Introduction:
This last fall, our congregation celebrated its 40th year. God has been extraordinarily gracious to us, mostly by letting us survive, and so we naturally want to express our thanksgiving to Him. As we look forward to the next 40, at the end of which time I will be 102, we hope to be able to recognize the markers of His grace as we approach them. And the best way for us to do that is by reviewing what He has done for us thus far.
The Text:
“Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus. Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you. Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing” (Phil. 3:13–16).
Summary of the Text:
Paul is thinking about the day of resurrection, and he knows that he is not yet there. He doesn’t consider himself to have already attained that goal (v. 13). But one thing he does do—he forgets what lies behind him, and stretches out for what lies before him. He presses forward toward the goal, which is the mark of the prize of the high calling of God in Christ (v. 14). This appears to be another way of speaking of the final day of resurrection. He then says that any of them that are perfect (i.e. mature, complete) should think this way (v. 15). If they are mature but don’t quite see it this way, then God will fill it in for them (v. 15). So then he notes that we run the race later in the same way we ran the race earlier (v. 16). So “forgetting what lies behind” clearly does not mean forgetting what it means to run. It does not mean forgetting how to run, or forgetting where you have been. It means that you don’t go back there and stare at the scenery. This is both conservative and progressive at the same time. It is anti-conservative and anti-progressive at the same time.
Conservative and Progressive:
There is a way of forgetting what lies behind which is synonymous with drifting. There is a way of pressing forward that loses the point of pressing forward. Whenever someone tells you they are a progressive, always ask them where they are going. You can’t be a progressive without an eschatology. But mindless conservatism is little better. The guardians of the new wineskins frequently find themselves, without doing anything, with warehouses full of old wineskins.
The Starting Point:
When this church was planted, it was a loosely-organized Jesus-people sort of outfit. We sang hymns and Scripture songs, led by guitars. There were songs and a sharing time, but the sermon was central. The theology was conservative, Arminian, evangelical, and with a very light dusting of charismatic. We gathered the offering in the back, just as we do now, but we used a Maxwell House coffee can for it. Some things now are just as they were, while others have changed dramatically. What I want to do is walk through it chronologically, and simply testify to what God has given to us. Hang on to these things, in the right way, and God will bless your children’s children after you.
Family and Education:
From the very beginning, we have emphasized practical Christian living in the home. How does the gospel relate to marriage, to courtship, to child-rearing, and so on? Also from the beginning, this congregation has demonstrated its commitment to a true Christian education for our children. The first tangible step in this direction was the founding of Logos School in 1981. The school and the church were institutionally connected at that time. And from the start, we wanted to teach all subjects as parts of an integrated whole, with Scripture at the center. I have no idea where that came from, but such Christian worldview thinking is probably our baseline commitment. “And he is before all things, and by him all things consist” (Col. 1:17). Christ is the one in whom everything hangs together. And this is still what we want to emphasize—all of Christ for all of life.
Historical Optimism:
In the mid-eighties, we went through our first great doctrinal shift. The transition was from the standard pre-mill understanding of eschatology to the conviction that the Great Commission needed to be understood as our actual marching orders, and not as a Glorious but Futile Ideal. This is not a doctrinal point that we harp on a lot, but rather a doctrinal assumption that suffuses everything we do. It really does matter whether or not our labor here is in vain or not (1 Cor. 15:58).
Calvinism That Laughs:
In the late eighties, in part the result of an unfortunate decision on my part to preach through Romans, we became Calvinistic in our soteriology. All this means, in short, is that all the glory for our salvation goes to God, and all the humbling comes to us. God is sovereign over all things, absolutely sovereign, but this truth does not make us grim and bitter. Rather, we have enjoyed a resurgence of what happened in the first century after the Reformation—a sunny and robust Chestertonian Calvinism. This formulation would no doubt annoy Chesterton himself, which is, as he would point out in his better moments, an excellent reason for using it. “In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will” (Eph. 1:11).
Covenant Baptism:
In the early nineties, we began to include the baptism of infants. We managed to do this without excluding our baptists and agno-baptists, and God blessed our commitment to unity. This was probably the bumpiest transition, but it was still a good one. In an important respect, if you recall our family emphasis from the beginning, this was just a matter of the water catching up. It was as though someone told us to put our water where our mouth was.
Presbyterian, But . . .
When you are talking to people on a plane, and they ask you what kind of church you attend, a good answer would be that we are kind of Presbyterian, the kind that believes the Bible. In 1998, the CREC was founded. We began with 3 churches, and we are now just shy of 100 churches. We have seven presbyteries that meet annually, and a Council that meets every third year.
And underneath all is a commitment to practical Christian living. If you say you believe it, then why not live like it?
The theology was conservative, Arminian, evangelical, and with a very light dusting of charismatic. And such a shame it didn’t expand from this. One can extend the Charismatic theology without the service having Pentecostal practice. The transition was from the standard pre-mill understanding of eschatology to the conviction that the Great Commission needed to be understood as our actual marching orders, and not as a Glorious but Futile Ideal Probably because you weren’t Baptists. Carey spurred the modern missionary movement against the hyper-Calvinists of his day. And plenty of pre-millenialists have a evangelistic drive that accepts both a increasing growth… Read more »
Is it possible the next phase in Evangelical history includes as a major feature “Evangelicals discover Classical Arminianism”. I get the feeling a lot of jaded semi-Pelagians default to Calvinism for lack of awareness of any alternative. Not that I’d want to be too loose with accusations of semi-Pelagiansim.
Not that I’d want to be too loose with accusations of semi-Pelagiansim.
It needs to be renamed. It is distinct from Pelagianism and not nearly as bad as claimed. Perhaps Massilianism?
Sure, Massilianism sound right. :) bethyada, it doesn’t bother me to say I don’t know what I don’t know. Want to help me out here?
I was just responding to your last sentence. I don’t think that an accusation of semi-Pelagianism is actually a terrible thing. I think it sounds bad because semi-Pelagianism sounds like Pelagianism. The same with Preterism. I have heard non Preterists call Preterism a terrible heresy, though they mean hyperpreterism. And hyper-Preterists try and get a pass by calling themselves Preterists. Preterism is a valid (and probably at least partially correct) system. Hyper-Preterism which claims that Jesus has already returned is false. It should be called something else. I think all systems that are distinct in important ways should have distinct… Read more »
John, I found this article (by a Calvinist I believe) which discusses what he thinks Arminius believed (thus Classical Arminianism) and the differences between this and semi-Pelagianism.
Thanks. I will take some time to read that article. I’m a little bit familiar but always looking to read more on the subject. My earlier question really was – What is Massilianism? Is that a thing?
I believe Massilianism is semi-Pelagianism?
But it would help in discussion because it would remove guilt by association.
Can you summarize how classical Arminianism most hits the spot for you over against Calvinism?
I don’t really know exactly what you are asking here. Calvinists often refer to non-Calvinism as Arminianism. This is untrue as Arminianism distinguishes itself quite clearly from Semi-Pelagianism, and more so from Pelagianism. I have also heard Calvinists call Open Theism a variant of Arminianism (which is just plain ignorant as many sensible Calvinist will affirm). (Now I don’t really have a problem with most of these positions, but they have important distinctions in certain discussions.) What I was saying is that many Christians are semi-Pelagian but are referred to as Arminian. So the argument is often between Calvinism and… Read more »
An observation regarding the “free will that is not deterministic” part. This comes from Southern Presbyterian Calvinist, John Lafayette Girardeau’s (1825-1898) Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianism (maybe still too deterministic for you): “The apostle Peter in his great sermon on the day of Pentecost enounced [sic] this fact when he said: ‘Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken and by wicked hands have crucified and slain.’ The apostles, said in a prayer: ‘For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus whom thou hast anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and… Read more »
Yes that is too deterministic for me.
Awesome detail; thanks.
Free will then — what is that?
Free from being determined / controlled / imposed / manipulated by outside force, i.e., God?
If you accept that, is a person “free” to go against what he himself wants?
Or is a person subject to / determined by his own wants — things or the nature of his desire that he finds himself with and did not choose?
PH, I will attempt a brief reply here, but it may be useful for you to pop over to my blog and check out the labels “determinism” and “freewill”. Freewill is the ability to make a free choice. It is not determined by another. For man it is also the power of contra-choice to God’s will. It is not free in being utterly free, more ultimately free. For a man cannot choose what he does not know even if that were a real possibility. Man cannot choose what is impossible for him even if he knows. It is free in… Read more »
Can you name any instance wherein you or anyone you know acted contrary to greatest desire?
I don’t believe desire is the same as the will. In fact I think it can be very hard to choose against strong desires. I have previously written Say I have 2 options, one that brings a degree of pleasure, and I desire it, but it does not please God. The other option would please God but I don’t desire it. Do I subvert my desire to my will, or do I suppress my conscience for the sake of pleasure? Our desires compete between long term pleasure and short term pleasure. Sin and righteousness. Yielding to temptation depends on degree… Read more »
You do show well the the thought / heresy that we peculiar creatures have been given God-like freedom. A chip off the Old Block. This is the necessary consequence of your position. It is what Satan promised Eve. Choosing obedience to God must be done without compulsion, he said. The threat of extinction only exposed His weakness and need to rely on lesser impulses. The raw power of Will, God-like (neigh, Human-like, now) unencumbered by such threats / impulses & desires should be Eve’s only Guide — Her Will — not His. Else how can it be Hers if It… Read more »
Many Calvinists think that Adam had a degree of freewill pre-Fall that his descendants no longer have. So not certain why this belief is heretical let alone demonic. For us to use our freedom to reject Christ is clearly wrong, but whether we have the ability to make such a choice or not. Satan said to the woman: You will not surely die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil. So he said that they would be like God. How? We are like… Read more »
I see three areas for clarification: this reply is for part 1. So you’re saying that it was not a Satanic lie that Eve & Adam would be like God, post eatery — this part was a leading-the-witness truth from Satan. The first lie from Satan, you say, was the implication that they were not already God-like. So Satan proposed to Eve the deception of a perception of too-much limitation — that God had made her less than the God-like human she really was. The second lie, you say, was that they somehow would not / could not die from… Read more »
Clarify part 2, if you will:
What is the state of “knowing good & evil” vs their previous state of being — and how is such knowing MORE God-like (if you accept that it IS more God-like)?
And if it is God-like, how can attaining such a state of being be verbotten?
I would say that what Satan said was both a temptation and a lie. A lie can contain truth facts; the best lies do. Adam and Eve did not know good and evil. Eating the fruit would make them know good and evil. This was a true state of affairs and confirmed by what God said later. Saying that they would not die was a false claim. That they would die is confirmed by the original command, the curse, and the removal from the tree of life. I would describe Satan’s temptation as a single lie but describe which comments… Read more »
Part tres, if you’re hanging on to my danglings and still willing: You said you did answer in the affirmative whether “free to choose” can work in opposition to one’s desire. Actually my question is: Isn’t whatever one’s choice is in accord with one’s ultimate & overriding desire at the moment? Example — I really really want that pecan pie piece now, but my better judgement & force of will “compels” me to instead to desire to abstain — for now. Or put another way, it’s exactly my DESIRE to enjoy other advantages overcomes my want of pecan goodness. Isn’t… Read more »
I actually said “I did answer your question” . So while I do hold they we can will against our desires, I answered by showing that I do not buy the premises to your question. To say we act according to our greatest desire because whatever we do is our greatest desire is assuming determinism. As I see it, it conflates desire with the will and calls the will desire then implies there is no free will. But I don’t think our desires are our will at all. I think our will is our will and it is influenced by… Read more »
Dear Ms. bethyada, Please accept my compliments on an very clear presentation of your beliefs. I notice you take exception to the idea of “perseverance of the saints” when you say: “I believe it is possible for an individual to be genuinely in the kingdom then turn his back on Christ and be lost.” I don’t think there is Biblical corroboration for this statement: in fact, I think there is substantial Scriptural force for the opposite argument. I also think that one cannot actually live out the consequences of this statement without being robbed of both joy and hope (see… Read more »
I am not certain this is the post to get into eternal security. But for biblical arguments I would consider Hebrews 6, the example of Demas, etc. I am aware of other explanations of these passages but I am not convinced of them. I think that the belief that one can reject Christ may encourage the fear of God (which is a good thing). Further, there need be no insecurity: Jesus promises that nothing can pry us from his hand. I do think that joy and hope can be had, or struggled with, under both perspectives. Those who believe in… Read more »
Dear Ms. Bethyada, Thank you for your reply. “I think that the belief that one can reject Christ may encourage the fear of God (which is a good thing). Further, there need be no insecurity: Jesus promises that nothing can pry us from his hand.” I am not able to see how these two sentences may be reconciled. It is clear that I am misinterpreting something. (Also, 1 John 2 is probably an apt way of interpreting the departure of Demas.) And finally, if there is no eternal security, there is no hope and certainly no joy. This is therefore… Read more »
In the translations I read the promise is that no one is able to snatch them away, rather than “nothing can pry them”. The emphasis is perhaps on what a third party cannot do. This is preceded by Jesus’ emphasis on His sheep hearing his voice and following Him. The passage does not necessarily say a believer cannot turn around and walk away.
Consider however Romans 8:37 “No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. 38 For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, 39 nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Those who believe in saintly perseverance take “anything else in all creation” to include what it says: anything, even the self. No exceptions are mentioned here. It’s therefore up to those… Read more »
Naturally everyone always thinks it’s up to the other side to do the explaining. :) Of course those who believe in saintly perseverance will read “any other created thing” (NKJV and NASB actual wording – KJV renders it “any other creature”) to mean “anything, even the self”, with no other possible meaning, because they start with believing in saintly perseverance. However, leading up to the “For..” at the start of verse 38 all the things Paul cites in the preceding verses as hypothetical but not really possible threats to our security are external threats. Further, that from which we cannot… Read more »
I don’t see that. There is hope and joy everlasting for us as long as we do not choose to walk away, or, as long as we return in penitence every time we find ourselves wandering. If we are the ones attempting to pry our hands away from the hand of our Lord, how can we expect to be saved against our will?
“Further, there need be no insecurity: Jesus promises that nothing can pry us from his hand.”
Are you not suggesting that we ourselves can willfully pry ourselves out of that hand? So nothing doesn’t really mean *nothing*? Serious question.
Does nothing mean nothing? Well it depends. Statements frequently have exceptions. I can see (at least) 2 ways this is the case. The first when one makes a general statement that is intended to be broad but not necessary utterly inclusive. If someone says he is the sole breadwinner for the household that need not exclude minor jobs his wife or children have done from time to time. The second is when we are extending beyond what is really meant. When I shave all the hair off my face I mean my beard and don’t intend to include my eyebrows.… Read more »
My goodness, my beliefs line up exactly with yours. Does this mean that Catholics are Arminian/Semi-Pelalgian?
The Catholic position is often differentiated from these. But Catholic is definitely non-Calvinist. Arminian/ Semi-Pelalgian? I was trying to point out these are distinct. When it comes to Total Depravity both Calvinists and Arminians believe that God makes the first move. Arminians differ from Calvinists in that they believe that God’s wooing is resistible, not because they are more powerful than God, because they believe this is the way God intentionally set it up. Semi-Pelagians believe that man can see his estrangement and ask God to save him; that without God necessarily first calling him. Of course they believe that… Read more »
“… we became [xyz] in our soteriology”
How is it that whatever the preacher / pastor believes becomes what the folks as a whole are said to believe?
You later say you didn’t exclude your baptist members with your shift to infant baptistic practice — but you do exclude folks in your soteriological description.
How about shying away from this intrasectarianism and saying “I” or “I and the elders” when referring to your beliefs?
It’s rather biblical to speak of the church as represented by the elders, actually.
And teachable folk will become what the elders are in due course. Or leave, if conscience does not permit.
Hilarious. Yet sad. “If you don’t believe what ‘we’ believe — move on down the road — go somewhere else.” Hence unbiblical sectarianism. (Thankfully Doug’s church doesn’t take this road).
Biblical that elders speak for the church?! Yes — when the elders speak Scripture as what the folks should believe. Perhaps you mean that elders speak for God?
No, that’s not what I said. I said teachable folk will learn, and if not, they will leave. But what is the alternative that you propose? Elders who collectively stand for nothing in particular, regardless of their understanding of scripture? Hog-tying people with strong objections to what is taught, forcing them to stay? I think you completely misunderstood me if you think that the model I propose is significantly different from that of Christ Church. I’m talking about what happens when elders believe something. They teach it. People learn it. They learn to agree, or they learn to live with… Read more »
While the honest person may do that, it is likely that many leave the church because of personal disagreements and offense. They may coat it in doctrinal issues (who doesn’t disagree with the pastor on at least 1 issue) but offense and bitterness are the common reasons.
(Ignoring those who relocate).
I agree that people leave for all those other reasons, but I was specifically addressing the situation of what happens when the elders of the church take a position, and people disagree with it. There are lots of other dynamics that go on related to other situations, of course.
Yes, and I voted your comment for it.
I think one can live with quite a lot of differences with the leadership, I do. Though some things are hard if they are practical (even if small) matters. And I have bigger problems if I disagree with something that is preached on regularly. It is a bigger issue if the leadership teaches error than if they happen to think wrongly.
Let’s say a teachable person has been going to a church for years.
Let’s say he loves and serves and is served by his friends there.
Let’s say there be new elders that take a position he disagrees with — oh, I don’t know — let’s say women should now be allowed to teach adult Sunday school, or read the lesson (let’s say we’re talking about C.S. Lewis in an Anglican church).
You say Mr. Lewis should go elsewhere now? — or are you saying he needs to become more teachable?
If he isn’t being required to actually submit to the teaching authority of women, then he might be able to justify staying. If he’s being required to submit to unbiblical authority, how CAN he stay? It’s tragic all the way around that the church is erring in a way that breaks the important bonds of love and service, but when churches (or individuals) err badly, it messes up all kinds of things. That’s why the responsibility of church leadership is so great. He should first try to persuade them of their errors, in any case. But some things are so… Read more »
Well said.
By “required to actually submit” do you mean “under threat of some sort of excommunication”?
No, under threat of disobeying God by not submitting to the authorities He’s placed over you.
If he doesn’t have to go to Sunday school, or attend a particular class, or the class where the woman teaches is held to be purely without actual teaching authority, there’s room for compromise.
So: “If he isn’t being required by God to actually submit to the teaching authority of women”? — But God doesn’t ever require us to submit to any errant authority, does He?
Or are you saying there may be authoritative commands emanating from elders that are kind of neutral — not exactly required by God elsewhere — (let’s say “The elders here at Bestwick Covenant now require all fellows to wear yellow cufflinks”) — and you are saying Jane that these we must submit to under threat of disobeying God because He has placed such nitwits over us?
I think you should wear the yellow cuff links until you’ve either succeeded in bringing these elders to repentance, succeeded in having these elders disciplined by those in authority over them, or failed in doing either and concluded that you can’t submit to abusive nitwits and must find a church with elders who are not bringing judgment on their congregation.
But if the elders are backing the female Sunday school teacher with their own teaching authority, and require you to attend her class, then you have a decision to make about what obedience to God requires of you.
Politely ignoring nitwittery ain’t an option in your obedience handbook?
Rebellion is not polite. If they’re rightfully your elders, you can’t ignore them. If they can be ignored, they can’t rightfully be your elders.
Politely ignoring nitwittery = rebellion?
You have a concept of elderhood that equals parenthood for children, no?
You seem highly dependent upon the need for authoritative figures, and I think it exceeds the Biblical mandate.
But there was Paul, for one, who said something like — “I say it’s this way, but if you think otherwise, God will, I’m sure (because I know you’re His) eventually get you turned round right.”
How would ignoring nitwittery nullify proper eldery?
Just obey what God says to obey, and politely ignore the rest!
You aren’t a child to them.
It’s rebellion if they say “require” and you say “No.” Obeying what God says to obey includes where He says “obey your elders.” There’s no escape clause in “obey your elders” for “I think that’s dumb.” If it’s dumb, you deal with it faithfully, by seeking change. If you can’t, you need to remove yourself from a situation where you no longer have the protection of a godly authority, and find one where you do. This is how it differs from being a child — you have the responsibility to hold them accountable to God as they hold you accountable.… Read more »
Did God require Paul to obey the boys in Jerusalem over circumcision?
Or does God require polite disobedience to nitwittery?
And why should I remove myself from what’s left of Godly authority? — just because of there be some occasional weird junk they get into?
I’d rather put the burden on them — let’s see them tell God — “You know, we won’t feed that particular sheep your hay because he doesn’t touch the goop we added”
You think what Paul did was polite disobedience? Calling a council and then publicly anathematizing those who refused to abide by the outcome?
You think you’re advocating for standing for love and fellowship but what you’re actually doing is taking the easy way out by refusing to hold the elders to what God is calling them to. Don’t you love them enough for that?
You’re right.
You shouldn’t obey their nitwittery, nor ignore it
You should call them on it, politely refusing to obey it, and then pray and hope He brings them round.
You should definitely refuse to obey them when they contradict God. But I think we already agree on that.
I’m talking about when they’re just being dumb, but not requiring you to sin (like circumcising your kids as a ritual of inclusion would be, since it would be a false testimony.) You should submit while seeking their repentance or discipline. Why should you refuse to wear yellow cuff links? Does God hate yellow cuff links more than he loves a humble spirit?
If you can’t submit to your church, leave and find a place where you can. Or if you being held captive by a cult try to escape by night.
Not can’t — won’t.
Did Paul go somewhere else when they told him to circumcise?
No, he called them to repentance, reconciled with those who did, and rejected the legitimacy of those who didn’t. What he did NOT do is “politely ignore” the situation.
So, after we get up all in the elder’s faces about their nitwittery, then we …? Walk? Wait politely … kinda ignoring until God reconciles them?
If you “get all up in the elders’ faces” (otherwise known as humbly seeking to restore them to faithfully executing their office) I guarantee you that if they don’t repent, you’re going to see stuff far worse than nitwittery. If you can reconcile staying under the authority of elders who put themselves in the position of persisting in abusive authority after being called on it, who am I to talk you out of it?
Reconcile staying? — is that what Paul was doing when he continued to recognize the authority of the other apostles?
The fact is, you are under their authority whether you “reconcile staying” or not.
Even if you walk — you are under their authority.
You don’t escape it by pretending to evade it.
So you believe that their authority is irrevocably binding, but it doesn’t actually require anything specific of you that you don’t already think you should be doing?
Well, it’s been an interesting conversation at any rate.
The Lord put them as shephards.
The Lord gave you a brain and connection to Him.
Mix the two best you can.
Politely.
A church is defined by what is being thought in that church. It should be normal to expect that people go in the same direction, otherwise why should they stay?
Love, maybe?
…Or, as The Word said, even better,
Ecclesiastes 12
13 The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God, and keep his commandments; for that is the whole duty of everyone. 14 For God will bring every deed into judgment, including[i] every secret thing, whether good or evil.
On another note — Huzzah! The banner is fixed!
Regarding Calvinism that laughs, I like that old joke, “Calvinists believe you are free to worship God your way and we’ll worship God His way.”