You might be an Arminian if...

There is a good post from the Society of Evangelical Arminians that tries to help you determine where you fall in the Calvin-Arminian debate.

These were the determining questions in my mind:

1. Do you believe that Jesus died for every human being?
2. Do you believe that humans are so depraved that they can do nothing to earn salvation and that they cannot choose to believe in Jesus without the intervention of God’s grace?
3. Do you believe that a person can resist the convicting power of God’s grace?
4. Do you believe that you are born again when you put your faith in Jesus?

If you answered yes to all of the questions above you might be an Arminian. If you answered yes to any question (except #2) you certainly would not be a Calvinist.

I would also slightly reword #4 as follows since that makes it a little clearer for me but says essentially the same thing:

Do you believe that regeneration (born again) follows placing your faith in Jesus?

Some of the other questions asked on the survey covered believing in predestination, election, eternal security, and the sovereignty of God. For each of these questions a person accepting either soteriological system could answer yes. However the yes/no answers to these questions would be difficult to assess since there are vast differences in how these terms are defined (which is pointed out in the post).

The Salvation Essentials... or what is a Christian

In 1863 Charles Spurgeon preached a sermon called "The Root of the Matter" in which he dealt with the essentials of being a Christian. Thanks to the PyroManiacs for posting some of his sermon, which I found in its entirety here.

The tree can do without some of its branches, though the loss of them might be an injury. But it cannot live at all without its roots—the roots are essential—take those away, and the plant must wither. And thus, my dear Friends, there are things essential in the Christian religion. [...] But there are some distinct truths of Revelation that are essential in such a sense that those who have not accepted them cannot be called Christians. And those who willfully reject them are exposed to the fearful anathemas which are hurled against apostasy. (emphasis added)

There are doctrines that are so essential that they define Christianity. I want to lay out what those are, but before we define what these doctrines are we should first attempt to define the term "Christian". Using the Scriptures I would offer up the following definition - a Christian is an adopted member of God's family (Mark 3:34-35; Romans 8:14-16,23,9:4; Galatians 4:5; Ephesians 1:5, Ephesians 2:19).

Using our definition of a Christian as someone who is a member of God's family then certainly a belief in God whose family we hope to become a part of (Hebrews 11:6) must top the list of "distinct truths of Revelation that are essential". Surprisingly a Barna study showed...

Seven out of ten adults (70%) say that God is the all-powerful, all-knowing creator of the universe who still rules it today. That includes the 93% of born again adults who hold that conviction.

It was surprising to see that 70% of adults in America believe in the Creator God of the universe (understanding that this may include ideas about a God that is not based on the Scriptures). However one has to wonder what those other 7% of "born again" believers think about God.

Another important fact from this definition is that we are adopted into the family of God. The fact that there is an adoption implies that we do not start out as members of God's family but rather as orphans. This fact should bring two questions to mind 1) why are we orphans and 2) how does one become adopted into God's family.

There are a set of essential doctrines that answer the question why we are orphans. We are orphans because we are all sinners (Rom 3:10,23) and God is holy and requires us to be holy as well (Lev 19:2; 1 Peter 1:15-16). Without understanding that fact we can move no further (and in a single blog entry on essentials we can only dive so deep on this). John the Baptist - the forerunner of Jesus - made the paths straight by making it clear to people that they were sinners because without this understanding we have no need for a Savior. The problem was that the Jews at that time were relying on the fact that they were related to Abraham and thus were in a sense already in the family of God. They did not realize that sin prevented them from being part of that family. John came so that they might repent (change their mind about what they currently believed and accept the fact that they were sinners).

There are a set of essential doctrines that answer the question about how we are to be adopted. Paul in writing the first letter to the Corinthians lists the essential truths that make up the gospel message...

15:1 Now I want to make clear for you, brothers and sisters, the gospel that I preached to you, that you received and on which you stand, 15:2 and by which you are being saved, if you hold firmly to the message I preached to you – unless you believed in vain. 15:3 For I passed on to you as of first importance what I also received – that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, 15:4 and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day according to the scriptures,

Here we are presented with two essential truths - that Jesus died for our sins and rose from the dead. Using the Roman Road as our guide we have already seen that we are sinners (Rom 3:23) who are orphans that are separated from God. However God loves us and graciously offers us forgiveness through Jesus who has died for our sins. It is through His sacrifice that we are reconciled to God (Rom 5:8,10-11)and thus adopted into the family.

Jesus death on the cross allows us to be forgiven by God and this fact necessitates both the humanity and Diety of Christ. The humanity of Jesus allows Him to identify with us and enables Him to suffer and die for our sins. The Deity of Christ is required so that being sinless He could be the atoning sacrifice for our sins (Isa 53:9; 2 Cor 5:21). If Jesus were not Deity how could He be sinless? If He were not sinless how could He pay the penalty for our sins? It is the fact that Jesus was the perfect Passover Lamb that makes it possible for His death to atone for our sins. Yet a Barna study surprisingly demonstrates that many do know accept this essential part of the gospel...

Although a core teaching of the Christian faith is the divinity and perfection of Jesus Christ, tens of millions of Christians do not accept that teaching. More than one-fifth (22%) strongly agreed that Jesus Christ sinned when He lived on earth, with an additional 17% agreeing somewhat. Holding the opposing view were 9% who disagreed somewhat and 46% who disagreed strongly. Six percent did not have an opinion on this matter.

At this point I have tried to establish the core set of essential beliefs for being a Christian trying to show how they all tie together. Taking any one of them away would alter the gospel message.

• Belief in God.
• Belief that we are all sinners.
• Belief that God is Holy.
• Belief that Christ was both human and divine.
• Belief that Christ died for our sins.
• Belief that Christ was raised on the third day.

These make up the "essential[s] in the Christian religion such that those who have not accepted them cannot be called Christians. Does accepting them however make one a Christian? There is one more thing that is required.

• Belief that we are saved by faith alone, apart from works (sola fide)

Spurgeon includes this essential in his sermon. As does John Wesley who in 1741 preached a sermon that tackled the question "If it be inquired, “What more than this is implied in the being altogether a Christian?” I answer,..."

There is yet one thing more that may be separately considered, though it cannot actually be separate from the preceding, which is implied in the being altogether a Christian; and that is the ground of all, even faith. Very excellent things are spoken of this throughout the oracles of God. “Every one,” saith the beloved disciple, “that believeth is born of God.” “To as many as received him, gave he power to become the sons of God. even to them that believe on his name.” And “this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.” Yea, our Lord himself declares, “He that believeth in the Son hath everlasting life; and cometh not into condemnation, but is passed from death unto life.” (emphasis added)

It is not just understanding and agreeing with a set of doctrines (the head knowledge) but also the will/heart that trusts and places confidence in these truths - faith (Heb 11:1) - that causes one to be adopted into God's family.

This post was a followup to one on essentials and unity a few days ago.

What is Essential?

One of my favorite theology blogs Parchment and Pen has done a series of posts on trying to identify and get people to think about the essentials on Christianity. The goal is for people to rethink when unity should be broken or more importantly when it should not. The theme is the popular quote:

“In Essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, charity.”

This is certainly a principle made in Ephesians 4:3 that tells us to

Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace.

Last year Michael posted a test, which I recommend you take - it will make you think and that is a good thing.

Today his blog entry groups several doctrines into various "buckets" based on essentiality.

• Essential for Salvation
• Historic Orthodoxy
• Traditional Orthodoxy
• Denominational Orthodoxy
• Important but not essential
• Not Important
• Speculation

As I wrestle through this task I found Michael's wise suggestion of 4 criteria to consider helpful - primarily this boiled down to 1) is the doctrine clearly taught as central in Scripture and 2) is the doctrine something believed as central universally and historically by the church.

I understand what he is driving at on that second point as Augustine used this principle in identifying the canon of Scripture as laid out in "On Christian Doctrine" Book 2, Chapter 8:

Now, in regard to the canonical Scriptures, he must follow the judgment of the greater number of catholic churches; and among these, of course, a high place must be given to such as have been thought worthy to be the seat of an apostle and to receive epistles. Accordingly, among the canonical Scriptures he will judge according to the following standard: to prefer those that are received by all the catholic churches to those which some do not receive. Among those, again, which are not received by all, he will prefer such as have the sanction of the greater number and those of greater authority, to such as are held by the smaller number and those of less authority. If, however, he shall find that some books are held by the greater number of churches, and others by the churches of greater authority (though this is not a very likely thing to happen), I think that in such a case the authority on the two sides is to be looked upon as equal.

The idea here would be that when in doubt about the interpretation and essentiality of a doctrine consider "the judgment of the greater number of catholic churches" - here catholic means universal and not Roman Catholic. Using this approach is why the book 1st Clement is not part of the NT Canon - some held that it should be but apparently not the greater number or more authoritative churches.

The historical orthodoxy bucket is clarified as being "what has been believed by the historic Christian church for the last two thousand years, no matter what tradition" as well as it being held as a central belief. In the blog the later date priority of Matthew over Mark, and the authorship of Matthew and 2 Peter are not placed in this group even though they were believed by the historic Christian church because they are not considered central doctrines. In my mind this bucket can become subjective since it is not whether a doctrine can be shown as universally held historically that puts it in the bucket but also whether it was considered a central part of the message of Christianity as well. So is the date priority of Mark worth breaking unity over - no, but it was historically held. I agree that what is historically important should influence our thinking and for me the major creeds jump to the front as candidates for centrally held historic doctrines. If the doctrine was part of a creed it was likely central to the Christian church.

However as one places doctrine into buckets the traditional orthodoxy/denominational orthodoxy become essentially the same and could have been combined into the "important and essential/worth dividing over" - at least in my opinion as I think through my own set of beliefs and there essentiality. Why? Because first it is at this level of doctrine where the divisions tend to take place (just look at the items placed there on the blog) and thus are where unity is broken. This would make these doctrines "important and essential" to those holding them regardless of the source (historic, tradition, denominational etc).

For example the doctrine held by the RCC - bucketed as "traditional" and stated on the blog as "[b]elief that both Scripture and unwritten tradition have ultimate authority as they are interpreted by the Magisterium" is certainly not an essential belief for salvation (or historic though the RC would disagree) but is certainly important enough to break unity over since the source of authority (Scripture or Magisterium), the nature of authority (infallible or not), who has authority (elders or Pope/Bishop) and even the source of truth are not held to be the same. This would naturally make governing and teaching the church in unity a near impossibility.

Another doctrine listed as traditional is the "[b]elief that justification is through faith alone on the basis of Christ alone", which would be part of the essential for salvation list for me regardless of where the doctrine is placed in a historic/traditional/denominational sense. Same for the doctrine that "Christ is the only way to salvation" (which was placed in the historic bucket) this is an essential for salvation for me too. See my comment #23.

I do see the point and importance of identifying where a doctrine comes from historically, however the main source of truth is Scripture. History certainly can provide an excellent guide when one is wrestling with what one believes and whether or not it is worth dividing over but once one is practically trying to put them into buckets from a salvation and unity/division point of view I see these "extra buckets" of tradition/denominational as less useful.

Certainly I think we could all consider expanding our sphere of unity in our theological debates and stances but there are some issues of practicality as well as importance that probably must be considered as well if a church is to conduct itself in an orderly manner that strengthens the body (1 Cor 14:26,40). For example the gender of the teacher and baptism,in my opinion, are not essential for salvation. However the gender of a teacher and the age and beliefs of a baptismal candidate could well cause serious problems in a local church if there is wide spread disagreement in these areas.

Kudos and blessings to Michael at the Parchment and Pen for putting this series together and hopefully my comments on the buckets he proposed will be taken for what they are - which is what that I found them useful as I work through the test he proposed. But hey even if your list of essential buckets may vary I am not willing to divide over it...

Wednesday with Wesley: Total Depravity

We read a biography on John Wesley with our kids recently and since then I have been reading through some of the writings and sermons of John Wesley trying to understand his theology.

In Sermon 44, entitled Original Sin, Wesley explains what is called "total depravity". In the sermon he starts off refuting the idea that man is basically good saying...

But, in the mean time, what must we do with our Bibles? — for they will never agree with this. These accounts, however pleasing to flesh and blood, are utterly irreconcilable with the scriptural.

Wesley, then compares the heart of man prior to the flood - using Gen 6:5 as the basis - with that of man after the flood coming to the conclusion that they are no different. Here is how Wesley describes the heart of man:

“God saw all the imaginations of the thoughts of his heart;” — of his soul, his inward man, the spirit within him, the principle of all his inward and outward motions. He “saw all the imaginations:” It is not possible to find a word of a more extensive signification. It includes whatever is formed, made, fabricated within; all that is or passes in the soul; every inclination, affection, passion, appetite; every temper, design, thought. It must of consequence include every word and action, as naturally flowing from these fountains, and being either good or evil according to the fountain from which they severally flow.

Later he says this:

[Christianity] declares that all men are conceived in sin,” and “shapen in wickedness;” — that hence there is in every man a “carnal mind, which is enmity against God, which is not, cannot be, subject to” his “law;” and which so infects the whole soul, that “there dwelleth in” him, “in his flesh,” in his natural state, “no good thing;” but “every imagination of the thoughts of his heart is evil,” only evil, and that “continually.”

He will explain that "by nature" we do not 1) know God, 2) love God, or 3) fear God and concludes that all men are "Atheists in the world".

But as soon as God opens the eyes of their understanding, they see the state they were in before; they are then deeply convinced, that “every man living,” themselves especially, are, by nature, “altogether vanity;” that is, folly and ignorance, sin and wickedness.

Only God can help the natural man understand spiritual things (1 Cor 2:14-15; John 16:7-11) including the very fact that he is a sinner, only God is righteous, and the coming judgment.

Indeed, if man were not thus fallen, there would be no need of all this. There would be no occasion for this work in the heart, this renewal in the spirit of our mind.
...
Keep to the plain, old faith, “once delivered to the saints,” and delivered by the Spirit of God to our hearts. Know your disease! Know your cure! Ye were born in sin: Therefore, “ye must be born again,” born of God. By nature ye are wholly corrupted. By grace ye shall be wholly renewed. In Adam ye all died: In the second Adam, in Christ, ye all are made alive.

In this sermon Wesley has laid out our need for Jesus as total - we are totally unable to come to Him, until God open our eyes and helps us understand that we are sinners and that we need Him to cure the otherwise incurable disease!

Quotes taken "Sermons on Several Occasions John Wesley" available online @ Christian Classics Ethereal Library