For any who might be trying to keep up with the Princeton Seminary’s Reading Schedule for Calvin’s Institutes, here’s a helpful tip for how to download the .mp3 recorded readings for listening away from the computer.

1. Log in to Google Reader.  If you have ever signed up for any of Google’s free services (gmail, picasaweb, etc.) then you already have a Google account that should work for Reader.  If you haven’t, you can create one for free.
2. Once logged into Google Reader, click on the button that says “Add a Subscription”.
3. Copy+Paste http://www2.ptsem.edu/ConEd/calvin/rss/ and click ‘Add’.
4. If you click on “A Year With the Institutes”, you should be able to use the scroll bar to access all of the Institutes readings, back to the the beginning of the year. (Sub-tip 4a: Make sure you click “Show: all items” in the upper-leftish area, not just “new items”)
5. If you open any of those posts (click on the summary bar for that post), you will see the book/chapter/sections for that reading in a bold blue font, which is directly linked to the .mp3 for that reading (the name of the .mp3 file is the date of the reading).  Right-click on it, and you can save it to your own computer.  From that point, hopefully you know how to get it onto your iPod or other .mp3 player.

If you don’t want to create a Google account, you can use this account:

Email:    readtheinst@mailinator.com
Password: calvinrocks

Then go to step 4 above.

Continuing from yesterday, here are my thoughts:

Miley’s weak conception of atonement illustrates a confusion between God’s forgiveness, and our forgiveness, which are actually very different from each other. In a very real sense, God does not forgive sins.

Lemme ’splain.

We Christians are commanded to forgive, for at least two reasons: because we have been forgiven (Mt 6:12, Lk 11:4, Mt 18:21-35), and because we ourselves are sinners (Mt 7:1-5, Lk 6:37-38, Rom 2:1-5). But neither of these reasons to forgive applies to God.

One thing that is similar between us and God, however, is that in general sin against us cannot be undone. There are no returns and no refunds when we purchase death from God with the coin of sin; and when my #1 punches my #2 in the head, there is no amount of punching himself in the head that will actually undo the harm caused. But the biblical example for how we are to forgive those who trespass against us is not to demand propitiation, but to just let it go (seventy times seven times)!

But (contra Miley) God’s justice cannot “just let it go”. See how these two principles are juxtaposed: “Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.’”

You see, God always punishes sin. Every sin. With respect to “just letting it go,” his hands are tied (so to speak), by his perfect and holy justice. To continue to speak of God in lowly, human terms, in Rom 3, I can almost visualize the trinity in a huddle:

[The Father:] Confound it! I love these people, but they have sinned! It would be nice if I could just arbitrarily declare them righteous, but I can’t just look the other way — I must leave no sin unpunished, otherwise I am not just! Hmmm, if only I could think of a way that I could be completely just, and yet still be their justifier…

[The Son:] I’ve got it — you can punish me for their sin! I will humble myself and become flesh, and live the perfect life you require. Then you can give me the justice they deserve, and give them my perfection!

[The Father:] Well, son, it’s a good plan, and it might almost work. But they are so blinded by their sin, they wouldn’t even sign up for such a gracious offer, because it would mean submitting their autonomy to my authority.

[The Holy Spirit:] I can take care of that! I will bring Word of this free offer to them, and regenerate them so that they are aware of their sin, and they will repent and take hold of this offer of salvation.

[The Father:] Excellent — we are agreed then in this Covenant of Redemption! Break on three: 1, 2, 3, Who deserves all glory?

[All:] We do! Trinity! Trinity! Yeaaaaah!

The Bible is clear; every sin is punished. Punishment for the sins of the elect fall on Christ, and the non-elect receive their due penalty themselves. When the Bible says that God “forgives” us, that is just language of human accomodation. But if we remain confined in our own perspective, we forget that the “forgiveness” that we experience comes at a terrible cost, which diminishes our gratefulness.

Surely you’ve seen the bumper sticker that says “Not perfect, just forgiven.” If I thought that anybody would get the point, I would get a bumper sticker that said “Not forgiven, just perfect.”

Last week I listened to a lecture by Dr. Kim Riddlebarger, called “B. B. Warfield on Arminians and Evangelicals.” (The lecture is basically a reiteration of chapter 5 of Riddlebarger’s dissertation on Warfield). One of the topics Riddlebarger covered was Warfield’s review of John Miley’s Methodist (Arminian) Systematic Theology.

You can listen or read at the links above, but in a nutshell, Miley’s presupposition of man’s free will (“freedom is fundamental in Arminianism”) forces him to deny the possibility that the guilt of Adam’s sin could be imputed to us, and Miley consistently follows through by denying the possibility that our sin could be imputed to Christ. Warfield sums up Miley’s position as “If the Arminian [free will] principle is to rule, [Miley] says, the doctrine of race sin must go, and the doctrine of vicarious punishment must go.”

Miley acknowledges that the Calvinists are correct in the syllogism that, “if justice must punish sin simply for the reason of its demerit, penal substitution is the only possible atonement”. But since Miley has already ruled out vicarious punishment, he logically has to roll back the antecedent. Warfield again:

Dr. Miley attacks this problem at an early point (pp. 93 ff.), the result of his discussion being that he concludes that while punishment may not be inflicted where there is no sin, and may never go beyond the intrinsic demerit of sin—’and God has the exact measure of its desert’—yet sin need not be ‘punished according to its desert’ (p. 97) —provided that the requirements of God’s moral government are not endangered by the failure to punish it. In other words, while sin may not be punished beyond its desert, it may be punished below its desert, if it can be rendered safe to do so.

In this way, Miley severs the cross from any connection with God’s justice — God’s wrath against us poured out on Jesus. By allowing God to overlook sin if he doesn’t feel like punishing it as much as it deserves, the cross is demoted to being only an illustration of God’s love (to the exclusion of his justice). Riddlebarger concludes with a devastating question: “Why did the Son of God have to die if some other possible means of dealing with sin, such as personal repentance, could serve as a legitimate method of remitting the penalty due us as sinners?”

OK, this is long enough as is, I’ll return with my thoughts on this tomorrow.

…that Albino Hayford is one of them (or more precisely three and two (or one?) halves).

If you have a real life, you are probably not aware that this blog has recently been through a bad case of the Calvinism/Arminianism wars.  I have actually given up “winning” the debate about which is right; nowadays I would settle for Albino (and fellow Arminians) to stop kicking off the shoe that fits so well.  To that end, I posted the most definitive-possible definition of the Arminian label (from the pens of the original Arminians themselves) and naively hoped that Albino would simply respond “Oh, so that’s what it means to be an Arminian!  Yup, that describes my theology perfectly.”

In any case, Albino finally responded. Amidst the boilerplate rejection of all labels, if you look very closely, you can find the response proper buried in the middle of the post, short enough for me to reproduce right here:

Calvin and Arminius:  Both are right and both are wrong.  Let’s see, for you more linear-minded saints, I guess I would agree with half of Calvin’s depravity doctrine and half of his perserverence doctrine, making me a 1-point Calvinist (1/2 plus 1/2).  As to Arminius’ remonstrances, I guess I would fully concur with his description of unlimited atonement, as well as his view of resistable, prevenient grace and partially-conditional election.  I would tend to leave more tension and nuance in the Bible when it comes to perserverance of the saints and total depravity.  So I guess that makes me a “3 1/2 remonstrance Arminian”.

It seems like there’s an arithmetic error in there, counting half a point each for Calvin’s T and P, but only half a point total for Arminian Total Inability and Perseverance, but that discussion will not continue here.  Continue on over to Albino’s place!

My blog runneth over. What all started at Jesus the Hyper-Calvinist, has burgeoned into L is for Effectual, Joey the Arminian, Whodunit, Santa the Arminian, Guess Who, Guest Post, You Might Be Arminian If…, What is an Arminian?, and No Creed But… And still it’s not enough — I get pleas for more!

I have created a new category of “Calvinism/Arminianism” to tag all of these.  And if I’ve learned one lesson from all of this, it is that People Love to Debate Calvinism!  (A truth surpassing People Love to Debate Theonomy!, and on par with Germans Love David Hasselhoff).  Therefore, I will not even present my own ideas, but simply lob a question which is critical to the debate, but which (believe it or not) has been almost entirely overlooked in this pantheon of threads (panthreadon?).

Which comes first: the born again (regeneration) or the faith?

This was one of the most surprising truths I learned from my Reformed church; that one is not born again as a result of faith (as I had always assumed growing up), but faith is made possible (and certain) only after Holy Spirit regeneration elevates you from your state of total depravity.  I think this question might be the most succint way to understand Calvinism (regeneration comes first) vs. Arminianism (faith comes first).

So what do you think?  More importantly, what does the Bible say?

This is just funny. (Hat tip to This Millenial Life), somebody has taken it upon themselves to write down the Semi-Pelagian Narrower Catechism. My favorite is Q&A #22:

22. Q: Hath God predestined vessels of wrath to Hell?
A: God hath never performed such an omnipotent act, for any such thing would not reflect His primary attribute, which is Niceness.

Most Reformed people understand that, while the term “Calvinist” typically means holding to the 5 Doctrines of Grace, or petals of TULIP (thus a 4-point Calvinist affirms TUIP), the handy TULIP acronym was not created by Calvin himself, but was created by the 1618/19 Synod of Dordt (over 50 years after Calvin’s death), in response to 5 Articles of Remonstrance, which in turn were not written by Jacobus Arminius himself, but by his followers after his death (1609). Here’s some more history, if you’re interested in digging deeper.

There are plenty of Calvinist guides to Arminianism out on the web, but not so much the other way around. Apparently Calvinists really like to debate against Arminianism, but either Arminians don’t really care as much to fight back, or most Arminians don’t really understand or admit that they are Arminians.

So as a service to everybody out there who hates Calvinism, I have created a chart that presents the tenets of Arminians in their own original words (most Calvinists fail to hide their contempt when they attempt to describe Arminianism). Here you go, and stick around after the table, for when I give a few more observations.

First, note that the words of Article III align perfectly (as far as I can tell) with TULIP’s T for Total Depravity, and the original Remonstrants were not ready/willing to actually deny Perseverance. Wikipedia explains that Arminius himself felt the same way:

I never taught that a true believer can… fall away from the faith… yet I will not conceal, that there are passages of Scripture which seem to me to wear this aspect; and those answers to them which I have been permitted to see, are not of such as kind as to approve themselves on all points to my understanding.

Thus, I am willing to credit any “classic” Arminian with 1 1/2 points of Calvinism (T and P/2). The same article notes that (John) Wesleyan Arminianism goes the distance and fully denies Perseverance, so Methodists would lose half a point for that.

Second, note that the combination of Total Depravity (Article III) and Resistable Grace (Article IV) requires a significant change in the Ordo Saludis (Order of Salvation). The Reformed tradition from which the Remonstants departed started with Total Depravity, then Holy Spirit Regeneration (being born again) elevates an elect individual to the level that he is able able to do good, and since that Grace is Irresistable, Regeneration is always followed by Faith & Repentance, which then result in Justification, etc. In the Arminian framework, starting from Total Depravity, the Holy Spirit has to apply “prevenient/cooperative grace” so that an individual (elect or non-) would become able to believe or reject Christ. If he believes, then the Holy Spirit would finish the job with Regeneration (being born again), Justification, etc. (If he rejects, I’m not sure what happens — does he continue to walk around half-depraved and half-regenerate? Does the Holy Spirit undo its half-regeneration?) But note the critical difference: Calvinists say Regeneration (born again) precedes, enables and causes Faith; Arminians say that Faith precedes and results in being born again (Regeneration).

Anyways, how do you work the scorecard? We can just run through the most common denials of Calvinism:

• If you believe that God’s ‘choice/election/predestination’ is conditional on man’s foreknown belief then you score 1 Arminian point for Article I (and you need to review what the words ‘choice/election/predestination’ mean!).
• If you believe that Christ died for all, but only believers take advantage of the offer, then you score 1 Arminian point for Article II.
• If you believe that man is not so Totally Depraved that he can’t recognize a good offer when he sees it, and man can choose salvation under his own free will, then you are a Pelagian — you need to read Article III again, so that you can at least you can become an Arminian while you continue to search the scriptures and become a Calvinist.
• If you believe that Grace applied by the Sovereign Holy Spirit is resistable, then you score 1 Arminian point for Article IV.
• If you are not sure about “Once Saved, Always Saved”, then you score 1 “Classic” Arminian point for Article V . If you are sure that true salvation can be lost, then you score 1 “Wesleyan” Arminian point.

So what’s your score?

Here’s one we can all enjoy. My Arminian buddy Albino Hayford can listen and be inspired and affirmed. The rest of us can enjoy it as satire.

If you enjoyed that, you might also enjoy this:

and this:

(Hat tip to pastor BTall)

Echo keeps burying these gems deep into long comment trails where nobody will ever see them! I can’t get him to start his own blog, but maybe this is the next best thing: I have (without his permission) lifted about half of this comment and brought it up to this top level (where about 3 more people than nobody will ever see them!)

Enjoy!

So what’s the relevance here Echo?

Arminians do the same thing. They turn our belief into a work that you must do in order to be saved. No longer is it faith alone, it’s faith AND this one work. This waters down the gospel from what it truly is. A watered down gospel is a false gospel. That’s it.

But you say that these people are still preaching Christ, how could it be a false gospel!

The Judaizers only added one, small, little work to the work of Christ by which we are saved. They didn’t change everything about the gospel, they only added this one thing. They only added circumcision.

That was enough for Paul to declare it another gospel in the book of Galatians, and he said that those who teach another gospel, well:

Gal 1:8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.
Gal 1:9 As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.

There are not degrees of falsehood. There is truth and falsehood. That’s it. There’s God’s righteousness and our filthy rags that we lovingly refer to as righteousness. God’s standard is an infinite perfect standard. God does not compromise even a little bit.

The Arminian gospel is like the Judaizer’s gospel. It is the gospel with a little bit of something mixed in. It is either the pure, unadulterated gospel, or it is NOT the gospel.

Faith plus works, even if it is only one work, is NOT faith alone.

Gal 2:16 yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.

Gal 2:21 I do not nullify the grace of God, for if justification were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.

I like the NIV’s translation of verse 21. It says that if justification were through the law, then Christ died for NOTHING.

Our sinful tendency is to deny that we’re really all that bad and sinful. We don’t want to believe that. We don’t want to believe that we are COMPLETELY and ENTIRELY at God’s mercy. But if we’re ENTIRELY at God’s mercy, then our salvation is not in our hands but his. That’s what it MEANS to be entirely at his mercy!

We don’t want to be entirely at his mercy. We want to believe our salvation is a little bit in our hands. We want to think that we have just a little bit of control over our salvation, because for some twisted, sinful reason, this gives us a measure of assurance that we will in fact be saved.

But rest assured, your salvation is NOT in your hands, but in God’s. You are in fact ENTIRELY at his mercy. But what MORE does God have to do to convince you that he will deal mercifully with you? Rather than punish you for your sin, he sent his only Son to dwell among us and to live and die and live again for us!

On his blog, my dad often presents a quote from a book, and challenges readers to name the theologian. I thought I’d take a page from the old man’s book today. Can you name the author?

It is of paramount concern to know that Christ is presented to all without distinction to the end that they may entrust themselves to him for salvation. The gospel offer is not restricted to the elect or even to those for whom Christ died. And the warrant of faith is not the conviction that we are elect or that we are among those for whom, strictly speaking, Christ died but the fact that Christ, in the glory of his person, in the perfection of his finished work, and in the efficacy of his exalted activity as King and Saviour, is pressented to us in the full, free, and unrestricted overture of the gospel. It is not as persons convinced of our election nor as persons convinced that we are the special objects of God’s love that we commit ourselves to him but as lost sinners. We entrust ourselves to him not because we believe we have been saved but as lost sinners in order that we may be saved. It is to us in our lost condition that the warrant of faith is given and the warrant is not restricted or circumscribed in any way. In the warrant of faith the rich mercy of God is proffered to the lost and the promise of grace is certified by the veracity and faithfulness of God. This is the ground upon which a lost sinner may commit himself to Christ in full confidence that he will be saved. And no sinner to whom the gospel comes is excluded from the divine warrant for such confidence.

The author uses the word “warrant” a lot, which seems rather archaic. I found it helpful to read “warrant of” as “reason for” or “justification for”. Apart from who wrote it (and what was the work) what do you think of the passage?

In particular, I’m interested in the phrase (which is kind of tangential to the main point) “the elect or even to those for whom Christ died”. Christ died for more than the elect? In this thrust, I am interested in the relationship between 1 Tim 2:3-6, 1 Tim 4:10, and Limited Atonement.