You’re probably here because someone accused us (or you) of being hyper-Calvinists.

Hyper-Calvinism is a term of derision that today is often used to negatively label anyone with a strong theological view of God’s sovereignty in the affairs of men. A legitimate understanding of hyper-Calvinism, in its technical sense, appears to be lost today. It seems as if anyone to the right of one’s own theological position is fair game to be labeled a hyper-Calvinist. For example, Arminians regard any who hold to unconditional election as hyper-Calvinists. The four-point Calvinist views the five-point Calvinist as “hyper” because he holds to a limited atonement. We also find five-point infralapsarians referring to five-point supralapsarians as hyper-Calvinists because of their view of the relationship between the fall of man and God’s predestination of the elect.

But there is such a thing as hyper-Calvinism Read What is Hyper-Calvinism? by Jim Ellis for an in-depth study of the issue. His conclusion posted below.

Simply stated, it consists of two fundamental errors: a denial of duty-faith and a resultant denial of the universal call of the gospel. These fundamental errors are a departure from the teaching of Scripture as well as historic Calvinism. These errors were responsible for unbiblical teaching on evangelism and the proclamation of the gospel among 18th century English Baptists. However, as we have seen, the sad effect on evangelism is not the defining error, but a symptom.

On the other hand, in my understanding, historic Calvinism has always maintained that it is the duty of unregenerate men to repent and believe. Calvinism also acknowledges that the gospel is to be preached to all men indiscriminately and that we are to beseech all to individually trust in Jesus Christ and Him alone for salvation.

Finally, I hope it is clear that hyper-Calvinism is not to be considered a legitimate form of Calvinism, for it is not. By the same token, however, it should also be clear that honest theological discussion should refrain from labeling legitimate variations within orthodox Calvinism as “Hyper-Calvinism.”

What do you do when two “scholars” or “theologians” or “pastors” or “people” disagree on something? What do you do with controversy? There are three main views. 1) Balance. Some think the truth is always somewhere in the middle. 2) Unity. Some think truth pertains only to the things there is no disagreement. 3) Conviction. Others think truth must be worked for by considering both positions and settling on one with a full conscience.

Our Motivations

It is difficult to separate this discussion from the issues of the heart and its motivations. For no doctrinal or theological or intellectual issue is really just a head matter but our past experiences, biases, and sometimes sinful inclinations effect the way we think about or handle an issue. Our personal presuppositions matter.

Often times the vie for balance is motivated by either laziness or disillusionment. That may sound harsh but usually a person who always thinks the truth is in the middle really has not took the time to thoroughly study both viewpoints (laziness) and feels overwhelmed by the amount of information or disagreement on the subject so they preemptively conclude neither position can be wholly true.

Often times the vie for unity is motivated by a fear of conflict or confrontation. Most of us don’t like the feeling of strife or contention. It is uneasy and unsettling and when people are not getting along whether you are on the inside or outside of it, it is uncomfortable. Thus, many try to approach life by avoiding difficulty and disagreement at all costs and consider the only things to be true, to be the things which are for the most part universally accepted.

It is my contention that we must be a people of conviction. 1 Thessalonians 1:5 states, “…our gospel came to you not only in word, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction.” We are to each be “fully convinced in (our) own mind (Rom 14:5).”

Such a thing takes a lot of work. To be honest and consider something from both viewpoints and only have a motivation for what is actually true, even if it means we have been wrong up is to approach controversy with true humility. It is a false humility which says one position cannot be correct.

Consider the words of John Piper on controversy:
“Can controversial teachings nurture Christlikeness? Before you answer this question, ask another one: Are there any significant biblical teachings that have not been controversial? I cannot even think of one…As much as we would like it, we do not have the luxury of living in a world where the most nourishing truths are unopposed. If we think we can suspend judgment on all that is controversial and feed our souls with only what is left, we are living in a dreamworld. There is nothing left…Besides that, would we really want to give to the devil the right to determine our spiritual menu by refusing to eat any teaching over which he can cause controversy?”

Those are good words from Pastor Piper. Throughout the Bible it seems one of the enemy’s chief tools is to mix a little bit of truth with untruth in order to create controversy so people end up wandering away from the faith. Instead we must hold the Bible firm in our hand and work hard to work it out.

Adiaphora

“Adiophora” means matters of indifference, tertiary, or secondary issues. Perhaps you have heard it said that there are essentials and non-essentials or closed-handed and open-handed issues in the Christian faith. This idea, as far as I can tell, originally comes from the debate of Calixtus and Calovius in the early 17th century. You can read about it here: (www.theresolved.com/downloads/essentials.pdf).

Calixtus sought to unite the Lutherans, Reformed, and Rome based on unity in fundamentals (”consensus quinquesaecularis”), he was the first ecumenicist. Calixtus thought systematic theology was too specific and devisive. Calovius said we need clarify or elaborate on what the first fundamentals are, which leads to secondary fundamentals needed to protect us from doctrinal error because uniting when there is disagreement in some areas can lead to compromise in bigger ones. Calovious thought such openness would eat away at the Christian faith and that all doctrines are related in some way.

I think there are two dangers and Calixtus and Calovius both make good points. The first danger is making your doctrinal acceptance so narrrow there is no room for an individual’s growth and you end up spending most your time fighting with other Christians about minut points. Which is what happened in the scholasticism era when theologians started arguing about things such as how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

The other danger is not making your doctrine clear and providing acceptable boundaries. Which is what happened in the theologies of 19th century liberalism, when it was thought that inerrancy could be dismissed. I agree, like Calovius that if push it far enough we can see that everything connected to our salvation in Jesus Christ. Then must we require everyone accept every point of our doctrine for church membership? I don’t think so. I think what we are really after in membership is people who put their faith in the blood of Christ for their sin and not their own works and that they are people who are humble and willing to learn, grow, follow leadership and be on mission.

Getting Dirty

So, say you’ve been convinced and now you want to dig in and get dirty. How do you go about doing that? One misnomer is the view of the “scholar” or the expert. Sometimes certain positions are advocated by saying that “this is the only reasonable thing to think” because this is what the scholars say. Essentially this is a viewpoint advocating trust in a person rather than a position. If there is anything worth believing, I’m sure there are not simply people who are “too stupid to get it.” Besides, for nearly every controversial belief there are “scholars” on both sides if you take the time to look. We must remember that whether the person is a “scholar,” a “pastor” or some other expert, they are still a fallible human being who could be wrong.

Here is my advice…

- Multiple Viewpoint Books: At least in the arena of theology, for nearly every controversial belief there are books which contain multiple viewpoints from the advocates of certain positions. Some are better than others but usually the way it goes is…each author presents his case, the other viewpoint authors respond, and then the author has a final response to them all. This way you can avoid being intellectually dishonest and get a fair view of the lay of the land and the issues involved so that you can become fully convinced in your own mind.
- Do your own study: Even without having extensive training a person can do a pretty good job at studying an issue or a passage of Scripture in the Bible. This is easier than ever before with the amount of free tools available on the internet today. You can often do just as good of study or better than most Bible commentators and in then you might have reason to actually agree or disagree with them. For an example of my personal study methodology and some good resource guides you can read this post: www.theresolved.com/?p=326
- The Bible is the Final Arbitar: Whatever the Bible says is our ultimate and final authority. When it comes down to it all of our consciences ought to be held captive by the Word of God. If the Bible says it we believe it and if it doesn’t we do not. All controversy ends with what the Bible says. We must adhere to the clear and present declaration of 2 Timothy 3:16 “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.”
- Practice Humility and Grace: A humble and gracious spirit is imperative for the Christian when in the midst of a debate or disagreement. Too often have Christians, perhaps from being cast out and dismissed so much of the time, have spoke in harsh tones and words.

Jonathan Edwards writes, “The proud enjoy to speak in the most harsh, severe, and terrible language…they say we must be plain hearted and bold for Christ, we must declare war on sin wherever we see it, we must not mince the matter in the cause of God and when speaking for Christ…(this) is to overthrow all Christian meekness and gentleness…and defile(s) the mouths of the children of God…under a cloak of sanctity and zeal and boldness for Christ.”

R.C. Sproul too speaks so wisely about the spirit of humility versus an argumentative spirit. He writes, “It is so easy to disagree and debate. There is no way we are always going to agree with everybody on everything. But if we do disagree we should have a certain attitude in the context of disagreement an attitude of charity. Disagreements can be over important issues. There is nothing wrong with a godly agrument..when it is to get at truth. But it is one things to have a good, healthy, positive argument. It is another to have an argumentative spirit that seems to thrive on disunity, discord, and conflict. Pride is seen where we are not interested in anybody else’s opinion and where we just assume that anybody that disagrees with us must be wrong. We need to be teachable…(and have) convictions based on a humble heart and humble attitude. Humility is being able to listen to people and give an honest hearing and consideration to what they are saying.”

Conclusion

Let us be a people of conviction. Let us be striving and holding to the truth with a humble spirit of grace and submission to Jesus’ book. Let us not be awash in the pools of friction and disbelief but plant our feet with surety that God’s Word is true. Let us give others the room to grow and grant them grace to learn not just from our words but from the character with which we carry the truths breathed out by God’s Holy Spirit.

The resurrection is a fabricated myth used for religious propanda, only effective with an audience of unsophisticates and children. “…after the crucifixion Jesus’ corpose was prbably laid in a shallow grave, barely covered with dirt, and subsequently eaten by wild dogs; the story of Jesus’ entombment and resurrection was the result of ‘wishful thinking.’” – John Dominic Crossan1

Introduction:

- the resurrection of Jesus Christ is perhaps the most frequently and violently attacked belief of the Christianity. yet the resurrection is the “crowning proof” of the Christian faith.
- of all the religions of the world, Christianity is the best one to start investigating because Christianity places its whole foundation on the one miracle of the resurrection of Jesus Christ and says that if it did not happen then Christianity is false (1 Cor 15:14). therefore, all one has to do is disprove this one miracle and they can go on to investigate the next religion.
- “the resurrection of Jesus Christ is one of the most wicked, vicious, heartless hoaxes ever foisted upon the minds of men, or it is the most fantastic fact of history.”
- in order to best respond to the challenges regarding the resurrection of Jesus Christ, this outline will give three primary proofs for His resurrection and then respond to three main objections.

I. the facts of the empty tomb

(1) Jesus was buried in a tomb
a. this was the Jewish custom for Jewish holy men.
b. no other burial story exists in either written or oral tradition.
(2) the disciples began to preach Christ had risen from the tomb
(3) it would have been foolish for the disciples to preach that Christ had risen if His body really was in the tomb.
(4) no one would have believed them if they knew the body was in the tomb, yet thousands did just shortly afterward in the same city Jesus was crucified (Acts 1-2)
(5) if the body was in the tomb anyone could have pointed to the tomb or exhumed the body to prove that Jesus had not been raised
(6) the disciples were filled with discouragement and timidity after Christ’s death (Jn 20:19). They would not have had courage or purpose to preach a false resurrection if it weren’t really true.

II. the resurrection appearances
(1) women were the first to see Him resurrected (Lk 24:1-11). a women’s testimony in first century Judaism was “virtuously worthless.” they were generally not even considered credible enough to give a testimony in court. if Gospel writers were attempting to present false history they would not have recorded this.
(2) Peter, James, and Paul are all specifically named as eyewitnesses (1 Cor 15:5,7,8). All the twelve saw Him resurrected and on one occasion over and then five-hundred people saw Him at the same time (1 Cor 15:3-8 ).

a. five-hundred people testifying in a courtroom would be overwhelming proof that something happened. how many of those five-hundred people would have to take the stand and testify of what they saw before any judge or jury would be convinced?
b. at the time when the apostle Paul wrote 1 Corinthians, he says that many of those five-hundred people “are still alive (1 Cor 15:6).” this was a way of saying, “if you don’t believe me go ask them!”

(3) one of Jesus’ disciples, Thomas, heard reports that Jesus had risen but doubted them until he too saw and touched Jesus and was convinced (Jn 20:24-29).

III. a historical resurrection is the origin of the Christian faith
(1) all the preaching of the early church was based on the historical resurrection of Jesus Christ (Acts 2:23,26; 1 Cor 15).
(2) there is no parallel in pagan religion to a physical bodily resurrection. the dying and rising gods were symbols for processes of nature but never considered as actual people.
(3) the number of converts on Pentecost, three-thousand people (Acts 2:41), was likely because everyone there in Jerusalem knew and heard about the empty tomb and the numerous resurrection appearances.
(4) no one challenged or argued with apostles over the historical facts of the resurrection in the 1st century. but instead argued with them about whether He really was the Messiah.

IV. three objections/explanations of the resurrection
A. the “resurrection” was a conspiracy or hoax devised by the disciples who stole Jesus body as the soldiers claim Matthew 28:12-159

response #1: Matthew 28:12-15 describes how the chief priest paid the soldiers off to say the disciples stole the body.
response #2: Matthew 28:13 tells how the soldiers were to say they were asleep when the body was stolen. if they were asleep how could they have known the body was stolen, or known anything that happened.
response #3: in 1879 a roman edict was found stating that it was illegal under penalty of death to rob a tomb or to move a body from one place to another. disciples knew they would be guilty of death.
response #4: if the disciples stole the body they would not have taken time to fold up the grave clothes (Jn 20:5-7).
response #5: if the disciples stole the body they would not have died for what they knew was a lie.

B. the “resurrection” was merely a resuscitation from an apparent death. “Jesus was not completely dead when He was taken down from the cross. He revived in the tomb and escaped to convince His disciples that He had risen from the dead.”

response #1: physically impossible. considering the extent of Jesus’ tortures. a modern medical examination of the Gospels determines that Jesus suffered from hematidrosis, hypovolemic shock, respiratory acidosis, pericardial and pleural effusion, and finally died of cardiac arrest.
response #2: religiously impossible. a half dead Jesus appearing to disciples would not evoke their worship to Him as Lord.
response #3: biographically impossible. goes against all we know of Jesus character.

C. it was not a bodily resurrection but spiritual/psychological resurrection
response #1: Jesus called His body “flesh and bones” (Lk 24:39)
response #2: Jesus offered His body for physical inspection (Jn 20:27)
response #3: Jesus ate food (Lk 24:41-43)
response #3: one person could have had a hallucination or delusion but not 500 people all at the same time (1 Cor 15:6).

For further study of the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ some great resources include:
Craig, William Lane. Reasonable Faith. Wheaton, ILL: Crossway Books, 1984.
Geisler, Norman L. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1999.
Geisler, Norman L. and Brooks, Ronald M. When Skeptics Ask. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990.
McDowell, Josh. Evidence that Demands a Verdict. San Bernardino, CA: Campus Crusade for Christ, 1972.
Moreland, J.P. Scaling the Secular City. Grand Rapids, MI: 1987.
Ramm, Bernard. Protestant Christian Evidences, Chicago: Moody Press, 1953.
Strobel, Lee. The Case for Christ. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1998.
Wilkins, Michael J. and Moreland, J.P. Jesus Under Fire. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1995.

Tico was killed by a coyote last week. Even as I type this I have to hold back the tears of a pet remembered. When I explain to my friends that my cat was killed; the words don’t capture the depth of pain and love I have for that particular cat named Tico. I want to find that perfect explanation to convey just what type of cat Tico was and why I miss him so. Ultimately the explanation is in the experience and not in the word. But I will try to explicate the experience. What follows is a cathartic reminiscing of black on white to help you understand that Tico was an original, not easily duplicated; and maybe, glean some theological, metaphysical and anthropological significance along the way.

Tico was not an outdoor cat, his idiosyncrasies would not allow that. An 11-13 lb. Himalayan who was occasionally confused for a raccoon in dim light. He couldn’t run fast or far, he had a high jump of 4.2 feet. He had no interest in objects that crawl, slither or scurry, and if you placed him among the bears on my bed you’d be hard pressed to distinguish between fabricated and factual. I would tell Cathy that we could leave him at the San Diego Zoo, placard an exotic feline name for him on his enclosure, and he would pass as one of those rare cats found somewhere in the Amazonian jungle. When Tico would jump that 4.2 vertical feet he wouldn’t arch his body up and over the obstacle and land like a butterfly lighting on a twig. He would first hit the side of the object, front two paws grasping at the edge desperately trying to sustain his sizable girth from plummeting off the edge, and use his popeye forearms to haul himself, rear paws scrambling forth, up and over the edge of said obstacle. IF he made it he would then have to rest a moment to continue on wherever he thought he should be. There was a time when we were over at my parent’s home when Tico executed this maneuver onto a low antique hutch. The resulting crash against the hutch effected a rush of adrenaline within my father causing him to bolt out of his semi-slumber in a hurried rush to get to the door because surely the house must be collapsing.

Tico was amenable. You could place him in a tub, wash him, clip his nails and brush his hair with no fear of being scratched or bitten and hardly a peep of objection apart from one or two throaty, warbly, blue eyed meows. Unbelievably, you could tell him to stay in the tub when you needed to get something and he would stay. And … he was fearless, which may have been what did him in. Nothing scared him, dogs, other cats, people. He would just saunter through circumstances, disinterest evident in his eyes and his posture, like a king being carried above his people. He didn’t like milk, he didn’t like tuna, he didn’t like chicken, he didn’t like wet food at all; he liked IAMS small chunk for less active cats. For the most part he didn’t cuddle except when we went on car trips, which was frequent. On trips his preferred spot was on the driver’s lap away from the riff-raff in the back otherwise known as dogs. Oh yeah, he would also walk on a leash with one of our parrots perched on his back although he didn’t like that either. He didn’t like toys except a 6 inch rubber strip affectionately named “Mr. Thingie”. He did like “Mr. Thingie” but most of all he liked to sit and watch stuff. The world go by, that is what Tico liked, “the world go by.” He was an observer not a participant.

car.jpgThat same week I purchased a new-used car. A Scion Xb , “the box”, “the toaster”, “the microwave” named “Nanobus”. He’s a swell little car, leather interior, cool lights, sunroof, shiny wheels, DVD player, and I’d like to think a “chick magnet” if I wasn’t married. Maybe not a chick magnet but I do get noticed in it. Maybe a “chick curiosity”. And that’s about it. Nanobus has no real personality, he has no idiosyncrasies that a replacement part couldn’t fix, he has no desires, no needs, no interests, no concerns, no personality apart from what I anthropomorphize. In fact he is not a he at all. He is an it. And it cost a lot more than Tico did. Nanobus neither observes nor participates, it just is.

Nanobus could be cloned. He’s fairly extra-ordinary, but not one of a kind unique. If I had the money I could purchase an exact replica of Nanobus right down to the scratch in his left rear door-well. Therefore we would have Nanobus 1 and Nanobus 2.

Tico could also be cloned through Genetic Savings and Clone based in the San Francisco Bay Area.

The details are not of interest yet but suffice it to say in both our cases we could have a clone either of a cat or a car, but what would the difference be in the nature of the two? I think it could be agreed upon by most that if Tico was cloned the resulting cat is not Tico, he has a twin and a twin is not a Tico as Nanobus 2 is not Nanobus 1. But what is the difference?

If you answered “Life”, I would then ask, “What is life?”, since this answer still leaves the question to be begged. To help think about this a bit more clearly we can ask ourselves another question. What is required for a thing to be an observer, or rather more accurately, what is required for a thing to have awareness? I am interested in your answers before I offer my answer; so here is where I take advantage of the interactive nature of this medium called the Internet. Please email your responses to tom AT kaleochurch DOT com. (Remove the AT and DOT and replace both with an @ and a period, respectively.)

Please limit your answers to a few sentences, no more than a paragraph long, and include what you think your presuppositions or bias’ are in answering the question. Address the subject line as “Tico”. I will post and comment on those answers that I think may be helpful or add clarity, including those I disagree with. My responses and answer will be posted next month.

The answer to this question will help explain why it can be right and proper to cry for an animal and why it is cracked and fatuous to weep at the loss of a car.

Originally written Mar 18, 2005

I have had a few months to reflect on the tsunami that killed upwards of 250,000 people in Southeastern Asia . I have heard sermons, read obituaries, and seen images that evoked a range of emotions. I have talked to people that tell me we should celebrate the life of the deceased and not dwell on the death. And I have attended a memorial in the past with this same sentiment. The memorial service was celebrating the life of a former college professor of mine who died prematurely and in “celebration” the service was held on the beach at one of his favorite surf spots. I suppose this memorial service was intended to be a kind of subtle reminder of the new day we all have as we reflect on another’s death. I have also heard the plaintive conversation between a mother and her child:

“Mommy, do you and Daddy love me?”
“Of course we love you, Honey! Why do you ask?”
“I was just wondering who will love me when you die.”

That child was asking a much deeper question than most of the commentaries and analyses I have read over the deaths that occurred that December 26, 2004 . That child did not realize the existential angst behind the question and if asked about the feelings that provoked the question that child would not be able to tell you why he asked that. He only knew, at that moment, he was scared of being alone. I know, because that child was me.
Read the rest of this entry »