June 30, 2006Definitions

Early in my childhood, my dad worked in an automotive body shop. Not surprisingly, he amassed quite a collection of tools, and these tools have, for as long as I can remember, lived in an enormous red tool cabinet. On one side of this cabinet is a prominent sticker, which reads, as I recall, "I make my living using my Snap-On tools. Don't ask to borrow them." I am no mechanic. However, I do know that if you want to make a serious mechanic upset with you, you can do so with relative ease by badly misusing one of his tools. In most cases, this misuse takes the form of using something that is not a hammer, such as a wrench, as a hammer (another common abuse: using inappropriate tools, like screwdrivers, as levers and prybars).

I fancy myself a theologian and philosopher. If there is any truth to my imaginings, my tools are not hammers or drills; my tools are words. And I get cranky when words, especially technical theological terms, are widely misused. It might well be that no theological discussion tolerates more equivocation and ambiguity than the debate between the Calvinist and the Arminian. Here, I do not even refer to the confusion surrounding the theological terms that arise in the discussion, such as election, free will, and foreknowledge. While there is substantial disagreement as to what those terms mean, there is an even more basic level of confusion: people frequently misuse the terms Calvinist, Arminian, and hyper-Calvinist. It is the purpose of this article to suggest a logical set of definitions for these positions.

I am quite convinced that the real debate between the Calvinist and the Arminian is over the proper relationship between God's sovereignty and man's responsibility. Both of these doctrines are explicitly and unmistakably taught in Scripture. By way of contrast, there is not, as far as I am aware, a clear defense of the concept of free will in the Bible; it is for this reason that I do not believe that the debate should be framed around the relationship of sovereignty and free will.

A quick excursus on free will: the primary reason that I am uncomfortable with this term is that, in its popular usage, it almost always is used to refer to what philosophers sometimes call contra-causal freedom. Proponents of contra-causal freedom believe that, in any given circumstance in which I made a genuine decision, it must have been possible for me to have done otherwise. If I could not truly and ultimately do otherwise, my action cannot be said to be a genuine decision. While I do think that this sort of position is commonly accepted without question, a moment's reflection should be sufficient to demonstrate that the only theological system fully compatible with contra-causal freedom is open theism. Frame, in his No Other God: A Response to Open Theism, argues for centrality of contra-causal freedom to open theists:

We come now to perhaps the central issue in the debate concerning open theism. In my judgment, the concept of human freedom in the libertarian sense [Frame uses libertarian freedom in the same way that I use contra-causal freedom] is the engine that drives open theism, often called freewill theism. For the open theist, libertarian free will serves as a kind of grid, through which all other theological assertions must pass—a general criterion for testing the truth of all other doctrines. For the open theist, only those doctrines that are compatible with libertarian freedom are worthy of consideration; all others must be rejected at the outset. And typically, open theists do not argue the case (such as there is) for libertarian freedom; rather, they assume it. It is their presupposition. (119)

Having shown (briefly; perhaps another post on this is in order) why I refrain from speaking of free will, I must now return to the relationship between sovereignty and responsibility, and the meaning of the labels Calvinism and Arminianism.

First, it is important that I establish that I believe that both Calvinism and Arminianism, rightly understood, are historically orthodox positions. These positions stand in contrast to their heterodox aberrations, hyper-Calvinism and Pelagianism. I find it helpful to think of these four terms on a continuum, beginning on one end with hyper-Calvinism (heavy emphasis on sovereignty), to Calvinism, to Arminianism, and then Pelagianism (heavy emphasis on responsibility). The two positions in the middle are orthodox, and the two extremities are heretical.

Of these four terms, hyper-Calvinism has clearly suffered from the most ambiguity of definition. Some suggest that all five-point Calvinists are hyper. Others believe that anyone more Calvinistic than Calvin has merited the title of hyper. Still others apply the label to anyone who believes that regeneration precedes faith. I submit that these are all unhelpful and misleading uses of the term.

Simply put, a hyper-Calvinist is one who abuses the truth of God's sovereignty by denying human responsibility. This can take a number of forms. Obviously, those that would suggest that we have no mandate to spread the message of Christ's gospel, because the elect will be saved regardless, are hyper-Calvinists. Perhaps the easiest way to define hyper-Calvinism is to consider the sorts of questions typically directed against Calvinism itself. Questions like, "If God elects anyway, shouldn't we just stop witnessing?" or "Aren't we just robots, then?" or "If God is sovereign, there's no reason for prayer, is there?" will all be answered affirmatively by the hyper-Calvinist, and will be denied by the true Calvinist.

As an enlightening side note, my pastor from my home church calls the proponents of easy-believism in the mold of Zane Hodges "one-point hyper-Calvinists." He reasons that Hodges and his ilk typically insist on the eternal security of the believer, but they do so to such an extent that the believer's own decisions make no difference at all, thus using God's sovereignty in salvation as the basis for denying human responsibility.

In contrast to the hyper-Calvinist, the Calvinist emphasizes the sovereignty of God, yet he also insists that people are genuinely responsible for the decisions that they make. God controls the universe; he knows infallibly all that will come to pass, and because his knowledge cannot fail, and because he knows every decision that I will ever make, the future is determined exhaustively. Yet those decisions are still mine. They reflect my nature, and they are uncoerced; thus, no one can suggest that God is unjust when he holds me accountable, although none can resist his will.

A true Calvinist attempts to maintain the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man without scaling back either. The tension is, truly, unbearable; yet, I believe that to relieve the tension in either direction is to move to a position that is less than biblical.

I want to emphasize that the Calvinist does not insist that he has completely understood the relationship between sovereignty and responsibility. Ultimately, I would suggest that this understanding is beyond us as finite creatures. Such an appeal to mystery is perfectly consistent with our theology; if we fully understood God, he would not be the God presented in the Bible.

Traditional Arminians, like Calvinists, believe that salvation always begins with an initial work of God. The Arminian would concede that man, left to himself, will never seek God. It is on the basis of this agreement that both the Calvinist and the Arminian are rightly considered orthodox.

In contrast with the Calvinist, though, the Arminian maintains that this work of God, which precedes and enables man to love God, is done universally, and that it merely makes salvation possible, rather than actually accomplishing salvation. This work of God is often referred to as prevenient grace. The Calvinist maintains that God only does such a work in his elect, and that, as a result, they will of necessity come to him. This is not an insignificant difference.

In contrast with the Arminian, the Pelagian denies that man needs any intervention from God before he is able to choose God. Man is born uncorrupted by Adamic guilt; he is neutral. Pelagianism is heretical because it denies the clear revelation of God's sovereignty. A Pelagian ultimately places God and man on the same ontological plane.

Having examined what I believe is a correct understanding of each position, I now wish to briefly sketch how I think the terms are most commonly misused. I have found in my conversations that when I say Calvinism, most Christians hear and think hyper-Calvinism. Further, if you asked most Christians to define Arminianism, I think you would tend to get an answer that is closer to the definition of Pelagianism.

As for the ever-popular self-appellation of biblicist, my opinion is that, in its most common use, it is essentially synonymous with Arminianism, with a fillip endorsing eternal security. This only makes sense, in light of our discussion to this point. The common use of the term Arminian to mean Pelagian creates a linguistic void. The Arminians don't think that they're Arminians (they might even think themselves mildly Calvinistic, due solely to their adherence to the believer's security).

Biblicist is not merely an empty term. An empty term is cause for confusion; biblicist is more malicious. The claim to being a biblicist can mean nothing other than, "My position is the biblical one." Now, pray tell, who in this debate does not think his own position enjoys such privilege? Thus, not only does the term biblicist invite confusion because it is wholly lacking in objective meaning, but the claim to be a biblicist is a rhetorical cheap shot, essentially asserting the necessity of one's own position without having to engage in the often messy and difficult tasks of exegesis and rigorous thinking.

Michael Riley | 24 comments | Link

June 29, 2006Beating Purgatorio to the punch

Spotted on a church just down the road from my own church. Click the picture for the larger version.

As for the blog post title, all will become clear when you visit Marc Heinrich's Purgatorio. No one collects the kitsch of modern evangelicalism the way Marc does. No visit to Purgatorio is complete without browsing the collection of Divine Vinyl.

Michael Riley | one comment | Link

June 23, 2006John Piper, Calvinism, and the FBF

Last spring, I was asked by Kevin Schaal of Northwest Valley Baptist Church to write an evalution of the ministry of John Piper from a fundamental Baptist perspective. This paper was to be used to provide background information for a resolution by the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship regarding Piper. My paper was also going to be published in the July/August 2005 issue of FrontLine magazine, the bimonthly publication of the FBF.

On the whole, the article seemed to be fairly well-received, even among the opponents of the FBF or of resolutions in general. The discussion on SharperIron seemed to center around the validity of separation itself, rather than any of the claims that I had made about Piper, which I thought was a good sign that I had not misrepresented Piper at all. The most valuable criticism of my paper is that I did not adequately document Piper's sympathy with non-cessationism; I must plead guilty to that charge, although I think such documentation is available.

In light of the largely positive response to my paper, I was a bit surprised to see a rather unhappy letter to the editor in the September/October issue of FrontLine:

In the July/August 2005 issue I was distressed to read the article that is by and large supportive of Dr. John Piper's theology. What the writer fails to disclose to readers is that John Piper is not just an ardent Calvinist and advocate of Lordship Salvation, but he also holds to the position on the gospel which states that regeneration must precede faith.

The following excerpt is from Piper's Desiring God: Meditations of A [sic] Christian Hedonist, pp. 65-66.

The native hardness of our hearts makes us unwilling and unable to turn from sin and trust the Savior. Therefore conversion involves a miracle of new birth. Thus new birth precedes and enables faith and repentance. And so when we hear the gospel we will never respond positively unless God performs the miracle of regeneration. Repentance and faith are our work. But we will not repent and believe unless God does his work to overcome our hard and rebellious hearts. This divine work is called regeneration. New birth comes first and enables the repentance and faith of conversion.

This position is a position so extreme, even among Calvinists, that Charles Spurgeon took a stand against and preached to refute it.

The writer expresses concern over John Piper's lack of Biblical separation, which I believe is a bone thrown to appease militant Fundamentalists. To give John Piper passing marks while failing to disclose his extremes is dangerous. Unsuspecting Christians because of this article may read Piper and be drawn into the same out-of-balance positions.

Lou Martuneac
Bolingbrook, IL

(A quick request: does anyone have a first-edition copy of Desiring God? I have the 10th anniversary expanded edition, and for the life of me, I cannot find the quotation Mr. Martuneac cites. Piper is discussing the order of regeneration and faith on those pages in my edition, but he only uses bits and pieces of the quotation Mr. Martuneac references. I'm assuming Piper did some heavy re-writing here, although his position remains unchanged. If anything, Piper is even more direct about the priority of regeneration in this edition.)

At least two things troubled me about this letter. The first was the Mr. Martuneac's idea that Piper's ordo is "extreme," and, in fact, "so extreme" that other well-known Calvinists, like Spurgeon, repudiate the position. While I would be the first to acknowledge that Piper's position is not universal among Calvinists (a wonderful professor at Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary, Dr. Bruce Compton, maintains the priority of faith), it is certainly the majority position among those in the Reformed tradition. Mr. Martuneac's misguided appeal to Spurgeon was directly and graciously rebutted in the next issue of Frontline by Mark Snoeberger, the director of the library at DBTS. I was, and am, extremely grateful for Mark's response. For those who would like to see more evidence that Spurgeon believed that regeneration precedes faith, read his sermon entitled "Faith and Regeneration".

My second concern with Mr. Martuneac's letter is his direct attack on my motives. His assertion that my critique of Piper's lack of separatism is a smokescreen, a "bone thrown to appease militant Fundamentalists," is uncharitable and exactly false. I critique Piper's separatism because I think he is wrong, and that his view of separatism runs counter to that of the FBF, on whose behalf I wrote my article. If one gives careful thought to Mr. Martuneac's words, they express a suspicion that I am being dishonest and hypocritical, giving the militant fundamentalists what they really want to hear while endorsing a different position myself. Unfortunately, this was not the last attack on my character from those writing to FrontLine.

The following letter appeared in the March/April 2006 issue of FrontLine:

I wrote following your September/October issue, expressing my distress that FrontLine would allow a student at a Reformed seminary to critique John Piper. The author had totally failed to acknowledge Piper's extreme Reformed theology in his critique of him in that issue. My reaction at the time was, "What can you expect, when you ask the fox to guard the henhouse?"

I opened my November/December issue to discover a letter written by a staff member at Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary, going to great length to explain how Spurgeon believed one must be regenerated before he could be saved (before faith). If FrontLine would devote at least as much space to teaching the opposing view, perhaps it would help to slow the torrent of Reformed theology sweeping away so many sound Fundamental Baptist churches is our day.

I repeat: "If the Fundamental Baptist movement is to survive, it must decide on a position and then decide to defend it."

Mrs. Linda Van Pelt
Brevard, NC

This letter truly disturbed me. Again, I will note two specific problems. The first is that Mrs. Van Pelt seems to think that fundamental Baptist and Calvinist are mutually exclusive categories. Such a position, of course, runs counter to the true history of both fundamentalism and of the Baptists. Like Mrs. Van Pelt, I would like to see fundamental Baptists "decide on a position and then decide to defend it"; however, I don't think that such a development is necessary to the survival of fundamental Baptists in general, or the FBF in particular. I'm inclined to agree with Mark Dever's recent comments to the effect that the Calvinist and the Arminian who are both committed to a high view of the gospel are likely to have greater fellowship than two Calvinists, one of whom adopts a seeker-sensative paradigm for church and the other of whom refuses to compromise the claims of the gospel in the pursuit of relevance.

My other concern is that, again, my character is implicitly assaulted. Comparing me to a fox guarding a henhouse identifies me as a mortal threat to the church. I am reminded of the ongoing correspondence between James White and Ergun Caner (a virulent anti-Calvinist) at aomin.org, in which White repeatedly affirms that he views Caner as a brother in Christ, and in turn gets no response from Caner as to whether he would reciprocate. The implication that White draws (rightfully, I think) is that Caner must not believe that Calvinists, or at least Calvinists like James White, are true believers. This is a tremendously seriously charge, and those that make it had better have the theological and exegetical support to maintain such a position. Otherwise, they are truly guilty of splintering God's church.

In response to these letters, I wrote to FrontLine about a month ago to defend my original article. Unfortunately, they chose not to run my letter (understandably; this discussion has dragged on for nearly a year, and FrontLine is not a blog), and so I am reproducing it here.

I have been more than a little surprised at the distress provoked by my evaluation of John Piper in the July/August 2005 issue of FrontLine. I am not surprised that a discussion of Piper would arouse intensely emotional responses; those who view all non-separatists with high suspicion likely think I was too complimentary, while those who have profited from his writings likely think I was too harsh. These criticisms are understandable and expected; it is difficult to strike the right balance on a subject as explosive as separation. What I did not expect, however, was the outrage sparked by my not mentioning and rebutting Piper's Calvinism.

My article about John Piper was intended to present an evaluation of his ministry from the perspective of the FBF. The reason that I did not mention Piper's Calvinism in my critique is that it is entirely irrelevant to that purpose. From the perspective of the FBF, and thus from the perspective of my article, Calvinism is a non-issue. Historically, both Calvinists and Arminians have been counted within the ranks of fundamental Baptists. Thus, it was necessary that my critical comments about Piper's ministry focus on those issues that demonstrate his deviation from essential fundamental Baptist positions, such as his lack of separatism and his openness to non-cessationism. To criticize Piper's Calvinism, regardless of my personal stand on the doctrine, would have been misguided and off-topic. Neither the endorsement nor the rejection of Calvinism has ever been considered necessary for membership in the FBF.

Thus, the suggestion that "the Fundamental Baptist movement...must decide on a position and then decide to defend it" (the context of the comment leaving no doubt as to which position ought to be endorsed) is actually the novel and radical position. Mrs. Van Pelt would have the FBF make the rejection of Calvinism a necessary feature of fundamental Baptist theology. Such a position represents a gross misunderstanding of our common heritage and is an attack on a legitimate expression of Christian unity.

Furthermore, it is worth noting that had my article come out several weeks later, I certainly would have mentioned the proposed alteration of the constitution of Bethlehem Baptist Church, which would have eliminated post-conversion baptism by immersion as a requirement for new members. Thus, a Presbyterian who had been baptized as an infant could transfer membership to Piper's church without being baptized by immersion. Although the proposal has subsequently been withdrawn, this is a clear example of a position that ought to trouble those who cherish the genuine Baptist distinctives.

Calvinism, however, is not one of those distinctives, and I will not treat it as such.

Michael Riley
Tempe, AZ

Michael Riley | 21 comments | Link

June 23, 2006Starting over, again

Quite honestly, I don't blog enough to warrant re-launching my site for the third time.

However, I was annoyed that, while I rarely write anything on my blog, the spammers seemed to enjoy adding comments frequently. My early post on gambling probably didn't help matters; I lost track of the number of times that Sarah called or sent a text message to me to point out that I had a new casino ad on my site. I've recently been flooded with ads for insurance. Now, I seriously cannot imagine anyone anywhere buying insurance from a comment-spam ad. Does this really happen? Are people really that dumb? I guess so.

Wow.

Anyway, in addition to killing the comment-spam, which this new version of Pivot claims to do, I also wanted to clean up an earlier botched installation of this software. In an earlier attempt to simply apply the upgrade, I copied the setup files into the wrong folder on my webserver, and, even though I tried again to copy them to the right folder, I never got the upgrade working right.

So here it is, fresh start number 3!

Brad, if you are still checking this blog, you have the patience of a saint. Which you are, assuming your profession of faith is genuine. But that seems to destroy the compliment. I digress.

I do wish to continue to discuss the grounds for fellowship and separation between conservative evangelicalism and thoughtful fundamentalism. I also have two posts percolating related to my article on the ministry of John Piper. As a side note, my article is still the most viewed in SharperIron history, barely ahead of Phil Johnson's original "Dead Right". Somehow, I get a sad sense of accomplishment out of this, so please refrain from clicking the link to Phil's article, OK?

As I did the last time I upgraded, I will repost the more useful entries that were here before I reformatted. I have also saved the comments.

I am also going to continue to experiment with the design of the site. I never quite finished the last one, but I liked the overall structure. The colors, the pictures, and certain other elements will be different, but I do plan to utilize the same basic framework that I had previously.

Michael Riley | two comments | Link

June 18, 2006A sonnet

The following sonnet was written by my girlfriend, Sarah Paye. Sarah is a freshman at Hillsdale College in Michigan.

Quite honestly, I'm not the sort who would post poetry by my girlfriend just because it's by my girlfriend. I hope that my blog is more like a cathedral door than a refrigerator door. You can display all sorts of things on your refrigerator door; however, the artwork of children is generally displayed on your refrigerator not because of its stunning beauty, but because it is the artwork of your children.

My idea of comparing a blog to a cathedral door is obviously drawn from Luther's day (or, at least from the current notion of cathedral doors in Luther's day): it is a public message board. The cathedral door is more public than the refrigerator door. Artwork that is good and meaningful on the refrigerator door defaces the cathedral door; it is out of place. A painting affixed to the cathedral door ought to be truly beautiful, not merely sentimental.

And so I post this sonnet not merely because I am proud of my girlfriend, but because I think that the sonnet she has offered us is good for our souls.

How great the grace and absolution free
Divinest justice has apportioned man!
Such poignant, wondrous love, a mystery
Devised, accomplished, in one sapient plan.
No more does Death his awful mast’ry wield;
No longer Sin, despotic in his reign,
Compels men’s hearts in his dread use to yield
Their souls and reap eternal tort’rous pain.
For God’s immortal Son on bloody cross
Propitiated Heav’n, and Man to save,
Effecting Evil’s final sweeping loss,
Has boldly conquered Death and crushed the Grave.
Celestial Love incarnate, may Thy name
Alone be gloried, honored, rich in fame.

Michael Riley | No comments | Link

June 18, 2006Meetings and theology

What odd thoughts grow out of staff meetings!

The college faculty met today to review a variety of issues relevant to the beginning of a new semester. Among other things, we discussed the spirit and protocol for addressing theological topics about which there is disagreement among the professors. The example that Pastor Sproul used was seminal vs. federal headship. Since I am a Detroit graduate, he assumed that I hold to federal headship, and he pointed out that most of the rest of the faculty holds to seminal headship. The meeting was obviously not the place or time to discuss the actual nature of the transmission of sin; the topic was merely an illustration of the type of issue that the professors ought to demonstrate charity to each other, even in disagreement. It was a good reminder, especially for those of us who are quite convinced of the rightness of their own positions, are the corresponding error of all other views.

However, the discussion caused me to think about the transmission of sin. Honestly, I was a federalist by default, simply because it was what I had been taught. What really grabbed my attention, however, was the realization that I am both a federalist and a traducionist. In doing some brief reading on the subject, these two positions are not normally linked, and this afternoon was really the first time that I had given this conjunction of beliefs any real thought.

For those not familiar with this debate, allow me to briefly summarize the positions. The federal headship vs. seminal headship debate focuses on the nature of the transmission of Adam's guilt to the rest of humanity. The seminal headship position (Erickson calls it "natural headship") holds that Adam's descendents are guilty for Adam's sin because, physically, they actually were in Adam. The federal headship position, on the other hand, views the connection between Adam's sin and the depravity of his descendents in terms of judicial representation. Adam, being the representative for the race, sinned, and, because God held him as the representative of the whole race, the whole race was charged with Adam's guilt.

The second part of this discussion revolves around the origin of the human soul. Again, there are two primary positions. The creationist maintains that a new soul is created for each new person. Thus, the soul is a direct creation of God. The traducionist holds instead that the soul, along with the rest of the person, is a product of the marriage union.

Now that the basic options are stated, it should be fairly easy to see that seminal headship and traducionism are a natural fit for one another. In fact, it seems to me that the seminal headship view essentially demands a traducion position on the origin of the soul; it seems meaningless to speak of one's actual connection to Adam as the basis for the transmission of guilt if the soul is created independently of that connection. Further, it is pretty easy to see the compatibility between federal headship and creationism. In the federal view, there is no necessity to trace the guilt of Adam's sin to one's connection to Adam; thus, the soul could be created independently of the rest of the person, and God could judicially impute Adam's sin to it.

What, however, of the one who maintains both federal headship and traducionism? Is there some incompatibility between these positions that I am simply overlooking? Does traducionism in any way demand seminal headship? Does federal headship demand creationism? Am I missing something?

Certainly, I have made no attempt in this post to defend the individual positions that I hold. Upon reflection, I do think that federalism and traducionism are superior to their respective alternatives; if a defense is requested in the comments, we might turn the discussion in that direction. Unless that is needed, however, I would like to keep the discussion pointed back to the question that I'm posing here. (more)

Michael Riley | two comments | Link

June 11, 2006Spam Blocking

If you are reading this, your comment to my site did not post correctly, and my blog software is treating it as spam.

The most likely reason that this has happened is that you failed to correctly answer the small question on the comment form. This question is designed to keep automated spamming computers from filling my blog with ads for casinos and various pharmaceuticals.

It is quite likely that your (brilliantly composed) comment is not lost. If you simply hit the back button of your browser, you should be returned to the comment form, and your comment should still be intact. If it is not, I apologize. I understand the frustration that losing one's writing can cause.

Michael Riley | one comment | Link