Social Justice Statement - Why I can't sign it, and you shouldn't Part 7 - ColourBlind.

It sounds good. Until you think about it some;

Salvation

WE AFFIRM  that salvation is granted by God’s grace alone received through faith alone in Jesus Christ alone. Every believer is united to Christ, justified before God, and adopted into his family. Thus, in God’s eyes there is no difference in spiritual value or worth among those who are in Christ. Further, all who are united to Christ are also united to one another regardless of age, ethnicity, or sex. All believers are being conformed to the image of Christ. By God’s regenerating and sanctifying grace all believers will be brought to a final glorified, sinless state of perfection in the day of Jesus Christ.

WE DENY that salvation can be received in any other way. We also deny that salvation renders any Christian free from all remaining sin or immune from even grievous sin in this life. We further deny that ethnicity excludes anyone from understanding the gospel, nor does anyone’s ethnic or cultural heritage mitigate or remove the duty to repent and believe.

So, this is true. Some do add works to the gospel, and that is wrong. The good news is through faith(which is not a work - trust is not a work people, get that into your heads, but I digress) by grace. We have every believer united to Christ and adopted into his family. Great! No difference in spiritual value between believers? Depends what you mean, but on a charitable reading, we can also say great! All believers united? Excellent! Sinless perfection? Sure. We'll get there one day. Nice.

Ok, lets move on. Salvation can't be received other than faith and grace, sure, no problems there. Salvation doesn't instantly cure sin(though it should lead down that road surely...?), we can agree. And yes ethnicity doesn't exclude anyone, nor mitigate their duty to repent.

On the face of it, I could almost sign this page. Almost. Let's add the context back in. Remember the statement is on social justice. As we saw last time, James, John and Jesus himself all say we have to be made right with our brothers and sisters in Christ. We have to be God's light in the world. The implication of "he who hates his brother does not know God" is that he who hates his brother cannot know God because hating one's brother is incompatible with the gospel. So, if you hate your brother, and you say "Just Preach the Gospel" is the solution, well, the problem there is it is you who needs the gospel, not your brother.

So, how do we hate our brothers? Could it be denying their pain, and suffering? Trivializing their history? Ignoring their context? ("You have the gospel now, what my ancestors did to yours which still lingers like a festering wound doesn't matter now!")

So, on the face of it, we could almost pass it. All it is, in it's context is an extension of the most feeble excuse we looked at last time. The Gospel is enough, but only because it implies more than pie in the sky when you die, and a superficial covering of pain and suffering. The power of the Gospel to heal these wounds stems from it's implications. Out of this spring all manner of healing, light and life should flow.

Instead what we find here are the "pious" desperately defending what they think is the core, and ignoring the conflagration around them. Will they escape the fire that burns up the chaff? God is the judge there.

Make no mistake here, the heart of this statement is legalism. "You shall not add to the gospel!" Despite the fact that other than some fringe groups, nobody is trying to add to the gospel. And the world wonders, if our gospel is true, why aren't we acting like it?

Normal disclaimer. I decide what comments get posted, so be charitable, even if you feel I'm not.

Although come to think of it, I have never not published a comment. So there is that.

Social Justice Statement - Why I can't sign it, and you shouldn't Part 6 - A weak and ineffective Gospel - No Gospel at all.

So, here things really begin to fly apart for this "statement" (and we haven't even gotten to the Heresy debacle yet!).

Gospel

WE AFFIRM that the gospel is the divinely-revealed message concerning the person and work of Jesus Christ—especially his virgin birth, righteous life, substitutionary sacrifice, atoning death, and bodily resurrection—revealing who he is and what he has done with the promise that he will save anyone and everyone who turns from sin by trusting him as Lord.

WE DENY that anything else, whether works to be performed or opinions to be held, can be added to the gospel without perverting it into another gospel. This also means that implications and applications of the gospel, such as the obligation to live justly in the world, though legitimate and important in their own right, are not definitional components of the gospel.

Nobody I know of it trying to add "works" to the Gospel. That isn't it at all. All they're doing is applying plain scripture. 1 John 4:7-14 should be convicting, and appropriate here. Is it loving to deny the legacy of pain others have lived with?

Lets look at the part highlighted in red. It is technically "correct" in the way a tax law loophole is. How wrong and twisted it is. Look at James 2:14-26. So, we don't need to "add this to the gospel" for it to apply. The Gospel rightly is reconciliation with God. This, James, the brother of Jesus and John tell us in no uncertain terms will lead to living justly and being reconciled (i.e. being merciful, loving and living justly) with our brothers.

So, am I saying? Do you need to live justly to have the gospel? By no means is that a requirement, however, if you aren't living justly, then we can be sure that your faith is dead, or you don't know God (in which case, you don't have the Gospel). It is as plain as it can be in scripture.

That is not to say we instantly live justly when we become Christians, or we don't at times backslide, but if this isn't even a concern in your life, if you never feel deep compassion after the Father's heart? In that case, I'm sorry to say, I need to speak to you about Jesus. Your "Jesus", like your gospel is weak and brings no real change, no drive to Holiness, no love for your brother, or the oppressed. Jesus is both Holy and compassionate. It can be seen throughout His ministry, it can be seen in the writings of the scriptures. It's even a direct command from Jesus himself; in Mathew 4:22-24. Almost as if he is saying that without reconciliation your sacrifice (as the song goes, "of a broken heart") is meaningless. That's a reversal for the "just preach the gospel crowd".

So, you might say, "this is what they meant". If that is true, why aren't these people acting with compassion on the needs of the hurting in the church? And if they are, why not say it? The heart of this statement is a desire to shut down the so called "social gospel" (i.e. social good news; heaven forbid Christ should be good news for anything beyond one's immediate relationship with God). This social gospel only exists in the form it does (which is at times extreme) because of the watering down of the Gospel by men like the ones writing this statement to the point where it has no power to change anything, and by the failure of the church to address and condemn systematic injustice within the church itself, let alone the world. The solution to this problem is not a statement that further rubs salt into those very wounds! It cannot be!

We have this weird idea that everything is OK before we die, then God will magically and painlessly deal with our lack of Holiness then heaven and harps and angels forever.

It doesn't work like that. Should you live like that, you will escape as one from the fire, if at all. Will that be painless? I don't think so. You cannot remain how you are and bear the presence of the Living and Holy God. Do not resist the Spirit. Be reconciled with your brother. Walk with him. Feel his pain. Rejoice with him. This is what Christianity is about - we are loved by God so that we can love in return, so that we can have His heart for the world.

May God have mercy on us, for how we deny his Son and His Good News, by our thoughts and actions and attitudes. May He grant us the grace to apply his Gospel to the world.

In summary, a gospel never "applied" is a weak, pitiful and even dead gospel. Or rather no gospel at all. All it leaves you with is easy believism. A faith without cost, and without power. A gospel boiled down and reduced until it is no longer good news for the world, just good news for me and my buddies. I will have no part in such a thing.

As always, this is my domain. I reserve the right to delete your comment if I feel that you are not applying the principle of charity.

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.