Jun
17
The mini debate on the Chesapeake thread (Calvinism vs Arminianism) is of great interest to some, and of little interest to others.
I thought I’d create a new thread for those who have an interest.
Two requests-
1) Let love rule your heart and tongue-this is an “in house” discussion. We are family, united in Christ Jesus.
2) We all know Arminians and Calvinists who have done some very bad things. This is a doctrinal discussion which should obviously be based on what Scripture teaches. “Wesley, who was Arminian, did such and such” has nothing to do with the topic.
Be nice and have fun!
I so agree with Jim’s first request.
In 1970, Francis Schaeffer wrote The Church at the End of the 20th Century. At the back of the book were a couple of appendices. The first was titled, Adultery and Apostasy—the Bride and Bridegroom Theme and the second, The Mark of the Christian. The first was added to and published as the small book, The Church Before the Watching World and dealt with theological liberalism and doctrinal purity. The second was published as another small book in and of itself and retained the title, The Mark of the Christian. It was published prior to the The Church Before the Watching World. I don’t know if this was purposeful, but I find this publishing sequence to be significant. You can read The Mark of the Christian online. There is a poignant and striking poem at the end of it, Lament, by Evangeline Paterson.
In The Mark of the Christian, Schaeffer quotes these words of Jesus in the gospel of John:
John 13:35: “By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.”
John 17:21: “I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me, and loved them, even as You have loved Me.”
Schaeffer unequivocally states that the mark of the Christian is love and soberly calls John 17:21, the final apologetic.
Last week, before this discussion began, I was pondering his commentary and the words of Jesus, I’ve thought, where does truth fit into this? Earlier that evening Jesus had said, “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life.” Why did Jesus say the mark of the Christian is love? Why not truth or sound doctrine? I grew up in a very liberal church and I recognize and value the importance of truth and being a Berean to search the Scriptures.
Paul also exhorts in 2 Timothy 2:15,
Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.
As I was thinking, it occurred to me that Paul has the answer in his first letter to the Corinthians. He wrote to them:
1 Corinthians 13:4-7:
Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
Verse six says that love rejoices with the truth. This is the place to begin. When we begin discussion of doctrine we must start from square one. And square one is love.
1 Corinthians 13:1-3:
If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing.
May I appeal to all: As Jim said, let the love of Christ rule these discussions. The enemy of God, satan himself, would love nothing more than to divide and distract us from the real purpose of this blog which is to be used by God as His instruments in bringing forth healing, redemption, and freedom to those wounded, abused and broken through SGM. Of course, we are hopeful as well that God is using this blog in some small way to open the eyes of the leadership of SGM and that true change will take place in their hearts and in the movement as a whole.
I thank you all in advance for being watchful, alert, and cautious as you debate these doctrinal positions.
With much love in my heart for each of you, Fred
I found Anthony C. Thiselton’s commentary on 1 Corinthians further triggered my thinking. I’ll quote him and then share my thoughts. All of the emphasis in bold and italics is his. He translates verse six (p. 1026):
As background, on the first part of the verse Thiselton states (p. 1054):
On the last section of the verse he writes (p. 1055-6):
His statement that,
is very powerful and in my opinion goes right to the heart of the matter. It is personally very striking to me. I have fallen into the blindspots of not realizing that I was speaking out of self-interests (showing I was right, smart, etc., whatever).
We have to begin with standing in the knowledge of Christ’s love together as Paul wrote in Ephesians 3:14-21, and stand there together as we search the Scriptures. (I had some thoughts on those verses the other day here and here.).
Too many times our first understanding of a doctrine has come from someone who had not “decentered” the power interests of self and recentered them on Christ and on others. This poison our reactions and thinking. I remember one person who years ago heard me in an argument with someone else and I found out later it really changed–and in a bad way–his attitude towards the importance of searching the Bible to understand truth.
I have to run, but will check in later.
As a Messianic Jew with a Master’s in Theology from a Charismatic university (Regent University in Va. Beach), I don’t know exactly where I fit in. My husband proposed to me in a Presbyterian church on Easter Sunday with Handel’s Hallelujah chorus resounding in the background. I was at that time Presbyterian. Before that, I was a confirmed Episcopalian. After my stint in the Presbyt. church was when I went to the SG church where I first felt my heart grow cold toward a God who seemed unfeeling, unforgiving, a cruel taskmaster who was never satisfied. I learned that my early love affair with Him had been a honeymoon experience and now would come the hard narrow walk. To be perfectly candid, I have floundered ever since.
I don’t think it’s Reformed doctrine that I despise so much as the twisting of it in that SG church that robbed me of my first love (I allowed it to rob me, I realize). But I don’t want to denigrate Sovereign Grace Ministries either because I have some very dear friends who are still in it who love the Lord and love me.
My first inclination is to slip into a Messianic synagogue and hide away, but they can be hollow and exclusive, too, and a bit legalistic, although if you’re interested in folks who study the original languages, Messianics do that. Sigh. If someone could show me where there is real grace walking in a belief in predestination, I think it would help that tiny mistrusting place in my heart heal. So please, RT et al, let us hear from you!
“If someone could show me where there is real grace walking in a belief in predestination, I think it would help that tiny mistrusting place in my heart heal. So please, RT et al, let us hear from you!”
I think the best possible brief treatment of this subject is Iain Murray’s little paperback book entitled Spurgeon versus Hypercalvinism. It is the best presentation of election ( which is clearly biblical) and human responsibility ( which is also biblical) that I know of. Starts around page 80.
By the way Iain Murray’s book Revival and Revivalism on the great awakenings, Edwards, Finney, etc is a must. It traces the foundation of the strong Arminian influence in the USA ( and how wrong and man centered it is). If you want to know your history, that is the book to read!
Go for the big guns FF, you must be smart. Get religious Affections by Jonathan Edwards and skip over to the parts about love and emotions for God.
I love Reformed doctrine. It is like one big bath of God’s love and perfect sovereignty. How about Grudems ST, Ch 16, on Providence? A marvelous chapter.
Don’t let the uptight ones from SGM ruin the truth for you.
Freedom Fighter,
What a wonderful way to have a proposal! I love Messiah and the Hallelujah Chorus.
Sadly, it seems that our tendency is always to go the way of the Galatians and give last place to grace!
Let me tell you some of my own background. I’m in the middle of doing several things here at home so it may come in several comments.
I became a Christian way back in 1970 back in college in the early days of the Jesus movement. I had grown up in a very, very liberal Baptist church, and I always felt a hunger to know God better. The guy who led me to the Lord was a brand new graduate of Reformed Theological Seminary out of Jackson MS–and that’s how I was brought into the kingdom!
I was blessed in those days to be surrounded by a very loving student group and then later in a very loving church. Sometimes the joy was such in that church you thought the roof would blow off. Yet, many of us were going through very difficult times, but the love, the care and the mutual support made me always think I could go through anything and the Lord would see me through. Our worship services and prayer meetings were such that so many, many times the knowledge of the presence of the Lord was so strong and we knew we were together at the feet of Jesus. In fact, if I hadn’t known those days, I don’t know how I could have survived later interactions in churches.
The pastor there was also a Calvinist (I love the term used by some Baptists, Doctrines of Grace), and he was also the most grace-emphasizing pastor in his preaching that I’ve ever had. He also had the best combination of careful exegesis and application to your heart and life I’ve known. He taught through various books of the Bible, and frequently on Sunday evening he would do a back and forth question and answer time about the sermon. It was quite an introduction to biblical preaching and church life!
For years at that church the bulletin had Galatians 5:1 on the front every week:
It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery.
(In Greek, no less! He was that kind of pastor. He taught to our heart and he taught to our mind!)
His sermon series on Romans was one of the best I’ve ever heard. Romans 8:1 has always been one of my favorite verses:
Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
When he came to Romans 8 and the verses when Paul speaks of the Holy Spirit bearing witness that we’re God’s children and that by Him we cry out Abba, Father, he choked up as he spoke of our relationship with God. I’ll never forget him saying that that relationship means a great deal to those of us who never had that kind of our relationship with our earthly father.
I’m having trouble with this comment loading.
Romans 8 is the rising crescendo of our salvation.
Years later, I think my pastor later labeled Romans 1-4 as The Righteousness of God Revealed and Romans 5-8 as The Righteousness of God Realized.
(BTW, I became a Christian through the words of Romans 5, so it’s always been a favorite book of mine!).
Romans is balm for the heart. Stay a while in Romans 1-8 before going on.
I will say this, that I think I remember him saying that the Doxology found in Romans 11:33-36 was Paul’s worship from his heart in regard to the mysterious and, at times, difficult for us, truths of Romans 9-11.
I think the result of our teaching of salvation should be we are left in wonder and love and joy before our living God!
So I would say, remember when you come to Romans 9-11, what they’re framed with!
On the one hand:
The grace, that wonderful, marvelous no-condemnation-grace of Romans 8; the Romans 8 life in the Spirit as the precious children of God and the love of Christ from-which-there-is-never-ever-any-separation,
and on the other hand at the conclusion of Romans 11:
Paul’s wonder at the riches of God’s wisdom and knowledge, and Paul’s worship of our living God, to Him be the glory forever!
It has been a while I posted here, though visited and read often — busy with church planting preparation.
BUT this thread compels me to share something.
1. I used to be an ardent/zealot for Arminianism. I HATED Calvinistic view of predestination. I studied and read almost all the books (that were available at the time) that were against Calvinism. My hero was John Wesley who said to George Whitefield, “your God is my devil!” because of the Calvinistic view of individual election unto eternal life.
2. To make a long story short, the more I read pro-Arminian books, the more questions were raised by their answers to the questions of “foreknowledge” and “predestination” and the God’s sovereignty.
3. Then I was forced to read AW Pink’s book, The Sovereingty of God and it literally threw me to the floor and knelt before the sovereign God of ALL things. There my rebellious heart melted, there His grace really appreared amazing, and there my love for Him became greater than I have ever dreamed of. There by the Spirit of God felt the love of God for me, the love which was for me from all eternity!
There are always dangers lurk behind our theological walls due to our inability to understand the truth and our ability to distort the truth. For Calvinists, we must watch out for hyper-calvinism or any sense of “fatalistic” God instead of personal One. And for Arminians, they must watch out for hyper-arminianism where God is no longer in control of anything and knows anything — see Clark Pinnock and his open Theism view.
I thank God I am a Calvinist. BUT I also love ALL Arminians. I no longer debate the matter while hold on to the Reformed view of Predestination with all my heart.
Internetmonk linked to this article from the Metropolitan Tabernacle – Spurgeon’s church.
http://www.metropolitantaberna.....#038;id=13
Here’s an excerpt:
The new Calvinists constantly extol the Puritans, but they do not want to worship or live as they did. One of the vaunted new conferences is called Resolved, after Jonathan Edwards’ famous youthful Resolutions (seventy searching undertakings). But the culture of this conference would unquestionably have met with the outright condemnation of that great theologian.
Resolved is the brainchild of a member of Dr John MacArthur’s pastoral staff, gathering thousands of young people annually, and featuring the usual mix of Calvinism and extreme charismatic-style worship. Young people are encouraged to feel the very same sensational nervous impact of loud rhythmic music on the body that they would experience in a large, worldly pop concert, complete with replicated lighting and atmosphere. At the same time they reflect on predestination and election. Worldly culture provides the bodily, emotional feelings, into which Christian thoughts are infused and floated. Biblical sentiments are harnessed to carnal entertainment. (Pictures of this conference on their website betray the totally worldly, showbusiness atmosphere created by the organisers.)
In times of disobedience the Jews of old syncretised by going to the Temple or the synagogue on the sabbath, and to idol temples on weekdays, but the new Calvinism has found a way of uniting spiritually incompatible things at the same time, in the same meeting.
C J Mahaney is a preacher highly applauded in this book. Charismatic in belief and practice, he appears to be wholly accepted by the other big names who feature at the ‘new Calvinist’ conferences, such as John Piper, John MacArthur, Mark Dever, and Al Mohler. Evidently an extremely personable, friendly man, C J Mahaney is the founder of a group of churches blending Calvinism with charismatic ideas, and is reputed to have influenced many Calvinists to throw aside cessationist views.
It was a protégé of this preacher named Joshua Harris who started the New Attitudeconference for young people. We learn that when a secular rapper named Curtis Allen was converted, his new-born Christian instinct led him to give up his past life and his singing style. But Pastor Joshua Harris evidently persuaded him not to, so that he could sing for the Lord. New Calvinists do not hesitate to override the instinctual Christian conscience, counselling people to become friends of the world.
The first 12 years of my Christian life was in the Church of the Nazarene, definitely Wesleyan and Arminian. On the other hand I did a stint in the PCA, conservative branch of the Presbyterian Church, very reformed, Calvinistic. I was in leadership in both: a long standing board member in the Nazarene Church and an Elder in the PCA church. I say all of that to say that I know a little bit about both systems of theology. Now, I count it all nutty and only necessary for those of us who love to be right, like me. I was always proud to be able to explain and yes misapply scripture to prove my current system of theology.
I am an old man now, and regret seeking applause from my peers for knowing so much about God and how all the “nuts and bolts” of His word fit together. You want to know what my pursuit to know cost me? Simply intimacy with HIM!!! No big deal, you say? Actually a huge BIG DEAL because HIS LIFE only flows from intimacy, NEVER just orthodoxy. Abba’s LIFE flows into and through jars of clay; many have little clue as to what Calvinism and Arminianism really really means. We just love to have our system all organized. We love to KNOW! We love to be right! And deep down, we love others to know we know and are right, especially in our “church system’s circles” Think about it, aren’t we rewarded and applauded for knowing? Knowledge PUFFS UP!!!
As for me, most of that is behind me now. It’s HIM and only HIM that matters to me now. As a former pastor of mine once said: “When God’s word emphasizes God’s sovereignty, I preached God’s sovereignty; when God’s word emphasizes human responsibility, I preach human responsibility. Both are in there, aren’t they? With our systems though, we just explain away the “opposition’s” point of view so their point of view doesn’t threaten our neat little system of thought. Feels good to “know,” doesn’t it? It did for me.
Gratefully Dis..
“Simply intimacy with HIM!!! No big deal, you say? Actually a huge BIG DEAL because HIS LIFE only flows from intimacy, NEVER just orthodoxy. ”
Amen, and Amen.
RT -
just so you know why I’ve disappeared from this conversation…
I am not inclined to participate in a discussion whose framework is built upon erroneous historical assumptions, redefinition of terms, and false equations of defining truth. Yet, in order to continue, these are the conditions that must be conceded to, or subsequently identified and dismantled. I don’t concede to this predetermined framework. And I have no interest in dismantling at this point.
Blessings to you all….and may truth and wisdom always shine forth, as those who seek it apprehend it.
Juli,
Is that how I defined the framework of this discussion?
I was just hoping we could discuss Scripture….
Juli-
you said, “I am not inclined to participate in a discussion whose framework is built upon erroneous historical assumptions, redefinition of terms, and false equations of defining truth. Yet, in order to continue, these are the conditions that must be conceded to, or subsequently identified and dismantled. I don’t concede to this predetermined framework. And I have no interest in dismantling at this point. ”
But when it comes to the doctrine of election/predestination, you must have “some” view on it — because Bible mentions those very terms. Non-view does not foster deeper relationship with God or desired intimacy.
If you want to have intimate relationship with God, then you still need the truth – a truth that defines who God is and what He does.
You must cope with this verse (whether you understand it to be Arminian view or Calvinistic):
Rom. 8:29,30 “For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son… and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.” Incidentally, Rom. 8:28, “all things work together for good” is based on the Rom. 8:29,30. In other words, if we are to truly understand how 8:28 is true, then we must understand the predestination of God in 29 and 30.
Calling, justification, and glorification (the chain of the Gospel) is founded on the “predestination.”
When I realized about “justification” my love for God grew and my intimacy with Him deepened. Then, later with much struggle, understood about “predestination” my love for God grew more and realized His love for me more profoundly and that caused me to weep in tears of joy and gratitude. My intimacy with Him have been deepened since then. Even now.
So the doctrine of predestination is not something that is “built upon erroneous historical assumptions, redefinition of terms, and false equations of defining truth.” I think that is the assumption you yourself has brought in as well. You assumed that discussion on “predestination” is something that is not edifying – contrary to Paul.
Since Bible uses the term (Rom 8:29,30 and other places), you must have some opinion on it. This is what Jim is asking us to do.
Juli – all discussion is good, you can have discussion with out calling people names and attacking. We should ALL be discussing God, theology and the church.
Discussion is good!
Yes, we can all probably quote scripture to prove our point i.e. the roman verses that calvinist love to quote or the arminian view that Jesus himself said – “he who believes in Me shall have eternal life”
Those two statements pretty well contridict each other – leaves you with some choices to make 1) create a system that explains boths 2) the bible is not inerrant (BTW – MANY Christians believe this, that the Bible is not inerrant but still belive the Bible to be infallible, but that is another huge discussion) 3) Use the contradictions as a case against Christianity 4) believe the words of Paul or believe the words of Jesus (him, if that is the case, gee, I wonder whose word we would all believe?)
What does everyone believe? It is a good place to start
I do not consider myself either Calvinist or Arminian. I don’t place myself in either system, which is what they both are – a system created by a man to explain his beliefs about the Bible.
Personally, I find the tenants of calvinism to be completely against what God has revealed about himself throughout history – that is, someone who has granted us, humans, free will.
As I have said before, if Calvinism (or the basic tennants of Calvimism are true), then we can not be held responsible for our own sin.
Freedom,
I think one of the tenants of Calvinism is that man is fully responsible for his sin. I’ll let the real Calvinist’s correct me if I’m wrong.
I won’t argue with your response, but I’m curious-can you help me out with the thread through Scripture that show’s that God created all of us with free will?
Freedom -
You are right. When we discuss theology, it is good, as long as it stirs our minds & hearts to adore the Glorious One.
By the way, Freedom — whether you like it or not, you are an Arminian. Even though you said, “I do not consider myself either Calvinist or Arminian.” =) And believe me, I love you just the same in Christ!!! =)
Arminians in fact believe in “free-will” so that we could choose to believe the Gospel or reject the Gospel invitation. Arminians believe that ALL men have this ability to choose God even though they are sinners.
Calvinists on the other hand believe that fallen men are unable to believe because sin has permeated to all his being (total depravity). Therefore only by divine grace can enable sinners (through regeneration) to believe the Gospel. And this is God’s “free-will.”
Since Jim asked us to discuss Scriptures, here are two which we can think of:
John 6:44, “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him.” Note the universal negative, “no one” and the verb, “can.” The verb, “can” refers to “ability, power” that is how the Greek is translated. Jesus says, “no one is able to come to Me…” He is not denying the invitaion, He is saying that we men by nature are unable to come to Christ without Divine enablement.
Acts 13:48, “When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.” Here “believing” the Gospel message is the result of God ordaining a person to eternal life and not vice versa.
Again, when it comes to fellowship and ministry, I do not care whether you are a Calvinist or an Arminian. I love all believers whom Christ shed blood. I just do not want unnecessary or unfounded attack on Calvinism.
All in all, Christ must be exalted and loved above all else.
P.S. Augustine, Hus, Luther, Calvin, Knox, Tyndale all believed in predestination of God.
I’ll let the real Calvinist’s correct me if I’m wrong. LOL. I didn’t know you didn’t consider yourself a real Calvinist! And yes, we’re fully responsible for our sin. I think all believers agree on that one.
Freedom, if all Scripture if God-breathed and inerrant, then I don’t think that Paul will contradict the Lord Jesus. There certainly may be things that are a mystery and things that we don’t understand, but that should keep us searching out His Word so that we may know God and see Him as He is–I know I have misconceptions about God. Jeremiah 9:23-24 is a favorite of mine because I long to be able to understand and know God as He is:
I don’t know if you were quoting John 3:38 or some of Jesus’ statements in John 6 (or some other verse), but the statement is a truth of salvation. In John 6:22-70, there are many truths interwoven about our salvation. As Jesus talks about being the bread of life, He makes some definitive statements about Himself, and says some things about the actions of the Father and about those who don’t believe and those who will believe.
I’m using the edit feature to add that I took so long on this comment while I was trying to decide on how much Scripture to quote, that doulos wrote his comment while I was writing this one. We both were thinking of John 6.
In verses 37, 44, and 63-65 He talks about the Father and mentions the Spirit:
In John 17, as He prays, Jesus mentions again those whom the Father has given to Him.
For me, these are statements of grace.
if we’re defining Calvinists as those who believe in tulip, I think one can find 4 of the 5 points in John 6.
I wrote the following some time ago for a different audience in a much larger work. I made a few additions in light of this current sites comments, but ultimately the original captures the beginnings of my commentary when dealing with Calvin and the ongoing dispute bearing his name.
I watched the unfolding commentary travel the predictable rout and observed the typical reactions. With striking consistency people assume this issue divides between Jacobus Armenius “heresy” and Calvin’s “Orthodoxy.” This presumption ends where it always ends: endless scripture stacking of contextual less bible verses to tread down the well worn path of dead men’s ideas and then … silence.
Unraveling this intellectual knot is like trying to trim thorns off a bush inside the thicket: hot, painful, tedious work of no apparent value.
One commentator noted that this conversation was ill defined. They were correct. This conversation has some huge intellectual failings. Unfortunately the juggernaut of historical “orthodoxy’ and its implicit tyranny to dead men’s ideas prevent the faint of heart and mind from effective dissent.
The only way to unravel this Scholastic Gordian Knot is to take the convenience away from those adopt historical positions that frame this debate.
To that end….
******
Convenient Calvinists: this fine piece of alliteration describes folk who tweak the content of Reformed Theology or more precisely Calvin’s synthesis of Christian thought to satisfy their particular intellectual Fung Shui. They play fast and loose with the doctrines summed up in the TULIP acronym, accepting or rejecting the parts and pieces of the doctrinal amalgamation they represent depending on the day or the argument.
Semi-Pelagian … Semi Calvinist… what’s the diff?
>snicker<
Since people like to do the above reverenced tweaking, the question should be asked why be a Calvinist? People have their specific reasons, but the appeal of a theological system that did not exist until almost 1600 years after the beginning of Christianity is rooted in few primary things. So, as generalizations go here is my take.
Most people are Calvinist because:
*** Calvinism is often equated with the purest spiritual pedigree: orthodoxy. It is a heady argument to be able to appeal to the authority of history and say “I agree with all those great thinkers.” For many people this is how they make their doctrine precise and therefore—in their minds—unassailable. As I will talk about in a minute, it frames their doctrinal advocacy in the best possible terms.
*** Calvinism is the most comprehensive Academic body of thought in Protestant Christianity. This is a three fold point.
1. The historic interpretive method of Systematic Theology has effectively dominated Bible interpretation for the last 600 years. So most people approach bible ideas employing those methodologies because they know no other to assemble and organize bible ideas. Calvin, in my never to be humble opinion, for his era, took Systematic Theology to new heights giving probably the most comprehensive synthesis of Medieval/Protestant Christianity to date.
In the fledgling days between being a REFORM movement to being a PROTESTING movement the intellectual children of Luther’s dispute needed a ready theological summation. More importantly the new Protestant GOVERNING structure needed intellectual framework to rise and assert its right to rule. At the right place at the right time Calvin supplied the necessity.
Fast forward to the modern day the historical methodology and its implicit interpretive assumptions remain at the root of most bible study because if you are not Catholic or Eastern Orthodox the roots of your Christian Faith are found in Luther’s revolt. So the historic interpretive method affirms the contemporary synthesis and the contemporary synthesis affirms the historic interpretive methodology.
2. Intellectuals tend to be academics. Academics tends to approach all problems like term papers: take a position and compile points and authorities. The academic conclusions go something like this: “Authority Author A, B, and C all said this, and I have appropriately footnoted the sources, and I agree with them.
3. For the religious academic the vast scholastic wrangling of Church history from roughly the 1500 to the 1750’s is like a voyeurs access to close circuit television in a New York high rise: endless mental masturbation with no obligation to produce one original thought.
The historic synthesis gives people the illusion of thinking deep thoughts and grasping weighty ideas, but in actual fact they have applied no real intellectual rigor in any critical review of the ideas. If there is another viable intellectual synthesis they tend to ignore the content (or offer the stock rejections) because they have first and foremost been indoctrinated into the historic scholastic assumptions and debates. Their commitment is to the Reformers “orthodoxy,” first, last, and always.
*** The Mnemonic of TULIP is easy to remember, and while not an invention of Johnny C it is, even for the average thinker, a ready expression of some heavy intellectual lifting. Easy to remember, understand, easy to believe.
*** Calvinism answers, with a broad wire brush, the harder questions of Christian life: why do people sin, and why do bad things happen to people. The proliferation of Scolfield Bibles and other similar devotional commentaries leads people to believe that other expressions of Christianity or Bible ideas in general don’t even exist.
*** The last reason is they inherited their Reformed Theology beliefs. They grew up in a church that held the historic assumptions and have never made an effort at critical review of its contents. They like some hard and fast rules on what is authoritative and who is therefore qualified to talk.
Are these reasons bad? Maybe … maybe not.
Are these all the reasons that people become Calvinists? Maybe …. maybe not. Usually one bright soul wants to be the outlier and the data set. So if you are that data point, fine, but if pinned down, most people eventually fess up to one or all of the above reasons.
Anyway… moving on…
Christianity is not just for breakfast any more and the anti intellectualism of the Charismatic/Pentecostal movement over the last 30 years has, with impunity, driven thinking and methods of intellectual integrity out of their midst. Because of the academic appeal, (and the reasons noted above) a resurgence of Reformation Theology over the last ten to twenty years, has come as a rather obvious reaction to fill the anti intellectual void.
The aforementioned movements with all of its Independent churches created a chaos of the Charismatic kind and left an intellectual vacuum. (As an aside the Charis-Costal Independent church movement as a whole, is reaping the whirlwind of that disaster… but I digress)
Ehem
The new Reformed movement has been fueled by writers like (but not limited to) John Piper, Jerry Bridges, R. C. Sproul, and that oldie but a Calvinist treaty by John Bunyan. These men are 20th generation intellectual heirs that have repackaged the labyrinth of language and scholastic presentation, sufficiently sanitized and redefined the more unpalatable parts of protestant thinking (and Protestant thinkers) of the doctrinal evolution from Luther, to Zwengli, to Calvin to Beza.
Most thinking bible readers quickly see scriptures that are not easily contained by Calvin’s wire brush. And I am not talking about resident Arminian’s. I am talking about self styled Reformation Theology aficionados who trip over the implications of their own body of thought. For that matter it didn’t take but roughly one hundred years before there was a referendum on the correct presentation of Calvin.
Calvin’s synthesis of Pervasive Depravity was unequivocal at a minimum (but utterly consistent with Augustine and, Luther “orthodoxy”) but by the Synod Dordrecht (1618) his intellectual heirs were toning down his synthesis in direct response to the successful criticism. Total Depravity of the Calvin kind became the Total Inability of the Canon of Dort kind with its own hedge on the intellectual implications of Calvin Orthodoxy. This distinction has all the merit of saying: I’m not a Marxist, but rather a communist who believes the government should administrate the sum of your substance.
Subsequent generations of Calvinists thinkers have played fast an lose with the TULIP mnemonic because it bothers mothers of little babies who are sent to hell because God wants it that way almost as much as those who like to say their character is qualification for ministry position.
These usurpers of the Orthodoxy throne like to talk about things like the “age of accountability” and defend the human possession of character by saying things like: “Calvinists believe that man can do no salvific good, but that doesn’t mean he can’t DO good.”
Convenient Calvinists are easy to spot because in natural habitat they say something like: “I’m a two and a half point Calvinists,” which really means they accept a couple of his points and fudge the rest. I know some folk who fall into this category, and they are good folk, who I enjoy talking to about God stuff, but that doesn’t change my observation that Convenient Calvinism is really just … convenient. It really becomes a license to play on whatever side of the intellectual fence they choose. Do they choose orthodoxy? Do they choose sanitizing the fundamental failures in Calvin’s synthesis?
Can’t have it both ways. Orthodoxy by definition defies any attempt to redefine. Orthodoxy demands intellectual obeisance to dead men’s ideas. There is NO wiggle room in this.
This is the Theology Algebra being offered.
Reformation Theology (of the Luther/Calvin kind) = Orthodoxy = What everybody who is anybody has always believed rightly = Paul’s “Sound Doctrine” = scripture.
On its face, if people who claim to be followers of a specific body of teaching can find intellectual objections to central points of “sound doctrine” then I think it abundantly clear that the content of Calvinism is not SOUND.
Furthermore, how exactly do you get to pick and choose which parts of “orthodox” thinking you want to accept? By definition Orthodoxy is exactly what we are suppose to believe because … well, it is what you are suppose to believe because everybody else has believed it. Convenient Calvinists really want the benefits of the Orthodox spiritual pedigree, but don’t happen to like the strict intellectual implications.
Point out the logical implications of Orthodox Calvinism and a Convenient Calvinist starts hedging and nudging the definitions.
For example: Pervasive Depravity means that Man can do NO Good, ever, anytime anywhere any place any time. This IS the effective declaration of Augustine, Luther and Calvin and only willful blindness to historical documentation can account for any other understanding. Reformation Theology of the Luther, Zwengli, and Calvin kind held, advocated, and taught that definition of Pervasive Depravity. Yet, you will hear Convenient Calvinists utter this equivocation: “Well, Calvinists don’t believe exactly that. They believe that man can do no SALVIFIC good.”
Hehehe… Yeah… uh?
I suppose I don’t really care if you need to intellectually adjust your thinking about Calvinism. It has been said before intellectual adjustments to embrace Calvinism goes directly to the “soundness” of the theological system. But what is endlessly disturbing is the lack of intellectual consistency when it comes to screaming ORTHODXY and HERESY.
Feeling free to apply the spiritual bonafide Orthodoxy to doctrine and in the next breath scream heresy at anyone who doesn’t SPECIFICALLY hold to the historic creeds, and councils does not a consistency make. It is easy to notice that Convenient Calvinists are some of the first to get on the Heresy band wagon, condemn speaking in tongues as a scary subjective practice, mock healing ministries, and sniff at prosperity preached by faith teachers, and 24 year old bloggers in their underwear sitting in their mothers basmenet, for their lack of “Orthodox” doctrinal precision.
How umm … convenient.
********
OK .. that was my first foray … I will wait to see which one of the five standard responses comes to the front before I respond.
John,
I suppose this will be one of your expected standard responses.
The issue is Scripture.
You said, “Reformation Theology of the Luther, Zwengli, and Calvin kind held, advocated, and taught that definition of Pervasive Depravity. Yet, you will hear Convenient Calvinists utter this equivocation: “Well, Calvinists don’t believe exactly that. They believe that man can do no SALVIFIC good.”
If Dort is watered down Calvinism, then it needed to be watered down. Total Depravity, according to Dort, agrees with Scripture, and says exactly this-man can do no SALVIFIC good.
Is it unreasonable to concur with Dort (or any other statement of faith), because one finds that it is Biblical, and not give a rip what Calvin taught?
John -
It is easy to attack Calvinism or Arminianism without fully understanding what they are saying.
Your negative view on Calvinism on a superficial level seems to be justified, but on the Scripture level, you are dead wrong.
Show me where in the Scripture that teaches natural man are ABLE to do good BEFORE God. Show me from the Scripture where it teaches that natural man are good thus able to do good according to God’s standard.
1. Mark 10:17-18. When the Young Rich Ruler said, “Good Teacher…” Jesus responded by saying, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone” (18). Here clearly Jesus affirms that except God, no man (alive or dead) is good. No one is good enough. A man may be good enough to a man, but not before God.
2. Romans 3:12, “There is NONE who does good, there is not even one.” If Jesus affirms man’s being not good, then Paul is pointing out man’s activity as not good. A man may do relative good to other human beings, but that relative good before man is not good enough for God — since it is tainted with sin. Isaiah said, “For all of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are alike a filthy garment…” (Isa. 64:6). All our righteous deeds are not good enough before God to save us. Only the works/deeds of Christ is good enough to save us before God.
3. Jeremiah 13:23, “Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard its spots? Neither can you do good who are accustomed to doing evil.” Here God affirms aour inability to do good before Him. The term, “can” refers to “ability or power.” And God is saying, “you are not able to do any good before Me, since you are habitually drenched in evil things.”
So then, how can we be good before God, when we are not. And how can we do good before God, when we cannot?
John, your attack on Calvinism is hollow. Show us the Scriptures.
By the way, I respect Jacobius Arminius even though he departed from Calvinistic view — for me, that is fine. By all accounts of church history, Jacob Arminius was a godly and loving man. I respect the man more than those Calvinists who are cold and judgmental. But that doesn’t mean he was right.
yeah…. somebody didn’t pay attention to a word I said.
Doulos – just because I believe in free will does not make me an arminian – I don’t follow the tennants of arminianism (see the story of Adam and Eve for the first example of God giving us Free Will in the Bible). I am NOT at all a fan of labels and I believe in seeking God and his answers over men and their answers. I consider myself a Christian above and beyond all labels. The only label that might even come close is post-evangelical. BTW - we probably know each other
And I am VERY happy to have a good discussion! Obvousily, my mind will not be changed about calvinism and yours won’t be changed – but it’s all good. Even Paul and the Apostles didn’t always agree! But it’s all good bro!!!!
Jim – Yep, I know he belives that, but in his system my personal opinion is there is no way logically for man to responsible for his own sin in that system of beliefs. That is my personally belief and understand from years and years of understanding. You belive different, that is cool with me!
John – great post!!!! My roots of Christianity are the Catholic Church and the Patriarch of Rome – i though that was interesting tid bit about the roots of Christianty. Actually, all Christian denomonations have their roots in the Catholic Church (Eatern Orthodoxy, Protestantism) – both broke off and obvious Protestism splintered the most. Interesting side note about your point of the system created by Calvin and how long ago it happened. On a differ note, the concept of the Trinity wasn’t fully developed until the 4th century.
This is a good discussion, let’s keep it open!
Um, minor point of correction – eastern orthodoxy would take great exception, for good reason, that their roots are in the (Roman) Cahtolic church. They would say the (roman) catholic church broke from them. Celtic Christianity might disagree too, along with some eithiopian branches. But as for your larger point on calvinism, i will have to post later about that.
John,
Everyone knows that you’re smarter than the rest of us. Break it down for me, in my language. Think uneducated, ex-druggy.
I thought that I was addressing your point.
Presbyterian …
Excellent distinction about Eastern Orthodoxy and (Roman) Catholicism, and your reference to Celtic Christianity and the Ethiopian branches Christian Tradition …. A distinction one that I will hearken to in a bit.
Jim…. I will continue to break down my commentary… Got a lot to say… time will reveal … : )
Presbyterian – true point about how the Eastern Orthodox Church may feel, but the truth is that they were one church with the Catholic church years ago and while they didn’t split off, but where ex-communicated by the partiarch of Rome (AKA the Pope who felt he should control everything)
Yes, the Ethiopian church and the Celitc church – interesting points. If you bring up the Ethopian branches, they also included books in the Biblical cannon that Catholics and Protestants do not. Heck, the Catholics also have the Apocripha as books of the Bible. But, which sect’s of Christianity’s Bible is the correct cannon and which tranlation is best is another discussion.
I look forward to your take on calvinism – just remember not to slam others because of their beliefs.
Freedom,
I think we should be able to move forward without slamming each other. I have no desire to slam anyone who believes in free will salvation, and I think most of the commenters in this thread have been careful to be kind.
This is a topic that can get some people’s emotions going. I’ve met angry Calvinists and angry Arminians. If someone wants to debate the topic, I normally decline. If I accept, I usually state early on that I enjoy fellowship with Christians of all stripes, except those that are angry that others don’t accept their doctrinal position.
It is interesting to see that there are many ex-SGM members who post here are not Calvinists. I am wondering whether their exodus from SGM church was not only pastoral abuse they experienced, but also in some measure, doctrinal.
Just curious.
Also, I thought this discussion would primarily revolve around the Scriptures. =)
doulos-that was my request, but conversations go where they go.
Maybe after we’ve all been educated as to why we believe what we believe, we can get back to Scripture.
I’m patient…
Doulos:
Nice post at 4:54. Without minimizing the experience of those who suffered abuse at the hands of some SGM pastors, based on some of what I have read here and on SGMsurvivors, I too have oftern wondered whether some of the criticism directed at SGM is the result of people’s disappointment in SGM moving away from its charismatic roots to an ostensibly reformed position (please note the use of the word ostensibly because I do not believe that SGM is truly reformed and this is one of the reasons we left but I digress).
I myself was in SGM for over twenty years and was there originally because my church was adopted into SGM very early in its history and I simply rolled with the doctrinal flow existing at the time (although in my church both pre and post adoption there was not much in the way of defined doctrine and I would have to say that this would probaly be true of SGM as a whole in early days and throughout the 1980′s.
Consequently, when SGM began to tilt in a reformed direction in the early 1990′s, I was actually grateful for a more profound emphasis on doctrinal clarity because having been involved in Maranatha Campus Ministries I was becoming leery of charimatic groups and was even more so after attending my first Celebration conference in the mid-1980′s and seeing the blatant hero worship (e.g. standing ovations, whistling) afforded to Larry Tomczak when he came on stage to open the conference. It reminded too much of the attention lavished on Bob Weiner.
For those who were observant at that time I think you can actually pinpoint fairly clearly when the shift to refomed theology began because I recall hearing CJ give message on the Book of Job at a a Celebration Conference on Suffering and the Sovereignty of God. (I still believe that this is one of the best messages I ever heard CJ give) and some will recall here that the commentator Greg remarked that one of the reasons SGM moved to a reformed position was that in counseling folks the pastors had no clear Biblical explanation as to why God allows good people to suffer. So there is no coincidence in the Job message given by CJj and the broader theological shift.
However, the more I listened to and read reformed material I became more and more convnced that this was a Biblical view.
So I am very grateful to SGM for introducing me to reformed theology in a robust way but the other side of the coin was that the more I read the more convinced that SGM was not truly reformed in practice or doctrine because (1) the polity of its churches is not consistent with a reformed view. Furthermore, I found it to be somewhat hypocritical that SGM would go to great lengths to defend its charismatic legacy but at the same time issue new statements which continued to minimize such charismatic positions as baptism in the spirit in favor of the Third Wave position. I do not think that being continunist is inconsistent with holding a reformed view but it was bothersome that SGM seemed to be really be trying to obsure a long held position regarding the nature of Spirit’s work.
I also found it disturbing but alsoo somewhat amusing that SGM seemed to be exerted a lot of effort to deemphasize the so-called “Spectacular Gifts” with the exception of the gift of prophecy and after we began to visit PCA churches I recall telling my wife that what occurred at the “prophecy mike” seemed not very different from the public reading of scripture occurring in PCA churches and after reading William Perkins “The Art of Prophecying” I discovered that the public reading of scripture was how the Puritans defined the act of prophesying. So I began to wonder and I still do is whether or not some of SGM’s actions were taken to make itself more palatable to the overall reformed community.
As for me, I bought into the whole Calvinist thing and argued it quite well, especially when I was an elder in the PCA movement, then also the SGM dealy.
For me, I exited SGM because of the heavy handed crap, not the doctrine of Calvinism. I am now, however, not a Calvinist–I am His and could care less about the labels which divide and alienate brothers and sisters in Christ.
He is right (the truth) and I am His–great news, isn’t it? If you need to be right, have at it.
formersgmer–
Thank you for your explanation. It does give me some understanding as to what has happened to SGM historically & doctrinally. Although I have seen an individual journey from Arminianism to Calvinism (like me), I have not seen mass exodus to Calvinistic camp like SGM. Surely, such drift will cause much reaction: both good and bad.
I am just an observer here – trying to understand ex-SGM members whether they be Arminian, Calvinist, no-label believer, or post-evangelical… =)
It gets very confusing for me… with all the differences ex-SGM members have.
Very interesting. Again, thanks for your story.
Doulos – it is interesting to see the journey those who have left sgm have taken. Re-examining your own personal sets of beliefs is something everyone who leaves seems to do and you absolutely have to, after the massive amount of brainwashing that happens at SGM, you have to. And it takes time to get balance after being part of an exteremist organization.
Jim – I think everyone has been respectful of everyone elses beliefs thus far and that is GOOD thing. I am sure we will get to whipping out scripture to back out points and discuss what we believe it say. This is very good!
I think the best thing anyone can do is if you get ticked off or angry, don’t post right away – takes some time to think about what you will write.
I was a die hard Arminian until I had a Damascus road experience. It didn’t come from reading R C Sproul’s “Chosen” or one of the tens of books thrown my way on the subject. God just arrested me while teaching a 5th grade class. Now I can read these verses without any difficulty. (These and the Book of Job always troubled my “we are totally free agents” Arminian mind.
Acts.9
(1)But Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest
[2] and asked him for letters to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any belonging to the Way, men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem.
[3] Now as he journeyed he approached Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed about him.
[4] And he fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?”
[5] And he said, “Who are you, Lord?” And he said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting;
[6] but rise and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do.”
I wonder if Paul would have called himself an Arminian after being thrown from his horse and told by Jesus “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting; but rise and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do.”
Doulos,
You wrote “ It is interesting to see that there are many ex-SGM members who post here are not Calvinists. I am wondering whether their exodus from SGM church was not only pastoral abuse they experienced, but also in some measure, doctrinal. “ … I am still in SGM and to be honest it wasn’t so much the move to a “Reformed” theology that upset me (and still does) than it has been the complete rendering of the role of the Holy Spirit in the individual and in the church to little more than the “other” guy in the Trinity. Yes, the polity has made a mess of the church … yes, the lack of humility of some of the pastors and leaders has been bad and at times horrible, yes, we went through about 2-3 years in which the name of “Jesus” was NEVER or rarely used during the Sunday service (I still find that amazingly strange!) … all true but today I sadly say that the role of the Holy Spirit has been “Reformed” to the sole gifting of individuals at the prophecy mic, teaching and preaching. That’s it … what happened to the other gifts of the Holy Spirit? They ain’t happening at any SGM church that I’m aware of … If we’ve become cessationists than boldly preach it. SGM LOVES to be able to rub elbows with the Reformed but they really aren’t Reformed …
mike: interestingly i think SGm is ina weird no-man’s land regarding their beleifs in the role of the Holy Spirit. They do not beleive/embrance it in the same way a hypercharismatic does – though they still do beleif in charismatic gifts, tehy are certainly now diminished, and not focused on. They also do not have the (what i would aruge is higher) view of the Holy Spirit that most reformed churches do – that the Holy Spirit is the one who convicts of sin and opens our eyes, and illuminates scrtipture and gives understanding. SGM has so much focus on convicting others, and sheparding (dare i say it) others, and such little focus on personal Bible Study, and personally learning from scriptures that the Holy Spirit’s role is extremely diminished. One of the biggest things i hear from peopel who leave CLC, is how strange it is to go for counsel to their pastor/elder/member of their new church, and to be asked questions, sometimes given options, and then prayed for and for those peopel to trust the HOly Spirit to lead them to the truth without telling them exactly what they should do.
Freedom: Don’t forget, the Patriarch of constantopel excommunicated the pope and his legates as well, at the same time, so it wasn’t as much as the Eastern Orthodox breaking off of rome, as them both splitting and thinking that the other broke of from them. Oh, and the apocrapha was not officaly part of sctripture in the catholic church until after Luther split the church, it was specifically mentioned as not cannon in Jerome’s translation (which he did of it only to apease Augustine), it was not officially included until the Council of Trent in 1563. (I was a church history major in college and have great interest in this time period).
Mike -
Thanks for your comment.
I guess those SGM members who are strongly charismatic would call this Reformed trend in SGM as “quenching” the Spirit. And others who espouse Reformed faith in SGM would call this Biblical “revival.”
So I guess there is a “tension” in SGM in doctrines — since not all SGM members are convinced of Reformed faith – even though CJ and Pastor’s College would promote it.
In either case, I am convinced that God uses weak and falliable creatures like us to bring glory to His name for His sake.
Slightly off topic, but related
. I’ve been following the tweets from the Southern Baptist Convention in Louisville KY. They’ve been the next best thing to being there as people put in quotes from speakers, reactions, thoughts, activities, etc. Overall, they sound very excited and hopeful. I thought this tweet was worth sharing. I got a kick out of it:
marvels at the spectacle of #sbc2009 on Twitter… imagines the tweets from the Council of Trent or the Synod of Dort.
Mike:
You comment below is spot on:
“all true but today I sadly say that the role of the Holy Spirit has been “Reformed” to the sole gifting of individuals at the prophecy mic, teaching and preaching.”
After SGM passed through the “time of refreshing” period in 1994 – 1997 It seemed as of SGM began to grow uncomfortable with some of the more extreme practices which occurred in other charismatic and pentacostal groups during the period and I cannot remember the exact time frame but I believe that it was shortly after this move of the Spirit period that Jeff Purswell gave a sermon at one of the small group leaders conferences on the “non-spectacular gifts” and being at that conference it seemed to me that it was noticable attempt to deflect attention away from so-called “Sign gifts” and to broaden the definition of what is legitimate evidence of the presence of the Holy Spirit in a believer’s life.
However, simultaneous with an increased emphasis on the “non-spectacular gifts”, in my local SGM church, the leadership began to schedule recurring so-called “Worship and Ministry Night” and I understand that these type of meetings were being held in other SGM churches because supposedly CJ had directed the Senior Pastors that he did not want SGM churches to lose their “charismatic distinctives” I know that these meetings continue at my old SGM church.
It definately leaves one with the impression that SGM wants to have it both ways. They want a doctrine of the Holy Spirit that allows them to relate to the larger reformed community without raising eyebrows about charismatic practices but they want the passion and presence they experience during the time of refreshing period.
To say it another way, by scheduleing these worship and ministry nights, it seems as if SGM leadership wants to create a controlled context where they can control how and when the Holy Spirit moves and thereby avoid excesses of the “time of refreshing period”. It seems a bit arrogant to me. Am I out of line with this thinking? I do not think so because also in my former SGM church the pastors used to refer to mortification of sin as the ability to “manage your soul” and the ability to do so was often held up as a qualification for pastoral ministry. This and the general relentlessness at which people pursued mortification of sin struck me as coming very close to seeking self-atonement.
Mike, you said “Two years without hearing the name of Jesus”
Just the songs alone prove that to be a bit of an exaggeration – I searched three SGM albums from the last few years and came up with 22 songs directed to Jesus Christ, or about him. I suppose if I had the time, I could find countless messages on Jesus Christ from SGM pastors throughout the states and abroad. (after all isn’t one of the complaints that SGM focuses too much on the cross? And when preaching on the cross, Jesus name is bound to come up since He died on it.)
My Hope Is Built on Nothing Less
I Will Glory in My Redeemer
Oh the Deep, Deep Love
Before the Throne of God Above
In Christ Alone
Jesus Paid It All
All Hail the Power of Jesus’ Name
Christ the Lord Is Born Today
Hope Has Come
How Sweet the Day
Salvation Is Born
Glory Be to God
The Son of God Came Down
Endless Praises
Count It All Joy
You Are the Way
His Forever
Jesus, Thank You
Isn’t He Good
Perfect Lamb of God
Surrender All
Receive the Glory
FormerSGMer –
you said: It definately leaves one with the impression that SGM wants to have it both ways.
yeah, that’s because SGM is full of “Convenient Calvinists” as discussed before. They, like many others, are trying to play both sides – they want to be considered orthodox but only selectively, which is a blatant contradiction.
you also said:
in my former SGM church the pastors used to refer to mortification of sin as the ability to “manage your soul” and the ability to do so was often held up as a qualification for pastoral ministry.
this is just one example of many of the doctrinal inconsistencies of Calvinism that SGM uses….if we are totally depraved or have total inability, however you define it, then how can SGM say that one’s personal ability and responsibility to mortify sin is NOT an ability? Yeah…illogical doesn’t begin to describe it. Either man is responsible or he isn’t. You can’t have it both ways, no matter what anyone says.
Juli,
Total inability refers to salvation. Every Christian I know believes that as believers, we are empowered by the Holy Spirit to mortify sin.
Actually Jim… I remember having a very similar conversation with robin b. and Kenneth M. while at CLC. I pointed out something similar to what Juli said. The response in both instances said that if we could stop sinning we would no longer need God’s grace. So whatever the Holy Spirit did we would never be able to stop sinning.
What they both said is, by the way, utterly consistent with the SGM use of Indwelling Sin doctrine advocated by late 17th century Puritanism … the Puritanism of Owen and Edwards. The doctrine of Indwelling Sin is utterly consistent with Calvin “orthodoxy” or specifically pervasive depravity.
And what Former SGMer and Juli have commented on is a serious inconsistency in the doctrinal presentation: the concept of Character as ministry qualification. With Calvin orthodoxy that is a fundamental impossibility.
Actually, Jim, I am beginning to think that you were not at all on the same doctrinal page as El Primo doctrinal mover and shaker and sundry homies because your distinctions are not at all their distinctions. Which would explain lots …
John,
I’m not sure I’m on anyone’s page
If anyone has ever met anyone who has actually mortified sin to the point where they no longer sin, I’ll fly all of our readers out to meet them.
I do agree with former’s “self atonement” statement. At the very least, getting stuck in Romans 7 has led to some over intense navel gazing.
Didn’t Jesus say something about getting the lint out of your own navel before…
…well, something like that.
Juli and John – while we are totaly deprave, and only do sinful acts before christ, after his redemtion, it is differnt. I will quote the westminster confession, which is beleived by many the summay of orthodox reformed belief
“4. When God converts a sinner, and translates him into the state of grace, he freeth him from his natural bondage under sin; and, by his grace alone, enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good; yet so, as that by reason of his remaining corruption, he doth not perfectly, nor only, will that which is good, but doth also will that which is evil.”
Essentially we are now free to do what is good, but since sin is still present we dont always do it. So character can matter because after we are freed we can choose to do good (by God’s grace, with the HOly Spirit’s help)
I think Chapter 9 of the confession does a great job explaining free will and total depravity, and is good reading for anyone wanting to know what the reformed position is.
John:
When you wrote:
“And what Former SGMer and Juli have commented on is a serious inconsistency in the doctrinal presentation: the concept of Character as ministry qualification. With Calvin orthodoxy that is a fundamental impossibility.”
I think you may have misunderstood what I meant. I actually do think that character is a qualification for ministry and I think a plain reading of I Tim 3 bears this out and pastors need to have the abiility to manage because I Tim 3 states that an Elder must be able to manage his own household well.
Rather, what I meant is that SGM seems to hold a view that a managerial/technocratic view that constant micromanaging of the affairs of the church will lead to ever increasing fruitfulness in the ministries of the church.
I think this partially explains why everything in the life of an SGM church is constantly “under evaluation”, why you hear phrases such as “constant change is here to stay” and reading books such “Good to Great”. (An SGM pastor told me that CJ recommends that pastors read at least one good business book every year. ) They apply this constant evaluation philosophy not only to the ministries of the church but to the care of people in the church. I think its really self-atonement and/or self sanctification on both a corporate and individual level.
I give CJ much credit for the manner in which he essentially taught himself much theology but the problem is that all of these twentysomething pastors coming out of or desiring to go into the Pastor’s College are turning what he did into a formula. Namely, if one reads and/or studies enough one can qualify himself for pastoral ministry even though the person has not lived long enough to acquire a enough life experiences to see how Scripture is rightly or even wrongly applies to real life situations.
Formersgmer wrote:
>I think this partially explains why everything in the life of an SGM church is constantly “under evaluation”, why you hear phrases such as “constant change is here to stay” and reading books such “Good to Great”. (An SGM pastor told me that CJ recommends that pastors read at least one good business book every year. ) They apply this constant evaluation philosophy not only to the ministries of the church but to the care of people in the church. <
I noticed this at CLC as far back as the 80s, when CJ, Larry & pastors were all walking around acting like businessmen, using DayTimers, etc. While the desire to run the church efficiently is laudable, the problem is that the church — as a relational body of Christ — is not a corporation. It’s a collection of people who should be relating to God and one another primarily through the Spirit/spirit, not the intellect.
Nowadays that corporate impulse appears to have taken over completely — these blogs have documented the marketing-focused church-planting methodology. The addition of Josh Harris brought in a lot of new conference-running/moneymaking skills, which they’re milking to the utmost. I can’t believe how many conferences SGM runs, which must bring in tons of cash. You don’t need the Holy Spirit’s guidance to do any of that.
Random thoughts here:
One of the characteristics of CJ that is multiplying in his disciples is the use of quotes from Spurgeon, the Reformers, CCEF, whoever. Now I’m not against the use of a good, pithy quote to amplify a point. But when a preacher fills up screen after screen of small print, projected Powerpoint … ya gotta start to wonder. This is not exactly the case with CJ but it is with many of his imitators. In the SGc that I was delivered from I often left a sermon wondering what the preacher was trying to convey and what he really thought about the text he was supposed to preach from.
It seems that at least some of the SG pastors read very narrowly from the Great Dead Guys. To illustrate my point, look at the emphasis on John Owen and his writings on sin. To better illustrate my point, look at the lack of emphasis on John Owen and his writing on communion with the Triune God or the glory of Christ. SG pastors (as well as others, including this writer) are adept at the introspection mentioned often in threads on this site. And, that is necessary to a certain degree. But, oh to be enraptured with the glory of Christ! Oh, to savor communion with the Almighty!
At the end of my stint in the local affiliate I was sickened with the malnutrion delivered to the flock from the pulpit. A text, 4 or 5 anecdotes about the pastor’s week and his family, a couple of CJ quotes and 2 or 3 pages of seemingly random quotes from other writers. I did not wonder why the people who sprawled in the rows in front of me nodded off, sent and received text messages, or played with their iPhones.
Newlywndd said:
I did not wonder why the people who sprawled in the rows in front of me nodded off, sent and received text messages, or played with their iPhones.
LOL! That’s what people were doing at our church! Unless, of course, you were right up front with the “in” crowd… :/
Freedom, re June 22–Actually, throughout history God has always chosen a people for himself–the Israelites in the OT, for example. Good old Rahab snuck in, but wasn’t that because God sent his people to visit her, and had prepared her heart already?
None of us seems too worked about poor old Pharoah who got his heart hardened by God, or all the “ites” (Jebusites, Hittites, Amorites, Amalekites) who God regularly slaughtered and destroyed–he never gave them much chance to be called the children of God.
What about that pesky verse, “Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.?”
Why? I believe it is because we are naturally enemies of God, but in his mercy and grace, he regenerates some of us for his glory. But make no mistake, we deserve the punishment for which we were heading.
In all honesty, God does what he darn well pleases. We choose, he calls, we choose, he calls, your doctrine just depends where you start the sentence.
Good conversation, sorry to have been gone–I’ll check in later. Blessing to all of you, my brethren!
(Don’t you think we will all, at the moment of glorification, say, Ah crap! I was wrong about this one! His least thoughts are to marvelous to comprehend!)