Billy Birch over at The Arminian has put together a nice post that compares and contrasts Wesleyan Arminianism with Reformed (or Classical) Arminianism. You can find it here: Demarcating Wesleyan-Arminianism and Reformed Arminianism.
I did a somewhat similar post a while back, available here: A Comparison of Wesleyanism and Classical Arminianism.
Filed under Arminianism, Holiness, Jacob Arminius, John MacArthur, sanctification, Wesleyanism
Here is an informative post from David Feltar, General Editor of the Nazarene church. It will be of interest to those from a Wesleyan background. There are some who are unaware of Nazarene history, and ask us to be something that we are not.
Link here: What About Those Nazarenes?
There are three main topics discussed.
Update [9-22-13] – the original link is now dead, so I have attached the post in its entirety below:
————————————-
As General Editor of the Church of the Nazarene, I frequently get the same questions about the status of the church. These undoubtedly come from well-meaning, sincere people who have picked up bits and pieces along with rumors from here and there that trouble them. Additionally, there are voices on the sidelines seriously critical of just about everything the church does; from conferences on spiritual formation to NYC.
I have combined the queries into two main questions, making them representative of the spectrum of concerns that I receive on a fairly regular basis. In this response, I have posted my perspective and am speaking as a member of the Church of the Nazarene who loves the church and grieves over the rending of its fabric by ill-informed critics.
1. The Church Of The Nazarene is slowly turning away from its roots so to speak and becoming more liberal.
The Church of the Nazarene has consistently affirmed its 16 Articles of Faith and its Agreed Statement of Belief. These documents form the very foundation upon which rests the theological and doctrinal trajectory of the denomination. Additionally, nothing has happened officially, within the decision-making of the General Assembly, to change these documents. If anything, we have strengthened our commitment to these foundational truths. We reference them in relationship to every book we print and every message we send because they represent our DNA.
The challenge behind this accusation is unfounded. Individual members of the Church of the Nazarene may have altered their perspectives and such alterations by individual members may have been mistakenly perceived as wholesale changes endorsed or adopted by the denomination. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Additionally, another challenge has arisen from the influx of new members over time who have come to the Church of the Nazarene from differing theological traditions. Some have come from Reformed, Calvinist, or charismatic traditions and when they discover the significant differences between our Wesleyan-holiness theological tradition, they may perceive such differences as liberalizing. This is especially true for those whose former religious experiences were in fundamentalist, Reformed, and Calvinist traditions. Wesleyan-theological traditions view many elements of Christian theology through ancient lenses stretching back to our roots in the 18th century Methodist revival under the ministries of John and Charles Wesley who were Anglican priests and remained such until their deaths. Our historic theological positions rest on ancient premises, supported by Early Church Fathers.
Reformed churches developed strains of Augustine’s predestinarian perspectives (God’s divine decrees), especially through the work of the towering theological giant, John Calvin. Presently, there are Bible Churches, Baptist Churches, and many Evangelical churches whose theological base is informed by these insights. Doctrines like eternal security and male-only ministry do not find their way into their way into the Nazarene theology because our roots return to the tap root of the ancient, apostolic fathers, mediated by the Church of Rome, the Church of England, the Reformation, the Wesleyan Revival, the American Holiness Movement, right up until now. Consequently, some Nazarenes hear our theological message and sense differences but perceive it incorrectly as a liberalizing trend. Nothing could be further from the truth.
2. The Emerging/Emergent church.
The discussions surrounding the Emerging/Emergent Church have been rather confusing because there is no one, single, all-encompassing definition of the Emergent Church. Some would say it is the church practicing hospitality, openness, and embracing all regardless of their knowledge or understanding of Grace. Others would say that it refers to a theological position staked out by popular authors and church leaders like Brian McLaren, Tony Jones, et al. In truth, much of what is occurring in the so-called “emerging church” is driven by the changes in society as a whole. This is why one rarely if ever hears of “emergent churches” in global areas outside North America.
There are facets of the emergent movement that are truly troubling in that they seem to minimalize the role of evangelism, preferring instead the compassionate ministry approach of listening, serving, and representing the heart of Jesus in their world. While there is something eminently beautiful about selfless service to others on behalf of, and in the name of Jesus, there is also the reality that the Church cannot neglect the proclamation of the Gospel. Many young people are rejecting the heavy-handed approaches of another era, preferring instead “conversations” and solidarity with the world in Christ’s name. Clearly the jury is still out on this, but in my mind, any local church that ignores the responsibility of proclaiming the Gospel in decisive terms, misses its God-appointed mandate given by the Son in Matthew 28. Moreover the words of General Superintendent J. K. Warrick help us in his reference to those who espouse the teachings of the Emergent/emerging church: “When they drift into heresy we draw lines and hold the line firm.”
The rhetoric in some quarters has gotten out of hand with unfounded accusations flying everywhere, creating unnecessary dissension and division in the Body of Christ. Many of us who are older are having a difficult time adjusting to the changes we see and hear in the local church; from worship styles to the way the local church perceives its place in the mission of God. The reality is the church is always changing. No methodology is sacrosanct. Everything we do in the Body of Christ must acknowledge our human limitations, relying fully on the grace and power of Christ for the furtherance of His mission.
Where there has been the substitution of human ideas for the clear teachings of Scripture and the time-honored, Spirit-inspired teachings of the Church, one must declare one’s allegiance to Christ and His teachings. Where the message that is proclaimed no longer affirms or is enriched by faithfulness to the Articles of Faith, then that congregation is slipping away from its theological moorings.
Corrective, constructive criticism can be offered without disconnecting one’s self from the Body. Prayer, fellowship, and involvement can bridge gaps between those whose knowledge of Scripture and proper, correct theological doctrine is insufficiently developed.
3. The Church of the Nazarene, Evolution, Legalism, and the Word of God
There is much debate in the evangelical world about these three issues. Some of it stems from widely differing positions on the nature of Scripture. The Church of the Nazarene is not, and never has been a fundamentalist denomination. Our view of Scripture rests on the solid foundations of the Early Church Father’s positions, and has been affirmed by the “holy, catholic Church” (the Church universal) down through the ages. Here are some quick associations between that perspective and some common issues.
Some Conclusions:
A new generation, weary of modernist assurances based on empiricism alone, have sought fresh wells from which to drink of the living water offered by our Lord (John 7:37-38). Many Christians have searched the ‘memory’ of the earlier generations of believers, in different times and locations, and have found rich treasures that offer simple, fresh ways to experience the transcendence and holiness of God in worship, praise, prayer, and community.
It is unfortunate that so many other believers have rushed to condemn those who have sought to resurrect ancient methods of worship, reflection, prayer, and meditation. It is always possible that someone will take something too far, idealizing it and in turn actually creating the inverse of what they thought they were finding by making their discovery an end in itself. Clearly some conferences or gatherings in universities have pushed the limits and have, or are, learning from their experiences. The criticism they experienced as a result served as a corrective.
Take the issue of homosexuality; the Board of General Superintendents has affirmed our traditional stand found in the Manual through their pastoral letter. They also reminded the church that as Wesleyan’s we view sin as any willful, voluntary breaking of a known law of God. They have reminded the church that there is a difference between a tendency or temptation, and acted out behavior. The latter separates an individual from fellowship with God, while the former offers the Spirit opportunity to perform the work of transformation and recovery.
Our institutions like Pt. Loma and others are intersections where critical issues will surface from time to time. They offer an environment where the fine line of love for the person and commitment to law of God are balanced to provide an opportunity for discussion, clarification, and redemption.
Numerous voices are extant today that are full of criticism, censoriousness, and confusion. Satan would like to confuse the people of God. Clearly, the Church of the Nazarene is not perfect. It is, however, a vine of God’s planting. It is committed to the message of Scriptural holiness. I encourage you to take heart and be faithful, for God is still working with His people.
Grace & Peace
David Felter
Filed under Nazarene
UK preacher and historian David Pawson is doing a seminar this week at IHOP. Link here: International House of Prayer: David Pawson. They are doing live video podcasts and the recorded audio sessions are also available.
There are several talks that address aspects of Calvinism. There is a two part series called “Grace: Saving, Sovereign, or Free?” and another one called “Once Saved, Always Saved?”
Filed under Arminian Audio, David Pawson
10. Not fair to William and Kate, they haven’t even been married a month.
9. Glenn Beck didn’t confirm it on his show.
8. It would result in the Packers being Superbowl champs for all time.
7. Camping forgot to carry a 5 when figuring time between Shem and Arpachshad.
6. Google Skynet is still in beta stage.
5. The Mayans say we have 7 more months.
4. Bin Laden hasn’t yet fully recovered from his fatal head wound.
3. No bar codes on anyone’s hand or forehead.
2. Hal Lindsey says the bear from the north must attack first.
1. Cubs haven’t won the World Series.
Filed under humor
Harold Camping, the fellow who’s teaching that the world will end on May 21, 20011, comes from a staunchly Calvinist background. This, of course, doesn’t prove that Calvinism is wrong, only that one of its adherents is loopy. I’m just glad he’s not a loopy Arminian.
In the pamphlet, “God’s Magnificent Salvation Plan” (1), Camping lays out a detailed systematic argument for the TULIP. Some quotes:
“…It is totally God’s sovereign grace that He saves one and leaves another under His just wrath.”
“As a matter of fact, He [Jesus] did die only for those who were elected of God.”
“Who then can be saved? All of God’s elect will, without fail, be saved.”
“We are incapable of ever deciding to come to Christ…We are as spiritually dead as Lazarus was physically dead in the tomb before he was raised.”
“If we hold the position that we can resist the will of God absolutely nobody would be saved.”
“Nobody can resist the will of God when it is His desire to save someone.”
“If we believe that man can resist God’s will to save those whom He plans to save, effectively we have arrived at a gospel of grace plus works.”
“There are those who teach that Christ actually paid for the sins of each and every person in the whole world, and it is only our rejection of Christ that sends us into Hell…This supports the erroneous idea that God has done all that He could, and now it’s up to us.”
“Christ’s fully paying for all the sins of the elect means there is no imaginable sin that could be committed that would undo the miracle of salvation. Any sin the elect would commit was already paid for by Christ during the atonement.”
In addition, Camping’s site familyradio.com has the following quote, which indicates that he currently still holds to Calvinism.
On Family Radio we clearly teach the Biblical truth that all mankind are sinners and, therefore, are subject to God’s righteous wrath. We further teach the sad truth that because man by nature is spiritually dead, he will not and cannot come to God on God’s terms. However, God in His wonderful love has chosen a people for Himself for whom the Lord Jesus Christ did all the work necessary to save them. In God’s own timetable He applies the Word of God to their hearts and saves them. This is the Bible’s grand message of salvation that Family Radio wishes to send to every nation of the world. (2)
————————————————————-
(1)God’s Magnificent Salvation Plan, Harold Camping, 1981 – Web version. See also “God Magnificant Salvation Plan” July 2002, PDF from Family Radio.
(2)Harold Camping Bio, FamilyRadio.com
Filed under Calvinism
I ran across a website called The Evangelical Christian Library. They have 120 free books online, on numerous topics of interest. There is a nice cross section of Evangelical thought.
Here are some titles that look interesting to me:
The Best of DL Moody, ed Ralph Turnbell, 1971
What the Bible Reveals About Heaven, Daniel Brown, 1999
Evangelical Affirmations, ed Kenneth Kantzer, 1990
The Islam Debate, Josh McDowell, 1983
The Mark of the Christian, Francis Schaeffer, 1970
Prayer, Conversing with God, Rosalind Rinker, 1959
The Top 10 Ways to Drive Your Wife Crazy (and how to avoid them), Hans & Donna Finzel, 1996
A Woman’s Place? Leadership in the Church, C.S. Cowles, 1993
Filed under book review, General Interest
Here is an interesting two part audio series by UK Bible teacher David Pawson. It’s about how our culture is influenced by Greek thought, and how this influence impacts Christianity in some negative ways. He notes that Greek thinking elevated the spiritual, and discounted the physical, creating a false dichotomy between the two. Jewish thinking does not make this distinction. Pawson argues that some of Augustine’s theology was flawed because of the Greek influences.
DeGreecing the Church – Part 1
DeGreecing the Church – Part 2
Also, check out Pawson’s series on Romans 9-11. Link here.
Filed under Arminian Audio
This is the second post in a series. The first can be found here: Women are Called to Preach – part 1
Does scripture preclude the possibility of women preaching and teaching? There are two passages from Paul’s letters that are frequently referenced by those who hold to that view:
1 Cor. 14:34-35: The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.
1 Timothy 2:11-15: A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.
These passages are not universal prohibitions for women preaching. Rather, Paul is demonstrating a universal principle: True followers of Jesus Christ are willing to set aside their rights in order to advance the gospel. Paul lived this principle out in his ministry, and it is foremost in his mind when he addresses the multiple problems that confront the Corinthians.
I have the right to do anything,” you say—but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything”—but not everything is constructive. No one should seek their own good, but the good of others. (1 Cor 10:23-24)
Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God— even as I try to please everyone in every way. For I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved. (1 Cor 10:32-33)
There were circumstances unique to the Corinthian and Ephesian churches that created an environment where the advancement of the gospel was better served if women temporarily set aside their rights to speak in gatherings. Paul is addressing those circumstances. Paul also indicates that he is expressing his personal desire that women be quiet, and that he is not giving a timeless principle. We also observe that in other passages Paul (and the other apostles) permitted women to speak.
The Cultures of Corinth and Ephesus
In Corinth and Ephesus it was best that women first learn propriety. This was more important than their freedom. The women were uneducated, and were exiting a pagan religion dominated by females. Paul was concerned with the behavior of the women, and how their behavior impacted their witness to the church and the larger culture. Pagan religion in Corinth and Ephesus encouraged women to be disruptive and to emotionally exalt themselves. Women in the Christian gatherings were mimicking these pagan rites.
Hank Hanegraaf notes that:
Paul’s words refute the matriarchal authoritarianism practiced by pagan cults in that day. Ephesus, where Timothy ministered, was the home of a cult dedicated to the pagan goddess Artemis. Worship of Artemis was conducted under the authority of an entirely female priesthood that exercised authoritarian dominion over male worshipers. Thus, Paul emphasizes that women should not presume undue authority over men. Paul neither elevates women over men nor men over women, but is rather concerned that men and women be granted equal opportunity to learn and grow in submission to one another and to God.(1)
Should All Women Wear Head Coverings?
Similarly, the appearance of the Corinthian women is addressed by Paul with the requirement that all women wear head coverings or shave their head (1 Cor 11:5-6). Today most recognize that the head covering requirement was a cultural prohibition and not a timeless one (although John Calvin thought it was timeless!). A woman who removed her head covering while praying or prophesying was mimicking another pagan religious rite. Michael Marlow notes that there “are many points of contact between the practices of the mystery cults and the issues Paul deals with in his letters to the Corinthians”.(2) Paul wanted the women of Corinth to make changes in their lives in order be distinguishable in behavior and appearance from the pagans around them.
As a side note, a common Greek head covering was a headband. Paul wasn’t necessarily concerned with visible hair being immodest. 
We also see the cultural context in Paul’s exhortation for slaves to obey their masters (Colossians 3:22). Few today would argue that Paul was an advocate of slavery. However, in a society that permitted slavery, it was best for Christian slaves to obey their masters. In this way the Christian slaves set a Godly example.
Preach the Gospel with the Heart of a Servant
Having the heart of a servant requires willingness to set aside one’s rights. We see this principle at work when Paul requires that Timothy be circumcised (Acts 16:3). Yet in a different context, Paul prevented Titus from being circumcised (Gal 2:3-5). Preaching the gospel and helping the weaker believer are what is important, individual rights are less important.
Freedom is great when it fosters the gospel (Galations 5:1). We are free in Christ, and if a group of people know better, they should not set up barriers to restrict someone from using their God given talents. That is why we see different approaches with the circumcision of Timothy and Titus. Timothy’s circumcision advanced the gospel, but Titus’ circumcision would not have. So it was not demanded of him. Paul would not allow the Judiazers to create false requirements to exclude Titus from ministry.
The same principle applies to women preaching. If a woman’s preaching is beneficial and done for the good of others, it ought to be encouraged. In an egalitarian society such as ours, women should be encouraged to preach, teach, and use their gifts of leadership. Preventing them from doing so is sinful. It is done by creating false requirements made with the same spirit of the Judiazaers of Galatia. Yet, there may be other cases where a woman preaching is not beneficial (say to a Muslim male). Likewise, there may be times when a man should not preach (say at a battered woman’s shelter). In such cases, those with the heart of a servant do not demand their liberty.
Paul’s Preferences
Paul sometimes distinguishes between his personal preferences and what God says (See 1 Cor 7:8-12). Paul expresses a personal desire in 1 Timothy 2:11 when he says “I do not permit a women to preach.” Paul doesn’t say God prohibits all women from preaching, rather he (Paul) does, in that given place and time. As demonstrated above, Paul had good reasons for not permitting it.
Theologian C.S. Cowles also points out that the phrase “I do not permit a woman to preach.” is in the present tense in Greek:
Although commonly translated as a permanent injunction, it does not read that way in the Greek. The Greek verb is in the present active indicative case and ought to be translated, “I am not presently permitting a woman to teach . . .“(3)
Cowles also writes:
…Paul had no intention whatsoever of laying down a timeless and universal principle prohibiting women from either teaching (preaching) or exercising positions of leadership in the church. Rather, he was cautioning women from assuming roles for which they were neither trained nor equipped at that time. He was encouraging them to be submissive and quiet learners until they had been fully instructed in “true doctrine,” after which they would then be qualified and competent to exercise the authority of one who teaches sound doctrine.
As Apostle to the Gentiles, Paul was motivated to do the things that would be for the good of many – that they might be saved. His temporary prohibition of women speaking should be understood in that light.
Prophesying in Public?
Elsewhere in First Corinthians Paul implicitly acknowledges that women can prophesy in a public setting (1 Cor 11:5). This gives more evidence that Paul was not setting down a timeless principle for women to be quiet. In addition, we have other examples in the New Testament of women prophesying (Anna, Phoebe, Priscilla, the daughters of Phillip).
In conclusion, there are no timeless prohibitions against women preaching. It is a mistake to use Paul’s writings in a way that blocks women from using their gifts today. In fact, it is sinful to set up false barriers that block women from serving God in their calling. At the same time, we as Christians need to remember that we are called to preach the gospel with the heart of a servant. It is not about our rights, but is about the gospel of Jesus Christ.
————————————————————————-
(1) Must Women be Silent in Church?, Hank Hanegraaff
(2) Headcovering Custums of the Ancient World, Michael Marlowe
(3) John Calvin, Commentary on Corinthians. p 220-221
(4) A Woman’s Place? Leadership in the Church, by C.S. Cowles, Chapter 6 p 146-147
Filed under women in leadership, women preachers
In the book The Potters Freedom, Calvinist James White sets forth a parable called “The King and the Castle”. The purpose of the parable is to explain why (in White’s view) the concept of “Limited Atonement” does not impugn the character of God. White contrasts his story with one written by non-Calvinist Norm Geisler. A summary of Geisler’s parable can be found here: The Farmer, the Boys, and the Pond.
Here is a paraphrase of “The King and the Castle”:
The greatest king of all time leaves his castle to do good things. When the king returns, he finds that his subjects have been robbing, murdering and raping his friends. In addition, they have intentionally set fire to his castle, and if they do not quickly escape, they will all perish in the flames.
The rebels have no justification for their behavior. The king has always been good to his subjects. He has provided for them, and they have feasted at his table.
Despite the king’s graciousness, the rebels have sinned personally against the king, and have done it repeatedly. They have a long track record of rebellion despite the king’s mercy.
Even though the fire in the castle is raging and the death of the rebels is certain, they continue to destroy everything that reminds them of the king and his authority. They are gleeful with their wickedness. They enjoy being disobedient and hateful. They even encourage others to join the rebellion.
If the king attempts to save the rebels from the fire, they would certainly mock him. They would refuse to come out, they would curse the king, they would throw debris in his face, and they would run back into the smoke and flames. Given the opportunity, they would attempt to drag the king into the flames and kill him too.
By all rights, the king should have the castle surrounded and make sure that everyone inside dies. The king instead shows love beyond all imagination by sending his only son into the fire to pull some of the rebels out of the flames. The son dies in the fire after saving the rebels that he wanted to save.
Given the atrocious behavior of the rebels and their hatred, the king is completely justified in saving only some of the rebels. He saves them by his free grace, and he has the right to choose whom he wants to save, and he has the right to allow others to justly die in the flames. In reality they all deserve to die.(1)
White’s parable is reasonable if the rebels have genuine free will. In fact it somewhat models the parable of the “Vineyard Tenants” given by Jesus in Matthew 21:33-45. However, the parable becomes silly when interpreted through the lens of exhaustive determinism where all actions are preordained. The parable only makes sense if the rebels could do something other than what they do.
But in White’s view, the rebels cannot do other than what they do. He leaves this “little detail” out of the parable. In reality, the rebels are burning down the castle because the king desires it. The king has decreed that the rebels burn down his castle, and he has caused them to do it. He has decreed that they mock him. He has decreed that they kill his son. The king’s actual complaint should be against his double-minded decrees.
White believes that everything we do is necessary and has been decreed by God. He writes:
…God has wisely and perfectly decreed whatever comes to pass in the universe. Nothing is outside his control, nothing is without purpose…This extends…to every aspect of human history, personal relationships, and most importantly, to the life of every man, woman, and child. (2)
White goes onto say that God ordains the “actions of men, even their choices.” Given such a view, White’s parable is absurd. If White’s parable is to be consistent with his theology, the castle rebellion occurs by necessity and design of the king. Yet White makes it sound as if the rebels have a choice in the matter (the Arminian view!). White’s parable is inconsistent at this point. His theology necessitates that the rebellion occurs only because of the king’s good pleasure. The king has ordained the choices of the rebels. The rebels are puppets following the king’s script. They cannot do other than what they do. They rape, murder, and burn at the king’s command.
The real problem with White’s parable is that his descriptions of the king are not reconciled with his deterministic assumptions about God. White says the king is the greatest of all times. But a great king doesn’t ordain for his subjects to burn down his own castle. White says the king only does good things. But a good king doesn’t blame his subjects for doing what he has coercively caused them to do. White says the king is loving beyond all description. But a loving king does what’s best for his subjects, particularly when he knows they are doing precisely what he intended for them to do.
White parable inadvertently shows the absurdity of Calvinism. A righteous king would never decree that his subjects rebel, and then punish them for doing what he caused them to do. Such a king is not righteous or loving, he is not the greatest of all times, and he isn’t good. Such a king would be sadistic and capricious.
————————————–
(1) The parable can be found on pages 306-312 of “The Potter’s Freedom”. There is also a you-tube video here where White describes his parable and criticizes Dr. Geisler’s view.
(2)The Potter’s Freedom, p 45
Filed under Calvinism, James White, limited atonement
The Blue Parakeet by Scot McKnight
Wesleyan Arminian 