Closing the Door on “Open Theism”

The following is the introduction from an article by Martyn McGeown, Ballymena, Northern Ireland. This article provides a cogent critique of the cancerous doctrine of Open Theism that has taken up residence in evangelicalism.

“Christians have traditionally understood God in terms of three classic perfections, each with the prefix “omni” or “all”: omnipresent (everywhere present), omnipotent (all powerful) and omniscient (all knowing). These three attributes were until recently accepted by all orthodox theists. Today, theologians can take nothing for granted. God’s most fundamental perfections are under attack. One such assault on God’s perfections calls itself “open theism,” a movement within evangelicalism which denies that God knows the future choices of His creatures. God, according to open theism, has exhaustive knowledge of the past and of the present, but He does not know with certainty what will happen in the future. The future is “open” because history is not, as has traditionally been understood, the outworking in time of what God has decreed in eternity, but an historical “project” in which God and men decide together what the future will be. God has determined the general parameters of history, but He has left much of the future open to allow men to exercise their freewill. Because men often choose in ways which disappoint, frustrate, sadden, thwart or even surprise God, He is forced to deviate from what He previously planned to do; but God is flexible and resourceful, and despite many setbacks, we are told, He will accomplish His final goal. Open theism is a radical denial of God’s sovereignty in favour of man’s so-called “libertarian freewill.”

“Open theism is not a lunatic fringe in Christendom. Leading evangelicals espouse this heresy. Its main proponents are Gregory Boyd, Clark Pinnock and John Sanders, whose books we will critique in this paper. A. B. Caneday laments the way in which the open theism movement has spread: “Open theism quietly crossed evangelicalism’s threshold in 1986, took up residence, and now sues for squatter’s rights.”

“We shall see that open theism is a fundamental denial of the omniscience, the sovereignty and the immutability of God, and therefore a denial of the God of Scripture, and the worship of a strange god who has been created in man’s image. As such it must be condemned as idolatry.”

Read the article in its entirety HERE.

Sproul on the Arminian concept of Prevenient Grace

R. C. Sproul explains the Arminian concept of prevenient grace in his book Chosen by God (Tyndale, 1994).

p. 123-125 As the name suggests, prevenient grace is grace that “comes before” something. It is normally defined as a work that God does for everybody. He gives all people enough grace to respond to Jesus. That is, it is enough grace to make it possible for people to choose Christ. Those who cooperate with assent to this grace are “elect.” Those who refuse to cooperate with this grace are lost. 

The strength of this view is that it recognizes that fallen man’s spiritual condition is severe enough that it requires God’s grace to save him. The weakness of the position may be seen in two ways. If this prevenient grace is merely external to man, then it fails in the same manner that the medicine and the life preserver analogies fail. What good is prevenient grace if offered outwardly to spiritually dead creatures?

On the other hand, if prevenient grace refers to something that God does within the heart of fallen man, then we must ask why it is not always effectual. Why is it that some fallen creatures choose to cooperate with prevenient grace and others choose not to? Doesn’t everyone get the same amount?

Think of it this way, in personal terms. If you are a Christian you are surely aware of other people who are not Christians. Why is it that you have chosen Christ and they have not? Why did you say yes to prevenient grace while they said no? Was it because you were more righteous than they were? If so, then indeed you have something in which to boast. Was that greater righteousness something you achieved on your own or was it the gift of God? If it was something you achieved, then at the bottom line your salvation depends on your own righteousness. If the righteousness was a gift, then why didn’t God give the same gift to everybody?

Perhaps it wasn’t because you were more righteous. Perhaps it was because you are more intelligent. Why are you more intelligent? Because you study more (which really means you are more righteous)? Or are you more intelligent because God gave you a gift of intelligence he withheld from others?

To be sure, most Christians who hold to the prevenient grace view would shrink from such answers. They see the implied arrogance in them. Rather they are more likely to say, “No, I chose Christ because I recognized my desperate need for him.”

That certainly sounds more humble. But I must press the question. Why did you recognize your desperate need for Christ while your neighbor didn’t? Was it because you were more righteous than your neighbor, or more intelligent?

The $64 question for advocates of prevenient grace is why some people cooperate with it and others’ don’t. How we answer that will reveal how gracious we believe our salvation really is.

The $64,000 question is, “Does the Bible teach such a doctrine of prevenient grace? If so, where?”

We conclude that our salvation is of the Lord. He is the One who regenerates us. Those whom he regenerates come to Christ. Without regeneration no one will ever come to Christ. With regeneration no one will ever reject him. God’s saving grace effects what he intends to effect by it.

Dr. Sproul closes his book describing the quest for understanding predestination as much more than an emotionally dead theological mind exercise, which is the common view of most evangelical Christians today.

p. 213 Let me close the book by mentioning that soon after I awoke to the truth of predestination I began to see the beauty of it and taste its sweetness. I have grown to love this doctrine. It is most comforting. It underlines the extent to which God has gone in our behalf. It is a theology that begins and ends with grace. It begins and ends with doxology. We praise a God who lifted us from spiritual deadness and makes us walk in high places. We find a God who may be against us. It makes our souls rejoice to know that all things are working together for our good. We delight in our Savior who truly saves us and preserves us and intercedes for us. We marvel at his craftmanship and in what he has wrought. We skip and kick our heels when we discover his promise to finish in us what he has started in us. We ponder mysteries and bow before them, but not without doxology for the riches of grace he has revealed:

Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! … For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen. (Romans 11:33, 36)

Spurgeon on the Arminian concept of atonement

“The Arminian holds that Christ, when He died, did not die with an intent to save any particular person; and they teach that Christ’s death does not secure, beyond doubt, the salvation of any one man living. They believe that Christ died to make the salvation of all men possible, or that by the doing of something else, any man who pleases may attain unto eternal life; consequently, they are obliged to hold that if man’s will would not give way and voluntarily surrender to grace, then Christ’s atonement would be unavailing. They hold that there was no particularity and speciality in the death of Christ. Christ died, according to them, as much for Judas in Hell as for Peter who mounted to Heaven. They believe that for those who are consigned to eternal fire, there was as true and real a redemption made as for those who now stand before the throne of the most High.”  C. H. Spurgeon, Sermons On Sovereignty, p. 82.

If Christ’s work on the cross did nothing for anyone that it did not do for everyone, then either all are saved or his atonement saves no one.  The Arminian answer is that the atonement (in itself) saves no one.  It makes all savable on a condition left for man to fullfil.  In otherwords, God has done his part, now man must do his — by choosing Christ of his own free will. To which, Spurgeon has another comment or two:

“I would rather believe a limited atonement that is efficacious for all men for whom it was intended, than a universal atonement that is not efficacioius for anybody, except the will of men be added to it.” (Sermons, Vol. 4, p. 70)

“We say Christ so died that He infallibly secured the salvation of a multitude that no man can number, who through Christ’s death not only may be saved, but are saved, must be saved, and cannot by any possibility run the hazard of being anything but saved. You are welcome to your atonement; you may keep it. We will never renounce ours for the sake of it.” (Sermon 181, New York Street Pulpit, IV, p. 135)

A. A. Hodge on Amyraldism and dual reference atonement

A. A. Hodge (1823-1886), principal at Princeton Seminary in the good old days, objects to the Amyraldian view of the atonement and lumps it with other “novelties” such as the double (or dual) reference atonement which should be discarded by consistent Calvinists.

“Their own system [Amyraldism] was generally styled Universalismus Hypotheticus, an hypothetic or conditional universalism. They taught that there were two wills or purposes in God in respect to man’s salvation. The one will is a purpose to provide, at the cost of the sacrifice of his own Son, salvation for each and every human being without exception if they believe — a condition foreknown to be universally and certainly impossible. The other will is an absolute purpose, depending only upon his own sovereign good pleasure, to secure the certain salvation of a definite number . . . This view represents God as loving the non-elect sufficiently to give them his Son to die for them, but not loving them enough to give them faith and repentance . . . It represents God as willing at the same time that all men be saved and that only the elect be saved. It denies, in opposition to the Arminian, that any of God’s decrees are conditioned upon the self-determined will of the creature, and yet puts into the mouths of confessed Calvinists the very catch-words of the Arminian system, such as universal grace, the conditional will of God, universal redemption, etc. The language of Amyraldus, the ‘Marrow Men,’ Baxter, Wardlaw, Richards, and Brown is now used to cover much more serious departures from the truth.  All really consistent Calvinists ought to have learned by now that the original position of the great writers and confessions of the Reformed Churches have only been confused, and neither improved, strengthened nor illustrated, by all the talk with which the Church has . . . been distracted as to the ‘double will’ of God, or the ‘double reference’ of the Atonement.  If men will be consistent in their adherence to these ‘Novelties,’ they must become Arminians. If they would hold consistently to the essential principles of Calvinism, they must discard the ‘Novelties’.” (The Atonement, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953, pp. 374-375)

The double or dual reference atonement

I introduced John Kennedy of Dingwall in the previous post.  Here is an excerpt from his Man’s Relations to God, (at Google Books) published 1869,  pp. 100 – 116, wherein he argues against the dual reference view of the atonement.

---

There are some who, Calvinists in their vows and Arminians in their tendencies, teach the doctrine of a double reference of the atonement; representing the atonement as offered in one sense for the elect, and in another sense for all.  These maintain that there was a special atonement securing a certainty of salvation to some, and universal atonement securing a possibility of salvation to all.

Subscribers of the Confession of Faith, who advocate the double reference of the atonement, profess to believe that Christ died in a sense for the elect, in which He died for none besides – that He died because He was their surety – that their sins alone were imputed to Him – that it is His relation to the elect which accounts for His death – that for them alone redemption was purchased – and that to none besides shall redemption be applied. How can they then consistently hold that Christ died for all?  There are two ways in which a reconciliation of the two references may be attempted:

[1] It may be said that the call of the gospel must involve the salvability of those to whom it is addressed. This is traced to the death of Christ as an atonement of infinite value; and on that ground and to that effect it may be insisted that Christ died for all. But how can this consist with this other doctrine, which they profess to believe – that no one is salvable without atonement. No atonement can make my salvation possible if it did not satisfy divine justice for my sins. How can the possibility of my salvation be before the mind of God, unless He sees my sins atoned for in the death of Christ? How could they be atoned for unless they were imputed to Him ? And how could they be imputed to Him unless He was my surety? Thus, and thus alone, could He make possible the salvation of any. If it be objected, that unless the salvation of all who are called is possible there is no hope for them, it is enough to reply, that just as surely as salvation is not possible without atonement, neither is it so without faith ; and that instead of tracing the possibility of a universal salvation to a universal reference of the atonement, the wise and the right thing would be, to insist on the ability of Christ to save all who come to Him; on the certainty of salvation through faith ; and on the impossibility of salvation without it. But this universal reference, of which so much is made, is after all no reference of the atonement. There is no atonement that does not imply satisfaction to divine justice. There was no satisfaction of justice that did not avail to the purchase of redemption. Is there a universal reference of such an atonement to all?  If not, of what atonement?  And if of another, how can it avail to make salvation possible?  To say that the atonement, being of infinite value, is sufficient for all, is beside the mark, for the question is as to the divine intention. To say, that, if the atonement was of infinite value, it was intended to be so, is to rhapsodize considerably: for, surely, the value of the atonement does not flow from the intention of God the Father, but from the dignity of God the Son, who offered it. 

John Kennedy of Dingwall

John Kennedy (1819-1884) of Dingwall, was a Scottish preacher and theologian. He was also a staunch defender of the Reformed Faith who was, as his friend Charles Spurgeon described him, true as steel and firm as a rock.

He was educated in the parish school of Killearnan, and in 1836 went to Aberdeen University. He graduated M.A. at King’s College in 1840, and in the same year entered the theological hall of the established church in Scotland. Kennedy was licensed by the established church in September 1843, but joined the free church and was inducted into a free church newly formed at Dingwall, Rosshire, February 1844. He was pastor of Dingwall Free Church from 1844 until his death in 1884 at the age of 65.

Kennedy was a stalwart opponent of the drift in Scottish Presbyterianism away from the Westminster Confession.  I found two significant works of Kennedy available online:  The first is Hyper-Evangelism: Another Gospel Part 1, with links to parts 2 thru 5.  This was published in 1874 in the wake of, and in response to, an evangelistic campaign by Dwight L. Moody.  The features of modern American revivalism brought to Scotland by Moody, and in Kennedy’s mind offensive to the biblical gospel, are traceable to the evangelistic practice of Charles G. Finney (1792-1875).

The second work I would mention is Man’s Relations to God, (at Google Books) published 1869.  Within the broader context implied by the title, this treatise includes an impressive effort to resist erosion of the doctrine of the particular design in Christ’s atoning work.  Specifically, Kennedy takes on what he terms the “double reference” view of the atonement, which he sees as thoroughly defective.  This view may be traced to John Davenant (1576-1641), found in James Ussher (1581-1656), and continuing today in what might be called Low or Moderate Calvinism.  Some see it as middle ground between the French Hypothetical Universalism of Moise Amyraut (1596-1644) and the High Calvinist limited atonement views of John Owen and Francis Turretin.  Kennedy sees it as incompatible with the WCF and unbiblical at its core.  An excerpt is found in the subsequent post HERE.

Other information on Kennedy and his writings may be found HERE.

Another Gospel by John Cheeseman

This article is by John Cheeseman, Vicar of Holy Trinity Parish Church, Eastbourne.  It is a chapter from his Saving Grace (Banner of Truth, 2000).

---

It is my contention that there is a real and basic difference between the biblical gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ and the prevailing manmade substitute. To substantiate this claim, I must examine the modern gospel and compare it with Scripture, for our final authority must be Scripture alone, where we find many warnings against false gospels (for example Gal. 1:6—9, 1 Tim. 6:3, 20, 2 Tim. 1:13—14). If we are to be true to our duty to `Test all things; hold fast what is good’ (1 Thess. 5:21), we must test all formulations of the gospel against the one true gospel revealed in the Word of God.

If the gospel commonly preached today is indeed found to be unscriptural, it follows that much of modern evangelicalism has gone astray on doctrines which are not just of secondary importance, but are at the heart of the Christian faith. This is not a welcome conclusion, but we must not avoid it for that reason. In the last few years the Lord has laid a desire for the revival of true, deep, vital and powerful Christianity on the hearts of many. It may well be that the recovery of the purity of the gospel will, by the grace of God, lead to a healing of the many ills and weaknesses of the evangelical churches and to a demonstration of the Holy Spirit’s power amongst us both in the growth in grace of believers and in the salvation of the lost.

I am convinced that much modern preaching which purports to be evangelical falls short of scriptural teaching and has little in common with the example of the Master Evangelist, the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. How would much modern evangelistic preaching and writing answer the question of the rich young ruler, `What must I do to inherit life?’? The following answer is probably typical: `If I am to benefit from Christ’s death I must take three simple steps, of which the first two are preliminary, and the third so final that it will make me a Christian: I must believe that I am, in God’s sight, a sinner, that is, I must admit my need; I must believe that Christ died for me; I must come to him, and claim my personal share in what He did for everybody.’ Under the third and final step is explained how the willing sinner must `open the door of his heart to Christ’, the Christ who waits patiently outside the door until we open it to Him.

It is undeniable that such an answer, or something like it, is frequently presented today, and those who use this method probably justify it by claiming that it includes the central doctrines of the gospel — repentance, faith, conversion, substitutionary atonement, the sinfulness of man, and so on. If someone `takes the step’ but later questions the validity of his conversion, he is assured, `You took a simple step, you committed yourself to Jesus Christ, but then God performed a stupendous miracle. He gave you new life; you were born again.’ The concluding advice is often given: `Tell somebody today what you have done.’ This answer bears little resemblance to Jesus’ reply to the rich young ruler (Mark 10:17—22).

The following is a summary of some of the basic doctrines or presuppositions of this modern gospel:

Unregenerate men can repent and believe.

Christ died for the sins of every man individually.

Committing oneself to Christ, or deciding for Him, or coming to Him, is an act which the sinner can do as he wills at any time; that is, it is an act of free will.

Although God may be said to have taken the initiative in a general sense by sending Christ to die to make salvation possible, in any particular conversion it is the sinner who takes the initiative by coming to Christ, and it is God who responds.

Now let us compare these doctrines with the teaching of scripture:

On the Will of God in salvation – Francis Turretin (1623-1687)

God acts seriously in the calling of reprobates, although he does not intend their salvation

XIV. Although God does not intend the salvation of the reprobate by calling them, still he acts most seriously and sincerely; nor can any hypocrisy and deception be charged against him — neither with respect to God himself (because he seriously and most truly shows them the only and most certain way of salvation, seriously exhorts them to follow it and most sincerely promises salvation to all those who do follow it [to wit, believers and penitents]; nor does he only promise, but actually bestows it according to his promise); nor as to men because the offer of salvation is not made to them absolutely, but under a condition and thus it posits nothing unless the condition is fulfilled, which is wanting on the part of man. Hence we cordially embrace what is said on this subject by the fathers of the Synod of Dort: “As many as are called through the gospel are seriously called. For God shows seriously and most truly in his word, what is pleasing to him, to wit, that the called should come to him. He also seriously promises to all who come to him and believe rest to their souls and eternal life” (“Tertium et Quartum: De Hominis Corruptione et Conversione,” 8 Acta Synodi Nationalis . . . Dordrechti [1619-20], 1:[302]).

XV. He, who by calling men shows that he wills their salvation and yet does not will it, acts deceitfully, if it is understood of the same will (i.e., if he shows that he wills that by the will of decree and yet does not will it; or by the will of precept and yet does not will it). But if it refers to diverse wills, the reasoning does not equally hold good. For example, if he shows that he wills a thing by the will of precept and yet does not will it by the will of decree, there is no simulation or hypocrisy here (as in prescribing the law to men, he shows that he wills they should fulfill it as to approbation and command, but not immediately as to decree). Now in calling God indeed shows that he wills the salvation of the called by the will of precept and good pleasure (euarestias), but not by the will of decree. For calling shows what God wills man should do, but not what he himself had decreed to do. It teaches what is pleasing and acceptable to God and in accordance with his own nature (namely, that the called should come to him); but not what he himself has determined to do concerning man. It signifies what God is prepared to give believers and penitents, but not what he has actually decreed to give to this or that person.

XVI. It is one thing to will reprobates to come (i.e., to command them to come and to desire it); another to will they should not come (i.e., to nill the giving them the power to come). God can in calling them will the former and yet not the latter without any contrariety because the former respects only the will of precept, while the latter respects the will of decree. Although these are diverse (because they propose diverse objects to themselves, the former the commanding of duty, but the latter the execution of the thing itself), still they are not opposite and contrary, but are in the highest degree consistent with each other in various respects. He does not seriously call who does not will the called to come (i.e., who does not command nor is pleased with his coming). But not he who does not will him to come whither he calls (i.e., did not intend and decree to come). For a serious call does not require that there should be an intention and purpose of drawing him, but only that there should be a constant will of commanding duty and bestowing the blessing upon him who performs it (which God most seriously wills). But if he seriously makes known what he enjoins upon the man and what is the way of salvation and what is agreeable to himself, God does not forthwith make known what he himself intended and decreed to do. Nor, if among men, a prince or a legislator commands nothing which he does not will (i.e., does not intend should also be done by his subjects because he has not the power of effecting this in them), does it follow that such is the case with God, upon whom alone it depends not only to command but also to effect this in man. But if such a legislator could be granted among men, he would rightly be said to will that which he approves and commands, although he does not intend to effect it.

XXI. The invitation to the wedding proposed in the parable (Mt. 22:1-14) teaches that the king wills (i.e., commands and desires) the invited to come and that this is their duty; but not that the king intends or has decreed that they should really come. Otherwise he would have given them the ability to come and would have turned their hearts. Since he did not do this, it is the surest sign that he did not will they should come in this way. When it is said “all things are ready” (Luke 14:17), it is not straightway intimated an intention of God to give salvation to them, but only the sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice. For he was prepared by God and offered on the cross as a victim of infinite merit to expiate the sins of men and to acquire salvation for all clothed in the wedding garment and flying to him (i.e., to the truly believing and repenting) that no place for doubting about the truth and perfection of his satisfaction might remain.

From his Institutes of Elenctic Theology, topic XV, question II, paragraphs XIV-XVI and XXI, trans. George Musgrave Giger, ed. James T. Dennison, Jr., Phillipsburg, N.J.: P&R Publishing Company, 1992-97, vol. 2, pp. 507-09.

The Two Wills of God – Jonathan Edwards

“When a distinction is made between God’s revealed will and his secret will, or his will of command and decree, will is certainly in that distinction taken in two senses. His will of decree, is not his will in the same sense as his will of command is. Therefore, it is no difficulty at all to suppose, that the one may be otherwise than the other: his will in both senses is his inclination. But when we say he wills virtue, or loves virtue, or the happiness of his creature; thereby is intended, that virtue, or the creature’s happiness, absolutely and simply considered, is agreeable to the inclination of his nature. His will of decree is, his inclination to a thing, not as to that thing absolutely and simply, but with respect to the universality of things, that have been, are, or shall be. So God, though he hates a thing as it is simply, may incline to it with reference to the universality of things. Though he hates sin in itself, yet he may will to permit it, for the greater promotion of holiness in this universality, including all things, and at all times. So, though he has no inclination to a creature’s misery, considered absolutely, yet he may will it, for the greater promotion of happiness in this universality. God inclines to excellency, which is harmony, but yet he may incline to suffer that which is unharmonious in itself, for the promotion of universal harmony, or for the promoting of the harmony that there is in the universality, and making it shine the brighter” (Misc., 527-28).

“There is no inconsistency or contrariety between the decretive and preceptive will of God. It is very consistent to suppose that God may hate the thing itself, and yet will that it should come to pass. Yea, I do not fear to assert that the thing itself may be contrary to God’s will, and yet that it may be agreeable to his will that it should come to pass, because his will, in the one case, has not the same object with his will in the other case. To suppose God to have contrary wills towards the same object, is a contradiction; but it is not so, to suppose him to have contrary wills about different objects. The thing itself, and that the thing should come to pass, are different, as is evident; because it is possible that the one may be good and the other may be evil. The thing itself may be evil, and yet it may be a good thing that it should come to pass. It may be a good thing that an evil thing should come to pass; and oftentimes it most certainly and undeniably is so, and proves so” (Misc., 542-43).

Taking a break . . .

I’m back from a couple of weeks vacation, but I will likely not resume posting on a regular basis.  Any posting in the near future will be sporadic.

My interest in blogging has waned and other matters are more pressing right now.  I will leave the blog up in case earlier posts are of interest to visitors. 

 Jim

Close Encounters of the Wrong Kind

So says Christian Research Net: 

“In 2006 Tony Jones of the Emergent Church, wrote a little book called Divine Intervention: Encountering God Through the Ancient Practice of Lectio Divina. Of course it was endorsed by his friend “author/networker” Brian McLaren – whom Jones lists among his “faith heroes.” McLaren says that Jones has provided “an important resource” for the “spiritual formation” of your youth.

“In a new article by Ken Silva at Apprising Ministries you’ll clearly see that what they aren’t telling you is that this so-called spiritual formation is the counterfeit Christianity of contemplative spirituality which flowered in the antibiblical monastic traditions of apostate Roman Catholicism. The grave spiritual danger is these so-called “ancient spiritual practices” are in reality doctrines of devils which came through seducing spirits and are the modern equivalent of sacrificing your youth through the spiritual fire of Molech.”

Evangelicals and Catholics Together?

In a recent interview in Biola Connections, Robert Saucy reminds us of the critical differences which remain between Evangelical Protestants and Roman Catholics. According to Saucy, distinguished professor of systematic theology:

They [the differences] are the same as they were at the Reformation.

I think it’s good for Catholics and evangelicals to talk together, but not in terms of making statements to the extent that we have “common witness.”  It makes the two messages — Catholic and Protestant — look more similar than they are.

He goes on to say:

It’s really eye-opening to read the catechism that came out under John Paul II, especially its ecumenism. This catechism seems to suggest that every monotheist — including Jews and Muslims — worship the same God that Christians do. Pope Benedict even prayed toward Mecca recently. Of course, there are a lot of good things about that catechism, particularly regarding social issues. But when you get down to what the real gospel is, it suggests that people who worship Allah are actually worshipping the same God we do. I have problems with that.

Read the interview in Biola Connections HERE.

Church discipline vindicated by Texas court

A Texas pastor, sued after exercising church discipline, has been handed a victory by the Texas Supreme Court.  The lawsuit was brought by a church member who refused to repent following a divorce and remarriage.

“According to the lawsuit, Peggy Penley was a member of Crossland Community Bible Church in Fort Worth when she had a relationship with another man and desired to divorce her husband. In accordance with the church’s disciplinary process, Crossland Community Pastor Buddy Westbrook eventually sent a letter to church members, informing them of Penley’s unrepentant attitude and disassociating the congregation from Penley. She sued the church, the elders, and Pastor Westbrook, claiming the pastor violated confidentiality statutes.”

See more HERE.

According to the attorney representing Crossland Community Bible Church, “This is a great victory for pastors all across Texas and all across the nation.” 

He goes on to say, “This is a very strong opinion saying that pastors who are engaging in Matthew 18 church disciplinary process are protected by the Constitution from lawsuits from people who don’t like how that goes down.”

Designing your own Christianity

Sadly, what we find in so many churches today, even ”evangelical” churches, is a cafeteria style approach to the Bible — take what you like and pass on the rest.  We are very good at “designing” our own preferred concept of Christianity.  The following is an excerpt from a timely article by Steve Cornell at Christian Worldview Network:

“I can’t accept a God who sends people to hell.” “I can’t believe in a God who requires the death of his son for me to be forgiven.”  “I can’t accept a God who. . .”  These are common protests against Christianity.  Strangely, however, many who make them continue to attend Christian churches.  Admittedly, these Churches tend to embrace mutated forms of Christianity which cater to the sensitivities of those who prefer to play God than to worship the true God.  They accommodate those who prefer to stand in judgment over the bible and to ignore or change scriptures they find intolerable.

Usually, these people want pastors who only teach about God’s love and mercy. They want a God who fits their comfort-zone and adjusts to their crowded schedules. They don’t want a God who places demands on them or makes them feel guilty. And they don’t want a God who judges people (unless it’s the really bad people they read about in the newspapers).

Read the whole article HERE.

PCA General Assembly rejects Federal Vision

The Federal Vision controversy has been an issue primarily among conservative Presbyterians who hold to the Westminster Standards; however, the theological ramifications of such a view affect basic biblical doctrine and as such is pertinent to us all. 

Yesterday, the PCA General Assembly overwhelmingly adopted their study committee report on the “Federal Vision” theology declaring that its teaching does not conform to the Westminster Confession, and by implication, the Scriptures.  See Kim Riddlebarger report and R. Scott Clark report for additional info.

As fellow blogger Darrin Brooker has noted, “The PCA is not the first Presbytery to rule this way, but it is definitely the largest. Why am I thankful? Because the Federal Vision, at its heart, is a denial of the gospel. It rejects the necessity of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to those who believe as the ground by which we are declared just before God. It replaces imputation with a mystical union with Christ that occurs at baptism; a union that is kept by the person’s covenant faithfulness; a union after which, one may still fall away. Without imputation, there is no good news; there is no gospel.”

What happens now?  Notable proponents of the Federal Vision include Doug Wilson, Steve Schlissel, John Barach, Rich Lusk, and Steve Wilkins.  It would appear that those FV men in the PCA (like Wilkins) must either repent, cease and desist, or leave the PCA — not sure of the situation with the other Presby denominations.

For those who are unfamiliar with the Federal Vision, here are the nine recommendations from the PCA study report on why this theology should be rejected.

In light of the controversy surrounding the NPP and FV, and after many months of careful study, the committee unanimously makes the following declarations:

1. The view that rejects the bi-covenantal structure of Scripture as represented in the Westminster Standards (i.e., views which do not merely take issue with the terminology, but the essence of the first/second covenant framework) is contrary to those Standards.

2. The view that an individual is “elect” by virtue of his membership in the visible church; and that this “election” includes justification, adoption and sanctification; but that this individual could lose his “election” if he forsakes the visible church, is contrary to the Westminster Standards.

3. The view that Christ does not stand as a representative head whose perfect obedience and satisfaction is imputed to individuals who believe in him is contrary to the Westminster Standards.

4. The view that strikes the language of “merit” from our theological vocabulary so that the claim is made that Christ’s merits are not imputed to his people is contrary to the Westminster Standards.

5. The view that “union with Christ” renders imputation redundant because it subsumes all of Christ’s benefits (including justification) under this doctrinal heading is contrary to the Westminster Standards.

6. The view that water baptism effects a “covenantal union” with Christ through which each baptized person receives the saving benefits of Christ’s mediation, including regeneration, justification, and sanctification, thus creating a parallel soteriological system to the decretal system of the Westminster Standards, is contrary to the Westminster Standards.

7. The view that one can be “united to Christ” and not receive all the benefits of Christ’s mediation, including perseverance, in that effectual union is contrary to the Westminster Standards.

8. The view that some can receive saving benefits of Christ’s mediation, such as regeneration and justification, and yet not persevere in those benefits is contrary to the Westminster Standards.

9. The view that justification is in any way based on our works, or that the so-called “final verdict of justification” is based on anything other than the perfect obedience and satisfaction of Christ received through faith alone, is contrary to the Westminster Standards.