Truly Reformed
106 comments | Permalink
Ray Ortlund:
HT: Z
I believe in the sovereignty of God, the Five Points of Calvinism, the Solas of the Reformation, I believe that grace precedes faith in regeneration. Theologically, I am Reformed. Sociologically, I am simply a Christian – or at least I want to be. The tricky thing about our hearts is that they can turn even a good thing into an engine of oppression. It happens when our theological distinctives make us aloof from other Christians. That’s when, functionally, we relocate ourselves outside the gospel and inside Galatianism.Here's the conclusion:
The Judaizers in Galatia did not see their distinctive – the rite of circumcision – as problematic. They could claim biblical authority for it in Genesis 17 and the Abrahamic covenant. But their distinctive functioned as an addition to the all-sufficiency of Jesus himself. Today the flash point is not circumcision. It can be Reformed theology. But no matter how well argued our position is biblically, if it functions in our hearts as an addition to Jesus, it ends up as a form of legalistic divisiveness.
My Reformed friend, can you move among other Christian groups and really enjoy them? Do you admire them? Even if you disagree with them in some ways, do you learn from them? What is the emotional tilt of your heart – toward them or away from them? If your Reformed theology has morphed functionally into Galatian sociology, the remedy is not to abandon your Reformed theology. The remedy is to take your Reformed theology to a deeper level. Let it reduce you to Jesus only. Let it humble you. Let this gracious doctrine make you a fun person to be around. The proof that we are Reformed will be all the wonderful Christians we discover around us who are not Reformed. Amazing people. Heroic people. Blood-bought people. People with whom we are eternally one – in Christ alone.Read the whole thing.
HT: Z
posted by JT at Thursday, July 17, 2008
106 Comments:
The Reformation interpretive Key to the Bible is Jesus Christ. So, in relation to regeneration and conversion, when the gospel is preached, what makes people to differ in their response to it? Does Jesus Christ make us differ or does something else? This "something else" may take various forms; it may be something native to the human constitution (i.e. Pelagianism) or something alien yet universal (i.e. Arminianism)? In either case, the point is that it is not Christ that makes the difference. Anyone who claims that the difference arises from one of these something-else's has failed to see first our hopelessness as fallen creatures apart from Christ and second the exclusive sufficiency of Christ's saving work. If I am different than my neighbor because of something other than Jesus Christ, then Christ, whatever role he may play, cannot be central to my understanding of salvation. He is only partly responsible for it. It is the grace we have in Christ that saves, and nothing in addition to it.
Thanks for posting this JT, it made me wince a few times as I read because I'm exactly the sort of person who needs to hear these kind of (gentle) reminders.
"The Judaizers in Galatia did not see their distinctive – the rite of circumcision – as problematic. They could claim biblical authority for it in Genesis 17 and the Abrahamic covenant. But their distinctive functioned as an addition to the all-sufficiency of Jesus himself. Today the flash point is not circumcision. It can be Reformed theology. But no matter how well argued our position is biblically, if it functions in our hearts as an addition to Jesus, it ends up as a form of legalistic divisiveness."
I see the point he's making, so don't get me wrong here. Two observations.
1) It seems all avant-garde these days to say "ya, I'm a Calvinist, but I'm not like THOSE Calvinists, I'm down with the non-Calvinists."
2) This observation seems quite disanalogous.
The problem of the Judaizers in Galatia was exactly that they were adding to the sufficiency of Christ.
The reason that many Calvinists lament over the lack of a recognition of the doctrines of grace among other believers is precisely, and therefore struggle to enjoy fellowship, is precisely because they want to see these believers hold fast to Christ alone instead of substituting a synergistic soteriology.
"This is the acid test of a truly Reformed ministry – that other believers need not be Reformed in order to be respected and included in our hearts. Whatever divides us emotionally from other Bible-believing, Christ-honoring Christians is a “plus” we’re adding to the gospel. It is the Galatian impulse of self-exaltation. It can even become a club with which we bash other Christians, at least in our thoughts, to punish, to exclude and to force into line with us. "
I agree when he writes, "What unifies the church is the gospel."
BUT! What you believe about what Christ did is fundamental to that unity. If the 'grace' you describe in the Gospel operates in a very different way and is characterized in a very different way it is going to be very difficult, despite all cries to "unite around the Gospel" to actually FUNCTION this way.
I see many a false dichotomy and some broad brushes.
Mike:
Well said >>>> "The reason that many Calvinists lament over the lack of a recognition of the doctrines of grace among other believers is precisely, and therefore struggle to enjoy fellowship, is precisely because they want to see these believers hold fast to Christ alone instead of substituting a synergistic soteriology."
Thank you for this excellent comment. Exactlyt what I was trying to say in the first comment.
I agree with Mike. The answer to combating a legalistic, and, therefore, separationist error is not to tell men to reduce their theology to "Jesus only." How about reducing it to "Jesus preeminently." Those who have more theological distinctions that we are not necessarily legalists, or adding to Jesus. They might just have a softer conscience and a greater love for the Bible.
I am simply wanting to give "TRs" the benefit of the doubt. If they find their distinctions taught in Scripture (in both the Old and New Testament) they have every right to hold them. Jesus would have us believe this since He Himself upheld "every jot and tittle." The doctrine we are called to believe was given by "the Spirit of Christ" speaking through the prophets, then through the Lord Himself, and finally through His apostles. So there is no dychotemy between saying we love Jesus and holding theological distinctions we derive from the word of Christ--so long as they are still applicable (unlike circumcision or other Old Covenant legal issues).
Everyone has distinctions. The reality is, the less distinctions a person has the easier he is to get along with. This is true in life. If you don't have any political distinctions you can get along with everyone. If you don;t have any other theological substance than "Jesus only" you can fellowship with anyone at that level. But, we need to be careful not to put down "TRs" because we don't like their theological distinctions. There can be a straw-man argument to establish a sweeping rejection of anyone more theologically narrow than ourselves.
I do agree with Dr. Ortland, that we need to want to fellowship with anyone who loves Jesus Christ (the Jesus presented in Scripture), but we need to be careful not to fall into the very error we are seeking to combat by excluding fellowship with those in the Reformed Church who are called "TR."
Just some thoughts.
This post has been removed by the author.
Just for the record, the term "TR" (Truly Reformed) was a pejorative term aimed at men in the Presbyterian Church who were confessional. Men at schools like Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary and Westminster Seminary California were being labeled "too narrow." In my humble opinion, there are some godly, Christ-centered men at these schools. We should be praying for them as they labor to advance Christ's Kingdom.
Brothers and friends (Mike et al): Good thoughts, but the question is not whether Calvinists can cultivate and enjoy theological distinctives. The question is whether the net result of that doctrinal cultivation is deeper love for others. Does the theology push us away from other believers or draw us toward them in love? The former is Galatianization, the latter gospelization.
Dane:
Thanks for your post. I would like to point you to 1 Peter chapter 1 which says the following about love and doctrine:
"As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus so that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine, nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculations rather than the stewardship from God that is by faith. The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith." 1 Pet 1:3-5
In other words Peter says we are loving our brother most deeply when we long for these believers to hold fast to "Christ alone" instead of substituting a synergistic Christ-PLUS soteriology. Loving them and correcting bad theology are one and the same, according to the Apostle.
Now, most defintely, this needs to be done with patience and respect as this is the only godly way to persuade, but nonetheless, when we see persons adding something in addition to Christ for salvation we are guarding against the very Galatian error the author of the blog article speaks about. The error of Synergism is precisely that the Biblical doctrine of Christ-alone is not being honored.
"the question is not whether Calvinists can cultivate and enjoy theological distinctives."
Indeed. And that wasn't the concept to which I raised my observation.
Quote: "My Reformed friend, can you move among other Christian groups and really enjoy them? Do you admire them? Even if you disagree with them in some ways, do you learn from them? What is the emotional tilt of your heart – toward them or away from them?"
Part of my point was that it is very difficult to enjoy company with them (not theological distinctives) when the nature of the Gospel is precisely the thing at issue.
This doesn't mean that the heart is bent away from them. To phrase what I said earlier a different way: The Calvinist may well have trouble enjoying their fellowship precisely because he cares for them and his heart is inclined to their well-being.
And that isn't the case only for Reformed soteriology. Any other besetting, persisting sin or significant doctrinal error can have the same effect on the capacity to fellowship.
Does this mean abandoning them and permanently severing them and calling them to believe in the doctrines of grace to be saved? I don't think I've ever met a Calvinist (or even read one!) who thought that way. On the contrary, they will acknowledge them as brother and treat them as a brother in error.
"The question is whether the net result of that doctrinal cultivation is deeper love for others. Does the theology push us away from other believers or draw us toward them in love? The former is Galatianization, the latter gospelization."
Why is difficulty with fellowship over besetting error antithetical to drawing towards one in love?
"Love does not rejoice in wrong-doing, but rejoices with the truth."
Sure, there is common ground for rejoicing, and hopefully there is a sufficient presence of the Gospel.
But the fact that many Calvinists struggle with rejoicing with those in significant error with regards to the workings of God in the Gospel is not indicative of Galatianism or unlovingness.
It is precisely the opposite - it would be profoundly hateful to rejoice fully while these things are present.
BTW - If you think I talked over or past you, please let me know... I'm not totally sure I'm grasping what you are saying, so feel free to correct me if you think I have misrepresented your position.
In case its not clear what I meant:
"Why is difficulty with fellowship over besetting error antithetical to drawing towards one in love?"
means that I don't take for granted that they are antithetical.
Oh, and sorry for the triple post, but I should make it clear that I appreciate a major thrust of the post in question and I am in no way a fan of theological or spiritual one-upmanship, which I am sure characterizes ALL Christians, not just those in the Reformed community.
Hence I appreciate the call to take Reformed theology deeper, even though I have some strong issues with aspects of the argument...
"Let this gracious doctrine make you a fun person to be around."
Amen to that.
It can be easy to become puffed-up with reformed knowledge, and forget to simply have loving fun with others who love Christ.
Thanks for posting these excellent words. I needed that.
Yes! Jesus was enjoyable to be around. We should be also as His disciples.
The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith." 1 Pet 1:3-5
I think you meant I Timothy here.
Overall, that was a good post and we Reformed folks need to take heed; me included.
Piper has a good article on "how to preach and teach Calvinism"; which communicates the same spirit.
If we are not humble and godly and patient and willing to fellowship with non-Reformed Christians that are truly Evangelical and hold to the Bible, then we will not win others to the Reformed faith.
Good to see people like Ravi Zacharias being invited to and speaking at R. C.Sproul's apologetics conference recently ( year ?); and good to read Steve Camp's comments at his blog about the late Keith Green (who had a very bad theological influence from reading lots of Charles Finney); but was a fine Christian, great musician (oh for more with words like his in the CCM field!); zealous for life and missions and reality. )
I think there's a larger question regarding what qualifies as "love" and "loving".
You know: I don't think saying someone else is not a Christian when in fact they are is very "helpful" (as we say in the blogosphere) or loving. But I think to let someone wander off into worse and worse ideas about the Gospel and the work of Christ is certainly not any more loving -- and often it requires more than a mere clearly of one's throat and a trick eyebrow to get someone's attantion.
I appreciate Dr. Ortland's words. I think they are useful and needed in some quarters -- quarters I must admit I have been in and still visit. I think that Dr. Ortland's view makes sense when you're dealing with the orthodox of all stripes, and being willing to see that is is an essential part of being discerning. And I'll leave it at that.
"Let it reduce you to Jesus only. Let it humble you. Let this gracious doctrine make you a fun person to be around. The proof that we are Reformed will be all the wonderful Christians we discover around us who are not Reformed. Amazing people. Heroic people. Blood-bought people. People with whom we are eternally one – in Christ alone."
I also don't want anyone to get the idea that I think it's ok to be a miserable Calvinist. I distinguish between personal rejoicing and situational rejoicing.
The former we have at all times in all things because of Christ.
The latter may be lacking resulting in a sorrow that is simultaneous with overarching joy - not something foreign to the apostles - at situations.
My point targets the latter, not the former.
Not only so, but there is a great distinction between sorrow and bittnerness.
One should be a "happy Calvinist."
Charles Spurgeon, a truly reformed, loving, and gracious pastor:
"I have my own private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else.
Not saying this is what Spurgeon is saying, it just brings up a thought because just the isolated reading brings up a serious implication that if you're not a Calvinist you don't/can't have the true Gospel:
I wouldn't say that because someone isn't Calvinist that they don't have the Gospel.
I would say that, for whatever reason, they are missing what is clearly revealed about the mechanics of the Gospel, and that an error in the revealed mechanics of the Gospel can lead to the loss of essence of the Gospel.
Also part of cultivating this air of humility that Ray mentions involves reassessing "reformed" creeds and confession in light of the Word of God. Our first alligence is to Scripture and we must humbly reevaluate our inherited traditions (with appriciation) whether the issues be baptism, women in ministry, the covenants, etc. Of course certain doctrines are more supported than others.
Just a couple of comments coming from the Arminian perspective here. The issue is whether or not we should allow theological distinctives to get in the way of Church unitity. I think the Bible is clear that it depends on what those distinctives are. If the issues are relevant enough, then unity cannot justify corruption of the gospel. But if both sides truly believe in the gospel, than unity is the higher calling.
Arminianism and Calvinism, rightly understood, are not different enough to justify division. Both believe in Total Depravity, the necessity of grace, salvation by faith and not works, the absolute soveriegnity of God, the intrinsic worth of the human soul to God, and salvation through Christ alone. Therefore, I ask, what justifies division?
After spending the last few years at a predominantly non-Calvinist seminary, I have noticed a developing trend.
If you are reformed and confident of your convictions and speak boldly of your theological persuasions you are labeled with such words as "dogmatic," "intolerant," "mean-spirited," and so forth. But if you are of a different theological framework than Calvinism and are confident and outspoken in your beliefs you are seen as provocative and a forward thinking trailblazer.
This has even born itself out on the national Christian stage. The leading Reformed voices are usually stereotyped as being un-conversational and conservative. But if you are a Brian Mclaren, Pagitt, or Claiborne, you can make bold assertions and critiques of those you disagree with without any of the same labels being applied that the Reformed voices get stuck with.
Maybe I am being paranoid here, and will be the first to admit that Ortlund is right in his characterizations of some hyper-reformed types, but I think this trend of seeing narrowness just as a Reformed problem is a major problem in the Evangelical community.
TUAD,
What a depressing and absolutely ridiculous quote. I frankly don't care if Spurgeon said that or not, it is dangerous and dead wrong. I have serious doubts that a theological system that was not even formulated until the 16th and 17th centuries is the true "Gospel." I suppose the saints who went before Calvin were not preaching the true Gospel then, eh?
Why don't you make your own comments instead of quoting somebody from history? The quote is downright heretical, and I suggest that if you honestly believe this, you need a reality check, brother.
Uhh, see Luke's last comment as evidence of my previous comment.
I wouldn't quite agree with Luke's comment. I agree that Spurgeon's quote is a dishonest view of history, but it really began with Augustine not Calvin. However, I wouldn't call Spurgeon heretical either, for he often says things for the sound of it,.
Way to read my comment through the filter of your previous post, Ryan.
I'm saying nothing at all about Calvinism being wrong and I believe it has many good things to offer. I was just referring to TUAD's quote of Spurgeon saying that Calvinism itself was the Gospel.
Do you believe this? If so, then all other systems are wrong and are not preaching the Gospel, which means that those who believe in what they say are still lost and destined for hell.
Do you believe this?
I think in your attempt to try and see a pattern in non-reformed folk, you have started seeing your pattern in every comment a non-reformed folk makes. It also appears that in seeing this, you are guilty of the "I'm enlightened, you're not" attitude to which others refer to.
I'm sorry; I forgot to include the link to that Spurgeon quote. It's in here: A Defense of Calvinism
Luke: "The quote is downright heretical, and I suggest that if you honestly believe this, you need a reality check, brother."
I'm not offended in the least that you call Calvinism heretical, or by extension that Spurgeon is a heretic, or even that Calvinists are heretics.
But what I should like to understand is what you define as heresy, and what precisely is it in Calvinism that makes it heretical according to your point of view.
I wish our PCA church would regard itself more a TR church. The preaching and teaching almost seems embarassed to teach reformed soteriology or doctrine. We have all the catechisms lined up and in our back pockets...confident they are there. Why does this allow you to preach like a fundamentalist?
TUAD,
You guys are not reading my post correctly. I never, ever, ever called Calvinism heretical, nor did I call Spurgeon a heretic. I called the quote heretical, and nothing more. It is as plain as day in my post, so for you all to draw those conclusions seems to be reading things you think non-Calvinists usually say into my comment.
Heresy is false teaching. For Spurgeon to say that Calvinism (and by extension, nothing else) is the Gospel is a false teaching. This doesn't mean that Calvinism is heresy, nor does it mean that Spurgeon is a downright heretic (we're all guilty of heresies, mind you).
Does that help any?
Actually what Luke said, and he was quite clear on this in his last post, was that saying Calvinism=the gospel was heretical. He was not condemning Calvinism or you. He was merely saying that if that statement is taking literally then it would be heresy. Personally, I just dont take Spurgeon literally when he says such things.
But, indeed, Calvinism is not the gospel, even in Calvinism. The gospel is Christ crucified and resurrected. I would even say that the stress of the gospel is Christ resurrected. Calling any theological system the gospel is at best a misunderstanding of what it means for something to be the gospel.
Luke, just a quick comment for you. I believe you are using the term "heresy" a little to liberally. In most circles, heresy means damnable false doctrine. It is not surprising that many here are reacting as they do to your comments.
Thanks Martin, you're exactly right. Thank you also for reading my posts correctly and not misrepresenting me.
Word to your mother, Justin.
I think I could write a similar article, replacing "Reformed" with "Emergent" and it would be equally as pertinent for me and many others I know. May God give us all the grace to see what he is up to in all this, truly seek and experience his unity in the Holy Spirit, and give him the glory at all times.
"I believe that grace precedes faith in regeneration."
Would anyone care to elaborate what the author means by this statement?
I believe I have a firm grasp on reformed theology, but I have never heard it put quite this way.
If he said regeneration precedes faith, I would understand that.
jw
Question: How do you get 34 comments in just a few hours?
Answer: Post anything that questions the Reformed doctrines IN ANY WAY AT ALL.
Truth Unites: But what I should like to understand is what you define as heresy, and what precisely is it in Calvinism that makes it heretical according to your point of view.
TULIP
T - Total Depravity, false on the basis that sin is the transgression of the Law, and Paul was blameless as touching the Law.
U - Unconditional election, makes a mockery of justice by totally eliminating man's role in his election or non-election. The saved are saved because they are saved in God's script. The damned are damned because they are damned in God's script.
L - Limited atonement, false on the basis of 1 John 2:2, as well as John 3:16 about God loving the whole world that he sent his Son, etc.
I - Irresistable grace - false on the basis of certain Pauline writings that one can fall from grace by relying on works of law.
P - Perserverence of the saints, false on the basis of Paul's statement that he disciplined his own body lest he be rejected at the end of his race.
Teresita
Total Depravity is absoluty taught by Scripture, and, I might add, by Arminianism. Scripture teaches that all have fallen short of the glory of God. Sin isn't simply adherence to the law, but rebellion against God, and even Paul considered himself to be the chief of sinners. Thus, if you would conclude that Paul was not a sinner, then you are using a different definition than Paul himself.
*Sigh* So much good stuff on this thread, but plenty confusion and misrepresentation, too.
The early posts, addressing the tension between rejoicing in all Christians' salvation and sanctifying growth on the one hand, but mourning and confronting important doctrinal errors on the other, are keenly insightful.
As far as the squabbling about Spurgeon, has anyone actually read through the essay? In context (the provocative quotation cited by TUAD is found in the paragraph before a hymn stanza - "If ever it should come to pass,/ That sheep of Christ might fall away,/ My fickle, feeble soul, alas!/ Would fall a thousand times a day." - that is block-quote-formatted in the Spurgeon Archive version), Spurgeon is saying that a healthy and sound Calvinism - the Calvinism that he strove to preach - was merely a faithful exposition of the biblical gospel, nothing more. He does not say there or elsewhere that non-Calvinists had nothing of the gospel, or that they could not be saved. He does, however, seriously warn against the errors of Arminianism and Hyper-Calvinism (it seems he lovingly cared about doctrinal distinctions, too - enough to call them "heresies"!).
JT:
I posted the following at Ray Ortlund's blog site:
Ray:
Thank you for your gracious and kind post.
I have been in ministry for 21 years. As a Reformation Arminian, I have seen many examples of Calvinists branding Arminians with negative and hurtful labels -- even at the Seminary I attended.
I've also been privileged to fellowship with Calvinists who are among the most kind, good spirited Christian Brothers and Sisters I have ever known.
As Christ has prayed "that they all may be one," I desire that to be my attitude toward all who name the Name of Christ.
Thank you again -- God's best blessings to you and yours!
In Christ,
J. Dale Weaver, M. Div.
Thank you for posting Ray's comments. It is always refreshing to find Brothers with whom to fellowship!
I must admit I'm discouraged from some of the comments posted in response to Ray's observations here. As I indicated in my post to Ray, I've seen it before, all too often.
I would ask, is such theological hairsplitting necessary among those who profess allegiance to and faith in the fundamentals of Christianity, at the expense of unity? I'm afraid, however, that I know the answer.
I trust God blesses all His people who name His Name and Preach His Gospel.
J. Dale Weaver, M. Div.
www.mygration.blogspot.com
I really appreciate Ortlund's post.
Many good men have claimed that Calvinism is the gospel. However, I don't think most of them have reasoned through the logical implications of their claim...
1. Calvinism is the gospel.
2. The gospel saves.
3. Therefore, non-Calvinists (Arminians) can't be saved.
But, most Calvinists testify that they were regenerated first, remained Arminians for awhile, then learned Calvinism later.
Vines and Goldsworthy distinguish 2 definitions of the gospel...
1. The evangelistic gospel for the world. The historical facts of Christ (Evangelism in Acts; 1 Cor. 15:1-4; His life, death, res., reign, return, etc.)
2. The comprehensive gospel for the Church. (Mk. 1:1ff; The theological interpretation of those facts.)
So, Calvinism is part of the comprehensive gospel (as is baptism, amil., etc.) But, SOME points of Calvinism were only the exception, not the norm in the evangelistic gospel in Acts. Therefore, it's not an intrinsic fundamental of the gospel, nor a prerequisite to regeneration.
Plus, Calvinism can't be the gospel since Christ and the apostles never taught limited atonement explicitly. L.A. (like the Trinity) is true from logical implications, not explicit statements.
When you distinguish between the gospel and Calvinism, you'll find it much easier to fellowship and minister to other Christians who share your gospel, but not your soteriology.
Here's a similar post to Ortlund's titled "Thoughts on Keeping the Gospel Central"...
(4) We (especially church leaders, but this applies to followers as well) must learn to build our identity around Christ and the gospel, not around secondary doctrines or issues. Or other people. Perhaps the temptation of the leader is to build his/her identity on doctrines and issues, ("I'm a Calvinist. A Complementarian. A Baptist. A New Covenant Theologian." etc.) while the tempation of the follower is to build his/her identity around a person ("I like John Piper." "I agree with Billy Graham." "I'm a Rick Warren fan." etc.). But when we do this, we get off center. Jesus must always have first place in the way we think about ourselves. ("I belong to Jesus Christ." "He is my Lord and Savior." "I have no hope, except in Christ alone.")
http://meretheology.blogspot.com/2008/02/thoughts-on-keeping-gospel-central.html
While I do appreciate Ortlund's comments, I mean, there are some hyper-calvinists out there, I think the bigger problem is well-taught Arminians who have a axe to grind every time they encounter Calvinists, especially on the blogosphere.
It's like Christians who are liberal politically with BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) who go out of their way with an axe to grind with political conservatives. I think we have people with CDS (Calvinism Derangement Syndrome). They just can't stand Calvinists as is clearly shown on this thread.
Just as I don't have an axe to grind with Christians who are liberals (had dinner with one in San Francisco last week and politics did not come up) nor do many of us have an axe to grind with Arminians. If the subject comes up though, we'll usually contend for it because that's what the Bible teaches.
I think with Arminians who are not well taught in that theology - I think we should stay away from labels and actually start with the sovereignty of God. Everyone believes in some sovereignty (yes, I know that is an oxymoron, either you have sovereignty or you don't), but we just need to take it to Scriptures and show them where it teaches that God is sovereign (over nature, His commands, and His choices).
For those Arminians who are well taught we can either ignore them especially those who have axes to grind or we can use it as an opportunity to instruct others that may be reading. Discernment has to be exercised because often those that have axes to grind will try to sabotage the discussion.
So, I don't know, hopefully someone from the Arminian camp will write an article on well-taught Arminians who also relocate themselves outside of the gospel and into their own Galatianism. Maybe some Arminian has already done that. I don't know. I doubt it, but I could be wrong.
Martin: Total Depravity is absoluty taught by Scripture, and, I might add, by Arminianism. Scripture teaches that all have fallen short of the glory of God.
If we run out of gas a mile from our destination, we say we have fallen short of our goal. But if we never get out of the driveway, that is not the language we use. Total depravity says man gets zero percent of the way to God. Catholicism says man is essentially good and we can get very close to God, but we always need him to reach down and pull us up over that last gap with his grace.
Carlo: I think we should stay away from labels and actually start with the sovereignty of God. Everyone believes in some sovereignty (yes, I know that is an oxymoron, either you have sovereignty or you don't), but we just need to take it to Scriptures and show them where it teaches that God is sovereign (over nature, His commands, and His choices).
If there was unconditional election of the Democrat every four years, no one would think that was just. But the Democrats nominate someone and we get to vote. I know Calvinists like to quote Romans 9 about the potter having absolute sovereignty over his clay vessels, but I think the language wasn't sufficiently nuanced to express the point Paul was trying to make. The "U" in TULIP should stand for Unconditional Nomination. God gets to pick who he brings to the foot of the cross and who he doesn't. The Catholic Church affirms this when it says God's initiative alone is involved in the initial conversion. So it's up to God to nominate us for the Kingdom, and then we get to vote.
Carlo said: I think with Arminians who are not well taught in that theology - I think we should stay away from labels and actually start with the sovereignty of God. Everyone believes in some sovereignty (yes, I know that is an oxymoron, either you have sovereignty or you don't), but we just need to take it to Scriptures and show them where it teaches that God is sovereign (over nature, His commands, and His choices).
For those Arminians who are well taught we can either ignore them especially those who have axes to grind or we can use it as an opportunity to instruct others that may be reading. Discernment has to be exercised because often those that have axes to grind will try to sabotage the discussion.
You think that it is the educated Arminians that are the bigger problem? Why would you say that? In my experience, it is the uneducated, of pretty much anything, that are the most condemning.
There are plenty of Calvinists out there with axes to grind, and yes, there are Arminians out there too. But what should determine whether or not one is worthy of conversation is character, not what they know or don't know.
Teresita,
I'd like to quote Daniel 4:35 which states,
And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing; and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?
All that is to say it is God's sovereign will and His sovereign will only. He accomplishes His will through heavenly hosts and even Satan and his demons and He accomplishes His will through us, e.g., prayers of believers and other actions that are taken from believers and non-believers.
God doesn't just "nominate", He actually accomplishes (His decretive will that is), effectually.
But we digress...
Martin,
What I meant by well-taught Arminians was not educated (like BA, MDiv, ThD, etc.) but people who are well taught in the doctrines of Arminianism.
Let me rephrase what I mean are the real strongly convicted Arminians.
CR, I dont really think that improves your comment. You are essentially saying that those who know what they are talking about are not worth talking to. Education isn't the issue; obstinance and arrogance are, which exists on both sides.
cr: He accomplishes His will through heavenly hosts and even Satan and his demons and He accomplishes His will through us,
So what was God thinking when he willed the Holocaust? Why did He will a world full of animals and people and then will a flood to wipe them out, when he could have accomplished the same thing by creating Noah and his wife and his three sons and daughters-in-law? I know, I know, the Ways of God Are Mysterious And There Are Some Things Man Was Not Meant To Know. But still...
Now if we can just get someone from the TNR (truly non-reformed) side to tackle these folks in the same manner.
:)
Mark
jm, I happen to be one of those guys. In fact, I'm a founding member of SEA. Pray tell, what issue to you have with us?
It just seems that this statement (2) refuting Calvinism and diminishing the number of its adherents, doesn't follow too well the tone of the position put forth in this post.
Mark
I disagree. The purpose of SEA is to teach, spread, and promote Arminianism. It is, essentially, to take a stand. However, we are not condemning toward Calvinists, nor to we encourage disunity on the grounds of this debate. The context of the site is that of theological contemplation and teaching, not social interactions, as the subject of this thread is.
In the same document, let me quote a different section: "Despite stark differences, SEA generally accept Calvinists as fellow brothers and sisters in the Lord who adhere to a reasonable but seriously flawed biblical theology."
Here is a quote from a letter that SEA sent a woman who was considering leaving her church over Calvinism:
" I am very reluctant to counsel someone to leave a church based on the Calvinist/Arminian issue. God values the unity of his people tremendously, and the C/A issue is not typcially one we should be dividing over. "
I might add that all the members of SEA responded to this letter in agreement. It is not that SEA disagrees with Ortland's stance, its that SEA is dealing with a different context as an organization than Ortlund's comment is.
Johnmark,
I wondered about your comment too since we i nthe Society of Evangelical Arminians (SEA) have tried to embody a gracious and respectful stance towards Calvinism and Calvinists yet stand for tuth. Do you really think that Ortlund is saying that ot os inappropriate to advocate Reformed Calvinism and refute viewpoints at odds with it? I didn't take him that way at all, and would disagree if that was his intent. IMO, it is fine to contend for what one regards to be biblical truth and to seek to convince those who believe differently to abandon what one thinks to be error for the truth. Ortlund's point has more to do with arrogance towards fellow believers, looking down on them, practically rejecting them as believers and so being aloof from them as if they are inferior and unable to say anything theologically beneficial. To his message I say, hear hear! But again, I don't take him to be saying that Calvinists should not seek to lead Arminians to become Calvinists. I would think that these statements on the page you linked are in harmony with the spirit Ortlund enjoins:
"Despite stark differences, SEA generally accept Calvinists as fellow brothers and sisters in the Lord who adhere to a reasonable but seriously flawed biblical theology."
"If you agree with our statement of faith and our recongnition of Calvinists as fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, and you are committed to engaging this issue with love and respect for all, and you would like to join the society, please contact us with a request for membership and an affirmation of your agreement with our goals and statement of faith."
It also must be remembered that this is a group formed as a theological society with a goal of advancing a specific theological viewpoint. That is different than how an individual is to operate in his everyday contact with others. In the work of the society, I work to advance Armninianism and refute Calvinism. But that is not my main or specific goal as I interact with fellow believers in my life. I doubt Ortlund would say it is wrong or what he is talking about for John Piper or any Calvinistic theologian to try and convince people to embrace Calvinism, and to forsake Arminianism, and thus to reduce the number of Arminianism's adherents. Still less would it be so for a Calvinistic society formed for the purpose of advancing Calvinistic theology.
Teresita: I know, I know, the Ways of God Are Mysterious And There Are Some Things Man Was Not Meant To Know.
Bingo.
William Cowper wrote a hymn, God Moves in a Mysterious Way and I don't know what motivated him exactly (Cowper suffered horribly from mental diseases and attempted suicide several times) to write that particular hymn but certainly Ps 92:5 would be applicable: How great are Your works O Lord! Your thoughts are very deep!
We do have direct revelation from God on the reason for the flood though- because man was wicked and continually thinks wickedly.
Bros. Martin & Arminian,
I'm sorry for commenting in the hasty, drive-by manner that I did. You can't read my mind and even if you could you would have waited until my thoughts of the possible were actualized. ;) (J/K) Seriously, I am in the SBC and get so very tired of the Calvinists always being charged with things like division, etc. This post by Pastor Ortlund encourages a spirit that is opposed to such charges. So I brought in an outside mindset of frustration, for example, from my SBC experiences.
I very much appreciate your stance on accepting Calvinists as brothers in Christ. I,especially, appreciate the email sent to the lady wanting to leave her church. There are some or maybe many in the SBC who could benefit by this approach.
So the statement,"refuting Calvinism and diminishing the number of its adherents" just sort of stood out to me. Not necessarily it's meaning, but its connotation. Though I should have taken it in its larger context. Sorry about that.
Also, I never thought it to be wrong to establish such a theological society. Thanks for your time and patience.
Grace to you,
Mark
No problem johnmark. I think you for your humility, and I am glad that we can both rejoice in the bountiful grace of our Lord and Savier. Arminian and I merely desired to be understood, and you took the time to understand us. We thank you.
Martin: Arminianism and Calvinism, rightly understood, are not different enough to justify division. Both believe in Total Depravity, the necessity of grace, salvation by faith and not works, the absolute soveriegnity of God, the intrinsic worth of the human soul to God, and salvation through Christ alone. Therefore, I ask, what justifies division?
Actually, Arminianism does not hold to the absolute sovereignty of God. Arminianism holds that election is conditional on faith exercised and that salvation can be lost (as it depends on continued exercise of faith as Arminianism postulates).
This is a rejection of the absolute sovereignty of God.
The implication this has is in proclaiming the gospel and prayer. The apostle Paul believed in the absolute sovereignty of God (which again, Arminianism rejects) and yet Paul was a man of great prayer.
Also, in motivation for preaching the gospel. Some of you may remember the late Dr. D. James Kennedy who launched the world wide Evangelism Explosion training which is a training program on how to train people to proclaim the gospel. D James Kennedy of course was an adherent to Reformed Theology. I'm not aware of any major evangelism programs launched by Arminianists.
Arminianism doesn't have the same commitment to proclaiming the gospel because Arminianism is concerned with getting or keeping people in the church. That's why many of these churches have programs instead of solid biblical teaching.
CR:
After the earlier graceful discussion between Martin, JohnMark and Arminian, your comments are...troubling. Certainly the work of D. James Kennedy with Evangelism Explosion was greatly used by God. Athe the same time, one would have to look hard to see a great many Calvinist Missionaries in the sea of Pentecostal/Arminian works in Central & South America! I don't think your portrayal of Arminians is accurate.
Of course, you have an absolute right to your views -- but you don't have a correct understanding of Arminianism -- particularly Reformation Arminianism.
Just as did Jacobus Arminius, RA's affirm Total Depravity. On that point, Calvin and Arminius were agreement. But this topic is not the point of the OP.
I thank those who have posted here in a spirit of meekness and brotherhood. While we may debate these issues -- even with considerable "heat" at times -- we should do so behind closed doors. Once in the eye of the public, we all must lock arms and join our voices in agreement to "Preach the Word" to the world. Not to do so is not only a failure to carry out the Great Commission to Preach the Gospel, but it is a failure to live out the principles of that Gospel before our God.
JDW
Well, I'm sorry you see what I said troubling. It is in fact true. Arminianism rejects the sovereignty of God (I'm leaving out the "absolute" because sovereignty is by def'n, absolute).
Also, one of the troubling implications of Arminianism especially believing that salvation can be lost are Christians working on the performance treadmill. Instead of relying on the Spirit and being obedient out of gratitude for what God has done, the implications of Arminianism is that many Christians work to gain favor or avoid displeasure from the Lord because they don't want to lose their salvation.
Rejecting the sovereignty of God is bad enough in and of itself. The implications for rejecting that sovereignty are just as worse as it applies to believers.
CR,
How do you define sovereignty? If you define sovereignty means God unconditionally predetermine all things apart from foreknowledge, then it's true that Arminians reject your definition of sovereignty. But if sovereignty means God being in full control and able to do whatever He wants, then Arminians do believe that God is sovereign.
CR:
I'm not going to debate with you about whether or not what Arminians say soveriegnity is, is in fact soveriegnity. That is not the topic of conversation, though I do refer to this article as an excellent example of what Arminians think on the issue.
Instead, let me remind you that the point of this discussion is whether or not Calvinists and Arminians can both commune together without judgment. Though you seem to think we can, you seem to believe that it is only upon the condition that the Arminian doesn't really care about the topic. I ask you this: do you in fact believe that Calvinists and Arminians can commune together? Do you believe we worship the same God?
I just wrote a big response and lost it.
Take 2 -
Biblically God's sovereignty is defined as follows in Scriptures: Our God is in the heavens; He does all that He pleases. Ps 115:3
For the Lord is a Great God, and a great King above all gods. In His hand are the depths of the earth; the heights of the mountains are His also. Ps 95:3-4
The LORD kills and brings to life; He brings down to Sheol and raises up. (1 Sam 2:6)
This includes the salvation and damnation of men also Rom 9:14-24.
I think what is important Truehope is that we don't get to define God's sovereignty. It's not about how I define or how you define it, it's about how the Lord has defined it.
I will say this, I think Arminianism's definition of sovereignty that the Lord does not do anything outside of Him knowing what's going to happen in the future - says, little about God.
I mean things happening because He knows what's going to happen in the future reallys says, I mean, well of course He knows what's going to happen in the future, but God's sovereignty is not limited to what He knows about the future but God's sovereignty is His sheer will.
And I think anytime that we get God's attribute wrong, that is no small matter, but the problem is, when we get His attributes wrong, it doesn't just stop there. It has implications which Arminianism has -serious ones. Because they define God's sovereignty by Him knowing what's going to happen or not apart from Him knowing what's going to happen, Arminianism defines His grace can be resisted by those who freely reject Christ and salvation can be lost as Arminianism teaches, salvation is conditioned upon continued faith. And this results in the performance treadmill again. You have false believers who are running to keep their salvation conditioned by their faith and you have believers who have very little assurance because they've been taught their salvation can be lost.
Getting God's attributes wrong has serious implications to the life of believers.
Martin: I'm not going to debate with you about whether or not what Arminians say soveriegnity is, is in fact soveriegnity. That is not the topic of conversation snip snip
Well, Martin, sorry, but you made it a topic when you said that both Calvinists and Arminians believe in the absolute sovereignty of God. That is simply not a true statement and I could not let that slide. Arminians do not believe in the sovereignty of God.
Martin: I ask you this: do you in fact believe that Calvinists and Arminians can commune together? Do you believe we worship the same God?
I think it really depends on the Arminian. As I said, rejecting the sovereignty of God has serious implications. If His election is conditioned on what God knows about the future and that continued salvation is conditioned on continued faith and obedience what that results in some people is that their obedience becomes legalistic rather than from love and because they are fearing losing their salvation they work not from love of God or a desire to glorify Him but to not lose His favor. That is a very serious issue Martin.
Now, certainly, you may have someone that maybe is a believer but He struggles with assurance not because he is disobedient or doesn't love the Lord but because he has been taught that his salvation is conditioned on his continued faith. What a terrible way to live the Christian life.
So at best, I would say with some Arminians we have the same God but Arminianism puts a real, real, heavy yoke for those that the Lord died for, at worst, many Arminians are being deceived thinking they have salvation and working for salvation when in fact they have not received it.
So, like I said, I think having God's attributes wrong are bad enough...but apply that to the life of a believer or to someone that never received salvation is a terrible thing and which is why Arminianism is a serious and egregious error.
CR:
That is very sad. Not only does it appear that you have absolutely no concept of what Arminianism is or what Arminianism teaches, but I fear that the attitude that you have demonstrated will prevent you from ever doing so. It is not good enough that you think Arminians reject God's soveriegnity, which they dont, but you have to be able to prove it, and I would start by finding out what Arminians teach.
I believe the tendency of many Calvinist is to view Arminianism as works or man centered theology but Calvinism as "the doctrines of grace." This is a complete misunderstanding of the teachings of Arminius. Arminius was completely God-centered in his theology and strongly believed that salvation was by grace through faith by the sovereign power of Almighty God. While Arminius advocated free will, he did not believe that man merits eternal life by their own free will but by surrendering to grace.
I think both sides of the issue misunderstand each other. Too often we Arminians label Calvinist without first reading Calvin and Calvinist do the same by not reading Arminius. Both were godly men who hungered for God's truth to go forth by the power of the Spirit. While we disagree, may we do so in love and in Christ by His grace through faith in His atoning blood.
CR,
Whenever possible, I think it's best to let Calvinists define what Calvinism teaches, and Arminians define what Arminianism teaches. If a Calvinist wants to describe what Arminianism teaches, they should at least quote an Arminian such as Arminius, Wesley, Watson, Oden, Forlines, etc so that you can take the words out of their own mouth. Similarly, if an Arminianism wants to describe what Calvinism teaches, they should quote a Calvinist such as Calvin, Owen, Edwards, Spurgeon, MacArthur etc. That way, there will be less misinterpretation and misunderstanding.
And while we may disagree in soteriology, it's important to remember that we all proclaim the same gospel of Christ crucified, worship the same God, and that we are brothers/sisters in Christ. Any disagreements we have must be handled in a loving way so that God will be glorified in all that we do.
For a more careful and through (but by no means neutral!) take on what's at stake in Arminian-Calvinist controversy, see this famous J.I. Packer essay.
I would like to comment on some of the things being said here but anm short on time. I don't know if I will get to it. But I do have time provide a link to what is perhaps an even more careful article than Packer's showing that his may not be that careful after all (though I do have respect for Packer as a man of God and a theologian): Dan Chapa, "Are Arminians Semi-Pelagian?", a question also covered by other articles at
The Society of Evanegelical Arminians Website
As I understand it, Arminians are not semi-Pelagian. They believe that people are dead in our sins and that God must "wake" them by His grace. After God does this waking though, they have the power, and the choice, to choose to submit to Christ as Lord and Saviour.
Reformed Christians (of which I am one) believe that God must do the waking and that this waking is unto salvation. He brings us from spiritual death to spiritual life, and it is *all* of His grace. Even our choice is not through any of our own wisdom or good sense. God changes our hearts from stone to flesh, and then we *want* to choose Him, and we do, by His grace.
I do joyfully embrace Arminians as brothers and sisters in Christ. We disagree on aspects of soteriology, and these disagreements are not unimportant, but they are also not *more* important than Christ and His Gospel.
dead in "their* sins, that is, not "ours"
Truehope: If a Calvinist wants to describe what Arminianism teaches, they should at least quote an Arminian such as Arminius, Wesley, Watson, Oden, Forlines, etc so that you can take the words out of their own mouth.
Arminius defended his conditional predestination view (predetermination of people is based on God knowing whether they will freely reject Christ or freely accept Him). Arminius defended his view in his commentary on Examination of Perkins' Pamphlet, and Declaration of Sentiments.
I know you were not one of those that offered websites for me to look at what Arminianism teaches, but I don't need to look at all these other websites that others are offering. His views are well documented and I don't need an Arminianist to define Arminianism. Arminius already has defended his view.
As I said earlier, this conditional predestination about God know who will freely reject or accept Christ, really doesn't say much about God. Of course He knows who is going to choose based on His omniscience. Knowing the future is an effect of God's sovereignty, but it doesn't define it.
Arminius view on human freedom is also well known and also deficient. While he was not Pelagian, he believed that God's saving grace was not irresistible and that it could be rejected and that believers may lose their salvation and be eternally lost. RT Shank's Life in the Son and HO Wiley's Christian Theology has tried to argue against eternal security within the Arminian tradition.
CR:
I believe you are confusing election with the overall schema of soveriegnity. Though Arminians believe that God elects on a conditional basis through His foreknowledge of faith, we do not see this as how God performs every action He does.
We believe that conditional election was God's desired mode of operation, not some sort of necessary appeasement to the strength of the human will. This was how decided to elect, out of a plethora of other options available to Him by proxy of His power and right as the soveriegn king of all which is. Our God is not small, but a God so strong that the provision of free will to His creatures is no danger to the working out of His plan. I fail to see how this "does not say much about God"
Martin: I believe you are confusing election with the overall schema of soveriegnity.
I am not. The Lord is King, Supreme Ruler of the entire universe (both visible and invisible). He works out everything in conformity with the purpose of His will (Eph 1:11)
He is sovereign over creation, providence and redemption. He is sovereign over everything including election.
Arminianism as defined by Arminius and later by Wesley makes God not sovereign by saying predestination is based on because what He knows people are going to do.
Imagine if He ran creation that way based on what people are going to do or animals or the weather? Or if He ran providence that way. (E.g. He spares spare Joe Lunchbucket from a fatal accident (prior to his conversion) because His plan is to save Joe from His sins because He knows Joe is going to freely accept Christ and he knows Joe is going to survive the accident anyway, because God knows the future!
Imagine if His plan of redemption where our atonement with Christ's death and suffering was ran that way because He knew it was going to happen.
Arminianism makes God impotent and subject to man's free will. Instead of subjecting free will (really free agency) to the sovereignty of God, Arminianism turns the sovereignty of God over on its head and subjects Him to man's free will to accept or reject Christ.
That is not taught in Scripture.
Praise God for this word. I need this. Thank you!
CR:
You see. That demonstrates exactly what I was talking about. You take what Arminians say about election and assume that we define God's soveriegnty itself that way. This is incorrect.
Martin: You see. That demonstrates exactly what I was talking about. You take what Arminians say about election and assume that we define God's soveriegnty itself that way.
Well, again, you nor I get to define what God's sovereignty is, the Bible does. God is sovereign in everything He does including election.
You know, I think we should take everything in the Bible very serious especially the words of Jesus. I wanted to say that before I say this: When Jesus prefaces a statement He says by saying, "Truly, truly" that's one of the ways to emphasize something in the Greek and we should take that doubly seriously.
Jesus said that in his conversation with Nicodemus. He said to Nicodemus that, "Truly, truly I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God..
Arminianism by affirming that the Lord conditionally elects people based on what He knows what they are going to do in the future because people can reject or accept freely Christ, completely undermines what Jesus said to Nicodemus. No one will be able to enter the kingdom of God unless they are born again. Arminianism undermines Jesus' statement by emphasizing the free will of man to freely accept or reject Christ.
Just leave this guy be. The kind/brand of Calvinist that JT posts about so often is definitely demonstrated by CR. It appears that he is more in love with the reformation than he is with the Bible, because he would not be making half of these statements if it were the other way around. Sovereignty should not be emphasized so much to cancel out or trump all of God's other attributes, and it appears CR is guilty of this.
Fight a different battle bro, this ain't the one to be won. You're not going to change our minds by misrepresenting us and claiming we are "unbiblical."
It is very misleading to speak of a Reformation Arminian. Historically and theologically, it is an oxymoron. Classical Arminianism was condemned by the Synod of Dordt, and by extension evangelical Arminianism of Wesleyan Methodism. For one, all Reformation Christians (Reformed, Anglican, Lutheran, etc.) agree that election is unconditional. Arminianism rejects that.
It might be beneficial for some to read the entirety of this Calvinist's book review of Roger Olson's book defending Arminianism:
Review of "Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities" by Roger E. Olson
Excerpt: "This book is of great value to Calvinists and Arminians. I suppose I ought to speak cautiously about how the book is valuable for Arminians, since I'm not one, but it seems to me that he does an admirable job of distinguishing the core beliefs of historical Arminian theology from some of its aberrations. In each section of the book he deals with a particular myth/reality and shows how Arminian theologians throughout history have viewed the matter at hand. He is particularly deferential to Arminius himself, but he is not afraid to point out where his followers have departed from orthodoxy."
Pax all.
Thank you for that link. I believe it demonstrates the kind of tone that the original post was calling us to.
Martin: Thank you for that link. I believe it demonstrates the kind of tone that the original post was calling us to.
I'm sure, that some folks, that Ortlund are writing to get off on the head knowledge of Reformed Theology and Calvinism. I'm sure there are people like that.
I think it's important to add, and I'm not sure where Ortlund is going with this his comparison of what the Galations did with circumcision and trying to compare that with what some are doing with Reformed Theology. (This is why analogies break down, eventually).
It's important to note, that especially when it relates to soteriology, Reformed Theology does not add to Jesus Himself. It accurately describes about man and God.
So, I know that Ortlund means really well. I think he has good intentions and I know there are people out there really getting off on head knowledge.
But that is not why others are contending so hard for this. It's because Arminianism negates or diminishes some key attributes of God and because the consequences are so great on the life of others why we're contending so hard for this.
Thanks, CR. I think Galatians is remarkably applicable here. I think we can side with the Galatian legalists at a functional level even as we side with Paul at a theoretical level. It happens whenever we use our allegiance to the doctrine of justification by faith alone for emotional purposes of self-justification. And that masterpiece of iniquity is the essence of the Galatian problem -- self-justification. But because we're using Reformed doctrine, maybe even expounding Galatians, we are blind to it. But the problem shows itself in the form of emotional aloofness from other true Christians. Relationships reveal what we really believe, as opposed to what we think we believe.
Ray: Relationships reveal what we really believe, as opposed to what we think we believe.
I have trouble particularly, with this last statement. Relationships do not always reveal what we believe in. I'll give you a couple of examples.
We have the relationship between Whitfield and Wesley which was estranged for many years. We know that they mended their ways towards the end and Whitfield commented in Wesley's funeral (at least I thought it was at his funeral, maybe way before) “John Wesley will be so close to the Throne of Glory, and I will be so far away, I will hardly get a glimpse of him.” I know that Arminians like to refer to this fact.
But what is often missing from that analysis was their estranged relationship for many years. Was Whitfield's estranged relationship with Wesley revealing of anything about what he believed? Of course not.
Whitfield was extremely passionate for God and His attributes and especially for God's people. And he was going to contend for that right doctrine, not because of head knowledge, not because of aloofness. But because Whitfield loved the Lord, loved His attributes, and loved His own, even John Wesley.
Their relationship for many years, revealed anything but that.
As we learned in Acts 15:1-5. We know the importance of contending for right doctrine. Contending for right doctrine will not reveal itself in relationships with those that you disagree on especially if the doctrine is so essential.
Let's look at another example. The sharp disagreement between the apostle Paul and Barnabas over John Mark. It was such a sharp disagreement that they (Paul and Barnabas) separated. (Acts 15:36-41).
Now, what is of course actually amazing is that the Lord used the contention here between Paul and Barnabas to really advance the gospel in ways that it might not have advanced if Barnabas had joined them in their journey through Syria and Cilicia, plus Paul wanted Timothy to join them because they would travel to places where Jews would be.
But, did the sharp disagreement which resulted in their separation and aloofness reveal what they really believed in? Of course not.
Similarly, I don't think your analogy really applies here. There are those that will contend earnestly for God's sovereignty in election and in His irresistable grace over the free will of man to accept or reject Christ.
Many will contend not just because it is essential to have God's attributes right, but because the implications are so great to God's people.
When the stakes are so high like getting God's attributes wrong and how He relates to us, it may end up in broken relationships.
George Whitfield and the apostle Paul were far greater men than any of us probably will be on this side of glory and their contending resulted in aloofness.
On some important issues, aloofness should not result, but as we can see, because the stakes were so high, in some cases it did.
And what I reject is because we must contend for important doctrines and it results in sharp disagreements, what I reject is a labeling of that as Judaizing.
I can have "fun" with the Arminian, and have a beer, or go rafting or something to that effect.
But if we learn anything from the early church, when it comes to contending to very essential doctrines (especially when some of their doctrines lead many astray and make some falsely believe they are Christians and add a heavy yoke on those who believe), I've noticed that it's people on the wrong side of serious issues that don't want to have "fun" with us.
If one wishes to speak about experience, including relationships, then doctrine still plays an influential if not decisive role. Galatianism, as it is, was legalism. Legalism add to the Gospel in one or another. Today, there are many many Christians who are into legalism by reason of their convictions. It can be an emotional response but it is rooted in particular doctrinal understanding. On the other hand is the problem of antinomianism, which usually goes hand in hand with legalism as these are twin brothers.
So, how does justification by faith alone avoid both errors? Precisely by announcing that Christ alone is the end of the Law to all who believes and at the same upholds the Law in its proper use.
So, I suspect when one is into legalism, one has already added to justification by faith alone. Which means one does not accept the formula of simul iustus et peccator, which means that holiness is judged by what the Christian has achieved thus far rather than the love of the truth.
The more precise distinction would therefore between formal and informal level. At the formal level, the distinction between orthodoxy and heresy remains. At the informal level, we are all Christians since not all heresies are grievous or damnable. We are not separated Christians (as per Vatican 20 but nor are we Catholic Christians to same degree but in varying degrees.
At the end of the day, the Reformed, the Truly Reformed does not emphasise morality as the basis for fellowship but doctrine as embodied in the standing and falling article of the church and the hinge upon which true religion turns and sum of all piety, i.e. justification per sola fide.
Arminius who claimed he revered Calvin had trouble interpreting Romans 9 according to Calvin's interpretation. Funny though he appealed to the principle of "libertas prophetandi" as a right to diverge from the predestinarian consensus of the day. That's why he got into trouble with the venerable Theodore Beza. Actually it's not even the issue of supralapsarianism versus infralapsarianism. But is election ante praevisa fidei or intuitu fidei? Contrary to Calvinism, Arminius propagated the latter. Election is a decree which includes faith as a condition. No Calvinist can agree to that, because Romans 9 speaks of election as a decree of specific individuals per se, not a class of individuals.
"They are explained by a passage from Malachi 1:2, 3. "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated," and this is said, that it may be evident that the servitude of the elder is united with the divine hatred, and the dominion of the younger with the divine love.
Here we must repeat what was said before, as a general remark, that Esau and Jacob are to be considered, not in themselves, but as types, and so that which is attributed to them, is to be accommodated to the antitypes, or rather to the things signified. Hence, also, the antitypes are to be considered, before a conclusion, similar to the former, can be deduced from them, to the refutation of the sentiment of the Jews and to the confirmation of that of the apostle." (Analysis of the Ninth Chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, Vol. 3, Works of Arminius)
"7. It is horrid to affirm, that "the way of reprobation is creation in the upright state of original righteousness;" (Gomarus, in his Theses on Predestination;) and in this very assertion are propounded two contrary volitions of God concerning one and the same thing.
8. It is a horrible affirmation, that "God has predestinated whatsoever men he pleased not only to damnation, but likewise to the causes of damnation." (Beza, vol. I, fol. 417.)
9. It is a horrible affirmation, that "men are predestinated to eternal death by the naked will or choice of God, without any demerit on their part." (Calvin, Inst. l. I, c. 2, 3.)" (No 5. On Predestination to Salvation, and on Damnation Considered in the Highest Degree, Vol. 2, Works of Arminius).
"t the end of the day, the Reformed, the Truly Reformed does not emphasise morality as the basis for fellowship but doctrine as embodied in the standing and falling article of the church and the hinge upon which true religion turns and sum of all piety, i.e. justification per sola fide."
FORMAL fellowship, that is. For example, there can be no common cause between Calvinist and Arminian Christians against Roman Catholics. Revivalism, common generic heritage, etc. should not be allowed to trump confessionalism.
Likewise, Packer and Co. was wrong to sign the ETC because that had nothing to do with the left-hand kingdom but the mission of the Kingdom of God. For the Protestant and Romanist to combine forces in opposing abortion laws is one thing; but to join forces in evangelisation is another thing coming.
The best example is Alliance of Confessional Evangelicalism. I think it provides a good model for emulation.
TUAD:I'm sorry; I forgot to include the link to that Spurgeon quote. It's in here: A Defense of Calvinism.
I really appreciate the link you provided as it was good to re-read Spurgeon's sermon on the defense of Calvinism.
I think Spurgeon exactly expresses my sentiments. Here was a man who really loved the Lord and His people and was gracious but yet, had some very stinging rebukes of Arminians.
I know the question by some Arminians is can we, who hold to some important biblical doctrines, embrace them as our brothers? And clearly, Spurgeon did embrace men like them.
But, I think the more important question is: can they embrace us who contend earnestly for important attributes of God and the implications of those attributes as it applies to believers?
I remember reading some comments in response to your Spurgeon quotation from Arminians being pretty harsh.
Like I said before and I'll say it again. I think Ray Ortlund means well and has good intentions and certainly there are people out there who make certain biblical doctrines a legalistic divisiveness. It's not unique to Calvinism.
But you know what, TAUD, I find your blog name interesting, because I think it represents a biblical truth. The fact is, biblical truth, does unite and but it also divides and we can see that in the Bible and in the history of the church.
And I guess what I would say to the Arminians is if you can tolerate a person like Spurgeon who was passionate but firm in his beliefs about the Lord and His people, and you could have fun with a person like him, then yes, you will find me a fun person also.
As long as I don't have to compromise my beliefs, (and I know that Ortlund stated that we should not compromise our beliefs), and you can enjoy me, then certainly I could enjoy you.
But it's possible that reality is more often than not, Arminians have a problem with us, not the other way around. This is not absolute because I know at least one person that is not the case, but I think the case is more often than not.
CR: "But you know what, TAUD, I find your blog name interesting, because I think it represents a biblical truth. The fact is, biblical truth, does unite and but it also divides and we can see that in the Bible and in the history of the church."
Thanks. The inspiration of my blog handle came from a footnote from my ESV Reformation Study Bible (Editor: R.C. Sproul). The passage was in one of the Gospels and it was in reference to one of Jesus's teachings.
Anyways, I liked it because of the following reasons:
(1) Jesus is the Truth. HE most certainly unites and divides people.
(2) At attempt to spark people into realizing that "truth" is objective. Even though many people want to subjectivize and relativize it. (In fact, my blog name unites objectivists and divides itself away from subjectivists).
(3) There was a third reason, but I forgot it. ;-)
--------
Anyways, for better or worse I'm a reductionist. And a Reform/Calvinist. It's about Sovereignty. And Calvinists and Armininians simply have different understandings and definitions of Sovereignty. This is expressly and obviously manifest in the doctrine of election. Calvinists - Unconditional Election. Arminians - Conditional Election.
On the flip side, Armininians claim they understand the attribute of Divine Love better via their emphasis upon Free Will. Once again, this is expressly and obviously manifest in their doctrine of election.
This issue is certainly not adiaphora, but it's plainly irreconciliable. I like what one of my favorite apologists, Steve Hays, said (paraphrasing), "Wesley and Arminius will discover they were wrong when they get to heaven!"
Sadly, many of the comments here have demonstrated just the problem that Ray Ortlund, Jr. addressed in his post. Too many Reformed Christians (I write as one) seem to be much more interested in debating theology (often impatiently) with Arminians than in rejoicing over our shared common bond in Christ and His Gospel. Yes, yes, we all know that there are clear theological differences between Reformed Christians and Arminians. It is also clear that the two groups can't even always agree on what those differences are!
However, and I think this is Dr. Ortlund's point, should we spend so much time focusing on our differences that the watching world can't even tell, at times, that both Calvinists *and* Arminians both worship the same God and embrace the same Gospel??? (I emphatically disagree with Reformed Christians who claim that Arminians follow "another Gospel.")
"They will know we are Christians by our love"-- not by our relentless fighting over theological distinctives. We can debate, but there should always be a tone, and an undercurrent, of *love* in the debates. We are *brothers and sisters* in Christ. Let us not forget that, whether we are Calvinists (I personally dislike that word, as a Reformed Christian) or Arminians.
cr:
It is not the Arminians who have more of a problem with you, or the Calvinists that have more of a problem with us. The opposition always looks like a bigger percentage then it is, because those with the problem are the one's who are usually doing the talking.
Hear hear my Reformed brother Christopher Lake! Well said.
Christopher: Too many Reformed Christians (I write as one) seem to be much more interested in debating theology (often impatiently) with Arminians than in rejoicing over our shared common bond in Christ and His Gospel.
Where do you get this notion? From reading blogs and other discussions forums? Blogs and other discussion forums have a purpose of debating issues. Justin's blog is a blog on theology, culture and politics with a purpose of discussion.
I do not debate or necessarily discuss these issues in the local church setting because that is not the forum to do so.
Christopher: However, and I think this is Dr. Ortlund's point, should we spend so much time focusing on our differences that the watching world can't even tell, at times, that both Calvinists *and* Arminians both worship the same God and embrace the same Gospel???
Dr. Ortlund's point is that he believes that for some Reformed Theology ends up as an addition to Jesus and a legalistic divisiveness. He also says for these it prevents them from learning from them and enjoying them.
My response to that was we have examples from Scripture of sharp disagreement and separation with Paul and Barnabas. We have the example of Whitfield and Wesely being estranged for many years.
Yet, we do read from Spurgeon even though he detested (notice he uses stronger words than Ortlund of "disagreeing") Wesley's theology he was yet able to admire him for his character of self-sacrifice, zeal, holiness, and communion with God. Of course, he is able to do that looking a hundred years back. One wonders what that relationship would have looked liked if he actually lived during Wesley’s time. Would his relationship look like that between Wesley and Whitfield? We don't know.
I would be interested in knowing about relationships that Spurgeon had with Arminians.
Obviously we have examples on unity in Christendom such as the Gospel Coalition (which Dr. Ortlund is a part of), Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals and other ministries which have alliances with those that disagree on some very important issues like baptism. But I noticed that the important distinctive that these alliances have is that they are all Reformed in their soteriology.
Why is that I wonder? I could be wrong, but in the Gospel Coalition are there any pastors who are not Reformed in their soteriology that are a part of that coalition?
Is it because the distinctiveness of Reformed Theology (or any biblical theology) is that it divides us from those who believe in a different gospel. And I'm sorry, but I'm going to agree with Spurgeon when he says he cannot fathom a gospel does not include, yes, several of the things that Arminians believe, but also what they don't believe, which is unconditional election and irresistible grace.
Does that mean the Arminian gospel is heretical like Rome's gospel? Whitfield and Spurgeon did not believe so.
Yet, the distinction is so different that it appears to divide.
I just put this out again to Arminians. If you can stomach what Spurgeon said you Arminianism (and from what I have seen many of you can't) then I can enjoy you and you can enjoy me. The important question is, can you embrace us with that important distinction, not the other way around.
You know there are some things on this side of glory that are hard to stomach like a death of a relative who was not saved. Can I with all my mind and heart and emotion glory in that a mother or a father died in their sins and will be in Hell forever and ever? Some of you maybe can do that, I can't. I know I will in glory, but not yet. It will take a complete wiping out of the last remanants of remaining sin in glory.
And probably the same thing can be said of certain theological distinctives. Many us are contending for the right gospel and its implications to those that believe because the stakes are so high and I don't think none of us are saying that we can never learn or enjoy from Arminians. No.
But if, like Spurgeon articulated, that we would be so miserable if we believed in the gospel of Arminianism and we contend so hard for the biblical gospel and it's so crucial and the stakes are so high, and that causes division so be it.
You see the reason why you have unity in organizations like the Gospel Coalition and Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals even though they differ on some pretty important issues, is because they believe in the same gospel.
The quest for unity is found in the one gospel of Jesus Christ, not in enjoying our differences and enjoying each other even though we believe in a different gospel.
I think the division exists because we believe in a different gospel than Arminians and while that gospel they believe in is not a damning gospel like that of Rome it is significantly different that it will take until glory when all sin is wiped out and there will be no error.
But in this earth age, I think I'm in agreement with Spurgeon, and Whitfield and the apostle Paul, that I will contend for the one true gospel of Jesus Christ and if that means being labeled divisive, so be it.
"I will contend for the one true gospel of Jesus Christ and if that means being labeled divisive, so be it."
Ironically, the one who is hurling the accusation and the label that another person is "divisive" is himself or herself acting in a divisive manner.
CR, maybe we are talking past each other here. I'm not saying that a Calvinist should necessarily become a *member of a church* which holds to Arminianism (if there is a sound Reformed church within driving distance). Then again, I'm not saying that a Calvinist *shouldn't* join an Arminian church, if the Gospel is strongly preached, and God and His word are highly exalted in that church. It's probably a matter which should be taken on a case-by-case basis.
In any event, what I am trying to get at here is the *tone* of the debates which often exist between Calvinists and Arminians. All too often, it is not a tone of Christian charity. Really, for me, it's altogether a lesser matter what Spurgeon said of Wesley, or whether Wesley and Whitefield had an estranged relationship. For me, the issue is, when I do have an opportunity to interact with an Arminian brother or sister (whether in person or on the internet), do I *first* truly, genuinely, rejoice that we are both in Christ, or do I immediately enter into a debate over our theological distinctives? Does my love for the Arminian, as a fellow Christian, set the tone for our interaction, or does my desire to convince him/her of the truth of Reformed distinctives overwhelm my perceivable love? Again, as the hymn says, "They will know we are Christians by our love"-- not by in-fighting over distinctives.
Loving, charitable debate is possible between Calvinists and Arminians, but why should that even be the starting place of conversation (as it so often seems to be)? Why can't we first celebrate our common bond in Christ, and then, *maybe* discuss our distinctives with genuine Christian love? I have seen, and and have been a part of, too many debates with Arminians where the Gospel, and the love that it should produce, were seemingly lost among the distinctives. I guess I'm moving out of that "cage-stage" of Calvinism... and I thank God for taking me out of it.
Christopher: For me, the issue is, when I do have an opportunity to interact with an Arminian brother or sister (whether in person or on the internet), do I *first* truly, genuinely, rejoice that we are both in Christ, or do I immediately enter into a debate over our theological distinctives?
And I guess in part, what I am trying to say, why that is difficult on this side of glory is because the Arminian believes in a different gospel than we do.
Here's what I mean. Part of the gospel is that Jesus died on the cross, rose from the dead and ascended into Heaven all to pay the penalty of our sins and to purchase a place for us in Heaven. Now, I'm sure the Arminian would say to that - Amen.
The problem is their affirmation that a person can freely accept or reject Christ and a believer can lose their salvation. Now, that is a problem because since God is just and must punish our sins, and He is merciful and does not want to punish us, and thus, He puts my sin on Christ and Christ's righteousness on me - BUT , the Arminian would say, I can freely accept Jesus or not and then lose my salvation - how then, is eternal life a free gift? How is the work which Christ did,not me, when He said "It is finished" or properly translated, "The debt is paid" , when He said on the cross, now negated by the Arminian who says, one can lose their salvation? This is not a mere doctrinal distinctive but a very serious departure from the gospel.
And I would suggest, maybe the difficulty in embracing is because of this significant departure from the gospel.
Now, what this does not mean, is that unless a brother affirms the doctrines of grace then I will not embrace them. I say, this, because like the blind man which Jesus healed, you'll recall Jesus asked him what he saw, and the blind man said, I see people, but they look like trees - and then Jesus later completely heals him.
All of us in the Christian life, start off with really bad morality and really bad theology. Arminianism is really bad theology. Spurgeon said he would be miserable under it. But to the newly converted person or immature person in the faith that doesn't completely understand, sure, we show patience, and love, and we embrace them, we counsel them, we disciple them.
But for these other folks, who are really, really committed to this errant doctrine, I'm going to suggest to you there is perhaps a reason for the division and that is because they are committed to a gospel which departs pretty signficantly to the one Christ gave to the apostles and which the apostles passed down to the church.
What's worse, is that Arminians are passing down that gospel to others. Now, does it depart to a degree like Rome or Galatia? Other men who have gone before me like Spurgeon and Whitfield who say, no. Others say it is a significant departure from the gospel that is heretical. All I can do is contend for the right gospel.
This is also not about "immediately entering into a debate with them." It might look that way on the internet or blog because, well, these kinds of forums are discussion forums.
When I encounter my Arminian friends, is the first thing out of my mouth, the doctrines of grace? Of course not.
But it is no small matter to depart from a gospel which we received from Christ and again, might I suggest the trouble with the unity between Arminians and those that affirm all of the doctrines of grace is because we believe in a different gospel?
Christopher, if I didn't believe that the Arminian gospel of a believer losing their salvation would not result in many working to not lose favor with God, I wouldn't be so picky about this. But, do you see the very, very, dangerous ground that an Arminian treads on if s/he believes they can lose their salvation?
They start back on the performance treadmill and most likely never really embracing the one true gospel. I don't know...I think that's a serious issue, don't you?
CR, I understand, and share, your passion for the Biblical doctrine of eternal security for true Christians (otherwise known as the Perseverance of the Saints). It is good to bear in mind, though, that many, many people who would self-identify as "Arminians" today actually *believe* in this doctrine. Furthermore, many who would never think to call themselves Arminians, but whom Reformed Christians would *label* as such (simply by virtue of not being Reformed), also hold to eternal security. There are many "four-point Arminians," and personally, I thank God for their inconsistency, just as I thank God that many non-Reformed Christians pray as if they are Reformed! :-) "Lord, please save this person by bringing him/her to a true knowledge of You..."
Having said that, CR, I do still hold that even consistent, five-point Arminians are brothers and sisters in Christ. I don't think that I could easily belong to a church which taught consistent Arminianism though (perhaps under *very* extreme circumstances, such as if there were no other churches available), and I do understand your desire to oppose it. I share that desire myself, but I long to see even those particular debates tempered with more Christian charity.
I understand what you are saying bro. Christopher. I'm going to give you the last word on this subject. It was good discussing this with you brother.
Let me go out on a limb and speculate that Ray Ortlund would not be wildly supportive of the following statements by Dr. McMahon:
"Arminianism is not something hidden under a stone, but lives in full view, and in direct opposition, to the Gospel. It is a deceiving doctrine of demons wrought up from the pit of hell, where, in the consummation of the age, it will be cast for all eternity with the devil that spawned it and the false teachers who propagated it. My position on this doctrine is clear. I am opposed to the system of doctrine known as Arminianism. It is important to note at the outset that I have a very rigid opinion of Arminius and his writings. It is my opinion that James Arminius (James Harmensen) was an arch-heretic (a heresiarc) of the Christian faith. He was a deceived man who deceived others; those ultimately known as the Remonstrants, and today he still has some followers. Good intentions do not count for truth. He was a false teacher of the faith even if he believed he had the smallest amount of “good intention.” Now, this portion of the website is not to be taken as “Arminian bashing.” That is not my intent at all, and I will not tolerate the accusation that I am bashing Arminians on this portion of my site. Nor am I calling Arminius “names”. My intent, as I said, was for the benefit of the Calvinist, first and foremost."
Excerpted from Introduction to Arminius
TUAD,
May I ask why you give that quote? Do you agree with it? I sure hope not, for it is wicked and heretical. McMahon is a hyper-Calvinist who obviously does not understand the gospel, certainly not the gospel advocated on this Reformed blog (see the gospel link on the front page, which I myself have recommended for use for gospel presentations after seeing it on this site). By such divisive comments, McMahon and other hyper-Calvinists (the variety that contends that Arminians are damned) call their own salvation into question. I am not saying that they are certainly unsaved. I will leave that judgment to the Lord. But it raises serious question of whether they believe and preach the true gospel (which standard Calvinists do) since they add to it by demanding belief in Calvinism as required for salvation. Obviously Ortlund would condemn McMahon's comments. I hope you would too. It is this sort of hyper-Calvinism that should be rejected by Arminians and Calvinists together, together for the gospel. Hey, maybe we could start an organization, "Together 4the Gospel"--oh yeah, there already is one. Well, we don't need to start an organization, but we should still be together for the gospel as fellow believers of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Besides, who cares what McMahon says anyway? He's no authority.
This post has been removed by the author.
In relation to the quote TUAD left, let me add that McMahon is so extreme that even some other 5 point Calvinists oppose his hyper-Calvinistic stance. Here is an article by a 5 point Calvinist taking him to task for perverting the basic gospel of Christ for arguing something so heinous as believing Calvinism being necessary for salvation, and therefore non-Calvinists being unsaved: A Critical Examination of Statements Published by C. Matthew McMahon
I tried to post this, and it seemed to be accepted, but the post is not appearing, so here goes again, Apologies if it ends up double posted:
In relation to the quote TUAD left, let me add that McMahon is so extreme that even some other 5 point Calvinists oppose his hyper-Calvinistic stance. Here is an article by a 5 point Calvinist taking him to task for perverting the basic gospel of Christ for arguing something so heinous as believing Calvinism being necessary for salvation, and therefore non-Calvinists being unsaved: A Critical Examination of Statements Published by C. Matthew McMahon
I tried to post this, and it seemed to be accepted, but the post is not appearing, so here goes again, Apologies if it ends up double posted:
In relation to the quote TUAD left, let me add that McMahon is so extreme that even some other 5 point Calvinists oppose his hyper-Calvinistic stance. Here is an article by a 5 point Calvinist taking him to task for perverting the basic gospel of Christ for arguing something so heinous as believing Calvinism being necessary for salvation, and therefore non-Calvinists being unsaved: A Critical Examination of Statements Published by C. Matthew McMahon
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home