Where did the doctrine of the Investigative Judgment come from?

What are the roots of the doctrine of Perfectionism?

Why are Adventists such as Richard Rice at the forefront in leading the evangelical church down the road of denying God’s sovereignty, and omniscience?

Here is an article which really gets to the root of the teachings that sprang forth from John Wesley and Charles Finney:

http://www.the-highway.com/Arminianism_Exposed2.html

This article is at times quite theological, but if you take time to study it, this author really gets to the bottom of the fallacies that Wesleyanism, Arminianism, Catholicism, and Adventism is based on. Indeed Adventism and the teachings of Ellen White reflect the historical roots of these heresies.

John Wesley really had a muddled view of justification, and the imputed righteousness of Christ. This article points out that Wesley once embraced justification by faith alone, but later apparently adopted the views of Christian perfectionism. Charles Finney and Ellen White followed suit. And much of the evangelical church continues to have muddled views on Justification and imputation of Christ’s righteousness as pointed out on the last http://www.whitehorseinn.org radio show.

Stan

I studied Rice’s ‘The Reign of God’ for one class in college and in all fairness, he does well address the questions and holes that one encounters with the belief that God is not static (or at least chooses to be static) concerning our experiences and choices.

*ducks as heretic-tomatoes are thrown his way*

But that is another thread!

Here is a link about the group that Richard Rice belongs to:

http://www.enc.edu/history/ot/what.html

Open Theism is the logical conclusion of John Wesley’s theology, as admitted by David Larson, another open theist.

I cannot imagine worshipping a god that doesn’t know everything that is going to happen in the future. My trust is in the Almighty God, who knows the end from the beginning, and we have no fear of the future, because we know the God that holds the future.

Stan

Here is the first topic that the author in the link above addresses, and it is “The Knowledge of God” and he addresses the problem’s with Rice’s philosophy:

The Knowledge of God

“Arminians detest the doctrine of predestination as presented by Calvinists. Since the word itself is Biblical, Arminians are forced to define the term in a manner consonant with their assumptions. In order to do that, they must recast the traditional doctrines related to God’s knowledge. Most of us have no problem saying that God knows all things; but this has vexed most Arminians. Many evangelical thinkers are promoting what is called “free will theism” or “the openness of God” theism. Such is the direct result of Arminian theology pushed to its logical tendencies.5 Gregory Boyd, who himself is an Arminian, has argued that “Arminian theologians have not generally followed through the logic of their insight into the nature of creaturely freedom to its logical (and biblical) conclusions."6 Their view is astounding.

They, the Arminians who are Freewill Theists, are not willing to concede that God knows all things, at least not in the traditional sense. For example, Clark Pinnock argues that “omniscience need not mean exhaustive foreknowledge of all future events. if that were its meaning, the future would be fixed and determined, as is the past."7 For them, the idea of foreknowledge “requires only that we define the scope of foreknowledge with care. In some respects the future is knowable, in others it is not. God knows a great deal about what will happen. He knows everything that will ever happen as the direct result of factors that already exist. He knows infallibly the content of his own future actions, to the extent that they are not related to human choices. All that God does not know is the content of future free decisions, and this is because decisions are not there to know until they occur."8 The problem with Rice’s seemingly harmless formulation is that the whole future, as envisioned by this explanation, is filled with nothing but numerous human decisions. In order for God to know even two seconds into the future, God must know the decisions of the first second which He is not permitted to know (or, as they argue, He chose not to know). If He does not know it, then how can He know His own future actions when they are dependent upon the free acts of man? Thus God in fact does not know the future at all because He does not know our decisions nor His responses to them. Rice is even more adamant in another book: “Not even God knows the future in all its details. Some parts remain indefinite until they actually occur, and so they can’t be known in advance."9 This sort of formulation is gaining ground among some evangelicals.

This would quite naturally lead to the notion of “divine learning.” Namely, God must learn as the future unfolds. May it never be said that He infallibly knows all things. In fact, without much shame, they virtually concede in some measure that God is surprised. “God is not startled and is never struck dumb as the future unfolds, but an element of surprise embraces the divine knowledge just as it does ours even when we think our predictive powers are at their height. Were you a god, would you not find it dull to fix the future irrevocably from eternity?"10 That last question typifies and exposes their theological tendency, namely, God created in the image of man. In response, I ask, “What does it matter if I should be bored? How does my own boredom determine the nature of God’s knowledge? And in what real sense do we have any predictive powers? Isn’t God’s predictive power the sheer evidence of His majestic divinity?” Yet Rice’s assumption admits this central thesis: God is merely a superhuman being.”
--------------------------------------------------------

Notice the last statement:

Yet Rice’s assumption admits this central thesis: God is merely a superhuman being.”
------------------------------------------------------

This theology actually comes from the pagan philosopher Alfred North Whitehead as admitted by Rice himself.

Stan

The next area of confusion that we see as a result of John Wesley’s theology, and we see the same thing in Adventism, and that is confusion on the doctrine of the Atonement:

Doctrine of Atonement

“Another formulation that might also surprise many is the Arminian view of atonement. Most Christians believe that Christ paid the penalty for our sins and that Christ is our substitute. In this substitution, penal dimensions of divine transaction had transpired. This formulation has forced Arminians to redefine, once again, the doctrine of atonement. They rightly believe that the substitutionary doctrine necessarily entails limited atonement. So the first alteration in their position is the common biblical view of Christ paying the penalty for the sins of sinners. The following is an important observation from an avowed Arminian:

‘A spillover from Calvinism into Arminianism has occurred in recent decades. Thus many Arminians whose theology is not very precise say that Christ paid the penalty for our sins. Yet such a view is foreign to Arminianism, which teaches instead that Christ suffered for us. Arminians teach what Christ did he did for every person; therefore what he did could not have been to pay the penalty, since no one would then ever go into eternal perdition...They also feel that God the Father would not be forgiving us at all if his justice was satisfied by the real thing that justice needs: punishment. They understand that there can be only punishment or forgiveness, not both?realizing, e.g., that a child is either punished or forgiven, not forgiven after the punishment has been meted out.20
A century before, the Methodist theologian, John Miley, one of the most important nineteenth-century Arminian thinkers in America (along with Watson and Pope, who were British), also saw the inconsistency of the theories within Arminianism. He felt compelled to argue that the doctrine of strict substitutionary atonement hung together as a system only in Calvinism.’

“If other cardinal doctrines of Calvinism are true, its doctrine of atonement is true. It is an integral part of the system, and in full harmony with every other part of it. The doctrines of divine sovereignty and decrees, of unconditional election to salvation, of the effectual calling and final perseverance of the elect, and that their salvation is monergistically wrought as it is sovereignly decreed, require an atonement which in its very nature is and must be effectual in the salvation of all for whom it is made. Such an atonement the system has in the absolute substitution of Christ, both in precept and penalty, in behalf of the elect. He fulfills the righteousness which the law requires of them, and suffers the punishment which their sins deserve. By the nature of the substitution both must go to their account. Such a theory of atonement is in scientific accord with the whole system. And the truth of the system would carry with it the truth of the theory. It can admit no other theory. Nor can such an atonement be true if the system be false.

As a result of this, there is debate among Arminians over the nature of atonement. Some believe that the governmental theory is the Arminian position. Wesley, on the other hand, seems to have adopted the penal substitutionary theory (albeit inconsistently).22 Most, however, did not. Richard Watson accepted the governmental theory of atonement as did the Methodist William Burt Pope. They knew that the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement was inimical to their theology. William Pope for example argues: “Arminianism holds that the Sacrifice was offered for the whole world: it must therefore for that reason also renounce the commutative theory of exact and mutual compensation; since some may perish for whom Christ died, and He would be defrauded of His reward in them."23 What he is saying is that we cannot argue that Christ really paid for the penalty of sin for everyone for whom He died, in the strictest and substitutionary sense. If we were to say He did, then we are (and his inference is correct at this point) forced to conclude some of Christ’s blood was shed in vain (or limited to the elect). Then how and for what reason did He die?
----------------------------------------------------

Think of the confusion in Adventism over this issue. Both Jack Provonsha and Graham Maxwell taught a whole generation of Loma Linda students the equivalent of the “Moral Influence Theory”, which denies the substitutioanary penal atonement that the Bible clearly teaches.

If we deny that Christ paid the penalty we deserve for our sins, then in effect, we are denying the gospel.

The proponents of the subjective views of the atonement have a gospel that says “God loves you”, and God will never punish the wicked in the lake of fire. I heard Dan Smith, pastor of the La Sierra church say exactly this.

So Arminianism leads to faulty views of the Atonement.

Stan

The next doctrine that our author addresses is another doctrine that Adventists hold in common with other Arminians and Roman Catholics, and this is the doctrine of “Prevenient Grace”:

Doctrine of Grace (Prevenient)

Evangelical Arminians, in some sense, took seriously the doctrine of Original Sin. They knew that the Fall thoroughly impaired man’s will. Since the Calvinistic system was the reigning system at the time and it alone gave adequate attention to the doctrine of Original Sin, Arminianism was forced to address the doctrine in a different way. While seeking to recognize the serious effects of Original Sin, they believed that Christ’s death nullified all the effects. They believed their doctrine of prevenient grace could both take Original Sin seriously while at the same time put everyone on an equal moral footing. In that sense, grace could be said to precede all acts of faith. John Wesley held to this position. The net effect of it was that God has given grace to everyone to be able to believe if they will. The best sort of definition comes from Kenneth Jones who says, “The prevenient grace of God’s convicting Spirit simply lifts the sinner up to the point where the choice is possible."31
----------------------------------------------------
The doctrine of prevenient grace is the prevailing opinion in evangelical circles today, but this doctrine in effect denies the doctrine of Election that is taught so clearly all throughout the Bible.

Stan

The next problematic area with both Adventism and the majority of evangelical Christianity and Catholicism is on the subject of Justification, and imputed vs. imparted righteousness. This is a BIG area, so here is another excerpt from Mark Herzer:

Doctrine of Justification

It has been recognized by some Reformed writers that Arminians deny the imputation of the active righteousness of Christ. The usual personality that is appealed to from the Reformed camp is Piscator.45 The Arminians who adhere to this position hold to it for different reasons (namely, their preoccupation with sanctification).

John Wesley did not consistently communicate where he stood on this issue. Early on he denied it, but after James Hervey attacked him, Wesley seems to have reaffirmed it though some suspect that he fell back into his earlier position.46 Wesley’s response to James Hervey’s Theron and Aspasio argues that Hervey’s doctrine of imputation of Christ’s righteousness will produce antinomianism. The gift of righteousness for Wesley was “the righteousness or holiness which God gives to, and works in them."47 This phrase and similar ones like it became the hallmark of Arminianism. Even one of Wesley’s close friends, William Grimshaw, disagreed with Wesley on this (though amicably).48 For Grimshaw, this doctrine was the doctrine used of God to deliver him from legalism. One wonders if charity blinded him at this point; he was aware of Wesley’s view and yet worked with him nonetheless.

It is not imputation but impartation of righteousness that was important to them. This is very reminiscent of the debate between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism; the debate was over imputed and infused righteousness. We will see that a similar line of reasoning exists within Arminianism.

The popular Arminian Bible commentator states what the Arminian view of justification is: “To say that Christ’s personal righteousness is imputed to every true believer, is not scriptural: To say that he has fulfilled all righteousness for us, in our stead, if by this is meant his fulfilment of all moral duties, is neither scriptural nor true? In no part of the Book of God is Christ’s righteousness ever said to be imputed to us for our justification."49 For Clarke, the passive work alone is applied to believers, namely, Christ’s death has procured our forgiveness. The active imputed righteousness of Christ, he argued as his forefathers, produces antinomianism.50 Similarly, John Fletcher’s massive work is essentially a diatribe against the active righteousness of Christ.51 The learned and influential Richard Watson argued that imputation of Christ’s righteousness “as to be accounted as our own, [has] no warrant in the Word of God."52 Their lady theologian (not official, I hope?) states, “Christ’s death is a substitute for our punishment but not for our holiness."53 This is a curious statement because most Arminians, we have seen, have argued that Christ was not a substitute for our punishment.

Even the most recent twentieth-century Wesleyan theologian argues the same. “We Arminians understand that God as Judge, when He forgives us, really does make us righteous by imparting righteousness to us, and we feel [my emphasis] that many passages of Scripture support this understanding.” Justification, for him, means to “make you righteous” and not “declare you righteous.” He says that he believes in imputation of righteousness but also in imparted righteousness, the emphasis being on the imparted.54 His systematic theology gives only one and a half pages to the doctrine of Justification and the bulk of the argument is a prolemic against imputed righteousness. The texts he adduces (three to be exact, though only two have any bearing) only argue that we will live in righteousness (Rom. 8:4 and 5:1); that is not something any Protestant has denied. All Reformed thinkers argue that we will fulfill righteousness; however, that righteousness does not justify. Kenneth Jones follows Grider at this point. However, he does not give the doctrine any separate treatment (not even a section in a chapter). After the chapter on Christ, he launches into a chapter on salvation which gives half a page to the word justify as one of the many ways of viewing salvation. His definition: “This is both the declaration that one is no longer guilty, and also the making of one to be righteous? Does God merely impute righteousness to the sinner, or does he impart righteousness to him? ? If this were the only word for salvation it would be difficult to understand, but it is only one of the models for what God does in and for us. No one word can express it all."55 It is mind boggling to read this. Confusion over the biblical word and then thoughtlessly declare ambiguity. Was not the Reformation sprung into life over this word? Is not our whole salvation determined by our standing before God? Is there not a world of difference between what is done in us versus what is done for us?

They feared that the historic doctrine undercut moral responsibility, and so they charged the Calvinists of being antinomians. They argued that the atonement put one on an equal footing with Adam.56 Once this atonement was accepted by faith, all sins were forgiven and we were then imparted righteousness which by grace will lead us to holiness. The question then becomes, by what righteousness is a person justified? Is it soley the imputed righteousness of Christ? No. Then, is it by this mixed righteousness in a person (the imparted righteousness mixed with our obedience)? That seems to be the conclusion one must draw.57

Though there appear to be some statements regarding the imputation of Christ’s righteousness in justification, those are effectively nullified by their emphasis on impartation. Samuel Wakefield shows where there is verbal similarity between Arminian writers and Calvin himself. Nonetheless, imputation of Christ’s righteousness to believers is denied by the Arminians, as observed by Wakefield.58 Whereas J. G. Machen died thanking God for the active obedience of Christ, Wesleyans and Methodists, on the other hand, repudiate this doctrine. Did Machen die outside of true saving faith?”
---------------------------------------------------------

Notice especially this quote from above:

“Confusion over the biblical word and then thoughtlessly declare ambiguity. Was not the Reformation sprung into life over this word? Is not our whole salvation determined by our standing before God? Is there not a world of difference between what is done in us versus what is done for us?”
--------------------------------------------------------
This confusion over justification and sanctification, and imputed vs. imparted righteousness has haunted the SDA church for years. See especially the book by Geoffrey Paxton “The Shaking of Adventism”, where he compares SDA’s views with Rome’s views. But again this confusion has reigned in Protestantism to the present time with very little clarity found on this topic even in today’s evangelical circles. And this confusion appears to be rooted in the teachings of John Wesley, and therefore continued into Adventism, as Ellen White was quite a follower of John Wesley.

Stan

The next topic covered by Mr. Herzer is the topic of Sanctification and Perfection.

If you read through this section, you will see where Adventists and Ellen White got their doctrines on this topic.

Here is a quote from Herzer that sounds very much like Adventist doctrine on the Investigative Judgment:

Conclusion on Perfection

“As one reads through their works, one can’t help wondering if this is not simply “much ado about nothing.” I say this respectfully. It almost sounds like what we consider to be assurance or basic Christian maturity (after they qualify it). Considerable attention is given to directions as to how one might actually get this “blessing.” But their language is dangerous and will mislead. Their view that we can be free from all known voluntary sins speaks loudly and this has misled many.

“We also read that our holiness (ahem, only those that are perfect) could endure the SCRUTINY of the Almighty (while still in this world) and yet they state at the same time that somehow we could pray the Lord’s Prayer. What is there to ask forgiveness for? If our holiness could survive Divine Scrutiny, then we need not pray “Forgive us our trespasses.” One can’t have it both ways. It is also frightening to read that in their defense of perfection, they argue that one should not use the Lord’s Prayer as evidence that we need something to repent of. They miss the point. Our Lord is teaching us the very elements of our prayers while here on this earth; he did not call us to pray “Forgive us our transgressions” by making superficial distinctions. Hmmm, the apostles needed to be taught to pray with the “Lord’s Prayer” whereas many Methodists, Nazarenes, and Wesleyans didn’t need it (at least not all of the petitions in the prayer). This is simply wrong.114
--------------------------------------------------------

The very heart of the gospel of assurance and faith is destroyed by these kind of teachings that came from John Wesley, and were passed on to Adventists by Ellen White.

How could the early Methodists and Adventists sing the hymn “Blessed Assurance”?

Stan

The final section Herzer addresses is that of Synergism, the doctrine that man is capable of cooperating with God in salvation:

Synergism

“All Arminians wish to say emphatically that salvation is given by the free grace of God. However, their next step undermines this confession. They so qualify this grace and so vehemently defend man’s participation in salvation, that they naturally fall into the old semi-Pelagian heresy of synergism. This synergism is rooted in their doctrine of prevenient grace. So, there will be some overlap between the two sections here.

Arminians are not reluctant in admitting that salvation is synergistically wrought (as well as justification, regeneration, and repentance). Though historic evangelicals and Reformed believers have eschewed any hint of synergism, yet Arminians are not afraid to admit that their view is synergistic. Cannon’s statement may be as bold as they come. “Granting, therefore, man’s ability to stifle and to kill the grace of God within him, have we the right to ascribe to him the positive role of a co-operator with God? We have. For in the very act of not killing grace and of listening to the voice of natural conscience, even though at times very inattentively, man is actually co-operating with God in God’s efforts in behalf of his salvation. This must be the case; it cannot be otherwise."115 Before this, Cannon declared, “In this negative way [namely, man’s ability to reject to grace] man is the absolute master of his fate and the captain of his own salvation."116 It must be noted that Cannon is not an odd representative of the Wesleyan position. This is nothing less than consistent Arminianism under the influence of Wesley. Man, Cannon says, is the captain of his own salvation. This is not the Gospel, this is unadulterated moralism, a religion of the flesh. But they have more to say.”
-----------------------------------------------------

And the last few sentences says it all:

Cannon declared, “In this negative way [namely, man’s ability to reject to grace] man is the absolute master of his fate and the captain of his own salvation."116 It must be noted that Cannon is not an odd representative of the Wesleyan position. This is nothing less than consistent Arminianism under the influence of Wesley. Man, Cannon says, is the captain of his own salvation. This is not the Gospel, this is unadulterated moralism, a religion of the flesh.”
------------------------------------------------------

This is not the theology that the Reformers risked their lives for. This is a theology that gives glory to man, and takes away from God the glory that belongs to him.

Ellen White’s writings are filled with statements supporting the Roman Catholic and Arminian view of Synergism. Yet these same statements are seen in a lot of other churches as well.

The religion of man and his works is deeply rooted in the sinful nature of man.

Ephesians 2:8,9:

8For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may BOAST.”

If man plays any part in his salvation, then it opens the door for boasting.

Salvation is of the Lord!

Soli Deo Gloria (To God Alone be the Glory)

Stan

For Pete’s sake, Stan! Would you slow dooooooowwwwn!!!!

I can barely read it all never mind comment on it!

With barely a glance at the whole matter, I encountered the ‘God won’t destroy sinners, sin destroys them and they are already dead before the fire comes’ argument over 16 years ago when I was working at summer camp. The camp director was big into Dick Wynn and this philosophy. I found it strange then and I find it strange now, as I do Maxwell’s moral influence theory. There are a few people in my own church who seem to adhere to Maxwellian theology in this regard.

However, not too many SDAs I know follow the two above lines of reasoning. However, they seem to be gaining ground in our church.

I fail to see how so many SDAs can fault those who disagree with annihilation and cite alot of biblical reference to support it but seemingly ignore the myriads of scriptural evidence of propitiation and that God does indeed directly punish sinners for their sins.

Stan,

Don’t know if you’ve heard it yet, but speaking of imputed righteousness, this was the topic of the latest of addition of the White Horse Inn.  It can be downloaded here.  Sound bytes were played of pastors being asked about this doctrine at a ministerial convention and it was shocking to hear how many Christian pastors had either no idea what imputation was or didn’t think it was really very important. 

Aaron

While a student at La Sierra University, I took Richad Rice’s “Studies in SDA Beliefs” class, of course using his book The Reign of God, and was even asked to be his reader which I had to decline due to other commitments.  At the time I had more interest in getting a good grade in his class than I did in finding actual truth in Scripture and really just sort of took for granted that what he said and wrote in his book were accepted and acknowledged as truth among SDA’s since it was the textbook for this course in a major SDA university.  I do remember being taught that even God doesn’t know the entire future, that He self-limits His knowledge in some way, even that the cross event could have failed and that this showed how much God loved us because He was willing to take such a risk.  Seemed a little odd at the time, even then, but I just said, “Alright, whatever, I guess that’s what I believe since I’m an SDA,” and never gave it much of a second thought again until years later. 

What is troubling to me now, is that the LSU School of Religion had no problem giving one of their profs free reign to disseminate this drivel to a mass audience.  I guess as long as you cover the core distinctives than anything else goes.  My latest Andrews University alumni magazine spotlights Rice and his accomplishments in the area of “open theology and science.” He still teaches religion but now is at LLU.

I should also say that I have always liked Richard Rice very much as a person.  He was always very friendly to me and was highly accessible to us students.  I went to academy with his two kids, was a very close personal friend of his niece, and it was he who performed our wedding ceremony.  But in this area, I must strongly disagree with the heresy he continues to propagate and pass off as legitimate.

[quote author="Aaron"]Stan,

Don’t know if you’ve heard it yet, but speaking of imputed righteousness, this was the topic of the latest of addition of the White Horse Inn.  It can be downloaded here.  Sound bytes were played of pastors being asked about this doctrine at a ministerial convention and it was shocking to hear how many Christian pastors had either no idea what imputation was or didn’t think it was really very important. 

Aaron

Thanks Aaron, I did hear part of that WHI show Sunday night. I really love listening to them. Imputation was the topic. If imputation isn’t true, then we have no assurance of salvation. Listening to the WHI radio show proves that theology is not boring.

In the last few years that I have been around discussion forums, and especially Former Adventist forums, I am somewhat surprised that there is not a greater interest in the issues of the Reformation. Maybe everyone’s experience is different. The reason I left Adventism was over the fundamental issue of the gospel. I lived in fear growing up SDA, that I would not be good enough to pass the Investigative Judgment. When I heard the gospel as preached by Desmond Ford, and heard the good news that Christ’s passive and active righteousness was IMPUTED to my account, then I realized at that moment that I could indeed have assurance of salvation.

Those pastors quoted in the WHI as saying that imputation was not that important likely do not understand or know the gospel. If the wrath of God and the moral demands of the law are not preached right along with the good news of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, then, the presentation of the gospel will not be effective.

Without the doctrine of Justification by faith alone, there would be no Christian church as Luther said so well. At least there would be no true Christian church, but you would have the false church as RCC and others.

Ellen White came out of the Methodist church, and she was clearly influenced by John Wesley, and, as the article at the top of the thread points out, if you study the theology of Wesley, then you see the fruit of what his teachings rendered. Mass confusion over the gospel has resulted from the Wesleyan stream of theology.

And Wesleyan theology eventually leads to what Richard Rice is teaching in open theism--that God is not omniscient. This theology lowers God to a mere human level.

Stan

With regard to Richard Rice and Arminianism leading to open theism, I find this quote from Mark Dever of 9Marks ministry helpful:

“Arminianism is a theodicy.  That is, Arminianism tries to exculpate God from the problem of evil.  It tries to make sense of God in a world with sin and suffering.

Much as the modern Limitedness of God and Process thinking has tried to get God off the hook by redefining what God knows or is responsible for, so its earlier ancestor–Arminianism–with the best of motives (honoring God) desired to make sense of God.  (See Richard Mueller’s excellent study of Arminius, God, Creation, and Providence in the Thought of Jacob Arminius:  Sources and Directions of Scholastic Protestantism in the Era of Early Orthodoxy [Baker Book House:  Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1991] 309pp.) In the course of constructing a theology and philosophy and of exegeting Scripture, Arminius & Co redefined term after term so as to both present God as the majestic being He so clearly is, and us as the responsible beings we so clearly are.  But they did this by reversing too many Biblical truths about who first chooses whom, and how specifically the choice is made, and to what end.

My point in this already too-long entry is not how much Arminianism changed, but how incomplete their labors were.  They said God hadn’t predestined and elected the way most earlier Protestant theologians understood Scripture to teach, but they didn’t say God couldn’t.  In a nominally Christian culture, Arminianism may appear to be a satisfying explanation of the problem of evil–“God’s good; it’s our fault”.  But as the acids of modernity have eaten away at more and more of the Bible’s teachings and even presuppositions about God, that answer is proving woefully insufficient to more radical critics.  It appears merely like moving the wrinkle in the carpet. A backslidden United Methodist may be satisfied with such teaching, but a Deist, a Buddhist or an atheist would have no reasons to be.  A. C. Grayling, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and their like will not for a moment be satisfied with someone saying “Well, God could have made this world without suffering, but in order to be loved with dignity by free beings, He decided He must allow such sin and suffering as we experience.”

Really?  Then hang being loved with dignity!  Forget the whole experiment!  It costs too much!  Furthermore, what kind of God NEEDS to be worshipped?  What kind of deity is this?!

And it’s this line of questioning that I think has quietly, deeply, perhaps subtly been re-shaping the field into one in which the half-measures of Arminianism are not even beginning to be satisfying.  They are attractive to fewer and fewer people.  Their adherents average age will grow even as their numbers shrink.  They will be recruited mainly from the churched, and perhaps even those who’ve nurtured grievances against God, for allowing this or that to happen.

Reformed theology, on the other hand, teaches about a god who is GOD.  The kind of objections that seem to motivate Arminianism are disallowed by the very presuppositions Calvinism understands the Bible to teach about God.  This God is sovereign and exercises His sovereignty.  This God is centered on Himself.  And this God is understood to be morally good in being so Self-centered.  In fact, it would be evil, wrong, deceptive for Him to be centered on anything other than His own glory.  There is no apology about this. 

This God saves to make His name known (read Exodus, or Ezekiel!).  This God has created us to display His own power and glory, His holiness and mercy to His creation.  Creation is a theatre for His glory.  This is the God of Genesis 1 and Revelation 22.  Even as the book of Revelation came not from John’s philosophical discussions in the king’s court, but from the crucible of persecution by worldly powers opposed to God, so this world’s increasingly open and categorical denials of God and His power will likely be met not by retreats, compromises, edits and revisions, but by awakenings and rediscoveries of the majesty and power of the true God who reveals Himself in the Bible, the God who made us and who will judge us, the God who in love pursued us even to the depths of the incarnation and humiliation of the cross.

This is Christianity straight and undiluted.  And the questing, probing spirit of the rising generation has, by this God’s grace, found this Rock.  May they stand upon it faithfully in these unbelieving times, until God calls them home to Himself.”
---------------------------------------------------------

Amen!

Stan

Posted anonymously by: Anonymous

Stan

Thanks for the fine article.

He suggests that arminianism focuses on attaining some level of sanctification whereas calvinists rest in the assurance of justification and God’s completed work on their behalf. 

It’s similar to sermon illustrations that contrast those who are trying to hold onto God vs God’s firm hold on us.

One group focuses on human centered efforts to convince a God who is still learning and who may notice their good performance, and who, of course, need an IJ for their own vindication (or to make God look good by vindicating his character with their own fine characters).

Modern Reformation magazine recently carried an article that mentions those who would wish to prove God wrong and justify themselves by keeping the law, even when the Bible makes it clear that we cannot obey the law--Acts 15;10, for example.  It’s the height of the art of self-justification--not far from the spiritual descriptions we hear about the mark of the beast--ourselves (or idolatry) taking the place of Christ. 

It reminds me of the risk a believer takes in moving from arminianism to the gospel, being willing to risk letting go of our own efforts.

Bob

Great observations Bob, and as always, I appreciate your comments. I am glad you liked the article. I admit that in places it was a little technical, but it was like I saw every aspect of what was wrong with Adventism in that article.

Stan