Social Justice Statement - Why I can't sign it, and you shouldn't Part 5 - The Self Own.

So, on to part 5, sin:

Sin

WE AFFIRM that all people are connected to Adam both naturally and federally. Therefore, because of original sin everyone is born under the curse of God’s law and all break his commandments through sin. There is no difference in the condition of sinners due to age, ethnicity, or sex. All are depraved in all their faculties and all stand condemned before God’s law. All human relationships, systems, and institutions have been affected by sin.

WE DENY that, other than the previously stated connection to Adam, any person is morally culpable for another person’s sin. Although families, groups, and nations can sin collectively, and cultures can be predisposed to particular sins, subsequent generations share the collective guilt of their ancestors only if they approve and embrace (or attempt to justify) those sins. Before God each person must repent and confess his or her own sins in order to receive forgiveness. We further deny that one’s ethnicity establishes any necessary connection to any particular sin.

Well, we do understand the reformed view of total depravity, and there is not much to object to here -  except to note that total depravity doesn't mean we are "as bad as we possibly could be", merely that sin affects and afflicts every part of man.

What is interesting here, is how they self-own. So often, the rhetoric from this side is, "well Jonathan Edwards and George Whitfeild were but men of their time". Well, that's an excuse. You've just justified sin and racism. No person who signs this statement can legitimately use this excuse ever again. It's gone.

Not only that they sound like they're trying to have inherited guilt both ways. "WE DENY that, other than the previously stated connection to Adam, any person is morally culpable for another person’s sin." Well, that's convenient isn't it. You have guilt for Adam's sin, but not your great grandfather, the slave owners sin.

The hilarity of that is most reasonable people don't hold them responsible for their great grandfather's sin. No, they look at the benefits reaped from the sin, and then their own poverty, and they say, "Hang on, there's a problem here. When you renounced the sin, you conveniently didn't renounce it's benefits." We'll get into this idea more later. It isn't as complicated as it sounds.

So, yeah, I'm calling this the affirmation of the self-own.

Don't @ me.

As usual, this is my blog,  and I choose what comments to publish or not. Hey, if you don't like it, be polite next time. I do publish those I disagree with, but you abide by my rules here.

Social Justice Statement - Why I can't sign it, and you shouldn't (Part 2, 3, and 4) - Pass.

Ok, so to continue, I'm going to deal with 2,3 and 4 together, because they're not too bad unless read with the other things the authors have said on the matter. In the spirit of charity, I will take these at face value.

Imago Dei

WE AFFIRM that God created every person equally in his own image. As divine image-bearers, all people have inestimable value and dignity before God and deserve honor, respect and protection. Everyone has been created by God and for God.

WE DENY that God-given roles, socioeconomic status, ethnicity, religion, sex or physical condition or any other property of a person either negates or contributes to that individual’s worth as an image-bearer of God.

I'm glad to see this in the statement, though the second part is a bit dicey with a complementarian slant, but we'll give it a pass.

Justice

WE AFFIRM that since he is holy, righteous, and just, God requires those who bear his image to live justly in the world. This includes showing appropriate respect to every person and giving to each one what he or she is due. We affirm that societies must establish laws to correct injustices that have been imposed through cultural prejudice.

WE DENY that true justice can be culturally defined or that standards of justice that are merely socially constructed can be imposed with the same authority as those that are derived from Scripture. We further deny that Christians can live justly in the world under any principles other than the biblical standard of righteousness. Relativism, socially-constructed standards of truth or morality, and notions of virtue and vice that are constantly in flux cannot result in authentic justice.

Again, not the worst thing I've ever read. I like the bit I highlighted. That implies so much good stuff.

The second part is also fine. Pass.

God’s Law

WE AFFIRM that God’s law, as summarized in the ten commandments, more succinctly summarized in the two great commandments, and manifested in Jesus Christ, is the only standard of unchanging righteousness. Violation of that law is what constitutes sin.

WE DENY that any obligation that does not arise from God’s commandments can be legitimately imposed on Christians as a prescription for righteous living. We further deny the legitimacy of any charge of sin or call to repentance that does not arise from a violation of God’s commandments.

Seems Ok, though starting with the 10 is a bit weird. An emphasis on love in the context is a good thing (the two great commandments).

One would think though that "love your neighbour, even the dirty Samaritan" might include standing with him in his oppression and advocating against injustice towards him, and not simply preaching the gospel at him...

However, again taken in isolation from the other things that have been said, at face value, we can give this a pass.

Anyhow, the usual principle on my blog applies. I reserve the right not to publish your comments and I expect charitable and respectful discourse or you shall be deleted.  This is my blog and I am the authority here.

Social Justice Statement - Why I can't sign it, and you shouldn't (Part 1 Scripture) - Conditional Pass.

First up, to get the joke out of the way - to me signing requires a pen and paper. So, no, signing on the internet doesn't count. Unless cryptographicaly, and I doubt they'd accept my public key.

I won't go through the introduction, but I will go through the statement itself. So, on to part 1:

Scripture

WE AFFIRM that the Bible is God’s Word, breathed out by him. It is inerrant, infallible, and the final authority for determining what is true (what we must believe) and what is right (how we must live). All truth claims and ethical standards must be tested by God’s final Word, which is Scripture alone.

Well, here we have a couple of issues. Firstly I can agree scripture is inerrant and infallible for the purpose for which it was written. That means that scripture cannot be used to prove something it was never intended to prove (e.g. flat earth theories, or numerology (y'know the date setters who think that they can establish the end of the world by counting verses)).

So, there's that. But to be charitable, maybe that is what they mean? That is until we come to the "final authority". This is problematic and deeply so, because frankly, they're either lying to themselves or deceived. That's a strong statement, so let me clarify - "Scripture does not interpret itself". Scripture is not a sentient being (and most definitely not the 3rd person of the Trinity, I see that capital "W" in "Word" there, and I consider it unbiblical in the extreme), and while it can provide context to itself, it cannot interpret itself. That job falls upon the reader. Which means that the reader is the final authority in interpreting scripture. So if I disagree with their interpretation, it isn't a rejection of scripture, merely a rejection of say, John MacArthur or James White's interpretation and, by extension authority to interpret for me.

So from the very start we must necessarily diverge in agreement. In any case we will get to actual scripture in a bit.

WE DENY that Christian belief, character, or conduct can be dictated by any other authority, and we deny that the postmodern ideologies derived from intersectionality, radical feminism, and critical race theory are consistent with biblical teaching. We further deny that competency to teach on any biblical issue comes from any qualification for spiritual people other than clear understanding and simple communication of what is revealed in Scripture.

Well, I can agree with the first part, to an extent. Scripture interpreted correctly does have authority over belief and conduct, and a lot of the other "post modern ideologies" don't. I haven't dug deeply into them, but I don't rule out they could be in line (in places at least) with scripture.

The second part is where the trouble begins again. What do we mean by "clear understanding" and what is required to have one? Even the men who wrote this statement will often appeal to the Greek, Hebrew or ancient Isrealite context to make their points. Therefore this is not as simple as it looks at first glance. While I agree that the Holy Spirit does guide us into understanding, the sheer breadth of different interpretations of scripture out there indicate that discerning the correct interpretation is not so simple. In fact I'd suggest it does involve study of those very languages, and contexts, and that involves the use of the mind, which is guided by experience.

Therefore one's interpretation of scripture depends on the following:
1. Scripture
2. Tradition and Context
3. Reason
4. Experience and the guidance of the Spirit.

Everybody interprets through these lenses, and it's often only really the Wesleyans who're honest about it.

I know a lot of other statements don't acknowledge this, and I know I'll also be accused of denying Sola Scriptura for this, but I think we must be honest with ourselves on this and admit this is where it comes from, for by not admitting it and clinging to the "Scripture interprets scripture" mindset, we cannot control it, and thus we have many many varying and often heretical interpretations of scripture.

This is controversial enough for a "Don't @ me."

So, in conclusion, the authors of this statement are asking me to accept their authority of interpretation without being up-front about what that means. It's mean to be a short statement, so we can read it charitably and suggest that number 1 can get a pass. On the condition that the "W" in word is a typo.

Anyhow, the usual principle on my blog applies. I reserve the right not to publish your comments and I expect charitable and respectful discourse or you shall be deleted.  This is my blog and I am the authority here.

Can an Arminian affirm Salvation by Grace alone(through faith alone)?

At first glance, this seems a silly question (and it is), since Arminians explicitly affirm this. But there is pushback from both Calvinists and ..for want of a better term..  Spurgeonists.

So I thought it might be good to set this out properly. Arminians(especially Weslyans) tend to think of salvation relationally, not causually. We operate in a relational world, not a dry cause - effect world. We often feel that the dry cause-effect view is an import of pagan philosophy into Christianity, but all truth is God's truth, so let us play in the cause-effect sand pit, and see if it is valid for an Arminian to affirm salvation is all of grace and the cause of salvation is grace.

Something to think about as you read this. 

Don't be confused here, I am not talking about the will(free or otherwise), I am speaking in the future tense. So the sentence "the sun will rise tomorrow" does not express my "willingness" for the sun to rise tomorrow. This is a flaw in English. For clarity, in this article, "will not" merely reflects the future tense. "Can not" reflects inability or impossibility.

If I can not do something it follows that I will not be doing it, regardless of my desire.
However, if I will not in the future be doing something it does not follow that I can not do it.
Illustrated with a simple example:
I can not flap my arms and fly to the moon, so it will not happen, no matter my desire for it to.
I am not going to get into my car and drive to the shops, I can (I have a car, petrol, time, etc) because I have the capability to do so, but the cause of me not doing so is not my inability to do so. I don't do it because I don't desire to do it, so it will not happen.

To assume that because I will not do something, I therefore can not do that thing is what is known as the fallacy of affirming the consequent. It is both formally and intuitively false.

Let's start with a thought experiment. 

For the sake of argument let us take total inability out of the equation. Let us assume man could, unaided turn to God from his sin. Now, remember, we don't believe this, we're just examining a claim.
Secondly, lets assume God provides no grace.

Could man be saved under these conditions?

The answer is obviously a resounding no. Man can want to be saved until he is blue in the face, but without grace, he can not be saved. It is not merely that he will not(future tense, not willingness) be saved for some other reason, it is impossible.

A Spurgeonist suggested to me that this was true the other way around for Arminians. In other words, if there were grace but no ability to repent then man can not be saved. Huh? That's no Arminian teaching.

God can absolutely save a man in the way the Calvinists (or in this case Spurgeonist) think. He is absolutely capable of doing so to the final degree. I can not emphasize this enough: Grace is the only thing in this that is necessary. God can not save without grace, for the very act of saving is Grace by any definition. Why would a Spurgeonist think Arminians think that God's grace is not sufficient? The only system in which grace is insufficient is semi-Pelegi... Oh... Right. He is operating on the assumption that Arminians are semi-Pelegianists. Now it all makes sense.

The argument in that God graciously (for any choice given by God is nothing less than an act of Grace) gives us a choice means He can not save without our consent is false. However He will not save without our consent, not because He is limited in some way, but because that is His sovereign choice. If it were not His choice, we would be saying that God is obligated or necessitated to give us the choice, which is not what Arminians teach.

At the end of the day, the deciding factor in salvation is grace. It is the only factor that is necessary. Our consent might be specified as a condition by God, but without grace, our consent is meaningless. Without consent, God will not save, though He most certainly can.

"But if you make a choice aren't you adding to your salvation?"

Well, lets do another thought experiment to illustrate how silly an idea this is. Imagine I come to your house with a precooked meal. I offer you this meal. If you accept it, does the portion on the plate increase in size because you accepted it? If you reject it, does the portion decrease?

If you answer "yes" to either of those questions, I have to ask what your justification for that is? That simply isn't how things work.

Grace Upon Grace

So, in conclusion can Arminians affirm salvation is grace alone? Yes, absolutely. John Wesley spoke of this. Grace at the first Grace at the last. Salvation is all of Grace, since even the very choice we are given is Grace.

Are Arminians correct in asserting that they add nothing to their salvation? Absolutely.

What is the Spurgeonist's confusion then? Simply this, he has failed to distinguish certainty from necessity, and further has failed to distinguish work from surrender.

Note that I used the terms "consent" or "make a choice" above for the sake of argument, but Arminians see it more of a yielding or surrender to God.

As usual, comments are welcome, but I reserve the right not to publish any I deem not consistent with the spirit of dialog and charity.

John McArthur loses all credibility with me.

In this video we see John McArthur display his ignorance of Arminian theology. We'll go through it in a minute, but it is quite clear to anyone that has actually picked up, say Arminias' declaration of sentiments, that McArthur is way off. Other Calvinists like R.A Muller for example, actually study these things and know that McArthur is wrong.

There are two possibilities why he is way off in his assessment - either he has never read Arminias, and is taking what he truly believes to be Arminian theology from some other (likely Calvinist source), or he is deliberately slandering his brothers and sisters in Christ. I'll go with the former, out of charity, however this still makes him a lazy thinker and casts doubt on anything else he says.

Firstly, the Armenian church is Eastern Orthodox, and their soteriology is, in keeping with the early church, far closer to Arminias than Calvin. So half points on at least being able to differentiate between the state and a theology.

"Arminias was an ancient theologian who believed that salvation was in the hands of the sinner and not God"
Nonsense. Arminias was no more ancient than Calvin, and believed no such thing. Being a reformer, 

Arminias was quite comfortable with Sola Fide.

"Arminias taught that salvation is by the will of man."

I challenge anyone to go through Arminias' works and come to that conclusion or find a statement like that. It is simply false.

"...Man has the ability to believe on his own... there is enough grace.."
Well, which is it McArthur? If it is grace, it is not man on his own. If it is man on his own, then there is no grace. You're not even making sense at this point.

"..but you do know perhaps about Charles Finney..."
Aha! Now we see where you get this nonsense from. Charles Finney is not in agreement with Arminias or Wesley. He is not a source for Arminianism. Arminias is. If you can be bothered to go read about an Presbytarian Semi-Pelegian but not the actual source of the theology, there is something deeply wrong about your approach.

Pelegias and Arminias did not teach the same thing. Else, Dort was a gigantic waste of time. It makes no sense to go to all that trouble to have your little local church council to declare Arminias apostate if he was already declared so with Pelegias. Sloppy thinking.

"..while we would agree that arminias taught a wrong view.. a heretical view.."
Ummm. No, he did not. Unless you belong to the Dutch Reformed Church (the only church Dort has authority over), Arminias' view is not Heretical and in fact has never been declared such by the catholic (small c - meaning universal, not RCC) church, then no, you have no basis for calling his view heretical. Finney, yes. Arminias no. It would be surprising if Arminias' view was ever declared heresy given that it was the predominant view of the church fathers, with the lone exception of Augustine, who likely would not have embraced McArthur's calvinism.

No, McArthur, Arminians understand depravity. We agree with you on it. That is what differentiates us from Finney and Pelegius.

There is no call or excuse for someone with the popularity of John McArthur to blatantly misrepresent and slander (whether our of ignorance or not) his brothers and sisters in Christ. 

Who are you, oh man to Question ME?

I have had a number of congenial conversations with friendly (and not so friendly Calvinists). I don't mind discussing the issue, and I generally make it known that I consider them orthodox, even if they don't think the same as I do. We can agree to disagree. We likely both affirm at the end of the day that we are saved by grace through faith and not by works. As each of us sees our own view, it would be silly to boast in salvation, since it is Christ who does the work of Salvation. Yeah, call me a monergist (mono - one, erg - work: One Work - Christ's). My work for salvation? None. My ability to trust God without his grace? None. On these things we do actually agree.

Now I prefer to defend my view, but in fairness, I will expect you to justify yours. Often this winds up with my friendly opponent making an error. You see, Calvinism rightly understood affirms certain information and explanations are not granted to us. Certain questions have no answer, like, "Why is one chosen and not the other?" At this point(or later if you want to detour through "to glorify God"), one should say, "well, I don't know, but I trust God." Cry to uncle Mystery, I might not agree with you(I draw distinction between mystery and contradiction), but I'd rather we disagreed and left it at that than you wander off into vain philosophy.

Most Calvinists I know are fine with uncle Mystery. I am as well if it comes to that. How does the trinity work? Well, I don't think I can rightly describe it, there is mystery(not contradiction) here.

The second group, however, has a tendency to love their own reasoning. I sit and ask a simple set of questions, and they become increasingly agitated. Eventually it winds up with a bunch of machine gun hermeneutics and finally their "trump card". Romans 9:20: " But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’”(NIV)

This is quite unimpressive. And frankly desperate. So, I write this post to explain why I don't immediately change my ways and agree with people who play that card.

Firstly, I am not questioning God I am questioning you.

Now don't get me wrong, I think it is OK to question God in certain contexts, but in this case, my questions are not directed at God, they're directed at you. There are two reasons your appeal to Romans 9:20 might move me.
1. You are actually God.
2. Your theology of God is infallible and complete, to the point where you can answer any question as God would.

Many people are so proud as to claim (2), but I find that it is not a position I would want to defend. I am human and God is not. Further, I obviously don't agree with your interpretations of scripture, and rather than get into that with me, you seek to shut me down by an appeal to an authority you do not have.

Secondly, you're doing violence to scripture quoting that at me (It is out of all context).

To fully address this, I would have to go through the entirety of Romans, however, others have done that far better than I, so if you ask, I'll point you to them. But I do want to address a bit of context here. Why does Paul write this?

First look at Acts 18:1-18. What we have here is a situation where the Jews had been kicked out of Rome. By the time Romans is written, some are back, (we know because Paul addresses them (and over external data)). Next look at Romans 9:1-5. Paul is speaking specifically to Jews and he is using a rhetorical device here. He is having an argument in the text with an imaginary Jew to illustrate something.

Why might a Jew be upset, as the one in the text so clearly is? Is it possibly because Jews considered their heritage - their link to Abraham - the source of their salvation. Jesus himself refutes this misconception (John 8:39-44 and on). But it appears there was friction in the Roman church between Jew and gentile. Not to get too deeply into it, but essentially Romans 9 is Paul arguing down a Jew who is upset that "saved by faith" has upset his worldview of being one of the only chosen people.

In other words, the Jew, who sees himself eternally secure because of his heritage, is being told, no, and God's word hasn't failed, and stop talking back to God, this is what God has done.

Read in context, I think the verse speaks more to a(type of, perhaps?) Calvinist who says "Only the elect, I am secure in my election, God's eternal decree" than the Arminian who says "Only Christ. I am elect and secure only in Christ".

I'm going to get a lot of flak for this view, but I believe it is the way the church saw it before Augustine, and I think they had the context and they're right on this one.

Conclusion
In order to use this passage to admonish me, you have to do a lot more work to show it actually applies to me, than to just rip it out of context and scream it at me.

Don't be surprised if it doesn't impress me when you just throw it down to try and silence the hard questions I may ask. If you want an out, I'll happily agree to disagree or point you towards mystery, but in throwing this one down makes you sound like you're desperately trying to convince yourself.

Hey, I'll call you brother even if we disagree on the implications of the context here - we're all human and fallible.

COMMENT RULES ** IF NOTHING ELSE, READ THIS.
As always, keep any comments respectful, and I reserve the right to not publish anything I feel violates the spirit of this blog and the principle of charity. Also, if you do not carefully read, at least the first paragraph where I affirm salvation by grace through faith and not works, and it becomes evident you didn't in your comment, don't wonder why I did not publish it.

What we get wrong about Sovereignity

Certain sections of modern Christians are absolutely fascinated with God's sovereignty. And by no means is God not sovereign, so don't get that wrong.

The English word "sovereign" refers simply to "a supreme ruler, especially a monarch.". If we want to  apply it as an adjective, it means "possessing supreme or ultimate power." And that is where we go off the rails. We see that word "power", and all sorts of lights go off in our heads. Picture in your head Jeremy Clarkson in some super-car screaming "MORE POWER".

I was told to imagine the sovereignty of say, David, or Solomon, say hundreds (or more) times more and that would be God. That, with respect is nonsense. David's kingship might be a picture in some way of God's kingdom, but you cannot get God's kingdom by making Davids kingdom "many times more".  Yet we see the word "power" and we think "God has infinite power, therefore God is infinitely sovereign". This is what is called an inference. We have done (somewhat poorly) logic to get here. We infer, that if a king has power, and God has more power, God is more sovereign than a king. This is because we love to compare things. Frankly because our God looks just like us fallen creatures to us, and also loves to do power comparisons.

In reality, these concepts are not as closely tied as we think. We're obsessed with power, and it is no surprise that we think only in terms of "who is stronger". And as a result we have reasoned ourselves into quite an absurd position where we are comparing God's power with David's power.


What is the distinguishing feature of sovereignty though? If I have a lot of raw power (many soldiers, and weapons), but I must answer to the Colonel and do as he says, am I sovereign? Obviously not. I must answer for what I do. If I use it badly, I was not sovereign  while using it badly, since I must still answer for how I used it.

So me having 100 more soldiers than Fred under my command does not affect my sovereignty in relation to Fred. Neither of us are sovereign, since firstly, neither of us are rulers and both of us must answer to Colonel Panic. Clearly the distinguishing feature of sovereignty is not raw power or force,  but to whom one answers. The meaning of God being sovereign is not He has more power (we have a word for that already -omnipotence), but that He does not answer to anyone - instead, all must answer to Him.

The difference between David and God? David answers to God, but God does not answer to David. It is not a matter of scale (100 times or a million times), but of Authority. Not raw power, but Authority. God is not many times David - God is God and David is not.

How then does God use his sovereignty?  Well, in John 14:9, Jesus affirms to Phillip that Jesus is the very representation of the Living God. If we know Jesus, we know God. How does Jesus use his authority then? Does he micromanage the disciple's lives? Is He ever disappointed in them, does He correct and teach them? Does God's sovereignty mean He is never disappointed, because He has all power and authority? The Bible shows us otherwise, we see God express deep sorrow over the world(the Bible uses the term regret, not that God wishes to take back His decision to create, but that He wishes to redeem fallen creation), and we see Jesus weep over Israel. We see in Isaiah 5, God ask(rhetorically) "What more could I have done?"

Might this not be, because God knows what humans have never grasped - raw power is not sufficient to get what you want. Perhaps God can no more force Israel to submit to him without violating his character than He can choose to cease to be God? 

Some people will suggest this makes God impotent, but that is nonsense. There are things God cannot do - He cannot sin, or lie, for example. He cannot be tempted. These things do not make him impotent.

Now, I am not saying here that God will fail, but I am saying that raw power is not why He wins. Had God's plan of salvation relied upon raw power, Jesus would have come in power and force. And sometimes that does mean mourning over the lost who will not heed him. Scriptures like Ezekiel 18:23 tell us plainly what God desires. Yet the wicked still perish. And if we think God is happy about that, we call Him liar.