Suzanne at BBB discusses the translation techniques involving Wisdom in Proverbs.

Steve, at the Voices Carry Blog, relates to us a story about anti-life supporters.

Halden, a recently discovered blogger for me, has an interesting post on 'Nicene Theology as Paganization'.

Rick Mansfield over at the Lamp has a great post on Matthew 5.28.

First, Ben states that the LXX did not exist - what!!!! - and Doug joins in with the good Dr. West commenting as well. Not knowing Ben, I cannot state the condition of his mental health, but after reading the article by Ben, I have to worry for him. Dismissing the LXX is a prime KJVO argument.

John Hobbins gives us the contrasts of converting to and from Islam.

The Arminian Society has post on Wesley's defense of Arminianism.

Lingamish points us to the next big thing in bible blogs.

Douglas over at Contemplations of a Young Calvinist has released his short, informal and non-academic paper refuting the erroneous and fallacious reasoning behind Dr. Gary Greig’s article which attempted to defend the now-discredited Lakeland ‘revival’. Although the ‘revival’ is over, at least it is over as far as Todd Bentley is concerned, the Third Wave Neo-Gnostic and Neo-Apostolic principles behind it still remain. This paper interacts with some of the underlying principles of the Third Wave movement, and bring the Scriptures to bear in a critique written in an informal and interactive style.

“For the first time in Australia” Joel Osteen, his wife and co-pastor Victoria, “the whole Lakewood Church team” and Word Faith wolf Jentezen Franklin will be bringing their shows to Hillsong Conference 2009. Those paying attention will remember Hillsong Church has been in the habit of promoting dubious ministries for quite some time now as it continues its drift.

For example in 2007 Hillsong featured Oneness Pentecostal T.D. Jakes, who has recently implied that Ruth and Naomi were lesbians and that King David and Jonathan may also have been lovers. And for those who may not know this yearly conference at Hillsong is the largest one in Australia bringing in people from over 70 countries averaging around 30,000 attendees per conference.

Here is a chilling photo collection entitled 'Photos that changed the world'.

Fr. Ted tells gives us insight on reading the OT Christocentrically. I agree. We simply cannot remove the study of Christology from the Old Testament. Yes, it was the Jews first, but now it is the Churches.

Henry at PBS (not that one) gives us a whole host of posts that might be intriguing. Speaking of Carnivals, your humble blogger has been listed among better and more well known blogs in the Biblioblogs Carnival XXXIII. I would like to think Michael Holcomb for this great opportunity.  I have been a fan of his blog for a long time, longer than I have been bloggin, and to be listed on his site along side other and much better bloggers is truly an honor.

Speaking of Michael, he asks, In your opinion, what is the relationship between eschatology & ethics? How does one affect the other or how do they both affect each other? Or, is there no relationship at all? What do you think?

Nick (I almost said Nick the heretic quoter, but I didn't) has a post on 1st John 5.7.

The grandfather of today’s Christian mysticism movement is Richard Foster. Apprising Ministries has an article up about the promotion of Foster and his teachings by Christianity Today.

Know your listeners. As best you can, know the people to whom you are preaching.  If you are a visiting speaker and consequently don't know them so well, let that be a red flag before you wade into some theological controversy.

Evaluate the choice of passage. It is not automatically wrong to preach a potentially controversial passage, but it is worth thinking it through.  If you are preaching a stand-alone message, perhaps it would be better to preach another passage.  But if it is part of a series, do not avoid the tough passages.  People need to ear the whole counsel, including the parts that may make them uncomfortable . . . but it is fair to say that it is worth evaluating whether you, the passage and this particular occasion are a good combination for this to occur.  If it seems appropriate to preach the passage, then:

Preach the passage. If we preach the passage before us, we remain on relatively safe ground.  It is once we start adding theological labels and make a presentation of a position that we veer off into a mine field.  If you preach the passage and say what it says, then people can see it for themselves and are less likely to become contentious.

Preach wisely. Even sticking in the passage does not guarantee unity.  Be wise in your choice of words.  There may be a whole string of possible words to state a point in your particular passage, but some will definitely ignite a reaction, others might be just too much, others are safe.  Again, sticking with the terms of the text is usually better than importing terms from theological tomes (for various reasons).  We are not afraid of theology, but sometimes it is wiser to do theology without people realizing it.

Tomorrow I will complete this post with three more suggestions.  Feel free to comment now or after the next post.

Do not say, "Because of the Lord I left the right way"; for he will not do what he hates. Do not say, "It was he who led me astray"; for he had no need of a sinful man. The Lord hates all abominations, and they are not loved by those who fear him. It was he who created man in the beginning, and he left him in the power of his own inclination. If you will, you can keep the commandments, and to act faithfully is a matter of your own choice. He has placed before you fire and water: stretch out your hand for whichever you wish. Before a man are life and death, and whichever he chooses will be given to him. For great is the wisdom of the Lord; he is mighty in power and sees everything; his eyes are on those who fear him, and he knows every deed of man. He has not commanded any one to be ungodly, and he has not given any one permission to sin. (Sirach 15:11-20 from the Revised Standard Version RSV)

I remember being in grade school, 2nd grade I believe, and quickly running a foul of a classmate. He was a PK - preacher's kid and new to the school. I remember sitting in the cafeteria before school began and having a conversation about the devil - yes, I know, but hey, I didn't have the blog then! - and he said that it was the devil who makes him do 'bad things'. It is the same excuse that many people use today - speeding, cursing, violence - 'the devil made me do it.' Obviously, this was a problem a few centuries before Christ as well. Sirach confronts it with a very abrupt statement - Don't blame anyone but yourself. We have free will as a creation of God - we can employ it for good or evil.

Recently, I have been asked about the idea of apostasy. Apostasy involves the idea of falling away from God. It is right to be reminded that nothing can remove us, but we sure can jump ship! The very idea that people would blame God for their sin, transgression, or apostasy appalls Sirach. I have actually met people that blame either the Church or perhaps the Pastor (or the easiest thing to do, is to blame the pastor's wife) or perhaps a member. The real fault lies in the person themselves. They have chosen to 'leave the right way', to 'fall away' as the King James Version puts it.

The Greek here is a paraphrase of the Hebrew (yes, contrary to the KJVO myth Sirach was written in Hebrew originally) which reads 'Say not, From God is my transgression, for that which he hates he made not.' This leads us to a slightly different understanding of the verse, but both implying that God does not make sin and would not lead people into it. James clearly echoes Sirach here, when he says,

Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone.  (James 1:13 NKJV)

It is interested to note the Hebrew addition to verse 13(b). The Greek says, 'The Lord hates all abominations, and they are not loved by those who fear him' to which the Hebrew adds 'and he will not let it come hear those that fear him.' Again, Paul agrees here when he says,

For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Romans 8:38-39 NKJV)

Sirach here sees the orthodox idea of sin - that it is by our own inclination, will, and choice. We must choose to live sinless lives. Sirach says that before us is fire (the curse) and water (the blessing) and it is up to each and everyone of us to choose between the two, but if we choose the fire, then it is not because of God that we do this, the blame falling on our own shoulders.

Looking back upon my relatively short life of 30 years, I can point to a time when even as a sinner, the grace of God was my support. It has led me to a strong belief in prevenient grace, or in the language of the modern vulgar, the preceding grace. Yes, this preceding grace allows for God to call the sinner, but it is more than that, it a grace that lifts a sinner to the light of the gospel of Jesus Christ, often times giving the sinner support and surrounding him in preparation of the love of Jesus Christ.

It is this type of grace that uplifted me in during the latter half of 1995. I was 17 then, living in Mississippi with my grandfather - my mother unable to take care of even herself due to alcoholism. On June 23rd of that year, at approximately 2 in the afternoon, I found my grandfather dead, and he had been some time since he had been missing since before dawn. I cannot express to you the love and appreciation that I have for my grandfather that I have to even this day. He was a solid force in my life and even today I think about my short time with him.

I was sitting in Church on Saturday night just a few Months later on September 16th listening to a minister. For the life of me, I cannot remember the sermon, but I do remember thinking to myself that if my mother would but her that message, she would give up her sinful life, which by this time was consumed by alcohol and drugs, and really make a start for God. You see, it was just a few days before that I had told my mother that due to her constant let downs, her constant lies, and her life, I wished nothing else to do with her - going so far as tell her in my triumphant and condescending 17 year old voice that the next time she saw me would be at her funeral and she would lucky if I showed up. That Saturday afternoon, again about 2pm, she crossed the yellow line, killing not just herself, but another person as well. See, I didn't know this as I sat there listening to that sermon about the need for God and praying that I would have a chance to tell my mother about it, praying that she would listen this time. It was not until about 9pm that I was told by my then pastor's wife who had helped to raise me almost from my birth.

Then, in December of that year, my then-pastor's wife was overtaken and destroyed in her battle with cancer. That pastor did not believe in doctors, so for the months, possibly years, that she was being eaten up inside, everyone simply thought that she would get better. By the time that someone finally took her to the hospital, it was too late. She passed quietly from this world in the middle of December. She had always been there for me, and had through her pain comforted me through the death of my grandfather and my mother. A few years before she could see that I was sick and invited me to stay at their house for the night. The next morning, I awoke to a feverish day. Unbeknown to anyone but me, and now you, she took me to town to get me some Tylenol, facing the wrath of her husband, because she felt that common sense easily went along with faith.

It was the previous year that I was fortunate enough to spend some time with my grandfather's sister, my Aunt. We talked for a long time, and as we shared a few things she shared with me the single most important Psalm to her. It had helped her through life's troubles many times.

To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David.

O LORD, thou hast searched me, and known me. Thou knowest my downsitting and mine uprising, thou understandest my thought afar off. Thou compassest my path and my lying down, and art acquainted with all my ways. For there is not a word in my tongue, but, lo, O LORD, thou knowest it altogether. Thou hast beset me behind and before, and laid thine hand upon me. Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain unto it. Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence? If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there. If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; Even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me. If I say, Surely the darkness shall cover me; even the night shall be light about me. Yea, the darkness hideth not from thee; but the night shineth as the day: the darkness and the light are both alike to thee. For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them. How precious also are thy thoughts unto me, O God! how great is the sum of them! If I should count them, they are more in number than the sand: when I awake, I am still with thee. Surely thou wilt slay the wicked, O God: depart from me therefore, ye bloody men. For they speak against thee wickedly, and thine enemies take thy name in vain. Do not I hate them, O LORD, that hate thee? and am not I grieved with those that rise up against thee? I hate them with perfect hatred: I count them mine enemies. Search me, O God, and know my heart: try me, and know my thoughts: And see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting.

As I set there and read that, I thought that it was a decent Psalm, really paying no attention to it until the time that I needed it. With each death, and with each reading, that Psalm provided me with strength and knowledge that no matter how bad it was, God was still there. There were times that it seemed that I had made my bed in hell while other times I prayed that I would wake up from the horrible nightmare that had suddenly become my life. No, it was not like my life was all that easy before, but this year, well, this year had shaken me, and often times, even now, I still wonder how I made it through.

There were times after the deaths that life got pretty difficult, and often times I wish that God would have taken the other parent. Often times, during that time, I would wish that God would simply have taken me. But, He took me by the hand and led me to a place of rest. I was serving Him, but I know some of the Truth, some bit about God. I was still a sinner and need of His Grace, but so many times through that horrible years and subsequent years, there was a preceding Grace calling me unto Him, leading me and protecting me.

I still was able to get into plenty of trouble, plenty of heartaches, and plenty of sorrow, but I can stand here today and turning around, see God's grace calling me to Him.

I realize that this is not a normal post on this blog, but it is still my blog and I am still finding it's voice. Grace is what Jesus Christ brought first of all - not doctrine. His first call was for repentance, not for theological discussion. He sought to bring the very words of Life to the sinners, not to debate bible version. He called the false prophets out, but in doing so, He protected the sheep from their venom. He taught grace and truth and brought to people God. This man Christ Jesus was rewarded for His efforts with the cross, the needed sacrifice that would truly bring us grace, but before that He had spent at least 3 years imparting to the Apostles a preceding grace and lifted them out of Judaism and the dead vine until they were ready for the Day.

For so long in my life, I have subsisted on nothing but the grace of God and have subsisted because of the Grace of God. It is by His hand that I have beed led safe thus far and it is because of this grace, that I at the perfect time found the call to repentance only natural, and so very sweet. I have let my God down many times, and most likely will do so a few more times, but I know that He is always there, and He has never let me down.

I thank my God for His Grace, for His mercy, and for His patience as I travel along.

(1)  Therefore, since a divine promise remains, let us fear to distrust itl.

We have a promise of God to enter into His Rest, yet once given that promise, we have the ability to drift away, to ignore it, if we distrust it. Again, here is the possibility of apostasy in a very subtle warning. The audience of this epistle stood in danger of slipping away, perhaps as nearly everyone theorizes, back into Judaism. They had began to mistrust the promise of Christ as one that secures, one that endures. To callously say that these people were never saved is to pass judgment on them, when it is clear that the writer of this Epistle say them as brothers and sisters in Christ.

(2)  For in fact we are also having good tidings proclaimed, even as they did, but the word heard did not profit them because it was not infused by faith in them that had heard the message.
(3)  For we who believe are entering into the Rest, as he said: So in my anger I took an oath that they will not enter into my Rest.
(4)  When his works were finished from the creation of the world, he spoke somewhere concerning the Seventh Day: And God did rest on the seventh day from all his works.
(5)  Again: They will not enter into my Rest.
(6)  Therefore, seeing this Godly promise remains over from past times: that certain ones will enter in; however, those who first did hear the good tidings entered not because of disobedience.
(7)  Again: God appointed a certain day, saying in David (after such a long time): Today, if you will hear his voice, stop hardening you heart.
(8)  For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken about another day later on,
(9)  Therefore there remains a Sabbath-rest for the people of God.
(10)  For the one having entered into God’s Rest, he also has rested from his works, even as God rested from his own works,
(11)  Therefore, let us do our utmost to enter into that Rest, so that no one in the same pattern of disobedience may fall.

The Greek word here, σπουδάζω, rightly means to hasten, labor, and speed. Although we may be tempted to say 'work' and paint the picture that the gospel is one of works so that one may attempt to 'tip the balance', this is not what we find here. The brush strokes leave a warning - that we must constantly build ourselves up in the faith, laboring, studying, hastening, to the day when Christ either descends or we are called home. We also see that a simple start of the journey does not guarantee us a finish. Thousands upon thousands left Egypt for the Promised Land, but how many of those that started endured to the End? The writer is again using the same picture and saying, I paraphrase, stick with it or else.

The last phase of verse 11 is more than a hypothesis, but a direct warning that if a person continues in the same pattern as the Israelites of old, then that person will fall. John Calvin says at this point,

Having pointed out the goal to which we are to advance, he exhorts us to pursue our course, which we do, when we habituate ourselves to self­denial. And as he compares entering into rest to a straight course, he sets falling in opposition to it, and thus he continues the metaphor in both clauses, at the same time he alludes to the history given by Moses of those who fell in the wilderness, because they were rebellious against God. (Numbers 26:65.) Hence he says, after the same example, signifying as though the punishment for unbelief and obstinacy is there set before us as in a picture; nor is there indeed a doubt but that a similar end awaits us, if there be found in us the same unbelief.

Then, “to fall” means to perish; or to speak more plainly, it is to fall, not as to sin, but as a punishment for it. But the figure corresponds as well with the word to “enter”, as with the sad overthrow of the fathers, by whose example he intended to terrify the Jews.

We continue,

(12)  For the word of God is living, powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the separation of both soul and spirit, joints and marrow, and is quick to discern the reflections and conceptions of the heart.
(13)  Neither is there no created thing able to be hidden before him, but all things are naked and have been exposed to the eyes of God, to whom we must give an account.
(14)  There, having a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession,
(15)  For we do not have a high priest who is unable to bleed in sympathy for weaknesses, but ours is one who has been tempted in all ways, in the same way as we, and yet is without sin.
(16)  Therefore, let us keep coming with a joyful sense of freedom to the throne of grace, so that we may receive mercy and find grace in the time of need.

Peterson doesn't spend more than a few paragraphs on each objection. This isn't a comprehensive refutation of Arminianism by any stretch. Nor is it an in-depth defense of election. It is, rather, an overview of some objections with quick responses for the purpose of summing everything up that has been said in the previous chapters. Superficial, but helpful if one is looking for the gist of the Reformed response. I liked how Peterson didn't simply stay on the defensive, but showed how the objections were the exact opposite of the Bible's teaching.

Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. (Eph 4:3)

It’s taken me awhile to understand the uneasy feeling I get when I get the urge to post a comment to a Calvinist blog. Will my words be considered as a Brother in Christ or will I be vilified and subjected to ad hominem attacks that avoid the content of the post? Anymore these days, I am finding more and more that some of those theobloggers who claim the name Calvinist or Reformed default to the latter. What has brought this to a head is the current hyper-focus on politics due to the back to back conventions and specifically, the fevered attempts to defile the name and reputation of Governor Palin over the past few days. Sadly, what I have discovered is that there is a body of these Calvinist bloggers who are indiscernible from the left-wing chattering classes. This clique will brook no wavering from the TULIP line, refusing to engage any idea that challenges it and, because the challenger is considered to be somehow heretical, he or she must must be burned in the electronic town center.

Contrary to the repeated calls to unity within the body that can be found in the Scriptures, there is an increasing body within the Body that have chosen to attack rather than respond. I’ll give you a recent example (and yes I know, I should have known better) which occurred when I foolishly chose to leave a comment on the Pyromaniacs blog. In an attempt to stir further dissension within the body, a question was posted inviting response from Arminian readers. The trouble with the question was that it was a false dilemma; Arminian theology offered no different view on the topic than that of the Calvinist framework and I wrote just that in my response. Expecting a biblical challenge or theological counterpoint, imagine how disheartening it was to check back later to find that the entire response was an attempt to make a mockery of my screen name.

It’s a bit troubling to find this in any context but to get this response by the Pyros main man Phil Johnson certainly diminishes any positive reputation that he might have gained outside of his close knit little community. Attempting to misstate the intention of my Greek to English transliteration meant (ironically in their eyes) Slave Christ, a perfect definition of Arminian theology. Mistakenly responding back that this obviously not the intent, referring to Rom 1:1 in the Greek, and restating the original answer to the provocative question, my gift was a further lambasting that remained off topic.

I don’t share this to gain sympathy. I’m a big boy and mature enough to handle people like this. The reason that I post this is because the level of conversation about God should not be descending into the the same kind of rancor, vitriol, and immature attack mentality that we see from the left wing of the political establishment and their media sycophants aimed toward those of the opposing party. Personal attacks and hyperbolic caricatures replace substantive discussion of an issue. The assumption is that if you do not agree with the liberal mindset, well you simply are too stupid to even engage and you must be the recipient of character destruction and mockery.

Christ didn’t die for a Church divided by this kind of worldly dissension. There are topics to which forceful comment and righteous anger are appropriate (Todd Bentley for example) in a Christian context but theological differences on non-essentials are not among them. To mirror the world’s approach to discussing differences runs counter to being in the world but not of it. Shall we all just go to our corners and talk only amongst ourselves?

Update: Check out the comments at the end of this posting. While not as mocking, you can witness how the discussion that disintegrates in not on how the post writer constructed his argument or the content of his statements. The Calvinist cries martyrdom (no doubt scrawling Ichabod on the doorframe) as he leaves the conversation. Talk scripture in context, don't send me to Pink or Piper. We've got learn to think for ourselves rather than relying on other theologians all the time.

(1)  Therefore, holy brethren, sharers of the heavenly calling: fix your eyes up the Apostle and High Priest of our confession, Christ Jesus,

Notice how the writer addresses the audience - Holy Brethren. This is not to sinners, but fellow Christians.

(2)  Who is faithful to him that appointed him, as Moses was also faithful in all of his house.
(3)  For this one was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, because the one having built the house has more honor than the house itself.
(4)  For every house is built by someone; however, he that established all things must be God.
(5)  And indeed Moses was faithful in all of his house as a trusted servant, serving as a testimony for those things which were to be spoken later,
(6)  However, Christ as a son over his house, whose house we are — supposing we have held firmly, if we are joyfully fearless, and hold to our confident expectation to the end.

Again, notice the subtle warning. Hold firmly to the hope until the end (of our life) and we will be a part of the House of Christ, eternally.

(7)  (For this reason, just as the holy spirit says: Today, if his voice you may hear —
(8)  Stop hardening your hearts as in the rebellion, in the day of testing in the wilderness,
(9)  When your fathers put me to the test, examined me, and saw my work for forty years.
(10)  For this reason, I was angry with that generation and said: They are always being led astray in their heart and they have not known my ways.
(11)  So in my anger I swore: They shall not enter into my rest!)

The writer relates a history lesson to the audience, warning them through the example of Israel in the wilderness which some suffered irreversible apostasy. The Rest of the Lord was denied to them.

(12)  Always watch, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief which apostatizes from the living God.
(13)  Instead, build up one another daily, while it is called Today, lest any of you are made stubborn by the deception of sin,
(14)  For we have become sharers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our assurance firm until the final consummation,

Again, the writer addresses his brothers and sisters in Christ, warning them - pleading with them - not to turn away from God. The Greek word here means to depart from, to incite to revolt. In the "New Testament this sense occurs in Acts 5:37; 15:38; 19:9. Decline from God is the meaning in Heb. 3:12. In 1 Tim. 4:1 apostasy involves capitulation to heretical beliefs as an eschatological phenomenon. An absolute use is found in Luke 8:13 and cf. Rev. 3:8. Only the personal use is important theologically, and in the LXX the term becomes almost a technical one for religious apostasy (Dt. 32:15; Jer. 3:14; Isa. 30:1), usually from God or the Lord, and leading to idolatry and immorality.

The writers urges his brothers and sisters, even us today, not to depart from the Living God, but to build each other up, so that in the very End of All Things, we will have assurance.

(15)  While it is being said: Today, if you hear his voice, stop hardening your hearts as in the rebellion.
(16)  Who were they that heard and yet were rebellious? However! Was it not all those who left Egypt under the leadership of Moses?
(17)  And with whom was he angry for forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose bodies fell in the wilderness?
(18)  And to whom did he swear that they should never enter his rest, but to those who were willingly disobedient?
(19)  So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief.

Again, this writer returns to the historical example as a warning. If this warning was hollow, then why go through this trouble? Is God, the very One who inspired these words, a God of shallow fear?

To proceed in light of the already established fact of non-contingency, we can state that God’s sovereignty in no way depends on either the fact or mode of election. Shank states this best when he says “God is sovereign, regardless of whether He elects, or does not elect…whether he elects some, or all…whether election is conditional, or unconditional.” Does the establishment of this sovereignty then demand, as Calvin and his framework do, the corollary doctrine of unconditional election?

Calvin says “God’s grace is illustrated by the fact that he does not give away salvation indiscriminately, but gives to some what he denies to others. Ignorance of this great truth detracts from God’s glory and prevents true humility.” (Institutes 3:21:1) He continues, pointing to Romans 11:5-6 for his evidence, “Paul maintains that the principle can be understood only if works are set on one side and God is seen to elect those whom he has predestined.” (ibid) [Romans 11:5-6: So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. And if by grace, then it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace.] Calvin’s contingent will also take us to Romans 9 as proof of (the already established) sovereignty, most often to 9:6-29.

As we search the scriptures for further word on God’s sovereign love and choices, we also find it in evidence here:

For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all. (Rom 11:32)

and here

For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men. (Titus 2:11)

and here

This is good and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. (1 Tim 2:3-4)

There are numerous other texts that propose a different election, one that is corporate and universal and conditional. Does this election challenge the sovereign God? In no way! The method or basis of election has no bearing on the truth of His sovereignty. Given the scriptural voices that emphasize the universal nature of grace, should the doctrine that establishes a conditional election rooted in an assumed decree continue to stand? Is God who clearly biblically offers an election in Christ universally to all men, challenged in His sovereign choices by this very offer?

(1)  For this reason, it is necessary to more exceedingly hold to those things, which we have heard, lest at any time we drift away.
(2)  For if the word having been spoken by angels was proved sure, and every transgression and refusal to hear received a just retribution,
(3)  How is it possible that we, yes we!, should escape, having ignored so great a salvation, which at first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was proven sure unto us by those that heard him?

The writer here begins his warning against apostasy by Christians. In the previous chapter, he gives a small reminder of just who Christ is and now he turns his attention to warning his readers that because Christ is who He is, then turning on Him causes eternal separation. We are told to hold to the things of Christ unless we drift away. This is not merely a hypothetical action, but clearly a reality - the writer says 'we', including himself. The 'we' is emphatic.

He then compares the words of the angels to the Words of the Lord. If disobedience to the words brought by angels brought retribution, then what will the avenue of escape (salvation) be to those that drift away from the word of the Lord? Remember, to drift away means that you were there once. This is statement refers to those Christians that are negligent in holding to the things of Christ.

(4)  God also bore witness, both with signs and wonders, and with various works of divine power, and according to his will, the distributions of the holy spirit,
(5)  For he did not subject the world to come concerning which we speak to angels.
(6)  But one, somewhere, fully testified saying: what is man that you remember him, or the son of man that you come to his aid?
(7)  You made him a little lower than the angels, gave him a victor’s crown with glory and honor, and set him over the works of your hands; you have put all things in subjection under his feet.
(8)  For in subjecting all things to him, he left nothing not subjected. Yet, at present, we do not see everything subject to him.
(9)  Moreover we see Jesus, the one who for a short while was made lower than the angels so that he, by the grace of God should experience death for every man, we see him crowned as victor with glory and honor because of the suffering of death.
(10)  For it was fitting for him, for whose sake all things exist and by whom all things came into existence, in bringing as he did many sons unto glory, to make the author of their salvation perfect through sufferings.
(11)  For both he that sacrifices and they who are sanctified are out of one—for this reason, he is not ashamed to call them brethren,
(12)  Saying: I will declare the name of God to my brethren; in the middle of the assembly, I will sing praise unto God.
(13)  And again: Behold, I and the children that God has given me.
(14)  Seeing then that the children share in common flesh and blood, he also in like manner took hold of the same, that through death he might destroy him that had dominion of death, that is, the devil,
(15)  And release those, who through the fear of death were subjects of slavery, throughout their life.
(16)  It is well known that he does not give aid to angels, but he gives aid to the seed of Abraham.
(17)  Therefore, it was an obligation to become like his brethren that he be compassionate, and so a faithful high priest in the things pertaining to God, in order to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
(18)  For in that he suffered, himself being tempted, he is able to help those who are tempted.

This thought ends with a plea that if Christ suffered such things, then He is able to help us through our temptations. In doing this, the writer shows first that Christ is here to help us, and secondly that we can indeed be tempted and if tempted, then tempted to what? Apostasy.

Some modern 'theologians' believe that the book of Hebrews are only for the Jews, but that is a great mistake, as the same could be said about the books of Timothy and Titus. Just because they are addresses to a specific group of people, or person, does in no way dismiss the fact that they are for the entire Church. Luther, at one time, had sought to regulated it to a New Testament apocrypha, most likely because he could not move beyond the issues of apostasy that is raised by the Epistle.

Granted, the Epistle covers more ground than just the issue of apostasy. In the opening salvo, we have the very notion that the Son emanates from the Father and that the Son is higher than the angels. The writer then moves to the explanation of Old Testament themes by the New Testament. It often takes the form of early homily material, or perhaps even a midrash. The writer states an Old Testament passage and then attempts to explain it under the new covenant.

The situation of the readers is clearly seen -  they are on the verge of shrinking back, of retreating to Judaism after having tasted of Christ. (Hebrews 6) This letter serves as a personal warning to them, and indeed to all that come to Christ in Truth, and later reject Him for another religion or perhaps even a false Christianity. I am posting this first chapter; in the next few weeks, I will post the complete book, examining the details of the reality of apostasy in the Church. It is a doctrine that is hated and disbelieved, however, it is still a doctrine. I hope that those that read it will join in the discussion. It will be the main goal of posting this book to discuss the doctrine of apostasy, or the lack thereof. I truly value each measure of input that I receive.

It is my position that the doctrine of eternal security is false, and that apostasy is an ability of the believer by exercising his or her free will to reject Christ.

This is my personal translation, and it is still crude. Please let me know what you think as we progress.

Heb 1:1-14 from the Commentary in Translation Version

(1)  God, who in stages and various ways of old spoke unto the fathers in the prophets,
(2)  Has in the end of those days spoken to us in his son, whom he has appointed the inheritor of all things, through whom he also made the ages
(3)  Who, being the emanation from the glory of God, and the precise mirror of his substance and maintaining all things by his all-powerful utterance—through himself he has achieved purification of our sins, assumed his seat on the right hand of the Majesty on high,
(4)  Having become so much better than the angels, as he has inherited a more excellent name than they.
(5)  For to which individual angel has he ever said: You are my son, today I have begotten you? And again: I will be to him a father and he will be to me a son?
(6)  Again, when he brings in the firstborn into the inhabited earth, he says: and let all the angels of God prostrate themselves in worship before him.
(7)  And indeed, to the angels he says: who is making his angels winds and his ministers a flame of fire.
(8)  But unto the son he says: Your throne, O God, is age to age and a scepter of justness is the scepter of your kingdom.
(9)  You have loved righteousness and hated iniquity; for this reason your God has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your companions.
(10)  And you, LORD, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the works of your hands,
(11)  They will perish, but you remain always, they will grow old like a garment
(12)  Like a mantle, you will roll them up and then will be changed, but—you are the same; your years will not fail.
(13)  Unto which of the angels did he ever say: sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies as your footstool?
(14)  They are spirits in divine service, sent forth to render service for the sake of the ones about to inherit salvation—are they not?

Evangelical Arminians: Option or Oxymoron

Man was originally created in the image of God and was furnished in his mind with a true and salutary knowledge of his Creator and things spiritual, in his will and heart with righteousness, and in all his emotions with purity; indeed, the whole man was holy. However, rebelling against God at the devil's instigation and by his own free will, he deprived himself of these outstanding gifts. Rather, in their place he brought upon himself blindness, terrible darkness, futility, and distortion of judgment in his mind; perversity, defiance, and hardness in his heart and will; and finally impurity in all his emotions.

-Synod of Dort 3/4.1

__________

I often find myself in stark wonder that Adam could give up perfect fellowship with God for the miserable worship of himself and his own will.  The only thing that cures me of this prideful disdain for Adam is the realization that I'm no different.  The height from which man fell should only encourage us to judge the depth of Christ's love for us on the cross all the greater.

--------------------------------------

This is one of the "hot button" issues in the debate between reformed and non-reformed believers.

Reformed (Calvinistic) brothers believe in a particular (or limited) atonement. They say Jesus died on the cross to save only the Elect.  That He accomplished His intended task which was to save the Elect.  They cite verses like Matthew 1:21 to make this point.  It says "She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins." [emphasis added] This position says that only the Elect will have the opportunity to be saved and that all the Elect will be saved because this was the intention from the beginning.

Non-reformed (Arminian) brothers believe in a universal atonement.  They say that Jesus died for every and all men but that the atonement is only effectual on those who knowingly and willingly accept it.  This position basically says that everybody will have an opportunity to accept the call to salvation but only some will do so.  They cite verses like John 3:16 to make this point.  It says "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." [emphasis added]  This position says that people must agree to accept the gift of the atonement before it is applied to them.  Basically it says that Jesus died only to make salvation possible for all people.

This was a very brief description of the two alternatives.  Much longer posts could be written about both positions but that is not my purpose here.  I have a simple purpose:  to get you to share what your position you hold and why.  So here is the question:  DID JESUS DIE TO SAVE HIS PEOPLE OR TO MAKE SALVATION POSSIBLE FOR ALL PEOPLE?  DO YOU BELIEVE IN UNIVERSAL OR PARTICULAR ATONEMENT?  WHY?  PLEASE GIVE YOUR REASONS (WHATEVER THEY MAY BE).

You can read more about Charles Simeon in a biography written by H.C.G. Moule, himself an Anglican of repute, at googlebooks .

A dialogue recorded between Simeon and well-known Arminian John Wesley struck me yesterday.

[Simeon:] Sir, I understand that you are called an Arminian; and I have been sometimes called a Calvinist; and therefore I suppose we are to draw daggers. But before I consent to begin the combat, with your permission I will ask you a few questions. Pray, Sir, do you feel yourself a depraved creature, so depraved that you would never have thought of turning to God, if God had not first put it into your heart?

[Wesley:] Yes, I do indeed.

[S:] And do you utterly despair of recommending yourself to God by anything you can do; and look for salvation solely through the blood and righteousness of Christ?

[W:] Yes, solely through Christ.

[S:] But, Sir, supposing you were at first saved by Christ, are you not somehow or other to save yourself afterwards by your own works?

[W:] No, I must be saved by Christ from first to last.

[S:] Allowing, then, that you were first turned by the grace of God, are you not in some way or other to keep yourself by your own power?

[W:] No.

[S:] What then, are you to be upheld every hour and every moment by God, as much as an infant in its mother's arms?

[W:] Yes, altogether.

[S:] And is all your hope in the grace and mercy of God to preserve you unto His heavenly kingdom?

[W:] Yes, I have no hope but in Him.

[S:] Then, Sir, with your leave I will put up my dagger again; for this is all my Calvinism; this is my election, my justification by faith, my final perseverance: it is in substance all that I hold, and as I hold it; and therefore, if you please, instead of searching out terms and phrases to be a ground of contention between us, we will cordially unite in those things wherein we agree. (from Charles Simeon: Biography of a Sane Saint)

We would do well to likewise find common ground rather than entrenching ourselves in foxholes of peripheral issues.

I should also mention that the 21-volume lifework by Simeon titled Horae Homileticae is available at a fraction of the cost you would pay for the hard copy edition--that is if you can even find it--over at Logos.com.

Reformed (Calvinistic) brothers believe in a particular (or limited) atonement. They say Jesus died on the cross to save only the Elect.  That He accomplished His intended task which was to save the Elect.  They cite verses like Matthew 1:21 to make this point.  It says "She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins." [emphasis added] This position says that only the Elect will have the opportunity to be saved and that all the Elect will be saved because this was the intention from the beginning.

Non-reformed (Arminian) brothers believe in a universal atonement.  They say that Jesus died for every and all men but that the atonement is only effectual on those who knowingly and willingly accept it.  This position basically says that everybody will have an opportunity to accept the call to salvation but only some will do so.  They cite verses like John 3:16 to make this point.  It says "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." [emphasis added]  This position says that people must agree to accept the gift of the atonement before it is applied to them.  Basically it says that Jesus died only to make salvation possible for all people.

This was a very brief description of the two alternatives.  Much longer posts could be written about both positions but that is not my purpose here.  I have a simple purpose:  to get you to share what your position you hold and why.  So here is the question:  DID JESUS DIE TO SAVE HIS PEOPLE OR TO MAKE SALVATION POSSIBLE FOR ALL PEOPLE?  DO YOU BELIEVE IN UNIVERSAL OR PARTICULAR ATONEMENT?  WHY?  PLEASE GIVE YOUR REASONS (WHATEVER THEY MAY BE).

This truly demonstrates that God works in ways that man cannot understand, predict, or comprehend. Luther's first document that he intended to provoke a wide debate based on his deep theological insights went nowhere, much to his disappointment, and he actually may have even given up on his reform agenda. But his second document, written after he regarded his original plan to be a failure with the intent of merely stimulating a debate among his adherents and made its challenge based on the way that people worshiped and lived rather than what they believed, was what God used to change the world!

From this we can perhaps draw the lesson that while God certainly cares about and uses to change and transform us what we believe (orthodoxy) it is how we worship and live (orthopraxy) that God uses to transform others. Orthodoxy is what God sees, orthopraxy is what the Holy Spirit causes other people, especially non - Christians that God has elected to salvation, respond to.

As a side note, certain people misappropriated Luther's movement and used it to cause a great deal of trouble, including violent uprisings. (Among them were people who called themselves prophets and declared that they no longer needed scripture because they received direct revelation from God.) Naturally, this caused problems for Luther, as the Roman Catholics sought to blame him for the trouble. Prior to now, you had a lot of people attempting to reform Roman Catholicism from within, and their leader was regarded as Erasmus, whose primary goal above all else was to avoid dissension and conflict (a religious philosophy that owed more to Greek pagan philosophy than the teachings of Jesus Christ). Where Erasmus was originally sympathetic to Luther, he refused to commit to cast in his lot with Luther because it would have been the very sort of troublemaking that Erasmus' religious beliefs held to be the root of all evils. In other words, Erasmus was the forerunner of modern Christians who demand that we should all strive for peace and unity no matter the differences doctrines and behavior! But when the uprisings that were blamed on Luther happened, it provoked Erasmus to take a stand against Luther, for Erasmus regarded Luther as having committed the biggest possible crime and injury against his belief system: disturbing the peace. So, Erasmus, leader of the humanist reformers of Roman Catholicism (in his day "humanism" meant "lovers of the humanities" i.e. arts, classic literature, etc.) decided that the best way to challenge Luther was to go after the doctrines of election and predestination, and in doing so wrote his own manifesto rejecting those doctrines and asserting his own belief in free will salvation. Luther's response: Erasmus' notion of free will had its origins in Greek pagan philosophy, the Aristotle, Plato, and Zeno that Erasmus so loved and was heavily influenced by, and not the Bible. (In defense of Erasmus, he acquired his love for Greek pagan philosophy because of his own dissatisfaction with Roman Catholic scholarship ... he and the other humanists rejected many of the teachings of Rome and decided to go back to the Bible itself. Unfortunately, they decided to go back to the writings of many early western Christians also, and their writings were filled with the very influences of pagan philosophy that led to the development of Roman Catholicism to begin with. So Erasmus was willing to come part of the way out of Babylon, but not all of the way out, for he found certain parts of Babylon pleasing and useful to him. In addition to the earlier point on how God uses a Christian's orthodoxy to transform the Christian himself but  a Christian's orthopraxy to transform other people, the wages of being unwilling to fully abandon Babylon are also worth contemplating.)

Translated by Harold J. Grimm, taken from Luther's 97 Theses: Disputation Against Scholastic Theology (Scholasticism) on the Contend Earnestly blog.

1. To say that Augustine exaggerates in speaking against heretics is to say that Augustine tells lies almost everywhere. This is contrary to common knowledge.
2. This is the same as permitting Pelagians1 and all heretics to triumph, indeed, the same as conceding victory to them.
3. It is the same as making sport of the authority of all doctors of theology.
4. It is therefore true that man, being a bad tree, can only will and do evil [Cf. Matt. 7:17–18].
5. It is false to state that man’s inclination is free to choose between either of two opposites. Indeed, the inclination is not free, but captive. Tiffs is said in opposition to common opinion.

6. It is false to state that the will can by nature conform to correct precept. This is said in opposition to Scotus2 and Gabriel.3
7. As a matter of fact, without the grace of God the will produces an act that is perverse and evil.
8. It does not, however, follow that the will is by nature evil, that is, essentially evil, as the Manichaeans4 maintain.
9. It is nevertheless innately and inevitably evil and corrupt.
10. One must concede that the will is not free to strive toward whatever is declared good. This in opposition to Scotus and Gabriel.
11. Nor is it able to will or not to will whatever is prescribed.
12. Nor does one contradict St. Augustine when one says that nothing is so much in the power of the will as the will itself.
13. It is absurd to conclude that erring man can love the creature above all things, therefore also God. This in opposition to Scotus and Gabriel.
14. Nor is it surprising that the will can conform to erroneous and not to correct precept.
15. Indeed, it is peculiar to it that it can only conform to erroneous and not to correct precept.
16. One ought rather to conclude: since erring man is able to love the creature it is impossible for him to love God.
17. Man is by nature unable to want God to be God. Indeed, he himself wants to be God, and does not want God to be God.
18. To love God above all things by nature is a fictitious term, a chimera, as it were. This is contrary to common teaching.
19. Nor can we apply the reasoning of Scotus concerning the brave citizen who loves his country more than himself.
20. An act of friendship is done, not according to nature, but according to prevenient grace. This in opposition to Gabriel.
21. No act is done according to nature that is not an act of concupiscence against God.
22. Every act of concupiscence against God is evil and a fornication of the spirit.
23. Nor is it true that an act of concupiscence can be set aright by the virtue of hope. This in opposition to Gabriel.
24. For hope is not contrary to charity, which seeks and desires only that which is of God.
25. Hope does not grow out of merits, but out of suffering which destroys merits. This in opposition to the opinion of many.
26. An act of friendship is not the most perfect means for accomplishing that which is in one.5 Nor is it the most perfect means for obtaining the grace of God or turning toward and approaching God.
27. But it is an act of conversion already perfected, following grace both in time and by nature.
28. If it is said of the Scripture passages, “Return to me,…and I will return to you” [Zech. 1:3.], “Draw near to God and he will draw near to you” [Jas. 4:8], “Seek and you will find” [Matt. 7:7], “You will seek me and find me” [Jer. 29:13], and the like, that one is by nature, the other by grace, this is no different from asserting what the Pelagians have said.
29. The best and infallible preparation for grace and the sole disposition toward grace is the eternal election and predestination of God.
30. On the part of man, however, nothing precedes grace except indisposition and even rebellion against grace.
31. It is said with the idlest demonstrations that the predestined can be damned individually but not collectively. This in opposition to the scholastics.
32. Moreover, nothing is achieved by the following saying: Predestination is necessary by virtue of the consequence of God’s willing, but not of what actually followed, namely, that God had to elect a certain person.
33. And this is false, that doing all that one is able to do can remove the obstacles to grace. This in opposition to several authorities.
34. In brief, man by nature has neither correct precept nor good will.
35. It is not true that an invincible ignorance excuses one completely (all scholastics notwithstanding);
36. For ignorance of God and oneself and good work is always invincible to nature.
37. Nature, moreover, inwardly and necessarily glories and takes pride in every work which is apparently and outwardly good.
38. There is no moral virtue without either pride or sorrow, that is, without sin.
39. We are not masters of our actions, from beginning to end, but servants. This in opposition to the philosophers.
40. We do not become righteous by doing righteous deeds but, having been made righteous, we do righteous deeds. This in opposition to the philosophers.
41. Virtually the entire Ethics of Aristotle is the worst enemy of grace. This in opposition to the scholastics.
42. It is an error to maintain that Aristotle’s statement concerning happiness does not contradict Catholic doctrine. This in opposition to the doctrine on morals.
43. It is an error to say that no man can become a theologian without Aristotle. This in opposition to common opinion.
44. Indeed, no one can become a theologian unless he becomes one without Aristotle.
45. To state that a theologian who is not a logician is a monstrous heretic—this is a monstrous and heretical statement. This in opposition to common opinion.
46. In vain does one fashion a logic of faith, a substitution brought about without regard for limit and measure. This in opposition to the new dialecticians.
47. No syllogistic form is valid when applied to divine terms. This in opposition to the Cardinal.6
48. Nevertheless it does not for that reason follow that the truth of the doctrine of the Trinity contradicts syllogistic forms. This in opposition to the same new dialecticians and to the Cardinal.
49. If a syllogistic form of reasoning holds in divine matters, then the doctrine of the Trinity is demonstrable and not the object of faith.
50. Briefly, the whole Aristotle7 is to theology as darkness is to light. This in opposition to the scholastics.
51. It is very doubtful whether the Latins comprehended the correct meaning of Aristotle.
52. It would have been better for the church if Porphyry8 with his universals had not been born for the use of theologians.
53. Even the more useful definitions of Aristotle seem to beg the question.
54. For an act to be meritorious, either the presence of grace is sufficient, or its presence means nothing. This in opposition to Gabriel.
55. The grace of God is never present in such a way that it is inactive, but it is a living, active, and operative spirit; nor can it happen that through the absolute power of God an act of friendship may be present without the presence of the grace of God. This in opposition to Gabriel.
56. It is not true that God can accept man without his justifying grace. This in opposition to Ockham.9
57. It is dangerous to say that the law commands that an act of obeying the commandment be done in the grace of God. This in opposition to the Cardinal and Gabriel.
58. From this it would follow that “to have the grace of God” is actually a new demand going beyond the law.
59. It would also follow that fulfilling the law can take place without the grace of God.
60. Likewise it follows that the grace of God would be more hateful than the law itself.
61. It does not follow that the law should be complied with and fulfilled in the grace of God. This in opposition to Gabriel.
62. And that therefore he who is outside the grace of God sins incessantly, even when he does not kill, commit adultery, or become angry.
63. But it follows that he sins because he does not spiritually fulfill the law.
64. Spiritually that person does not kill, does not do evil, does not become enraged when he neither becomes angry nor lusts.
65. Outside the grace of God it is indeed impossible not to become angry or lust, so that not even in grace is it possible to fulfill the law perfectly.
66. It is the righteousness of the hypocrite actually and outwardly not to kill, do evil, etc.
67. It is by the grace of God that one does not lust or become enraged.
68. Therefore it is impossible to fulfill the law in any way without the grace of God.
69. As a matter of fact, it is more accurate to say that the law is destroyed by nature without the grace of God.
70. A good law will of necessity be bad for the natural will.
71. Law and will are two implacable foes without the grace of God.
72. What the law wants, the will never wants, unless it pretends to want it out of fear or love.
73. The law, as taskmaster of the will, will not be overcome except by the “child, who has been born to us” [Isa. 9:6].
74. The law makes sin abound because it irritates and repels the will [Rom. 7:13].
75. The grace of God, however, makes justice abound through Jesus Christ because it causes one to be pleased with the law.
76. Every deed of the law without the grace of God appears good outwardly, but inwardly it is sin. This in opposition to the scholastics.
77. The will is always averse to, and the hands inclined toward, the law of the Lord without the grace of God.
78. The will which is inclined toward the law without the grace of God is so inclined by reason of its own advantage.
79. Condemned are all those who do the works of the law.
80. Blessed are all those who do the works of the grace of God.
81. Chapter Falsas concerning penance, dist. 5, 10 confirms the fact that works outside the realm of grace are not good, if this is not understood falsely.
82. Not only are the religious ceremonials not the good law and the precepts in which one does not live (in opposition to many teachers);
83. But even the Decalogue itself and all that can be taught and prescribed inwardly and outwardly is not good law either.
84. The good law and that in which one lives is the love of God, spread abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit.
85. Anyone’s will would prefer, if it were possible, that there would be no law and to be entirely free.
86. Anyone’s will hates it that the law should be imposed upon it; if, however, the will desires imposition of the law it does so out of love of self.
87. Since the law is good, the will, which is hostile to it, cannot be good.
88. And from this it is clear that everyone’s natural will is iniquitous and bad.
89. Grace as a mediator is necessary to reconcile the law with the will.
90. The grace of God is given for the purpose of directing the will, lest it err even in loving God. In opposition to Gabriel.
91. It is not given so that good deeds might be induced more frequently and readily, but because without it no act of love is performed. In opposition to Gabriel.
92. It cannot be denied that love is superfluous if man is by nature able to do an act of friendship. In opposition to Gabriel.
93. There is a kind of subtle evil in the argument that an act is at the same time the fruit and the use of the fruit. In opposition to Ockham, the Cardinal, Gabriel.
94. This holds true also of the saying that the love of God may continue alongside an intense love of the creature.
95. To love God is at the same time to hate oneself and to know nothing but God.
96. We must make our will conform in every respect to the will of God (in opposition to the Cardinal);
97. So that we not only will what God wills, but also ought to will whatever God wills.
In these statements we wanted to say and believe we have said nothing that is not in agreement with the Catholic church and the teachers of the church.
1517

As you may have read in my testimony , I was a member of a pentecostal church for a number of years. However, quite early in my walk, say around 2000, I felt niggles about what I was being taught and was seeing in my church versus my personal study of the Bible. By then I got my own PC and hooked up to the Internet and found a website linking to www.deceptioninthechurch.com which talked about many errors, heresies and false teachers and was one of the few at the time that actually named them! Thankfully I didn't have digital TV so hadn't come across many of them with the exception of TD Jakes. I remember being thoroughly confused about Oneness Pentecostal theology versus the Bible declared about the one Triune God. I was surprised to see how many of these preachers mostly from the USA were popular with many in the congregation here in London, especially as I had not heard of any of them before I was born again.

I would read 1 Corinthians 14 and wonder how come people would shout out in tongues yet this chapter said that should not be so? That didn't stop me from feeling pressured for quite some time as I hadn't spoken in tongues and I remember feeling so left out when I wasn't "slain in the spirit" nor running the church aisles as could be seen there on occasion. I remember often feeling that I must be missing  something as I hadn't been "baptised/filled in the Holy Spirit" in the way that pentecostals define it.

Things started to get tough for me when I kept reading more and more from the Bible and on the web... I would either ignore it unless it was gross error, ie word of faith which that church wasn't heavily into. By this time I was certain in my conviction that those like Benny Hinn, Paula White et al were to be avoided and even considered leaving my local church... but I lacked the courage of my convictions.

My husband and I began to talk more on these issues. Thankfully, there's not been any dissension between us on doctrine. Some teachings we read, saw and heard had a profound impact on us, such as True and False Conversion, a set of DVDs from the deceptioninthechurch website regarding the New Apostolic Reformation, writings by Spurgeon, Tozer and many others and above all, the Holy Bible.

We'd heard of Calvinism and Arminianism but didn't study them in much depth. The more we read, the more we've become believers in the doctrines of grace, though I'm still a LOT to learn.

Last year it all got to a point where we decided to quietly leave that church. It was surprisingly difficult to talk to others about the teachings of the Bible, especially regarding popular false teachers.  We're in a smaller assembly now and so far it's been a fruitful experience. It's the first church I've ever been to where an offering isn't taken up but you may give via a box at the back of the church, LOL!

I still have a lot of respect for our former pastor and we're glad to have left on a good note, though we've had few enquiries as to where we are these days! I'm at a point now where I feel almost like a new Christian, where I have much to learn and unlearn. Where am I now regarding pentecostalism? I'm formulating my beliefs on whether or not the sign gifts have ceased. My husband is leaning that way, which is saying something as he was more interested in the prophetic movement than I ever was.

Sounds to me like God is the one who chooses us first, then, on the basis of His choice of us, we "choose" Him (Unconditional Election anyone?)...

Wesley’s sermon ‘Salvation by Faith’ opens like this:

All the blessings which God hath bestowed upon man, are of his mere grace, bounty, or favor; his free, undeserved favor, favor altogether undeserved; man having no claim to the least of his mercies. It was free grace that “formed man of dust of the ground, and breathed into him a living soul”, and stamped on that soul the image of God, and “put all things under his feet”. The same free grace continues to us, at this day, life and breath, and all things. For there is nothing we are, or have, or do, which can deserve the least thing at God’s hand. “All our works, thou, oh God, has wrought in us.” These, therefore, are so many more instances of free mercy; and, whatever righteousness may be found in man, this is also the gift of God….

If then sinful men find favor with God, it is “grace upon grace”…Grace is the source, faith is the condition, of salvation.

It’s tough to argue with the Bible, or Wesley’s exegesis.

By Kyle Andrews

To understand the errant doctrine of Arminianism we can look towards one of the simplest forms of mathematics known as probability. For example let's take a coin for instance. A coin has two sides, one head and the other tails. If I were to flip the coin 100 times the probability of it landing heads or tails is 50/50. In all probability If I were to perform this exercise the likely hood of having 50% of the time landing on heads and 50% of the time landing on tails is likely the more times I flip the coin. That being said a 50/50 probability is likely. However, let us look at something different called "possibility". It IS "possible" that I can flip the coin 100 times and it could land tails up 100 times or heads up 100 times. Although improbable it IS "possible". So we can't discount the possibility of 100 heads or 100 tails. Keep this in mind for we will come to this later.
The arminian claims that it is ultimately up to the individual to accept the atoning sacrifice on the cross. This in essence is the free will doctrine which is espoused by these neo pelagians who think that man has the final decision regarding his salvation. If this is true then it is obvious that man only has two options.
A: Accept Jesus as Lord and savior
OR
B: Do not accept Jesus as Lord and savior.
It is pretty simple. That being said, after the atonement on the cross there were a set of two improbable possibilities we need to look at according to Arminians.
A: it was "possible" that NO person would accept Jesus as Lord and Savior
OR
B: It was "possible" that everyone would accept Jesus as Lord and Savior.
Although statistically improbable in either direction it was "possible". And this leads to the crux of the situation. Mathematically Arminian's deny the ABSOLUTE Sovereignty of God. In their view according to free will God was 99.99999999 % likely to save at least somebody. However, there was a statistical possibility of .00000000001% that God's atonement on the cross would be in vain and would save nobody. Because of this at the moment of death after Christ said, "it is finished" He could not with 100%, A 100 % certainty claim what he did on the cross would save anybody no matter how infinitesimal the possibility. Because of this there was the slimmest possibility that he died in vain and the whole Bible from Genesis on would be a lie.
Now some of you may say I'm being too technical. If this is the case then it is you with the problem. God is either 100% Sovereign, or he is not. When it comes to God 99.9999999% does not make him perfect.
In closing Calvinism is the only way that guaranteed with 100% probability and 100% possibility that people would be saved. Because as we know with God ALL things are possible.

The Statistical Impossibility of Arminianism - Follow up

I wrote this after some deep pondering between Calvinism VS Arminianism. After some time a few things came to mind considering the free will doctrine which to the best of my knowledge had yet to be considered. It dawned on me that because Free will is of man and initiated by man’s ultimate decision it had occurred to me that it was possible that NO ONE might choose salvation. Once this happened a light bulb, if you will, went off in my mind. I said to myself, “with Arminianism God could have never been 100% sure that the death, burial, and resurrection would save anybody after that moment at calvary”. In essence God would have had to wait with his hands off and merely wait and see if his Grand Plan for the salvation of mankind would work. Next I demonstrated this by using mathematical possibility to help explain my idea. By using this methodology I could show without a shadow of doubt to the Arminian that in their view it was possible that God’s intent after the fall in the garden “could” have been done in vain. I made sure to clarify that because of the billions of people born since that it was highly improbable due to shear numbers but was possible hence the use of a coin. And like a coin with two sides their are only two choices. Once I had established these facts it then dawned on me that no matter the likely hood of salvation we could not with 100% accuracy that anyone could be saved. Once this was established it is by the Arminians own philosophy proven mathematically that God could NOT be 100% sure His salvation plan would result in anyone being saved. Hence the 99.9999999% Sovereignty of God which is not 100%. Alas it could be conjectured that God by the view of the Arminians was NOT in TOTAL control and NOT TOTALLY sovereign.

To expound upon this let us look at the definition of Sovereign.

1. Not controlled by outside forces autonomous, independent, self-governing.

2. Greatest in status or authority or power, supreme.

By definition the God of Arminianism fails to meet the definition of Sovereign. Free will dictates that mankind controlled his destiny after the cross.

Let us look at another definition given to God - Omnipotent

1. Having unlimited power

By the free will doctrine God fails to meet the standard applied to him. He could not have unlimited power but rather was limited in his power because A: He was not the final authority on who was saved and B: Albeit remote, he could not with 100%, A 100% certainty claim that His crucifixion would save anybody.

Recent conversations in the blogosphere of which I am a part have led to people wondering what Calvinism is and what Arminianism is and I have had emails to ask where I would place myself.

Since confusion has been expressed and people have asked what these are, and sometimes been fobbed off, I thought I would take the opportunity to briefly outline the two and explain my own perspective.

Note, this is not a discussion about the mechanics of free will – though that is a great discussion. This is also not a rebuttal to my friend, Rhett - for those who may misread the intent of this. Rhett and I may disagree on a few things and that's fine. I am also fully aware that I am simply a novice and these things have been debated by people much smarter than I am and there are people much smarter than me on all sides of the conversation.

Calvinism:

Calvinism is a view that developed most succinctly out of the reformation, thus it is also referred to as “Reformed theology” and “Reformed tradition” amongst other things. It is commonly termed “Calvinism” after John Calvin, who is seen as the most influential proponent of this view at the time. It must be noted that many state that Calvin never argued against what is now called the Arminian perspective – most of the argument has developed because correctives against extremes were put in place. The Arminian argument was offered as a rebuttal to an extreme – double predestination and hyper-Calvinism and then the points which we are about to read were offered as a rebuttal to the rebuttal... are you following this? The problem we have now is that many people choose to identify themselves with the correctives.

Calvinism is best summed up by a statement often referred to by its acronym – TULIP. These five points were put forward at the Synod of Dordtrecht in (1618 - 1619) in response to the 5 points of the Arminian Remonstrants (we will lay those out next). It is to be noted that the following 5 points are not a complete summation of Calvin's thoughts and writings. Calvin himself never used TULIP and some would argue that Calvin was much broader than this – but the following is what has come to define Calvinism and Reformed Theology.

T.U.L.I.P

Wikipedia sums it up well:

Total depravity

Main article: Total depravity

The doctrine of total depravity (also called "total inability") asserts that, as a consequence of the fall of humanity into sin, every person born into the world is enslaved to the service of sin. People are not by nature inclined to love God with their whole heart, mind, or strength, but rather all are inclined to serve their own interests over those of their neighbor and to reject the rule of God. Thus, all people by their own faculties are morally unable to choose to follow God and be saved because they are unwilling to do so out of the necessity of their own natures. (The term "total" in this context refers to sin affecting every part of a person, not that every person is as evil as possible.)

Jacob Arminius himself and some of his later followers, such as John Wesley, also affirmed total depravity. Even so, the Remonstrants whose views were rejected at Dort opposed it.

Unconditional election

Main article: Unconditional election

The doctrine of unconditional election asserts that God's choice from eternity of those whom he will bring to himself is not based on foreseen virtue, merit, or faith in those people. Rather, it is unconditionally grounded in God's mercy alone.

The doctrine of unconditional election is sometimes made to stand for all Reformed doctrine, sometimes even by its adherents, as the chief article of Reformed Christianity. However, according to the doctrinal statements of these churches, it is not a balanced view to single out this doctrine to stand on its own as representative of all that is taught. Unconditional election, and its corollary in the doctrine of predestination are never properly taught, according to Calvinists, except as an assurance to those who seek forgiveness and salvation through Christ, that their faith is not in vain, because God is able to bring to completion all whom He intends to save. Nevertheless, non-Calvinists object that these doctrines discourage the world from seeking salvation.

Limited atonement

Main article: Limited atonement

Also called "particular redemption" or "definite atonement", the doctrine of limited atonement is the teaching that Jesus' substitutionary atonement was definite and certain in its design and accomplishment. The doctrine is driven by the concept of the sovereignty of God in salvation and the Calvinistic understanding of the nature of the atonement. Namely, Calvinists view the atonement as a penal substitution (that is, Jesus was punished in the place of sinners), and since, Calvinists argue, it would be unjust for God to pay the penalty for some people's sins and then still condemn them for those sins, all those whose sins were atoned for must necessarily be saved.

Moreover, since in this scheme God knows precisely who the elect are and since only the elect will be saved, there is no requirement that Christ atone for sins in general, only for those of the elect. Calvinists do not believe, however, that the atonement is limited in its value or power (in other words, God could have elected everyone and used it to atone for them all), but rather that the atonement is limited in the sense that it is designed for some and not all.

Irresistible grace

Main article: Irresistible grace

The doctrine of irresistible grace (also called "efficacious grace") asserts that the saving grace of God is effectually applied to those whom he has determined to save (that is, the elect) and, in God's timing, overcomes their resistance to obeying the call of the gospel, bringing them to a saving faith.

The doctrine does not hold that every influence of God's Holy Spirit cannot be resisted, but that the Holy Spirit is able to overcome all resistance and make his influence irresistible and effective. Thus, when God sovereignly purposes to save someone, that individual certainly will be saved.

Perseverance of the saints

Main article: Perseverance of the saints

Perseverance (or preservation) of the saints is also known as "eternal security." The word saints is used in the Biblical sense to refer to all who are set apart by God, not in the technical sense of one who is exceptionally holy, canonized, or in heaven (see Saint). The doctrine asserts that, since God is sovereign and his will cannot be frustrated by humans or anything else, those whom God has called into communion with himself will continue in faith until the end. Those who apparently fall away either never had true faith to begin with or will return.

This doctrine is slightly different from the Free Grace or "once saved, always saved" view advocated by some evangelicals in which, despite apostasy or unrepentant and habitual sin, the individual is truly saved if they accepted Christ at any point in the past; in traditional Calvinist teaching, apostasy by such a person may prove that they were never saved.

It needs to be understood that this is simply a summation of the Canon of Dorts and thus, looking around the internet, one will discover many slight variations on this.

To read the Canons of Dorts, go here:

http://www.cresourcei.org/creeddordt.html

-------------------------------------------------------------

The following is the position that this was countering, namely the Five Articles of the Remonstrants – put forward in 1610.

Taken from:

http://www.cresourcei.org/creedremonstrants.html

Article 1.

[Conditional Election - corresponds to the second of TULIP’s five points, Unconditional Election]

That God, by an eternal and unchangeable purpose in Jesus Christ his Son before the foundation of the world, has determined that out of the fallen, sinful race of men, to save in Christ, for Christ’s sake, and through Christ, those who through the grace of the Holy Spirit shall believe on this his son Jesus, and shall persevere in this faith and obedience of faith, through this grace, even to the end; and, on the other hand, to leave the incorrigible and unbelieving in sin and under wrath and to condemn them as alienated from Christ, according to the word of the Gospel in John 3:36: “He that believes on the Son has everlasting life: and he that does not believe the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abides on him,” and according to other passages of Scripture also.

Article 2.

[Unlimited Atonement - corresponds to the third of TULIP’s five points, Limited Atonement]

That, accordingly, Jesus Christ the Savior of the world, died for all men and for every man, so that he has obtained for them all, by his death on the cross, redemption and the forgiveness of sins; yet that no one actually enjoys this forgiveness of sins except the believer, according to the word of the Gospel of John 3:16, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”  And in the First Epistle of John 2:2: “And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.”

Article 3.

[Deprivation - corresponds to the first of TULIP’s five points, Total Depravity]

That man does not posses saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free will, inasmuch as in his state of apostasy and sin he can of and by himself neither think, will, nor do any thing that is truly good (such as saving Faith eminently is); but that it is necessary that he be born again of God in Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, inclination, and will, and all his faculties, in order that he may rightly understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good, according to the Word of Christ, John 15:5, “Without me you can do nothing.”

Article 4.

[Resistible Grace - corresponds to the fourth of TULIP’s five points, Irresistible Grace]

That this grace of God is the beginning, continuance, and accomplishment of all good, even to the extent that the regenerate man himself, without prevenient or assisting, awakening, following and cooperative grace, can neither think, will, nor do good, nor withstand any temptations to evil; so that all good deeds or movements that can be conceived must be ascribed to the grace of God in Christ. But with respect to the mode of the operation of this grace, it is not irresistible, since it is written concerning many, that they have resisted the Holy Spirit (Acts 7, and elsewhere in many places).

Article 5.

[Assurance and Security - corresponds to the fifth of TULIP’s five points, Perseverance of the Saints]

That those who are incorporated into Christ by true faith, and have thereby become partakers of his life-giving Spirit, as a result have full power to strive against Satan, sin, the world, and their own flesh, and to win the victory; it being well understood that it is ever through the assisting grace of the Holy Spirit; and that Jesus Christ assists them through his Spirit in all temptations, extends to them his hand, and if only they are ready for the conflict, desire his help, and are not inactive, keeps them from falling, so that they, by no deceit or power of Satan, can be misled nor plucked out of Christ’s hands, according to the Word of Christ, John 10:28: “Neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.” But whether they are capable, through negligence, of forsaking again the first beginning of their life in Christ, of again returning to this present evil world, of turning away from the holy doctrine which was delivered them, of losing a good conscience, of neglecting grace, that must be more particularly determined out of the Holy Scripture, before we ourselves can teach it with the full confidence of our mind.

These Articles, thus set forth and taught, the Remonstrants deem agreeable to the Word of God, tending to edification, and, as regards this argument, sufficient for salvation, so that it is not necessary or edifying to rise higher or to descend deeper.

-----------------------------------------------------

The former is most often defined as Calvinism and the second is most often defined as Arminianism – though neither truly represents the finer points taught by their namesakes – who probably would have disagreed a whole lot less than those who have since chosen to align themselves to either.

-----------------------------------------------------

I am a Wesleyan Minister – thus I follow in the tradition of John Wesley – an extremely pragmatic synthesizer of many different thoughts and traditions within Christianity. John Wesley, like myself, could not give complete assent to Calvinism and drew on many teachings to develop his own thoughts – one of which was Jacob Arminius. It must be noted that the thoughts of Wesley and Arminius are not exact mirrors of each other, thus the tradition that has developed is known as the Wesleyan-Arminian tradition. It is worth noting that Wesley considered himself a “hair's breadth from Calvinism” and indeed there is much agreement between the Wesleyan-Arminian tradition and Calvinism – though some in the Calvinist tradition openly define Wesley as heretical and thus those who follow in his footsteps as heretical.

As with any tradition of thought within Christianity the Wesleyan-Arminian tradition has many nuances within it, where people align with the overarching idea but the array of thought within that presents much colour – just as there are many differing thoughts held within the tradition that would define itself as “Calvinist” or “Reformed”.

This reflects the wider story of Christianity as well. Our thoughts and beliefs can be many and varied. It's one of the reasons I love it.

It is here that I must make a confession and a concession – the confession: For a while in my Christian walk, well prior to my current alignment and well prior to my blogging, I quietly aligned myself to the Calvinist perspective and defended it. I never vocally described myself as a Calvinist or “Reformed”, but this was the position I held and defended. In making that confession, I am also open and willing to concede that it is a logically tight position. Logically it can be defended and it fits together well – but the logical defense of a position is no longer what interests me.

It is here, in order to explain my perspective, that I must put forward what I am most interested in and outline the difference between two key Christian disciplines. I am an amateur student of the Bible – biblical studies is my first love in the Christian disciplines. Once upon a time long long ago, my first love was systematic theology – the creation of a fool-proof and robust theological perspective. It must be noted that whilst these two disciplines overlap and can feed each other, though I would say that biblical studies should first and foremost feed the discipline of systematic theology rather than the other way around, they are not the same. Biblical studies is not concerned with filling theological gaps where they may present themselves and thus it does not need to create logical arguments to defend positions it “discovers” in its endeavours – though as good biblical studies feed into systematic theology, this can and should take place.

Being someone who does not align with Calvinism makes me, by default, someone within the Arminian stream of Christian thought – this is not because I am someone who thinks Arminianism is a logically robust and defensible position (this is not my primary concern), it is simply because I do not assent to the Calvinist positions on some issues.

A common accusation made about those who do not assent to Calvinism is that we do not do so because we think it presents an unloving, unfair God who offends our human senses of fairness and our “Hallmark” approach to a weak form of love. This accusation is one I find totally and utterly offensive and belittling. It is a generalisation that takes no account of the thought processes and heartache people such as myself have gone through to hold the thoughts we do. Allow me to explain why I see red everytime this poor accusation is made.

As has been mentioned on this blog a few times, I was sexually abused as a young boy within a Christian setting. I don't need to go into details suffice to say that this experience killed any sense of grace or mercy I had towards the abuser and the setting itself.

It was Calvinism that gave me the soft option, not any form of Arminianism. Calvinism gave me a God that gives people over to their own depravity and elects only a few to be welcomed into his redemption. I willingly accepted the idea of an exclusive election and limited atonement for whilst I knew I could not define who was elect and who was not, there was a chance that God was giving my abuser over to their depravity and that they would not be part of the exclusive elect that God had already determined would receive his free gift of salvation. The concept of unlimited atonement, an election that simply brought people into God's wider redemptive plan and to act as a blessing to the world was not something I was even willing to entertain.

Thankfully that was worked past and I had to face up to a wild, untamed God who didn't fit my human sense of fairness. I had to face up to a God that was offering salvation to ALL, even my abuser. I had to face up to a God that offended my limited sense of justice. That process involved many tears and angry words to God. I didn't want his sacrifice to also be for the person who abused me and I didn't want to face up to the fact that said person had as much access to God's saving grace as anyone. That idea still offends me, the idea that those engaging in genocidal activities, those who rape little girl's in front of their parents, have as much access to the work of the cross as anyone.

It is extremely short sighted to say that those who reject Calvinism do so because we want to believe in a “fair”, soft loving sort of a God. That certainly was not and never has been my process – my process has been the opposite. God has blown open the floodgates of the revolution of forgiveness, grace and mercy and I have had to take the blast of the rushing waves that have flown through those gates. They have forced me to my knees and made me submit to God's transforming nature in that part of my selfish humanity. That process has offended my sensibilities entirely.

That process happened because of some things I saw in the scriptures that did not allow me to hold to a calvinistic perspective even if the things I could no longer accept in that perspective were logically defensible.

I could no longer accept exclusive election expressed in the understanding of predestination and limited atonement though I openly and gleefully espouse a firm belief in election. Right throughout scripture God chooses and elects people and groups to participate in his purposes, but rather than being at the exclusion of all else, these chosen/elect people and groups almost always serve a greater purpose to make God known to the world at large. They are chosen to be a blessing, to participate with God in his redemptive activities.

Israel, as our preemptive picture of the Church, was elected and chosen, but not to the exclusion of all else as has been stated in other quarters to affirm an exclusionary form of election. Rather, Israel was elected to be a blessing to all others and far from being exclusive, it was written into their very DNA, the law, that they were to be welcoming. Interestingly, their failure in this regard was clearly part of the reason for their reception of God's wrath through exile. Their election did not guarantee 'salvation'. Clearly the idea of election is nuanced throughout scripture, so to limit it to an exclusionary, purely salvific intent, is to not properly take into account the whole scope of the scriptural picture.

Alongside this there are two other things I find problematic, the first is that Calvinism only allows for one active agent in the world, that of God's sovereignty. It's an extremely nuanced discussion, but I believe the Bible presents a picture of a coexistence between the sovereignty of God and the expression of human will. There are instances of God accepting and blessing some in the Old Testament (outside of Israel/the elect) where they have submitted to a knowledge of him out of their own volition and this seems to happen apart from a direct activity of God's sovereignty. Now we could argue, to have it all making logical sense, that this is simply an expression of something we can't fully understand, in human terms, but I believe that to be somewhat of a copout.

This leads to a discussion about revelation. Calvinism limits the ability for a human to draw close to God (at any stage) to only that which can happen through a direct act of God's sovereignty, namely the concept of irresistible grace, thus I believe it limits revelation to this direct act and doesn't rightly take into account general revelation written into existence itself, a scope of revelation accessible to all.

It is here that I somewhat part ways with the concept of total depravity present in both Calvinism and Arminianism (but hold to it's basic core point, that humanity does not have the ability to save itself). I affirm that it is only by the grace of God through the work of Christ that we find, regeneration, salvation, justification and sanctification, but I do not believe it takes a necessary and direct act of God's sovereignty for humanity to enter a knowledge of God, for I believe God's revelation of himself is written into existence itself. This revelation begins at a very general level and works its way up through the revelation present in the lives of the elect, those chosen to be co-workers in Gods redemption/chosen to be a blessing to the world and finding it's full revelation in God's regenerative grace – the ultimate seat of salvation. There are clear examples in the Old Testament, where the clearest picture of an 'elect' is present, of people accessing more general forms of revelation, submitting to God and him conferring blessing and inclusion upon them.

If all have access to God's general revelation, then all have access to the work of the cross, but we all agree that salvation is ultimately a gift from God and it is only by the grace of God through the work of Christ that our depravity can be defeated.

It is with thanks that I swallow my pride and my sense of justice and I look to God's love for the whole world and believe wholeheartedly that ALL have access to the work of the cross. In my mind this is neither fair, nor soft. I believe the opposite, I believe it totally subverts the human tendency towards exclusiveness and easy, definable boxes.

This is very sweeping and doesn't take into account other thoughts that feed into this, such as the Gospel, the scope of the resurrection, our future hope and so many other things. Ultimately it should be noted that I am Arminian, not because I necessarily entirely affirm the Arminian position, but more as an act of default because I cannot affirm calvinism. Is my approach full of holes? Probably. Are there places where I still need to learn and grow? Entirely. Is it about me twisting scripture to suit my own desires? Not at all. Will it ever change? Probably – I'm a work in process. Is it unbiblical? You decide.

Before I do, allow me to give the floor to a scholar I enjoy very much... and who sits in the stream of what I would be aligned with around these issues - Dr Ben Witherington. Any Wesleyan with any link to academia generally holds Dr Witherington in high regard. My only engagement with him so far is through his blog, but anything written by him is on my must read list.

Recently he did a wonderful post giving a teaser to his forthcoming work by touching on the biblical issue of election - one of the issues at the heart of the difference between Calvinists and non-Calvinists. I would agree that election is most certainly present in the Bible, but the questions exist around the extent and purpose of those called 'elect'. Dr Witherington touches the tip of this problem nicely in his post Rethinking Election. Check it out.

My ability to offer anything into this ongoing discussion within Christianity will pale in comparison to what Dr Witherington will have to say.