Category Archives: Calvinism

Augustine's mistake about original sin

Posted on by
100

Scot McKnight writes:

Behind the Reformation is Augustine; behind much of modern evangelicalism, especially in the Reformed circles today, is the Reformation. Therefore, at the bottom of the evangelical movement in the Reformed circles is Augustine and his anthropology.

And behind Augustine’s anthropology (understanding of humanity), which is outlined in Scot’s post, is a simple misunderstanding of one word in the Bible, a preposition consisting of just two letters. Scot is writing about the New Perspective on Paul, an interesting issue. But my point here is not about that, but about how a misleading Bible translation has led Christian theology seriously astray for 1600 years.

Continue reading →

Was Calvin really an inerrantist?

Posted on by
19

Adrian Warnock claims that the reformer John Calvin

could easily have signed the Chicago Statement

on Biblical Inerrancy. He bases this claim on a rather short extract from Calvin’s Institutes.

I cannot agree that this claim has been adequately justified. For I note several things in the Chicago Statement (in fact I looked only at the Articles part of this Statement) which Calvin does not affirm in this extract from the Institutes:

Continue reading →

Simeon and Wesley on Calvinism

Posted on by
4

When I was as Christian student in Cambridge in the 1970’s I was encouraged to look to Charles Simeon as one of my heroes. He had faithfully preached the evangelical gospel in that city for more than 50 years, and was one of the main leaders of the evangelical awakening in the Church of England which started started in the late 18th century.

Another Christian hero of mine is John Wesley, the great preacher of a generation before Simeon. But he is considered suspect in some circles as an Arminian and for his teaching on Christian perfection.

And so I was interesting to see this account on Adrian’s blog of a conversation between Simeon and Wesley. Simeon starts by saying

Sir, I understand that you are called an Arminian; and I have been sometimes called a Calvinist; and therefore I suppose we are to draw daggers.

But after asking Wesley some questions, he concludes:

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

Would that Calvinists and Arminians today could agree so easily! Almost all evangelicals today can agree on the points which Wesley and Simeon agreed on – although perhaps for some including myself

so depraved that you would never have thought of turning to God, if God had not first put it into your heart

is something of an overstatement.

But the difficulty today comes when Calvinists go beyond what Calvin taught, and Scripture teaches, into teachings like limited atonement (Christ died only for the elect, contra 2 Corinthians 5:14) and double predestination (some are predestined not to be saved, contra 1 Timothy 2:4 and 2 Peter 3:9); and when Arminians drift towards Pelagianism, the equally unbiblical teaching that people can bring about their own salvation. While I am sure there will continue to be disagreements about some of the details (and I hope to look for resolution of some of the issues when I continue my Kingdom Thermodynamics series), there should be sufficient common ground here that all evangelicals can work together in harmony.

Meanwhile Adrian is starting a campaign for an electronic edition of “the massive 21-volume set of Simeon’s sermons that form a commentary on the Bible”. If you are interested in getting this, please let him know.

Further Comments on Revival Evangelicalism

Posted on by
Reply

Thank you to Sam and Tim for your comments on my posting Am I a Revival Evangelical? I started to respond in a further comment, but decided that this would work best as a new posting.

Sam, the post for which you gave me a link certainly helps me to understand where you are coming from. My own experience has been somewhat different, coming through what you would call fundamentalism, e.g. the Christian Union at the other university ;-). I have not rejected this while seeing it transformed by an understanding of the work of the Holy Spirit which includes some of the kind of mysticism which you have experienced. And then following that I studied theology, worked for ten years on the mission field, and came home spiritually dry. Especially in the last year I have come back towards that close relationship with God which is at the heart of mysticism, although I know that I still have a long way to go. At some time I hope to post more about this here.

I too am deeply suspicious of too much emphasis on decisions. While on the mission field I did some work with a church whose idea of evangelism was to speak to people on the streets about Christ – so far so good – and then to encourage them to make an immediate decision to become a Christian. In that situation, quite a lot of people were prepared to do that, for example to say the prayer they were presented with. They were also invited to the church and attempts were made to follow them up, but these were often fruitless. But it was the teaching of this church that these people were saved eternally because they had once prayed that prayer. I don’t entirely reject that teaching. But I do have serious doubts about this as a proper evangelistic strategy. And for similar reasons I would not support “revival meeting” style evangelism, detached from a local church, without proper follow-up arrangements. But then at least here in Britain that is not common. When I was a counsellor for a Billy Graham mission some years ago we were all taught how important it was to get proper follow up details for anyone who came forward. I am sure that most responsible evangelists continue to do this.

So, Sam, I would agree with the following from your posting on evangelism, even though I would not completely accept the parts of this paragraph which I omit.

I believe that it means allowing God space to work his grace in our lives and in the lives of those whom we care for. There is a particular neurosis attached to Revival evangelicalism whereby the gospel becomes a burden not a liberation – which is odd, for Christ set us free for freedom. … Our calling is to be faithful, to dwell in grace, and to give thanks.

I would also agree with Tim and I think Sam that Sunday worship ought to be for Christians and not turned into an evangelistic event. So I would not endorse the strategies of certain American mega-churches which do just that. However, surely if for one reason or another a significant number of non-Christians turn up to a Sunday worship service, it is surely proper to present them with the basics of the Gospel. And, where much of the congregation is made up of people who consider themselves Christians but do not seem to be making progress in the Christian faith, surely it is a good thing to challenge such people in the context of the service and encourage them to do what they should do as Christians.

But then, if Sunday worship is not to be evangelistic, and the church is to do the work of evangelism, and this is to be a corporate rather than an individual activity, then surely evangelism must take place in some kind of meeting rather like those which Finney pioneered, as described in the article which Sam quoted:

the “evangelistic meeting” that takes place apart from the normal preaching and sacramental ministry of the local church.

So, Sam, if you don’t like evangelism being done in Sunday worship, and you apparently don’t like special evangelistic meetings, how do you think the church ought to reach those who need to hear the Christian message?

I don’t mean here to suggest a normative evangelistic strategy, only to get away from any ideas that certain strategies are invalid. For surely it is for each church to decide its own strategy, within the rather broad limits of what is considered orthodox Christianity as presented in the Bible.

Meanwhile I am glad that Sam is distancing himself from the doctrine of double predestination, which I consider immoral as well as unbiblical. I clearly didn’t understand Sam’s meaning at this point. I agree that human will and decision should not be exalted as a work of righteousness. There is a fine line to be drawn here, but we are not at all far apart.

I would also like to define “revival” in a very different way, not as human evangelistic enterprise but as a move of the Holy Spirit. But that is a subject for another posting, and another time. So I will leave this one for now.

Am I a "Revival Evangelical"?

Posted on by
Reply

I am glad to have found in Rev Sam another Anglican blogger from Essex, and from my own diocese of Chelmsford. I found him because his Free Essex campaign was commented on in Canada.

Geographically, Sam is from Mersea Island, which is about 20 miles away from my home in Chelmsford. In terms of churchmanship, he as an Anglo-Catholic priest and I might seem to be at opposite ends of the Church of England – although in many ways I feel closer to Anglo-Catholics than I do to middle-of-the-road liberals.

Sam has written some interesting thoughts about evangelism, which set me thinking. Am I in fact an exponent of what he calls revival evangelicalism, for which he shows little sympathy?

Let me first say that I accept the principle of sola gratia, “only by grace”. After all, that is what the Bible clearly teaches:

8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast.

Ephesians 2:8-9 (TNIV©)

But I do not accept the Augustinian formulation of that principle (also accepted by Calvinists) in terms of God’s grace being irresistible; rather, God gives us free will to accept or reject his calling, for he wants us to make a free decision to follow his ways:

9 Do not be like the horse or the mule,
which have no understanding
but must be controlled by bit and bridle
or they will not come to you.

Psalm 32:9 (TNIV©)

Perhaps in Sam’s eyes saying this is enough to put me into the revival evangelical camp. If so, so be it. But my view is characteristic by no means only of American evangelicalism, but also of the great majority of British Christianity probably right back to the time of Pelagius, Augustine’s British (or Irish) opponent in the 4th-5th centuries (who was probably “semi-Pelagian”, Sam’s Option 2, rather than “Pelagian”, Option 1). My view also seems to have been that of the early church, as argued for example by Roger Forster and Paul Marston in the appendix to God’s Strategy in Human History.

Meanwhile I am puzzled by Sam’s criticism of what he calls decisional regeneration, the teaching that

the decision of the believer is the key step in salvation,

for he also writes

it is the confession that Jesus is Lord which makes someone a Christian.

The only real difference between Sam’s position and the one he rejects seems to be whether it is necessary to express one’s decision with a verbal confession. In fact the Bible clearly teaches that both a decision in the heart and a confession with the mouth are required:

If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Romans 10:9 (TNIV©)

In fact Sam’s problem with decisional regeneration seems to be with whether it is right to take any steps which might encourage other people to believe and make a confession of faith. Now I can understand why Sam does not like some of the methods used by modern evangelists to persuade people to make decisions; some of them certainly go beyond Christian propriety. On the other hand, some churches, including Anglo-Catholic ones, must be erring in the opposite direction, in that their activities seem to have the effect of discouraging outsiders from coming to the point where they confess Jesus as Lord. So perhaps the real issue here is what kind of steps are acceptable to encourage people to believe.

At this point Sam makes four criticisms of revival evangelicalism, concerning worship, evangelism, church and world.

On worship, I agree with the “Reformed” position, as expounded by Sam, that preaching and the sacraments should be central to Christian worship, and that pressure for decisions should be not be – which does not imply that it is wrong to invite people to make a decision to believe and a confession of faith.

I also agree with the “Reformed” position that Scripture and the gospel should be central to evangelism, but in addition I would point out Paul the apostle’s example to us of being careful to use means which are effective with our target audiences:

19 Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. 23 I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.

1 Corinthians 9:19-23 (TNIV©, my emphasis)

I also agree with the “Reformed” position that salvation is not just an individual matter, but the church is a necessary part of the Christian life.

And I am puzzled by Sam’s comments about the world, but agree with the “Reformed” position that

growth in faith is tied in with growth in good works, which are seen as the fruit.

Does this make me a Reformed evangelical, or at least an evangelical who is acceptable to Sam? I hope at least that he can accept that my position does not “fall off the edge of traditional Anglican teaching“; indeed it is probably right at the centre of the traditional teaching at least of what is now the largest group within the Church of England, the evangelicals.

But I do have serious problems with Sam’s teaching that “God is in charge of whether a particular person is saved or not“. This appears to be a summary of the doctrine of double predestination, that some are predestined to be saved and everyone else is predestined to be damned. He can hardly make acceptance of this teaching into a touchstone for Anglican orthodoxy, for it is a position which surely has never been taken by more than a small minority of Anglicans. Indeed, it seems to me that predestination to damnation is explicitly rejected in Article XVII “Of Predestination and Election” of the Thirty Nine Articles:

for curious and carnal persons, lacking the Spirit of Christ, to have continually before their eyes the sentence of God’s Predestination, is a most dangerous downfall, whereby the Devil doth thrust them either into desperation, or into wretchlessness of most unclean living, no less perilous than desperation.

It is also of course explicitly rejected in Scripture:

3 This is good, and pleases God our Saviour, 4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.

1 Timothy 2:3-4 (TNIV©)

The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

2 Peter 3:9 (TNIV©)

Indeed, Sam,

there is a duty placed upon all Christians to seek common ground and affirm those things which bind us together rather than focussing on things which drive us apart.

And I am sure that there is a lot of common ground between you and me, which fits well within the “very broad boundaries” of the Church of England. So let us not get sidetracked into disagreements about predestination, nor about methods of evangelism as long as these do not compromise basic Christian principles. Let us instead focus on fighting our real enemies, which are not within the church but are matters of the world, the flesh and the devil.