The “Greatest Plague of the Church”
Aug 14th, 2008 by Nathan White
Before you read the quote below, let me preface it by saying that I count many people as brothers and sisters in Christ who somewhat align themselves with the doctrine that this puritan is condemning. My reason for posting this is not to call anyone’s profession of faith into question. We must understand that there are different ‘levels’, so to speak, of error. Some hold to the error because they don’t know better, some because they believe everything that their pastor tells them, some hold to error with their lips which their prayers and their lives betray, etc.
Nevertheless, the error I am referring to is Arminianism, which is the historic name for free-will theology, i.e., those who deny the doctrine of election and predestination as historically understood by the protestant Church. The opposite of Arminianism is of course Calvinism.
Now days ‘free-will’ theology comes in all shapes and sizes. Some are far worse than others, some are actually just inconsistent Calvinists, and some simply don’t know that there are two sides to this debate.
But all things considered, I found the following quote, taken from Robert Traill’s defense of the protestant doctrine of justification in Justification Vindicated, to be a most accurate description of the modern evangelical scene. I’d be curious to hear thoughts of those who might disagree:
“…the principles of Arminianism are the natural dictates of a carnal mind which is emnity both to the law of God and to the gospel of Christ; and, next to the dead sea of Popery –into which this stream also runs — they have, from Pelagius on to this day, been the greatest plague of the church of Christ and, it is likely, will be till His second coming.”
And a little later:
“There is not a minister that deals seriously with the souls of men but he finds an Arminian scheme of justification in every unrenewed heart. And is it not sadly to be bewailed, that divines [ministers] should plead that same cause that we daily find the devil pleading in the hearts of all natural men?”
Two things to note in conclusion:
1) We must understand what the author means here by Arminianism, and understand that the version most prevalent in his day is slightly different than what it’s morphed into in our day. Thus, let me again reiterate that there are many godly men and women in our day who hold to a form of Arminianism that is not the full-fledge doctrine that Traill was most likely referring to.
2) Is it not amazing, considering the second quote, how churches in our day have taken this ‘appeal to their flesh’ to the logical extreme? That would be the seeker-sensitive movement, my friends. We have mega-churches from coast to coast doing marketing to determine how to appeal to the masses; they’re giving people just the right kind of selfish messages, programs and other enticements to get them to darken the door. Church growth and ‘Church Planting’ even are now just marketing schemes that are aimed at appealing to the fleshly lusts of unregenerate man.
Thus, from giving them a message that they have the free-will power to save themselves, which appeals to their pride and self-righteousness, to appealing to their lust for money and entertainment by showering them with programs and excitement, the true gospel of Jesus Christ and the imputed righteousness therein has fallen by the wayside. Instead we now how a church who truly caters to the ‘consumer’ in every facet: not only are you sovereign over your salvation, but you’re sovereign over what kind of message you want to hear and what kind of entertainment and atmosphere you want at ‘church’.
This, my friends, is why I cannot, and we cannot, step down and simply ‘agree to disagree’ over the issue of Calvinism versus Arminianism. The implications contained within are not worth the sacrifice of souls necessary to keep the peace.
Plague you say? Well yeah. The Highland host gave me a link to a Packer piece.
I think the most difficult thing that I have faced is tackling the issues without having the typical reactionary response: “Are you saying I am not saved?” That kind of emotive response is an attempt to derail when the conversation gets to close to the heart. Yet we cannot back off because of perceived offense in light of the truth. While we may be treated as thieves of comfort, it is to comfort, i.e. assurance, that we are making our appeal. Oh that they would listen to what we are saying about the will of God, and not our own, being the anchor of our salvation.
Oh dear, I just do not know what to say.
The heart of the Calvinist message is despair: your doom is sealed, and you can’t hope to escape the flames. Beg and plead all you want, but God is ultimately going to destroy you.
There is no reason to lay claim to hope, because God promises salvation to no one except those whom only He knows. Since we have no way of knowing God’s intentions, the best we can hope for is a luck of the draw.
The Calvinism preached by most Calvinists seems dishonest to me: they talk about hope when there is none, and they make claims that their theology denies is even possible.
Well James what might you say to:
Or if you like in another version:
Note the clear distinction between those who have hope and those who do not, but it gets even clearer that some never will, nor could have any hope. Seems to me that there would be no reason for Paul to say this except that for some there is no hope for some. But if that is not sufficient then Peter:
But you are A CHOSEN RACE, A royal PRIESTHOOD, A HOLY NATION, A PEOPLE FOR God’s OWN POSSESSION, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light… Note the clear demarcation. And Jesus:
No matter how you slice it, those bad fish didn’t have any hope, and there’s got to be bad fish or Jesus wasn’t being quite honest. And Paul again:
Seems to me James, you have just got to deal with what the word says.
James said:
That tells me that you don’t understand the Calvinist position very well. For, of course, no sinner who comes to Christ will ever be turned away. The fact of scripture is that natural men hate God, would never come to Him, and even in the face of eternal punishment would never seek to be in His holy presence.
Nathan writes: ” For, of course, no sinner who comes to Christ will ever be turned away.” Nathan, what you say makes sense, but I think things are bit more complicated than that. There are many Christians who in all sincerity come to Christ only to later reject the faith in whole or in part. What about Charles Templeton who served alongside Billy Graham who then later became an agnostic?
While it’s true that I cannot sit on judgment in terms of the sincerity of Templeton’s faith as it was originally, it seems clear that there are people who DO come to Christ, ask for forgiveness and see a need for repentance only to go back to a worldly mode of living at a later stage in life. So in a sense, were they not turned away?
It would seem a Calvinist would not leave the door open for someone like Templeton to ever be able to recant or repent. Their high stature and subsequent fall might seem to them a glaring indication of their reprobation, whereas a non-Calvinist might recognize the ebbs and tides of religious faith and suggest that Templeton could still at least come to Christ as he neared death. The door, in other words, is still open, if even just a crack.
Of course, all souls must ultimately “choose” the dark or the light. I don’t deny that one can so erode their own conscience that choosing the good or their own salvation can be near impossible. I’m also not denying the reality of Hell, but simply that God, if He is good, must logically will that all people do what is right and just. To suggest that God “wills what He does not will” is incoherent, and nonsense is not made coherent just because “God can” is appended to it (just as I think it absurd that God would use “chaos” in pure evolutionary terms to construct man).
Sincerity does not save, first of all. And Scripture is clear that those who come to Christ can never finally fall away. John is explicit in stating that for those who go out it is manifested that they never were of us, that is Christian. And though we cannot judge the final dispostition of such as we observe, we can judge their doctrine as either being anti-Christian, or Christianity compromised, and we can judge their actions, both of which are required for the discipline of the church. As to Templeton, who knows, and who cares. Paul did not care who Peter was, he judged his doctrine as being one with those who were actually teaching it simply by the fiat of Peter’s actions.
Billy Graham made heretical statements. His position in the Lord is only known to the Lord. Our responsibility is to judge his doctrine. Templeton and Graham stand before the Lord and are judged, as all of us are, as Jesus said, for every word that does not work. Templeton was a Presbyterian, but not a Calvinist for he was a humanistic modernist. What we know is that scientism such as that which Templeton exalted above the revelation of Scripture can not produce any final answers where Scripture does. Perhaps Templeton was saved but it is hard to reconcile that with the rejection of the Word as the most perfect revelation:
. If the Holy Spirit can be wrong, then Templeton possibly was right.
It is not Calvinism, but Arminianism (not all are explicit in the possibililty but all contain such possibililty because of their free-will doctrine) that potentially slams the door. Calvinism holds this:
This is founded upon what does not exist in Arminianism/Romanism, namely that grace in the Calvinistic sense is entirely, efficaciously sufficent by providing all means for the comfort and salvation of the saints, nothing excepted, even the willing is provided by him. That is unlike Arminianisms which must allow for the libertarian free-will of the individual without qualification, and thus making it actually possible for the door to be closed permanently. You’ve got your theologies backwards.
And here you enunciate the classical Arminian doctrine of reprobation. This is Pelagian/Semi-Pelagian, and heresy. It asssumes that conscience is somehow, to some measure, clean to begin with. It assumes that some good is resident and inherent in man, where what Scripture says is that we have been given the mind of Christ, a clean conscience, a righteousness which is from above, not from below. We have a righteousness that is conceived of the Spirit and not of the flesh. Jesus was quite explicit that flesh can only give birth to flesh. The Spirit is life, and that eternal, it is a reward given in Christ in whom alone abides eternal life. The Father has caused us to be made alive by that Spirit. The Spirit is not resident in all men from conception is it? No. Can the Spirit corrupt? Not at all. What God has done is to give us that treasure which cannot be stolen nor can it deteriorate, for the mind of Christ never denies the will of his Father. Depravity means that even though man is able to do some earthly good, he cannot do any heavenly good. The requirement for entrance into God’s favor is perfection. An impossibillity for the Arminian seeing that his flesh is the source of his choices and it is always corrupted by some measure.
You see then, it is your Arminianism that cannot grant the peace that passes understanding. We stand by the grace of God, you by the power of your own. You end up with only the peace which the world offers and which contains no hope whatsoever.
Thomas, I have pondered Calvinism for some time, and I’m afraid that, at least for me, it is soul-damaging. If I embrace Calvinism, I can only look at my fellow humans with contempt, with disgust, and even with hatred. There is nothing good, nothing worth saving, nothing worth loving in any one. Why should I assume God is going to save them? I can’t assume that. Instead, I can only assume they are “totally depraved” and worthy of eternal torment. Why should I love them? Why should I help or assist devils? They’re better off to simply suffer. Eventually I will be unable to even stand the sight of another creature: they are simply just so much more darkness that must be blotted out.
I’m not the most generous person as it is, I hate to admit: to embrace this theology would be to encourage what I thought would be the least noble aspects of my character.
James, per your last comment, I would encourage you to take a much more careful look at scripture, for to demonstrate how it so thoroughly contradicts your philosophical argument above would be too exhaustive to list here; but not only that, but I’d encourage you to take another look at your own sinfulness, for I don’t believe that you understand just how sinful you are. If you aren’t convinced that God had to save/raise/resurrect your dead and rotting spiritual corpse in order for you to even glance His way, then your holding on to your own merits to make you right with God (salvation by works, a heresy), and you slander the deep work of a perfect Savior who alone is to be glorified in salvation. Think on these, my friend, and read Romans chapter 9 or Ephesians chapter 2 very closely and slowly one day.
James is right about one thing. There is nothing good, nothing worth saving, nothing worth loving in any of us. We are all totally depraved and deserving of eternal torment. Why should we assume that God would save any of us? Because He gave us His Word. Some will reject it, but that does not excuse us from obeying His command to proclaim the gospel to everyone everywhere.
Well you could if you were God and be justified in doing so as Jesus did, “You are of your Father the devil.” But, you and I are murderers of God, at least in our hearts, for we hate him before he creates in us a heart of love as Ezekial says. And Jesus said that hate is the same in man as murder. Man does not have the right to hate, he has no righteousness in him by which he can judge another as worthy of condemnation. The fact that you do not list mercy is most telling. You see, God shows his love in this, that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us. And it is not that we loved him first, indeed it is impossible for us to do so, but that he first loved us and sent his only Son that those who are believing in him would not perish. Jesus is also very clear that the only ones who will come to him are those who the Father gives him. So, on one hand it makes sense that you do not accept the doctrines of Grace. You have no concept of what grace is and therefore cannot see how it is extended to us who are unworthy and how then we are enable to offer it to the world through the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Like Brenda said…
The reality is that this is the perspective of God:
What should be noted is that this is after the flood. The simple lesson from Noah’s time is that before the flood everyone was without a single thing worth saving, and after the flood, when there is only eight people, that remains unchanged. The only thing that saved Noah and his family was the favor with which God graced them. The next chapter disallows us to impute to Noah any noble character, the man was depraved, a drunkard, and his sin is laid bare for all the world to see. From his loins springs forth all the sin of all the generations that follow. If man had nothing that was worth saving, and only deserving of the loathing of God before and after the flood how is it that you would say that man has anything in him worth any appreciation by God?
But here is where you get it wrong. We are not worthy to judge our brother in the flesh for we are just as they are, totally depraved. When the holiness of God is revealed to us, that is, when we are born-again, we finally get a glimpse of the heart of man which is deceitful above all things. It is not cause for us to hate our equals, but to have compassion and long for mercy to be shown to them for it is right judgement, mercy and humility that God requires, all of which is a gift to us in regeneration just as it was a gift to Adam in the generation. But those who love the darkness will not come into the light so that their deeds will be exposed for the evil that they are. The righteous, however, come into the light so that it might be exposed that the things that they have done have been worked by the providence of God. That works in us humility, part of the grace which is given in regeneration. What you are hoping to see in others is merely what you want to be found in yourself. Unrighteous men suppress the truth in unrighteousness, excusing themselves by some image that they create in their evil thoughts. That is self-justification. Like the Pharisee, you wish to say I am glad that I am not like this sinner when indeed you are. We are justified by faith and that in Jesus Christ and not by any self-redeeming factor within us. It is his righteousness and none of our own to which we look. As Nathan said, you believe in your good works, the idol of your heart, your self-image, and not the God of Scripture. Your problem is your pride and: a haughty spirit goes before a fall and pride goes before destruction. Take care, then, if you think you stand on your own merit.
This is perhap one of the greatest of deceptions. We want to belong, to be part of and feel contributory. It makes us feel good about ourselves. It is so subtle. We have heard it, “get involved, find your place in ministry” and forget that even the gift of ministry is given only to some:
let us use them: if prophecy, let us prophesy in proportion to our faith;
Some how we have forgotten what the old guys called vocation. For some, being a mother, or a father, employed in the field or factory is what God has called them to. We forget particularity and the administration of the Holy Spirit and his choosing and distributing gifts according to his purpose. We take spiritual inventories, express a “priesthood of the believer” doctrine that levels the playing field and does not make proper distinctions. Is it any wonder then that we must have programs and excitements so that people feel attached to the ministry. Martin Lloyd-Jones perspective on the term ministry is important. He says and as far as I can tell he is correct, that whenever the definite article appears with ministry it is speaking of the offices of the church but when it does not it is not. In other words to say that everyone has a ministry obscures the diversity of the body, and though some are gifted to minister, not all are given the ministry. Today we have feet doing the smelling and noses running, it keeps people busy, and distracted and consequently undiscerning. Pragmaticism forces us to provide tools of practice when the reality is that we have been given freedom so that we no longer have to work at ministering before the alter. Since the High Priest has entered into the Holy of Holies it is the Sabbath, everyday, a day of rest. What that means is where ever we are, and whatever we are doing is now acceptable before the Lord. We do not have to worship in Jerusalem or on this mountain, nor perform specific tasks (sacrifices), have a ministry, rather the Father seeks those who will worship in Spirit and in Truth. Like Adam who was give the Garden to tend, we are give lives to live each according to its kind. That should be freeing, for now we no longer have to perform. But what we find is churches becoming traps rather than places of discipleship. No one imagines going to college as a teacher, but to be taught. We go to school to learn profession. Unfortunately, the church is now leading the way in equalizing, as Mike Horton has correctly observed, what we have created is a body of self-feeders.
[…] plague of the church of Christ and, it is likely, will be till His second coming.” (Please note this post when understanding how Trail uses the term […]