tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post116243977444915907..comments2024-03-10T10:40:32.319-07:00Comments on Pyromaniacs: Calvinists in the Hands of an Angry ArminianPhil Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comBlogger30125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1162567724622037942006-11-03T07:28:00.000-08:002006-11-03T07:28:00.000-08:00Further Dividing the Body of Christ:Interesting th...Further Dividing the Body of Christ:<BR/><BR/>Interesting that S. Lewis Johnson was mentioned. I'll post an excerpt directly from the website of the church he served as a pastor. Although I understand the review and defense of a favored from our camp, this seems to be an unfortunate precedence being set in the modern day Christian church. God help us!<BR/><BR/> THE APOSTLE'S CONDEMNATION <BR/><BR/>Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? <BR/><BR/>v. 13<BR/><BR/>These three rapid-fire questions are like three deadly thrusts of a sharp sword. Anyone alone would have been sufficient to condemn their divisions. Together the three are devastating. <BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>A. Such divisions are an offense to the person of Christ. <BR/><BR/>When Paul asks, "Has Christ been divided?" he is asking if our Lord has been divided up or parceled out into various groups. Has one part of Him been given to Paul? Has another part of Him been given to Peter? Of course not! As Christ is incapable of divisions, so the church cannot be divided. Divisions are an offense to the person of Jesus Christ. <BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>B. Such divisions are an offense to the work of Christ. <BR/><BR/>"Paul was not crucified for you, was he?" The "Pauline Party" begins to squirm in their seats. They look at each other nervously. "Was Paul crucified for you?" "Well, no." "Was it Paul's blood that redeemed you?" "No, no, that's not true." "Is it Paul that has purchased you for himself?" "No, not Paul." "Well, who is it?" Of course, it's the Lord. It was the precious blood of Christ that was shed for us. Our divisions are an offense to the work of Christ because it is the work of Christ that has purchased us for Himself. We are His personal property. Taking any other name, saying we are disciples of any particular preacher or theologian is an offense to the very work that Christ has done on our behalf. Believers have no relationship even to inspired teachers such as to justify being called by their names. We are called Christians because we belong to Christ. <BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>C. Such divisions are an offense to the confession of your relationship to Jesus Christ. <BR/><BR/>Again, he asks, "Were you baptized in (into) the name of Paul?" What does he mean? Barclay says: <BR/><BR/>"To give money into a man's name was to pay it into his account, into his personal possession. To sell a slave into a man's name was to give that slave into the absolute and undisputed possession. A soldier swore loyalty into the name of Caesar and he belonged absolutely to the emperor." <BR/><BR/>Robertson and Plummer suggest that the phrase, "into the name of Jesus Christ" implies "entrance into fellowship and allegiance as exists between the Redeemer and the redeemed." That helps us understand the question. "Were you baptized into the name of Paul'?" "Was your baptism an acknowledgment of the absolute undisputed authority of Paul in your life'?" Of course the answer is "No." <BR/><BR/>They were baptized into the name of Christ. In their baptism, they publicly acknowledged their allegiance to Him. He was the one who had undisputed claim and authority in their life. None of the Corinthians were the possession of Paul that they should call themselves by his name. This was a contradiction of their confession in baptism. <BR/><BR/>If I understand verses twelve and thirteen correctly, I see Paul saying two things to us of tremendous importance. <BR/><BR/>Directly, he is condemning an ATTITUDE that leads to parties or factions within the church. There is still just one local church in Corinth, but in that church attitudes have developed that have fractured and fragmented the body. <BR/><BR/>This tendency is one of the curses of the contemporary church. Some give to a preacher a loyalty that only God deserves, and by their attitudes they divide Christians. Others crusade for a favorite doctrine at the expense of the whole counsel of God, and by their attitudes they divide churches. Personal prejudices, preferences, social standings and ethnic backgrounds cultivate attitudes that often fracture the body. <BR/><BR/>Indirectly, one can readily see a condemnation of DENOMINATIONALISM. Paul categorically condemns fragmenting the one church of Jesus Christ into segments that are labeled by the names of men or doctrines or days or any other such thing. Denominationalism is a product of the carnality of men - not the wisdom of God. We dare not defend it, tolerate it or ignore it. But how shall we oppose it? <BR/><BR/>"What denomination are you anyway?" Hardly a week goes by that I am not asked this question. Recently I asked one of our deacons how he answered that question. He responded: "The same denomination that Paul was." Now that's not a bad answer. What denomination was Paul? None! In the New Testament church, denominationalism did not exist. <BR/><BR/>Someone has said that the New Testament church was like a bottle of medicine that had many ingredients in it, but no label. It practiced baptism but there were no Baptists. It believed in predestination, but there were no Presbyterians. It believed in the - Holy Spirit but there were no Methodists. It observed the Lord's Supper but there were no Plymouth Brethren. It feared God, but there were no Quakers. There were bishops but no Episcopalians. The early church, you see, was a church where all the ingredients were present, but there were no labels that fragmented the church. <BR/><BR/>As believers in Jesus Christ who want to be biblical in our practices and faithful to our confession, we will take only the name of Jesus Christ, but not for a moment will we exclude from our fellowship or from our warm companionship another Christian who may take another name. We will have happy fellowship with any church that is evangelical, believing and preaching the Word of God. We will receive into our fellowship and to the Lord's Table any believer in Christ. By so doing, we seek to confess our belief in the oneness of the Body of Christ. <BR/><BR/>Do you see what we must avoid? It is what Paul, I believe, is condemning in this passage. He condemns primarily the attitude of sectarianism, of denominationalism. We will never, by God's grace, permit ourselves to ever cultivate such an attitude that will fragment the church of Christ. Indirectly he is condemning the practice of denominationalism. Again, by God's grace, we will never take a name or a position that will deny the oneness of the Body of Christ. May God help us always to testify by our attitudes and actions to the unity of the Body of Christ.Alando Franklinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12734785412599628943noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1162562265687628362006-11-03T05:57:00.000-08:002006-11-03T05:57:00.000-08:00Great post and thanks. It did indeed spiff the pl...Great post and thanks. It did indeed spiff the place up a bit.<BR/><BR/>Frank wrote: <I>But if we concede that Barth himself was not a universalist, what happens when you start reading all the people that are actually that kind of advocate and see them going back to (among other people) Barth for the foundations of their ideas?</I><BR/><BR/>So how does this make him any different than Mark Driscoll?<BR/><BR/>JoshC.T. Lillieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13019381008552747812noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1162512851044588502006-11-02T16:14:00.000-08:002006-11-02T16:14:00.000-08:00DJP,You're right - Fee's commentary is a little ov...DJP,<BR/><BR/>You're right - Fee's commentary is a little over-rated. Thiselton's is MUCH better.Sharad Yadavhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12150204571738424517noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1162509916688358112006-11-02T15:25:00.000-08:002006-11-02T15:25:00.000-08:00It's in flagrante delicto without the fortiter in ...It's in <I>flagrante delicto</I> without the <I>fortiter in re sed suaviter in modo</I> that occurs without having ever heeded the wisdom of <I>Tolle Lege</I>.Sharad Yadavhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12150204571738424517noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1162508539860785982006-11-02T15:02:00.000-08:002006-11-02T15:02:00.000-08:00Raja --That cooks post is Wilson at his best. Gre...Raja --<BR/><BR/>That cooks post is Wilson at his best. Great stuff, unquestionably.<BR/><BR/>But what is the desiderata of that pericope?FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1162505394685879622006-11-02T14:09:00.000-08:002006-11-02T14:09:00.000-08:00Cent,You're right, which is why I've modified Wils...Cent,<BR/><BR/>You're right, which is why I've modified Wilson's position slightly, allowing that we can fellowship with them, but we get to punch them in the stomach whenever we want (and then tell them to stop their wheezing protests because God ordained it). I like what he has to say <A HREF="http://www.dougwils.com/index.asp?Action=Anchor&CategoryID=1&BlogID=1503" REL="nofollow">here</A> as well, but again - it seems like the cook should be able to use the frying pan more offensively.Sharad Yadavhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12150204571738424517noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1162494659872788672006-11-02T11:10:00.000-08:002006-11-02T11:10:00.000-08:00Centuri0n,Yeah, I read that paragraph a few times ...Centuri0n,<BR/><BR/>Yeah, I read that paragraph a few times and couldn't tell if Johnson was agreeing about all of those guys misrepresenting Arminianism or if he was still presentng Olson's view. I posted the question hoping that the statement would be clarified. <BR/><BR/>Having read this post, I am once again amazed and impressed with Warfield's ability to remain a gentleman while not compromising his position. He seems to have clearly identified the inconsistency of his opponents without descending to "straw-manning" them. We certainly want to do the same. <BR/><BR/>Which begs the question, have Boice, Sproul, Berkhof etc. misrepresented Arminianism, or has Olson misrepresented them? I trust Gary Johnson will clarify that. I expect it to be interesting reading, whatever position he takes.Tom Chantryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02485908616177111150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1162492962721436292006-11-02T10:42:00.000-08:002006-11-02T10:42:00.000-08:00Raja --Yeah, but how many really goods fights is t...Raja --<BR/><BR/>Yeah, but how many really goods fights is <I>that</I> kind of thinking going to result in?<BR/>_____________________<BR/><BR/>C.S.Bart:<BR/><BR/>There's not question Barth <I>overtly</I> denies universalism -- because when you put all the cards on the table with barth, he wasn't trying to re-invent faith in Christ: he thought he was <I>rediscovering</I> it, which is a whole other kettle of fish. See: I think Barth really wanted to save people from the fires of hell both in the next life <I>and in this one.</I><BR/><BR/>But if we concede that Barth himself was not a universalist, what happens when you start reading all the people that are actually that kind of advocate and see them going back to (among other people) Barth for the foundations of their ideas?<BR/><BR/>"connect the dots" is an interesting intellectual game because it it puts the person in question "on the spot" so to speak -- it causes them to ask the question "do they really mean all the things that they are saying?"FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1162491727895836982006-11-02T10:22:00.000-08:002006-11-02T10:22:00.000-08:00"I consider 'connecting the dots' a dubious practi..."I consider 'connecting the dots' a dubious practice. It invariably leads to claiming someone affirmed something they did not and would not affirm."<BR/><BR/>Provided that there are no errors in logic, connecting the dots is not a dubious practice. Instead it is a useful practice for identifying inconsistent positions held by a given person.<BR/><BR/>Using Barth as a ready example: He could both 1) not believe in universalism and 2) hold other beliefs that logically led to universialism. I assume that a person holding inconsistent positions of this sort would want to be made aware of such inconsistency. Said person could then think through this inconsistency and the implications that it has for his theology. This exercise would be useful even if it did not result in revised theological positions.farmboyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05445789397476595536noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1162487774656039632006-11-02T09:16:00.000-08:002006-11-02T09:16:00.000-08:00If anyone's interested, Doug Wilson seems to hold ...If anyone's interested, Doug Wilson seems to hold much the same position (personally, I'm fairly flamed out just about every angle of the Calvinism/Arminianism debate and tend to see some false dichotomy there). <BR/><BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.dougwils.com/index.asp?Action=Anchor&CategoryID=1&BlogID=1502" REL="nofollow">This post</A> goes on to explain some more practical implications about how such a view might work itself out in relationships with actual Arminians. The post is initially about N.T. Wright, but it speaks directly to the issues of consistency and fellowship with Arminians.Sharad Yadavhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12150204571738424517noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1162487643021775712006-11-02T09:14:00.000-08:002006-11-02T09:14:00.000-08:00Is the quote from CT by Olson regarding Open Theis...Is the quote from CT by Olson regarding Open Theism a correct quote or not? If it is a correct quote, and if he has come to the light since then, he should have publicly denounced the heretical concepts of Open Theism.<BR/><BR/>This isn't politics, either he said it or didn't and he either believes it now or he doesn't.<BR/><BR/>CRChristopher Redmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05649412200796772283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1162485593352884722006-11-02T08:39:00.000-08:002006-11-02T08:39:00.000-08:00Gary L. W. Johnson wrote:"Olson acknowledges that ...Gary L. W. Johnson wrote:<BR/><BR/>"Olson acknowledges that Open-theists like his good friend (8) Clark Pinnock, argues that their view is consistent Arminianism (198). Why is Warfield charged with a lack of charity for drawing similar conclusions?"<BR/><BR/>Eons ago when I was reading VanTil I can remember how fond he was of "connecting the dots" to demonstrate how some "less consistent calvinist" was really an Arminian and how some Arminian was really a Pelagian. This was an aspect of VanTil's argumentation which I found hard to accept. <BR/><BR/>I am not convinced that arguments of this kind are valid. For example, it is often claimed that K.Barth's view of the atonement would logically lead to universalism. But the local Barth disciples I have discussed this with, two of them wrote their Ph.D. dissertations on Barth, claim that he was not a universalist and repeatedly disowned it. <BR/><BR/>Olsen's statement over a decade ago in CT: "I consider open theism a legitimate evangelical and Arminian option even though I have not yet adopted it as my own perspective" sounds more like politics than theology. <BR/><BR/>I consider "connecting the dots" a dubious practice. It invariably leads to claiming someone affirmed something they did not and would not affirm.C. Stirling Bartholomewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03571440237755902925noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1162484857672717142006-11-02T08:27:00.000-08:002006-11-02T08:27:00.000-08:00Thanks, Gary. Interesting stuff.Thanks, Gary. Interesting stuff.Sharad Yadavhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12150204571738424517noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1162482873376140792006-11-02T07:54:00.000-08:002006-11-02T07:54:00.000-08:00"Everybody knows that Calvinists are smarter than ..."Everybody knows that Calvinists are smarter than Arminians."<BR/><BR/>This made me think. Seems that there was a greater amount of "smarterness" in the past; much more than there is today. It's hard work to use the brains God gave us.<BR/><BR/>Seems the Church as a whole today has been dumbed down in so many ways, from reading, studying, and meditating upon the Holy Bible.<BR/><BR/>Just a side thought. Hope this isn't too much of a rabbit trail.donsandshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03665794015011057098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1162482227488861612006-11-02T07:43:00.000-08:002006-11-02T07:43:00.000-08:00pastor rod,Isn't your response a little overblown?...pastor rod,<BR/><BR/>Isn't your response a little overblown? Firing out a shot gun blast is no contribution to discussing the content of the post.<BR/><BR/>Gary Johnson's entry has given us a careful look at what Warfield actually wrote in place of a generalisation about Warfield's bad attitude.Martin Downeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08019053545918223050noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1162481508564373122006-11-02T07:31:00.000-08:002006-11-02T07:31:00.000-08:00"Olson has openly defended the Open-theists in the..."Olson has openly defended the Open-theists in the pages of Christianity Today (Jan 9, 1995, p. 30), and so it comes as no surprise to hear him say, "I consider open theism a legitimate evangelical and Arminian option even though I have not yet adopted it as my own perspective" (198). Olson acknowledges that Open-theists like his good friend (8) Clark Pinnock, argues that their view is consistent Arminianism (198)."<BR/><BR/>It appears here that Olson is flirting with disaster!Christopher Redmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05649412200796772283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1162481091249814702006-11-02T07:24:00.001-08:002006-11-02T07:24:00.001-08:00Whew!How comforting to know that that Olson guy is...Whew!<BR/><BR/>How comforting to know that that Olson guy is such a meanie. Now we can just dismiss his whole book as a mean-spirited, poorly-researched polemic espousing that academically-challenged heresy known as Arminianism.<BR/><BR/>Everybody knows that Calvinists are smarter than Arminians. Besides, anyone who really understands Calvinism could never continue to hold to such an contemptible view of God and the Bible as Arminianism.Pastor Rodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00219078094185232711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1162481066791526412006-11-02T07:24:00.000-08:002006-11-02T07:24:00.000-08:00rick:You are correct about Warfield being a good m...rick:<BR/><BR/>You are correct about Warfield being a good man. His wife was ill from the very beginning of their marriage, and he was very devoted to caring for her. He was never able to travel very far because he took very diligent care of her. He was a very good example of a devoted husband.Kimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02288648996304246570noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1162478092093008142006-11-02T06:34:00.000-08:002006-11-02T06:34:00.000-08:00Tom: I think Pastor Johnson was representing Olson...Tom: I think Pastor Johnson was representing Olson's <I>position</I> and not the actual facts.<BR/><BR/>I might stand corrected in a future post.FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1162478001678811652006-11-02T06:33:00.000-08:002006-11-02T06:33:00.000-08:00Jim:We can be like the Ramones.This is Phil Johnso...Jim:<BR/><BR/>We can be like the Ramones.<BR/><BR/>This is Phil Johnson, I'm Frankie Johnson, that Dan Johnson over there, and our drummer is Pecadillo Johnson.<BR/><BR/>Crazy.FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1162477764641455152006-11-02T06:29:00.000-08:002006-11-02T06:29:00.000-08:00Thanks for the excellent analysis. I'm looking fo...Thanks for the excellent analysis. I'm looking forward to the next post.<BR/><BR/>PS: This settles it, I'm changing my last name to Johnson.Jim Bublitzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16888150295999667219noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1162477190702042842006-11-02T06:19:00.000-08:002006-11-02T06:19:00.000-08:00Thanks for this.Thanks for this.Caleb Kolstadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16430229005942296570noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1162476415539418922006-11-02T06:06:00.000-08:002006-11-02T06:06:00.000-08:00Great post; thank you. But you know, the most pro...Great post; thank you. But you know, the most provocative statement was the following: "All the representative Calvinists that Olson cites in this book are guilty as charged..."<BR/><BR/>Do you plan to take that up again in parts 2 and 3? Or did I misunderstand you?Tom Chantryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02485908616177111150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1162476239044303882006-11-02T06:03:00.000-08:002006-11-02T06:03:00.000-08:00As a Calvinist who has read the entire works of Jo...As a Calvinist who has read the entire works of John Wesley (in the Baker edition, since you ask. The same publisher as my set of Warfield ;), I'm always amused by such poorly-rearched criticism from the other side. In a theological debate we ought at least to be courteous enough to read some of what the other side has written.<BR/> And, as a man who has read Wesley, I'm afraid SeƱor Olson is trating Warfield much as Wesley treated Toplady.<BR/> Fine in the 18th century, but NOT the way serious theology is conducted these days.Highland Hosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18205436472908741409noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1162475317352802472006-11-02T05:48:00.000-08:002006-11-02T05:48:00.000-08:00B.B. Warfield is a great example to the body of Ch...B.B. Warfield is a great example to the body of Christ.<BR/><BR/>I remember my pastor sharing about him in the pulpit that his wife was stricken during their honeymoon, and was an invalid the rest of her life, and Benjamin Warfield cared for her with great love every day of his life.<BR/><BR/>A true hero of the faith.donsandshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03665794015011057098noreply@blogger.com