world. He had decided to accomplish this through the offspring of Jacob.
Recognizing the parallel (Israel / Pharaoh - both disobedient, both shown mercy to accomplish a purpose), let's look at Romans 9:14-17 (bold mine):
What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
This passage parallels Exodus 9:15-16 (bold and parenthesis mine):
(God speaking to Pharaoh through Moses) I could have stretched out my hand and struck you and your people with a plague that would have wiped you off the earth. But I have raised you up (have spared you) for this very purpose, that I might show you my power and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.
To raise up means "to spare". Pharaoh deserved instant death, yet God spared him for a time. Sometimes God spares the least deserving, because by doing so he is able to accomplish his greater purpose of revealing and reconciling himself to the world.
In the process God hardened Pharaoh's heart. Was this unjust? Not at all! If God arbitrarily and capriciously hardened Pharoah from birth, that would be unjust. However, the accounts don't indicates this. The hardening was an act of judgment against a man who had committed much evil, and had positioned himself against God. Calvinists sometimes imply that God "made" Pharaoh wicked. Pharaoh was already wicked. God didn't need to control Pharaoh like a puppet to "make" him do evil things. He knew of how Pharaoh would respond in different situations (Exodus 7:10-13). He had no need to violate Pharoah's will in the process.
When a matador waves a red flag in front of a bull, he doesn't need any magic to get inside the bull's head. He already knows what the bull will do.
What was the purpose of God's interaction with Pharaoh? Proclaiming His name in all the earth! Understanding that God showd undeserved mercy to Pharaoh (and later Isreal) changes the focus of Romans 9:22-24 (parenthesis mine):
What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath (Pharaoh, Israel) —prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?
God loves the world. He wants everyone to know who he is. God showed mercy to both Israel and Pharaoh when they didn't deserve it, so that his name would be known. Morover, He acted justly and fairly in all of His dealing with both.
Who are you oh man to talk back to God?
Romans 9:19-21 One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' "Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?
This has nothing to do with unconditional election or reprobation. Rather, the Jews of that time were making the argument that they ought not to be condemned for doing evil if their evil brought glory to God and helped accomplish his purposes. This is similar to the question that Paul addresses in Romans 3:5-8 (bold mine):
But if our unrighteousness brings out God's righteousness more clearly, what shall we say? That God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us? (I am using a human argument.) Certainly not! If that were so, how could God judge the world? Someone might argue, "If my falsehood enhances God's truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?" Why not say—as we are being slanderously reported as saying and as some claim that we say—"Let us do evil that good may result"? Their condemnation is deserved.
Israel freely committed evil actions contrary to what God desired. And they rejected the means of salvation that God had provided (they rejected Jesus). If Israel (or anyone) acts in a way that God does not prefer, God still has the right to use their actions to further the advancement of his kingdom. This in no way clouds the character of God, because he did not determine the disobedience in the first place. In the case of Israel he did everything possible to cultivate their obedience (Isaiah 5). It follows then that Israel has no grounds to talk back to God. This is Paul's point.
Next up: a look at Romans 10.
Recap of Romans 9 (part 1)
In the previous post we looked at the context of Romans 9: Has God broken his promises to the Jewish people? He has not. We also noted that Jacob and Esau (9:11-13) were nations, and that the election spoken of for the patriarchs is in regards to the human ancestry of Christ (9:5).
Romans 9:14-17 - What's up with Pharaoh?
Paul has been speaking of Israel. Pharaoh is referenced because he provides a parallel to the Jewish nation. Both Pharaoh and Israel are used by God to accomplish His purposes, despite their disobedience. The way God deals with Pharaoh in Exodus is similar to the way he later deals with Israel.
The Israelites had been disobedient throughout their history. They had broken their covenant with God. However, God showed mercy to them over and over again. Why? Because he wanted to make his name known to the world. He had decided to accomplish this through the offspring of Jacob.
Recognizing the parallel (Israel / Pharaoh - both disobedient, both shown mercy to accomplish a purpose), let's look at Romans 9:14-17 (bold mine):
What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
This passage parallels Exodus 9:15-16 (bold and parenthesis mine):
(God speaking to Pharaoh through Moses) I could have stretched out my hand and struck you and your people with a plague that would have wiped you off the earth. But I have raised you up (have spared you) for this very purpose, that I might show you my power and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.
To raise up means "to spare". Pharaoh deserved instant death, yet God spared him for a time. Sometimes God spares the least deserving, because by doing so he is able to accomplish his greater purpose of revealing and reconciling himself to the world.
In the process God hardened Pharaoh's heart. Was this unjust? Not at all! If God arbitrarily and capriciously hardened Pharoah from birth, that would be unjust. However, the accounts don't indicates this. The hardening was an act of judgment against a man who had committed much evil, and had positioned himself against God. Calvinists sometimes imply that God "made" Pharaoh wicked. Pharaoh was already wicked. God didn't need to control Pharaoh like a puppet to "make" him do evil things. He knew of how Pharaoh would respond in different situations (Exodus 7:10-13). He had no need to violate Pharoah's will in the process.
When a matador waves a red flag in front of a bull, he doesn't need any magic to get inside the bull's head. He already knows what the bull will do.
What was the purpose of God's interaction with Pharaoh? Proclaiming His name in all the earth! Understanding that God showd undeserved mercy to Pharaoh (and later Isreal) changes the focus of Romans 9:22-24 (parenthesis mine):
What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath (Pharaoh, Israel) —prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?
God loves the world. He wants everyone to know who he is. God showed mercy to both Israel and Pharaoh when they didn't deserve it, so that his name would be known. Morover, He acted justly and fairly in all of His dealing with both.
Who are you oh man to talk back to God?
Romans 9:19-21 One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' "Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?
This has nothing to do with unconditional election or reprobation. Rather, the Jews of that time were making the argument that they ought not to be condemned for doing evil if their evil brought glory to God and helped accomplish his purposes. This is similar to the question that Paul addresses in Romans 3:5-8 (bold mine):
But if our unrighteousness brings out God's righteousness more clearly, what shall we say? That God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us? (I am using a human argument.) Certainly not! If that were so, how could God judge the world? Someone might argue, "If my falsehood enhances God's truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?" Why not say—as we are being slanderously reported as saying and as some claim that we say—"Let us do evil that good may result"? Their condemnation is deserved.
Israel freely committed evil actions contrary to what God desired. And they rejected the means of salvation that God had provided (they rejected Jesus). If Israel (or anyone) acts in a way that God does not prefer, God still has the right to use their actions to further the advancement of his kingdom. This in no way clouds the character of God, because he did not determine the disobedience in the first place. In the case of Israel he did everything possible to cultivate their obedience (Isaiah 5). It follows then that Israel has no grounds to talk back to God. This is Paul's point.
Next up: a look at Romans 10.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Calvinist Proof Text Series: Romans 9 (part 1)
I'm doing a series to address the major Calvinist proof texts: Romans 9, John 6, and Ephesians 1.
Calvinism is a philosophy based upon exhaustive determinism (that God controls us like puppets). George Bryson summarizes Calvinism as follows: "You will be saved or damned for all eternity because you were saved or damned from all eternity." (1)
Romans 9.
Inevitably, the first passage Calvinists turn to is Romans 9. They argue that the passage teaches unconditional individual election - that God determines to save specific individuals. Those whom God has chosen will certainly be saved. Everyone else is without help and without hope. Calvinists teach that God passes over the larger part of mankind (Pharaoh and Esau are examples). These individuals are decreed to be vessels of wrath (9:22). Calvinists believe that God does not intend for most to be saved, nor does he provides means for them to be saved.
The background for Romans 9: Has God broken his promises?
During early church history (and now) most of the Jewish people had rejected Jesus. This grieved Paul deeply. The question being asked was: Has God broken his promises to Israel? If the Jews don't believe, does this mean that God's promises are untrue? Has God failed to keep his word? This is first asked in Romans 3:3 "What if some did not have faith? Will their lack of faith nullify God's faithfulness?"
The answer to the question is no. God is not unfaithful. He has not broken his promises to the descendants of Abraham. Paul explains why in detail in chapters 9, 10, and 11. His scope is identified in the opening of Romans 9:1-5 (bold mine):
I speak the truth in Christ—I am not lying, my conscience confirms it in the Holy Spirit— I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.
The Jews of that time thought that God had unconditionally elected them to salvation by their birthright as children of Abraham. Paul was showing this is not the case. He says, hey look! Not all of Abraham's descendants are God's children (9:6), only those who have faith are (9:32).
What about Jacob and Esau?
Romans 9:11-13: Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God's purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls—she was told, "The older will serve the younger. Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.
The passage is about the nations of Jacob and Esau (Israel and Edom - see Genesis 25:23). The election in scope is not salvation of the individual. Rather, it is for the human ancestry of Christ (Romans 9:5). Jacob was elected to be a forefather of the Savior. Jesus came through the line of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob.
A parallel situation occurs with Isaac and Ishmael. This is addressed in Genesis 21:12-13 (also mentioned in Galatians 4:21-31 and alluded to in Romans 9:7): "But God said to (Abraham), "Do not be so distressed about the boy and your maidservant. Listen to whatever Sarah tells you, because it is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned. I will make the son of the maid servant into a nation also, because he is your offspring."
Isaac was blessed in a special way that Ishmael was not. Jacob was blessed in a special way that Esau was not. Isaac and Jacob were forefathers of Jesus! This does not mean that Ishmael and Esau were not blessed at all, or that they were eternally hated and dammed by God. God loved both of these men. He made promises to both. In fact, both became nations. And they may both be in heaven today. However, God elected to bring the Savior through the line of Isaac, and Jacob. That was his right as God.
Coming up next in the series: Romans 9 (part 2), then we'll boldly go where no Calvinist has gone before - a look at 10 and 11. :)
(1) George Bryson, The Five Points of Calvinism
Calvinism is a philosophy based upon exhaustive determinism (that God controls us like puppets). George Bryson summarizes Calvinism as follows: "You will be saved or damned for all eternity because you were saved or damned from all eternity." (1)
Romans 9.
Inevitably, the first passage Calvinists turn to is Romans 9. They argue that the passage teaches unconditional individual election - that God determines to save specific individuals. Those whom God has chosen will certainly be saved. Everyone else is without help and without hope. Calvinists teach that God passes over the larger part of mankind (Pharaoh and Esau are examples). These individuals are decreed to be vessels of wrath (9:22). Calvinists believe that God does not intend for most to be saved, nor does he provides means for them to be saved.
The background for Romans 9: Has God broken his promises?
During early church history (and now) most of the Jewish people had rejected Jesus. This grieved Paul deeply. The question being asked was: Has God broken his promises to Israel? If the Jews don't believe, does this mean that God's promises are untrue? Has God failed to keep his word? This is first asked in Romans 3:3 "What if some did not have faith? Will their lack of faith nullify God's faithfulness?"
The answer to the question is no. God is not unfaithful. He has not broken his promises to the descendants of Abraham. Paul explains why in detail in chapters 9, 10, and 11. His scope is identified in the opening of Romans 9:1-5 (bold mine):
I speak the truth in Christ—I am not lying, my conscience confirms it in the Holy Spirit— I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.
The Jews of that time thought that God had unconditionally elected them to salvation by their birthright as children of Abraham. Paul was showing this is not the case. He says, hey look! Not all of Abraham's descendants are God's children (9:6), only those who have faith are (9:32).
What about Jacob and Esau?
Romans 9:11-13: Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God's purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls—she was told, "The older will serve the younger. Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.
The passage is about the nations of Jacob and Esau (Israel and Edom - see Genesis 25:23). The election in scope is not salvation of the individual. Rather, it is for the human ancestry of Christ (Romans 9:5). Jacob was elected to be a forefather of the Savior. Jesus came through the line of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob.
A parallel situation occurs with Isaac and Ishmael. This is addressed in Genesis 21:12-13 (also mentioned in Galatians 4:21-31 and alluded to in Romans 9:7): "But God said to (Abraham), "Do not be so distressed about the boy and your maidservant. Listen to whatever Sarah tells you, because it is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned. I will make the son of the maid servant into a nation also, because he is your offspring."
Isaac was blessed in a special way that Ishmael was not. Jacob was blessed in a special way that Esau was not. Isaac and Jacob were forefathers of Jesus! This does not mean that Ishmael and Esau were not blessed at all, or that they were eternally hated and dammed by God. God loved both of these men. He made promises to both. In fact, both became nations. And they may both be in heaven today. However, God elected to bring the Savior through the line of Isaac, and Jacob. That was his right as God.
Coming up next in the series: Romans 9 (part 2), then we'll boldly go where no Calvinist has gone before - a look at 10 and 11. :)
(1) George Bryson, The Five Points of Calvinism
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Arminian Audio: Keith Green
Keith Green preaches a sermon entitled: Devotions or Devotion?
It was a pleasure to hear a little bit from the heart of Green. We need more of this kind of challenging message today. I miss this man of God.
mp3 link
Video link
Warning: he quotes from that wicked heretic Finney. :)
Here is another link with some sermons by Green.
It was a pleasure to hear a little bit from the heart of Green. We need more of this kind of challenging message today. I miss this man of God.
mp3 link
Video link
Warning: he quotes from that wicked heretic Finney. :)
Here is another link with some sermons by Green.
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Welcome to Wesleyan Arminian!
Welcome to my new blog: WesleyanArminian.blogspot.com
The focus of this blog will be Arminian theology from a Wesleyan perspective (if the title doesn't give it away). Since I am a layman, this blog will come from a layman's view. I write with conversational words (like "salvation") instead of more academic terms (like "soteriology"). Big words distract me.
Coming up in the near future, I want to take a look at some key Calvinist proof texts. I'm planning an overview of: Romans 9, John 6, and Ephesians 1. I also want to address other topics of interest to Wesleyan Arminians. Stuff like: open theism, holiness, views of the atonement, inerrancy, the state of the church universal, etc.
This blog needs a face lift. If you have some suggestions, drop me a note.
In addition, I plan on updating the labels / tagging on some of the old posts to make them easier to find.
I will still be posting on my old blog here: seekadoo.blogspot.com. That blog will be devoted to family, politics, hobbies, and other sorts of interests.
To Him who is not willing that any should perish. To Him who is worthy to be praised. Further up and further in!
Kevin Jackson (Pizza Man)
The focus of this blog will be Arminian theology from a Wesleyan perspective (if the title doesn't give it away). Since I am a layman, this blog will come from a layman's view. I write with conversational words (like "salvation") instead of more academic terms (like "soteriology"). Big words distract me.
Coming up in the near future, I want to take a look at some key Calvinist proof texts. I'm planning an overview of: Romans 9, John 6, and Ephesians 1. I also want to address other topics of interest to Wesleyan Arminians. Stuff like: open theism, holiness, views of the atonement, inerrancy, the state of the church universal, etc.
This blog needs a face lift. If you have some suggestions, drop me a note.
In addition, I plan on updating the labels / tagging on some of the old posts to make them easier to find.
I will still be posting on my old blog here: seekadoo.blogspot.com. That blog will be devoted to family, politics, hobbies, and other sorts of interests.
To Him who is not willing that any should perish. To Him who is worthy to be praised. Further up and further in!
Kevin Jackson (Pizza Man)
Monday, September 8, 2008
Book Review: The Shack
What would you do if you were invited to spend a weekend with God? What questions would you ask him? Maybe why evil exists? Why is there pain? That is the background for the book "The Shack" (Author: William P. Young).The Shack has become a phenomenon. As of today (9-8-08) it is ranked #6 in sales on Amazon.com, and has over 1,200 reviews.
There is a dual reaction to the book in Christian circles. People either love it or despise it. I fall into the former category, with a reservation. I enjoyed the story. It brought me to tears a number of times. As the father of two girls, I empathized with the main character, "Mack".
The Shack is about the problem of evil. Why does God allow for terrible things to happen? Mack's youngest daughter Missy is brutally raped and murdered. This causes a rift in his relationship with God. Mack cannot trust a God who would allow such a terrible act. In the story God invites Mack to come to meet him at the site of the murder. Mack goes to meet God, and so the story continues.
The Trinity is represented by three persons: Papa (who is a black woman), Jesus (as himself), and Sarayu (an Asian woman). Some people have been bothered that the Father and the Spirit were represented by women. However, in the storyline it is made clear that they are not really female, they are simply an anthropomorphism of God - much like "Aslan" represents God in the Narnia books.
What I liked about the book was how well the author illustrated the loving nature of God. This aspect of God' s character shined through. God deeply loves Mack. He desires to heal Mack, to be in relationship with him, and to set him free. God loves all of us that way, the author makes it clear. A phrase that is repeated is that God is especially fond of you (each of us).
In the story God does not desire evil, it is not ordained by him. Yet God is able to accomplish his purposes through the way he responds to evil - with his unconditional love.
One concern I have about the book is that it seems to imply universalism - the idea that everyone will be saved in the end. This concept is not explicitly stated, but I can see readers arriving at such a conclusion.
The outright hostile reviews of the book are unwarranted. They seem to primarily come from Calvinists who have an ax to grind with the (Arminian) theology of the author. This is unfortunate.
In conclusion, I recommend this book. However, it should not be taken as "gospel". It should not be read in place of scripture. In the end it is simply a story - but a very moving one at that.
Some other reviews:
Greg Boyd (positive)
Tim Challies (negative)
Sunday, September 7, 2008
General Atonement
Truehope over at Thru Faith has a new post entitled: Atonement for All. He gives a great overview of General Atonement, and how it is biblical. Be sure to check it out.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Audio Links: SBC Today
SBC Today has several audio links dealing with the issue of Calvinism in the Southern Baptist Convention. SBC Today is a blog run by several pastors. According to the website: SBC Today exists to restore unity in the convention around biblical discipleship and our historic Baptist distinctives.
Audio Links:
1) Dr. David Allen (Dean at SWBTS) gives a convincing argument that Luke is the author of Hebrews. Calvinism completely aside, this is an interesting presentation. Relating to Calvinism, he makes a strong case for General Atonement, preaching from Hebrews 2:9 "But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man." (70 minutes)
2) Dr Jerry Vines (Former SBC President) is interviewed. During the course of the conversation he speaks on how Calvinism is impacting the SBC. (23 Minutes)
3) Dr. Ergun Caner (President of LBTS) is interviewed. He gives an autobiography, and speaks on Calvinism along with other issues. (17 minutes)
Audio Links:
1) Dr. David Allen (Dean at SWBTS) gives a convincing argument that Luke is the author of Hebrews. Calvinism completely aside, this is an interesting presentation. Relating to Calvinism, he makes a strong case for General Atonement, preaching from Hebrews 2:9 "But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man." (70 minutes)
2) Dr Jerry Vines (Former SBC President) is interviewed. During the course of the conversation he speaks on how Calvinism is impacting the SBC. (23 Minutes)
3) Dr. Ergun Caner (President of LBTS) is interviewed. He gives an autobiography, and speaks on Calvinism along with other issues. (17 minutes)
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Full Video of the Saddleback Debate Interviews
A must watch for Christians. I will keep my opinions to myself. :)
Warren Interviews Obama (49 minutes)
Warren Interviews McCain (44 minutes)
Questions asked:
Who are three wise people who you would rely on in your administration?
What has been your greatest moral failure? What has been America greatest moral failure?
Give an example where you went against party interest for the good of the country.
Give an example where you went against your own interests for the good of the country.
What is a position you held 10 years ago that you do not hold today?
What's the most gut wrenching decision you ever had to make?
What does it mean to you to be a Christian? How does your faith live out?
At what point is a baby (fetus) entitled to human rights?
Define marriage.
Do you support a constitutional amendment to define marriage?
Do you favor or oppose embryonic stem cell research?
Does evil exist? If so, what should we do about it?
Which existing supreme justice would you not have nominated?
Should faith based organizations who receive federal funds have the right to hire people of like minded belief?
Do you support merit pay for public school teachers?
Define rich. Give me a number.
What do you do when the the right to privacy and national security interests collide?
What's worth dying for?
What is the criteria for committing American troops to war?
Would you consider a government plan to help orphans worldwide?
What should we do to end religious persecution worldwide?
What should we do to prevent human trafficking (slavery)?
Tell me in a minute why you want to be president.
What do you say to people who oppose me asking you these questions in a church?
What would you tell the American public if you knew there would be no repercussions?
Warren Interviews Obama (49 minutes)
Warren Interviews McCain (44 minutes)
Questions asked:
Who are three wise people who you would rely on in your administration?
What has been your greatest moral failure? What has been America greatest moral failure?
Give an example where you went against party interest for the good of the country.
Give an example where you went against your own interests for the good of the country.
What is a position you held 10 years ago that you do not hold today?
What's the most gut wrenching decision you ever had to make?
What does it mean to you to be a Christian? How does your faith live out?
At what point is a baby (fetus) entitled to human rights?
Define marriage.
Do you support a constitutional amendment to define marriage?
Do you favor or oppose embryonic stem cell research?
Does evil exist? If so, what should we do about it?
Which existing supreme justice would you not have nominated?
Should faith based organizations who receive federal funds have the right to hire people of like minded belief?
Do you support merit pay for public school teachers?
Define rich. Give me a number.
What do you do when the the right to privacy and national security interests collide?
What's worth dying for?
What is the criteria for committing American troops to war?
Would you consider a government plan to help orphans worldwide?
What should we do to end religious persecution worldwide?
What should we do to prevent human trafficking (slavery)?
Tell me in a minute why you want to be president.
What do you say to people who oppose me asking you these questions in a church?
What would you tell the American public if you knew there would be no repercussions?
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Book Review: Passion for the Heart of God
Passion for the Heart of God, by John Zumwalt
Zumwalt makes the case that the reason the church exists is to fulfill the great commission. God loves people. It breaks his heart that there are so many who have never heard his name. He yearns to be in relationship with the unreached people of the world. What grieves God ought to grieve us too.
Zumwalt argues that much of the problem with the Western church is that we have lost focus on what matters to God, and instead focus on ourselves. He argues that the Christian walk is not meant to be easy. Blessings that we receive aren't meant for us to be used selfishly, but are given so that God's name will be known among the nations. The same is true of the nation of Israel. Israel was chosen not just to be blessed, but instead to be used by God as part of his plan to reconcile every nation to him.
This is a challenging book. It is easy to understand, but it is not so easy to apply.
Zumwalt makes the case that the reason the church exists is to fulfill the great commission. God loves people. It breaks his heart that there are so many who have never heard his name. He yearns to be in relationship with the unreached people of the world. What grieves God ought to grieve us too.
Zumwalt argues that much of the problem with the Western church is that we have lost focus on what matters to God, and instead focus on ourselves. He argues that the Christian walk is not meant to be easy. Blessings that we receive aren't meant for us to be used selfishly, but are given so that God's name will be known among the nations. The same is true of the nation of Israel. Israel was chosen not just to be blessed, but instead to be used by God as part of his plan to reconcile every nation to him.This is a challenging book. It is easy to understand, but it is not so easy to apply.
Friday, August 15, 2008
Reformation Era Scholars who Moved Away from Limited Atonement
I thought some others might find this interesting:
The Appendix of The Life of John Goodwin (Thomas Jackson, 1872) has a list of some scholars (Reformation Era to the mid 1800s) who moved away from Limited Atonement to "enlarged views of Divine Philanthropy". The author includes himself in the list, as well as Luther, Calvin (?!), and others. Very interestingly, a number of those listed were involved with the proceedings in Dort. (Goad, Davenport, Tilenus, Hales of Eton).
It is a fact, which is highly worthy of attention, that several of the greatest divines, who have adorned the different Protestant churches by their learning, talents, and virtue, were, in the early part of their lives, "straitened in their bowels" respecting the extent of CHRIST'S REDEMPTION, and as they advanced in years and knowledge, they entertained enlarged views of the Divine Philanthropy. The following are some of the examples of this kind which may be specified:
Luther's friend and coadjutor, was at first Luther's scholar, and drew from him his earliest religious opinions. But being a learned and dispassionate man, pursuing truth, he saw his errors and abandoned them; and espoused sentiments concerning the respectiveness of God's decrees, widely different from those he had formerly held. [A circumstance which is very conveniently passed over in silence by Dr. Cox, his late English biographer.] — Pierce's Divine Philanthropy Defended, p. 14, Edit. 1657.
Also went on long as he at first set out, with so little disguise, that whereas all parties had always pretended that they asserted the freedom of the will, he plainly spoke out, and said the will was not free, but enslaved. Yet, before he died, he is reported to have changed his mind on this and other kindred subjects : for though ho never owned that, yet Melancthon, who had been of the same opinions, did ; for which he was never blame by Luther. — Burnet on the Seventeenth Article.
ARMINIUS
Himself was education at
Professor of Divinity at
President of
Is generally allowed to have been one of the most learned and pious men of the age in which he lived. Concerning him, Dr. Pierce observes, "That that inestimable bishop, in his most mature and ripest years, was very severe to those doctrines which are commonly called Calvinistical, is a thing so known, that I cannot think it will be denied." — Divine Purity Defended, p. 125, Edit. 1657.
DR. CHRISTOPHER POTTER
Provost of Queen's College, Oxford, who was esteemed by all who knew him, as a divine of an amiable disposition, and of great probity, industry, and learning, has given a pleasing account of his conversion from Calvinism to the Armiman tenets; and the piety and meekness of temper displayed in the narrative add weight to his judgment, and are honourable to the cause for which he pleads. — Collection of Tracts on Predestination, p. 225,
DR. THOMAS PIERCE
One of the ablest opponents of Calvinism that system has ever had, states concerning himself: "I was, in my childhood, of the opinions [concerning Election, Reprobation, &c.] Mr. Barlee doth now contend for. But, through the infinite mercy of God, I have obtained conversion: and being converted from the practice, as well as from the opinion, which I was of, I will, to my poor utmost, endeavour to confirm or convert my brethren." — Divine Philanthropy Defended, p. 15.
Who was a Calvinist in his younger days, used frequently to say, that when he heard Episcopius argue in favour of General Redemption at the Synod of Dort, he "bade John Calvin good night." — Hales's Golden Remains, Preface.
Author of a very able work entitled, " God's Love to Mankind Manifested," — a work which produced a considerable effect among the national clergy, in the early part of the seventeenth century, — says, " I have sent you here my reasons which have moved me to change my opinion in some controversies, of late debated between the Remonstrants and their Opponents." — See the tract itself, p. 1, Edit. 1G38. W1tiston's Memoirs, Vol. I. p. 10, Edit. 1749.
DR. THOMAS GOAD
Was a person every way eminent, having the repute of a great and general scholar, exact critic and historian, a poet, orator, schoolman, and divine. He was a member of the Synod of Dort, and acquitted himself there with great applause, in opposition to the opinions of the Remonstrants. He at length saw cause to alter his judgment ; and, in defence of those principles ho had formerly opposed, wrote a very able work entitled, "A Disputation concerning the Necessity and Contingency of Events."— Echard's History of
Who is generally acknowledged to have been one of the most learned men in
Professor of Divinity in the
At the commencement of his theological career, was eager in his attachment to the peculiar doctrines of Calvin. But when his judgment was more matured, though he still maintained the absolute Election of some men to Life Eternal, he contended strenuously for General Redemption, and for Universal Grace. — Baxter's Catholick Theologie, Preface.
Appears to have undergone a change of sentiment similar to that of Baxter. For Archbishop Ussher "freely declared himself for the doctrine of General Redemption, and owned that he was the person who brought both Bishop Davenant and Dr. Preston to acknowledge it." — Calamy's Abridgment of Baxter's Life and Times, p. 405, Edit. 1713.
DR. DANIEL WHITBY
Says, "They who have known my education, may remember that I was bred up seven years in the University, under men of the Calvinistical persuasion; and had once firmly entertained all their doctrines." The zeal with which he afterwards opposed those doctrine's, in his Commentary on the New Testament and in his Discourse concerning the Five Points, is universally known. —
Himself, according to Dr. Watts, is entitled to a place among those divines whose attachment to the doctrines of limited mercy and partial redemption abated as they advanced in years. After noticing the difference between his sentiments as expressed in his Institutions and in his Commentaries, the Doctor says, " It may be proper to observe, that the most rigid and narrow limitations of grace to men are to be found chiefly in his Institutions, which were written in his youth. But his Comments on Scripture were the labour of his riper years, and maturer judgment."— Works, Vol. III. p. 472, Edit. 1800.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
An Apealing Aspect of Calvinism
But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth. - Acts 1:8
In this post I want to focus on the primary aspect of Calvinism that I find appealing. By the way, this is personal reflection. My reason might be motivation for some who have become Calvinists, but I'm not implying that it necessarily is.
It boils down to this: For me Calvinism would provide a release from the guilt for the reason why others are lost. Instead of it being my fault, it is God's plan.
You see, I have largely been a failure in preaching the good news of Jesus. It grieves me greatly that some will go to hell because I have not cared enough to share that Jesus loves them and desires a relationship with them. My brothers will spend eternity in darkness because I was too selfish to share the light of Jesus.
On the other hand, Calvinism teaches that the lost are lost because God has foreordained it. The reprobate are in fact lost because Jesus does not love them, and has not made a provision for them. The Westminster confession (Chapter III) states that:
"God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass..."
"By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death."
"These angels and men, thus predestinated, and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished."
"As God has appointed the elect unto glory, so has He, by the eternal and most free purpose of His will, foreordained all the means thereunto."
So Calvinism says people go to hell because God has ordained it, NOT because I have kept the light of Jesus under a bushel. It further states that the number of people going to hell can't be increased or diminished. Additionally it states that God has already foreordained the means for the elect to be saved. The elect are good to go, without my obedience. The reprobate are certainly lost, without regards to my witness (or lack thereof).
Essentially Calvinism states that all my failures are designed by God's plan. Now that would be a relief to know. But...I don't believe this. My failures are not ordained by God. He certainly forgives them, and can account for them ahead of time, but they are not preferred by him.
An argument that I frequently hear from Calvinists is that Arminian theology comes from a rebellious desire to promote free will at the expense of God's (deterministic) sovereignty. Personally, I find the opposite to be true. I would jump at the chance to attribute my failures to divine providence. But my conscience will not allow it.
In this post I want to focus on the primary aspect of Calvinism that I find appealing. By the way, this is personal reflection. My reason might be motivation for some who have become Calvinists, but I'm not implying that it necessarily is.
It boils down to this: For me Calvinism would provide a release from the guilt for the reason why others are lost. Instead of it being my fault, it is God's plan.
You see, I have largely been a failure in preaching the good news of Jesus. It grieves me greatly that some will go to hell because I have not cared enough to share that Jesus loves them and desires a relationship with them. My brothers will spend eternity in darkness because I was too selfish to share the light of Jesus.
On the other hand, Calvinism teaches that the lost are lost because God has foreordained it. The reprobate are in fact lost because Jesus does not love them, and has not made a provision for them. The Westminster confession (Chapter III) states that:
"God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass..."
"By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death."
"These angels and men, thus predestinated, and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished."
"As God has appointed the elect unto glory, so has He, by the eternal and most free purpose of His will, foreordained all the means thereunto."
So Calvinism says people go to hell because God has ordained it, NOT because I have kept the light of Jesus under a bushel. It further states that the number of people going to hell can't be increased or diminished. Additionally it states that God has already foreordained the means for the elect to be saved. The elect are good to go, without my obedience. The reprobate are certainly lost, without regards to my witness (or lack thereof).
Essentially Calvinism states that all my failures are designed by God's plan. Now that would be a relief to know. But...I don't believe this. My failures are not ordained by God. He certainly forgives them, and can account for them ahead of time, but they are not preferred by him.
An argument that I frequently hear from Calvinists is that Arminian theology comes from a rebellious desire to promote free will at the expense of God's (deterministic) sovereignty. Personally, I find the opposite to be true. I would jump at the chance to attribute my failures to divine providence. But my conscience will not allow it.
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Sola Paul (satire)
In this post I would like to look at the extent of the atonement. By using proper exegesis of scripture it can be proven with certainty that Jesus died to effectually secure salvation for Paul of Tarsus. And for Paul alone.
First, let's take a look at Galatians 2:20. This is the most important verse in the Bible, because it explicitly states the extent of the atonement (bold mine):
"I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me."
This verse is key. It indisputably proves that Jesus loved and gave himself only for Paul.
It's worth noting that some theologians have used other passages in a vain attempt to apply the atonement to others for whom it was not intended. These heretics fail to make an important distinction. Ambiguous verses should always be interpreted in the light of more explicit verses. Galatians 2:20 very clearly limits the scope of the atonement to Paul, and Paul alone. Other less clear passages should be interpreted accordingly.
If Galatians 2:20 was the only verse that dealt with the extent of the atonement, the heretics might have a point. Fortunately it is not. Let's take a look at some other clear passages:
In Matthew 18:12 we learn that the shepherd only wanted to save one sheep. In fact he abandoned 99 sheep to save the one (bold mine):
"What do you think? If a man owns a hundred sheep, and one of them wanders away, will he not leave the ninety-nine on the hills and go to look for the one that wandered off?"
This passage is so clear. It proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that the shepherd found and saved only one sheep (Paul). The shepherd left the 99 other sheep on the hills. By doing this the shepherd maximized his glory. Moreover, he increased the appreciation and adoration of Paul, whom was effectually retrieved. If other sheep could have been retrieved, it would have diluted the value of the shepherd's act.
The same parable is presented in Luke 15:4-6 (bold mine):
"Suppose one of you has a hundred sheep and loses one of them. Does he not leave the ninety-nine in the open country and go after the lost sheep until he finds it? And when he finds it, he joyfully puts it on his shoulders and goes home. Then he calls his friends and neighbors together and says, 'Rejoice with me; I have found my lost sheep.'"
One again, we see the shepherd saving only one sheep. He leaves the reprobate sheep in open country, puts the one sheep on his shoulders, and goes home.
Theologian James White gives additional insight on the use of the word sheep (bold mine):
"The good Shepherd lays down His life in behalf of the sheep. Are all men the sheep of Christ? Certainly not..."
Before commenting on this quote, it is necessary to exegete White's use of the term "sheep". To the non-educated it may appear that he is using the word "sheep" to refer to more than one person. This is not the case. In English the word "sheep" can be singular or it can be plural. Here are some examples:
Singular example: Look! there is one sheep over there!
Plural example: Look! There are a boat load of sheep over there! We must be in New Zealand!
Non-English scholars do not often note this subtle distinction in the usage of the word "sheep". Nor do the misguided plural atonement heretics who resort to man centered thinking instead of exegesis. White's context is plain. When he uses the phrases "the sheep" and "the sheep of Christ", he is referring to only one sheep. Never once does White say "boat load of sheep", nor does he refer to New Zealand. He says only "the sheep" (which of course we know is Paul).
Now let's get back to God's word. Another important passage to look at is Acts 9:3-7 (The Damascus Road story). In it we see with crystal clarity that Jesus chose only Paul: (bold mine)
Now as he went on his way, he approached Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. And falling to the ground he heard a voice saying to him, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?"....the men who were traveling with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one.
This passage indicates that only Paul heard Jesus' voice and saw a light from heaven. The men with Paul heard the voice but did not see the light. The light was not for them, it was only for Paul. This proves that Paul's fellow travelers were reprobate. Of course they would be, they were not Paul.
Philosophical Arguments on the Atonement for Paul:
There are only three philosophical arguments to be considered.
1) The atonement was for everyone
2) The atonement was for no one.
3) The atonement was for Paul.
We know that 1 is false, that is universalism. We know that 2 is false because Paul was saved. Option 3 is all we have left. The atonement was for Paul.
Common objections to Atonement for Paul:
Q: What about the many passages that speak about "the world"? Isn't the world more than Paul?
A: In light of the explicit context of Galatians 2:20, it is clear that the ambiguous passages that refer to "world" are more accurately translated as "the world of the one elect person whose name is Paul". Remember, ambiguous passages should always be interpreted in the context of explicit ones.
Q: But doesn't Romans 1:16 state salvation is for both Greek and Jew? How can this be the one person Paul?
A: Quit imposing your own biased interpretation on the word. Read scripture and let it speak for itself. Paul easily answers this objection in 1 Corinthians 9:20-21 "To the Jews I became like a Jew...To those not having the law I became like one not having the law..." You see, Paul is both Jew and Greek. Romans 1:16 refers only to Paul.
Q: What about Mary, Jesus mother? She wasn't Paul and yet the Bible says she was blessed.
A: What are you, some kind of closet Catholic? Your line of thinking always leads back to Rome.
Q: This whole system is not fair. If only Paul is saved, what about everyone else who perishes? This is a bum deal for everyone except Paul.
A: Paul anticipates your objection and addresses it in Romans 9:20 "Who are you oh man to talk back to God?." In other words this may seem unfair from your fallen human view, but it is God's sovereign choice to individually and effectually save Paul and Paul alone. This gives God more glory, and makes Paul's salvation more valuable. Don't talk back to God.
Q: I'm not talking back to God, I'm saying that your system distorts the character of God.
A: You have an odd concept of fairness. Only one person usually wins the lottery too, but you don't complain about that do you? Sometimes no one wins the lottery and this makes the jackpot even bigger. If everyone won the lottery it wouldn't do anyone any good. For example if the jackpot was $1 million and 10 billion people won it, they would each only get 0.01 cents. What a ripoff! The same concept applies to salvation for Paul. He hit the jackpot.
Q: But wasn't it a waste of Jesus blood to apply it only to Paul when it could have covered more?
A: Not at all, this was planned by divine decree before the creation of the world. Jesus blood was only intended for Paul, and it effectually secured Paul's salvation. The atonement did not make salvation merely possible for Paul, it secured it.
Q: I don't find this doctrine very motivating to preach the Gospel.
A: That is a straw man. Paul believed this and was very motivated. Besides, scripture commands us to preach the Gospel.
In conclusion, the extent of the atonement is very clear. Jesus death was for Paul, and Paul alone. We all need to throw aside our traditional biases and read scripture in the context that it was intended. Case closed.
First, let's take a look at Galatians 2:20. This is the most important verse in the Bible, because it explicitly states the extent of the atonement (bold mine):
"I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me."
This verse is key. It indisputably proves that Jesus loved and gave himself only for Paul.
It's worth noting that some theologians have used other passages in a vain attempt to apply the atonement to others for whom it was not intended. These heretics fail to make an important distinction. Ambiguous verses should always be interpreted in the light of more explicit verses. Galatians 2:20 very clearly limits the scope of the atonement to Paul, and Paul alone. Other less clear passages should be interpreted accordingly.
If Galatians 2:20 was the only verse that dealt with the extent of the atonement, the heretics might have a point. Fortunately it is not. Let's take a look at some other clear passages:
In Matthew 18:12 we learn that the shepherd only wanted to save one sheep. In fact he abandoned 99 sheep to save the one (bold mine):
"What do you think? If a man owns a hundred sheep, and one of them wanders away, will he not leave the ninety-nine on the hills and go to look for the one that wandered off?"
This passage is so clear. It proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that the shepherd found and saved only one sheep (Paul). The shepherd left the 99 other sheep on the hills. By doing this the shepherd maximized his glory. Moreover, he increased the appreciation and adoration of Paul, whom was effectually retrieved. If other sheep could have been retrieved, it would have diluted the value of the shepherd's act.
The same parable is presented in Luke 15:4-6 (bold mine):
"Suppose one of you has a hundred sheep and loses one of them. Does he not leave the ninety-nine in the open country and go after the lost sheep until he finds it? And when he finds it, he joyfully puts it on his shoulders and goes home. Then he calls his friends and neighbors together and says, 'Rejoice with me; I have found my lost sheep.'"
One again, we see the shepherd saving only one sheep. He leaves the reprobate sheep in open country, puts the one sheep on his shoulders, and goes home.
Theologian James White gives additional insight on the use of the word sheep (bold mine):
"The good Shepherd lays down His life in behalf of the sheep. Are all men the sheep of Christ? Certainly not..."
Before commenting on this quote, it is necessary to exegete White's use of the term "sheep". To the non-educated it may appear that he is using the word "sheep" to refer to more than one person. This is not the case. In English the word "sheep" can be singular or it can be plural. Here are some examples:
Singular example: Look! there is one sheep over there!
Plural example: Look! There are a boat load of sheep over there! We must be in New Zealand!
Non-English scholars do not often note this subtle distinction in the usage of the word "sheep". Nor do the misguided plural atonement heretics who resort to man centered thinking instead of exegesis. White's context is plain. When he uses the phrases "the sheep" and "the sheep of Christ", he is referring to only one sheep. Never once does White say "boat load of sheep", nor does he refer to New Zealand. He says only "the sheep" (which of course we know is Paul).
Now let's get back to God's word. Another important passage to look at is Acts 9:3-7 (The Damascus Road story). In it we see with crystal clarity that Jesus chose only Paul: (bold mine)
Now as he went on his way, he approached Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. And falling to the ground he heard a voice saying to him, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?"....the men who were traveling with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one.
This passage indicates that only Paul heard Jesus' voice and saw a light from heaven. The men with Paul heard the voice but did not see the light. The light was not for them, it was only for Paul. This proves that Paul's fellow travelers were reprobate. Of course they would be, they were not Paul.
Philosophical Arguments on the Atonement for Paul:
There are only three philosophical arguments to be considered.
1) The atonement was for everyone
2) The atonement was for no one.
3) The atonement was for Paul.
We know that 1 is false, that is universalism. We know that 2 is false because Paul was saved. Option 3 is all we have left. The atonement was for Paul.
Common objections to Atonement for Paul:
Q: What about the many passages that speak about "the world"? Isn't the world more than Paul?
A: In light of the explicit context of Galatians 2:20, it is clear that the ambiguous passages that refer to "world" are more accurately translated as "the world of the one elect person whose name is Paul". Remember, ambiguous passages should always be interpreted in the context of explicit ones.
Q: But doesn't Romans 1:16 state salvation is for both Greek and Jew? How can this be the one person Paul?
A: Quit imposing your own biased interpretation on the word. Read scripture and let it speak for itself. Paul easily answers this objection in 1 Corinthians 9:20-21 "To the Jews I became like a Jew...To those not having the law I became like one not having the law..." You see, Paul is both Jew and Greek. Romans 1:16 refers only to Paul.
Q: What about Mary, Jesus mother? She wasn't Paul and yet the Bible says she was blessed.
A: What are you, some kind of closet Catholic? Your line of thinking always leads back to Rome.
Q: This whole system is not fair. If only Paul is saved, what about everyone else who perishes? This is a bum deal for everyone except Paul.
A: Paul anticipates your objection and addresses it in Romans 9:20 "Who are you oh man to talk back to God?." In other words this may seem unfair from your fallen human view, but it is God's sovereign choice to individually and effectually save Paul and Paul alone. This gives God more glory, and makes Paul's salvation more valuable. Don't talk back to God.
Q: I'm not talking back to God, I'm saying that your system distorts the character of God.
A: You have an odd concept of fairness. Only one person usually wins the lottery too, but you don't complain about that do you? Sometimes no one wins the lottery and this makes the jackpot even bigger. If everyone won the lottery it wouldn't do anyone any good. For example if the jackpot was $1 million and 10 billion people won it, they would each only get 0.01 cents. What a ripoff! The same concept applies to salvation for Paul. He hit the jackpot.
Q: But wasn't it a waste of Jesus blood to apply it only to Paul when it could have covered more?
A: Not at all, this was planned by divine decree before the creation of the world. Jesus blood was only intended for Paul, and it effectually secured Paul's salvation. The atonement did not make salvation merely possible for Paul, it secured it.
Q: I don't find this doctrine very motivating to preach the Gospel.
A: That is a straw man. Paul believed this and was very motivated. Besides, scripture commands us to preach the Gospel.
In conclusion, the extent of the atonement is very clear. Jesus death was for Paul, and Paul alone. We all need to throw aside our traditional biases and read scripture in the context that it was intended. Case closed.
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Romans 9 Exegesis
The Society of Evangelical Arminians is currently highlighting an Arminian Exegesis of Romans 9. This is a fantastic series. Keith Schooley gives a great contextual presentation of this frequently misunderstood passage. Be sure to check it out. The original posts are also available on Keith's blog.
SEA: Link
Schooley Files: Link
SEA: Link
Schooley Files: Link
Monday, August 4, 2008
Audio Links: Asbury Theological Seminary
Asbury Theological Seminary has audio of their chapel services. Asbury is a multi-denominational seminary in the Wesleyan-Arminian tradition.
There are presentations from well known speakers like as N.T. Wright (New Perspectives on Paul) and Bill Dembski (Intelligent Design), and well as from Arminians such as Jerry Walls and Joe Dongell.
Link here: ATS Chapel
If you're looking for scholarly presentations from a Arminian perspective, you can't go wrong here!
There are presentations from well known speakers like as N.T. Wright (New Perspectives on Paul) and Bill Dembski (Intelligent Design), and well as from Arminians such as Jerry Walls and Joe Dongell.
Link here: ATS Chapel
If you're looking for scholarly presentations from a Arminian perspective, you can't go wrong here!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
