TIPTOE-ING THROUGH (AND AROUND AND ON RARE OCCASSIONS ON) THE TULIPS, PART 3 OF 3: THOUGHTS TO CONSIDER

Calvinist Charles Simeon on left, Arminian John Wesley on right.

Just three installments on Calvinism vs. Arminianism? True, the blogs are long, but is this doing the subject justice? 

Consider: My purpose is not to promote one theology over the other, because both are held by godly but imperfect men who have searched the Scripture. Rather, my goal is to help us realize that the other side of the debate is NOT the enemy. I believe the time is coming that we'll find ourselves sharing a jail cell with believers who differ in theology but share our love and devotion for Christ; thus, we need to encourage each other, not try to win an argument.

So allow me to give several bullet points of things to think about.

1. WHAT MODEL OF CAR WAS THAT?

    One of my college classmates was in a car wreck, so two other friends asked his roommate (interestingly, Tom Cousins, who introduced me to Calvinism vs. Arminianism) the important question: what make was the car? One thought it was one kind of car, and the other thought it was a different kind. Cousins laughed, and said it was a custom car, with the front end being one make and the back the other. In other words, both were right, but not completely.

    I've heard some use the argument, "We can both be wrong, but we both can't be right." Usually, they mean, "I believe I'm right, but I know you're wrong;" they really don't consider that I'm right and they're wrong as a possiblility. But they've missed two other options: 1) That neither is wrong, like my friends and the wrecked car, and 2) In eternity, it doesn't really matter who's right: We're to love one another.

2. ARE MY IDIOSYNCRASIES PREDESTINED?

    Remember the days when Baskins and Robbins was known as 31 flavors? Each month they had a selection of 31 varieties of Ice Cream, Sherbet, and Ices, and, of course, chocolate, strawberry, and vanilla. Do you know how many possibilities to mix and match for getting a two dip cone? I do: Five hundred ninety five! So how many choices do I have? Would you believe 10? On a good month, it might be 15, and a great month it would be 21!

    I'm sure you're scratching your head, since there are more flavors (31, and of course, chocolate, strawberry, and vanilla) than the largest number I gave. And why did I give three exact numbers? Well, let me explain.

    Before I walk in the store and get the list of 31 (and of course, chocolate, strawberry, and vanilla), I've mentally discarded any option with chocolate, strawberry and vanilla: I can get those anyplace! Plus, I know I won't be limiting myself to one flavor. Then I pick up the list and usually I find five flavors that interest me, which cuts it down to ten choices! On a good month I might have six attention grabbing flavors (15 choices), and maybe even seven (21 choices).

    Of course, just because I quickly eliminated 585 choices for me doesn't mean the guy behind me will choose two scoops of chocolate. It is just me; it's the way I'm made. But did I make myself that way? Let's look at Psalm 33:15-"He fashions their hearts individually, He considers (or understands) all their works."

    To the topic I'm dealing with, is it possible that those who are drawn to the Gospel are drawn because God fashioned their hearts to be drawn?

3. IS GOD THE MASTER SCRIPT WRITER OR THE MASTER CHESS PLAYER?

    I'll be honest. I shake my head in disbelief with the Calvinists who say that if God is sovereign, we can't have free will - even libertarian free will. 

    I'm impressed with the script writer who can work magic in story telling, but not as much as the chess player who watches you move and sees the next ten moves on both sides, allowing you to think you're making a great move as you're falling right into his trap. If God is sovereign as well as omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, He is fully capable of allowing free will without worrying about how it affects His plans.

4. IS THERE A THIRD CHOICE BESIDES FREE WILL AND PREDESTINATION?

    I believe there is: Granted free will. God allows us to make a choice between options He in His sovereignty has chosen. We're not the ones who make the list of what we can do - God imposed His sovereign limits to our choices, and maybe He's comfortable enough to let us decide between two or more choices.

    Let me take it a step further. Total depravity (believed by Calvinists and Classic Arminians) says we're not able to obey God until the Spirit draws us. Both sides also believe we have free will after salvation - does God predestine His children to disobey Him? The Arminian believes that when the Spirit draws us, He gives us the ability to obey His call, in addition to the ability to disobey we're born with. Is the Calvinist saying that when the Spirit draws us, He both gives us the ability to obey and takes away the ability to disobey, and then a second later, restores the ability to disobey that as believer we don't really want?

5. IS IT POSSIBLE BOTH ARMINIANS AND CALVINISTS OVERESTIMATE FREE WILL AS EITHER A RIGHT WE HAVE OR AS A BOGEYMAN FALSE GOSPEL?

    But first a question: Do you remember who did a '70's hit called "Best of My Love?" I believe it's by a group that starts with an 'E'? I really liked that song. Okay, back to the topic at hand.

    How much free will do we have in reality? Do you chose your first name, middle name, last name, nationality, birth gender, hair color, eye color, skin color, place you grow up in, your parents, your siblings, or your grade school teachers? Does your free will ever get defeated by the free will of opposing sports teams and political parties or criminals? How is your free will helping get low gas prices or picking up every item you want at the grocery store or your favorite menu item at your restaurant?

    One thing that makes me cringe are the "We have a free will/God's a perfect gentleman and won't violate our free will." I'm sure Saul of Tarsus would say an amen to that. What? He won't? 

    I mentioned in the previous point the concept of Granted Free Will. The reality is that any free will we have is given by God. It's not a natural commodity. God's will WILL be done. 

    Oh, you're wondering why I asked about "Best of My Love?" You're telling me that was the classic song by the Eagles? No way. That song's totally depressing. The one I enjoy is upbeat. Oh, I remember. I'm thinking of the disco song by the Emotions. Same title, same era, performed by groups starting with the letter "E". And totally different songs.

    Guess what, Calvinists who claim free will is a false gospel? When I hear people talk about free will, I hear two songs as different as the Eagles and Emotions songs. When some people say "free will", they mean "self-sovereignty," and I'm with the Calvinists on how wrong they are. But other times, "free will" is better seen as human responsibility, and that type of Free will has less chance of being a false gospel as the Indiana Pacers have of winning the Super Bowl. (For the sports challenged, the Pacers will NEVER will a Super Bowl, since they're a basketball team.)

6. WHILE DISCUSSING POSSIBILITIES, COULD BOTH CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM HAVE THEIR PLACE IN THIS WORLD?

    Here's a thought I have. If witnessing to someone who believes he's the captain of his own ship, shouldn't we point out to him he isn't, and that God is sovereign over every area of his life? Likewise, when dealing with a secular pre-determinist who denies free will, would it be important to tell him that God holds him responsible for every decision he makes?

7. CAN WE "HONOR ALL MEN" (1 PET. 2:17) BY NOT CREATING CARICATURES NOT BASED ON REALITY?

    I'll admit I see more of this from Calvinists than the other way around, but I have no doubt Arminians can be guilty of this as well. I saw one Calvinist quote Hebrews 7:25 - "Therefore He is able to save to the uttermost those who come to Christ through Him," then claim that Arminians and two Arminian groups don't believe in the "through Him." At that time, I was in the Society of Evangelical Arminians, and asked them if they agreed with that characterizaton. The response was an unanimous NO!!!

    Another oft-used argument is Calvinists claim Arminians believe we have to give God permission to save us. Is that true? Probably with the more semi-pelagian territory. However, I disagree. God gives us invitational imperatives: "Come and let us reason together" (Isa. 1:18); "If you're thirsty, come to the water" (Isa. 55:1); Come all that are weary and heavyChar laden" (Matt. 11:28). "Come" is both an invitation but also a command. If we obey and come, He saves us. If we disobey the command and don't come, then we face the consequences of disobedience.

    Allow me to wrap this long but hopefully thought provoking blog with this story.

    One of my heroes of the faith is Charles Simeon, for several reasons, including the story I'm sharing which I first read in Warren Wiersbe's 50 People Every Christian Should Know: Learning from Spiritual Giants of the Faith; John Piper also mentioned it in a blog. Below is an account of a conversation between Charles Simeon and John Wesley, thanks to Simeon's biographer Handley Carr Glyn Moule (pp.79ff). Allow me to write it as a script so it's easier to follow.

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

Wesley:  Yes, I do indeed.

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

Wesley:  Yes, solely through Christ.

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

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

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

Wesley:  No. 

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

Wesley:  Yes, altogether.  

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

Wesley:  Yes, I have no hope but in Him. 

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

Why can't we have more conversations with each other like this on the topic of Calvinism and Arminianism?

 

TIPTOE-ING THROUGH (AND AROUND AND ON RARE OCCASSIONS ON) THE TULIPS, PART 2 OF 3 - BECOMING A "NOTA"

 

"Wesley/Watts Concert, Oct. 4, 1738" On that day, pastors/hymn writers Calvinist Isaac Watts and Arminians Charles and John Wesley conversed for an hour, then walked, sang, and conversed for another hour.

 

One unforgettable moment on-line was when on one post in a group one person stated, "Free will is a false gospel!" and another responded, "The Five Points of Calvinism are a false gospel!" So what did I do? I stood up to both bullies, because those two bozos were attacking my brothers and sisters in Christ, some of which are Calvinists, some are Arminians, and some don't identify as either, such as...

Actually, that leads me back to the student apartment I was in with Tom Cousins (in those days, my alma mater's men's dorm was one bedroom apartments with four occupants each). I told you he handed me the list of the five points of Arminianism and Calvinism, but I never told where I stood. (Review - the Arminian points were written first, and both sets following the death of John Calvin and Jacob Arminius.)

At that moment, I considered myself a 2.5 point Calvinist. I agreed completely with points 1 and 5 (respectively Total Depravity and Perseverance of the Saints). Like most of the faculty of the school, which I'm guessing were 4 point Calvinists, I did not agree with point 3 (Limited Atonement). However, I considered point 4 (Irresistible Grace) to be saying the same thing in different ways. Point 2 (Unconditional Election) was one I struggled with. I agreed with the concept of election: after all, that is clearly in Scripture. But the wording of that view made me uncomfortable, and I couldn't articulate why. 

As I stated in the previous installment, that was not a major part of my Christian life for years, until I moved into Indianapolis. True, I dealt with the related subject of the security of the believer, but the issue of how free-will and God's Sovereignty relate. However, since moving to the home of the 500, I've had several things influence my thinking. Here is a list of books and radio programs that caught my attention:

1. Listening to Grace To You (John MacArthur) and Renewing Your Mind (R.C. Sproul. I was familiar with MacArthur, though not in soteriology (doctrine of salvation), and had read some of his books. I had never heard of Sproul before. While these did not make a major impact, it got my mind thinking on the subject.
   
2. God's Lesser Glory: The Diminished God of Open Theism by Bruce Ware. Open Theism is a belief that denies true omni-science on God's part. While the main topic is theology, Ware introduced me to two concepts in the spectrum of soteriology: compatible free-will and Molina's middle knowledge. Again, this is more mind-expanding than mind-changing.
3. C. S. Lewis & Francis Schaeffer: Lessons for a New Century from the Most Influential Apologists of Our Time by Scott R. Burson and Jerry L. Walls. This book compared the theology and apologetics of Arminian Lewis and Schaeffer. Both authors lectured on Lewis and seemed to be more in agreement with him, and yet this book made me more of a Schaeffer fan. (Note - I had the honor of hearing Schaeffer speak.)
4. Four Views On Eternal Security (Zondervan's Counterpoint series). This book had four authors represent different views on eternal security - identified as Classic Calvinism (Michael Horton), Moderate Calvinism (Norman Geisler), Reformed Arminianism (Stephen Ashby) and Wesleyan Arminianism (J. Steven Harper) - with the proponents presenting the view and the other three responding. Before reading this book, I considered the views to fit neatly in a line with the two ends being the extremes of Calvinism and Arminianism and everything else being in between. This one-dimensional view was shattered - I see the debate now in a plain, not a line.
   
5. What Love Is This? Calvinism's Misrepresentation of God by David Hunt. Hunt wrote this book when people mentioned Sunday School teachers who tried to convince everybody Calvinism was the true gospel. I told you that I had thought the second point was Unmerited Favor; this book corrected that mistake. Now, I do not consider this book to say Calvinism is a false gospel like the person I mentioned above. He mentioned he had Calvinist  While I would not call myself Arminian, this book moved me to temporarily considering myself a non-Calvinist rather than a 2.5 pointer.
6. On-line Pages and groups "Reformed Thug Life", "Depraved Wretch", and "Arminian Memes Daily." I discovered and was blessed by the former two groups, but I realized I was getting just one side of theology, so I joined the third. I learned it would have better been called "Anti-Calvinist Memes Daily." Not what I needed. 
7. Arminian Theology: Realities and Myths by Roger Olsen. At this point, most of my knowledge of what Arminianism was came from Calvinists. So I decided to try to learn how Arminians describe themselves. This book was a big help. It seems he wrote it not to convert Calvinists into being Arminian, but rather to show that Arminianism belongs in the sphere of orthodox Christian thought as Calvinists do. He considered the views of Charles Finney and the latter Remonstrants not to be the classic Arminianism of Arminius, Wesley, and the early Remonstrants but more semi-Pelagianism. Olsen states classic Arminianism agreed with Calvinists on Total Depravity and that originally there was no definite position on security of the believer (meaning you can be a pro-eternal security Arminian). Finally, he also stated that while both Calvinists and Arminians are believers, they are different enough in belief that you can't be a hybrid (e.g. a Calminian); he allowed for a "neither" or not knowing what you are.
8. Jacob Arminius: The Man From Oudewater by Rustin Brian. A continuation of knowing what Arminianism really is. Did you know that Arminius lost his father early in life and a friend mentored him and sent him to school under Theodore Beza? How about that while he was at school Oudewater declared itself a Protestant town and thus Catholic mercenaries attacked, raping and killing the inhabitants (including Arminius' mother and siblings)? Was that evil carnage predestined by God or the depraved free will of evil men? That was the foundation of Arminianism.

So where does that leave me? Well, I never identified as an Arminian, though there was a time my theology would have made me Arminian. I'm probably still a 2.5 pointer. But I do feel God's Sovereignty is an important issue.

Another fact is that I believe most Calvinists and most Arminians are men who love God, believe the Bible is His Word, search the Scriptures, but still see through a glass dimly and as imperfect people this side of heaven are not perfect in theology. Same with any other debate between Christians. 

So now I consider myself a NOTA - None Of The Above. That absolves me of having to figure it all out - God never asked me to. Psalm 131 says, "Neither do I concern myself with great matters Nor with things to profound for me;" the free will/predestination debate falls into that category. In addition, it leaves me free to defend my fellow believers who are attacked, as mentioned above.

This does not prevent me from having thoughts on the subject. So there will be a part 3 of this series.

 

SUNDAY HYMNS, PART 6 OF 22: I WANT A PRINCIPLE WITHIN

Living Word Bible Church, Indianapolis; on sign: "Understanding the Bible. Independent, Non-Denominational, Dispensational."

I want a principle within Of watchful, godly fear,

A sensibility of sin, A pain to feel it near.

Help me the first approach to feel Of pride or wrong desire;

To catch the wandering of my will, And quench the kindling fire.

From Thee that I no more may stray, No more Thy goodness grieve,

Grant me the filial awe, I pray, The tender conscience give.

Quick as the apple of an eye, O God, my conscience make!

Awake my soul when sin is nigh, And keep it still awake.

Almighty God of truth and love, To me Thy power impart;

The burden from my soul remove, The hardness from my heart.

O may the least omission pain My reawakened soul,

And drive me to that grace again, Which makes the wounded whole.

NOTES ON THIS HYMN:

• The words were written by my favorite hymn lyrist, Charles Wesley (brother and co-founder of the Methodist Church of John Wesley).
• The meter of this hymn is Common Meter Double (8,6,8,6,8,6,8,6). Becky and I are not familiar with the tune associated with it, so we sing it to the tune of other songs, such as "Faith Is The Victory," "My Faith Has Found A Resting Place (No Other Plea)," "I Sing The Mighty Power Of God," and "It Came Upon A Midnight Clear."
• I knew some of Wesley's hymns have more verses than are normally printed - for example, "O For A Thousand Tongues To Sing," has 5 verses in the hymnal I'm most familiar with, 9 on Cyber Hymnal's page, and originally over twenty (with what we consider the first verse being actually the sixth or seventh verse) - so I looked on Cyber Hymnal of a pair of Wesley songs that had three verses each: this one and "Soldiers of Christ, Arise!" The total number of verses for this song? Three! For "Soldiers of Christ?" Sixteen. 
• As I was setting the date for this hymn, I realized it's 9-11. I'm following the planned format, of putting the first 16 songs in alphabetic order by title, and I'm sticking to it. But doesn't this song reflect spiritually the vigilance September 11th motivated us to have?
  

BOOK REVIEW - ASSIST ME TO PROCLAIM: THE LIFE AND HYMNS OF CHARLES WESLEY BY JOHN R. TYSON (HYMNISTS PART 2 OF 2)

 

Who is Charles Wesley? You may know him as the younger brother of founder of the Methodist Church (though some, including the author consider the brothers co-founders, while I've read one person that said George Whitefield was the founder but left the movement to the Wesleys to keep from dividing the movement). You may be a little more familiar with Charles than you think, though: he wrote thousand of hymns including "O For A Thousand Tongues To Sing" (where the author took his title from), "Hark! The Herald Angels Sing!", "Come Thou Long Expected Jesus," and "And Can It Be That I Should Gain."

There are some biographies that seem a little deep and that I need to work through. This one is an example. It is basically chronological,but the chapters deal with various topics, such as the controversy with Calvinism, Wesley's marriage and family, the persecution endured by the Church of England and how the brothers disagreed about remaining a part of the Church of England.

Charles Wesley and Isaac Watts are probably the best known hymn writers, and it was interesting comparing the two. (The library also has a biography on Watt: Isaac Watts: His Life And Thoughts by Graham Benyon - excellent book.) The chapter on Wesley's poetry compares the styles of writing. Also, both Charles Wesley and Watts were both preachers as well as hymn writers. Likewise, both wrote the words to the songs but not the music. Another interesting note - both John R. Tyson in this book and Benyon wrote on the subjects of their doctoral dissertations.

How familiar are you with Charles Wesley? Do you have a favorite hymn that he wrote?

ALONE AGAINST THE WORLD? - A LOOK AT ATHANASIUS OF ALEXANDRIA

 When I started reading Getting To Know The Church Fathers: An Evangelical Introduction by Bryan Litfin, I already had a pair of favorite Church Fathers. In both cases, Litfin confirmed my positive impression. One was Tertullian, who we looked at three days ago. The other is Athanasius.

Before I look at my hero, though, let me paint the picture. The second edition of this book has 12 chapters, and we've now entered the second half. However, the game is completely changed. At least four of the six were ushered into eternity by a cruel pagan Roman government; we don't know about the other two, but even if they weren't martyrs, their lives were touched by persecution. 

But then, a game-changer took place. The Emperor who was set out to exterminate Christianity was replaced by a successor who at least gave lip service to being a Christian. Clergy men who physically bore the marks of the Great Persecution of Diocletian (e.g. missing eyes, lack of use of hands) were a few years later dining as honored guests of Constantine.

Was Constantine a hero, a villain, or merely an important figure in Church History? Good question, but do you see his name mentioned in the title of this blog? Do you see an artist's representation of him above? No? That's because the focus is on Athansius.

As said, the above artwork is an artist's impression, as it is with all the other church fathers. I gave up trying to find photos or videos of them. In the case of Athanasius, the artist seemed to be unaware of his nickname, "The Black Dwarf." Would Denzel Washington or Morgan Freeman be a good actor to play him? Maybe, but they might be too tall. 

Of course, heroes stand out more when you have a villain, and in this case it was a gentleman named Arius. The area of disagreement? Whether Jesus was God Incarnate or a lesser, created being. Minor topic? Not to Athanasius. Rather, the "Black Dwarf" considered Christ's deity to be crucial in our salvation. 

Constantine called a council at Nicea to resolve this issue, which was when he dined with the bishops as I mentioned above. The overwhelming number of bishops agreed with the Nicean Creed, ex-communicating and condemning Arius. (Some have suggested one of the bishops - St. Nicholas, no less - punched Arius in the nose; Litfin considers this to be a legend that probably didn't happen.) And thus, Arianism was defeated.

Guess again. One thing I've noticed about false teaching is that when proven to be in error, the false teachers regroup and try again to get acceptance of their views. This happened here. Constantine's idea of the Council was to come to a conclusion, have the two sides shake hands, and get along. Thus, the Arians managed to get Constantine to be more conciliatory, and when Athanasius would not re-instate Arius, the Emperor exiled him. In fact, Athanasius was exiled a total of five times by three different Caesars. In fact, while Constantine was apparently neutral, his successor Constantius was pro-Arian, and the heresy grew (even though Arius himself passed on due to an explosive intestinal disorder).

However, Athanasius was no more likely to cave in than the Arians. He fought long and hard for Trinitariansm, even if he seemed to be fightin alone. Almost 1500 years later, John Wesley urged William Wiberforce to keep his fight against slavery going, as Athanasius contrta mundum (Athanasius against the world). 

He wasn't alone. Athanasius had help from a trio of church fathers known as the Three Capodocians (Gregory of Naziananzus, Basil of Caesarea, and Gregory of Nyssa). Then, pro-Nicene Theodosius became Caesar and convened the Great Council of Constantinople which affirmed Trinitarianism as orthodoxy (though Athanasius had passed on eight years before then).

Litfin has interesting ways of comparing the church fathers with other people. He likened Tertullian to a stubborn cowboy. In the case of Athanasius, Litfin used the story of Hans Brinker keeping his finger in the dike to illustrate how the "Black Dwarf" stemmed the flood of Arianism.

Do you have the same zeal to stand up against false teaching, even if it's you against the world?