Does calling murder by its name incite violence?

In the aftermath of a shooting outside an abortion clinic that killed three people in Colorado, including a pro-life police officer the propaganda from the liberal pundits who support abortion in our society has been geared toward blaming pro-life groups for the shooting. Apparently, calling murder, murder, is the same as implicitly condoning violence against those who carry out the murder.

National pro-life groups have universally condemned the act of the shooter, and have also promoted non-violent action well before this event, but that has not changed the attempts by many to blame those of us who consistently call for the end of violence against human beings for violence against human beings.

This pro-abortion argument is irrational:

This argument by the left is irrational for a few different reasons:

 1. It begs the question on whether abortion is actually murder. 

The pro-life movement has been accused of 'hateful rhetoric' for calling the literally ripping limb from limb of pre-born humans, murder. But, as we should all be willing to acknowledge, it is never hateful rhetoric to call something what it actually is. For instance, if I call the work of the shooter in Colorado murder (and I most certainly do) no one is accusing me of hateful rhetoric against that man, because we all agree that the act he committed was a murderous one. That means that there is only the possibility of hateful rhetoric if the humans that abortionists tear apart and sell the pieces of are not actually people. 

In other words, the pro-abortion left has to assume that killing humans is not murder for it even possibly to be hateful rhetoric to say that killing those humans is murder. This creates a situation where abortionists can claim the benefits of being right about whether their killing is murder without having to actually prove that their killing is not murder. 

2. It assumes that identifying potential murderers is a promotion of violence. 

When the police department posts the photo of a suspect in a murder investigation, do they suddenly endorse the violent action of any citizen who is willing to kill that person? Of course not. If I have knowledge that one person has murdered another, and I draw attention to that fact, am I suddenly encouraging others to commit violence against that person? Of course not. 

Instead, what I'm doing is promoting justice. I am doing my own legal part in seeing that our society is a safer place for as many people as possible. 

3. It holds different standards for different groups of people. 

Sadly, we live in a country where many of the same people who now want to blame peaceful pro-life protestors for violent acts not committed by them were, just a few months ago, condemning a man who killed a lion with just as much fervor as what the pro-life community exudes. Were the people who condemned the killing of this animal implicitly promoting violence against the dentist who shot him? A consistently applied standard by the left would say, yes, they were. This creates a rather uncomfortable situation since so many of the death threats that the hunter experienced came from this same left. I am perfectly content with accepting the fact that many on the left would not support putting forward death threats against this man, but I doubt environmental conservation agencies condemned those death threats with the same consistency and enthusiasm that pro-life ministries have denounced violence against abortionists over the years. 

Conclusion

At the end of the day, which poses a more serious threat to society, those who publicly condemn and call out murderers or those who sit idly by, aware that the murder is taking place, but saying nothing?

The real obstacle to justice for all humanity is presented by those who would vilify people who consistently support peaceful opposition to ripping humans limb from limb while simultaneously giving the very people who commit those acts a pat on the back.  

The Gospel for Refugees

The problem:

All around me, I see conservative Christians hailing governors of states here in America for banning refugees from Syria from entering the state. As I see these things, I wonder what motivates this reaction from Christians. Let's start with a few basic facts.

1. The vast majority of these refugees need the Gospel

2. The Bible tells us, repeatedly, that we risk personal harm by sharing the Gospel

3. The Bible commands us to share the Gospel to all peoples.

4. In light of facts 1-3, it is pretty clear that Christians have a responsibility to share the Gospel with these people even if it means personal harm or danger to ourselves. 

No sound Biblical argument can be made suggesting that we do not have the responsibility to share the Gospel with these people, and, based on the repeated reminding of the Scriptures, potential danger does not exonerate us either. Since these things are both true, I would argue that concern for our own well being as Christians is decidedly not a valid reason to wish to keep these people, who need the Gospel, from coming into our homeland. 

It has been rightly brought up that terrorists may potentially come into this nation from among these refugees, but, in light of the fact that we are told in Scripture that to live is Christ and to die is gain, the question in response to this issue as Christians is largely, so what?

A clarification:

Now, let me be very clear. There are two sphere's of responsibility at play, here. We as individual Christians have a responsibility to proselytize, but our governments have a responsibility to keep their citizens safe. In light of that, our elected leaders have the right and responsibility to keep their citizens as safe as possible, and it is not unChristian to agree with an elected leader's decision regarding the safety of the people. 

The concern, here, is for where the hearts and minds of Christians are focused. If we celebrate barring refugees from states because we fear for our own safety, I would argue that we are not putting the Gospel ahead of our own temporal concerns as we should. In fact, I would argue that if our focus is on evangelizing these incoming people, we should probably be praying that our elected officials find a way to do their job in such a way that still gives us a chance to minister to these people. Our reaction to these events (and I say events, plural, because many acts of terrorism in countries all over the world have caused this refugee crisis) should first be to see how we can share the Gospel to the people of Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, France, Jordan, and everywhere else impacted by this terror. That includes, mind you, sharing the Gospel with the individuals responsible for these heinous acts. Any and all political response comes second to that, and a distant second at that. I want to encourage all my brothers and sisters in the Lord to respond to these tragedies with the Gospel first and foremost in our thoughts and actions, and would suggest that labeling refugees as a category as inherently dangerous and undesirable is not in step with that goal. 

When bombs explode around the world and people die, many of those people go to Hell, both terrorists and victims alike. The Gospel is the only solution that will ultimately defeat this evil. 

If God is sovereign, why do we disagree on theology?

Augustine of Hippo 

Spurgeon once said:

 I believe there are multitudes of men who cannot see these truths, or, at least, cannot see them in the way in which we put them, who nevertheless have received Christ into their hearts, and are as dear to the heart of the God of grace as the soundest Calvinist out of heaven. (The Man with the Measuring Line)

 Perspectives

When we talk about the Gospels, we always point out that the four Gospels describe the events of Christ's ministry in four different ways, and we can pretty obviously see how God uses that to address different concerns and different needs and we can affirm that all four Gospels are describing the same event.

Now, the analogy obviously breaks down when we talk about theological division, because we assert that one is right and the other is wrong. But, I think a lot of that is because we put more stock than we should in these theological conceptualizations.

Take Arminianism and Calvinism, for example. There are definitely some exegetical differences between Arminianism and Calvinism, (like how we approach Romans 7) BUT, the main difference between these two theories is philosophical. I think that Calvinism as a philosophical theory best accounts for what the Bible teaches, but I also don't think it fully does justice to the mystery of the Gospel, because I think that we as humans are incapable of comprehending a theory that truly does that.

So, with these two theories, I think that what we have are different imperfect perceptions of the same miracle. I think that Calvinists have a more accurate description, but I also have met people for whom the Arminian perspective provides them with direction that they need that a Calvinist system probably wouldn't resonate the same way for...

Perspectivalism

Vern Sheridan Poythress has written a book called Symphonic Theology:: The Valididy of Multiple Perspectives in Theology.  In it, he argues for a theological approach he has developed together with John Frame. John Frame and Vern Poythress are both Reformed scholars and their theory is known as 'multi-perspectivalism'. I love the theory and I think it captures things very well. On their site you can also find articles that summarize it a bit more succinctly.

Basically, the way it works is this: When it comes to man gaining knowledge, there are three main components at work, the normative perspective (That's the Word of God, itself), the situational perspective (That is the situation of the writer of the text and the situation that an idea is being introduced in, and then there's the existential perspective, which is unique to every individual and accounts for all the personal baggage that we bring to the text.

According to Frame, all these things work together in forming our views on various theological topics. I think he's right. If he is, let's see how that applies to our problem, here:

God, for his glory, has decreed certain circumstances and temperaments and mental acuities for all his elect. He has also decreed that each one of us will serve a different role in carrying out his work on earth. Sometimes, to accomplish God's will, God has ordained that we will fail, or that we will come up short, or that we will make mistakes. Sometimes we simply won't listen closely to the Holy Spirit's guidance, and we will interpret things the wrong way.

This happens to all of us, and for some of us that mistake happens in an area like Baptism, sometimes it's a mistake in something like the use of God's law in the life of the believer; it could be in eschatology, or it could be in God's decree (where Calvinists and Arminians argue). All of us are very likely to have multiple areas where we have made these mistakes.

How we make these mistakes will affect how we live our lives. For example, Jerry Falwell was mistaken about God's decree and eschatology. He believed in Free Will and Dispensationalism. But, his belief in Free Will and Dispensationalism drove him to feel like Liberty University was a needed thing in our society, and so, today, thousands of Christians can get their education at an elite Christian school and God was glorified because of Falwell's theological missteps.

God made me have bad theology!  

I hear this silly response to those of us who believe that God's sovereignty makes him the ruler over every event in history all the time. It's frustrating. What this comment does is begs the question on the debate over how mankind's freedom works. Reformed theology teaches that man decreed all that will be while establishing the liberty and contingency of secondary causes and doing no violence to the will of the creature. (See the Westminster and 2nd London confessions of faith). 

Remember in the Old Testament when Joseph told his brothers that they meant their actions for evil but God meant their actions for good? This is exactly what we are talking about. God will bring himself glory through our mistakes, and shortcomings. Further, our shortcomings our the result of our own desires intruding on our ability to follow the perfect guidance of the Holy Spirit. 

Conclusion

My grace is sufficient for thee, for my power is made perfect in weakness. (II Corinthians 12:9)

There is some debate as to what exactly Paul is referring to, here. But I think it applies in our discussion. Paul speaks of 'boasting' of our weaknesses, and, while we should certainly not be proud of the fact that we make mistakes theologically, we SHOULD glorify God for the fact that our salvation comes via his grace and not via our ability to affirm perfect theology.

Fundamentalist and Evangelical are not a Four-Letter Words

B.B. Warfield- Fundamentalist

On a fairly regular basis, I will encounter people who think of themselves as particularly enlightened, and, over the course of a theological disagreement, they will announce that I am a 'Fundamentalist.' This claim, I suppose, is intended to make me recoil in fear at my own opinion and cause others to view me as some sort of unclean leper that should be cast out of civilized society. What is sad, is that so many of my theologically conservative counterparts tend to react to these sorts of accusations by immediately dropping whatever subject is at hand and defending themselves against this apparently outrageous charge.

For my own part, I simply reply "I am not a Fundamentalist, I am an Evangelical, though, frankly, our nation could use a few more Christian Fundamentalists." I then return to the conversation at hand. 

What is a Fundamentalist?

Historically speaking, the term 'Fundamentalist' first became prominent in America in association with a brilliant series of essays called 'The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth". These articles, headlined by the likes of Warfield, pictured above, and other leading conservative theologians were published from 1910-1915 and sought to combat the errors of higher criticism and modernism. The heart of the movement was the inerrancy of the Scriptures, and they also strongly argued for penal substitutionary atonement, the literal virgin birth and resurrection of Jesus,  and also taking the miracles of Christ and the global flood/creation accounts literally. 

All of these things I happily stand for, and on most counts, conservative theologians today generally do as well (issues in Genesis and nature of atonement being the only real areas of dispute). In this sense the 'F-word' (which is how so many modern scholars treat it) is not the millstone it is made out to be. It is simply the affirmation that the Bible means what it says and is right about it. Fundamentalism was an ecumenical movement that highlighted the strength and agreement of God-fearing people against the rise of a liberal and shameful perversion of God's truth. 

Why am I not a Fundamentalist?

If I celebrate their doctrine so enthusiastically, then why, exactly, do I not take up the mantle of Fundamentalism and own it proudly? The answer lies in the work of one of the most under-appreciated theological minds in the 20th century, Carl F.H. Henry. I have referenced him before in this blog, but, I must repeat that if you have not read Henry, place him as the next author on your reading list. His work is fantastic. 

Carl F.H. Henry- Evangelical

In 1947, Henry published his book The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism in which he challenged conservative Christianity to not simply hold strong doctrine but to live it. Borrowing the term 'Evangelical' from concept in the great Awakenings, Henry sought a revivalist's spirit with a Puritan's mind. The goal was to 100% retain the sound theology of Fundamentalism while also emphasizing the command from Christ to spread the Gospel. 

Henry continued this challenge throughout his life, publishing many other works, including Evangelical Responsibility in Contemporary Theology (1957) and Christian Countermoves in a Decadent Culture  (1986). 

Cultural redefinitions

In addition to the stigma surrounding the term 'Fundamentalism', many conservatives have begun to argue for the abandonment of the term 'Evangelical' as well, since it has been hijacked by liberal, mainline Protestants of various denominations. I think there should be an awareness of the cultural expectation that surrounds these terms, but I also think it is a terrible shame to simply let them be ravaged by those who spit in the face of God. 

Neither label is essential, obviously, because in any instance the substance of a thing is far more meaningful than what you call it. (Insert worn out Shakespeare quote, here.) However, we owe so much to men like Warfield and Henry that I think it is unfortunate that a new generation of budding conservative theologians may associate their terms and concepts with something as nefarious as liberalism (in the case of Evangelicalism) or radical extremism (in the case of Fundamentalism). These movements, and the goal they aimed for, are a very important part of our religious heritage as theologically conservative Christians in America. So, even if you do not use these terms, yourself, understand their history and be willing to inform others of that history when the opportunity presents itself. 

A misconception about Arminianism

I promised this post a while ago, and I am going to deliver it, even though what I have to say here will probably upset many of my Calvinist friends.

Is Arminianism heresy?

Nope. A lot of my Reformed friends like to refer to the Canons of Dort as proof that Arminianism has indeed been declared heresy. But, let's take a step back for a moment and realize exactly what the Canons of Dort were, they were a regional council within a specific church under a specific confession. This was not the sort of great, ecumenical council of the church that saw Arianism or Marcionism thrown aside, this was a regional group making a decision for those under their confession. (And, incidentally enough, it caused a split amongst Dutch Monergists as well, with Lutherans breaking away from the Reformed). 

For a modern comparison, the canons of Dort were similar to a modern denominational position paper. Occasionally, denominations will take the time to clarify their position on certain topics that become controversial either in their churches or in their nation/society. This may deal with abortion, women in ministry, homosexuality, or, I have even seen some try to nail down a confessional position on the exact nature of Divine Impassibility or the Regulative Principle of Worship. 

These types of papers declare where that group stands on that issue, and they serve as a notice to any that would consider joining or associating with them as to what is expected. This does not represent the same sort of ecumenical recognition of orthodoxy that one sees even in such documents as the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy or the Danvers Statement. Because Dort falls into this lesser category, it is a mistake to try to declare Arminianism heresy on the basis of that document. 

Arminians do believe in Total Depravity

When I use the term 'Arminians', here, what I am referring to is the group specifically dealt with in the Canons of Dort. These were followers of Jacob Arminius who sought to defend his theological system, which was rooted in the Reformed Belgic Confession. Dort was actually written as a response to the Articles of Remonstrance. Article 3 of clearly says that man has no free will in and of himself, and that he needs the grace of God to have the ability to turn to God.

In this respect, Arminians are consistent with Augustine and reject Pelagianism.

Arminius himself sums it up nicely:

But in his lapsed and sinful state, man is not capable, of any by himself, either to think, to will, or to do that which is really good, but it is necessary for him to be regenerated and renewed in his intellect, affections or will, and in all his powers, by God in Christ through the Holy Spirit, that he may be qualified rightly to understand, esteem, consider, will, and perform whatever is truly good. When he is made a partaker of this regeneration or renovation, I consider that, since he is delivered from sin, he is capable of thinking, willing, and doing that which is good, but yet not without the continued aids of Divine Grace.(Works of Arminius, Vol 1 ccel.org)

Arminians do believe in Election

Now, please do not mistake me, the Arminian view of election is different than the Calvinist one, and I do believe that it is quite mistaken. But, it would also be a terrible misrepresentation of Arminianism to suggest they do not have a doctrine of election. 

As Arminius defined it:

Predestination therefore, as it regards the thing itself, is the Decree of the good pleasure of God in Christ, by which He resolved within Himself from all eternity, to justify, adopt, and endow with everlasting life, to the praise of His own glorious grace, believers on whom He had decreed to bestow faith.(Ibid, above)

The difference between the Arminian view of election and the Calvinist view is metaphysical, it addresses the difference in how they view God's decree. In Arminianism, God decrees his grace on mankind, allowing them to have freedom, before he decrees who will be saved. In Calvinism, to decree those who will be saved is to decree who will receive his grace. The result is two different notions of freedom, and two different doctrines of election.

Arminius responds to caricatures of his position:

ARTICLE 27 (7.)
'Faith is not the pure gift of God, but depends partly on the grace of God, and partly on the powers of Free Will; that, if a man will, he may believe or not believe.'

I never said this, I never thought of saying it, and, relying on God’s grace, I never will enunciate my sentiments on matters of this description in a manner thus desperate and confused. I simply affirm, that this enunciation is false, “faith is not the pure gift of God;” that this is likewise false, if taken according to the rigor of the words, “faith depends partly on the grace of God, and partly on the powers of free will” and that this is also false when thus enunciated, “If a man will, he can believe or not believe.” If they suppose, that I hold some opinions from which these assertions may by good consequence be deduced, why do they not quote my words? It is aspecies of injustice to attach to any person those consequences, which one may frame out of his words as if they were his sentiments. But the injustice is still more flagrant, if these conclusions cannot by good consequence be deduced from what he has said. Let my brethren, therefore, make the experiment, whether they can deduce such consectaries as these, from the things which I teach; but let the experiment be made in my company, and not by themselves in their own circle. For that sport will be vain, equally void of profit or of victory; as boys sometimes feel, when they play alone with dice for what already belongs to them.

For the proper explanation of this matter, a discussion on the concurrence and agreement of Divine grace and of free will, or of the human will, would be required; but because this would be a labor much too prolix, I shall not now make the attempt. To explain the matter I will employ a simile, which yet, I confess, is very dissimilar; but its dissimilitude is greatly in favor of my sentiments. A rich man bestows, on a poor and famishing beggar, alms by which he may be able to maintain himself and his family. Does it cease to be a pure gift, because the beggar extends his hand to receive it? Can it be said with propriety, that “the alms depended partly on the liberality of the Donor, and partly on the liberty of the Receiver,” though the latter would not have possessed the alms unless he had received it by stretching out his hand? Can it be correctly said, because the beggar is always prepared to receive, that “he can have the alms, or not have it, just as he pleases?” If these assertions cannot be truly made about a beggar who receives alms, how much less can they be made about the gift of faith, for the receiving of which far more acts of Divine grace are required! This is the question which it will be requisite to discuss, “what acts of Divine grace are required to produce faith in man?” If I omit any act which is necessary, or which concurs, [in the production of faith,] let it be demonstrated from the Scriptures, and I will add it to the rest.

It is not our wish to do the least injury to Divine grace, by taking from it any thing that belongs to it. But let my brethren take care, that they themselves neither inflict an injury on Divine justice, by attributing that to it which it refuses; nor on Divine grace, by transforming it into something else, which cannot be called GRACE. That I may in one word intimate what they must prove, such a transformation they effect when they represent “the sufficient and efficacious grace, which is necessary to salvation, to be irresistible,” or as acting with such potency that it cannot be resisted by any free creature (Works of James Arminius Vol. 1, Wesleyan Heritage Collection, pp. 314, 315).

Now for the part that will REALLY make Calvinists mad

The most common complaint against Arminianism by Calvinists is that God is not sovereign in that model in the way that the Bible describes him to be sovereign. I completely agree with that. But, to say that God is not sovereign in any way in the Arminian system is simply incorrect. 

In fact, (and I can already feel the Calvinist fireballs flying my direction) God has more freedom in certain forms of Arminianism than he does in some forms of Calvinism. (Including the one that I hold.)

Before you stone me, let me explain. In his brilliant work Freedom of the Will, Jonathan Edwards argues that Arminianism must be false because Libertarian Free Will is an incoherent concept. This means that no person has libertarian free will, and that includes God. For Edwards, God's will is more free than ours because the nature that dictates his will is uncaused and wholly good, whereas ours is contingent and evil. Ours interferes with our rational decisions, his does not.

The consequence of Edwards' position (which has been the position of the majority of Reformed thinkers) is that while God is free to create any world he wishes, the only world he would wish to create is the one he created. I.e, his nature, reason, will, etc. when combined to make a decision would only choose to create this world that we live in. 

In many forms of Arminianism, God is free to choose as he wills from a wide selection of possible worlds, and his choice between them is solely his good pleasure. Edwards, and I alongside him, would argue that this makes God's choice of how to create arbitrary and irrational, and that God does not make arbitrary and irrational decisions. However, in the sense of how many options he has God is 'more free' in the Arminian concept than he is in the Calvinist one.

So, we as Calvinists rate sovereignty based on control, and thus we see God as most sovereign in our model, but Arminianism seems to rate sovereignty based on freedom, and in that respect it can be argued that God is most sovereign under their notion. 

Conclusion

Anyone who has read my blog in the past knows that I think Arminianism is incorrect, and they should know that I think it has negative consequences (for a great summary on that, I suggest this article: http://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/do-arminians-preach-a-sufficient-gospel). But, Arminians are not heretics, and many of them are in fact our brothers in Christ. As Spurgeon once said:

You know, brethren, that there is no soul living who holds more firmly to the doctrines of grace than I do, and if any man asks me whether I am ashamed to be called a Calvinist, I answer, I wish to be called nothing but a Christian; but if you ask me, do I hold the doctrinal views which were held by John Calvin, I reply, I do in the main hold them, and rejoice to avow it. But, my dear friends, far be it from me even to imagine that Zion contains none within her walls but Calvinistic Christians, or that there are none saved who do not hold our views.(The Man with the Measuring Line)

So, go out, be gracious, try to show our brothers in Christ the truths of God's Word, but do so as one brother to the next, and not as if they are a pagan savage in need of evangelism.