Choose Your Own Acronym...

2 interesting recordings


Discussion between Calvinist Tim Challies and Bruxy Cavey about the 5 points of Calvinism (TULIP) (45 mins)

http://www.themeetinghouse.ca/roundtable/2011-06-21-roundtable.mp3



Discussion between Bruxy Cavey and Tim Day about TULIP and an proposed “arminian” alternative. (1 hr 3 mins)

http://www.themeetinghouse.ca/roundtable/2011-07-20-roundtable.mp3


__________________________________________________
Visit my new blog:  http://onesimusfiles.wordpress.com/

Some entries will be duplicated for a while until I get used to using the different wordpress format.
I'm still unable to access the main pages of blogs associated with blogger (blogspot) - so I'm unable to reply to comments, and I'm also unable to visit other "blogspot" blogs.

However I can still moderate comments so anything inappropriate can still be deleted.

Recent David Pawson Sermons

Some more David Pawson sermons can be found here:


The Uniqueness of Christ

See also:

Israel and the Church


They were recorded at IHOP over the last few days (with some still to come). The links may contain sermons by other preachers who I do not know and therefore cannot recommend.
But I have confidence in David Pawson's teaching.

Posts regarding David Pawson are the most viewed on this blog. Next are some about the Arminianism/Calvinism debate. Those with an interest in the latter may find the two part sermon entitled "Grace: Saving, Sovereign, or Free?" interesting. It can be found through the "Uniqueness of Christ" link.


Thanks to Kevin Jackson for telling me about these.

Who has God elected or chosen to save?

This is a link to the second part of a series examining the foundational doctrines of Calvinism from an Arminian point of view.
Its author, William Birch, is a former Calvinist.


AN EXAMINATION OF TULIP THEOLOGY: "U" FOR UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION

An excerpt from the article.

Who has God elected or chosen to save? It is explicitly and overwhelmingly clear from Scripture that God has chosen to save anyone who will believe in His Son Jesus Christ (Mk. 1:15; John 1:7, 12; 4:42; 6:29; 11:27; 12:42; 14:1; 16:30-31; 17:20; Acts 8:37; 15:11; 16:31; Rom. 3:22; 4:11; 10:9; 1 Cor. 1:21; Gal. 3:22; Eph. 1:19; 1 Tim. 4:10) -- the most explicit passage being, "God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe" (1 Cor. 1:21 NASB).

This being the truth of Scripture then election must be viewed as conditional: it is conditioned upon faith in Christ. Thus Arminians believe in the doctrine of Conditional Election; but only in the sense that sinners become elect upon faith in and union with Christ Jesus, and not beforehand. We believe it is erroneous to say that God has unconditionally elected to save or unconditionally saves anyone, since faith is the condition to being justified, regenerated and thus saved.


-----

The first part of the series can be found here:
Examination of tulip

Arminianism vs. Calvinism: my unpolished personal view.

Leaving aside “Catholic” and “Orthodox” believers, there seems to be a tendency to try to divide the rest of the Christian world into two neat camps: Arminian and Calvinist.

Despite being A Christian since the mid 70s I didn’t become aware of Calvinism until about 4 years ago when I read the contributions of a Calvinist writer on a Christian forum. I was appalled by the beliefs he was promoting. However I had no personal contact with Calvinists until two years ago. At that time I started to do some research and I found it hard to believe that any professing Christian could hold to such an aberrant view God.

My introduction to Arminianism came through my being accused of being an Arminian. While I find Arminian doctrine to be much closer to the truth than that of Calvinism, there is still the fact that its adherents are devoted to, and prize, the theology of a man. It is my view that there would be NO Arminianism/Calvinism debate if importance was genuinely placed on Scripture alone – something that both sides ironically claim is the basis of their doctrine. I would more easily believe that was the case if the devotion to Arminius and Calvin (and the associated religious systems) were repented of and the labels dropped.

I’ve been frequenting “Arminian” blogs for a few months now and have appreciated the interaction I’ve had with several people on those blogs. But one thing I have repeatedly noticed is that so much of the disagreement between Arminians and Calvinists is often demonstrated through multi-syllabic theological terminology and theological ideas instead of through plain and simple application of scriptural revelation. The result of this is disagreement over differing ideas of man-made philosophical concepts rather than God’s revelation of Himself through His word.

Infralapsarian, Supralapsarian, supraduperlapsarian… all meaningless and worthless twaddle just like so much of the vain concepts that take centre stage in man’s theology. Most of them are merely intellectual sounding alternatives to that age old question of how many angels fit on a pin head.

Get back to the gospel people. Turn to God’s Word and not mans’.

Because there is too much reliance on human theology and wanting to identify with a label rather than with a lifestyle, “Faith” to many has become a matter of assent to a series of tenets Why not DEMONSTRATE the truths we believe rather than try to give a short cut by identifying with a theological system?

Surely this IS what Paul was writing about when he criticised some for saying “I am of Apollos or I am of Paul” Was Arminius or Calvin crucified for you?

I am definitely NOT a Calvinist (as if anyone would mistake me for one) and neither am I associated with any of the theological labels that others have tried to pin on me. In all my weakness, with all of my faults and despite stumbling many times – it is my desire to be nothing more or less than a disciple of Jesus.

All of the rest: the theological posturing and labelling, are dangerous distractions.

Moving on from a Theological Rut

This blog was never intended to be a place where anyone and everyone could try to promote their questionable doctrines. Many other blogs allow (and some even encourage) the ongoing “Arminian/Calvinism debate” and the same old ground is trodden and the theological rut deepens.

I have made no secret that I detest the doctrines of Calvinism. They portray a god far different from the one true God revealed through scripture by the Holy Spirit. But constantly going over that same old ground, refuting the same old arguments and facing a barrage of the same old proof texts is clearly a waste of time and it distracts from things that are genuinely important. I will no longer give time to answering the same misrepresentations of the gospel presented by the same people over and over again. Therefore I will make more active use of the moderation options and will delete those comments that try to perpetuate the theological rut-digging.
That process has already begun – and if the writers of the comments I have deleted feel snubbed by not having their views addressed, I suggest they go back to the replies I gave to their earlier comments and see what I said about the very same views the first time they were expressed.

Before I move on from the matter of deleting comments; the following statement comes from a comment I rejected for the reasons stated above.

Paul G said: “Because you don’t believe or understand the doctrine of election, it ultimately forces you to trust and believe in your own TRUST and BELIEF and not in the finished work of Calvary.”

Firstly I have quite a good understanding of “election” as depicted in scripture. I also have a good understanding of the Calvinist doctrine of “unconditional election” – a doctrine that clearly contradicts God’s revelation given in scripture. But that is not the main part of the statement that I want to address.

Note the confusion in the latter part of the statement: the part that accuses me of trusting and believing in my “own TRUST and BELIEF and not in the finished work of Calvary”. Does Paul G trust in the finished work of Calvary? Is he not then trusting in his own trust in the finished work of Calvary? What makes his situation and his “trust” different to mine?

The difference is that the Calvinist doctrine of “unconditional election” effectively bypasses Calvary all together. It makes salvation the result of a pre-creation decree that determined which individuals were lucky enough to be saved. Therefore salvation has nothing to do with Calvary and Christ’s sacrifice and everything to do with having one’s name drawn out in god’s salvation lottery.

Paul closes his comment with the statement “Salvation is of the Lord” – and I totally agree. The disagreement is not with the source of salvation (the Lord), it is with the MEANS by which salvation is made available. Does that means reflect the character of God as revealed throughout scripture: does that means reflect His justice, His righteousness, His love and His mercy?

Debating Calvinists has never been my intention. My only interest in this matter has been to expose the evils of Calvinism’s doctrines. Those who choose to remain adherents to those false doctrines do so according to their own free will (ironically a free will many of them would deny having).

One of the most difficult experiences of the past few months has not been due to the response I've had from Calvinists. It has come from the reactions of some who deny being Calvinists who for some reason took offense when I drew attention to what Calvinism really promotes. To me this reveals a false sense of loyalty, an almost ecumenical approach that is willing to “agree to disagree” over important truths in order to maintain an appearance of peace.
Despite those difficult experiences, there have been indications that some have taken note and have realised for themselves how sinister the doctrines of Calvinism really are.

Duelling Quizzes.

In the comments section of one of my articles, a Calvinist commentator provided a (now deleted) quiz intended to demonstrate the “truth” of the Calvinist approach to scripture.
The following link provides an answer to that quiz, demonstrating how vastly different theological viewpoints can be supported by the selective use of scripture.

quiz-for-your-calvinist-friends

As a personal comment, I have to say that THIS quiz has much more value than the Calvinist equivalent. At least I can recognise the God that is being promoted – I can’t say the same for the god being promoted by the Calvinist mob. That god is an imposter.


-----
While I have deleted the Calvinist quiz from this blog, it may be accessed via the "Wesleyan Arminian" blog at the link provided above.

PUTTING ARMINIUS IN HIS PLACE

Over the last couple of weeks I have visited several “Arminian” blogs and I have been encouraged by many of the articles. This has been very welcome after months of being continually confronted and battered by Calvinists and their false teachings.

I have found that I am in agreement with most doctrine I’ve read on these websites. This agreement did not come about because I was conditioned by Arminius’ teaching, but because I studied and read the same Bible that Arminius studied and trusted the Holy Spirit’s teaching abilities.

Unfortunately, along with the good doctrine, I have also seen some evidence of a very unhealthy devotion to a man. Arminius is being given praise that is not due to him.
At times his teachings are mentioned in a way that gives the impression that they are THE means by which we understand truth and his teachings are held up as THE standard of doctrinal orthodoxy. In some cases this reliance on Arminius gives the impression that his teaching overshadows the value of scripture.

This situation is yet another example of man’s teaching being given too high a priority. Arminius was a man and the soundness in his teaching is due solely to its agreement with the scriptures. Go first to the SOURCE of scriptural truth and seek GOD alone for revelation through the Holy Spirit. Arminius (and other teachers) can later provide confirmation or otherwise of what we believe we have learned from the scriptures.

Promote the writings of Arminius as a valuable secondary resource by all means – but do not make him into a standard by which all teaching is judged. There is only ONE written standard of truth – the BIBLE.

AM I AN ARMINIAN?

For most of my Christian life I was unaware of both Calvinism and Arminianism and the conflict between those different theologies.
My first knowledge of Calvinism came through participation on an internet forum; and I couldn’t believe that any professing Christian could believe such things about the God I’d grown to know over the previous 30 years.

Arminianism remained out of the picture until I started to be labelled as an Arminian by the Calvinists I was increasingly coming into contact with. While some used the label reasonably benignly, as if it was merely an alternative to their personal preference for Calvin; others used it as an accusation, as if an “Arminian” was something to be loathed.

From the first time I was identified as an “Arminian” I have objected to the label. Having not even heard of Arminius to that point, I knew that I was not a follower of the man or his doctrine. However, considering the number of times I was being associated with his teaching I eventually decided to find out more about him.

While I still object to be labelled as an “Arminian”, it is not because I have an objection to Arminius or his basic theology. My brief investigation into this matter has introduced me to some very worthwhile blogs associated with Arminian teachings. Through reading some of the articles I have been surprised how much I can identify and agree with their ideas and understanding. I have provided links to some of these on the sidebar.
In my previous blog entry I addressed my concerns about the use of none biblical “theological terminology”. That would perhaps be my main disagreement with the Arminian writers on the recommended blogs.
My experience with both charismanic and highly traditional churches has shown me how dangerous mans’ traditions can be, so I have a strong aversion to teachings that rely too much on sources other than the scriptures (this includes the use of non-biblical theological terminology). If these sources become too influential, then it becomes likely that we start to interpret scripture according to those sources rather than vice versa.

I was becoming increasingly discouraged by the apparently increasing influence of Calvinist thought among the Christians with whom I’ve come into contact in recent months. My first real contact with “Arminian” believers has given me a great deal of encouragement and I look forward to keeping up to date with their blog contributions.

At the moment I have the enjoyment of reading through some of their archived articles. One I found particularly interesting was “ON THEOLOGY” by Billy Birch found at the following link:

http://classicalarminianism.blogspot.com/2007/07/on-theology.html

His point about valid theology bringing glory to God draws a clear distinction between the Arminian and Calvinist views.

Description or Definition? :Terminology’s Effect on Theology

I have a particular aversion to non-biblical terminology being used to describe biblical beliefs. I think inevitably that such terminology will begin to DEFINE our beliefs instead of merely describe them.
Take the phrase “Total Depravity” – to the Calvinist this means a total inability to respond to God prior to regeneration. It goes much further than describing man’s separation from God due to a sinful nature.
The Arminian understands the term in a different way, allowing the sinner to believe in God PRIOR to regeneration in response to the Holy Spirit’s conviction through the hearing of the gospel.*
As far as I’ve been able to determine – both theologies believe in man’s “total depravity”, but their definitions of the term are significantly different.

Personally I prefer to have man’s condition described as being: “bound over to disobedience” as per Romans 11. At least with the biblical definition there is a scriptural context revealing the reason for and the effect of man’s condition.

Rom 11:32 “For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.”
The context reveals that man’s condition is not intended to be a totally exclusive state for anyone – but its intention is to place ALL on a level playing field with God, so that ALL may have to opportunity to benefit from God’s mercy.

Therefore which description BEST describes man’s condition and God’s response to man’s condition? Total depravity or “bound over to disobedience”? Which (in context) leaves less room for ambiguity?

Another term I’ve come across recently is “prevenient grace”. Does this not create the error of dividing God’s grace into categories or different levels, one result being the erroneous concept of “irresistible grace”?

Maybe if we stick as closely to possible to biblical language to describe biblical concepts, we would be less likely to introduce so many of man’s assumptions into our doctrine: assumptions that arise from our choice of terminology rather than the text of scripture.

----------------
*At least this is my current understanding of the Arminian belief. I’ve had little contact with Arminian theology until very recently.