Audio Link: Dennis McCallum on Romans 9

Here is a link to a good mp3 presentation on Romans 9, by Dennis McCallum: Romans 9 - God's Soveriegnty. There is also a You-Tube video of the same presentation which can be found here.

HT: Brennon Hartshorn

Interesting Links - February 21, 2009

I'm going to start a series of posting links that interest me. The plan is to do it once a week. I'm borrowing the concept from Lee Shelton at the Contemporary Calvinist. Lee has a great knack for finding things - even if he is Reformed. :)

Scot McKnight has a two part series on the "NeoReformed" - his term for "those who are obsessed with God's holiness and grace and have not learned that grace makes people gracious." Part1, Part2.

The Superbowl Commercial by Catholic Vote that NBC refused to air.

Ken Schenck interviews Peter Ens about attending a Nazarene church. Enns discusses some differences that he has observed between the Reformed and Wesleyan traditions, noting that in his experience the Reformed focus on "comprehensive theological precision", while Wesleyans are more interested in "worship and maturity in Christian character".

Dr. Timothy Tennent is the new president of Asbury Theological Seminary.

Dan at Arminian Chronicles contiunes a dialogue with Hays and Manata of Tribalouge on the definition of free will.

Robert Schuller's Crystal Cathedral is laying off staff and selling land.

The Christian Post notes that "Wiley-Blackwell, a major academic publisher, is recalling copies of Encyclopedia of Christian Civilization and scrapping the print run after critics said the entries were "too Christian" and "too anti-Muslim.""

John Wesley's Last Letter

John Wesley's last letter was written to William Wilberforce. He wrote it on February 24, 1791. He died eight days later. For those who might be unaware, William Wilberforce was instrumental in ending the slave trade in England and its colonies.

Dear Sir:

Unless the divine power has raised you us to be as Athanasius contra mundum,(1) I see not how you can go through your glorious enterprise in opposing that execrable villainy which is the scandal of religion, of England, and of human nature. Unless God has raised you up for this very thing, you will be worn out by the opposition of men and devils. But if God be fore you, who can be against you? Are all of them together stronger than God? O be not weary of well doing! Go on, in the name of God and in the power of his might, till even American slavery (the vilest that ever saw the sun) shall vanish away before it.

Reading this morning a tract wrote by a poor African, I was particularly struck by that circumstance that a man who has a black skin, being wronged or outraged by a white man, can have no redress; it being a "law" in our colonies that the oath of a black against a white goes for nothing. What villainy is this?

That he who has guided you from youth up may continue to strengthen you in this and all things, is the prayer of, dear sir,

Your affectionate servant,
John Wesley

(1)"Athanasius contra mundum" means Athanasius against the world. Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 296-373 AD) was a early church father who fought against Arianism (an early Church heresy that taught Jesus was a subservient and created being).

Who are the NeoReformed? -Scot McKnight

Scot McKnight is doing a very interesting series on what he is calling the "NeoReformed" movement. This is his term for a particularly vocal sub-group of exclusionary Calvinists.

Part 1
Part 2

Some bombshell quotes:

"Furthermore, the NeoReformed have come to equate the meaning of "gospel" with Calvin's "Reformed theology." And those who aren't Reformed are somehow or in some ways denying the gospel itself. When gospel is equated with double predestination, often said in harsh terms, we are seeing a good example of the spirit of a NeoReformed approach. This leads, inevitably, to seeing what they call the "doctrines of grace" as defining both "gospel" and "evangelical." "

"The groups they've chosen to exclude witness to the new kind of Reformed. The sweeping impacts of the Finney revivals and Wesleyan gospel preaching and the charismatics are simply not, in the view of the NeoReformed, evangelicals. Anabaptists aren't even on the map...."

"If I had to sum it up I'd put it this way: the NeoReformed are those who are obsessed with God's holiness and grace and have not learned that grace makes people gracious. These folks are America's newest religious zealots and they are wounding, perhaps for a generation or two, evangelicalism."

I completely agree.

Adoption - The Inheritance of a Son

Therefore you are no longer a slave, but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God. Galations 4:7

Adoption (huiothesia) is a term that the apostle Paul uses several times in his letters. The Greco-Roman concept of adoption is different than the English concept. In English we use adoption as an action verb. For example a father "adopts" a son. The Greco-Roman concept of adoption refers to something that sons receive. Sons are not adopted. Rather, sons receive the adoption (Gal 4:1-7). This conceptual difference of what adoption is can contribute to a misunderstanding of certain Biblical passages. In the context of the Arminian / Calvinist debate, the meaning of adoption directly relates to our interpretation of Ephesians 1.

In English we associate adoption with parents taking a baby into their family. The baby is "adopted". He is an outsider prior to adoption, and a son after adoption. However, Huiothesia refers to the standing of someone who is ALREADY a son. Adoption is the right of a son. Adoption is the "inheritance", "promise", or "reward" that the son receives as an heir. A father makes promises to his children. These promises are the adoption. Huiothesia is not synonymous with salvation (entrance into the family). Rather, it is the promise of God received by those who are believers in Christ Jesus (Gal 3:22-27).

The reward of the adoption occurs now and after death. This can be seen in Romans 8 (bold mine):

For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, "Abba! Father!" -Rom 8:15 (NASB)

And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body. -Rom 8:23 (NASB)

Observe in Romans 8:23 that Paul speaks of believers who wait for their adoption. There is a distinction between believing and the adoption. Conversely, sonship (having the legal rights of a son) doesn't guarantee that the son will apply and benefit from those rights. This can be seen in Romans 9:1-5 (bold mine)

I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience testifies with me in the Holy Spirit, that I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises,whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen. (NASB)

Here Paul refers to the nation of Israel - his brothers. Israel has the rights of the adoption, but is failing to apply and benefit from those rights. Again, we see Paul treat adoption as a position rather than an action.

Now, let's take a look at Ephesians 1:5-6. It is my contention that understanding the Greek concept of adoption takes away the Calvinistic flavor that is sometimes attributed to the passage (bold mine):

In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved. (NASB)

This could be accurately translated as follows:

In love He predestined us [believers] to receive an inheritance as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved.

In other words, God doesn't arbitrarily adopt particular humans to join his family. Rather, He promises believers an inheritance as His sons in Christ Jesus.

In conclusion, adoption is a standing that believers have as sons in Christ Jesus. The Pauline concept of adoption is best understood as the position of a believer. It is not an action.

(I'm currently reading Hodwinked and Happy by Daniel Gracely. He gets credit for exposing me to this concept of adoption. Along those lines, here is a good article on adoption by T. Pierce Brown that Gracley also quotes in his book. Brown goes on some tangents about baptism and the NIV, but it is good read nonetheless.)

Wesley Study Bible Released

The Wesley Study Bible is now available. The Wesley Report blog has a nice overview of it, and also an interview with one of the general editors.

The best price I've seen online is Cokesbury ($24.95 +$5.75 shipping). Mine is on the way. I hope to do a review of it at some point in the future.

God's Pie

How is your pie divided? A great little video clip.

Peter Enns attending Arminian church

According to his website, Peter Enns is now attending an Arminian church. I think this is pretty cool.

Enns is a scholar who until recently taught at Westminster Theological Seminary. Last year he was suspended and later parted ways with WTS because of controversy over a book he authored that promoted an "incarnational view" of scripture.

You can read about the controversy here: Christianity Today

HT: Quadrilateral Thoughts

Paintings of Jesus by Warner Sallman

Some of the most famous American paintings of Jesus were done by artist Warner Sallman (1892-1968). If you grew up in a Christian environment (Protestant or Catholic), you've seen these pictures in your church and maybe had them in your home. Christianity Today did a write up on Sallman a while back. His two best known paintings are: "The Head of Christ", and "Christ at Heart's Door".

Some say that these the pictures have outlived their usefulness - that they are a bit of a "Velvit Elvis" (something unique to the older generation, that younger people don't find helpful). They have also been criticized for making Jesus look too soft and too European. I appreciate the criticisms, but like the pictures anyway. My favorite is "Christ at Heart's Door". It is based on a passage from Revelation 3:20: Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

When I was growing up, Dad had "Christ at Heart's Door" hung in his study. I remember asking Dad why Jesus was knocking on the door. He explained that the door represented my heart. If I asked Jesus to come in, he would. These sorts of conversations with Dad bring back fond memories.

It's interesting to note some of the Arminian aspects of the painting, First, Christ is knocking on the door, not kicking it in. Second, there is no handle to the door, the person inside needs to open it.

Lastly, it's interesting how these pictures have represented a sort of "icon" for American Protestants. While icons are common to some other Christian traditions, American Protestants have generally avoided them.

Can my ministry flourish in a Reformed environment even though I hold to Arminian theology?

This post was inspired by something John Piper wrote, which you can read here.

Can my ministry flourish in a Reformed environment even though I hold to Arminian theology?

I don't want to encourage a pastor, whether a worship pastor or senior pastor or associate pastor, to act in a knee-jerk way about being out of sync with his church. It may have happened because he came into the church unaware of where they were. It may have happened because her theology changed after she got there.

There are different reasons why you might wind up in this situation. And once you do, what I want to say first is, Don't assume it can't happen. Don't assume flourishing can't happen. And by "flourishing" I mean that over time the people would grow with you into greater truth about the love of God. And it can happen in ways that are not dramatic.

In other words, an Arminian position mainly means, God is holy, good, just, moral, loving, and always does what is right. You can trust Him. We're going to ask God to change lives here. We're going to tell individuals that God loves them. There are a lot of born-again Calvinist people who like that. It's because they don't see the implications of their theology.

And if you get a congregation liking that over time—"God is good, and we're going to celebrate his character and his nature and his love" (just leave it undefined for the time being. Everybody believes in the love of God, one way or the other)—what happens is that when God works on your heart, you begin to trust him and seek first his kingdom. So even if you initially have a distorted view of God, when you get to specifics in John 3, Romans 10, 1 John 4, about love and whatnot, your heart is more ready for it.

So the flourishing could be that you're taking people where you know you want them to go, just because you know that God genuinely cares about them. And your Arminain orientation makes you keenly aware of that. Their Calvinistic orientation doesn't naturally make them as aware of that. And you're going to take them there. And when the whole spirit of the place changes, then the theology might grow. And that's what I mean by flourishing.

Now that might not happen, because as you begin to go there you might encounter opposition. People might say, "I'm tired of this God shows no favoritism nonsense. We need more exclusivity. It's not my responsibility to preach the gospel, God loves me but he hates you"—though they wouldn't use those words necessarily. They think that God values them more than others. They're showing pride. This is just too serious.

And so over time, your effort to simply make much of God in Christ would encounter opposition. And then, yes, you would probably have to find another place.

So the general point there is, Pray toward a process that is open and above board. If you are a worship leader, then you should be totally candid with your senior pastor or the pastoral team and say, "Here's where I am. Do you want me here? If you don't want me here, I should go." If they say, "We want you here, just don't push your peripheral distinctives," then you may respond, "Well, we'll make a go of it, and I'll try to design services that I think honor God. And you'll have to tell me in the long run whether you think I'm pushing my distinctives."

The Farmer, the Boys, and the Pond

In his book "Chosen but Free", Dr. Norman Geisler* gives a illustration that vividly explains the problem with the Calvinistic teaching of Limited Atonement. Here is a paraphrase of the story:

There was a farmer who owned a pond. He did not want anyone to go swimming in it. He built a fence around the pond and posted a sign that said: NO SWIMMING ALLOWED.

One day three boys came upon the pond. They saw the sign, but decided to go swimming anyway. They climbed the fence, and jumped into the pond. After jumping in, they realized that there was no way to get out. They began to drown.

The farmer came to the pond, and saw that the three boys were drowning. He said to the boys, "Didn't you see the sign? You have broken the rules. But I am a kind and loving farmer, so I will let one of you out." The farmer then proceeded to throw a rope to one of the boys, and pulled him to shore. Then the farmer folded his arms and watched the other two boys drown. (The End)

If you met this farmer, would you say that he is a kind and loving man? Or would you perhaps describe him as heartless?

In the story the farmer represents God. The boys are humanity. The way the farmer behaves is exactly the way that Calvinists describe the behavior of God in regards to humanity. He has thrown a rope only to one of us (the elect). The rest of us (the reprobate) are left to drown.

One one point (God's justice) the Calvinists are right. None of us deserve to be saved. Yet on the second point (God's love), they are terribly wrong. They paint a distorted image of God. Like the farmer, He could save all. Yet He has capriciously and arbitrarily determined to save only a few. Calvinists say this gives God glory.

In reality, the Bible teaches that God has provided a way for all to be saved. He loves all. He is not willing for anyone perish, but wants everyone to come to repentance. Jesus is the atoning sacrifice not for only our sins, but for the sins of the whole world. Some unfortunately reject the "rope" that God has provided in the person of Jesus Christ. Those who reject Jesus will perish. However, it is a travesty to lay their rejection at the feet of God who has provided a means for all to be saved.

*Dr Gesiler does not consider himself to be an Arminian. He attempts to split the middle between Arminianism and what he calls "extreme Calvinism". He refers to himself as "Moderate Calvinist". Nevertheless, he makes some excellent points against classical Calvinistic doctrine.

Romans 9 Series at Classical Arminianism

Billy at Classical Arminianism is doing a detailed exegesis of Romans 9. Be sure to check it out!

Link: A Journey Through Romans 9

Stuff Young Calvinists Like (Satire)

[Updated favorite music artist section on 9-20-09]

The following is an attempt at satire about stuff young Calvinists like. The idea came from this blog (which is funny but crass). Hopefully you will find this in good taste. :)

In most cases there is an obvious Arminian corollary. These are listed in italics.

The ESV translation: Young Calvinists (YCs) love the ESV. In certain circles its use is mandatory. The translation can easily be identified by the prominent circle on the front and/or on the binder. Since every YC uses the ESV, the "circle" has the nice side benefit of allowing them to easily identify each other when in unfamiliar environments.

The easiest way to explain why the ESV is preferred is by pointing out out the problems with all other Bible translations. The KJV is archaic. The NKJV is too much like the KJV. No one uses the NASB. The NIV and NLT are thought for thought translations (bad). The Living and The Message are paraphrases (really bad). The NRSV and TNIV use gender neutral language (really really bad). Special note: people who prefer the NRSV are invariably liberal (keep in mind that "liberal" and "Arminian" are synonymous term in the Calvinist mind). When in the presence of YCs it is wise to avoid all reference to the NRSV for reasons of safety.

The ESV is generally the only permitted translation for Calvinists; however, there is one notable exception: The NASB is considered acceptable if one is buying a MacArthur study Bible. In all other cases the NASB should be avoided in order to maintain conformity. It is a matter of great consternation among YCs that there is currently no ESV MacArthur study Bible.

Arminian Corollary: All Arminians use the NIV. If you catch an Arminian using a translation other than the NIV, this indicates that he intends to convert to another branch of Christianity. You can determine what branch based on the translation used. A few years ago there was an Arminian movement to migrate to the TNIV. This was singlehandedly shot down by James Dobson.


Mars Hill Church: YCs like Mars Hill because it is contemporary, hip, and Reformed. The first rule when discussing Mars Hill is to be aware that there are actually two of them. One is very cool. One is evil. To mix them up is a sign of terrible ignorance and is considered almost as bad as reading the NRSV. The cool Mars Hill is pastored by Mark Driscoll, and is located in Seattle. The evil Mars Hill is located near Grand Rapids. It is pastored by Rob Bell (The Emergent who produces the NOOMA series). It is excessively irritating to YCs that there is a successful Emergent mega-church in Mecca (Grand Rapids).

Arminian Corollary: Arminians like the evil Mars Hill.


Alcohol: All YCs drink alcohol. Other Christians drink too, but alcohol has special significance among YCs. Most of them grew up in churches where drinking was frowned upon. Since YCs are invariably fundamentalists, it is important for them to be able to point to something that indisputably proves that they have thrown off the legalistic chains of their youth. Alcohol fills the role nicely.

Arminian Corollary: Young Arminians drink too, and for the same reasons.


Old Theologians: YCs love old theologians. Their favorites include: Edwards, Owen, and Spurgeon (primarily because their works are written in English). All YCs own works from old theologians. They love to display them in their library. A special note of precaution here: It is better to not ask the YC specific questions about the classic works that he owns. This can create an embarrassing moment, because there is a good chance that he hasn't read them. This is not intentional. When the YC bought the works he fully intended to read them, but then realized that wading through Owen and Edwards is quite difficult. Though rare, it is worse to ask a question to a YC who has actually read the classics. In that case you will get more than you bargained for, such as a dissertation on the merits of John Owen's insight into penal substitution theory. It is always safer to merely notice the YC's large library, and to comment on his excellent tastes.

Arminian Corollary: Arminians don't know the names of any old theologians. If you ask an Arminian to name one, he will say "Billy Graham". Like YCs, Arminians rarely read the books that they own.


John Piper: John Piper is the "holy grail" of Calvinist authors. YCs own all of his books. In many cases his work is actually preferred over scripture (of course you will never get a YC to admit this). Unlike "old theologians", YCs actually read Piper. In fact it is common to find YCs who have memorized large portions of his work. If you attempt to argue with a YC, there is a 100% chance that he will refer you to something written by Piper. If you have a good friendship with a YC, you have an excellent chance of receiving a Piper book for Christmas.

There is no Arminian corollary to John Piper. Arminians do own and memorize the "Left Behind" books.


Caedmon’s Call: Caedmon’s Call is the preferred music group for all YCs. This is not because Caedmon’s Call has particularly outstanding music, but because the lyrics of their songs are discernibly Calvinist in nature. If you have a good friendship with a YC and don't get a Piper book for Christmas, it is near certain that you will receive a Cadmon’s Call CD instead.

LACRAE: Caedmon's call is very 08. Lacrae is now the preferred artist for all YCs. This is not because he has particularly outstanding music, but because the lyrics of his songs are discernibly Calvinist in nature. For white YC's he is also the only rap artist that they can name, although they'll be offended if you point this out. And no, DC Talk doesn't count. If you have a good friendship with a YC and don't get a Piper gook for Christmas, it is near certain that you will receive a Lacrae CD instead.

Arminian Corollary: Arminians like Michael W Smith, because he sings about love and endorses books like "The Shack". White Arminians can't name any rap artists.


Second Generation Calvinists: Second generation Calvinists are highly esteemed because there are so few of them. Most children of Calvinists become either non-Calvinists (the Schaeffer route) or hyper-Calvinists (the Sproul route). If you happen to be a level headed second generation Calvinist, there are lots of YCs who want to pepper you with questions about how exciting it must have been growing up in a Reformed Church. You get extra points if you are from Michigan, have a Dutch sounding last name, or have spent time at L’Abri. If you happen to be a Calvinist of South African descent, you present a special situation. In this case the YC still desires to question you; however, he will be very discreet about it when in the presence of minorities.

There are no second generation Arminians. They invariably become liberal, or convert to another branch of Christianity.


The Word "Reformed": YCs actually hate to be called Calvinists, due to the negative connotations associated with the word. They instead prefer to use the word "Reformed". The term is less recognized, and when in mixed company it allows the YC to maintain the illusion that he is on the sly. If someone comments in passing that he enjoys "Reformed Theology", this is code to tell you that he is a Calvinist. This is quite similar to a Mormon casually mentioning where he served his mission, and it is done with identical motives. The YC will be closely watching your response. Appropriate responses include: "That's cool, what is your favorite John Piper book?" or "I am a huge fan of Caedmon's Call." If you ask what Reformed theology is, you will immediately be put on the YC's list of Arminians to convert.

Arminian Corollary: Arminians hate to be called fundamentalist. They will spend 10 minutes explaining to you why they are not fundamentalist, even though they are. Arminians also will never admit that they are Arminians.


The Five Solas: Among educated brethren YCs refer to themselves as adherents of the five solas. YCs prefer not to use the term TULIP. However, references to TULIP become necessary when indoctrinating non-Calvinists, as the unique distinctives of Calvinism are not readily apparent from the five solas. YCs always say the solas in the original Latin. This makes them feel smarter. When a YC is losing an argument, he will often shout out "SOLI DEO GLORIA!" YCs rarely refer to "sola fide" or "solus Christus" because they sound too Arminian. Much like the word "Reformed", YCs frequently refer to the solas as part of an elaborate code language in an attempt to vet out other Christian's knowledge of Calvinism.

Arminian Corollary: Arminians agree with the five solas, but usually don't know what they are. Arminians sometimes refer to themselves as adherents of John 3:16, and will often hold entire conferences based on the verse.


Small Groups: All YCs attend a small group. While small groups are by no means unique to Calvinism, YCs have particular reasons for attending them. Calvinist small groups have much in common with military boot camps. They are intended to indoctrinate and promote conformity. In mixed denominations where Calvinism is taught on the sly, small groups present the unique opportunity to indoctrinate with minimal oversight. It is also the desire of every YC to work for Desiring God or Crossway. Since this is not always a realistic goal, it is considered an acceptable fall back to lead a small group.

Arminian Corollary: Arminians host small groups primarily as a motivation to clean up their messy house. They rarely discuss theology, unless a YC has infiltrated the group. Typically the purpose of Arminian small groups is to discuss politics, watch football, and eat food.

Why I Became an Arminian

This is a personal post that deals with my journey as an Arminian.

I became a Christian at a young age. I remember going to a church service, being convicted of sin, and going down to the altar to pray with my dad. I asked Jesus to forgive me and to come into my heart. He did. I remember the experience. I felt forgiveness, peace, and the personal love of Jesus. This brought me great joy. I was around the age of 4 or 5 when this took place.

I grew up in a Christian family. My parents were committed church goers. If the church doors were open, we were there. My family attended the Nazarene church. Growing up, I did not realize that my denomination was "Arminian". But, I was learning Arminian concepts. John 3:16 was the first verse memorized. In Sunday school we sang "Jesus Loves Me" and "Jesus Loves the Little Children". I grew up believing that Jesus loves every person, that he wants each person to be saved, and that it is genuinely possible for anyone to become a believer. To this day, I believe that these distinctives are the heart of Arminian theology.

Until several years ago, I was largely ignorant of Calvinist theology. I knew that Calvinists placed a lot of importance on predestination. I also knew that they believed that a Christian could not lose his salvation. I thought that "eternal security" was the defining characteristic of Calvinism, thus, in my mind every Baptist was a Calvinist. I was blissfully unaware of the TULIP. I was also unaware of the Calvinistic concept of exhaustive determinism.

There were three events that piqued my interest in Calvinism. They all took place around the same time.

1) I attended Sunday school class where we went through a book by John Piper.
2) I started memorizing scripture, and ran into Romans 9.
3) My brother became a Calvinist, and began to try to convince me and other family members of its merits.

In the Sunday school class we studied the book "The Dangerous Duty of Delight" by John Piper. The discussions were lively. At the time I had never read Piper, and didn't know that he was a Calvinist. However, I knew that I didn't care for his book. Initially I couldn't put my finger on the reason why. In retrospect, I think it was my "stink detector" going off. I didn't really know what Calvinism was, but was still able to detect something amiss in Piper's writing.

To this day, I don't enjoy Piper's work. No doubt he is a godly man with spiritual insight. However, his deterministic theology is in focus in all of his writings. This turns me off. When I read his writings I know that he is using Biblical terms in a way that is quite different from the way I understand them, and the way they have usually been interpreted historically. As a result, I find it difficult to appreciate his work (As a side note, I don't find this to be true of all Calvinist authors.).

Around the same time as the Sunday school class, I began to memorize scripture. There was a man at our church who had memorized huge chunks of the Bible. He said that anyone could memorize large passages, and encouraged me to do so. I decided to give it a try. Over the course of several months I memorized Romans 8 and 12 - two of my favorite chapters. When I had 8 and 12 down, I decided to work on the chapters in between.

When I dug into Romans 9, it bothered me. What I read in Romans 9 did not sound like the God that I had heard about growing up, or had read about elsewhere in the Bible. A God who hates Esau before he was born? A God who hardens hearts, and creates objects of wrath? And to top it off, He tells us not to talk back and question his motives. What did this mean? What kind of God was this? Fortunately, I didn't start or stop at Romans 9 (as I fear many Calvinist "converts" do).

When I read Romans 10, it seemed to me to flat out contradict Romans 9. There I read that that the same Lord is Lord of all. He richly blesses all who call on him. Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.

Romans 9 created a lot cognitive dissonance for me. I didn't understand how it fit in with Romans 10, or with other passages that seemed to contradict it. As I began to research the issue, I found that there were some viable Arminan interpretations of Romans 9. They made a lot of sense to me. I now enjoy Romans 9. Understood in context, it is a refreshing passage (My thoughts on Romans 9 can be found here).

As they say, sometimes life happens in threes. Around the time these other events were going on, my brother became a Calvinist. At the time I was still unaware of the distinctives of Calvinism. I just figured that he had bought into the "eternal security" thing. This didn't really worry me. I had always respected my brother's views and insight. He was (and is) a kind, patient, and reflective person. If he thought eternal security was true, that was fine with me. Maybe it was true.

But, to be sure, I decided to read up on Calvinism - both pro and con. What I read about it bothered me. I discovered that there was much more to Calvinism than "eternal security". There was this thing called TULIP. TULIP contradicted what I knew to be true - that God loves the world (John 3:16), that Jesus died for all (1 Tim 2:4-6), and that God does not desire for anyone to perish (2 Pet 3:9). These were all biblical concepts that Calvinism rejected. I did not believe in a God who damned people before they were born for "His glory". It was at that time that I realized that Calvinism was more than simply a minor variance in theology.

When I read Calvinist authors, I did not find their criticisms of Arminianism to be accurate. They said things like: Arminians deny the sovereignty of God. Arminians believe in a works salvation. Arminians are man-centered. Arminians don't believe in the sinful nature. Arminians worship free will. Arminians are liberal. I knew from personal experience that none of these criticisms were legitimate (As a side note: Roger Olson's book addresses many of these myths.).

Later on my brother convinced my sister and her husband of the merits of Calvinism. Both of their families broke fellowship with the churches that they had been attending, and began attending Calvinist churches. Unfortunately theology is now a matter of division in our family. I have learned to agree to disagree with my brother. I have not discussed the issue much with my sister. We are neither likely to change opinions, and I feel that addressing the matter would only strain our relationship. To my brother and sister: if you happen to read this, I hope you both know that I love you dearly, and accept you as fellow believers.

I have found that my experiences are not unique. Calvinism is in a period of resurgence. Thankfully, there are many godly Calvinists who are followers of Jesus. My brother and sister are among them. However, I also believe that Calvinist theology damages the body of Christ. Calvinism is a distortion of the Gospel. It misrepresents the character of God. It is something that needs to be addressed, checked, and opposed. For this reason I am now dedicated to to promoting Arminian theology.

According to Scripture, Jesus Died For ...

According to scripture, Jesus died for ...

Us all (Isaiah 53:6)
His people (Matthew 1:21)
All who are weary (Matthew 11:28)
Many (Matthew 20:28)
His people (Luke 1:68)
All the people (Luke 2:10)
The lost (Luke 19:10)
All who receive him (John 1:12)
The world (John 1:29)
Everyone who believes (John 3:15)
The world (John 3:16)
The world (John 3:17)
Whoever believes (John 3:18)
Whoever believes (John 3:36)
The world (John 4:42)
Whoever hears and believes (John 5:24)
The world (John 6:33)
He who comes and believes (John 6:35)
He who believes (John 6:47)
The world (John 6:51)
The sheep (John 10:7)
The sheep (John 10:11)
The sheep (John 10:15)
My sheep (John 10:27)
He who believes (John 11:25)
The Jewish nation (John 11:51)
The scattered children of God (John 11:52)
His friends (John 15:13)
Everyone who calls on the Lord (Acts 2:21)
The Church of God (Acts 20:28)
The ungodly (Romans 5:6)
Sinners (Romans 5:8)
God's enemies (Romans 5:10)
Many (Romans 5:15)
All Men (Romans 5:18)
Your brother (Romans 14:15)
The weak brother (1 Corinthians 8:11)
All (2 Corinthians 5:14)
All (2 Corintihans 5:15)
The world (2 Cor 5:19)
Paul (Galations 2:20)
The Church (Ephesians 5:25)
All men (1 Timothy 2:6)
All men, especially those who believe (1 Timothy 4:10)
All men (Titus 2:11)
Everyone (Hebrews 2:9)
Many people (Hebrews 9:28)
The unrighteous (1 Peter 3:18)
False prophets (2 Peter 2:1)
Us, and the whole world (1 John 2:2)
The world (1 John 4:14)

Arminian Audio: Arminius -The Scapegoat of Calvinism

Here is an audio presentation by Dr. Vic Reasoner, entitled: "Arminius -The Scapegoat of Calvinism". Reasoner has also published an article by the same name.

MP3 Link
Article Link

Dr. Reasoner gives the historical background for Arminianism, and how Arminius and Wesley have often been misrepresented by their critics. He addresses three misrepresentations: that Arminians do not hold to total depravity, that they hold to the absolute free will of man, and that they promote a works salvation.

Dr. Reasoner is a Methodist theologian and pastor. He is also involved with the Fundamental Wesleyan Society and the Arminian Magazine.

(HT: JNORM888)

What are the three things God doesn't know? (Joke)

What are the three things God does not know? (Catholic version)
1) What the Jesuits are thinking.
2) What the Franciscans are doing.
3) How many orders of nuns there are.

What are the three things God does not know? (Protestant version)
1) What process theologians are thinking.
2) Who's in charge of the Baptists.
3) What the Pentecostals are saying.

HT: Thomas Oden

In Defense of the Invitation / Altar Call

(Note: this is an updated version of an old post)

The "invitation" or "altar call" is a common tradition in many "low church" bodies. Invitations to accept Christ are not new, however, the specific form of invitation known as an "altar call" is a relatively new practice. It started with the evangelist Charles Finney, back in the 1830's. Other evangelists who have popularized the practice include D.L Moody, Billy Sunday, Corrie ten Boom, and Billy Graham.

Arminian churches typically utilize altar calls more frequently than Calvinist churches do. Why is this so? First, Arminians believe in prevenient grace - that God is working in the hearts of non-believers to draw them to Himself. Second, Arminians believe that God desires for everyone to be saved. Thus, every non-believer is a genuine candidate for the saving grace of God. Third, many Arminian and Semi-Arminian denominations are "low church". Low church worship services tend to be more expressive and less formal than those of older and more established denominations. Given these reasons, it should be expected that Arminian leaning denominations would be more likely to utilize the public invitation to accept Christ.

Recently I've read a number of Christian blogs where the altar call tradition has been criticized. The most common arguments are that this is a new practice, that it is not supported by scripture, that it is abused by preachers, and that "decisional regeneration" is not genuine. Let's consider these criticisms.

New Practice?
Should we discontinue the altar call because it is a new practice? Not necessarily. Innovations in worship are often helpful, and should be welcomed if they conform to scripture. Isaiah 43 says to not dwell on the past, because God is doing a new thing. To reject something simply because it is new is legalistic. Church services today should not necessarily be identical to the way they were in 1829. In 1829 no church building had electric lighting or indoor plumbing. You don't hear most Christians complaining about those innovations!

Altar calls are really a new type of liturgy – something instituted as a tradition in some evangelical circles. Other "modern" liturgies include: Sunday school, worship music, and even the pastor's sermon. Liturgies in and of themselves are neutral. They can be used by the Spirit, or they can be empty. It depends on whether or not the liturgy is used in a way that is consistent with what scripture teaches.

Scriptural?
Another criticism of the altar call is that the practice is not mentioned in scripture. While altar calls are not specifically mentioned, public invitations to accept Christ were frequently made by many of the disciples, including Peter and Paul. An altar call is a public invitation to accept Christ. It can be used in a manner that strongly affirms scripture. Here are some examples:

Altar calls are used to proclaim the good news of Jesus. In Mark 16:15 Jesus said to "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation."

Altar calls are used to exhort repentance. In Acts 17 Paul makes a public invitation to the Athenians to accept Christ. In Acts 17:30 Paul states that "...(God) commands all people everywhere to repent."

Altar calls are an opportunity for new believers to publicly acknowledge their faith in Christ. Jesus called for his disciples to follow him publicly. Matthew 10:32-33 states that "Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven."

An altar is a place where one can openly confess sins. 1 John 1:9 states that "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness."

Altars calls are used as a time for the laying on of hands, for healing, for anointing, and for the forgiveness of sins. James 5:13-16 states: "Is any one of you in trouble? He should pray. Is anyone happy? Let him sing songs of praise. Is any one of you sick? He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up. If he has sinned, he will be forgiven. Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective."

Altars are a place where the non-believer can be overwhelmed, convicted of sin, and worship God. 1 Corinthians 14:24-25 states that: "...if an unbeliever or someone who does not understand comes in while everybody is prophesying, he will be convinced by all that he is a sinner and will be judged by all, and the secrets of his heart will be laid bare. So he will fall down and worship God, exclaiming, "God is really among you!"

Even though altar calls are not specifically mentioned in scripture, invitations are, and altar calls are nothing more than a form of invitation. They can clearly be used in a way that conforms to scripture.

Abused Practice?
Can evangelists and preachers abuse the practice of altar calls? Certainly they can. Altar calls can be coercive, they can appeal to emotion instead of scripture, they can be overused. But many church practices can be abused - including tithing, exorcism, baptism, confession, and others. Abuse in and of itself is not a legitimate reason to discard a practice. We should instead use altar calls only in ways that affirm scripture.

Decisional Regeneration?
Does God "save" someone who makes a trip to the altar? He certainly desires to, but justification is dependent first on the grace of God and then on the heart of a person. In Luke 18:9-15 Jesus describes two types of people who went to the temple to pray. One was a Pharisee, and one was a tax collector. The Pharisee prayed “thanks that I’m not like this tax collector.” The tax collector prayed “God have mercy on me a sinner.” Jesus said that the tax collector was the one who went home justified. So it is with going to the altar. Some will be justified, some will not be. It depends if the person has the heart of a Pharisee or a tax collector.

Conclusion:
By their fruit you will recognize them. Who can deny that God has used men such as Billy Graham to preach the gospel and call men to repentance? The altar call has definitely been used by the Spirit. It has been used by men of God in Godly ways. It has been used in ways that conform to scripture. Many of those who have gone to the altar have become believers, and lives have been changed.

The Wesley Study Bible

The Wesley Study Bible is scheduled to be released in the spring of 2009. It is being published by Abingdon Press. The text version is the NRSV. Abingdon has a sample available here, which includes the book of James.

The General Editors are Joel B. Green and William H. Willimon. Green is Professor of New Testament Interpretation at Fuller Theological Seminary. Willimon is Resident Bishop of the Birmingham Area of The United Methodist Church.

God's Sovereignty and Man's Free Will

I found these illustrations helpful. They explain two different ways of understanding God's sovereignty and man's free will. The illustrations and quotes come from the book Foundations of Wesleyan-Arminian Theology, by Mildred Bangs Wynkoop. Illustration "A" represents the Calvinist / Reformed view. With this view, any genuine freedom that man has takes away from God's sovereignty. Therefore, free will must be rejected in order to protect God. Illustration "B" represents the Wesleyan / Arminian view. With this view, man has genuine (though limited) freedom. Man's freedom is not a threat to the sovereignty of God.

"When a problem is encountered relative to God's sovereignty and man's will, it probably lies in thinking of man's will as standing over against God's will, challenging and defying God so as to constitute a threat to God's will and purpose in His creation. No evangelical Christian would tolerate such an idea. And yet both the full measure of God's sovereignty and a genuine moral responsibility in man must be accounted for and included in one system without absurd reasoning to explain it."

"The unsatisfactory concept of man's freedom in relation to God's sovereignty could be likened to a set of balancing scales with the weights set against each other. In this view, God's will is thwarted by man's will or mans will is thwarted by God's will. In either case, one of the two is victor, the other vanquished."

"It seems to be more in keeping with biblical teaching to illustrate the proper relationship by a large circle typifying God's sovereign will. The small square contained within the circle is the real though limited freedom which God has given to the man He created. In God's sovereign love He has created morally responsible beings. But man's freedom is strictly limited by God. God makes the rules. Man is
genuinely free within the limits set by God. God controls nature, the universe, the major lines of history. The natural order is absolute (God is Creator). But there is a vastly different kind of order in back of the natural order, namely the moral order-and the rules are moral rules. God has given man the power of discrimination and the ability to make decisions between alternatives. God's will and mercy sustain moral freedom in man. In fact, God has made man in such a way the he is under constant necessity of making decisions. He is not free not to make constant moral decisions."