For some time I’ve noticed a disturbing tend with some of these Purpose Driven and Emergent guys substituting the phrase Christ Follower in the place of Christian. Chris of Fighting of the Faith does excellent job picking part this methodology in the sermon review here.

November 19, 2009

No Christians Allowed??

•  
  •  
    •  

      • • Seeker Driven Pastor Answers the Question, “Are Mormons Christians?”
        • Archbishop of Canterbury Claims Higher Taxes Would Be Good for Society
        • The Parable of the Talents is NOT About Time Management
        • Sermon Review, “No Christians Allowed” by Bill Maye of Brick City Community Church, Sanford, NC

—

Please Support This Important Radio Outreach

If you thought the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) and the Larger (WLC) and Shorter Catechisms (WSC) are excellent summaries of Christian doctrine and practice, you’ve seen nothing yet.

Enter: The Semi-Pelagian Narrower Catechism (SPNC). This is absolutely hilarious. Here’s a little snippet:

9. Q: What is the assurance of thy salvation?
A: The assurance of thy salvation is, that I know the date on which I prayed the Sinner’s Prayer, and have duly written this date on an official Decision card.

Read the rest here.

In this previous post of mine on Calvinism, here, I discussed an inconsistency I saw in the Reformed position on the salvation of the unborn/babies.

A blogger named Kendall left an interesting comment saying that the age of accountability is how non-Calvinists try to solve the issue of the salvation of babies/infants/unborn.

It got me thinking and so instead of replying with a comment, I thought I would reply with a blog post in hope of getting more interest, because I would like to hear peoples opinions about the age of accountability and a related issue, the doctrine of original sin.

I do not quite believe in the age of accountability (as I have heard it been defined). From what I understand, at least some teach that the age of accountability is the time in your life you reach when God will start to hold you responsible for your sin. However, I think that is erroneous because it seems to imply that before the age of accountability, the child was sinning but God was just winking His eye at it so to speak.

Rather, I think that babies/infants do not sin, period. Although, eventually they will reach a certain age (which would be different for every child) when they do sin (perhaps by going against the conviction of their conscience) and then they are no longer innocent because they have sinned.

I think that the concept behind what I just said is found in the Scripture.

What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. For apart from the law, sin lies dead. I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me. For sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.
(Rom 7:7-12)

Here, I interpret Paul as saying that he was “once alive apart from the law” as referring to this period of innocence where one can not sin. That is the only logical explanation I can see for how someone can be alive in the absence of the law. But at some point in his life, the law came, and Paul sinned and became a slave to sin just as the rest of us.

Another topic which I think is closely related to this one is the doctrine of original sin. Because how one believes it is exactly that the original sin of Adam has an effect on all his posterity will determine what one believes about the issue of salvation of infants and the age of accountability.

From what I understand, Calvinists (and Catholics) would argue that the effects of Adam’s sin was spiritual death, and this is what all his posterity inherit from him. In other words, right from the time of our conception we are already sinful and deserving of hell. Psalm 51:5 is a verse used to support this position.

On the other hand, other people would argue that the effects of Adam’s original sin that his posterity inherit is not spiritual death but instead is physical death. In other words, the penalty of Adam’s original sin was physical death (through the corruption of the flesh), and this is what we inherit from Adam. That is, we don’t inherit his actual sin in the sense that we are already deserving of hell from the time of our conception, but that we inherit the corrupt flesh which will inevitably come under the slavery of sin.

I don’t know. I thought I’d make a post on how I came to my theological standpoint. However before I start, I will go back to what I said in earlier posts, these are points that are worth discussing, but should not bring division in the Church. If we can all agree on regeneration and the work of Jesus Christ on the cross, I think that’s enough to bring us together in fellowship. But I have my personal convictions and I wanted to share them a little bit here.

Before, in an earlier post, I said to not call me a Calvinist or Arminian. I said that more to stress fellowship and how we should not be divided over the two sides. I am a Calvinist. And when I say that, I mean that I agree with the 5 points that John Calvin taught. I am not a cessationist like John Calvin was and I’m sure there’s other stuff that he taught that I don’t agree with, but I don’t know because I haven’t read any of his writings. This is just an issue of the 5 points. I don’t take the label of Calvinist to say that I agree with every little thing John Calvin said. In fact, John Wesley, a definite Arminian, is someone who I agree with on a lot of points.

I used to be against Calvinism. I think to the immature Christian, Calvinism seems absolutely ridiculous and doesn’t make sense. However when I opened up and began to study the two views, I came to the conclusion that it was Arminianism that didn’t make sense. Perhaps I didn’t get a clear explanation of it and I’m not saying a mature Christian can’t be an Arminian. However, for me, as I’ve matured my views have shifted.

So anyways, the 5 points of Calvinism use the letters TULIP to spell out the first letters of each point. The 5 points are as follows:

Total Depravity of Man

Since the fall of man in the Garden of Eden, all men are born into sin. All men are naturally evil. Everything they are and do are evil. They hate God (maybe not with their words, but with actions) and they want nothing to do with Him. Their hearts are evil. They deserve the full force wrath of God.

Why do I believe this? In Romans 3:9-18, Paul states it pretty clearly:

9What shall we conclude then? Are we any better? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin. 10As it is written:
“There is no one righteous, not even one;
11there is no one who understands,
no one who seeks God.
12All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.”
13“Their throats are open graves;
their tongues practice deceit.”
“The poison of vipers is on their lips.”
14“Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.”
15“Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16ruin and misery mark their ways,
17and the way of peace they do not know.”
18“There is no fear of God before their eyes.”

To my natural ears, I don’t want to hear that everyone is evil. In fact, some might think that I sound like some fanatic when I say that. But this is not to come from me. Everything we believe has to line up with the word of God. So when I read this, how can I not agree with that? It’s true. Man is evil. We have turned from God completely. And why would we deserve His grace? We don’t. That’s what makes the love of God so amazing. “But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” (Romans 5:8)

Unconditional Election

Because man is naturally evil and wants nothing to do with God, he can not choose for himself to turn to God. God must first enable the sinner to come to Him.

Here’s the one that people attack. Predestination. You may think this one’s crazy. God chooses who He desires to save? Yes. However this does not discount freewill. If I were to say that freewill didn’t exist, then I would be wrong. Freewill exists in scripture. We have freewill. But let me give a visual explanation of what I’m talking about.

I walk to school everyday. However I don’t have to. I could ride the bus, or perhaps get driven by someone. Those are my options. But can I choose to fly? No, of course not. That’s not even an option for me. I don’t have wings. So do I not have freewill because I can’t make the decision to fly to school? No, I do. Flying is not of my nature, therefore I can not make that decision. The same goes with this. Because I am naturally evil since birth and I want nothing to do with God, I’m not going to choose God nor will my evil heart want to. First He must enable me and then I can make the freewill choice to come to Him.

Bible verse?

John 6:44:
“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.

Also, you may look at the example of Pharaoh with Moses (Exodus 4:21). God hardened his heart. It didn’t say that Pharaoh chose to not let God’s people go. It said that God hardened His heart so He would not let His people go. Why? So God could be glorified. God’s in control of everything.

Limited Atonement

The atonement of sins through the sacrifice of the Son Jesus Christ saved only the elect of God.

This probably isn’t the greatest term to use for the subject and I will say that this point was not something I had an easy time agreeing with until it was properly explained to me.

This should probably be called sufficient atonement. Limited atonement just doesn’t sound great and it kind of makes it seem like God doesn’t care about the rest of the world. The sacrifice of Christ was sufficient for all of man. If every man were saved, the sacrifice would be sufficient enough for them. However, here’s where I understood the point.

If Christ died for everyone, then that would have to mean that everyone is saved. We know this isn’t true because scripture tells us that few will find the narrow gate and narrow road (Matt 7:13-14) and that men must repent and believe to be saved (Mark 1:15). So really, it’s not such a horrible idea as it originally sounds. Christ’s sacrifice was sufficient for all of man, but it is only done for those that are/have been/will be saved.

Irresistible Grace

The grace that God gives to man for his election can not be refused.

Why would you resist it? When the grace of God comes on you, it’s too beautiful and amazing to resist. When I was saved (or at least became confident of my salvation), I paced around my room saying “I’m saved!” because I just couldn’t believe why God would love me so much to elect me into His kingdom and desire to use me. When you receive it, it puts you in awe. I will say that once you have received a revelation of Jesus Christ, you will not refuse it. It will drive you to your knees in repentance. It’s beautiful.

There was a period of time before I came to Christ where I guess I was enabled. God had revealed Himself to me and then as time went on, He kept on enduring in me and pressing Himself upon my soul until I came to the point of repentance and faith in Him. This is God’s irresistible grace.

Perseverance  of the Saints

Once man has been saved, they don’t lose their salvation. They are eternally secure in their salvation.

This isn’t really a point for Calvinists. There are many Calvinists that do not agree with this and there are many Arminians who do. My view: I do agree with it.

Ephesians 1:13-14:
13And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, 14who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession—to the praise of his glory.

It’s almost like saying, “Now that I’ve been reborn, I will go back to death and then become the way I used to be.” It just doesn’t make any sense, at least not to me. And how powerful is the work of Christ if I have to keep coming back to it to seek my salvation once again? It almost seems like it’s saying the work of Christ wasn’t good enough to save me and I must be good to be saved if eternal security were not true. According to the Prophet Isaiah, our righteous works are like filthy rags (Isaiah 64:6). We can not do enough good. If our salvation depended on a scale of good and bad things we’ve done, I guarantee you that the bad would weigh down and break the table it sits on.

So that’s my views in a nutshell. I could go into a little more detail probably if I was asked, but I figured I’d just make a post of this stuff. However, I want to stress that this should not cause divisions and quarrels among believers. Our personal convictions should not be added to the word of God. Let love be on the forefront of our minds. Let the Arminian and the Calvinist fellowship with one another. I guarantee you’re not right about everything and neither am I.

I don’t know. I thought I’d make a post on how I came to my theological standpoint. However before I start, I will go back to what I said in earlier posts, these are points that are worth discussing, but should not bring division in the Church. If we can all agree on regeneration and the work of Jesus Christ on the cross, I think that’s enough to bring us together in fellowship. But I have my personal convictions and I wanted to share them a little bit here.

Before, in an earlier post, I said to not call me a Calvinist or Arminian. I said that more to stress fellowship and how we should not be divided over the two sides. I am a Calvinist. And when I say that, I mean that I agree with the 5 points that John Calvin taught. I am not a cessationist like John Calvin was and I’m sure there’s other stuff that he taught that I don’t agree with, but I don’t know because I haven’t read any of his writings. This is just an issue of the 5 points. I don’t take the label of Calvinist to say that I agree with every little thing John Calvin said. In fact, John Wesley, a definite Arminian, is someone who I agree with on a lot of points.

I used to be against Calvinism. I think to the immature Christian, Calvinism seems absolutely ridiculous and doesn’t make sense. However when I opened up and began to study the two views, I came to the conclusion that it was Arminianism that didn’t make sense. Perhaps I didn’t get a clear explanation of it and I’m not saying a mature Christian can’t be an Arminian. However, for me, as I’ve matured my views have shifted.

So anyways, the 5 points of Calvinism use the letters TULIP to spell out the first letters of each point. The 5 points are as follows:

Total Depravity of Man

Since the fall of man in the Garden of Eden, all men are born into sin. All men are naturally evil. Everything they are and do are evil. They hate God (maybe not with their words, but with actions) and they want nothing to do with Him. Their hearts are evil. They deserve the full force wrath of God.

Why do I believe this? In Romans 3:9-18, Paul states it pretty clearly:

9What shall we conclude then? Are we any better? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin. 10As it is written:
“There is no one righteous, not even one;
11there is no one who understands,
no one who seeks God.
12All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.”
13“Their throats are open graves;
their tongues practice deceit.”
“The poison of vipers is on their lips.”
14“Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.”
15“Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16ruin and misery mark their ways,
17and the way of peace they do not know.”
18“There is no fear of God before their eyes.”

To my natural ears, I don’t want to hear that everyone is evil. In fact, some might think that I sound like some fanatic when I say that. But this is not to come from me. Everything we believe has to line up with the word of God. So when I read this, how can I not agree with that? It’s true. Man is evil. We have turned from God completely. And why would we deserve His grace? We don’t. That’s what makes the love of God so amazing. “But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” (Romans 5:8)

Unconditional Election

Because man is naturally evil and wants nothing to do with God, he can not choose for himself to turn to God. God must first enable the sinner to come to Him.

Here’s the one that people attack. Predestination. You may think this one’s crazy. God chooses who He desires to save? Yes. However this does not discount freewill. If I were to say that freewill didn’t exist, then I would be wrong. Freewill exists in scripture. We have freewill. But let me give a visual explanation of what I’m talking about.

I walk to school everyday. However I don’t have to. I could ride the bus, or perhaps get driven by someone. Those are my options. But can I choose to fly? No, of course not. That’s not even an option for me. I don’t have wings. So do I not have freewill because I can’t make the decision to fly to school? No, I do. Flying is not of my nature, therefore I can not make that decision. The same goes with this. Because I am naturally evil since birth and I want nothing to do with God, I’m not going to choose God nor will my evil heart want to. First He must enable me and then I can make the freewill choice to come to Him.

Bible verse?

John 6:44:
“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.

Also, you may look at the example of Pharaoh with Moses (Exodus 4:21). God hardened his heart. It didn’t say that Pharaoh chose to not let God’s people go. It said that God hardened His heart so He would not let His people go. Why? So God could be glorified. God’s in control of everything.

Limited Atonement

The atonement of sins through the sacrifice of the Son Jesus Christ saved only the elect of God.

This probably isn’t the greatest term to use for the subject and I will say that this point was not something I had an easy time agreeing with until it was properly explained to me.

This should probably be called sufficient atonement. Limited atonement just doesn’t sound great and it kind of makes it seem like God doesn’t care about the rest of the world. The sacrifice of Christ was sufficient for all of man. If every man were saved, the sacrifice would be sufficient enough for them. However, here’s where I understood the point.

If Christ died for everyone, then that would have to mean that everyone is saved. We know this isn’t true because scripture tells us that few will find the narrow gate and narrow road (Matt 7:13-14) and that men must repent and believe to be saved (Mark 1:15). So really, it’s not such a horrible idea as it originally sounds. Christ’s sacrifice was sufficient for all of man, but it is only done for those that are/have been/will be saved.

Irresistible Grace

The grace that God gives to man for his election can not be refused.

Why would you resist it? When the grace of God comes on you, it’s too beautiful and amazing to resist. When I was saved (or at least became confident of my salvation), I paced around my room saying “I’m saved!” because I just couldn’t believe why God would love me so much to elect me into His kingdom and desire to use me. When you receive it, it puts you in awe. I will say that once you have received a revelation of Jesus Christ, you will not refuse it. It will drive you to your knees in repentance. It’s beautiful.

There was a period of time before I came to Christ where I guess I was enabled. God had revealed Himself to me and then as time went on, He kept on enduring in me and pressing Himself upon my soul until I came to the point of repentance and faith in Him. This is God’s irresistible grace.

Perseverance  of the Saints

Once man has been saved, they don’t lose their salvation. They are eternally secure in their salvation.

This isn’t really a point for Calvinists. There are many Calvinists that do not agree with this and there are many Arminians who do. My view: I do agree with it.

Ephesians 1:13-14:
13And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, 14who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession—to the praise of his glory.

It’s almost like saying, “Now that I’ve been reborn, I will go back to death and then become the way I used to be.” It just doesn’t make any sense, at least not to me. And how powerful is the work of Christ if I have to keep coming back to it to seek my salvation once again? It almost seems like it’s saying the work of Christ wasn’t good enough to save me and I must be good to be saved if eternal security were not true. According to the Prophet Isaiah, our righteous works are like filthy rags (Isaiah 64:6). We can not do enough good. If our salvation depended on a scale of good and bad things we’ve done, I guarantee you that the bad would weigh down and break the table it sits on.

So that’s my views in a nutshell. I could go into a little more detail probably if I was asked, but I figured I’d just make a post of this stuff. However, I want to stress that this should not cause divisions and quarrels among believers. Our personal convictions should not be added to the word of God. Let love be on the forefront of our minds. Let the Arminian and the Calvinist fellowship with one another. I guarantee you’re not right about everything and neither am I.

While Dispensationalism is all but dead in the academic world, as most academicians affirm that there is one people and one story unfolding throughout the Old and New Testaments, its presence is still very prevalent in many churches among the laity, including reformed churches. In addition to a Dispensational understanding among the laity, there seems to be an attitude, whether Covenantal or Dispensational, that the OT is either irrelevant or simply full of a bunch of random, disconnected stories containing good moral lessons.

Therefore, it is always in my interest to read and find books that I can recommend to others who want help putting the whole story together.

Enter: The Epic of Eden.

With very broad brush strokes, Richter paints for the reader a high-level view of the whole Biblical story, beginning in Eden and ending in the second Eden, the (re)newed heavens and earth, focusing on the triplet: God’s people, in God’s place, enjoying God’s presence.

She relates her messy and unorganized closet in her home to how most of us approach the OT: random facts and stories that are all unrelated to one another–messy and unorganized. So, with a broad overview, she seeks to “straighten up” everyone’s “closet” by highlighting the five major characters of the OT: Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, and David and the respective covenants that God makes with each of them.

This is a good book that serves as an introduction to understanding the ebb and flow of redemptive history. One minor caution: Richter is an Arminian in her theology, so there are a few times where her Arminian theology comes out (e.g. – a reference to prevenient grace but without mentioning the term itself).

If you want to move on to a more in depth study of the covenants and grand redemptive story, while still being highly readable and user-friendly, I would recommend Michael Williams’ Far as the Curse is Found.

I also just noticed that T. Desmond Alexander has a new book out, From Eden to the New Jerusalem, that touches on the same theme as Richter and Williams:

So according to the Calvinistic understanding of the Total Depravity of humanity, every person is completely and full deserving of going to hell right from the very start of their life, and it is only by the goodness and mercy of God that He does not send everyone to hell the very moment they are born.

However, the vast majority of Calvinists that I have heard speak or write on this issue, proclaim that all infants go to heaven. Although, there are some Calvinists that remain tight-lipped on the issue and do not affirm or deny the heavenly destination of infants.

InThe Reformed Doctrine of Predestination by Loraine Boettner, we read:

Certainly there is nothing in the Calvinistic system which would prevent us from believing this [that infants who die are predestinated to salvation]; and until it is proven that God could not predestinate to eternal life all those whom He is pleased to call in infancy we may be permitted to hold this view.

But the question has to be asked, why would God show His grace and mercy to all infants if He does not do the same with all adults?  I mean, are not all infants (according to Calvinism) equally as deserving of hell as everyone else is?

The only way I could see a Calvinist being consistent in saying that God gives His grace to all infants would be by saying that God also gives His grace to all non-infants. However, I can’t say that I know many universalist Calvinists.

Sure, it sounds all good from the Calvinistic perspective that God would show His grace to infants. I mean, after all, no one wants to be told that their child may be in hell right now if God did not choose to predestinate him/her to salvation.

But, in my opinion, consistent Calvinism would affirm that God predestinates only some infants to salvation and passes over the rest to damnation. Calvinist theology doesn’t have an adequate explanation for why God would predestinate all infants to salvation but not everyone else. The only reason I  can see is, as the expression goes, wanting “to have one’s cake and eat it too.”

Here’s a Halloween joke for your kids to use:

If the Calvinist’s flower is a tulip, what is the Arminian’s flower?

A daisy (He loves me, He loves me not; He loves me, He loves me not).

HT: rap

So how was church yesterday?    If you’re like the majority of Evangelicals in North America (and increasingly, the UK) it probably went down something like this:

• you were casually dressed
• there was an opportunity to have coffee either before or after the service, or in some cases, during the service
• either at the outset, or part-way through the service your kids were dismissed to enjoy their own worship “experience” in a kid-friendly “environment”
• you sang a number of modern worship choruses, perhaps with a hymn or two added for flavor
• your pastor — equally casually dressed — preached a message from a topical series he is working through with key points and texts projected on a large screen at the front
  
• after the service you had a couple of brief conversations with people from your small group who you will see later in the week at someone’s home

Such is Christian worship in 2009.

But now you’re sitting at your computer and you’re surfing for some good Christian blogs to read, but finding yourself in a kind of spiritual twilight zone.     The people you’re reading — in many cases anyway — don’t look or talk like the people you meet on Sunday mornings. You ask yourself, “Why can’t I find a blog by someone online who looks like me?”  So you keep searching.

Why is this?

It’s largely because the Christian internet is dominated by a number of people who have a particular axe to grind.    Once you’ve been doing this for awhile, you’ll recognize them — “By their links ye shall know them” — but until then, here’s a primer on what you’re finding on your computer screen…

Militant Calvinist Soldiers

There’s nothing objectively wrong with being Calvinist.   Most people are either Calvinist or Arminian in terms of their core doctrines, so you’re going to end up as more one or the other eventually.   The problem is that these people are consuming vast amounts of bandwidth engaging all kinds of deep debates which, while they might prove valuable in terms of Bible study on obscure points of doctrine, no one can remember how they got started.

The other problem is that they tend to use the word “Calvinism” or “Calvinist” ten times more often than they use words like “Christian” or “Jesus.”    Or worse, they use words like “Monergism.”   Believe me, if you think you’re coming down with a case of Monergism, you might want to get it checked.

Personally, I want my ticket to Eternity to be based on Christ’s finished work on the cross for my sin, and not that I stood for a particular organization, denomination or doctrine; or that I could recite all the proof-texts for a particular viewpoint.

King James Onlyites

Somewhere along the line, the joy of their salvation got sucked out and replaced with a mission:  That all Bibles everywhere on earth be eliminated save for their one copy of the King James Version in black leather.   With a red ribbon marker.   And a zipper.

Which, is fine if that’s what you like.   Goodness knows one part of my Zondervan Bible software is still set up to do keyword searches in good ol’ KJV, though it displays the results in something more readable.    But Onlyites aren’t allowed to have preferences.   They have to spiritualize everything, and if they can’t find enough external evidence supporting the supremacy of one particular translation, then they make stuff up.

Never get in an argument with these people because there is nothing — absolutely nothing — you can say that will sway them.   Yea, verily, their mind hath been firmly fix-ed, neither shall anyone dissuade them.  Thus spake I.

The Law and The Gospel Litigists

The fact is, we’re all sinners in God’s eyes.   We’ve all missed the mark in various ways at various times.   Our attempts at righteousness are as far from “pure white” as the paint rags I used during our last kitchen reno.   So yes, nobody is going to get on God’s heaven registration list just by trying to live a good life and be a good person.

On the other hand, this approach, as true as it is,  while it works well if you’re doing somewhat random “witnessing” to strangers, is about as far from lifestyle evangelism as you want to be; especially with friends, neighbors, relatives, co-workers, fellow-students, etc., that you want to see cross the line of faith over the long-term.   Plus, at least you’ve earned the right to be heard, instead of spouting volcanic eruptions of guilt and condemnation.

So while it’s true that there aren’t many roads to God, there are many ways to introduce someone to Jesus.   L&G people tend to get upset if you’re not doing it their way, or winning as many people as they are, or feel called to do street ministry.

Discernmentalists

Years ago, a rather cool guy named Walter Martin figured out that with all the cults and “isms” out there, it would be good for someone to track the beliefs of different writers and organizations whose beliefs bear a strong external similarity to Christianity, but also hold to other ideas that are somewhat off the wall.   He started what is often called a discernment ministry.

With some of the excesses sometimes found in the Charismatic movement, that investigation started hitting closer to home.   Which may be justified.   Especially when you have a research staff documenting everything so that your end product isn’t just a load of innuendo and veiled accusations.

Today however, it seems like there is a Walter Martin wannabe around every corner.   And they don’t trust anyone under 40.   Which means they can — and probably will — show up at your church on Sunday morning and nitpick over the use of words and phrases and pronounce you apostate, cultic or — even worse — Emergent.     (Note:  Emergents who quote Charles Spurgeon and Jonathan Edwards totally confuse them.)   And you don’t want to know their views on music.

Sermon Scribes

These people never actually blog anything original but simply cut and paste vast amounts of sermon texts, often completely omitting to include anything resembling paragraph breaks.

Like the Hindu temple priests who believe there’s something in the incense that rises up to God,  these Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V bloggers believe that there’s something of value in posting these vast and usually impossible-to-follow sermons online, that apparently can only be perceived by God Himself and other Sermon Scribe bloggers.

Personally, I’ll take a podcast over text.   You get the inflection of the speaker who, if they are tech-savvy enough to post a podcast, usually has a communication style that’s less 1910 and more 2010.   Plus you get the audio equivalent of paragraph breaks:  Deep breaths.

Ecclesiastical Elite

There are some good leadership blogs out there.   I even link to some of them in my blogroll.  But if you’re a new Christian, you need to know these aren’t for you so much as they’re for pastors to communicate with other pastors.

Frankly, pastors have different issues than the rest of us.   They live in a world that is vocationally as far removed from you are as the east is from the west.  They work odd hours.  They drink a lot of coffee.  They read books that even the staff at your local Christian bookstore don’t know how to find.

I have great respect for these men, and 99.44% of them are men.   But their blogs should exist on some kind of private blogging network that only other pastors can access.   One of my favorites is actually not on my blogroll for just that reason.    I started thinking about how frustrated and confused I would be if he were my pastor.    It’s good stuff, it’s just not good for everyone.

Conference Crowd

Some people think the big money to be made off Christianity these days is in running conferences and seminars.    I disagree.   The big money is actually in the airline business and the hotel business.   And those lanyard name tag things.

This crowd devotes at least 66.7% of the blog postings in anticipation of a forthcoming conference and another 66.7% coming down from the conference high.   The remaining 66.7% is spent live blogging from the conference itself.   (Hey, it’s arithmatic license, okay?)

There is an saying among modern Evangelicals:  “Send a man to a conference and you’ve recharged his spiritual batteries for a day.  Teach him how to organize and run his own conference and you’ve kept him run off his feet for life.”

Narcissistic Marketers

With this category, we’ll end this this theme, and since you’ve all been patient enough to get this far, you can read more about this in my latest book, which, while you’re ordering it online, you can actually pre-order my next book which is coming out next month.

Plus, we just got in a skid of my first book, and if you’re interested in buying these in case lots (only 72 copies to a case) to give away to all your friends, we can ship them to you free freight if you order them by Friday.   Christmas is coming, and you don’t want to be without a gift to give that unenlightened pagan who lives next door.

Also below you’ll find a link to my latest video promoting all four of my books, plus a PayPal donation button if you really enjoy the great insights I post here daily.   On the sidebar, you’ll also find a link to a story about me in the New York Times and a picture of me receiving CBA Book-of-the-year in the category “Christian non-fiction miscellaneous;” as well as all the details of our “Holy Land of the West” 14-day tour of Wheaton, Illinois (with optional day trips to Barrington, Elgin and a two-day side trip to Minneapolis, Minnesota.)  Did I mention my book?

Well can I remember the manner in which I learned the Doctrines of Grace in a single instant. Born as all of us are by nature, an ‘Arminian,’ I still believed the old things I had heard continually from the pulpit, and did not see the Grace of God. When I was coming to Christ, I thought I was doing it all myself, and though I sought the Lord earnestly, I had no idea the Lord was seeking me. I do not think the young convert is at first aware of this. I can recall the very day and hour when first I received these truths in my own soul–when they were, as John Bunyan says, burnt into my heart as with a hot iron: I can recollect how I felt that I had grown all a sudden from a babe into a man–that I had made progress in Scriptural knowledge, through having found, once for all, the clue to the truth of God. One weeknight when I was sitting in the house of God, I was not thinking much about the preacher’s sermon, for I did not believe it. The thought struck me: ‘How did you come to be a Christian?’–I sought the Lord. ‘But how did you come to seek the Lord?’–The truth flashed across my mind in a moment–I should not have sought Him unless there had been some previous influence in my mind to make me seek Him. I prayed, thought I, but then I asked myself: ‘How came I to pray?’–I was induced to pray by reading the Scriptures. I did read them; but what led me to do so? Then, in a moment, I saw that God was at the bottom of it all, and that He was the Author of my faith. It was then the whole doctrine of Grace opened up to me, and from that doctrine I have not departed to this day, and I desire to make it my constant confession. I ascribe my change wholly to God. – by Charles H. Spurgeon

from the Reformation to the Beginning of the Reign of King George I, by Thomas Crosby.

I have just started to read the above titled book – well, at least the first volume anyway. This title is made up of four volumes, all of which are over 500 pages in length. I have also started to add the work to my web site at:

 http://particularbaptist.com 

The original work (Volume 1) was first published in 1738 and includes some old English, which in the version I am placing on my web site, I have tried to update without changing the overall sense and flow of the text.

It is generally understood that Crosby deals with a mix of both the Particular Baptists and General Baptists, or if you prefer, the Calvinistic Baptists and the Arminian Baptists.

To follow my progress and to read the book, visit:

http://particularbaptist.com/library/Crossby-Thomas_Vol1_HistoryEnglishBaptists_contents.html

In my previous post, here, I gave a brief overview of my relationship with Calvinism.

I figured I would write some more on it, specifically, what I think of John 6 and its meaning. However, I do not expect this to convince anyone that the Calvinistic interpretation of this passage is wrong.

Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.  (36) But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe.  (37) All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.  (38) For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me.  (39) And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day.  (40) For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”  (41) So the Jews grumbled about him, because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.”  (42) They said, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?”  (43) Jesus answered them, “Do not grumble among yourselves.  (44) No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.  (45) It is written in the Prophets, ‘And they will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me–  (46) not that anyone has seen the Father except he who is from God; he has seen the Father.

I am assuming that the reader already knows why Calvinists believe this passage supports their belief, and so will skip giving an explanation of the Calvinistic understanding of this passage.

So verse 37 says, “All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.” I would agree with what Jesus says here, that all the Father gives to Jesus will come to Jesus. Additionally, I see “come to” as synonymous with “believe in.”

However, what is the reason the Father gives certain people to the Son? Is it because “God has mercy on whom He has mercy” as per the Calvinistic thinking?

I do not think so. I think the reason that the Father gives certain people to the Son is because they have already accepted the Father. And I think Jesus gives this exact same reason Himself in verse 45, “Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me.”

Whoever rejects the Son does not do so because God has not elected them in the Calvinistic sense, but rather, they reject the Son because they reject the Father. If they believed in the Father then they would believe in the visible “image of the invisible God.” (Col 1:15) It is just as Jesus said, “If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I came from God and I am here.” (John 842)

The following is a quote from Robert Hamiton’s “The Order of Faith and Election in John’s Gospel: You do not belong because you are not My Sheep.“

The crux of my argument will be that the set of individuals who are said by Jesus to ‘belong’ to God as Christ’s ‘sheep,’ to ‘listen to the Father and learn from him,’ and to be ‘given’ by the Father to the Son, refers not to a pretemporally determined set of elect persons as conceived of in the Calvinist Reformed view, but instead primarily to the faithful sons of Abraham who were God’s children under the covenant as it was revealed in the Old Testament, and who were already prepared by their voluntary faith and repentance to embrace the promised Messiah at the time of his long-awaited appearance to the nation of Israel.

In other words, the flock that belonged to the invisible God the Father were then given to the visible image of the Father, that is, given to Jesus. Those who had heard and learned from the Father were His, and He gave them to the Son.

I see nothing in this text that demands the tenets of Calvinism. But again, I do not expect to change anyones mind.

When I first encountered Calvinism it was at the hands of a non-Calvinist teacher whom I had high regard for. This teacher was responsible for bringing me out of the quagmire of dispensationalism and the pre-trib rapture, so I believed that he was probably right about the issue of Calvinism too. Now I know that unfortunately he did not entirely accurately present the Reformed position. However, this seems to be a standard for many non-Calvinists arguing against Calvinism (just take the popular books of Geisler and Hunt on Calvinism as an example of misrepresenting Calvinism).

I had decided that Calvinism was just a horrid doctrine and I couldn’t believe that so many Christians adhered to it with a passion as if it actually glorified God!

However, eventually I came across the Christian apologetics ministry of James White at AOMin. After reading his articles and watching his youtube videos on Mormonism, Catholicism, Islam, etc, I finally decided that I might as well watch his videos dealing with Calvinism. After watching the videos my interest was thoroughly piqued, which started a long study of Calvinism. I read some of the oldies like Spurgeon, Edwards, Calvin, and some of the contemporaries like Piper and Sproul on the issue. And I supplemented this with reading a whole archive of articles at monergism.com

I got to the point where I 99% believed that Calvinism was correct in its understanding of God’s sovereignty in salvation, but I could never cross that final threshold of being absolutely completely positive that Calvinism was true.

Calvinism appealed to me for mainly two reasons. The first is that I thought it did the best job of interpreting what the Bible taught about salvation (obviously). The second reason being that it seemed like the Biblical answer to the shallowness of todays western Christianity. It turned the gospel from being about God existing to serve me into that all of creation rather exists to glorify God. That was what I was after, and Calvinism was the theological system that delivered it to me (or so I thought).

I dropped the topic for a while and started studying other issues. But eventually I started talking about Calvinism and related issues with an open-theist friend of mine. Now, I don’t subscribe to open theism, but having those discussions made me to start think outside the box and reconsider the false dichotomies that were a part of what made Calvinism appear Biblical to me.

Eventually I completely abandoned Calvinism. The only obstacle I had was John 6, but then once the light turned on in my head on how that passage does not equate to Calvinism, I was able to throw off the remaining vestiges of the Calvinistic system. I don’t necessarily completely agree with Arminianism, but for lack of a better word, I am Arminian in my belief of God’s sovereignty in salvation.

I saw a YouTube video the other day with the great modern-day preacher Paul Washer (his sermons on YouTube are awesome). He asserted that Calvinism is not the issue and I would have to agree with him. However, there are some people, on both sides of the fence, who practically condemn you to the pits of hell because of whether you accept or reject the tenets of Calvinism.

I will post some more thoughts on Calvinism in the future when I have time. I am thinking I will give my thoughts on what I think of such Calvinist proof texts as John 6. I know that I will not convince anyone though!

Ray Vander Laan recently reminded me, via a recording of a teaching session, that it would not be very wise to call the Old Testament by that name in conversation with a person of the Jewish faith. For the Jew, our “Old Testament” is the Tanakh. Using the term “Old Testament” would be tantamount to asserting that the New Testament is the new and improved one, which of course we essentially believe, but in the assertion we would lose our credibility in the Jewish ear.

I related Vander Laan’s well-placed reminder to my aversion to the term “Reformed.” I prefer “Calvinist,” for the latter label ascribes the doctrines to one of the key thinkers and founders of so-called Reformed theology. Using the term “Reformed” is tantamount to asserting that non-Reformed theology is obsolete and in need of reformation–in the ways in which the Arminian and Calvinist systems differ, anyway. I reject that assertion, and someone who speaks glowingly and glibly of Reformed theology is likely to lose his credibility in my ear.

“Reformed” may be relatively new, but it is not tantamount to an overall improvement, to my way of thinking. The pure New Covenant is just that–new and improved. It seems to me that God communicated that pretty clearly through the One and Only Son (e.g., in the “Sermon on the Mount” and in the letter to the Hebrews).

I already made a post on this topic. Basically, what I think about this debate is that it’s no reason to divide in the Church. I believe there are many misconceptions of Calvinism and I think there are a lot of people that call themselves one or the other but don’t even know what that means.

I have more of a passion to argue against division over the issue than to actually argue my point of view. Who cares? Yeah, we should be following our convictions and seeking truth, but understand that people on both sides can be saved. This morning, it just came to me how important it is that the thief next to Jesus was saved. I think of it as necessary to be written in the Gospel accounts. Why? It shows us why we are truly saved. All the man could do at that point was repent and believe as we’re told and he was saved right then and there. He wasn’t baptized. He probably had a lot of messed up views theologically, but he repented and he believed and that’s all that mattered for him to receive a promise that he would be with Jesus in paradise.

I think we should really look at this. Where is our focus? Look at the essential topics. Salvation. There should be nothing added or taken away from that. If we can agree on the fact that salvation is only dependent on the grace of our God through His Son and nothing else could save us, then why do we divide?

I have no problem with debates and discussions, but if love is not in there and it turns into quarrels, gossip, and slander, then the real problem is not the issue that is being debated, but the way the people are acting about it.

Don’t call me Calvinist or Arminian. I’m not going to limit myself to one man’s interpretation of scripture. I read the scriptures, receive teaching from others, test it to the scriptures, and then believe what God says. I have my opinions and beliefs, but if I label myself, I believe there will be more assumptions and misconceptions than discussions and nothing will be accomplished. Let’s not act like the Corinthians did and follow men, but let us be one body that follows Christ and is simply focused on the building up and edifying of each other in love.

…and other chronic worriers

This is the third installment in my attempt to do a little blog spotting.  It’s brief—just a couple of serious links, and one video for comic relief.  Enjoy.

Do you ever find yourself worried about various conspiracy theories, the increasing prospect of Christian persecution, legal rights abridgments, the political direction of our country, the great tribulation and assorted other dangers, both real and perceived?  The truth is, fear and worry can plague any of us.  Dan at Cerulean Sanctum offers us a gentle rebuke.

Not a Faith of Fear

Here’s a post by a Calvinist, for Calvinists—or more specifically, for Calvinists who are overly alarmed by (and too often harsh toward) our Arminian brothers and sisters.

Calvinists, Let’s Calm Down

And speaking of Calvinists, here’s the comic relief.  It’s been around a while, but I still think it’s funny.

]]> http://jamespruch.wordpress.com/2009/09/26/conversation-between-a-calvinist-and-an-arminia/ Sat, 26 Sep 2009 12:07:19 +0000 james http://jamespruch.wordpress.com/2009/09/26/conversation-between-a-calvinist-and-an-arminia/

This is from John Piper’s post earlier this week about how Charles Simeon, a Calvinist, tried to reason with John Wesley, an Arminian, about the supremacy of God in the salvation and perseverance of Christians.  I have adapted it to contemporary language.

So you call yourself an Arminian. People call me a Calvinist; and therefore we are supposed to argue about finer points of theology. But before we start fighting, may I ask you a few questions? Do you think that you are a depraved person, so depraved, in fact, that you would have never turned to God if God had not put it in your heart first?

Yes, I do indeed

And do you reject your coming to God with your works as the source of your righteousness, and look for salvation solely through the blood and righteousness of Christ?

Yes, solely through Christ.

And since you were at first saved by Christ, do you try to continue to be saved by something other than him?

No, I must be saved by Christ from first to last.

Since then you were first saved by the grace of God, do you need to keep yourself saved by your own power?

No.

Are you to be upheld every hour and every moment by God, just like a baby in his mother’s arms?

Yes, altogether.

And is all your hope in the grace and mercy of God to preserve you so that you will be able enter into his kingdom?

Yes, I have no hope but in Him.

Then, let me say, my friend, that this is what Calvinism is. This is election and justification by faith, and perseverance. This is really all there is to it and nothing else. Therefore, instead of searching for differences in language and definitions and having that be a source of contention between us, can we please be united in these things that we agree on?

Obviously, there is a lot more in Reformed theology than just this, but I think Simeon’s point is to show that “Arminians” and “Calvinists” have more in common than they think.  Furthermore, I think that Simeon may have tried to show the inconsistencies in Arminian thought.

How do you think the conversation would have gone if Wesley had asked the questions?

2 Samuel 7:14

“14 I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son. When he commits iniquity,​I will discipline him with the rod of men, with the stripes of the sons of men, 15 but my steadfast love will not depart from him …”

In my daily reading, I came across this passage. It’s amazing. There is so much Biblical doctrine contained in these two sentences that it just about blows me away. While it specifically deals with David and the covenant that God made with him, it has far reaching implications that we should be aware of and incorporate into our Christian walk.

Too often, people view their relationship with God in terms of performance. “I did what I shouldn’t do,” or, “I didn’t do what I should do” are common themes around which we center our prayers and by which we gauge our relationship to God. While I would never try to promote the idea that sin has no effect on that relationship, I would offer someone hope. Hope that, when we sin, we are not cast out.

If anyone is worried by that last statement, don’t be. I am (as far as I can tell) a classical Arminian, believing that sin erodes our faith (Hebrews 3:12, 13) and that without faith, it is impossible to please God (Hebrews 11:6). So please don’t think that I am endorsing a cheap Grace that encourages sin. To do so would be foolish and would have me be condemned by Scripture (Jude 4). But I believe we too often think our relationship with Jesus is as fragile as a relationship between friends.

To be sure, Jesus is a friend to us. He is a friend of sinners (Luke 7:34), which is a good thing because all have sinned (Romans 3:23), but that’s not all He is. We forget that it is by Him that we receive the Spirit of adoption (Romans 8:15) by which God becomes our Father in a true, familial sense.

We are the sons (and daughters) of God (1 John 3:1) and, as such, we enjoy a place of favor with God. Just as a man may treat his own children differently than those who are not his children, God treats us differently. This verse (2 Samuel 7:14) shows us exactly how God deals with His children. Having established that we can be and are the children of God, I want to look at a couple points:

1. “When he commits iniquity”: This is not a contingent phrase. God does not speak to David in terms of whether or not he will someday commit iniquity. Remember, this is four chapters before we even read the name Bathsheba. But God is speaking of a certain future event. Is this an excuse for sin? No. But it does let us know that God sees our failures long before we commit them. (That’s one of the cool things about being omniscient and eternal). Since God sees them down the road, He is not taken by surprise. He knows that we will struggle with sin until we have been made incorruptible (1 Corinthians 15:54), and He sympathizes with us as our great High Priest (Hebrews 4:15). God knows our weaknesses and He knows our limitations. He will not allow us to be tempted beyond what we are able to bear, and He will make an escape (1 Corinthians 10:13), but He also knows that our flesh is weak and that we will at times fail. But when we fail, we are to get back up (Micah 7:8)
2. “I will discipline him”: God is speaking of His treatment of David after he has sinned. This may be one of the most unpleasant parts of being a Christian. Discipline. With the level of creature comfort we currently enjoy, any amount of discomfort is too often seen as a punishment at best, and a violation of our “rights” at worst. Sadly, this ideology has slipped into the church. A blessed life is a comfortable life; and an uncomfortable life is a cursed life. That is the current paradigm. But is that what the Bible says? No. God searches our heart and brings to light our “hidden purposes” (1 Corinthians 4:5). As a result of this search, God disciplines us (Hebrews 12:5-11). This is where we get uneasy. It’s uncomfortable. It’s hard. It’s harsh. We don’t like it. And too often, we think that it shows that God has rejected us. This is not the case at all.
3. “My steadfast love will not depart”: Perhaps one of the most incredible truths of the Bible. God loves sinful humanity. He loved us when we were enemies to Him. He loved us then just as much as He loves us now. There is no wavering or dimming in His love for us. We are loved. The most common word used by Christians when talking about this idea is “mercy”. The KJV says “my mercy will not depart”. The ideas are synonymous. Jesus reaches for us when we sin today JUST AS MUCH as He did when we were lost and separated from Him. Christians are not perfect people. It’s time that we realize that. In fact, the Bible says that as we walk in the light (openly, honestly) as He is in the light (openly, honestly), we have fellowship with one another and the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us (1 John 1:7). This is not a one-time thing. We walk openly and honestly before God. Don’t hide our sins, faults, failures, or whatever other word you want to use from God, and He CLEANSES (progressively, in the present and continuing into the future) us from ALL sin. This is reiterated when John says that when we confess, He is faithful and just to forgive us (1 John 1:9)!

When we sin, God disciplines us, but He does not throw us out of the house and disown His children. God deals with His children with discipline rather than divorce. When we are disciplined, we need to humble ourselves. God knows best. Jesus knows what He is doing. His discipline is meant to draw you to Him. And if you will come to Him (progressively, continuing into the future), He will NOT cast you out (John 6:37).

Another excellent article.  This is from the Classical Arminianism blog.  You can find the original post here.

——————————————————————————————————————-

THE DEMISE OF THE CHURCH: THE CHURCH’S LOVE AFFAIR WITH MODERNITY

The apostle Paul wrote: “I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some” (1 Cor. 9:22 NASB, emphasis added). Many modern Christians have taken this for support of their particular manner in presenting the gospel, even when the means employed appear either as ethically suspect or are clearly unbiblical or immoral. But was Paul trying to convey the idea that Christians, in an effort to reach people for Jesus Christ, should use whatever means imaginable to capture the sinner’s attention?

Paul also admitted, “I do all things for the sake of the gospel, so that I may become a fellow partaker of it” (1 Cor. 9:23 NASB). His motive was rooted in the gospel, not shock value. And since his motive was grounded in the gospel itself, the means he used had to correlate with the holiness of the gospel. The following syllogism will suffice:

1. The gospel is holy.

2. Christians use means in proclaiming the gospel.

3. The means Christians use in proclaiming the gospel must be holy.

Notice the means which Paul used to reach the lost: he became a servant to all men (1 Cor. 9:19); he revealed himself as a Jew to the Jews (9:20) ~ remember that Paul was a Jew; to the Jewish leaders still under the law he revealed himself as one who keeps the law (9:20); to the Gentiles who did not have God’s law he revealed himself as one who was under the grace of God (9:21) ~ remember that all believers are under grace; to the weak he was weak (9:22). He related to people in their social structures in order to reach them for Christ Jesus, but he did so without compromising the integrity of the holiness of the gospel.

In our effort to reach the lost, the Church today has compromised the gospel by appealing to base, unethical, and immoral means to attract people’s attention. For example, Christian nudist camps are an immoral means for proclaiming the gospel. Nudity, in Scripture, is condemned as shameful (Rev. 3:18, in principle) and thus is not a proper means for proclaiming the gospel.

I have news for you friend: God does not need your tactics in order to reach the lost. The power of God is in the gospel (Rom. 1:16). Preach that and you have given God something with which to work. All methods which hinder the gospel are idols of this age ~ a veritable “whoring after the spirit of the age.” Thomas Oden explains:

Evangelicals are currently in a prodigal mood to buy into modernity. But there is a simple reason why this is wrong: in market terms, it is the folly of buying high and selling low. Every sophomore economics major knows the simple axiom ~ buy stocks low, sell them high. The reverse ~ buying high and selling low ~ is a recipe for bankruptcy, whether in money or ideas. But those who whore after the spirit of the age can easily lose perspective. Like stock brokers in a frenzied panic, many evangelicals are blinded to the difference between a bull and bear market of ideas. Buying into modernity is a risky investment; indeed it may bring us to a Black Monday loss. Many will be left with an empty portfolio.1

Oden explains that the spiritual bankruptcy that the Church is facing and experiencing currently is due to its infatuation with modernity. He quips that “modernity itself is bankrupt.”2 Therefore, when a minister of the gospel uses the bankrupt ideology of modernity, what else can be expected but a bankrupt return? Chasing after the spirit of any age inevitably drains one of the Spirit of the Ages (the Holy Spirit of God). When one chases after the wind, one can only inherit wind. But one can never capture the wind; it captures him. You cannot influence the wind; but it can influence you.

The way that Christians have chased after every new fad that modernity has offered is a reflection of her spirituality (or lack thereof). Even within Christendom there have been fads. Need I remind you of the Prayer of Jabez? Or how about the rather current “devotional” craze? Have you visited some Christian bookstores lately? There are shelves upon shelves of Christian devotionals (as though reading three paragraphs of spiritual jargon every morning has anything to do with being devoted to Jesus Christ). These same Christian bookstores are barren in theology because theology does not sell. Christian devotionals can be marketed. The latest Chris Tomlin or Jeremy Camp cd can be marketed. Those God-awful “Christian” tee-shirts can be marketed. Even Jesus can be marketed. But theology does not sell.

It is difficult to admit it, and it is even more difficult to witness it, but the Church today is existential, pragmatic, and narcissistic. And the worse thing about this is that most Christians do not even know it (many even now are grabbing for their dictionaries). Most Christians have absolutely no idea what biblical hermeneutics are, let alone what exegesis is. But I can guarantee you that many of them know what Oprah’s show was about four days ago. Even in the debate between Calvinism and Arminianism, these same people misrepresent and misunderstand both sides of the argument because they simply do not care about theology. And they do not care about theology because it actually takes time to learn it ~ time that they are unwilling to spend. After all, Dr. Phil is on. They do not have the time (and especially the interest) to study the Bible, let alone theology.

I cannot think of anything more relevant than the gospel. It affects every area of the lives of everyone. Perhaps the reason why so many Christians try to attract sinners into their churches by means of pizza or entertainment is because they do not believe the gospel. Paul wrote: “For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes” (Rom. 1:16). Since all people need God’s salvation, and nothing could be more relevant, one would think that the Christian’s main concern would be in proclaiming the gospel rather than spending so much time on luring people into church on Sunday to hear the gospel (assuming that one’s pastor actually preaches the gospel).

People do not have to go to church to hear the gospel (though they certainly should hear the gospel should they visit a church). Each Christian is a missionary. Each Christian is a preacher. Each Christian is to share the gospel. We burden our pastors with the commission to preach the gospel to sinners when he has been commissioned by God to equip believers to spread the gospel (Eph. 4:11-13). But now, under the spell of the spirit of modernity, the Church needs clowns in her parking lots in order to attract sinners. The Church needs wrestlers and skaters and celebrities in order to promote the gospel. And if pizza is not offered in a youth service, how else can lost teens be reached?

Here is a novel idea: try preaching the unadulterated gospel. Pizza may fill the stomach. Clowns may tickle the stomach. And we all know people whose god is their stomach (Phil. 3:19). But only those who hunger and thirst for righteousness shall be filled (Matt. 5:6). And since no one naturally craves the righteousness of Christ (1 Cor. 2:6-14), and since only the Spirit of God (John 16:8-11) and the gospel (Rom. 1:16; cf. Acts 4:12) can reach the lost sinner (Rom. 10:14-17), then every single one of us (Christians) must proclaim the gospel.

We would have much more success if we spent more time in proclaiming the gospel than in inventing new and shocking ways to promote it. When such time and effort is spent in the latter, it leads me to believe that the Christian has either forgotten or does not believe in the power of the gospel (or in the power of God for that matter). Paul instructed the young pastor Timothy: “preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction” (2 Tim. 4:2 NASB). We are to proclaim the Word of God because there is saving power in that Word (Heb. 4:12).

But for Timothy’s and our own age, Paul also prophesied: “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths” (2 Tim. 4:3-4 NASB). Even so, what are we to do? Paul added: “But you, keep your head [i.e. be clear-minded] in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry” (2 Tim. 4:5 NIV).

If all the world, and even the Church, is headed in the wrong direction, Paul instructs us (in principle through young Timothy) to remain clear-minded and to do what is right. If you think that you cannot reach lost people without compromising your integrity, then I promise you that the problem lies not in the gospel but with you. God knows how to save lost sinners. He does not need your compromised method(s) in doing so. Arminius writes:

Indeed, we assert that whatsoever relates to the doctrine of truth [cf. John 17:17] is so perfectly comprehended in the Scriptures that all those things which are brought either directly or indirectly against this truth are capable of being refuted in a manner the clearest and most satisfactory from the Scriptures themselves alone. This asseveration [dogmatic statement] we make with such solemnity and yet assurance of mind that as soon as anything has been proved not to be contained in the Scriptures, from this very circumstance we infer that thing not to be necessary to salvation . . . .3

God’s word is not only powerful (Heb. 4:12) but it is also faithful (Titus 1:9) in accomplishing its purpose. What God asks of you, dear Christian, is to be a faithful witness (Rev. 2:10) of the gospel, not an entertainer, and not a shock-jock. Just preach the Word.

1 Thomas C. Oden, “On Not Whoring after the Spirit of the Age,” in No God But God, eds. Os Guinness and John Seel (Chicago: Moody Press, 1992), 191.

2 Ibid., 192.

3 James Arminius, “Twenty-Five Public Disputations: Disputation II. On the Sufficiency and Perfection of the Holy Scriptures in Opposition to Traditions,” inThe Works of Arminius, Vol. II, trans. James Nichols (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1986), 102-03.

Buy our Namesake for only $14 Bucks…for the next 140 Hours

IT’S ON SALE FOR $14.00 BUCKS!

FROM WIKI :

The Book of Concord or Concordia (1580) is the historic doctrinal standard of the Lutheran Church, consisting of ten credal documents recognized as authoritative in Lutheranism since the 16th century. They are also known as the symbolical books of the Evangelical Lutheran Church.^[1]

The Book of Concord was published in German on June 25, 1580 in Dresden, the fiftieth anniversary of the presentation of the Augsburg Confession to Emperor Charles V at the Diet of Augsburg. The authoritative Latin edition was published in 1584 in Leipzig.

Those who accept it as their doctrinal standard recognize it to be a faithful exposition of the Holy Scriptures. The Holy Scriptures are set forth in the Book of Concord to be the sole, divine source and norm of all Christian doctrine.^[2]

//

Origin and Contents

The Book of Concord was compiled by Jakob Andreae and Martin Chemnitz at the behest of their rulers, who desired an end to the religious controversies in their territories that arose among Lutherans after the death of Martin Luther in 1546.^[3] It was intended to replace German territorial collections of doctrinal statements, known as corpora doctrinæ (bodies of doctrine) like the Corpus doctrinæ Philippicum or Misnicum.^[4] The list of writings predating the Formula of Concord that would be included in the Book of Concord are listed and described in the “Rule and Norm” section of the Formula.^[5]

Following the preface written by Andreae and Chemnitz (1578-80)^[6] the “Three Ecumenical Creeds” were placed at the beginning in order to show the identity of Lutheran teaching with that of the ancient Christian church.^[7] These creeds were the Apostles’ Creed, Nicene Creed, and Athanasian Creed, which were formulated before the East-West Schism of 1054, but the Nicene Creed is the western version containing the filioque.

The other documents come from the earliest years of the Lutheran Reformation (1529–77). They are the Augsburg Confession, the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, both by Philipp Melanchthon, the Small and Large Catechisms of Martin Luther, his Smalcald Articles, Melanchthon’s Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope, and the Formula of Concord, which was composed shortly before the publishing of the Book of Concord and intended for the same purpose: the pacification and unification of the growing Lutheran movement. The preface of The Book of Concord was considered to be the preface of the Formula of Concord as well.^[8]

The Augsburg Confession has singular importance

as the unanimous consensus and exposition of our Christian faith, particularly against the false worship, idolatry, and superstition of the papacy and against other sects, and as the symbol of our time, the first and unaltered Augsburg Confession, which was delivered to Emperor Charles V at Augsburg during the great Diet in the year 1530 …^[9]

A recent book on Lutheranism asserts, “To this day … the Augsburg Confession … remains the basic definition of what it means to be a ‘Lutheran.’”^[10]The Apology, the Smalcald Articles, the Treatise, and the Formula of Concord explain, defend, or serve as addenda to The Augsburg Confession.^[11]

Contents

• Preface (1579)
• The Three Ecumenical Creeds
  • The Apostles’ Creed
  • The Nicene Creed
  • The Athanasian Creed
• The Augsburg Confession of 1530
• The Apology of the Augsburg Confession (1531)
• The Smalcald Articles of Martin Luther (1537)
• Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope (1537)
• The Small Catechism of Martin Luther (1529)
  • Luther’s Marriage Booklet (1529) and Baptism Booklet (1526) were included as part of the Small Catechism in some 1580 editions of the German Book of Concord^[12]
• The Large Catechism of Martin Luther (1529)
• Epitome of the Formula of Concord (1577)
• The Solid or Thorough Declaration of the Formula of Concord (1577).
  • The Catalog of Testimonies was added as an appendix in some 1580 editions.

God is sovereign in all things, including the salvation of man. “…Salvation is of the LORD.” (Jonah 2:9) It is right for this fact to be held in high regard, and for it to be taught as doctrine. However, I’m just sayin’, the truth of God’s sovereignty does not require an attack on the truth of man’s responsibility.

A word to the wise: Be careful about pointing out, in certain circles, God’s gracious empowering of man’s will. In fact, be careful about where you even dare to say that man has a will. Be prepared, in certain theological enclaves, to be called everything from Arminian to antinomian to semi-Pelagian (whatever those mean).

I understand that people are physically born into this world dead in sins and trespasses, and that, if they are “born again” (born spiritually into the family of God by His grace through faith in Jesus), they are not saved solely by their own wise choice. But, I’m just sayin’, Christians are called to preach. And the preaching of the Gospel means calling on men to “do” something. (If you listen closely you can hear the gasping, the clicking of keyboards, and the whirring of automated spell-checkers on the words “monergism” and “synergism” as I say this.)

Chances are you will eventually run across someone involved in “internet discernment ministry” one of these days. If you do, then you will quickly become familiar with some of their favorite phrases:

“Gospel reductionism”
“Death to the Sinner’s Prayer!”
“The damnable altar call”
“Decisional idolatry”
“Decisional regeneration”
“Decisionism” (They’ve really got a hatred for the word “decision.”)
and
“Don’t ask Jesus into your heart”

The fact is, the Bible is where we learn about the truth of God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility, and finite minds can never fully grasp the wondrous and astounding relationship of the two working together perfectly.

In the novel, True Grit, by Charles Portis, the main character, Mattie Ross, has a lawyer named J. Noble Daggett. When Mattie feels as if she’s being treated unfairly, she is quick to bring up Mr. Daggett’s name, and to threaten legal action. Two of the other characters, finally having had enough of this, complain, “Lawyer Daggett again! She draws him like a gun.”

Those in internet discernment ministries have their own versions of Lawyer Daggett, whom they also draw like guns in response to Bible verses that show that men do have a “will,” and that they do make “decisions.” The most common of these guns are John MacArthur, Paul Washer, James White, and A.W. Pink, but there are others. One lady who didn’t like me saying that the Apostles called for a response when they preached, finally just resorted to cutting and pasting sections of Matthew Henry’s commentary! No offense to these gentlemen, who, I am sure, are/were fine Biblical scholars, but when a pithy quote from a reformed theologian meets a Bible Verse, the Bible Verse is always going to win. I’m just sayin’.

The Bible teaches election. It’s just all over the Bible. That’s not the question. The question is just what does the Bible mean by election. Is the Calvinistic sense of the word right? Is the Arminian sense right? Or is something else right?

As of this typing, I’ve not quite made up my mind. Rather than me thinking I have the answer and then trying to teach the answer, these posts will be my investigation into the question. I may contradict my earlier writings and wind up agreeing with the Calvinists. Or I may decide it’s too hard to figure out. I don’t know. But I’m going to poke around the scriptures to see if I can figure out just what they say.

And it seems that the natural place to begin is Romans 9 – 11. This contains several central proof texts of Calvinist theology. But these chapters also contain some of the central proof texts for Church of Christ theology. That’s got to be interesting, right?

Now, the purpose of these posts is not to beat on Calvinism. The goal here is to demonstrate a better approach to hermeneutics and to see what we can learn from the scriptures. And it’s to try to do some serious exegesis at this blog.

For years, nearly all my Bible class teaching was verse-by-verse, but lately, I’ve gone a different direction. And my posts show it. There are very few verse-by-verse studies. And yet for most of my adult life, that’s been my bread and butter!

The only way I know to teach how to study the Bible is verse-by-verse, that is, the way it was written. So I figure it’s time to see if I still remember how — and demonstrate the approach.

And one of the toughest passages in all the Bible is Romans 9 – 11. I’ve always wanted to take the time to figure it out. Surely, God meant to be understood! And if we see it as hard, we must be asking the wrong questions or else using the wrong methods. Or maybe some of both.

The following was taken from a conversation that I had with a friend of mine, on facebook.com. I have respectfully left his name out of the post so as not to cause any issues between he and I. I’m posting it here because I know the people that read this blog and would like your contribution to this argument. Please feel free to ask questions, post comments or just tell me what a loser I am for wasting time on this stuff. I’m open.

Friend –
let’s start with John 3, vs 16 – 21.
God so loved the world…
…but to save the world through Him….

my mind is open and ready to question, go!

Me –
“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God.” (John 3:16-21; NASB)

Sorry I didn’t respond quicker. I’ve been swamped at school this week and haven’t been able to get on.

Okay. Wow. This passage is gonna take a while. I’m probably gonna have to take this one verse at a time, but I will be faithful to the immediate context, John’s intent in writing what he wrote and the overall context of Scripture.

Let’s start with what the passage doesn’t teach before we get into what it does teach.

1) The passage does not teach universalism.
There is a specific group of people that are designated as those who will partake in eternal life; “whoever believes”. This limits the effect of the atonement. The question then becomes, “Who is limiting the atonement?” Those who don’t believe or God Himself? We will address that.

2) The main purpose of the passage is not to teach a Calvinistic understanding of Limited or Definite Atonement.
For a Calvinist to approach this scripture passage with the intent of extracting the Calvinist view of the atonement would be an intellectually dishonest way to approach Scripture. The faithful expositor must approach Scripture with the expressed desire to discover the “intended” message of the author. Nothing more.

3) Though the passage does not overtly teach the Calvinistic understanding of atonement it doesn’t do it damage, either.
This will not be the main focus of my argument, but I will spend a little time, in the beginning explaining how I have arrived at this conclusion so that we are on equal footing.

4) The main purpose of the passage is not to teach an Arminian understanding of Limited Universal Atonement (that is, atonement that is universally available, but limited to those who “of their own will” choose to believe).
I will spend a little time on this as well.

5) The main purpose of the passage is not to overtly deny the Arminian view of the atonement.
Arminianism and universalism were not systematized doctrines in the first century, so we would be foolish to say that Jesus, in this passage, is “responding to the fallacious arguments of John Wesley”. However, as we will discuss, the passage does teach a “limited” view of atonement. Our main purpose, which I also think was one of Jesus’ purposes, will be to determine whom is limiting the atonement.

Friend –
ok, I appreciate that you are establishing parameters for the basis of this study but you may move on. I am not a baby in Christianity, or it’s history, theology, doctrines, etc. and all of the perspective provided above is glaringly obvious. I know a true Calvinist, just as a true Arminian, is trying to see the truth in the scripture, not twist it., I also know that the Calvinist perspective is that this passage does not teach universal atonement, otherwise we wouldn’t be having this discussion. I also know that Jesus was not responding to John Wesley, give me a break. ;-p

please, continue, but unless you truly desire to define everything you are going to speak on, there is no need, I do not desire a message on Calvinism, I already have studied the perspective and know the history of it as much as Arminianism, I desire a conversation on these verses.

Me –
I’m not trying to lecture you. Though you may not feel that stating our premises before discussing our conclusions is important, it helps me to sort out my thoughts as well as to let you know where I’m coming from. I want to be faithful to Scripture. This takes time. Therefore, I implore you to be patient with me.

There were two fragments of Scripture that you mentioned earlier. I’m assuming that you want to deal squarely with them and not do an exhaustive on all six verses. So, let’s get into them…

“For God so loved the world…”

This poses a major question. Does God love all human beings that have ever existed, currently exist and will ever exist? The short answer; No. There are many texts that answer this question directly (Psalm 5:5; 11:5; Jeremiah 12:8; Hosea 9:15; Malachi 1:3; Romans 9:13). There are people whom God hates. The Bible does not say anywhere that God hates sin, but loves (universally) sinners.

So, why would Jesus say this; “God so loved the world”? There are many hypothetical answers. The best answer, however, is… We don’t know. I am more inclined to believe that He said it to clear up any misunderstanding in the previous dialogue. What do I mean by that?

Jesus is talking to Nicodemus, a Pharisee. The Pharisees were real good at studying Scripture and leaning heavily on the parts that made them look better in the eyes of their contemporaries, but not so much with the passages that didn’t. Therefore, when Jesus said that He would be lifted up as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, the natural inclination of Nicodemus would have been to think in terms of the implications that this would have on national Israel while disgarding the implications that it would have on the nations as a whole.

A really interesting bit of trivia that I have come across in my personal Bible study time is the fact that the term “Gentiles” is often substituted for the term “nations” when New Testament authors are quoting passages from the Septuagint. So every promise that God gives regarding blessing the nations through Abraham’s Seed and bringing salvation to the nations would have been rendered, in the Septuagint, as blessings and salvation for the Gentiles. This is scandalous for the first century Pharisee.

This use of the term “world” is perhaps a way of dealing with this highly probable bias on Nicodemus’ part. I’m not dogmatic about this interpretation. Therefore, I’ll lean on my earlier answer to the question of why Jesus picks the term “world”; “We don’t know”. What we do know is that, based on systematic evidence from the rest of Scripture, God does not love every human being without exception.

“But that the world might be saved through Him.”

The term “might” here does add some friction for the Calvinist’s argument. At first glimpse it could leave the door open to the possibility of a universal intent for the atonement, but a limited extent for the atonement. The problem, however, with the systematic doctrine of universal intent / limited extent is that it pits the Persons of the Trinity squarely against One Another.

The logic goes like this:
God intended for all to be saved.
The Holy Spirit calls all to be saved.
Jesus only saves some.

In stark contrast to this, Jesus said, “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out.” (John 6:37)

Notice that Jesus says that those that the Father gives “will” come to Him. There is unity within the Trinity throughout the entire process of salvation.

So, why is this term “might” here? Short answer… I don’t know. John doesn’t give any commentary on it. What we do know is that those who are saved, Jesus follows, “[practice] the truth [come] to the Light, so that [their] deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God.” Notice that the deeds of the believer are being credited to God. This is where you and I have some agreement. We both hold to a certain degree of belief in perseverance of the saints.

Where we disagree is just where this perseverence starts. I would say that all of a persons deeds, even the deeds which lead to justification (repentance and faith) are to be encompassed in this verse. What does this have to do with the term “might” being used by Jesus? The “might” makes the salvation conditional. Based on the context the condition, I believe, is that the person is given grace to repent and believe.

Friend –
I agree with everything you said.

I think this is why I have come to the conclusion that they both must be true (and why it is also ok if we disagree on this) While there may be extensive evidence leaning towards Calvinism over Arminianism, the mights and I don’t knows that in turn can be explained in Arminianism (in which their mights and I don’t knows are then in the areas where Calvinism is firm) is a clue to me that Calvinism is still not the whole of the truth. He did say ‘world’ for a reason and ‘might’ for a reason and it is only our limited understanding of the character of God, not the fallibility of scripture, that makes us ponder as to why. We can guess at this and that forever but the truth is scripture doesn’t give us the answer.

I see a comprehensive understanding of both arguments necessary in developing a Christian doctrinal worldview, but not a decision that only one is true.

In the end, as I said before, after my research I lean more towards Calvinism than Arminianism, but cannot conclude that Arminianism is wrong.

ie I know that the trinity is not in disagreement, but he did say ‘world,’ and ‘might…’ so, 1500 years of human research over Godly words continue to spring up a mystery.

Psalm 131

after 1500 years of debate I do not see this a a cop-out from this 27 year old, but a admittance of intellectual frailty and a submittance to intellectual superiority. Will I continue my study on these, of course, as my relationship with God grows my understanding of Him will grow as well and in turn a desire to understand more, the cycle will never end and I hope it stays that way.

ps, I meant no offense in my previous message, I hope none was taken.

I’ll start off by saying that I personally would consider myself Calvinist (I am not a cessationist though). I think it is often misunderstood. Here is a great article on it: http://www.jesussaidfollowme.org/calvinismarminianism.htm

Here is an article on Hyper-Calvinism which is very dangerous and I think is what people often mistake Calvinism for (written by the same author): http://www.jesussaidfollowme.org/hypercalvinism.htm

However, that is not the point of this article. I am writing this to explain why both Calvinists and Arminians should be able to fellowship with one another and be united as one. I believe both are part of the Body of Christ.

Who is our leader? Jesus is supposed to be our leader. And yet we’ve exalted men as our ultimate leaders and claimed that anyone who denies what a man has taught is not of God. However, what is really happening is that they are not of that man you look to as your leader. This problem has arose in the Church before in Corinth. In 1 Corinthian 1:10-17, Paul states to the Church:

¹⁰ I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought. ¹¹ My brothers and sisters, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. 12 What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas ”; still another, “I follow Christ.” My brothers and sisters, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you.

¹³ Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul? ¹⁴ I thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, ¹⁵ so no one can say that you were baptized into my name. ¹⁶ (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don’t remember if I baptized anyone else.) ¹⁷ For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with wisdom and eloquence, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

The people were divided among their leaders. This is not of God. Christ is our leader.

2 Timothy 2:23-24:
²³ Don’t have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels. ²⁴ And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful.

It is all a very stupid thing to argue about. Whether we agree whether or not the reason we are brought to salvation and in what way, it does not change the fact that we are saved. Both sides believe that all must be born again (regeneration), therefore this simply an argument of how we are saved but not of the very act of it. In that, I see no reason that it should cause division of the Church.

And to those that think of themselves better than the other or higher, even if you are, you have no right to judge those who do not have as much understanding as you. No where in scripture does it say you will be saved only if you understand every single thing in the word of God. In fact, I can confidently say that we will never fully understand everything of God because we are finite creatures and He is infinite. Let those of more knowledge and wisdom guide and lead the babes in Christ, not spend their days arguing with them. For you who spend your time arguing with them and dividing yourself from them are also babes in Christ because you do not understand that we are one body of believers serving one leader: Jesus.

1 Corinthians 3:1-9
¹ Brothers and sisters, I could not address you as spiritual but as worldly—mere infants in Christ. ² I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready. ³ You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere human beings? ⁴ For when one says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,” are you not mere human beings?

⁵ What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe—as the Lord has assigned to each his task. ⁶ I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God has been making it grow. ⁷ So neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow. ⁸ The one who plants and the one who waters have one purpose, and they will each be rewarded according to their own labor. ⁹ For we are God’s co-workers; you are God’s field, God’s building.

The divisive are warned:

Titus 3:9-11
⁹ But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless. ¹⁰ Warn divisive people once, and then warn them a second time. After that, have nothing to do with them. ¹¹ You may be sure that such people are warped and sinful; they are self-condemned.

Also read Romans 14.

There is much unneeded division over this issue and I am against it.