Amazon’s Kindle website gives an interesting snapshot of books by sharing the post popular highlights by people using Kindle software to read a book. Generally you get a good impression of a book, and it’s most striking themes. This is certainly true with Calvin’s Institutes, where his desire to point us away from ourselves and towards a God who is infinitely better than us rings out loud and clear. Here are some examples of popular quotes:

More at Amazon Kindle: Institutes of the Christian Religion.

During Adrian’s month away from the blog, he has hand-picked a selection of the most popular posts of the year so far to re-run.

Today we feature, “An Arminocalvinist spectrum or why it’s not so simple as Arminians vs Calvinists”. Although technically written at the end of last year, this post on an arminocalvinist specturm has had an enduring popularity.

–

I think when we come to the Arminian / Calvinist debate we must understand it is not simply a clear cut issue.  When I meet other Christians and get to know them, the most important question I have is not whether they agree with every line of theology I have, and express that agreement with the same wordings I do. I am much more concerned with what is their attitude to the Bible.

Some on each side seem more attached to their system than the Bible itself.  Others love the Bible, but do not realize that the other side is not as extreme as they were told. There are many who have been taught to reject either Calvinism or Arminianism as rank heresy that fail to realize that as a moderate they have much more in common than they believe…

Following this link to continue reading: An Arminocalvinist spectrum or why it’s not so simple as Arminians vs Calvinists

At least for now it is time to call time on my short series on Arminianism and Calvinism. I hope you have enjoyed reading it, as I have certainly enjoyed some of the reactions it led to.  I shared this quote a few years ago, and I thought it was an apt way to end:

The system of truth is not one straight line, but two. No man will ever get a right view of the gospel until he knows how to look at the two lines at once.

I am taught in one book to believe that what I sow I shall reap: I am taught in another place, that “it is not of him that willeth nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy.”

I see in one place, God presiding over all in providence; and yet I see, and I cannot help seeing, that man acts as he pleases, and that God has left his actions to his own will, in a great measure.

Now, if I were to declare that man was so free to act, that there was no presidence of God over his actions, I should be driven very near to Atheism; and if, on the other hand, I declare that God so overrules all things, as that man is not free enough to be responsible, I am driven at once into Antinomianism or fatalism.

That God predestines, and that man is responsible, are two things that few can see. They are believed to be inconsistent and contradictory; but they are not. It is just the fault of our weak judgment. Two truths cannot be contradictory to each other.

If, then, I find taught in one place that everything is fore-ordained, that is true; and if I find in another place that man is responsible for all his actions, that is true; and it is my folly that leads me to imagine that two truths can ever contradict each other.

These two truths, I do not believe, can ever be welded into one upon any human anvil, but one they shall be in eternity: they are two lines that are so nearly parallel, that the mind that shall pursue them farthest, will never discover that they converge; but they do converge, and they will meet somewhere in eternity, close to the throne of God, whence all truth doth spring.

- Charles Haddon Spurgeon from his sermon “Sovereign Grace and Man’s Responsibility,” originally delivered Sunday morning, August 1, 1858, at the Music Hall, Royal Surrey Gardens, London.

This Jesus, delivered up according to ithe definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. (Acts 2:23–24).

In our discussion about Calvinism and Arminianism perhaps one of the critical verses is Acts 2:23-24. In it we see both man’s responsibility and God’s sovereignty displayed. I thought I would share a couple of quotes from others on that verse:

Chrysostom:

“For though it was predetermined, still they were murderers.”

-Chrysostom in Philip Schaff, The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Vol. XI (Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, 1997), 38.

Gangel:

Frequently the New Testament links predestination and free will, the two elements of a divine paradox. God handed over Jesus for crucifixion, but wicked men put him to death. So often people ask, “Does God choose us for salvation, or do we choose to believe the gospel?” Human reason searches for philosophical solutions, but the only biblical answer is a simple yes. Somehow in God’s eternal plan these two seemingly parallel roads come together.

-Kenneth O. Gangel, vol. 5, Acts, Holman New Testament Commentary; Holman Reference (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1998), 28.

Matthew Henry:

Neither God’s designing it from eternity, nor his bringing good out of it to eternity, would in the least excuse their sin; for it was their voluntary act and deed, from a principle morally evil.

-Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible : Complete and Unabridged in One Volume (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1996), Ac 2:14–36.

Polhill:

Peter carefully balanced the elements of God’s divine purposes and the human responsibility for the crucifixion of Jesus.111 In the paradox of divine sovereignty and human freedom, Jesus died as the result of deliberate human decision made in the exercise of their God-given freedom of choice. The Jewish crowd at Pentecost could not avoid their responsibility in Jesus’ death. Nonetheless, in the mystery of the divine will, God was working in these events of willful human rebellion to bring about his eternal purposes, bringing out of the tragedy of the cross the triumph of the resurrection. The Jews were not alone in their responsibility for Jesus’ death, however. They worked through the agency of “lawless men” (“wicked,” NIV), a term used by Jews to designate Gentiles. Jesus died on a Roman cross;112 Gentiles too shared the guilt. Peter carefully balanced all the participants in the drama of Jesus’ death—the guilt of Jew and Gentile alike, the triumphal sovereignty of God.

-John B. Polhill, vol. 26, Acts, electronic ed., Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2001), 112.

Wayne Grudem:

The fact that we are responsible for our actions means that we should never begin to think, “God made me do evil, and therefore I am not responsible for it.” Significantly, Adam began to make excuses for the very first sin in terms that sounded suspiciously like this: “The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate” (Gen. 3:12). Unlike Adam, Scripture never blames God for sin. If we ever begin to think that God is to blame for sin, we have thought wrongly about God’s providence, for it is always the creature, not God who is to be blamed. Now we may object that it is not right for God to hold us responsible if he has in fact ordained all things that happen, but Paul corrects us: “You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?’ But who are you, a man, to answer back to God?” (Rom. 9:19–20). We must realize and settle in our hearts that it is right for God to rebuke and discipline and punish evil. And, when we are responsible to do so, it is right for us to rebuke and discipline evil in our families, in the church, and even, in some ways, in the society around us. We should never say about an evil event, “God willed it and therefore it is good,” because we must recognize that some things that God’s will of decree has planned are not in themselves good, and should not receive our approval, just as they do not receive God’s approval.

-Wayne A. Grudem, Systematic Theology : An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Leicester, England; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Inter-Varsity Press; Zondervan Pub. House, 1994), 333-34.

After being very gracious in his introductions, Matt O’Reilly says:

First, it is quite helpful to point out the differences (or spectrum of beliefs) within the larger Calvinist and Arminian groups.  There are things that Calvinists disagree on; the same is the case with Arminians as well.  Different people mean different things by these labels.  So, Adrian’s taxonomy, which utilizes qualifiers like hard, moderate, or soft, is very helpful in that it provides nuance to differing views within each larger position.  This taxonomy also nicely highlights the fact that some brands of Arminianism are closer to Calvinism that others.  For example, I probably fall in the “Reformed Arminian” group, which would likely put me closer to Calvinism that it would an open theist.  This is a benefit of the taxonomy because while both myself and an open theist might be labeled Arminian, I would much prefer that others see me as closer to Calvinism than open theism.

Second, while there are variations within the Calvinist and Arminian camps, we should remember that there are specific differences between them as well.  The divide comes down to whether or not God overcomes the wills of those whom he saves; that is, the divide is over the nature of grace, whether it is resistible or irresistible.  The spectrum of Calvinist views in Adrian’s taxonomy are united by their belief that God acts in such a way upon his elect to overcome their resistance, and that he does not act in this way upon those who have not been chosen.  All the Arminian groups, on the other hand, believe that God doesn’t act in such a way as to irresistibly overcome any person’s will.  So, while there is a spectrum of belief, we shouldn’t forget the divide in the midst of the spectrum.

Third, I’m very hesitant to grant the Arminian name to open theists, though many of them would want to adopt it. . .

To close this post out, let me say again that I appreciate Adrian’s work and think his post is quite helpful.  This debate needs more like him who will look for what unites us rather than bombard each other over what divides.  I hope this post contributes to just that.

Read the rest at Incarnatio: Spectrum or Divide? A Response to Adrian Warnock.

I do take your point about the Open Theists, but we have to put up with the Hypercalvinists who’s attachment to the doctrines of grace leaves them seeming graceless! I genuinely believe that is one of those debates where those closest to the middle, far from compromising, seem to be closest to the Bible.  Truth be told, sometimes the Bible itself sounds quite Arminian, and at other times I would argue it definitely sounds quite Calvinist!

I think when we come to the Arminian / Calvinist debate we must understand it is not simply a clear cut issue.  When I meet other Christians and get to know them, the most important question I have is not whether they agree with every line of theology I have, and express that agreement with the same wordings I do. I am much more concerned with what is their attitude to the Bible.

Some on each side seem more attached to their system than the Bible itself.  Others love the Bible, but do not realize that the other side is not as extreme as they were told. There are many who have been taught to reject either Calvinism or Arminianism as rank heresy that fail to realize that as a moderate they have much more in common than they believe.  For more on this see my previous post on the subject.

Today I thought I would share a breakdown of different perspectives on this debate, in a similar style to one I called the “Evolutionary Spectrum.”  Where are you on this spectrum and why?

The following spectrum aims to reflect the views of people I am aware of, but I would value anyone who wants to suggest that it needs to be tweaked.  Indeed, the eagle-eyed among you will notice that I have incorporated feedback from, among others, Roger Olson who was eager to emphasise that while he understands my desire for a mutual respect between Bible-believers from both sides, there really is a divide between the Arminians and the Calvinists.  I remain open to tweak this further, but here is my Arminocalvinist spectrum:

1. Hyper Calvinist

• Believes in double-predestination (God actively chooses to damn unbelievers in a similar way to which he chooses to save the elect)
• Believes God in a sense stands behind every act that occurs, including sin. Opponents will say this makes them sound like they believe God is the author of sin.
• Believes in the so-called Five Points of Calvinism or TULIP
• Often has a tendency to work around certain scriptures (or, as their enemies might accuse them, “twists” or uses some Bible verses to “trump” others.) Parts of the Bible which are not convenient to their theology are conveniently ignored.
• Believes that the Gospel offer is only valid for the elect so there is no need to preach gospel till people seem under conviction.
• Is often passive in evangelism, believing God will save whoever he chooses so there is no point preaching to everyone.
• May discourage the gospel of grace being taught to anyone unless they already seem convicted of sin.
• May argue we should not say that “Jesus died for you” or “God loves you” to anyone unless we are sure they are part of the elect.
• May argue that God hates sinners.
• Does not see that faith is a duty to be commanded (see Wikipedia’s Hypercalvinist article).
• God’s sovereignty rules supreme, but man’s responsibility is essentially denied.

2. Strong Calvinist

• Believes in double-predestination, may well describe this decision as unequal in weight, endevoring to maintain the idea that God is not willing that any should perish.  In other words, God stands behind the decision to save and the decision to damn in different ways.
• Believes that Jesus only trully died for the elect (strong limited atonement) though may accept that his death had implications for all.
• May believe that the world is the best of all possible worlds (These first two bullets are the so-called “sixth and seventh points of Calvinism according to Piper).
• Believes God is entirely sovereign over all acts but not in such a way as to make him the author of sin.
• Believes in TULIP in its classical sense.
• John Piper would be a good example of a strong Calvinist.

3. Moderate Calvinist

• Believes in all the TULIP but may understand some of them in a slightly different way to stronger Calvinists.  For example “limited atonement” may be moderated by saying that there are some senses in which Jesus died generally for the whole world, and others in which he  died especially for the elect. (see for example Edwards on Limited Atonement)
• Does not believe in double predestination. In other words does not believe God damns sinners willingly.  Despite the apparent illogicality of this statement believes that man condemns himself entirely freely and rejects a genuine offer of salvation from God, while the believer is saved only because of God’s irresistible grace and predestination.
• Another way of putting this would be to say that God gets all the credit for saving us, but man gets all the blame for damnation. Spurgeon was a strong advocate of this position.
• Is likely to believe that although salvation is secure, a mere response at a gospel event is not sufficient to be sure that someone is genuinely saved, and many backsliders were never saved at all.
• Believes the Gospel must be preached to all, and Jesus commands everyone to repent.
• Will freely teach God loves sinners, and that Jesus died for the world.
• Believes that God chooses some to be saved out of his love for them rather than any foreseen faith.

4.  Soft Calvinist

• Drops at least one of the five “points” or so extensively redifines one of them they would be unrecognizable to stronger Calvinists. Mark Driscoll is hard to place in this scheme as he desrcibes himself as a four and a half point Calvinist, modifying one of the points so much that he calls it “limited/unlimited atonement.”
• In fact Driscoll’s view is very similar to many others who would fit in the moderate Calvinist group.
• Many soft Calvinists would doubt irresistible grace, and may begin to speak in some way about God’s predestination being in some way associated with man’s response.
• Eagerly stress both God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility

5. Reformed Arminian (often called Classical or Evangelical Arminianism.)

• The really key point that separates all Arminians from all Calvinists is this, that they do not believe in irresistible grace, in other words they do not believe that in some way God overcomes our resistance to being saved in order to save us.
• Would very much see themselves in the Reformed part of the church, and as the heirs of a man like Wesley who by the end of his life could agree with the Calvinist Simeon, although would surely have been considered strong Arminian during his earlier years. Arguably Arminius himself was a Reformed Arminian.
• Believes (as do all the groups above this one) in the so-called “Five Solas of the Reformation“
• Like the other groups above will passionately believe in Penal Subsitution, holding that it is central to our understanding of the work of Jesus.
• Deny some or all of the so-called TULIP, though very likely to believe in a form of Total Depravity, and Total Inability, i.e. that without God’s help we are incapable of responding to the gospel. (see for example the Society of Evangelical Arminians).
• Likely to believe that someone who is truly saved cannot be un-born again.
• Believes in regeneration, and that salvation is only possible if God acts upon the human heart.  Unlikely to believe that this process is irresistible.
• May well believe that election is in some way resultant from faith foreseen i.e. that it is not entirely unconditional
• Will boldly say that Jesus died for all.
• Still believes that God is sovereign over the universe and over every event that happens (as does every group above this) and yet that he limits himself, thereby giving man free will, but God remains able at any time to restrict this.
• Would join all Calvinists in upholding that as per the words of Romans 8:28, God is working all things together for good to those who love him.
• Some Reformed Arminians will in actual fact believe very similar things to those held in the TULIP but will express them in different ways.

6. Strong Arminian

• May adamantly deny all points from TULIP, although many would make an exception for Total Depravity, and believe in that (see for example this post although the author of that post identifies himself as a Reformed Arminian)
• Rejects as contrary to God’s character that he could choose to save people irrespective of any act in them or cause in them.
• Believes that faith is a response of the human heart (possibly aided by God) that is the trigger for salvation.
• Believes it is possible to lose your salvation.
• May well still believe in penal substitution but likely to stress that it is only one aspect of the work of Jesus for us.

7. “Open” Arminian

• Believes that God has chosen to limit himself to make room for love and freedom to truly exist (See this Tweet).
• Critics accuse them of using human logic to deny critical aspects of our faith: For example, if a future event has not happened, some argue it is impossible for God to foreknow it.  Thus God is surprised by faith in us, or indeed by whether or not we sin
• God is portrayed as somehow weaker and less God-like than any of the other groups would suggest
• Many deny aspects of the gospel, and see the Bible as culture-bound.
• God is no longer truly sovereign, but man’s responsibility rules.

In case you haven’t guessed by now, I would place myself as a moderate Calvinist.  What about you?

It need not always be this way. A while back I posted on the famous Wesley vs Simeon encounter which demonstrated that moderate Calvinists and moderate Arminians can in fact agree. If you are not aware of that incident, please do read about it. More recently, Luke picked up on my post which cheekily asked if Spurgeon was an Arminocalvinist and commented about me in the following post: “Calvinist Extends Hand of Friendship to Arminians.”  He also linked to a helpful article written by an Arminian which is one of the best-argued cases for classical Arminianism I have ever read. The article begins with the frequent assertion of Calvinists that Arminianism  is man-centered rather than God-centered:

Certainly there is some truth in these criticisms, but their target is wrong when aimed at classical Arminian theology.  Unfortunately, all too seldom do the critics name any Arminian theologians or quote from Arminius himself to support these accusations.  When they say “Arminianism” they seem to mean popular folk religion which is, admittedly, by-and-large semi-Pelagian.  Some, most notably Horton, name 19^th century revivalist Charles Finney as the culprit in dragging American Christianity down into human-centered spirituality.  Whether Finney is a good example of an Arminian is highly debatable.  I agree with Horton and others that too much popular Christianity in America, including much that goes under the label “evangelical,” is human-centered.  I disagree with them, however, about classical Arminianism about which I suspect most of them know very little.

What would count as truly God-centered theology to these Reformed critics of Arminianism? First, human depravity must be emphasized as much as possible so that humans are not capable, even with supernatural, divine assistance, of cooperating with God’s grace in salvation. In other words, grace must be irresistible. Another way of saying that is that God must overwhelm elect sinners and compel them to accept his mercy without any cooperation, even non-resistance, on their parts. This is part and parcel of high Calvinism, otherwise known as five-point Calvinism. According to Boice and others theology is only God-centered if human decision plays no role whatsoever in salvation. The downside of this, of course, is that God’s selection of some to salvation must be purely arbitrary and God must be depicted as actually willing the damnation of some significant portion of humanity that he could save because salvation in this scheme is absolutely unconditional. In other words, Calvinism may be God-centered, but the God at the center is morally ambiguous and unworthy of worship. . .

According to Arminius (and all classical Arminians agree) Calvinism implies that “God really sins. Because, (according to this doctrine,) he moves to sin by an act that is unavoidable, and according to his own purpose and primary intention, without having received any previous inducement to such an act from any preceding sin or demerit in man.” Also, “From the same position we might also infer, that God is the only sinner. For man, who is impelled by an irresistible force to commit sin, (that is, to perpetrate some deed that has been prohibited,) cannot be said to sin himself.” Finally, “As a legitimate consequence it also follows, that sin is not sin, since whatever that be which God does, it neither can be sin, nor ought any of his acts to receive that appellation.” (“Sentiments,” p. 630)
READ MORE

So, here we have two sentiments taught by some Calvinists that Arminians recoil against. The first wrong idea is that God does not desire all men to be saved, that he damns some for his pleasure and saves some for his pleasure, standing equally behind each decision. Well, as Spurgeon pointed out in my quote from him, the Bible doesn’t really teach that so many (perhaps most?) Calvinists do not believe that.

The second point also is that to most Arminian’s, Calvinists teach that God is somehow the author of sin. No wonder they recoil against that since of course sin is not God’s perfect will, and he did not create it!

It seems even clearer to me from reading this article that that the argument between Arminians and Calvinists really does centre around the issue of God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility. Extreme Calvinists deny man’s responsibility to protect God’s sovereignty. Extreme Arminians deny God’s sovereignty to protect man’s accountability for sin. Moderates on both sides of the divide do try and believe in both despite the apparent logical contradiction.

Like Spurgeon, I believe God must get ALL the credit for man’s salvation but man must get ALL the blame for his damnation. I don’t really care if that statement alienates some of my Calvinist friends, or if it fails to win over some Arminians.  But I do think that moderates on both sides will agree and in any case we need to remind ourselves that we are brothers. Some parts of the Arminian wing of the church are indeed drifting into liberalism. I suspect that many of our Bible-loving Arminian brothers would reject that as strongly as we reject the evangelistic passivity and hyper-critical tendencies that some on our side of this fence are slipping into.

Maybe, just maybe, even as the reformed charismatic and reformed cessationist wings of the church seem to be enjoying a lot more unity than previously, select Arminians should also receive the right hand of fellowship!

I found the following quote initially on Solo Christo , but thanks to Logos Bible Software I was able to find more context for it. It turns out that on some matters Spurgeon was not the rabid Calvinist some people think him to be:

There has long been a great doctrinal discussion between the Calvinists and the Arminians upon many important points. I am myself persuaded that the Calvinist alone is right upon some points, and the Arminian alone is right upon others. There is a great deal of truth in the positive side of both systems, and a great deal of error in the negative side of both. If I was asked, “Why is a man damned?” I should answer as an Arminian answers, “He destroys himself.” I should not dare to lay man’s ruin at the door of divine sovereignty. On the other hand, if I were asked, “Why is a man saved?” I could only give the Calvinistic answer, “He is saved through the sovereign grace of God, and not at all of himself.” I should not dream of ascribing the man’s salvation in any measure to himself.

I have not found, as a matter of fact, that any Christian people care seriously to quarrel with a ministry which contains these two truths in fair proportions. I find them kicking at the inferences which are supposed to follow from one or the other of them, and sometimes needlessly crying to have them “reconciled;” but the two truths together, as a rule, commend themselves to the conscience, and I feel sure that if I could bring them both forward this morning with equal clearness I should win the assent of most Christian men. At this time, however I have to confine myself to the statement that all the grace we have is the gift of God to us, and I trust none will, therefore, suppose that I deny the other side of the question. I believe assuredly that we have nothing good in us but what we have received. For instance, we were dead in trespasses and sin, and we were quickened into spiritual life: my brethren, did that life spring out of the ribs of death? Did the worm of our corruption beget the living seed of regeneration? It were absurd to think so. God be praised for his great love wherewith he loved us, even when we were dead in sin, which led him to quicken us by his grace.

We have been forgiven our great sins — wholly forgiven; through the precious blood of Christ we have been made clean. Did we deserve it? Does any man who professes to be a Christian say for a single moment that he deserved the ransom paid by Christ, and deserved the pardon of his sin? It would be monstrous blasphemy even to imagine such a thing. Oh no; “By grace are ye saved, through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast.” God forgave us freely; there could not possibly have been any quality in sin which could have called forth forgiving love. He had mercy upon us because he would have mercy upon us; not because we could claim anything at his hand.

Everything, dear friend, that makes you to differ from the common sinner is the gift of God’s grace to you. You know it is. You have faith in Christ: yes, but did not the Holy Spirit work it in you? Do you not cheerfully subscribe to the doctrine that faith is of the operation of God? You have repentance of sin, but was the repentance natural to you? Did you not receive it from him who is exalted on high to give repentance? Is not your repentance his gift? “Truly,” one will say, “but then the same gospel was preached to others as to us.” Precisely so. Perhaps the very sermon which was the means of your conversion left others as they were. What made the difference then? Do you reply, “We willed to believe in Jesus.” That is true; an unwilling faith would be no faith: but then who influenced your will? Was your will influenced by some betterness of nature in you so that you can claim credit for it? I for one reject with abhorrence any such an idea. Do you reply, “Our will was influenced by our understanding, and we chose what we knew to be best.” But then, who enlightened your understanding? Who gave you the light which illuminated your mind, so that you chose the way of life? “Oh,” say you, “but our hearts were set towards salvation, and the hearts of others were not.” That also is true, but then who set your heart that way, who was the prime mover? Were you or God? There is the question, and if, my dear brother, you dare affirm that in the matter of your own salvation you were the prime mover I am at a loss to understand you, and I hope there are few of your creed. Jesus is not Alpha to you. You do not love him because he first loved you. You were evidently not converted, or turned at all, but you turned yourself. You are not a new creature, but are your own new-creator. Do you look to see the same thing in others? Why, then, do you act as you do? Why do you pray the Lord to turn others if you believe that he did not turn you? Do you pray the Lord to convert your children? Why do you do it? If it is left entirely to them to be the prime movers, why pray to God about them? “Ah,” says one, “God must treat all alike.” I ask again, why do you pray for your children? You ask God to do a wrong thing in blessing your children in preference to other people, if it be true that he is bound to treat all alike. When you go practically to work these sentiments do not hold water. The man who knows that the Holy Spirit was first in his operations upon the mind, and who calls Christ Jesus the Alpha and the Omega of his salvation, is the man who can fairly go to the Lord, and pray for the conversion of this man or that; and he too is sure to give God all the glory of his salvation, and magnify and bless the grace of the Most High.
Perhaps, my dear brother, there is a difference between you and other saints. I am sure there is reason for some saints to eclipse others, for some professors are very poor things indeed. Well, brother, you have a great deal more faith than others; where did you get it? If you received it from anywhere but from God, you had better get rid of it. Dear brother, you have more joy than some, and possibly you feel ashamed of your fellow Christians who are so doubting and sad: beware that you do not become vain of your joy, and remember, that if your joy is true joy you received it of the Lord. Are you more useful than others? You cannot help looking at certain professors who are idle, and wishing that you could stir them up. I know I do; I would put a sharp pin into their downy cushions if I could: but for all that who gives us activity, who gives us usefulness, who gives us zeal, who gives us courage, who gives us everything? If you, dear friend, get into such a condition that you begin to whisper to yourself, “I have improved my gifts and graces at a very noble rate, and am getting on exceedingly well in spiritual things,” you will soon have to come down from your high places. If you register yourself A 1 at Lloyd’s I will not sail with you, brother, for I fear your proud barque will tempt the tempest. I would rather sail with some poor Christian man whose weather-beaten vessel would go to the bottom if Jesus were not on board, for I am persuaded he is safe. “Blessed is the man that feareth always.” Blessed is the man who lies low at the foot of the cross, and who, concerning everything that he has, whether temporal or spiritual, ascribes all to the Giver of all Good.

Charles H. Spurgeon, vol. 22, Spurgeon’s Sermons: Volume 22, electronic ed., Logos Library System; Spurgeon’s Sermons (Albany, OR: Ages Software, 1998). Sermon NO. 1271

Another quote in a similar vein about there being two aspects of truth for us to hold onto can be found in Spurgeon’s final sermon at Surrey Gardens:

Espouse but one phase of the truth, and you shall be cried up to the very heavens. Become such a Calvinist that you shut your eyes to one half the Bible, and cannot see the responsibility of the sinner, and men will clap their hands, and cry Hallelujah! and on the backs of many you shall be hoisted to a throne, and become a very prince in their Israel. On the other hand, begin to preach mere morality, practice without doctrine, and you shall be elevated on other men’s shoulders; you shall, if I may use such a figure, ride upon these asses into Jerusalem; and you shall hear them cry, Hosanna! and see them wave their palm branches before you. But once preach the whole counsel of God, and you shall have both parties down upon you; one crying, “The man is too high,” the other saying, “No, he is too low;” the one will say, “He’s a rank Arminian,” the other, “He’s a vile hyper- Calvinist.” Now, a man does not like to stand between two fires. There is an inclination to please one or other of the two parties, and so, if not to increase one’s adherents, at least to get a more ferociously attached people. Ay, but if we once begin to think of that, if we suffer the cry of either party on either hand to lead us from that narrow path—the path of right and truth and rectitude, it is all over with us then.

I am more and more convinced that there are many godly Arminians out there that we Reformed people would do well to listen to more than we do. I am not talking about liberals who throw the Bible out, but those who might have come to different views from us on all kinds of things, but love the authority of Scripture. I might disagree with them but if they love the God of the Bible why would I not want to listen to them from time to time? But is it just me, or are there very few Arminians on the web?

Do you live in the USA? Are you reformed, and theologically persuaded that the charismatic gifts continue? Perhaps like many you have not seen a positive model of how they can be expressed in a Bible-loving environment. Are you longing for a more dynamic experience of the Spirit’s power?

If the above describes you, please come to St Louis January 14-16 2011 for the Mobilise student and twenties conference. I will be there live blogging this exciting conference, and my pastor Tope Koleoso will be one of the main speakers. Tope is an engaging preacher who is sure to inspire and inform in equal measure. It has been a real delight for me to be in the same church as him since 1995. After a church planting phase of ten years, Jubilee moved to a cinema with 100 people. Since then God has granted remarkable growth, and almost 1000 people gathered on Easter Sunday 2010. It is thrilling to see what God is doing, and it is such a privilege to me to follow Tope’s leadership.

Take a look at this description of Tope’s seminar track to whet your appetite, and the video that follows. This conference could alter the direction of the rest of your life. Can you afford not to come?

The Holy Spirit – Living a Spirit-Filled Life (Tope Koleoso)
The Christian life was never intended to be solely characterized by an academic approach to theology, but by the Word of God made alive by the power and presence of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit-filled life should never be perceived as an optional extra for the Christian, but become the daily pursuit of the disciple. In this seminar we will look at the components of a Spirit-filled life, church and walk.

BOOK IN BEFORE NOVEMBER 23 FOR EARLY BIRD DISCOUNT

A couple of weeks back, Tope preached a very impactful sermon on the need for us to go on reading God’s word. I have permission to share a short extract from that here, where Tope is in full flow urging people to study God’s word. A line in there made me glad and I know will be of much interest to some of my readers. Tope recommended and uses two study bibles – the ESV Study Bible and the Spirit Filled Life Bible. He acknowledges the point that they do come at certain verses from different angles. But we are happy to live with that degree of tension.

I suppose one could think of those two study bibles as mountains, and it is in the ground in between these that we at Jubilee like to inhabit and call our own. Word and Spirit. Reformed and charismatic. Call it what you will, ultimately we camp in the ground we do, not because of our personalities, nor because of our personal backgrounds, but because we are convinced doctrinally of the biblical truth of these values we cling to. Will you join us in living in the ground inbetween these two study Bibles?

Watch the rest of this sermon

Today’s blog comes from a new friend of mine, Purple Claire. Do go read her blog if you like her writing style:

If I were the obsessive compulsive type – say, the kind of person who carries books around in their original Amazon packaging and shudders slightly when someone asks to borrow one, in case they break the spine – if I were that kind of person, I would have planned it: I started reading One Day on 15th July. For those not yet on the bandwagon, it’s a novel which charts the ups and downs of a friendship over twenty years, taking 15th July of each year as a marker. It’s a great concept, and actually a bit of a page turner (ideal beach reading if you are not that person with the Amazon wrappers) and despite what I felt was a disappointing ending, I’d still recommend it.

Here, I suspect, is why I loved it: Emma could be me. She has a good degree from a reputable university but is adrift in a sea of vague possibilities, never quite settling on what to do with her life, dabbling in teaching before realising in her early thirties that all she has ever wanted to do is write.

Like me, she lies in bed on spring Saturday mornings listening to lilac envelopes thud onto the carpet, announcing yet another wedding; like me, she hovers somewhere between boredom and something uncomfortably like envy every time she hears of another pregnancy among her friends.

But here’s where we differ, and please forgive me if it sounds glib (or basic). It is not meant to be glib. It’s my rock, actually: for we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love Him, who have been called according to His purpose.

What that purpose is, for my life, I couldn’t tell you. Time was, I could have recited a ten-year plan; now I can barely see past Christmas. Life has not turned out the way I wanted or hoped or assumed or imagined. I may, like Emma, have met the love of my life at university, but he was not a Christian, and so that was the end of that.

But how comforting, how inspiring, how exciting it is that Someone knows. That the threads of my life are being woven into a beautiful tapestry by Someone who has been doing it for thousands of years with millions of lives. Someone who somehow orchestrated emotions like jealousy and events like the selling of a brother into slavery in order to feed a nation.

I am not going to pretend that I never feel adrift in life; that I now whoop with unfettered joy when tearing open the lilac envelopes; that my eyes don’t fill with tears when I listen to a young mum talking about the challenges and loneliness of it all, thinking inexplicably that is what I wanted and hoped and assumed and imagined that my life would look like.

But how very glad I am that were someone to write a novel about my life, the central question would not be: does she get the guy? That my value is not determined by that, or by success in that elusive career, or even by how many books I get published and sell. That I live for something different, something bigger, that I live for Someone who sees the end from the beginning, who is threading together my eclectic bunch of passions and the seemingly random events of my life for His purpose.

This past Sunday it was a joy to have John Piper with us at Jubilee Church in London. He seemed to be very much at home with us, and was clearly enjoying preaching one of the very few sermons he will preach this year. We benefitted greatly from this talk as Jubilee continues to aim to break the rule some church growth experts lay down, which argues that a church will always tend towards being largely monocultural. I thank God for the racial harmony and multicolored growth that we have experienced. But I do not take it for granted, which is why it was so helpful to hear from our friend, John Piper, on the subject. My brief notes will follow the video:

Watch on Vimeo. Downloads: LowDef , DVD or audio

Piper began with a great introductory illustration based on why, as an American Christian, he had divided loyalties watching the recent USA World Cup game. He then took five biblical teachings that are loved by churches like Jubilee, the so-called “doctrines of grace,” and showed how they each have a profound impact on how we should view ethnic diversity.

1. We are all sinners. We are all fallen. No one is righteous. It is so bad no one can save themselves. Romans 8:7-8. We are morally unable to please God. Ephesians 2:1-10. You were dead. If you are a Christian, you have been raised from the dead. You didn’t do that. London is filled with millions of people who are dead. When it comes to racial harmony, a major implication of this doctrine is that no matter what your race, you are equally dead without Christ. Hell will be racially diverse. Romans 2:9. Evey color will be there. We are all depraved. We are all lost. We are all dying of the same disease. This should humble us for our own sin. If I am as dead as the most evil person, I should be less proud and more gracious to others. You cannot be more dead than dead. No ethnic group has any edge at all.
2. God almighty before the foundation of the world chose to save you. Acts 13:48. “Those who were ordained to eternal life believed.” God’s decision was why they believed. It’s totally unconditional. Faith comes about because of this choice of God. Huge implications. He doesn’t choose anybody because of skin color, education, or any other reason. Watch out then for pride or despair. Nothing in you caused him to choose you. Nothing could have stopped him from choosing you. This is stunningly powerful in evangelism. Nothing you have done has anything to do with whether he has chosen you. The only way you know if you are chosen is right now whether you will you accept Jesus. If you will, then you are chosen. Therefore no black person, or white person can have any idea that their ethnic identity has anything to do with God setting his favor on them.
3. Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her Ephesians 5:25. Jesus laid down his life for the sheep. There is a wide door for the world. If anyone wants he can come. But Jesus is also taking for himself a bride. He knew whom he was after Revelation 5:9: slain so that a body of people could be purchased from every nation. Not every tribe, but people FROM every tribe. He will lay claim to those people he has bought. God intends to have this multicolored people. People, tribe, nation, language: God is interested in all these groupings. His intent is for them to be in harmony with each other. We are a kingdom. We are more related to Christians from other nations than to others of our own nation. Interracial marriage reflects God’s glory. Free to marry in the Lord. Don’t be unequally yoked with unbelievers. It is infinitely costly for God to purchase this people. The racial issue is not a social issue, it’s a blood issue. It cost Jesus everything in order to pull off diversity in his kingdom. If it was costly for Jesus, it will be for you.
4. Not only are we helpless and dead, he chose us, he paid for us, he also comes to us and overcomes all our rebellion and saves us. Ephesians 2:8. Faith is a gift. God grants repentance. Triumphant grace. Your ethnic distinctives contributed nothing to the rise of faith in your heart. Even racist scoundrels cannot stop God from saving them, if he chooses to. God can kill racism.
5. We are comrades in the fall, in God’s choice, in the infinite cost, in God’s triumphant grace, and in God keeping his own. Romans 8. If you are justified you are glorified. It’s as good as done that you will be in heaven. He preserves his saints. No one can pluck you out of Gods hand. He will finish the job. He will go on helping us with the racial issue. Keep trying. Don’t retreat and say “these people are impossible to please.” Be committed to keep working at this issue, expecting to fail, but persevering and hoping to see some success. One day we will all gather round the throne together.

Terry Virgo founded Newfrontiers back in the mid 1970s. He was church planting before it was cool. He formed a missional network before the phrase was coined. There are now over 700 Newfrontiers churches spread out on every continent. Most of these began as house churches. But many of them have grown to become warehouse churches. Each of these churches and the movement as a whole is founded on prayer. It is a movement that has aimed to reconstruct a New Testament model of church, convinced from the outset that the old wineskins of formal church life simply will not do any more.

Newfrontiers embodied some of the values of the emerging church, such as being very relational, decades before Emergent began. It is charismatic, without a seatbelt, but with the brake of Biblical conviction. Yet it’s leaders were young restless and reformed in the last century, and an army of doctrine-loving, spirit-filled, missional pioneers have been arising in waves ever since. A godly pragmaticism has led to a discerning welcoming of influences from the alpha course, and the church growth movement among others.  Cell groups, missional communities, lively worship, seeker-aware meetings, and old-school mission crusades have all found their place. Newfrontiers embraces the input of many external ministries, but identifies exclusively with none of them. Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology is the doctrine textbook of choice for the movement, and Piper, Lloyd-Jones and Carson have also all been frequently read over the years.

Newfrontiers is not perfect. It has it’s weaknesses. But it is the group that I am so glad to call my home, and the family of churches that my church, Jubilee, is a part of. Terry’s sermon on prayer remains the most popular video on my blog by a country mile. It is no wonder that many American’s are keen to find our more about a movement which in the UK has shaped the meaning of the word “charismatic.”

Ed managed to crystallize this interest in a short pithy interview that is a fantastic introduction to Terry.  See also Ed’s post from which this video came for some more links:

Watch on Vimeo.

A very dapper looking Terry Virgo shows that as a young charismatic he was very much already reformed. This idea that reformed charismatics are a “new breed” is shown to be wrong by this video from Downs Bible Week alone. Now if only someone could find me some video of my dear departed friend and mentor Henry Tyler, or at least an audio recording. I still miss him sometimes, but thank God for the deposit he left behind in so many lives.

Watch Terry Virgo at Downs on Vimeo (works with iPhone, etc)

In the following inteview, Sam and I speak about what it is like for him to pastor as a reformed charismatic. It is a very interesting exchange, and one I very much enjoyed filming:

This would win the wrath of many neo-liberals but I am sure that Piper would be glad to make room this Friday for the following quote I found on the pyromaniacs site from C.H. Spurgeon:

Suppose,” said I, “you had killed some one. You were a murderer; you were condemned to die, and you deserved it.”

“Faith,” said he, “yes I should deserve it.”

“Well, her Majesty is very desirous of saving your life, and yet at the same time universal justice demands that someone should die on account of the deed that is done. Now, how is she to manage?”

Said he, “That is the question. I cannot see how she can be inflexibly just, and yet suffer me to escape.”

“Well,” said I, “suppose, Pat, I should go to her and say, “Here is this poor Irishman, he deserves to be hanged, your Majesty. I don’t want to quarrel with the sentence, because I think it just, but, if you please, I so love him that if you were to hang me instead of him should be very willing.

“Pat, suppose she should agree to it, and hang me instead of you, what then? would she be just in letting you go?”

“Ay” said he, “I should think she would. Would she hang two for one thing? I should say not I’d walk away, and there isn’t a policeman that would touch me for it.”

“Ah!” said I, “that is how Jesus saves. ‘Father,’ he said, ‘I love these poor sinners, let me suffer instead of them!’ ‘Yes,’ said God, ‘thou shalt’ and on the tree he died, and suffered the punishment which all his elect people ought to have suffered, so that now all who believe on him, thus proving themselves to be his chosen, may conclude that he was punished for them, and that therefore they never can be punished.”

“Well,” said he, looking me in the face once more, “I understand what you mean; but how is it, if Christ died for all men, that notwithstanding, some men are punished again? For that is unjust.”

“Ah!” said I, “I never told you that. I say to you that he has died for all that believe on him, and all who repent, and that was punished for their sins so absolutely and so really, that none of them shall ever be punished again.”

“Faith,” said the man, clapping his hands, “that’s the gospel, if it isn’t, then I don’t know anything, for no man could have made that up, it is so wonderful. Ah!” he said, as he went down the stairs, “Pat’s safe now, with all his sins about him he’ll trust in the man that died for him, and so he shall be saved.”

Dear hearer, Christ is mighty to save, because God did not turn away the sword, but he sheathed it in his own Son’s heart; he did not remit the debt, for it was paid in drops of precious blood, and now the great receipt is nailed to the cross, and our sins with it, so that we may go free if we are believers in him. For this reason he is “mighty to save,” in the true sense of the word.

A long while ago I began a journey blogging through the Together for the Gospel Statement. I am sure that anyone who remotely remembers that I once did this would have been convinced that I would never get back to it. Today I surprised even myself by deciding that I really am determined to finish this. Perhaps ironically, their third conference—T4G 2010—has recently begun accepting bookings. What has happened to the last three and a bit years since this statement was penned? One thing is for sure—the statement is definitely as timely as it was when it was first published back in April 2006.

On my last attempt I got as far as Article Seven, which launched me into an entire series on the atonement, which you can review here. I do feel passionately about that subject. I also posted a number of times on Articles 1-3, and also Article 4, which also led to a long series on expository preaching, as well as a number of posts on Articles 5 and 6.

I need to pick up the pace considerably if I am going to complete my blogging through all these articles before the next conference begins! So my aim is to do this fairly quickly and ensure that by the time I finish it hasn’t taken me four years! Still, when blogging about the Bible there is never a shortage of things to say.

So, let’s take a look at the next article in their list.

Article 8

We affirm that salvation is all of grace, and that the Gospel is revealed to us in doctrines that most faithfully exalt God’s sovereign purpose to save sinners and in His determination to save his redeemed people by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, to His glory alone.

We deny that any teaching, theological system, or means of presenting the Gospel that denies the centrality of God’s grace as His gift of unmerited favor to sinners in Christ can be considered true doctrine.

These glorious couple of paragraphs are a great litmus test for all doctrine. While the statement does not go so far as to insist that all readers uphold the five points of Calvinism, instead, they do urge us to test all doctrine by its ability to bring praise to the grace of God.

God chooses to save us because he wants to, and because of his great grace. Do we really believe that we have NOTHING to offer to God except our sin and our utter dependence on him? Or do we think, even just a little bit, we have something to contribute to our own salvation? Ephesians 2 tells us that we were dead in our sins. They must depend upon a Savior to resurrect them!

Whenever we succeed in life, do we truly recognize that it is only because of what Jesus has done in us? I love the way Paul puts it in 1 Corinthians 4:7, “For who sees anything different in you? What do you have that you did not receive? If then you received it, why do you boast as if you did not receive it?”

Whatever you hear in preaching, ask yourself—“Does this make me praise God more, and be more thankful to him that he should save me despite my sin? Or does it make me feel good— as if I have contributed something worthwhile to my own salvation?”

It is because of the implications of these two paragraphs that many of us find ourselves wholly unable to joyfully welcome some of the so-called new perspectives on justification. If we make justification dependent on our effort, then we rob Christ of his glory and deny the wonder of his grace that “saved a wretch like me.”

I need this wonderful sovereign, unmovable, unfailing, irresistible grace. If I was depending on my own will power to get me to heaven and a future glorified body then I would have no hope at all! My will is weak. My God is strong. My sin is horrible. His unmerited grace becomes mine, even as my sin becomes Christ’s! I just have to stop striving to make it to heaven under my own steam. Wonderful, wonderful news! Call it old fashioned and schismatic if you want, but I am not interested in any other gospel that fails to emphasize this wonderful glorious truth.

May God receive all the praise for our salvation!

A few months back, Piper posted this excelent couple of paragraphs about the need to make GOD the central thing as we try to lead people to a shared understanding of theology.

. . .a Reformed position mainly means, God is really big, really strong, really powerful, really knowledgeable, really wise, really great, really weighty, and he is going to be big in this service, and we’re going to make a big deal out of God here. There are a lot of born-again Arminian people who like that. It’s because they don’t see the implications of their theology.

And if you get a congregation liking that over time—”God is great, and we’re going to celebrate his magnificence and his power and his sovereignty” (just leave it undefined for the time being. Everybody believes in the sovereignty of God, one way or the other)—what happens is that when your heart begins to get shaped around a massive, big, glorious view of God, then when you get to specifics in Romans 8 and 9 or Ephesians 2, about election and whatnot, your heart is more ready for it.

So the flourishing could be that you’re taking people where you know you want them to go, just because God is magnificent. And your Reformed orientation makes you keenly aware of that. Their Arminian orientation doesn’t naturally make them as aware of that. And you’re going to take them there. And when the whole spirit of the place changes, then the theology might grow. And that’s what I mean by flourishing. READ MORE

The shocking nature of the doctrine that God’s grace is irresistible was hammered home to me by this quote. If this notion does not make you grateful to God that YOU should be so blessed by him, I don’t know what will.

. . .the Calvinistical notion of sovereign and arbitrary grace, whereby some, with the very same sincerity of endeavors and the same degree of endeavors and the same use of means, shall have the success which is denied others; and although all things are exactly equal in both cases, both as to their persons and their behavior, yet one has that success by sovereign grace and God’s arbitrary pleasure that is denied another – Jonathan Edwards [1740], Writings on the Trinity, Grace, and Faith (WJE Online Vol. 21) , Ed. Sang Hyun Lee, page 210

There is none of the five points of calvinism that are associated with more confusion than the one commonly called Limited Atonment or particular atonement. The problem comes because we do not tend to understand exactly what Calvinists have historically meant by this point, nor do we understand the alternatives on either side. Logic can be very treacherous when it comes to doctrinal understanding. So, in the following quote from Edwards we will find him steering a middle ground between two sets of rocks which are both in my view errors caused by overuse of what seems like reasonable logic.

The one error is really that of the hypercalvinist, who claims that this doctrine necessarily means that God predestines some men to hell in exactly the same way as he predestines others to heaven. It makes God the author of sin, and it means that the gospel is not a genuine offer of salvation.

The opposite error, is to say that Jesus died in the same sense “for” everyone. This alternative view to Limited Atonement is righly called “Universal Atonement” and of course is intimately linked with Universalism, which argues that all will eventually be saved. This quote from probably the greatest theologican of America, explains it well.

Universal redemption must be denied in the very sense of Calvinists themselves, whether predestination is acknowledged or no, if we acknowledge that Christ knows all things. For if Christ certainly knows all things to come, he certainly knew, when he died, that there were such and such men that would never be the better for his death. And therefore, it was impossible that he should die with an intent to make them (particular persons) happy. For it is a right-down contradiction [to say that] he died with an intent to make them happy, when at the same time he knew they would not be happy-Predestination or no predestination, it is all one for that. This is all that Calvinists mean when they say that Christ did not die for all, that he did not die intending and designing that such and such particular persons should be the better for it; and that is evident to a demonstration. Now Arminians, when [they] say that Christ died for all, cannot mean, with any sense, that he died for all any otherwise than to give all an opportunity to be saved; and that, Calvinists themselves never denied. He did die for all in this sense; ’tis past all contradiction. -Jonathan Edwards [1722], The “Miscellanies”: (Entry Nos. a–z, aa–zz, 1–500) (WJE Online Vol. 13) , Ed. Harry S. Stout, page 1 74