Hi Jeff,

Thank you for your kind words, and being late is absolutely fine :-) I never did receive a response from Dan or Chris, no.

I was wondering – did Dan or Chris ever reply to any of this? It’s been 6 years, I wonder if anything has changed.

Thank you!

Amazing! Romans 9 was the crossroads for me as well and began my journey to discover the eternal truths of God’s sovereign grace.

Hi Joel, nice to run into you here. :)

Although you are correct that I left soon after I posted the thread on Pelagianism, etc., the ultimate reason for my resignation was due to disagreement on the Gospel. They vehemently oppose what is known as “lordship salvation”, which of course is nothing short of the Gospel according to Jesus Christ. Some also make a distinction between a believer and a disciple, when in fact every believer IS a disciple.

I think it is safe to say that anyone who rejects what is known as “lordship salvation”, which in essence is the biblical truth that we surrender our lives to the Lord Jesus Christ (Luke 9:23 etc), would be considered unorthodox according to what Daniel has presented here. This unorthodox view of Scripture leads one to believe practical/progressive sanctification does not necessarily follow justification. They might believe that as long as you “ask Jesus into your heart and are sincere” you are saved, despite living a continuous lifestyle of rebellion against a Holy God. This line of thinking results in many a false convert.

In any case, the same hatred for monergism seems to apply to “lordship salvation”. It’s quite unfortunate and sad to see. All we can do is pray for them and show compassion and patience towards them.

Amen.

Thank you, Martha. I do think that the Lausanne Covenant is generally rather more problematic than it might at first appear.

And yes, Christ should be our focus in all of this, as in everything!

It is a difficult struggle to work through the Sovereignty of God.

Two passages that were of considerable help:

2Timothy 2:25 “with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth”

Romans 2:4 “Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance?”
“if perphaps God may grant them” and “not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance” makes it clear that even our own ability to “repent” must be granted to us by God.

But what should my reaction be to this? Praise God for His grace and His mercy, knowing that there was nothing I did or could do to remedy my own situation. Thankfulness overflows from whom much has been forgiven. This is the opposite of fatalism.

“Therefore, we are AMBASSADORS of Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.” 2 Corinthians 5:20. We are blessed to be the beautiful feet who bring the Good News of Christ to those who are perishing. We proclaim this life giving message without reservation because we can not know who will or will not respond to the message, but that is not our concern. Out of utter thankfulness we in love and devotion to Christ for what He has so graciously done for us wish to give to others.

In the everlasting, lovingkindness, of Christ Jesus,
charisse

You have done a masterful job. Thank you for going into such depth on the issues of heresy, abberance, orthodoxy and praxis and for surveying the role of pelegianism in American evangelicalism – for doing our homework, so to speak.

And focusing on the person of Christ at the center of all discernment.

Thanks Joel, I have found you on Facebook :-) I’ll check out the link!

My new church is quite interesting, it is quite famous for being an expository Reformed-leaning church around in Christchurch and I heard the liberals in the Anglican diocese look and consider us as the bad boy. But almost all Christians, even those who are synergistic (charismatic or otherwise), have nothing but praise towards the teachings at that church.

Feel free to come visit this blog, it is Reformed in orientation with contributions from teachers from churches in NZ. A few are staff from my church and some commentators are Bible study group leaders:

http://www.kiwifruitblog.org

Once again, thanks for the encouraging words in Christ.

Sorry, Joel, you were clear in your original message as you said ‘online place’. I read ‘fellowship’ and ‘ties with Calvary Chapel’, and somehow missed the ‘online’. My mistake, thank you for clearing it up. Glad to hear that your local church situation seems solid, at least!

I appreciate the background on the New Zealand scene. I don’t know whether you are on Facebook, or listen to Fighting for the Faith, but there was a Quentin Gibson on Chris Rosebrough’s wall asking yesterday to make contact with other NZ listeners:

http://www.facebook.com/piratechristian

With regard to Charles Finney, it’s difficult to understand why he has any credibility at all, let alone is defended so fiercely in some quarters.

Thanks again for visiting!

Thanks for your word of encouragement Dan. I just want to clarify that the place is not a physical church, but rather, an online discussion forum that is a discussion of eschatology (Bible prophecy) – all of us share the pre-tribulation premillennial stance when it comes to Bible prophecy. There was no particular doctrinal orientation on that forum pertaining to election and salvation, but I have notice those who hold to monergism have been gradually moving out of the place.

On the physical/local church side, I recently switched to a Reformed-leaning evangelical Anglican church. The church’s Bible study groups finished studying the Book of John this year, and I have been convinced that monergism is the biblical position as the studies went on.

Meanwhile, the online forum is becoming increasingly intolerant of any varieties of Calvinism and I think the last remaining Calvinist-leaning moderator at that forum resigned and left soon after he posted an article series about Rick Warren, Pelagianism, Charles Finney. The remaining moderators have recently posted an article that basically says all monergism equals to Calvinism, which equates to false teachings. Sad to say, I have been kicked out of that forum soon after.

So God has been working in my circumstance on the local church scene – it is a separate amazing story that I wouldn’t explain here. The people are kind and genuine Christians, very different from my previous background (it is a Baptist Union of New Zealand Baptist church).

PS: 1. I’m from New Zealand, which in many ways mimics the Christian church scene in the United Kingdom since many pastors were trained there. Most churches, at least those that still preach Jesus is God’s only Begotten Son, died on the cross and resurrected on the third day variety, are charismatic, so by default are not monergistic. Reformed churches are rare, and churches that emphasise a pure proclaiming of the gospel rather than a more social type of outreach programme are similarly rare.

1. Charles Finney is still regarded as a very godly man by a vast majority of American evangelical Christians even though by every means he is a heretic. Mention Finney=heretic in front of fundamental independent Baptists, and you will be hissed even though Finney believed very different things from modern Baptist Christians.

Precisely, Christine :-)

In the statement that Dan Kimball gave – as well as his brief back and forth interaction with me – it struck me that he continued to insist that he was not a mystic and had never been a mystic – when I had made it clear, from the very start as well as throughout our exchange, that I did NOT consider him to be a mystic nor did I believe that he himself had ever taught mysticism. That was not the issue for me. But as you stated, the problem remains that, regardless of what Dan Kimball himself believes and teaches with respect to mysticism, his book Emerging Worship points his readers/followers toward mystical practices and other authors who most emphatically do practice – and teach – mind-altering mantra meditation and mysticism. It doesn’t really matter that Dan Kimball himself doesn’t teach mysticism: he has pointed his readers/followers towards those who do, and is thus, from a position of leadership, endangering those who look to him for guidance.

Thank you Paula for that, I like how you put it :-)

‘The Romans Revolution’ series you mentioned looks like it comprises the episodes mentioned here, beginning 8 January 2006, but unfortunately it doesn’t look like the audio is online. Still, there are lots of links to other resources that look helpful.

Interesting, MJ. My experience has been the opposite; any argument separating foreknowledge and fore-ordination devolved rapidly into philosophical arguments or used circular reasoning masquerading as biblical evidence as support.

Daniel’s article isn’t the place for exploring this, but do you have a link to any in-depth defenses of your position? I’ll admit to being very skeptical, but I’m always interested in finding the best defense for a position, whether I agree with it or not. Thanks!

I remember that same day for me too. I had a friend who had insisted people are predestined… I had been a waffling arminian not realizing how confused and unscriptural some of my understandings of the human will were. But when Romans 9 clicked into place and I stopped trying to equivocate what was being said there, it really was an amazing comfort and sense of surrender that washed over me. As it has been said, it’s like being born again AGAIN.

I found the White Horse Inn’s 2006 series “The Romans Revolution” to be extremely helpful. I never knew how much good stuff was in Romans before that even though I had been through a very conservative Lutheran Bible School.

Thank you, Mark – I think you have made your point very clearly!

Thanks for allowing me to post my comments on your blog. I just feel the need to address these issues from time to time. I have been a frustrated of late because some reformed folk I have come across have tended to present their own view with an air of infallibility almost, while presenting opposing views unfairly. But I know that can work both ways. But I will still take issue with you that mongerism should be included as a test for orthodoxy. I take issue with the hijackacking of the “historic Christian faith” to belonging only to those that hold to Mongerism.

Anyhow, Thanks again.
Mark

Joel, I am so sorry that you have had to go through that experience – being forced out of a local church is incredibly painful. And yes, you are right, very many of us in the monergism camp have moved out of synergism. It can seem very lonely at times, and I pray that, if you have not already found one, you will quickly find a fellowship that can both encourage you and build you up in the faith into maturity in Christ. One that will use God’s law lawfully to convict you of your sin, and never neglect to remind you of the Great Salvation that we have in Christ, even the forgiveness of all our sins and a right standing before a just and holy God.

I am pleased that you don’t seem bitter, but understand that your brothers and sisters in Christ were acting as they believed Scripture required. And, for whatever little my opinion is worth, I do not think it inappropriate to consider this suffering to have been for the sake of the Gospel.

May the Lord bless you and keep you, and cause His face to shine upon you.

Thank you, Mark :-) I of course accept your apology, although I had taken no offence at what you had originally said. I realize that my article was provocative – and I was content with that (although I nonetheless endeavoured not to be offensive in my manner), as I believe that these are important matters and I wanted to help people think them through.

Or suffering for the sake of being wrong perhaps :)

Do you just make assumptions about what others believe, and think the worst to make it easier to just believe as you do and not have to ask the hard questions? I can help but have a problem with the doctrine of “The eternal decrees of God” as taught by Calvinism. For several reasons I totally reject the idea that foreknowledge==fore-ordination. I think this teaching lacks scriptural support, relies heavily upon philosophical argument and also relies upon some real double talk to avoid the obvious conclusion that it is completely fatalistic.

Mark, thank you for explaining where you are coming from.

It seems to me that which side of the fence one comes down on surely depends upon one’s view of Original Sin. Are we actually dead in our sins, in the sense that we are utterly unable to make a move towards God unless He first works in us? Or are we, to borrow a phrase or two, merely ‘resting’ and ‘pining for the fjords’? In other words, is our ability to choose God merely impaired, or are we utterly powerless to do anything positive towards our own salvation, like the dry bones in Ezekiel’s valley?

With regard to Pharaoh first hardening his own heart – a monergist (at least, one who holds to the Doctrines of Grace) would simply say that yes, of course he did that. This is what we all do by nature in response to God’s word, unless the Holy Spirit works within us to cause us to do otherwise. Indeed, this is all we can do unaided, and worse, all we want to do. This is what I understand Scripture to mean when it says that, prior to our regeneration, we were ‘dead in our sins’ and ‘slaves to sin’.

You have a different view, as I once did, and I respect that, although I respectfully also disagree with it. I appreciate your willingness to discuss these matters in a friendly way.

I am happy to apologise. It just seemed that you made an unfair presentation of those with differing views from your own. A generalisation can do that, I don’t doubt that some view things as you stated, but there are differing views.

Regards, Mark

Regarding Romans 9:18-24 – The conclusion I have arrived at after looking into Calvinism and studying the Scriptures is that it really all gets down to the doctrine of ” The eternal decrees of God” as taught according to Calvinism. If you accept that foreknowledge==fore-ordination then you will see these verses as a proof text for your beliefs. If however you take of the goggles with which you view things for a moment ( we all have to take a fresh look from time to time) then you may see what I mean.

Let’s say that foreknowledge is not equal to fore-ordination and that we are elect according to God’s foreknowing only and not by decree. God is still sovereign – probably even more so than according to Calvinism, because God’s perfect will is carried out taking into account His foreknowledge of every thought and action that occurs – in the midst of the many and various plans/wills of men – I don’t think that diminishes God’s sovereignty in any way. Now looking at Romans 9 –
v 15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

Yes, God will have mercy on whom He wills. He foreknows those that will respond to Him. Note I say respond, its God that draws us.

v 18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

According to foreknowledge, Pharaoh hardened his own heart first towards God.

v19-20 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed [it], Why hast thou made me thus?

Who has resisted God’s will/purpose according to foreknowledge. It all works out just the way God has foreknown us. God’s will to save those He foreknew would respond to His call. As beings created by God we can’t argue against God’s will who has formed us according to foreknowledge.

I hope I have made sense to you in presenting this view of things, It’s getting late here and I am tired. For several reasons I totally reject the idea that foreknowledge==fore-ordination. I think this teaching lacks scriptural support, relies heavily upon philosophical argument and also relies upon some real double talk to avoid the obvious conclusion that it is completely fatalistic.

Regards, Mark

It is interesting Dan that a lot of us who point out monergism from from the background in free will decision background. I have recently been kicked out (yes, expelled) from a very long time fellowship at an online place that has big ties with the Calvary Chapel movement. The reason was precisely I have started moving towards monergism in belief. That online fellowship has recently declared all varieties of Calvinism i.e. monergism as false teaching.

It gets lonely – they no doubt sincerely believe (Mark from a comment above would reflect pretty much their stance) that they do truly believe the Bible teaches synergism, and think it is their duty to oppose false teachers, including all Reformed teachers. I guess we could count it as suffering for the sake of the gospel. (Grin)

Mark, Tim, thank you both for reading and taking the time to leave your comments. You are welcome here, even though we disagree.

With regard to whether or not I am speaking out of ignorance, I shall leave that for you to decide, but you might wish to read my response to Diana’s comment below to get an idea of my background.

Peace and grace to you both in our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ.

Welcome, Diana!

It certainly is comforting and, like you, I have changed my views on this topic. I was brought up in the UK in what I suppose would be considered evangelicalism, in a mixture of Baptist Union (these are Arminian, not Calvinist), Pentecostal (the saner kind), and non-denominational soft-charismatic evangelical congregations. I believed what everyone else around me did, which is that we had first to make a decision for Christ, and that God would honour that and save us.

It wasn’t so much that our free will in matters of salvation was expressly taught – it was just assumed, and everything else that was said and done was founded upon that unspoken assumption. When I look now at the churches around me, visit their websites, talk to people who go to them, hear their sermons – I see that what I grew up believing is what is still assumed by the vast majority (not all) of fellowships today.

In my teens, I had a friend at school who was Reformed (and how rare a species was he!), and we used to argue back and forth over what are termed the Doctrines of Grace – not to either of our credit, I fear, as we were both simply stating our prejudices and arguing from those, rather than going to the Scriptures and finding out what they actually said and endeavouring to harmonize them so as to arrive at a rounded, Biblical position. Back when I was 18, I even wrote a paper arguing vehemently against God’s sovereign election, and for the Arminian position that God chooses us on the basis of foreseen faith. Later on in my life, as I had come to know the Scriptures a little better, I wrote another essay, this time arguing for what I thought was a ‘plague on both your houses’ position.

And then, one day, I was reading Romans 9, and I suddenly understood for the very first time the shape of Paul’s argument there concerning God’s election – it was not on the basis of anything we had done or would do (such as making a decision for Christ), but simply according to His good pleasure. Thus began my journey from synergism to monergism. I started reading Scripture with fresh eyes, seeing things there – wondrous things – that, somehow, I had previously missed. (How could I have been so blind?) I sought out the teachings of people who seemed to have an understanding of these things and, gradually, my understanding grew.

Later on, I read Luther’s Bondage of the Will, and this was when another huge piece of the puzzle clicked into place: God didn’t give the Law because He expected us to be able to keep it, but to show us that we couldn’t, and thereby reveal to us our sinful nature and so drive us into the arms of a loving Saviour who had kept the Law perfectly for us! Everything became so clear! In all my years as a Christian in evangelicalism, why had no one told me this primary purpose of the Law before? How could anyone even hope to make sense of Scripture without knowing this?

With that key, I was able to read passages such as Romans 1–3, the book of Galatians, and the Sermon on the Mount, and understand them for the first time in a way such that they were consistent with all the other Scriptures I knew. I saw that what Luther taught about the purpose of the Law was exactly what the Scriptures taught.

Well, my writing all that was to use many words simply to say this: I have been on a long journey from there to here, and it is not yet over. I have an immense sympathy with those who are still on the earlier stages of that journey, and who are still trying to figure these things out. And it perturbs me not at all that some of my Christian brothers and sisters are as yet vehemently opposed to the understanding I now hold – how could I think less of them for maintaining positions I once held myself?

Now, to your excellent question: ‘Would it be possible for someone who has been regenerated to deny that Jesus Christ had come in the flesh and not be lost, ie holding to the Gnostic heresy?’

There was someone at a church I was once part of who, rather surprisingly (because he had been taught sound doctrine), appeared to believe that the Holy Spirit was merely some impersonal force by which God worked, rather than a distinct person in the Godhead. He’d gotten this idea from an article in a magazine produced by some offshoot of Herbert Armstrong’s Worldwide Church of God. I came back later in the day with a list of Scripture passages showing the personhood of the Holy Spirit. He took that away and returned later having immediately changed His position. He now acknowledged that yes, the Holy Spirit is indeed a person of the Godhead, and that this was what the Scriptures clearly taught.

This is illustrative, perhaps, of the working-out of what Jesus says, ‘My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me’ (John 10:27). When we are taken to the Scriptures and have them explained clearly to us, the Holy Spirit works within us and causes us to hear our Master’s voice. Sometimes, this process is immediate (as with my friend), and other times it takes more time. But, ultimately, I think, it is an extremely concerning sign if we see someone who professes to be a Christian stubbornly holding out over a period of time against the clear word of God. (I write more on this topic here.) Not for nothing does James say:

Brethren, if anyone among you wanders from the truth, and someone turns him back, let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save a soul from death and cover a multitude of sins. (James 5:19–20)

Now, your particular question goes to the heart of our faith. If Jesus did not come in the flesh, He did not bodily die on the cross, and where then is the sacrifice for our sins? And if He did not come in the flesh, there can have been no bodily resurrection, and where then is our hope?

Paul makes exactly this point, immediately after having proclaimed the Gospel in 1 Cor. 15:

Now if Christ is preached that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen. And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty. Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up—if in fact the dead do not rise. For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen. And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins! Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable. (1 Cor. 15:12–19)

So, we see that a denial that Jesus has come in the flesh is a very denial of the faith. If someone persists in such a denial despite having had this explained to them, they are expressly rejecting Christ as having died bodily as a sacrifice for their sins, and they are expressly rejecting Christ as having been raised for their justification (being declared righteous). They thus reject the faith, and they are not in fact trusting in Christ either for the forgiveness of sins or for their right standing before the Father.

This is why John is able to write such a clear answer to your very question:

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world. (1 John 4:1–3).

In his second epistle, John writes further on the same subject:

For many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. Look to yourselves, that we do not lose those things we worked for, but that we may receive a full reward.

Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him; for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds. (2 John 7–11)

(It is, of course, over the proper application of this latter passage that Ingrid and Chris differ, but that is a debate for another day.)

I hope this helps a little, and I pray that God will give you an ever clearer understanding of these things as you continue to seek Him diligently in the Scriptures. Our salvation by grace in Christ is a truly amazing thing, and I do not suppose that we shall ever exhaust its riches, though we have an eternity in which to contemplate it.

This is a really interesting article. I am particularly intrigued when you say that it is not our beliefs that save us, but rather having been regenerated by God’s Spirit, and thus it is possible to be saved whilst holding unorthodox views. This is a comforting view, for I have to say I have changed my understanding on various issues since becoming a Christian, such as Calvinism/Arminianism for one.

Would it be possible for someone who has been regenerated to deny that Jesus Christ had come in the flesh and not be lost, ie holding to the Gnostic heresy?(I John 4:1-3) Or taking the argument to its logical conclusion, could someone who had been regenerated deny that Jesus is Lord? (Romans 10:9). Or would you argue rather that someone who has been regenerated would have no option other than to declare this, simply because they had been regenerated?

Thanks for a thought-provoking article!

Diana.

Paula said “Sorry , but if you are hoping to share credit for your salvation with God, you aren’t orthodox.”

The subtlety of the deceit in this statement is at the heart of the problem. As if I am hoping to share the credit for my salvation in any truly orthodox sense. Christ is my only hope, my righteousness alone. I take no credit whatsoever for my salvation. That doesn’t mean God has not made us with of will and ability to respond to Him. By your saying that I am hoping to share credit only shows how Calvinism adds a level beyond the simplicity of belief in the true Gospel and what is true orthodoxy.

I take no offense at your comment. I consider it a complement to be considered unorthodox by a Calvinist. Calvinism is not the historic Christian faith, but a corruption of it steeped in intellectualism and philosophical argument.

Grin :-)

Ingrid, thank you so much for your clear rationale for the important work that you do, and the eloquent portrayal of the pain you are suffering in this present controversy. You make evident the fact that this is not merely an abstract debate concerning ideas, but that there are real, hurting people involved.

To clarify, when I mentioned that this is painful to watch, a very large part of that pain is seeing people whom we love, value and respect (a category into which I personally would place both you and Chris) taking fire from those who ought to be (and have been) friends.

You continue to be in my prayers – and also, I know, those of many others. May the Lord comfort you and strengthen you by His grace, and give you in overflowing abundance the wisdom that you seek.

Shalom,

Ryan

Jason, I’ve tweaked the article in an endeavour to address the points you raised and make it more amiable to Confessional Lutherans. I am sure that it is still not perfect, but I hope that it is at least improved.

If it is “painful” for people to watch the battles, it is even more painful for those of us on such programs to experience. I worked with Mr. Rosebrough for several years, shared information, discussed strategy, etc. There are simply no words to describe what it is like to go from that kind of relationship to having yourself publicly ridiculed and shredded by name, something I did not do on my radio program for a reason, when just a few months ago, he was a featured guest on Crosstalk.

Over the years at VCY America we have had to remove radio programs dating back as early as 1992 when Chapel of the Air began introducing contemplative spirituality and mysticism to our radio audience. We took unbelievable incoming flak for our removal of that program and had 150 pastors jam our conference room to hear our warnings and explanations of these strange new teachings making their way in to mainstream evangelicalism. We were accused of biting and devouring brethren. Indeed, we wanted nothing of the kind. But we had to draw a line when the teachings of Richard Foster and the teachings of Roman Catholic mystics were airing over our airwaves.

I write this because I don’t appreciate the portrayal of my work by some as that of some lose cannon, rolling around the deck of a ship, taking random shots at brothers in Christ. We have been here before many times (don’t even ask about our battles in the mid-90’s in warning about Tony Campolo, one of the early shock troops of contemplative spirituality.) It has been difficult work that challenges us emotionally and spiritually and sometimes physically as a result.

Thank you for your work here, Daniel. It is very helpful and provides an additional resource for those troubled by this present controversy. You can pray for those of us who have a different kind of ministry related to these false teachings. Our struggles are there daily and we need wisdom.

Oh Paula, how I wish I could have every Christian read and understand Luther’s Bondage of the Will. Doing so was certainly the ‘Ah-ha!’ moment for me. And you’re right, the Packer–Johnston translation is excellent and thoroughly readable, and Packer’s introduction is well worth the price of admission in itself. It’s available at Amazon.com, here:

The Bondage of the Will

Thank you Jason, I appreciate your nuancing things in the way that you have. With regard to the scope of synergism as compared to semi-pelagianism, I dare say that you have a point.

Thank you too for the quote from the Small Catechism. Luther writes so clearly there. I was certainly endeavouring to write my article in a way that was inclusive of Lutheranism. My use of the terms ‘unconditional election’ and ‘irresistible grace’ was in relation to Norman Geisler’s book, which specifically goes after Calvinism (rather than monergism or Reformation Theology in general). Geisler was, as I understand it, attacking doctrines under those names. No doubt, however, I could have better nuanced what I wrote so as to keep my Lutheran brothers and sisters with me – I certainly see Lutheranism as being monergistic, and it is therefore a mistake for anyone to think that the only monergists are Calvinists.

With regard to Dr. Rosenbladt’s, ‘The Gospel for Those Broken by the Church’, I seem to remember thinking that very good indeed when I heard it some time ago, and I therefore second your recommendation.

I like the three-fold prioritization of doctrine that I’ve seen Sproul and Challies use (I don’t know with whom it originated), where things foundational to Christianity are level one (I call them definitional distinctives, because without them you no longer have Christianity). Things which are very important but about which Christians can disagree in good conscience would be level two (these things often produce different denominations). Level three would be everything else, where the idea is that people holding different positions on a given issue would still be able to participate in full fellowship in a local congregation.

Heresy and aberrancy often comes from people mis-prioritizing a doctrine, either by making a critical teaching (i.e. Christ’s bodily resurrection) less important, or elevating a secondary or tertiary instruction to the point of primacy.

This gets complicated because most categories of instruction include more than one “level” in my three-tier model.

For example, I’d argue that Christ’s second advent (i.e. that He is coming back in glory and triumph, and that his return is still immanent) is absolutely crucial to Christianity; it’s tier one (I understand that might offend full preterists, but I’ll try to sleep at night). However, further differentiation between eschatological positions (pre-mil, amil, post-mil, etc.) seems to be level two or even level three, to me.

Baptism is even more intricate, and honestly, it’s one of the topics I’ve been wrestling with for quite a while. I started trying to break it down here, but it just got confusing, even for me as the writer. I’d argue that the only thing to make primary is the command to be baptized (despising that command is not orthodox). Beyond that, I won’t say, other than to assert that one’s position on baptism must be consistent with the core doctrines of the faith, and will undoubtedly affect other less core ones.

Separating consideration of one’s salvation from the orthodoxy of their doctrine is likewise excellent. I would encourage anyone who hasn’t heard Dr. Rod Rosenbladt’s talk on “The Gospel for Those Broken by the Church” to find it; he expands brilliantly upon this point and its enormous implications. I thought Chris supported this same point fairly well but overextended in application (e.g. he seemed to argue that also gave a pass to Kimball’s greater accountability as a teacher). Making this distinction gave you freedom (no pun intended) to build upon monergism as a foundation for orthodoxy without damning those who would reject it.

I also am grateful for the amount of source material quoted; there has been too much appeal to outside (even privileged) conversations as evidence in this debate.

Having said that, I have a couple of nuances to suggest.

First, (and this is admittedly minor) I wouldn’t consider semi-pelagianism to be “synonymous with synergism;” that seems too limiting. Synergism is a set of doctrines, where that set is defined as any doctrine that is not explicitly and consistently monergistic. Beside semi-pelagianism, full pelagianism and at least some Arminianism would be synergistic, and I’d argue that Mormonism and other religions outside the Christian pale could also be seen as part of that set.

Second, as someone with a Lutheran background and strong appreciation for both Lutheran and Reformed thought, I wanted to agree with Chris in affirming that monergism is foundational within historic Lutheranism. A full defense is not my place here, but I’ll quote the explanation to the Third Article of the Apostle’s Creed in Luther’s Small Catechism:

“I believe that I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to Him; but the Holy Ghost has called me by the Gospel, enlightened me with His gifts, sanctified and kept me in the true faith; even as He calls, gathers, enlightens, and sanctifies the whole Christian Church on earth, and keeps it with Jesus Christ in the one true faith; in which Christian Church He forgives daily and richly all sins to me and all believers, and at the last day will raise up me and all the dead, and will give to me and to all believers in Christ everlasting life. This is most certainly true.”

I make this point because a couple of times, you use Calvinistic terms in describing monergism (e.g. “unconditional election and irresistible grace”). Implicitly or explicitly, this starts to narrow the scope of the discussion further than monergism itself, into specifically Reformed theology. While Lutherans and Calvinists have significant disagreements (and those arguments are worth having; iron sharpens iron), I’d say those differences are within the larger bounds of monergism itself. No doubt some Calvinists would disagree with me, but that discussion would require fuller definitions of monergism and be outside the scope of your article…

I have to agree with Mark here. I love some stuff by John Macarthur. Truth Wars was a great book. But I also love Dave Hunts “What Love Is This”.
I prefer just to remain a biblical Christian.
I have a habit of getting in trouble with people from both the Calvinist and Armenian camps.
Problem is both camps in part right are about some things.
Here is a article that I have found helpful in this debate from my friend and brother in the Lord Sandy Simpson
http://www.deceptioninthechurch.com/osas2.html
PS Hope everyone had a nice Thanksgiving we have a lot to be thankful for
Tim

Wow what a generalization made in complete ignorance – I am not calling you ignorant – just a statement made in ignorance – please let me attempt to explain. You have just tarred people with a view of things which is obviously wrong in order to discredit anything that questions your view. The statement you made is an over simplification and is simply untrue in most cases.

I would say that you are arguing from your own experience rather than looking at the whole of evangelicalism, at least that which is prominently displayed on television and radio. Daniel’s assessment of evangelicalism is right on.

I would suggest people read Bondage of the Will by Martin Luther. It will take you a while because it is thick reading. I would suggest the Packer Johnston translation rather than the Cole translation which uses much more archaic English.

as well as spending some time on monergism.com

You we doing well until you enforced Calvinism/Mongerism as a test for orthodoxy.

Calvinism is part of monergism, but Lutherans are monergists as well.

Sorry , but if you are hoping to share credit for your salvation with God, you aren’t orthodox.

It doesn’t mean you aren’t saved, as you may just be very confused by the traditions taught by people who somehow have picked up the idea of the freedom of the will from verses that only teach that man is indeed both RESPONSIBLE for his sin and UNABLE to avoid sinning.

Here is a good article by Todd Wilken (a very orthodox Lutheran pastor) that explains the problem:

Legalism and License
http://steadfastlutherans.org/?p=8825

Certainly lots of interesting ideas there, Mark. I was just trying to square that ‘accountable’ comment in the light of Romans 9:18-24 (NKJV):

18 Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.
19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?” 20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?
22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

Any further thoughts, anyone, particularly in regard to Verses 19-20?

I was thinking that most of this article should be just one chapter (or more) of a whole book, that I would find most useful.

Thanks again Daniel

Wow what a generalization made in complete ignorance – I am not calling you ignorant – just a statement made in ignorance – please let me attempt to explain. You have just tarred people with a view of things which is obviously wrong in order to discredit anything that questions your view. The statement you made is an over simplification and is simply untrue in most cases. You also assume that if your not a Calvinist then your an Armenian, this is yet another fallacy commonly held within the Calvinistic camp. It’s the basic straw man scenario.
What you and others are guilty of is making assumptions about what others believe. You then misrepresent the view of those who differ from you without ever actually understanding what their view is.
I have spent a long time reading and understanding the teachings of and history of Calvinism. I have truly wrestled with it on a number of points. Some of the basic tenets contain truth but go beyond the truth and the truth suffers. God is sovereign, God draws us and predestines us – according to foreknowledge. The sovereignty of God is displayed not in foreordaination equaling foreknowledge, but in God’s will being perfectly carried out according to foreknowledge irrespective of all that man and even Satan will.
How can man be held accountable if only those that are elect can believe. Its because the invitation is to all – God draws us but we play a role even though God is the initiator. God created us with the ability to chose him, to respond to Him through our will.

Regards, Mark

Thank you, Danny, both for visiting and taking the time to leave a comment. Your ‘family members fighting’ simile is apt – it is painful for all of us to watch, and I rather doubt that it is advancing the cause of the Gospel that I believe everyone involved loves.

Happy Thanksgiving to you, too.

Thank you, Stephen. I pray that you are right and that God will, by whatever means pleases Him, bring healing balm to the present situation.

That is an excellent question.

Given my article, I suppose that your question really becomes an enquiry into whether doctrines of either baptism or eschatology should be things over which the Church divides. Certainly they have been, but should they be?

I guess it rather depends on what is being taught – I am generally sympathetic to exegetically sound and well-reasoned arguments from Scripture, and respectful of those who make them, even if I disagree with some of their conclusions. Clearly, though, there are some making very poor arguments on these topics and causing unnecessary division. That, at least, is unhelpful.

If someone maintains a position arrived at through sound exegesis, and the flaws in their arguments cannot readily be identified and rebutted from Scripture, it does not in general seem to me that his doctrine ought to be cause for division, even if we hold a differing understanding ourselves. Rather, such a thing would seem to be a matter for continuing discussion, conducted in a spirit of gentleness and kindness, with a genuine endeavour to really grasp the nuances of a position other than our own.

What I have observed in much of the paedo/credo-baptist debate (including, occasionally, discussion between paedo-baptists of the substantively differing Reformed and Lutheran traditions) is a fair amount of the various sides talking past one another, each not realizing that the presuppositions they consider obvious are not at all apparent to those from other traditions. (Sometimes, I am sure, it is also the case that one side simply has no idea at all what the other actually believes.)

And yet, when debate is conducted in a godly manner, I find that the Scriptures perhaps not given proper weight by one tradition are given an appropriate emphasis by another, and vice versa. Thus, it seems possible to me that perhaps Christ allows such differences to persist so that we are each driven back to the Scriptures to discover new riches there – ones that perhaps our own tradition has been inclined to overlook.

This is not at all to say that all traditions on baptism have equal value, of course – some accord with Scripture much more closely than others. But, where beliefs genuinely seem to have plausible Biblical foundation, friendly discussion between those of such differing views can be incredibly helpful.

Thus, I think the question of division with regard to baptism must come down to whether we believe a particular view on baptism is contrary to Scripture in such a way that it is injurious to the proper proclamation or reception of the Gospel. Ultimately, then, does someone’s view of baptism honour God by being faithful to God’s self-revelation of Himself in the Scriptures and, most especially, in the person and work of Christ?

With regard to eschatology, similar principles would apply. However, I simply haven’t undertaken enough study to wish to make any firm pronouncements on that subject – it is on my (long) list of things I’d like to spend time on, but I’ve not done that yet, and I endeavour not to speak from ignorance. I would say that it seems likely to me that many of the Scriptures that are now hard to understand will become clearer when the events they speak of take place. Clearly, though, if someone were to be teaching something contrary to the Scriptures, he ought to be taken into hand.

I apologise if all that seems something of a rather lengthy non-answer – my aim at present is to promote reconciliation between those in the Reformation traditions, rather than to open up a new cause for contention. There is undoubtedly a proper time and place for a thorough discussion of baptismal and eschatological issues, but I rather suspect that it is not here and now.

Thank you again for your insightful question – I am sorry that I have not been able to do it the justice it deserves.

Then the controversy began on FFW with another discernment radion program. I was more troubled with the controversy than with anything else.
It’s like watching two family members fight. I hope and pray that your recent articles will help bring healing, clarity, love and understanding to this issue and bring the controversy to a hault. There are too many wolves that need to be attacked, instead of biting and devouring one another.

Peace and Happy Thanksgiving!
dh @ FFW

Hi Paula,

Yes, I think you’re right with regard to Cedar Ridge and Brian McLaren (good catch!):

http://www.crcc.org/content/page/our-journey-history-cedar-ridge

(As you know, but perhaps others won’t, one of the forewords in The Emerging Church is by McLaren, too.)

Of course, Dan was writing in 2003, and McLaren hadn’t then made his theological position expressly clear, as he has subsequently with books like A New Kind of Christianity. And given that Dan has already said that he was unaware when he wrote what he did that anyone else would understand him to have been advocating mysticism, I thought that giving Dan another opportunity to clarify his present position would be a more profitable line to take.

Thank you for commenting, Paula, and especially also for making it through to the end of my post :-)

Hm… Cedar Ridge Community church… isn’t that Brian Mclaren? Now, I ask, is this guilt by association or guilt by endorsement on the part of Dan?

sigh. You’re right, it’s his own fault if people think he endorses mysticism. He can go around commenting here or there to deny it and bury his denial in a sentence in a podcast, but never actually write on it where people can see it or actively warn against it. He can come and answer your questions and people who read him and never read you will not ever see it. They are the people that need to see it. And they are the ones he will get the flack from for teaching sound doctrine. I have the impression he wants to avoid that sort of flack from reading the stuff he writes at his blog.

Great post, extremely helpful. Your comments about Dan and mysticism remind me once again how prevalent this is in the evangelical church and how woefully ignorant most christians (including pastors) are to the dangers of these practices. Great job on being loving and graceful, but still standing firm in the faith. God bless brother.
Al

“Only be strong and very courageous; be careful to do according to all the law which Moses My servant commanded you; do not turn from it to the right or to the left, so that you may have success wherever you go.” Joshua 1:7
“For this reason I too, having heard of the faith in the Lord Jesus which exists among you and your love for all the saints, do not cease giving thanks for you, while making mention of you in my prayers; that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of Him.” Ephesians 1:15-17
May you have a blessed Thanksgiving!
In Christ alone, Charisse

Thank you for visiting, Frank, and for leaving your comments. I too look forward to the response, if any comes.

I look forward to the responses (if they’ll come). I believe the answers to these much more specific and pointed (and VERY important) questions will help to set the record straight permanently.

Thanks!

Thank you, Justin. I appreciate your comments. May the Lord grant your prayer.

I won’t comment on the particulars of the past couple of weeks or those involved, but just wanted to say thanks for clearly defining the essential elements and asking the pertinent questions. I also very much appreciate the sections on monergism and synergism as they relate to orthodoxy.

I pray these questions will be addressed and your goals be realized. May our sovereign Lord Jesus Christ be glorified and His Church be edified by what you have done by the grace of Almighty God. Thanks, brother.

Amen to your prayer, Malissa. Thank you for dropping by.