Monday, January 21, 2008

The Meltdown of Modern Conservatism

The desertion of a leading Social Conservative in Florida from the Thompson Campaign to the Huckabee camp starkly demonstrates the meltdown of the once powerful Reagan Coalition. It was composed of two of the largest constituencies of the Republican Party that emerged from the confusion of the 60's and the malaise of the 70's - two decades more about the "me" generation and personal gratification than about the principles on which this nation was founded.

The modern Conservative Movement really found it's genesis in 1964 with the ascendency of Barry Goldwater as the Republican Presidential nominee. This wing of the party was hawkish in regards to foreign policy, and willing to confront the Communist threat directly if necessary. They also believed in less government control over the economy, in limited government, less beauracracy, less regulation, lower taxes and spending. This single constituency of the party, however, could not produce a Republican majority in Congress, nor could it get a true Conservative into the White House.

Enter Jerry Falwell. Actually, it was not just Jerry and his Moral Majority founded in 1979, but others like Pat Robertson, D. James Kennedy, Charles Stanley, etc. who emerged as leaders trying to motivate Christians -- evangelicals, fundalmentalists, pentecostals and charismatics -- to re-engage in the political process. Most Christians in those camps had deserted public politics in the 1920's following the Scopes Monkey Trial and the ascendence of separatist fundamentalism as the most influential movement in the American Church.

Ronald Reagan, who left the Democrat party in 1964 to support Barry Goldwater for President, was the first man to galvanize these two different constituencies as a winning government coalition. Barry Goldwater could not win, and Nixon was not strictly speaking a "Conservative" with the exception of his foreign policy. When Reagan challenged Gerald Ford in 1976, the coalition had not coalesced around his leadership yet. Many within the "Religious Right," as the second constituency would come to be known, were still not convinced that they should be engaged in the "dirty business" of politics. After four years of Jimmy Carter -- the devastating effects of economic policy failures and recession, the victories of Communism in their quest to conquer the world, the humiliation of our impotence both militarily and diplomatically at the hands of the Iranians -- Republicans from both the Economic/Governmental Conservative wing and the Religious Right wing were beyond ready to work together for common interests and goals. In 1980, it paid off with a Reagan landslide.

In Reagan's terms, the Republicans managed to run the Senate for 6 years, but never captured the House. This made the accomplishment of several goals impossible, though Reagan brought about the greatest era of economic growth and expansion -- as well as strength and patriotism -- since at least WW II. For instance, Reagan restored a 600 ship Navy, turned the tide against the Soviets, and helped reclaim nations once lost to Communist agression. He was never able to balance the budget however, because though he created the greatest tax cuts since the creation of the tax system which doubled revenue over 8 years, the Congress failed to keep their promise not to spend more than the treasury took in. Reagan is often blamed for the deficits of the 80's, but they were primarily the doing of the Democrat House. Reagan only failed to stand up to them by being willing to veto their spending and shut down the government to enforce budget cuts.

Bush 41 undid several of the things Reagan accomplished, increasing taxes which produced a recession, and increasing spending in agreement with the Democrat Congress. While he maintained the US image of military strength as evidenced by the victory in the Gulf war in 1991, he allowed the massive downsizing of the military in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Empire. While the "peace dividend" was nice, it was an illusory peace which caused the US to drop its gaurd. The trend to gut our military continued during the Clinton years, and set the country up for the current conflict with Islamofascism. IN a real way, the "success" of the Clinton years economically were the combination of several factors that worked together, and were largely the product of a Republican Congress, which came into power in 1995 -- mostly the result of their return to the principles of Ronald Reagan -- not "bipartisanship" and capitulation to liberalism.

The 90's were characterized by the Tech boom, the monetary policy of plenty of cash and low interest rates to go around, the fiscal restraint of the Republican Congress, the drastically cut military budget, and the risk Clinton took by refinancing the national debt with short term bonds -- a bet that, had interest rates actually increased in the 3-5 years terms, would have bankrupted the nation. Instead, the rates declined, and the deficit began to do the same. These elements balanced the budget by 1999 -- something Clinton could never have done had he not gotten lucky and had a Reaganesque Congress that forced his hand.

When the Republican Congress began to fail in living by the principles of Reagan, they began to lose political traction. Though they failed to stand up to Clinton at several key points in the 1990's -- particularly when Clinton shut down the Government in 1995 to KEEP liberal spending and social programs in place, and when they FAILED to impeach and remove him from office in accordance with the Constitution in 1998/99 -- the Republicans decline really came in the wake of 9/11 and the 2002 elections. Republicans seemed to believe they were entrenched in power, and they began to use that excuse to spend money -- like the Democrats had. They used the pain of the country after 9/11 and the pride of their political dominance to delude themselves into believing that Conservatives would desert their principles to keep their "power," or else to persuade liberals that they could spend on social programs and earmarks just as well as the Democrats. In 2006, the Republicans discovered they were WRONG.

Which brings us to the present, sorry state of the Republican party. Many of the "party regulars," the "country club" Republicans who had never bought into Conservatism ala Reagan (think Gerald Ford, Bob Dole, Arlen Spectre, etc...) are quite content to remain a permanent minority -- as they had been from the 1950's to the 1980's. Many of the economic/government Conservatives have been transformed, or maybe I should say they have degenerated, into country clubbers or status quo politicians who desire to hold on to personal power more than to advance an agenda and save the nation. Many of the Christians once engaged in the political arena have turned their back on the process once again, taking the head-in-the-sand position that we can't change anything and that's not part of our job description as Christians anyway. What error, what willful ignorance. And those who remain firmly involved in the process have been marginalized by not just the liberal media and Democrats, but by former allies among Republicans, who now call them fanatics, extremists and parasites.

We don't know the direction this election year will take. We can conclude that the era of Reaganism is all but dead -- and most of those who were once identified as Republicans are glad to see it go. The nomination of a McCain or a Huckabee, or even a Guiliani, would assure its demise. First, because that ticket would, if elected, be liberal on economic policies like taxes, spending, entitlement spending and programs, and ever growing government - no different than Democrats. Second, because that ticket would almost certainly gaurantee the election of a Democrat President, while expanding the Democrat majority in Congress (a practical certainty anyway).

The question then becomes, "What Next?" Will there be a Republican Party after this years approaching debacle? Will the US be able to withstand a wholly Democrat government for 4 years, much less 8? Could our political system even collapse -- because, if the Clintons return to power, ya gotta know, they'll never let it go again. What next?

I'm keeping my powder dry folks, and my foxhole too. And man, am I praying these days!

Friday, January 18, 2008

Changing My Endorsement -- Fred '08!

It is the eve of the Republican Primary here in SC. Several weeks ago, I "endorsed" Duncan Hunter as the candidate I would support and vote for. I finally heard from Duncan Hunter the first time yesterday, during the Rush Limbaugh show, on WVOC-AM radio. Good ad. Ran half a dozen times yesterday and today. So far as I know, Congressman Hunter hasn't appeared personally in this state in at least the last few weeks.

I can only surmise that Hunter is staying in the race to champion the cause of the border fence and ending the illegal immigration problem. For that, I am grateful. After NH, it was thought that he would withdraw from the race -- but at his news conference he refused to end his bid. Yet, he did virtually no campaigning here, evidently none in Nevada, and only very limited appearances in Michigan.

For those reasons, and though I am loathe to change my endorsement, I must support a candidate whose positions are most compatible with mine, and with a viable chance of winning the nomination. Because of his recent excellent performances in the debates in SC, and because he is clearly the candidate that most closely resembles the principles, policies and positions of Conservatism championed by Ronald Reagan, I am endorsing Fred Thompson for nomination of the Republican Party to run for President of the United States.

Thompson has surged here quickly in SC, and I only hope it's enough to bring him victory. I also hope he will go on into Florida and then Super Tuesday, when 22 states will vote, riding a wave of victory. I believe he is the best hope for Republican (and more importantly, Conservative) victory at this point. A Guiliani nomination would gaurantee the death of Conservatism, and a McCain or Huckabee nomination would shatter the Reagan coalition, already strained and torn by Republican failures to live up to its promises and principles since at least 1996.

Please pray for our nation -- we need Jesus over and above all else!

Wednesday, January 09, 2008

Theological Foundations, Part 4 -- The Arminian Remonstrance

TOTAL DEPRAVITY and PREVENIENT GRACE

Article 3

That man has not saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free will, inasmuch as he, in the state of apostasy and sin, can of and by himself neither think, will, nor do any thing that is truly good (such as saving Faith eminently is); but that it is needful that he be born again of God in Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, inclination, or will, and all his powers, in order that he may rightly understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good, according to the Word of Christ, John 15:5, “Without me ye can do nothing.”

Article 4

That this grace of God is the beginning, continuance, and accomplishment of all good, even to this extent, that the regenerate man himself, without prevenient or assisting, awakening, following and cooperative grace, can neither think, will, nor do good, nor withstand any temptations to evil; so that all good deeds or movements, that can be conceived, must be ascribed to the grace of God in Christ. but respects the mode of the operation of this grace, it is not irresistible; inasmuch as it is written concerning many, that they have resisted the Holy Ghost. Acts 7, and else­where in many places.

Often, Reformation Arminianism is labeled by its critics (usually Calvinists) as "Semi-Pelagianism." I will discuss Pelagius and the beliefs he originated at some point in the future -- right now, let me explain briefly this false charge, and how they differ -- rather distinctly.

Semi-Pelagianism does not deny the necessity of God's grace for salvation, but it does insist that the first efforts or initial steps toward salvation are taken by the human will, and that God's supernatural grace supervenes only to "seal the deal."

The result of Semi-Pelagianism is the denial of the necessity of God's unmerited, supernatural, gracious empowering of man's will to come to salvation through faith. In short, Reformation Arminianism differs strikingly from Semi-Pelagianism in this point -- Reformation Arminianism affirms the Biblical --and incidentally the Reformed [even Calvinist] -- concept of Total Depravity. Read Article 3 again..."Man has not saving grace of himself, nor the energy of his free will...can of and by himself neither think, will nor do anything that is truly good (such as saving Faith eminently is)..."

In other words, man, in the strictest sense, has a "Freed Will," not a "free will." Man cannot of himself come to faith in Christ. Rather, it is "through His Holy Spirit" that He renews our "understanding, inclination or will...in order that he [man] may rightly understand, think, will and effect what is truly good..." Calvinists insist that this is actual "regeneration," which would mean that the event of the new birth must precede the actual exercise of faith. That is not the Biblical Ordo Salutis. Scripture clearly teaches it is "by grace, through faith." We enter His grace through a faith that God produces in us. How does God do that? Prevenient Grace.

If man is unable to come to faith, to believe, to do any good, how then can he believe? "No one can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day" (John 6:44). That process of "drawing" men unto Himself is what we might call "Prevenient Grace." As to it's effect, it draws man, it enables man to be custodian of the faith God has given, it "frees" the will of man. Prevenient Grace, however, DOES NOT produce "regeneration" and thus salvation, nor is it irresistible and outside man's ability to choose.

In short, then, Man is Totally Depraved -- men cannot will, think,do or be good. God, then, draws men to Him, enables men to believe and allows men to choose whether or if he will ultimately receive God's gift of salvation. Upon exercising saving faith, regeneration -- the "New Birth" is accomplished. An eternal destiny is changed. A spirit is "made alive," or "quickened."

It's ALL of Grace -- God's grace. And that is, in summary, the Biblical concept of Total Depravity and Prevenient Grace as understood by Reformation Arminianism.

Yes, I believe in the "doctrines of grace." :-)

JDW

Saturday, January 05, 2008

Theological Foundations, Part 3 -- Comments on The Remonstrance

Article 2



That agreeably thereunto, Jesus Christ the Savior of the world, died for all men and for every man, so that he has obtained for them all, by his death on the cross, redemption and the forgiveness of sins; yet that no one actually enjoys this forgiveness of sins except the believer, according to the word of the Gospel of John 3:16, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” And in the First Epistle of John 2:2: “And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.”




This article is perhaps the most straight forward and easy to deal with. Laid out for us is the General Atonement. This view is clearly declared in Scripture, contrary to the hermeneutical gymnastics often employeed by Calvinists in defense of "elite election."



Simply put, Jesus Christ died for all men, for every human, for each sin ever committed -- past, present and future. As noted above, the Remonstrants cited John 3:16 and I John 2:2 as "prooftexts." While prooftexting isn't the most sound means of Biblically supporting a position, in this case, these verses just scratch the surface.

Consider other passages which echo the Holy Spirit in His work to draw all to Christ:


  • 2 Cor 5:14-15 - "For the love of Christ compels us, because we judge thus: that if One died for all, then all died; and He died for all, that those who live should live no longer for themselves, but for Him who died for them and rose again."
  • Timothy 2:3-6 - For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time."
  • 1 Timothy 4:10 - "For to this end we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe."
  • Titus 2:11 (ESV) - "For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people."
  • 2 Peter 3:9 (KJV) - "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."

The expression I've heard -- both from SOME Calvinists and MOST Arminians is, "Christ's death was sufficient for all, but efficient only for those who believe. More will be discussed about why not ALL are then saved -- for if I was a consistent Calvinist, I would have to be a universalist as well -- since God's will CANNOT be thwarted...Right?

One other issue that needs to be addressed. Some have called this concept of the General Atonement the "Universal Atonement," or sometimes the "Unlimited Atonement." My own conviction is that these are misleading phrases that take on negative theological connotations. That Jesus died for all DOES NOT mean that His sacrifice is thus automatically applied to all, as "Universalism" would imply. And that Jesus' death is sufficient for all does not mean that His Sacrifice is "unlimited"to the extent that all MUST then be saved.

God has made man a free moral agent, and does sovereignly enable him to choose to follow Christ or reject Him. But we'll talk about that when we get to Prevenient Grace.

So, in summary, the first two articles of the Arminian Remonstrance declare that God has an eternal purpose and predestined plan by which depraved humans can enter into His grace -- through faith in Jesus Christ. Additionally, the atonement which Christ purchased with His blood on the Cross was [and IS] for all men -- but it is only applied to those who trust the Lord, coming to Him in faith and repentance.

Blessings,

JDW

Thursday, January 03, 2008

It's 2008 -- Election Year -- Why Do I Dread It So?

I will continue my commentary on The Arminian Remonstrance later tonight or tomorrow, but since it is the night of the first big political contest for the Presidential election in the Iowa Caucus, and since my own state of South Carolina will hold its primary in just a few weeks (still WAY too soon in my book), I figure it's time to talk about whom I am going to support.

I complained last year about how early the presidential campaign started, and my opinion is no different now. No sooner had the 2006 mid-term elections ended than candidates annouced their bids, started campaigning and showed up on the news every night. It's ridiculous, and the constant campaigning and never-ending lust of candidates for office will be the death of our nation... Okay, I'll reserve more comment on that until later.

As I said at least twice last year, I couldn't vote for ANY Democrat, under ANY circumstances. That hasn't changed, and barring a miracle, never will. That said, I've also remained non-commital on most of the Republican candidates. To put it bluntly, no Republican is a Conservative in the mold of Ronald Reagan. No candidate is a leader of the Conservative movement, and none has proven to me that they are reliable in keeping their word on a variety of issues.

If I could sorta take the candidates apart and build my own -- a composite candidate -- I'd probably take the economic policies of Ron Paul, the immigration policies of Duncan Hunter, the social positions of Mike Huckabee, the business sense of Mitt Romney, the personal heroism of John McCain, the law and order record of Rudy Guiliani and the foreign policy of Fred Thompson. Naturally, that's not an option.

So, I'll start by looking at a few of the candidates negatives -- positions that persuade me I cannot vote for certain candidates -- at least not at the primary level. First, I can't vote in the primary for a candidate who supported amnesty for illegal immigrants, supported an unconstitutional "campaign finance reform" plan, undermined the federal court choices for President Bush and supports homosexual unions or marriage -- or at least opposes a constitutional amendment clarifying what marriage is. Though I respect his service to the nation and personal courage, I can't vote for John McCain.

Rudy Guiliani is a fiscal Conservative, but a social liberal -- he supports abortion and homosexual marriage. His personal life is a mess -- his kids won't support him, he has been married three times with evidence of hanky-panky while in office.... I respect his law and order reputation and his rock solid leadership in crises and on foreign policy positions -- but I can't vote for Rudy.

Massachusetts was a mess when Mitt Romney was elected Governor. As much as was possible fiscally, and being forced to work with a democrat legislature and a liberal state beauracracy, he did a decent job. However, for a dedicated Mormon, he was quite the social liberal, at least until he decided he was going to run for President, or slightly before. Since he entered the race, he has "changed" his positions on abortion (now pro-life), illegal immigration (once favored a form of amnesty) and he championed a government run healthcare plan in his state (a position he still hasn't deserted). The "flip-flopper" award for the primary season goes to Mitt -- and until I can see some more evidence or be convinced that he isn't just saying what I want to hear, I can't vote for him in the primary.

The candidate I most dislike at this point in the campaign is going to surprise some people. As a governor, he raised taxes -- several times and in several ways -- while also almost tripling spending in his state. He supported amnesty for illegal aliens, including giving their children in-state tuition, issuing state drivers licenses to them, and providing other social services for illegals. He has criticized the war effort against Islamofacism, and has called for the closure of Gauntanamo Bay, Cuba -- a detention facility for illegal combatants in the war against our terrorist enemies -- to "gain their favor." He's suggested we ought to bring these prisoners into the United States courts and accord to them constitutional privileges. Consistent with his "merciful" stance toward those in prison, he granted pardons to over 1,000 violent criminals -- more than the previous three Governors of the state, and one of those was Bill Clinton.

But the most disquieting thing I've witnessed lately is the cynical campaign tactics he's employeed. For instance, asking in feigned innocents about his opponent Mitt Romney's Mormon faith on a radio program, "I don't know much about Mormon's -- don't they believe the devil and Jesus were brothers?" He knew better than that -- He's a Baptist preacher -- he better know what Mormon's believe! That was just a political cheap shot. And the press conference a few days ago in which he announced that he had produced a negative ad about Mitt Romney -- but that he would not run it publicly. Then -- this was as audacious as it was brilliant -- he told the press he'd show it to them just to prove it was "bad." He didn't have to run the ad -- these media stooges ran out and did it for him free, and he got to innocently claim that he didn't want it run. Please.

I admire his stands on abortion, on the marriage amendment and opposition to homosexual unions or marriage, and on his support for faith in the public square. But he is NOT a Conservative in the Reagan tradition, and I cannot support Mike Huckabee in the primary.

Then there's Ron Paul. He's a consistent libertarian -- in fact, he was the Libertarian Party candidate for President (against Ronald Reagan!) in 1988. I actually really like most of his economic policy positions, and surprisingly he is generally pro-life. He is also completely clueless regarding the conflict in which we are engaged globally. He blamed the United States and our foreign policy for 9/11, believes we should withdraw our troops immediately from all foreigh bases and fields of battle, and basically return to the isolationism of the 19th century. On that issue he is as bad or worse than several of the democrats! And on that basis alone, Ron Paul will not get my vote.

That leaves two candidates: Fred Thompson and Duncan Hunter. Fred Thompson entered the race late -- which isn't so bad to me, since the race shouldn't have started so early in 2007 anyway. I am troubled by Fred only on a couple of issues. He was my Senator in Tennessee from 1998-2002, and yet he voted AGAINST impeachment and conviction of Bill Clinton of perjury -- the strongest and most obvious charge he faced. Clinton should have been removed from office -- and I wrote Thompson after his vote and told him he needed to return to acting, because I'd never vote for him for Senator again. Well, he took my advice and didn't run for re-election in 2002 (right...). He also hasn't demonstrated a deep and abiding drive to be the President. Some say he's "lazy," he says he doesn't LIKE campaigning. I'm of a mind to be understanding to Fred -- I'd hate campaigning too. He says he wants to be President but not to campaign -- I can forgive him that. Fred is not out of the question as a candidate I could support.

The most consistent Conservative in the race for President has been a Congressman from California for nearly 20 years. He has consistently voted and acted in the mold of Ronald Reagan -- he is economically Conservative, totally supportive of the military and our war effort, socially he is a Conservative, opposing abortion and homosexual marriage, as well as advocating the role of faith in civic life and discourse -- a prerequisite for my vote -- and his record and rhetoric match! Plus, he strongly opposes illegal immigration, and has been the ONLY Congressman to actually get a border fence constructed in his district along the border with Mexico. He may suffer from too much optimism about accomplishing anything in Washington, and he suffers in many areas from a lack of name recognition. He is also not one of the most exciting and pumped up speakers -- but, to turn a phrase -- his words are stone. He is principled. He believes. That's why, in the South Carolina Primary, I'll be casting my vote for Duncan Hunter.

I am under no illusions. It is unlikely Hunter will be the nominee -- but I am compelled to vote on principle in the primary. And Hunter is the most principled, the man I most identify with. If he does drop out of the race before South Carolina -- after all, Iowa and New Hampshire come first -- and maybe another state[?] -- then I will cast my vote for Fred Thompson. But that hasn't happened yet. And if it does, I'll have to re-evaluate the other candidates to decide whom I can vote for. But, frankly, I'm tired of voting for the lesser of two evils. We'll see...

But for now, Go Duncan Hunter, 2008!


JDW

Wednesday, January 02, 2008

Theological Foundations, Part 2 -- Comments on The Remonstrance

Article 1

That God, by an eternal and unchangeable purpose in Jesus Christ his Son, before the foundation of the world, hath determined, out of the fallen, sinful race of men, to save in Christ, for Christ’s sake, and through Christ, those who, through the grace of the Holy Ghost, shall believe on this his son Jesus, and shall persevere in this faith and obedience of faith, through this grace, even to the end; and, on the other hand, to leave the incorrigible and unbelieving in sin and under wrath, and to condemn them as alienate from Christ, according to the word of the Gospel in John 3:36: “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him,” and according to other passages of Scripture also.

The Remonstrants made clear in Article 1 that they did indeed believe God had "predestined" something. It was not, however, particular persons, but it was ANY and ALL who would come by the only means through which they could experience salvation -- Faith in Jesus Christ. This first article then could be rightly identified as the Eternal or Predestined Plan.

Whom did God choose? "According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love" (Ephesians 1:4). God does not choose us individually, but He chooses to save ALL who come to Him in Christ, "Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you" (I Peter 1:20); as Jesus said, "for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world" (John 17:24).

By what means is one 'chosen?' The operative means is faith. It is by faith that we are joined to Christ and enter into His grace (Ephesians 2:8-10). It's worth noting in passing that God did not plan to save His people in Christ so that they could warm pews for time and eternity. He "before ordained" that we "should walk in...good works." These works DID NOT save, and they do not KEEP anyone saved -- but they are the product of a true salvation, and a healthy, growing relationship with Jesus.

I won't be exhaustive in my commentary on this article -- I'm just skimming the surface. In summary, God "predestines" that all who receive Christ through faith, whom God had chosen and loved before the foundation of the world, would be saved. This of course begs the question, " if God does not predestine indiviudally, then does that compromise His sovereignty?" Reformation Arminians generally believe in what Dr. Robert Picirilli has called "middle knowledge." I will leave the heavy theological examination for another time, but suffice it to say that God foreknows without decreeing all that is to come. Or, let me explain "foreknowledge" with a question...

Which God is greater, the One who MUST decree all things, control all events, and determine all destinies to maintain His sovereignty, or the God who allows freedom within His creation, knows all the choices that will ever be made, along with each and every potentiality and actuality, and yet so superintends Himself in the universe that nothing, not even the rebellion and defiance of His own creatures, violates His sovereignty or thwarts His eternal will and purpose?

God has "predestined" that ALL who call upon the name of the Lord through faith are In Christ and are thus saved. This is God's eternal and unchangable purpose, His plan. God foreknows who will and who will not belief, who will and who will not persevere in faith -- but He does not, in His grace, decree from eternity who individually -- in particular -- will be saved or be damned (John 3:16-18). Those who are "In Christ" by faith are "His Elect."

JDW

Tuesday, January 01, 2008

Theological Foundations, Part 1 - The Remonstrance - Arminian Articles

For some time I've wanted to delve into those documents that are descriptive of my own theological convictions. That is not to say that these statements are authoritative, as is Scripture. I came by most of my doctrinal convictions honestly, with just the Bible and personal study. I've found that these statements, however, do help "flesh out" or clarify what I have accepted and taught in a broad sense, and have challenged me to think deeper and clarify the particulars of my beliefs. Hopefully, I'll be able to post additions to this particular topic over the next several weeks.

The first document I will post and comment on deals with the subject of Soteriolgy (The study of Salvation). In the late 16th and early 17th century, the Netherlands were a hotbed of theological angst and dissent. Jacobus Arminius (1560-1609), a prominent pastor anf professor of theology in the Dutch Reformed Church sought to redefine or recast the teachings of John Calvin, whose original teachings had been amplified to teach, in a sense, an absolute spiritual determinism. The "Calvinists" had been the only "Reformed" theology, though it's teachers since Calvin had been deterministic in their interpretations of soteriology to varying degrees.

Arminius, while a Pastor and later a professor at the Univeristy of Leiden, developed a concept of soteriology that he believed fit into the general Reformation theological ideal, but also preserved the concept of the capacity of humans to make moral and spiritual decisions as "Free Moral Agents," and to champion the teachings of Scripture that Christ died for the whole world, for all mankind, and not merely for "the elect," as Calvinism had come to proclaim.

Arminius did not set out to destroy Calvinism, or undermine the Gospel of Grace as his critics past and present have often accused him. In fact, Arminius professed a great respect for Calvin, and read his Institutes of the Christian Religion regularly, along with Scripture. The second and third generation of Calvin's followers, however, would have none of it, and opposed Arminius and his alternative interpretation of soteriology at every turn.

When Arminius died in 1609, he left behind a number of followers within the Dutch Reformed Church [DRC] known as "Remonstrants." They came into constant conflict with Dutch Reformed Calvinists of the next decade. Finally, the DRC called a synod, held at Dordtrecht in 1618-1619. The "Synod of Dort," as it has commonly been known, was allegedly intended as an opportunity for the Remonstrants to lay out their soteriological concept for consideration. They did so in the form of the articles which I've posted below. Calvinists who controlled the DRC, however, had no interest in hearing their case, altering their views, nor sharing their own power and positions. The Synod condemned the Remonstrants as heretics in 1619.

Arminianism survived in the Remonstrant Church in Holland for sometime, though it has in recent decades degenerated into universalism and liberalism -- as have so many other denominations and sects within Christendom. Still, forms of Arminianism survived and indeed thrived in various men and movements, chiefly within some streams of Anglicanism, with John Wesly and Methodism, and within my own denominational heritage of Baptists.

It must be noted that the small congregation of English Separatists that would become known as the first Baptists came into Holland to escape English persecution around 1609, and remained there for over two years. During their time in Holland, they apparently interacted with both DRC Remontrants and with the Anabaptists (forerunners of the Mennonites, Brethren and Ahmish). This interaction had profound effects on the leaders of the English congregation -- John Smyth and Thomas Helwys. I'll discuss that a bit more in my next post on the subject. For now, please note these brief statements of the Remonstrants. I will comment on some of their statements below, and perhaps in another post shortly.

******************************

The Remonstrant Articles

Article 1

That God, by an eternal and unchangeable purpose in Jesus Christ his Son, before the foundation of the world, hath determined, out of the fallen, sinful race of men, to save in Christ, for Christ’s sake, and through Christ, those who, through the grace of the Holy Ghost, shall believe on this his son Jesus, and shall persevere in this faith and obedience of faith, through this grace, even to the end; and, on the other hand, to leave the incorrigible and unbelieving in sin and under wrath, and to condemn them as alienate from Christ, according to the word of the Gospel in John 3:36: “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him,” and according to other passages of Scripture also.

Article 2

That agreeably thereunto, Jesus Christ the Savior of the world, died for all men and for every man, so that he has obtained for them all, by his death on the cross, redemption and the forgiveness of sins; yet that no one actually enjoys this forgiveness of sins except the believer, according to the word of the Gospel of John 3:16, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” And in the First Epistle of John 2:2: “And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.”

Article 3

That man has not saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free will, inasmuch as he, in the state of apostasy and sin, can of and by himself neither think, will, nor do any thing that is truly good (such as saving Faith eminently is); but that it is needful that he be born again of God in Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, inclination, or will, and all his powers, in order that he may rightly understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good, according to the Word of Christ, John 15:5, “Without me ye can do nothing.”

Article 4

That this grace of God is the beginning, continuance, and accomplishment of all good, even to this extent, that the regenerate man himself, without prevenient or assisting, awakening, following and cooperative grace, can neither think, will, nor do good, nor withstand any temptations to evil; so that all good deeds or movements, that can be conceived, must be ascribed to the grace of God in Christ. but respects the mode of the operation of this grace, it is not irresistible; inasmuch as it is written concerning many, that they have resisted the Holy Ghost. Acts 7, and else­where in many places.

Article 5

That those who are in­corporated into Christ by true faith, and have thereby become partakers of his life-giving Spirit, have thereby full power to strive against Satan, sin, the world, and their own flesh, and to win the victory; it being well understood that it is ever through the assisting grace of the Holy Ghost; and that Jesus Christ assists them through his Spirit in all temptations, extends to them his hand, and if only they are ready for the conflict, and desire his help, and are not inactive, keeps them from falling, so that they, by no craft or power of Satan, can be misled nor plucked out of Christ’s hands, according to the Word of Christ, John 10:28: “Neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.” But whether they are capable, through negligence, of forsaking again the first beginning of their life in Christ, of again returning to this present evil world, of turning away from the holy doctrine which was delivered them, of losing a good conscience, of becoming devoid of grace, that must be more particularly determined out of the Holy Scripture, before we ourselves can teach it with the full persuasion of our mind.

These Articles, thus set forth and taught, the Remonstrants deem agreeable to the Word of God, tending to edification, and, as regards this argument, sufficient for salvation, so that it is necessary or edifying to rise higher or to descend deeper.

Phillip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, Volume 3, Baker Books, Grand Rapids, MI: 1996.Ppages 545ff.

The following is one of 2 documents held by the Remonstrants(Arminians) as a statement of their faith in response to "reformed" teaching. This document has been condemned as heresy by the reformed churches at the Synod of Dordt, 1618-1619.


***************************

I've added bold print to emphasize the most interesting, misunderstood or mischaracterized ideas often ascribed to Arminius and Arminians in general. I'll comment on these items in the next post or two.

For now, we can draw some general principles about Arminians ans their soteriology. Arminians tend to affirm the following:

I look forward to any comments.

Blessings,

JDW