Calvinist Doctrinal Diatribe Continues Online

In the first place, Calvinistic Christianity is nothing more and nothing less than biblical Christianity. It follows, then, that the future of Christianity itself is bound up in the fortunes of Calvinism…

from the website Founders.org

This week I got an email which contained the following:

Over the years, I have noticed on your blog that you have obviously had some less-than-edifying contact with Reformed brothers and sisters (and I should add, publishers).

In replying, I suggested a friendly amendment, namely that my in-person interactions with Reformed people — particularly those from my local CRC church — are actually most pleasant; it’s the online persona of more militant Calvinists such as the author of the quote which leads today’s article that I find somewhat objectionable.

Here’s the full quote from Founders.org with emphasis added:

In the first place, Calvinistic Christianity is nothing more and nothing less than biblical Christianity. It follows, then, that the future of Christianity itself is bound up in the fortunes of Calvinism….

…For whoever believes in God’s redemption through Christ and recognizes his own utter dependence on God, whoever recognizes that salvation is of the Lord, whoever seeks to glorify God in his worship and life, that person is already implicitly a Calvinist, no matter what he calls himself. In such circumstances, to make the person an explicit Calvinist, all we are required to do (humanly speaking) is to show the believer the natural implications of these already-held fundamental principles, which underlie all true Christianity, and trust God to do his work, that is, trust God to reveal these implications to the person.

Chris Hubbs writes:

Did you get that? Calvinism is “nothing more and nothing less than biblical Christianity”. And if anyone recognizes salvation from the Lord, and seeks to glorify God, then that person is implicitly a Calvinist! And all the Calvinists need to do is explain it in a way that the unknowing Calvinist might understand.

Just think, reader; you might be a Calvinist right now and not know it.

A year ago it was the same people wishing that Calvinism could be the default doctrine of the Southern Baptist Convention, North America’s largest Protestant denomination. Yes, that could be a Calvinist coup!

And just last week on this page it was our discovery of Calvinist kids being indoctrinated against Arminians in the form of children’s story books.

No wonder I despair.

Ironically, the post scheduled for today was a link to an article by Russell D. Moore – an obvious graduate of the Bible’s school of peacemaking — who talks about the commonality both Arminans and Calvinists have on the subject of religious liberty.

On the one hand:

Sometimes people caricature Arminians, and those who share some convictions with them. The Arminian tradition doesn’t believe that the human will is naturally free in this fallen era. They believe that God graciously empowers human beings with the freedom to choose. In fact, much of what some Christians call “Arminianism” is instead the sort of manipulative, emotional revivalism they’ve seen or heard about somewhere. Arminians are, above all people, opposed to manipulation.

They believe, after all, that the human will must make a free decision to follow Jesus or to walk away. That means a clear presentation of what the gospel entails, with all the “cost-counting” that Jesus tells us about. This must be a personal, free decision, and can’t be outsourced to or vetoed by some emperor or bishop or bureaucrat.

And on the other hand,

Well, like the Arminians, Calvinists are easy to caricature. Some assume they believe the will is like a computer program operated by God, or that the gospel isn’t freely offered to all people. Evangelical Calvinists believe in the free offer of the gospel to all people, just as they believe in the universal command of the law of God. They believe that, left to ourselves, we will all run away from the law and we will all run away from the gospel. We see the light of Christ, and we hide because, in our sin, we don’t want to meet our God.

The Calvinist doctrine of effectual calling means that the Spirit works through preaching to overturn the power of the devil, to liberate our wills so that we can see the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. God doesn’t overpower our wills; he frees us from occupation by the deceiving demonic powers.

Toward the end, Dr. Moore concludes:

We will seek to search the Scriptures on everything God has told us. But we’re not that far apart. And even when we disagree, we can listen to the important emphases that each tradition brings, emphases that are grounded in God’s word and God’s gospel.

(here’s another link to Moore’s article, Why Calvinists and Arminians (and Those in Between) Can Unite for Religious Liberty)

…As someone who got to experience the tail end of the “Jesus People” era, I dream of a day when the labels won’t matter. Perhaps that day won’t happen in the present era. Still, I see a new generation moving toward a climate where the signs on the church door are a little less significant.

But I worry about the fragmentation that seems to be brewing in one particular segment of the larger Body. I worry about both how it looks and what it’s doing to us.

That’s what makes people like Russell D. Moore so vitally important. He gets both sides and also, I truly believe, dreams of a day when the sides don’t exist.

Blog Post of the Week: Predestination and the Emotional Life

Every once in awhile you land on someone’s blog and an article just arrests you in your tracks.  Thanks to Wade Burleson for this, you’re encouraged to click this link to read at source. I’ve added some emphasis.

Paul Young

In the few days Paul Young was here in Enid we had some very interesting conversations. I have complimented Paul before, saying I have learned more about interaction with people through observing him than any other person I know. Paul believes everything in his life–every experience, every heart-ache, every blessing, every moment–have collectively led him to the moment in time he speaks with the one who is in front of him. He is not looking over the shoulder to the next person in line, he is not worried about being late for supper or his next appointment. Paul Young takes time to interact with people and connect with them on a level deeper than the superficial.

Paul Young and I share a very high view of the power of the atonement. We both believe the grace of God saves through the Person and work of Jesus the Anointed One. We are repelled by the notion that a loving God tries to save the world through His Son. We believe God actually delivers sinners from themselves through Christ. We also share a common view of hell. It is not a torture chamber dreamed up in the mind of the midieval poet Dante, but rather a solemn, holy place of judgment where a loving God sentences rebels to a just imprisonment for their crimes.

Where Paul and I disagree is on the extent of the atonement. Paul Young believes Christ died for every human being who has ever lived or ever will live, those who are in heaven and those who are in hell. I believe Christ died for the elect. We both believe Christ died for the world, but Paul defines the world as every human being, whereas I define it as a particular people (the Bride of Christ) from every nation, every tongue, every kindred, and every family on earth. Paul Young treats every human being as a child of God, and thus connects with them in a deep emotional and spiritual level. I desire to connect with every human being in a similar manner to Paul Young.

In discussing the extent of the atonement, Paul Young told me a story of a couple of Calvinists who approached him to debate the subject. Paul observed that Calvinists typically approach him in pairs, one tall and lean the other short and plump. The tall one argued with Paul about the extent of the atonement and Paul responded, “So let me ask you a question. You have two boys, both of whom are your flesh and blood. One boy is saved because God chose Him, Christ died for Him and the Spirit regenerated Him. The other boy, however, is chosen by God to be a “vessel of wrath” upon whom judgement will fall as a demonstration of God’s holiness and justice. My question for you is this: ‘Does it bother you that you have one son who will be in heaven and one son who will be in hell?’” The tall Calvinist responded: ‘It does not. God’s purposes are good, and if my boy is a vessel chosen for the demonstration of God’s wrath against sin, it will be fine with me.”

Paul Young’s next question was this: “How long have you struggled with pornography?”

I was shocked at Paul’s question to the man. Paul explained to me that any human being who is so emotionally disconnected from their children’s welfare that they can dispassionately speak of their eternal state without sorrow, tears or pleading with God for mercy, is a person who is disconnected from emotion in relationships. The tell-tale sign of a struggle with pornography, according to Paul, is an emotional disconnect from human relationships.

I may disagree with Paul Young about the extent of the atonement, but I can guarantee you I want to treat every person the way he does. I wish to believe like Charles Spurgeon  who once said “God, save the elect and elect some more” and I wish to live like Paul Young who treats every human being as a chosen recipient of God’s grace. My view on the atonement has not changed. I believe it is a particular atonement for those who believe. But I can tell you without hesitation I would rather be around people who believe in a powerful, universal atonement and treat everybody like a child of God than a limited atonement person who is emotionally disconnected from the human race. I’m not sure what camp that puts me in, but its one which I do not wish to leave.

Reblogging: Some Core Values

I can’t think of any parent who doesn’t want to pass on to his/her children their “value system” or, in the case of Christian parents, their faith. There is nothing more important that I am trying to transmit both formally (as in during our nightly Bible study time) and informally (though example). Yesterday I got a note from my oldest son who was invited on a weekend trip that was described in such a way as to suggest there would be some drinking. He passed and I am proud of him for doing so.

But it has occurred to me lately that I haven’t done such a good job of passing on my core values to my blog audience. Sure, there are some heated topics where I weigh in decisively, but there are also others where I tend to take a middle ground position. Who is this guy and what does he stand for? Here are some answers…

Theology – I remember learning to type, and one of the sentences was “We must know and know that we know.” Doctrinal certainty can be risky unless we’re certain that some elements of the Christian faith belong to the realm of mystery.

God – A word that means so many different things to so many people. Better, initially anyway, to talk about Jesus. That tends to narrow things down to a single definition.

Ethics – We should attempt to aim for the very highest standard, and never do anything that could cause anyone else to stumble on our account. This includes business ethics, social ethics, sexual ethics, and any other adjective you want to add.

Salvation – Sinners prayer, no; a ‘before and after’ story, yes. There has to be a point where we know we passed from death into life, even if the date isn’t written somewhere in the front cover of a Bible. But as C. S. Lewis noted, it might not all happen in a single heartbeat; there are also ‘process’ conversions.

Family – In any given situation there can be good choices, but many things in life are a matter of good, better and best. To repeat, a good choice may not be a best choice. This kind of filtering is tested in the decisions we make about our families and within our family units.

Ministry – One does not have to choose vocational ministry to be in the ministry. Yes, God does call some to be ‘set apart’ for a career in Christian service, but to understand holiness is to know that everyone who desires to be a Christ-follower is called to be ‘set apart’ from the broader culture.

Church – Yes, I know this refers to people, but what about the Sunday thing and the building? For all its faults and failures, I think we’re better to go than not to go. We need that short retreat from the world which is too much with us the other 167 hours of the week; we need to pray and be prayed for; we need to worship corporately; we need people to do life with.

Denominations – Not necessarily that bad thing that some would potray. We see different schools of thought on things emerging even during the times of the original disciples. Christianity probably functions better in smaller faith families, and God probably knew this going in and built it into the design.

Mission – We’ve got the hottest news on the rack. Of course we’re going to share it. We need to take the Jesus story to everyone, and they will respond to it if we present it in its purity. When we mix it with western culture or denominational bias, it won’t work.

Charismatic Gifts – We should seek the giver and not the gifts. But I believe that God is continuing to give supernatural gifts to some people. Not necessarily the ones on television, though.

Tithing – Do your best, but don’t go into debt over tithing. God owns it all, so to set formulas and percentages seems to miss the point. See next entry.

Generosity – The hallmark of the church as described in the concluding verses of Acts 2 and Acts 4, and noted by early church historians. Very hard to do today in a western environment that practices cocooning, but very much at the heart of I Cor. 13.

Worship – In any demographically mixed group, worship should be blended; a mixture of various styles brought together in a seamless way so that no one style seems out of place. The reasons can be more theological than musical.

Prayer – Necessary to keeping the lines of communication open, and thereby keeping the relationship with God active. God delights even in our long laundry lists of requests because it means we’re talking.

The Bible – Not so much a collection of books as it is one continuous story. The more we read it that way the less of a ‘continuity problem’ we’ll have between the First Covenant and the New Covenant. And read it we should. And commit it to memory. And always be ready to share it.

Prophecy – Great for looking back, but things can get confusing if we try to use it to look ahead. The fulfillment of all things represents a point in what we call the ‘future’ where those of us who exist within the constraints of time are able to look at Him who exists out of time.

Heaven – A place we tell our kids is out there somewhere, and then writers like Randy Alcorn make us realize that New Earth is probably closer to what most of those scripture verses were referring to.

Faith – Not, as the visiting preacher illustrated, the belief a wooden chair can support you, but the belief that an old lawn chair with worn out webbing that’s in my garage can support you. It doesn’t look secure in the least, so will you trust yourself to it? Faith is the concreteness of things that don’t look so solid.

Discipleship – The ultimate commitment to lifelong learning. Just as living things grow, so also should Christ followers grow in both knowledge and the operation of grace.

…I could probably keep going, but that sums up a few important things. I hope now we know each other better!

Don’t Like Controversy? Don’t Read the New Testament

Jay Adams at Nouthetic.org writes Controversy in the New Testament:

Sometimes it may seem that we spend too much time refuting falsehood. All of us are chagrined at the preponderance of error both within and without the Church. We may write off those who attempt to combat it and set forth the truth in clarity over against it as “heresy hunters.” The term is used pejoratively; but should it be? Take a quick look at the Books of the New Testament, merely scratching the surface, and see what you think.

• In the Gospels Jesus warns against false teachers, speaks of wolves in sheep’s clothing and the “leaven of the Pharisees.” The record of His ministry is one of conflict with those who refused to accept the teaching He set forth.
• Acts contains the record of the church’s first major controversy over whether or not a person must become a Jew before he could qualify as a Christian. A church council was called to settle the matter. Paul goes to lengths to warn the Ephesian elders about wolves who would devour the flock and schismatically draw away disciples to themselves.
• Romans is an entire doctrinal treatise about justification by faith alone in contrast to salvation by works, and how sanctification follows thereafter. In it, Paul also takes up the rejection of the Jewish church.
• I Corinthians is loaded with problems; schism, misuse of gifts, church discipline, marriage and divorce, and on, and on, on.
• II Corinthians takes on false apostles who had invaded the church and charged him with pretending to be an apostle. The place of apostolic authority is set forth, along with the qualifications of an apostle.
• Galatians is a sterling defense of Justification by faith alone over against those who taught otherwise, and were upsetting the church by Judaistic legalism.
• Ephesians is less controversial, being a universal epistle rather than directed to the adverse circumstances of an individual or a congregation
• Philippians deals with a split in an otherwise good church. But it has to do with self-centeredness and sets forth a key Christological passage.
• Colossians is consumed with fighting Judaistic Gnosticism.
• I & II Thessalonians take up false teaching about the Lord’s coming and eschatology.
• I & II Timothy & Titus teach “healthy” doctrine over against many false ideas. And, in them, Paul doesn’t hesitate to name specific heretical individuals.
• Philemon is a welcome exception.
• Hebrews, in its entirety, combats all influences that would cause Jewish Christians to revert to Judaism.
• James utterly destroys the idea that one can have genuine faith that does not result in good works.
• I Peter explains how the New Testament church is no longer a physical political entity, but that the church is now the spiritual people of God, the new Israel.
• II Peter warns against scoffers and libertines unsettling the church and reveals the true picture of final things.
• I John argues quite effectively throughout the book against Gnosticism of a Cerenthian sort.
• II John warns against hospitality for heretics.
• III John deals with church discipline gone so far astray as to virtually destroy a church.
• Jude throughout its entirety is an exhortation to contend against the libertines who invaded the church that failed to listen to the warnings in II Peter.
• Revelation speaks of the warfare of God against apostate Judaism, the first persecutor of the church, and Rome, the second persecutor, and predicts the fall. It also mentions cults like the Nicolatians.

Now, in light of the above, if you can, tell me, why we should not be prepared to detect and refute falsehood in the Church?

8 Secondary Issues To Core Christian Belief

…It is my argument that often – far too often – conservative Christians become identified with issues that, while important, do not make or break our faith. This creates extremely volatile situations (from a human perspective) as believers’ faith ends up having a foundation which consists of one of these non-foundational issues. When and if these issues are significantly challenged, our faith becomes unstable. I have seen too many people who walk away from the faith due to their trust in some non-essential issue coming unglued. That is why I write this post…

C. Michael Patton

This week, Michael Patton presented a list of Eight Things that Do NOT Make or Break Christianity.

1. Young Earth Creationism
2. The authorship of the Pastoral Epistles
3. The inerrancy of scriptures
4. Whether the flood covered the entire earth
5. The character witness of Christians
6. The inspiration of Scripture
7. The unity of Christianity
8. The theory of evolution

Again you’re encouraged to read the entire article. There’s also a follow up piece that ran a few days later that captures the spirit of the discussion.

In 94 Seconds, Everything That’s Wrong in the Church

This item is about a 94-second video, but I’m not going to embed it here because it is simply too repulsive to put on this blog. You can follow the link at the bottom.

I would like to think that it’s a joke, but it’s not. The guy on camera is dead serious and truly believes his greatest potential for God’s kingdom could be realized in making a short, angry video. The anger isn’t overt, but it’s there. Trust me, you’re better dealing with this guy at a video’s link than you would be in person. That would get unpleasant. 

This is what happens when people are just smart enough to sound articulate, but not smart enough to know when to shut up. This is spiritually bullying.

True, he’s only one guy; but he is representative of very many. The type of people who would rather argue over doctrine than deal with a spiritually dying world. Who would rather be remembered for what their faith isn’t instead of what it is. Who think God is somehow pleased with their offering of spiritual bigotry. Who believe they are scoring points for their denominational brand, a brand that loses stock value each time they post another upload.

The creator of this video is just a guy with a small following. But as a ‘type,’ he’s the reason your neighbors don’t want to go to church with you. He’s the reason your relatives don’t want you to give them Bibles for gifts. He’s the reason your colleague at work doesn’t want to get into a faith discussion.  He’s the reason your teenage kids are counting the days until faith is an option.

This video is representative of thousands of similar ones, and tens of thousands of blogs and websites. And should you agree with its premise, that’s fine for right now, but if you find yourself on the opposite side of the table as this guy on some other doctrinal issue, you don’t want to know what he thinks of you.

This is the work of Satan, masquerading as a theological or doctrinal statement. It’s purpose is create division.

This is what it looks like when a man pours gasoline on a fire.

Confronting Salvation Insecurity

At an earlier stage of life, J. D. Greear prayed to receive salvation multiple times and was baptized on four different occasions. In a new book, Stop Asking Jesus Into Your Heart: How to Know For Sure You Saved (B&H Books) Greear doesn’t speculate on what that means for the statistics of various churches, but he does  confront a problem that is common to many: a lack of assurance that they are truly saved.

A few months ago, I wrote about the ramifications of a faith dependent on an invisible transaction. If only, like one does at the ATM, one had the option of getting a printed receipt. That’s the type of assurance many people crave.

In the book, Greear looks at what constitutes belief and repentance. Though he doesn’t use these words, he wrestles with the question of whether or not salvation is a crisis experience (happens all at once) or a process experience (happens over time) and dismisses the distinction by referring to faith as a posture, with the test question being, “Are you in the posture of repentance now?” One section is subtitled, “Present Posture is Better Proof Than a Past Memory.” He allows the possibility that some may not remember an “exact moment” but know they are submitted to Christ, preempting the need to ‘pray the prayer.’

He is equally sensitive to people on both sides of the Arminian/Calvinist divide over eternal security, approaching difficult anecdotal cases not with the negative language that perhaps some were not saved to begin with, but with a more positive spin that those who are truly repentant do in fact persevere in their faith.

Additionally, he recognizes the uniqueness of each our stories.

C. S. Lewis describes a day in 1951 (after writing The Four Loves and giving the talks that became Mere Christianity) where he passed form “mere intellectual acceptance of, to the realization of, the doctrine that our sins are forgiven.” He did not think of this as his conversion, but he did say that in light of it “what I had previously called ‘belief’ looked absolutely unreal.” After writing one of the all time classics of the Christian faith…     (p. 114)

And he concedes the universality of misgivings.

The Bible time and time again reminds us that no one is immune from doubt, spiritual apathy, and severe temptation. Elijah sank into self-pity and depression right after winning the victory on Mount Carmel. After speaking with God face-to-face, Moses lost his temper and blasphemed God publicly. After establishing the greatest kingdom Israel had ever seen, David committed adultery and murder. After preaching a service in which three thousand were save, Peter fell back into hypocrisy and cowardice. Perhaps God lets his saints struggle that way so that their faith will remain in his grace and not in their righteousness.  (p. 108, emphasis added)

In a way, Stop Asking Jesus Into Your Heart, while a smaller book, is a somewhat exhaustive treatment of this subject, filled with scripture quotations and quotes from classic and current authors. Packaged in a Prayer of Jabez-sized hardcover at 128 digest-sized pages, its $12.99 U.S. list seems a little pricey, however, I would advise churches to try to track down bulk pricing on this and have giveaway copies at hand for those who are experiencing doubts.

For an additional look at the book, see an excerpt at Christianity 201  Thanks to The A Group for this review copy.

Defining Charismatic

Yesterday afternoon, I ran a post at Christianity 201 where the author gave seven reasons why he believes that the gifts of the Holy Spirit have not ceased to operate.

But Michael Patton, ever analytical, had blogged just the day before at Parchment and Pen about six characteristics he believes identifies Charismatic Christians. (He used a lower case ‘c’ but I have chosen to capitalize this where it refers to an admittedly diverse denomination, in the same way some are now arguing that Evangelical needs to be capitalized.)

1. Unusual attention given to the empowering presence of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer

2. The tendency to seek and expect miraculous healings

3. The tendency to seek and expect God’s direct communication (dreams, visions, experiences, personal encounters, etc.)

4. Unusual attention given to the presence of demonic activity in the world

5. Very  expressive worship

6. Belief in the continuation of all the gifts of the Holy Spirit

He spells out each of these, and then describes the entire spectrum of belief as to the gifts of the Spirit, ending up with this chart.  (I do appreciate his calling both extremes as unorthodox; you can tell me that the tongues and interpretation aren’t for today, but don’t try to tell me they never happened!)

Read the entire article here.

I think his analysis is good, though his terminology is a bit intense.  Perhaps the charismatics I know are more conservative, or possibly he is envisioning charismatic believers in Africa or South America. I would rephrase his six points this way:

1. A distinct emphasis on the limitless power and work of the Holy Spirit in the world today

2. Expectant, faith-consumed prayer even in the face of great odds and obstacles

3. A belief that God speaks into the hearts and minds of his people through dreams, visions, circumstances and a ‘still small voice’

4. An acknowledgement that the Christian is always embroiled in spiritual warfare

5. Passionate worship

6. Belief in the continuation of all the gifts of the Holy Spirit

The problem with any doctrinal emphasis is that it always takes place at the expense of something else. So if you speak of an “unusual emphasis” on the Holy Spirit, or on demonic activity, are you doing so at the cost of not emphasizing the work of redemption on the cross, or the call to love our neighbors, or the priority of world missions? (Points 1 and 4)  The Charismatics — albeit with a few exceptions — that I know haven’t thrown the baby out with the bath water.

And if you believe that God is still in the business of impressing things on his people (Point 3) that doesn’t mean it is at the expense of not prioritizing the role of scripture. Most of the Charismatics I know have a good working knowledge of scripture.

I did leave one (Point 6) intact.  Good comments on the blog, too; one more time here’s the link.

Responsibility in the Light of Truth

So there we were walking through the grocery store when I saw a display for 30 cents off those little dessert pies that come in a little cardboard box that I remember from my younger days. I quickly tossed one apple pielet — they’re small so I’m coining a new word right here, right now — and one cherry pielet in our shopping cart.

Not this brand, but you get the idea…

We enjoyed the apple one on Monday night. On Tuesday our evening treat was a square from my wife’s butter tart bar. If you live in the U.S., and do not know that uniquely Canadian experience called a butter tart, you are less likely to know the non-tart version.

Then Wednesday we returned to the second pie — or as I hear they’re now called, pielet — the cherry one.

That was when I discovered these are not the lunchbox treats of my childhood. They look the same. They taste the same. However…

The modern version comes with a twist which appears on the packaging. What we have now that we didn’t have then is nutritional labeling. My beloved treat apparently contains something like 150% of my daily allotment for fat, based on a serving size of one bite.

Okay, it’s closer to 46% based on a serving size of one piece; but this is a guy who generally won’t touch anything if any of the nutritional percentages are in the teens, let alone 46.

Turns out the thing about these confectionery delights that I enjoy so much is trying to kill me. I could have happily eaten several dozen of these in one sitting, but I couldn’t responsibly digest the dessert after digesting the information outlined in the white box on the back of the package.

That’s when it hit me.

To understand this principle is to understand the book of Romans in the Bible. Paul is saying that apart from the law, we don’t know we are missing the mark with God, but once the law is introduced, we suddenly find ourselves confronting a standard or a plumb line by which our lives are measured.

The law wasn’t intended to be God’s final word, but even in an age of grace, the law shows us where we’re falling short. Once we have that knowledge — that truth — we’re responsible for how we live with that information.

…Just as I am now responsible for how I live knowing that those fruit pies just aren’t good for me.

You could say they’re sinful.

The Great Exchange That Happens at Salvation

I found a treasure trove of very unique graphics at the tumblr page of Adam Ford, adam4d.com. This one emphasizes what all takes place at the moment we respond to God:

Go deeper on this subject. Check out a blog post I wrote this summer for C201 on “the invisible transaction.”

HT: Vitamin Z