The Fourth Person: Man in the Middle
In the quest for unity, what is the motive and duty of those made in the image of God? Are those made in God’s image free to choose and pursue unity or has the created been awakened to understand an unnatural unity that is present and renewed in time, where the new creature’s freedom “is” the assurance for maintaining the unity of the Spirit…known as a consequence of the Holy Spirit? The people of God have tried to answer those types of questions for thousands of years and in a dizzying display of mathematical philosophy there have been a gross amount of words compiled to protect the array of various viewpoints. Hence the amazing struggle for those staking a claim in the chronicles of Arminius and Calvin, and the tug-a-war that exists to fill in the gaps. These two authorities within the art of theology seem to have captured the left and right sides of the collective theological brain as both of them proclaim allegiance to certain theories in order to capture the essence of their teachings and the respect of their peers.
Not unlike a lot of us today, these two men (Arminius and Calvin) had some great things to contribute to the Saints, but they, just like us contaminate a few biblical doctrines along the way. They, like us, create separation from Christ when we make application of theory in the place of truth. There is little doubt that their teachings were influenced by the culture, and influenced by the region of the world in which they lived; and by the burdens of sin always present in their non-glorified state. While digging into the deep mine shafts of particulars,…Arminius obviously laid claim to Aquinas, Molina, Calvin and Beza, and certainly Calvin had his own fleet of theories extending back before Augustine. The SBC now has its own stable full of theological influence across the seminary landscape displayed by Godly men such as Keathley, Ware, Yarnell, Mohler, White and many, many more.
But as we look into the influence of any of these men of God, we should consider it with reference to and in view of the Holy Spirit’s unity. To quail a bit of that zealous search for answers though, the pursuit and purpose for the Spirit’s unity must first be understood as God’s truth in His special revelation. In other words, …how do we protect ourselves from idols? Without a clear understanding and definition of “unity” the Saints quickly skew the purpose of the Son of Man and His never ceasing work applied by the person of the Holy Spirit. This “close” miss of purpose is one of the Apostle John’s instructive themes (1 John) as he exhorts the Saints, warning them of the plight of some that were involved in removing Jesus as the Son of Man. Jesus explained this to his disciples, revealing His purpose for unity to those of us that would hear and see His truth.
Matthew 13:37-44 And He said, “The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man, (38) and the field is the world; and as for the good seed, these are the sons of the kingdom; and the tares are the sons of the evil one; (39) and the enemy who sowed them is the devil, and the harvest is the end of the age; and the reapers are angels. (40) “So just as the tares are gathered up and burned with fire, so shall it be at the end of the age. (41) “The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness, (42) and will throw them into the furnace of fire; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. (43) “Then THE RIGHTEOUS WILL SHINE FORTH AS THE SUN in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear. (44) “The kingdom of heaven is like a treasure hidden in the field, which a man found and hid again; and from joy over it he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field.
How much land are we really willing to purchase as Saints? In other words,..one must ask… How is unity maintained in the world that God has provided for us? There is only one world (not many potential worlds), so how we respond in this world is important. Language has always played a significant role in teaching, and in this section we should understand one subtle change (not born sinisterly) that was made in the Baptist Faith and Message, so to illustrate the genius in the making of such a revision. Because as the people of God are moved to include wider grouping of believers within the tent of the SBC, language has played a significant role with respect to inclusion.
As the cooperating convention was laying its faith and message in 1925, we should pay some attention to the train of thought put into the first faith and message with that of subsequent documents. Because, as is clearly seen in the comparison, there have always been many well meaning men of God within the SBC advocating the influences of what I term the “fourth person”. That is obviously apparent as well throughout the landscape of many of the churches cooperating in the convention today. These men (and women) unashamedly follow the theories of Jacobus Arminius and his astounding logical functions which have supplied the influence and continuance of the theory of the assumptive complex worlds of the counterfactual. This influence, and the dependence on the categorical power of middle knowledge (scientia media) has necessarily formed the environment and ensuing word changes now present in the 1963 and 2000 version of the Baptist faith and message. The slight changes are certainly not heretical by any stretch while they allow for a “wider” acceptance on the teaching of God’s sovereignty.
The changes are clearly realized when we compare the 1925 statement to the 1963 or current 2000 statement… where “duty” is omitted in the expression categorized as “The Freeness of Salvation” (1925) for a more pragmatic and contemporary form revealing faith in a slightly differing light as the “acceptance” of Jesus Christ. So the minor changes have progressively advanced what was once agreed in 1925 as “that repentance and faith are sacred duties, and also inseparable graces, wrought in our souls by the regenerating Spirit of God” to a slightly more gentle flow of “acceptance” of those under the call of God. A slight influence moving the terminology from “duty” to “acceptance” was delicate, and found effective by some, as the convention continued the quest to grow wide, advancing in number from 3 to 16 million souls over about 70 years. One must consider however, especially as churches struggle to find their members, was the growth systemic from the influence of the “sourced counterfactual theory” obviously advancing within the convention and reflected in the 1963 subtle change of language, or was it Christ alone imputing righteousness in the hearts of man made ready for duty? There is little doubt that “unity” will be the most reliable testimony as it remains the standard of authentication in all the churches. (Ephesians)
As I noted in an earlier post, Jacobus Arminius: Influencer of Separation…there is little argument that he was a man of God, like many of us, caught up in the art of introspection. He was aided by other men, even as we continue to be, and he acknowledged the presence of the middle man of “scientia media” (his version of middle knowledge), Molina’s fail safe theory of the “middle man” founded upon the underlying principles of Aquinas. But, Arminius proved to be an important and effective influence for many men beyond his years; serving his congregation well while exposing the word of God and at the same time never finishing his rationalization of middle knowledge….the “middle man” of his popular teaching.
Many who read the writing of Arminius are quick to note that he does not develop his definition of “scientia media” (middle knowledge) at any great length, yet it is the very mention of the concept that raises a serious query about the extent of divine knowledge and its potentialities (various worlds) that are influenced via its inference. Others have claimed that Arminius seems to impress upon God a conditional knowledge of future contingents while He (God) knows the potential reality at the same time. All of these words and explanations absorbed by highly regarded convention teachers have practically made for a wide tent within the SBC…yet a tent now revealing evidence of contention and fainting unity. The danger of such boasting is inevitable as man’s freedom is elevated to an imagined fashionable pot where earthen clay once lay captive. But contention is birthed through sinning flesh and competitive assumptions, where we see a joyful contrast as unity is maintained by Spirit filled Saints, preserving an already perfect array of unity provided by God.
James 1:17-20 Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow. (18) In the exercise of His will He brought us forth by the word of truth, so that we would be a kind of first fruits among His creatures. (19) This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; (20) for the anger of man does not achieve the righteousness of God.
Theologians continue to erect an immense and challenging platform for the future, positing the same theories, all bound with different schema and differing cultures, trying to help shape the practice of loving our brothers and sisters in the faith; and preaching righteousness to our neighbors in the world. All of us perform a service in the art of knowing God,…. yet some have increasingly pursued the revision and contestation of the intricacies of salvation, reducing mercy to a mode of knowledge similar to rubbing gravestones in the history of the world. So regardless of the rub, we always get the object of our rub and on our own terms. The grace of our Lord reminds us of something higher…..
Isaiah 45:5-13 “I am the LORD, and there is no other; Besides Me there is no God. I will gird you, though you have not known Me; (6) That men may know from the rising to the setting of the sun That there is no one besides Me. I am the LORD, and there is no other, (7) The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the LORD who does all these. (8) “Drip down, O heavens, from above, And let the clouds pour down righteousness; Let the earth open up and salvation bear fruit, And righteousness spring up with it. I, the LORD, have created it. (9) “Woe to the one who quarrels with his Maker– An earthenware vessel among the vessels of earth! Will the clay say to the potter, ‘What are you doing?’ Or the thing you are making say, ‘He has no hands’? (10) “Woe to him who says to a father, ‘What are you begetting?’ Or to a woman, ‘To what are you giving birth?’” (11) Thus says the LORD, the Holy One of Israel, and his Maker: “Ask Me about the things to come concerning My sons, And you shall commit to Me the work of My hands. (12) “It is I who made the earth, and created man upon it. I stretched out the heavens with My hands And I ordained all their host. (13) “I have aroused him in righteousness And I will make all his ways smooth; He will build My city and will let My exiles go free, Without any payment or reward,” says the LORD of hosts.
Psalm 102:16-18 For the LORD has built up Zion; He has appeared in His glory. (17) He has regarded the prayer of the destitute And has not despised their prayer. (18) This will be written for the generation to come, That a people yet to be created may praise the LORD.
Unfortunately some have found a fascination with a “fourth person”. A Middle Man beyond the trinity of persons revealed in the Holy Scriptures, whether he is found embedded in the “assumption of counterfactuals” as made popular by those fascinated with Arminius and Molina, or as an assuming “means of grace” thrust upon the water in infant baptism by Calvin. Maybe it is our fallen nature living out loud against a backdrop of determined righteousness announced by God through Moses.
Genesis 3:14-15 The LORD God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this, Cursed are you more than all cattle, And more than every beast of the field; On your belly you will go, And dust you will eat All the days of your life; (15) And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel.”
In any event, the creator of all existence has announced to His creation a clear path that is forged in righteousness, livened by grace. It can be a path that is sometimes rarely realized and many times obscured by all of the theological clutter, while the same path is firm and unchanging nonetheless in God’s unchangeableness. There is no mystery left to understand why the world has not heard; with few workers in a white harvest. So is what we teach a clear and distinctive path where we find and hear an effective work of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, …..even as the fourth person takes our hand to manage our natural appetite for dimly lit roads and foggy meadows … a “middle man” to soothe the fear of peer rejection…..feeding the momentary appetite with vanishing joy, anger and an illusive unity.
So how are you doing as the “Man in the Middle”, or by using another “middle man” whether dead, alive, or theorized? Do you preach a gospel that is powerful, truthful, convicting and sweet, or do you share the “counterfactual man” relishing a play in the art of middle knowledge with a motive to win the war against those that hint at God knowing more of evil than we would like to think He knows?
The Apostle John, on the other hand, commands us to do something quite different as the Holy Spirit tunes a heart to know unity. Because we know the person of the Holy Spirit induces our understanding as we live with the King of Kings where unity it is not instrumentally confined to what we can make of it, moreover it is a unity that is provided for us to maintain; the essence of which is already perfect. We do not build “theological bridges” to pretend we love each other. We are called to maintain a perfect unity that the Holy Spirit has already provided before time began. A unity already perfected by the Spirit in this world demanding a response from the elect; either to fan the flames or to quench with neglect.
2 Timothy 1:6-7 For this reason I remind you to kindle afresh the gift of God which is in you through the laying on of my hands. (7) For God has not given us a spirit of timidity, but of power and love and discipline.
Unity does not rest upon the “foundational theories” of theology, but can be explained and taught by a theology hidden in truth. We are called to preserve (maintain) unity of the Spirit, which yields a higher solution than building bridges where no bridges are even really necessary. The cooperating Saints and churches within the SBC do not need bridge builders, we need to recognize love in our brothers and sisters that sit in our chair on Sunday and who walk in other buildings just down the street.
Ephesians 4:1-7 Therefore I, the prisoner of the Lord, implore you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling with which you have been called, (2) with all humility and gentleness, with patience, showing tolerance for one another in love, (3) being diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. (4) There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; (5) one Lord, one faith, one baptism, (6) one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all. (7) But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ’s gift.
As we walk worthily, it is not to construct well formed planks in the bridge of assumptive theological competition. It is to walk in the “calling with which you have been called”,… a perfect unity, forged in a impenetrable bond of peace, where tension (striving) ceases and a diligence to preserve an already perfect unity (through the person of the Holy Spirit) is woven into the pages of life where we can agree with the Apostle Paul as he writes instruction on how to elimate the middle man…..
Colossians 3:14-15 Beyond all these things put on love, which is the perfect bond of unity. (15) Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in one body; and be thankful.
Blessings,
Chris
After God questioned Job out of the whirl wind part of Job’s answer was, “Therefore I have uttered what I did not understand, Things too wonderful for me, which I did not know.” This statement comes to mind when trying to combine eternal truths with the mortal tongue.
When reading your post it seems that we mortals have a difficult time processing “kingdom truth” within our everyday-world way of thinking and processing information. We touch the eternal with mortal minds and cannot easily plot a course; at least not on paper or in any means of earthly communication we possess. We seem to have no problem with God being one and yet three at the same time or even knowing that God already knows what we need before we ask in prayer. I have thought about the unity of these issues, and others, and can only place their blending in the eternal arena. With capabilities of only seeing things based upon time and space we have a problem with the eternal aspect of what God says and does. In the eternal, and with the divine aspect there, I believe we will receive information differently. The language there will not have a beginning and end like ours in time and space. It will take what is conflicting to mortals and have a simultaneous blending affect. For instance, Calvin and Arminius show conflicting beliefs about salvation and both have supporting scripture. What is funny to me is that we split hairs on this subject and have no problem with the Trinity or Prayer. If it looks like God has conflicting aspects about Himself we should come to some reasonable conclusion that God works salvation similarly. Both ideas can exist simultaneously, but, only in the eternal. We, as mortals, have to see truth separately and focus on one or the other aspect at a time. When we place God on the mortal level and cannot combine both truths in salvation we may need to look for the whirl wind because God is not mocked. I believe we must say that God has chosen us from the foundation of the world plus nothing and minus nothing. I also believe we must say that we are totally responsible for finding and accepting what God has provided. Both separate and both active in salvation; simultaneously.
Great post. I hope I understood what you were saying.
Hey Brother Bruce,
Thanks for braving the wordy post. I think you did hear what I attempted to convey. The truth given to us by God concerning ‘Unity’ is very instructive in those that God has established peace and brought into fellowship with His Son. My main goal was to demonstrate that Godly men throughout the history of the SBC have changed the language of cooperating documents for a number of reasons based upon their understanding of God’s way of saving, yet those changes in language and the wrestling over theories are not the basis or foundation leading to unity. In other words, Unity is not derived by acceptance of a statement or confession…. Unity is “maintained” because it is our duty to obey the command to love one another. Confessions and statements, on the other hand, come and go relative to the strength of men…but Unity is constant and supernatural by the design and purpose of God.
Therefore when you say….“I believe we must say that God has chosen us from the foundation of the world plus nothing and minus nothing. I also believe we must say that we are totally responsible for finding and accepting what God has provided. Both separate and both active in salvation; simultaneously.” …. I will have little heartburn.
So then, obedience to maintain Unity becomes a sweet smelling savor to our brothers and sisters in Christ and a strong witness to our neighbors…..instead of a fight to see who gets to eat the middle of the oreo cookie :)
Blessings brother,
Chris
Chris,
Certainly, you must have foreknown that I would read this post, considering that your last post, “Arminius: Influencer of Separation” elicited a response from me as well.
Honestly, Chris, I found this post very difficult to follow. What exactly was your main point? There were several points made in this post, making it difficult to acknowledge your main thesis. Was your main point:
1 The Quest for Unity;
2 God’s Exhaustive Sovereignty vs. Free Will; or
3 Theological Influences, i.e. the “Middle Man” or “Fourth Person”?
I could not find a concrete thesis throughout the post. Yet, you made some excellent statements. I agree with you concerning the word “duty” versus “acceptance” or any other watered-down version of the initial intent in the BF&M. As a matter of fact, Arminius agrees with you. He wrote: “The First Part of our duty to God and Christ was the true meaning concerning God and Christ, or true faith in God and Christ: The Second Part is the right worship to be rendered to both of them” (Works, 2:445). Mankind has a duty to believe in Christ and worship God aright; a duty which they fail to perform due to depravity.
Arminius would not have approved of replacing that word or the concept behind it. And yet you admit: “These men (and women) [in the SBC] unashamedly follow the theories of Jacobus Arminius and his astounding logical functions which have supplied the influence and continuance of the theory of the assumptive complex worlds of the counterfactual. This influence, and the dependence on the categorical power of middle knowledge (scientia media) has necessarily formed the environment and ensuing word changes now present in the 1963 and 2000 version of the Baptist faith and message. The slight changes are certainly not heretical by any stretch while they allow for a ‘wider’ acceptance on the teaching of God’s sovereignty.”
How exactly does the relation of middle knowledge effect the word change from “duty” to “acceptance”? I did not see that laid out for us here in this post; especially given Arminius’s explicit use of the word in relation to faith in Christ and the right worship of God. Is your motive to somehow blame Arminius for the replacing of the word “duty”? And though Arminius in no wise formulated or expounded upon the Middle Knowledge view (he merely suggested that God is capable of knowing whatever can be known), would you then suggest that men in the SBC such as Dr. Ken Keathley (a proponent of Middle Knowledge) approve of such a watered-down version of “acceptance” vs. “duty” to Christ and to God? Or would you suggest that Dr. Keathley’s Middle Knowledge somehow denigrates God’s sovereignty? And if not, then neither can Arminius be blamed for such. The problem in the SBC is not Arminius’s theology – it is semi-Pelagianism (and there is a world of difference between semi-Pelagianism and Arminianism, quite to the contrary opinion of the likes of Packer, MacArthur, Sproul, Piper, et al.).
Since you took the liberty of delving into the theory of Middle Knowledge (to which I do not subscribe), I also assume that you read Arminius on the issue as well. His “On the Understanding of God” and “On the Will of God” are available to read online for free.
But how these views within the SBC are causing “contention and fainting unity” is beyond me. You state: “All of these words and explanations absorbed by highly regarded convention teachers have practically made for a wide tent within the SBC . . . yet a tent now revealing evidence of contention and fainting unity.” You made a statement but did not show exactly how this view was causing disunity. With all of the varying degrees of theological positions held within the SBC currently (e.g. Charismatic gifts or manifestations, Calvinism vs. Arminianism, the use of alcohol, women in ministry), I fail to see how Middle Knowledge is having any effect on its “unity.” And certainly, Arminius has had the least amount of effect in this area, since you yourself noted that Arminius was not the one who developed this theory, nor is he known for promoting it, to the degree that it would have such a profound affect on people in later generations.
Enter the “Immerging Middle Man,” as you put it: “Unfortunately some have found a fascination with a ‘fourth person’. A Middle Man beyond the trinity of persons revealed in the Holy Scriptures, whether he is found embedded in the ‘assumption of counterfactuals’ as made popular by those fascinated with Arminius and Molina, or as an assuming ‘means of grace’ thrust upon the water in infant baptism by Calvin. Maybe it is our fallen nature living out loud against a backdrop of determined righteousness announced by God through Moses.”
How exactly could Middle Knowledge be considered a separate entity by itself? In this theory, middle knowledge is God’s knowledge, not a fourth person. Again, as in your former post, you have failed in proving a theory of a fourth person in the godhead, as allegedly promoted by Arminius (or Molina for that matter).
Let us look at two short passages from Arminius in order to detect your fourth person. On the “Vocation of men to Salvation,” Arminius wrote: “We define Vocation a gracious act of God in Christ, by which, through His word and Spirit, He calls forth sinful men, who are liable to condemnation and placed under the dominion of sin, from the condition of the [natural] life, and from the pollutions and corruptions of this world . . . unto ‘the fellowship of Jesus Christ,’ and of His kingdom and it benefits; that, being united unto Him as their Head, they may derive from His life, sensation, motion, and a plentitude of every spiritual blessing, to the glory of God and their own salvation” (Works, 2:232).
No “fourth person” in that statement. Let us dig further. What could be the cause of man’s salvation. Is it his free will? Arminius wrote: “The Efficient Cause of this Vocation is God the Father in the Son. The Son Himself, as appointed by the Father to be the Mediator and the King of His church, calls men by the Holy Spirit; as He is the Spirit of God given to the Mediator; and as He is the Spirit of Christ the King and the Head of His church, by whom both ‘the Father and the Son hitherto work’ . . . But this Vocation is so administered by the Spirit, that the Holy Spirit is Himself its Effector” (Works, 2:232).
Again, no “fourth person” in that statement. As a matter of fact, what we find is three persons: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.
Chris, could you detail very plainly your exact point in this post? What exactly are you trying to get at, mentioning Arminius in this your second post? (Consequently, since the statement of faith at your church is Calvinistic, stemming from John Calvin, could not someone also accuse you and your church members of possessing a Middle Man, or a fourth person? And what of John Calvin’s middle man, Augustine? And what Augustine’s middle man? I look forward to reading your future posts on both Calvin’s and Augustine’s middle man, or fourth person.)
As far as unity in the SBC is concerned, my being Arminian has not yet caused any disunity with my Calvinist brothers and sisters in the SBC. The bridges that need to built are between those who make these issues first tier matters. Neither Calvinism nor Arminianism is the gospel – Jesus is the gospel! Both Calvinists and Arminians preach that humanity is full of sin, which is an offense to a holy God, and that only through faith in Jesus Christ can a person be reconciled to God – all of this which happens through the agency of the Holy Spirit (John 16:8-11). Simply put, there is no fourth person; there is no middle man. All we have is the Trinity: God in Three Persons (not four).
God bless you and your ministy.
Brother William,
My foreknowledge is extremely limited, :) …even when I look into a mirror I quickly forget what is ahead until a return to the truth.
As you included in your selection,…the foundation for the post was “unity” while the other themes can be seen as the antagonist. Very simply,….I believe that theories can play a huge role in how we teach and because theory (not fact) is based in assumptions, conflict will surface and the “conflict” can quickly become the foundation for the teaching.
Not too many men these days see their theory or their teachings based upon a theory as an antagonist to the truth. They assume that the theory helps us understand the truth. I’m not convinced of that as of yet….even though I thoroughly enjoy reading the various viewpoints.
From an SBC perspective…I would have hoped that Arminius, as a member of the SBC statement committee, would have fought hard to keep the language a bit more precise. But, I’m not certain that he would have if I am right about him being influenced by the path of middle knowledge. The point is that a theory like “middle knowledge – based in counterfactuals” does influence wording of statements…that is just human nature. Dr. Keathley and others that subscribe to the same Molinistic theory certainly will have influence as documents are produced. That doesn’t make him, Arminius, me, you or others heretical in my view…simply influenced in one way or another. I simply find it interesting that a “theory of middle knowledge” is so influencial.
I completely agree with you that Semi-Pelagianism is heretical and is a problem.
Disunity though,…comes from contention. What I have seen within the SBC during the last thirty five years are men ready to defend their theories, but not ready to submit to the Spirit’s unity. I long for the day in the SBC when men see theory for what it is and return to the pure word of truth. I believe that recognizing the influence and the contention caused by theory is important to understand and confront…..because unity will be faint and illusive as long as theory trumps truth in the minds of the teachers.
The following is an excellent question and statement in my opinion…..
“How exactly could Middle Knowledge be considered a separate entity by itself? In this theory, middle knowledge is God’s knowledge, not a fourth person. Again, as in your former post, you have failed in proving a theory of a fourth person in the godhead, as allegedly promoted by Arminius (or Molina for that matter).”
My response is that “Middle Knowledge” is simply a man-made container for how some think God works….so it remains a theory based upon its assumptions that are not proven as fact. That is why I consider it a “fourth person”. Not a fourth person of the godhead…. But, a fourth person of dependency for anyone subscribing to the theory. I am not saying that Molina or Arminius are calling for expanding the persons of the trinity. Yet this component of “Middle Knowledge” is simply an analogy at best and built upon a theory of counterfactuals. Maybe it can be proved in the future….but for now it falls into the category of theory.
Blessings,
Chris
Chris,
Thank you so much for clearing that up. I truly do appreciate it.
Now, are we to see the same types of posts in the future on Calvin or Augustine? Certainly, they too had theories which may or may not have corresponded with factual, provable truths (exhaustive determinism as opposed to foreknowledge of counterfactuals, limited atonement, unconditional election and reprobation, irresistible grace, etc). Singling out Arminius seemed to me as a bit much (or perhaps I am sensitive where he is concerned, having had to address so many fallacious statements about him or his teaching on the Internet, with students on campus at SEBTS, or even professors and pastors).
I also want to thank you for the tone with which you answer my objections. I sincerely cannot tell you how much that ministers to me, having interacted with some of the most nasty people on the Internet over the last few years.
Again, God bless.
Brother William,
I appreciate your willingness to dialogue on this…..
One of the things we hold to in our local body is captured in the introduction of our statements of faith….where we agree that
Any “Statement Of Faith” is potentially flawed in that it is constructed by fallen men. If, as our understanding of God’s Word matures, we need to correct our thinking, we shall modify this Statement if we can be absolutely sure that it will more accurately reflect what God has said in His Holy Scriptures.(1)
Because Christ has called His Church to be and to make disciples, it is necessary for His people to know and to teach what He has made known to us in His Word. And, because we belong to Him, He instructs us so that we should be free (2) both to be loyal to and comforted by Him, as well as to be His faithful ambassadors to a fallen and lost world.
(1) Acts 17:10,11 And the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea; and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily, to see whether these things were so.
(2) John 8:31,32 Jesus therefore was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, “If you abide in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”
You are also right to say that we should examine all men’s teachings to sift out theory from truth…..and yes Calvin has a “tub” full of problems in his systematic approach. It is always constructive to expose the theories though, so that the theory is not transposed into biblical doctrine that is taught to the Saints.
I hope your studies are going well…. and may God bless your ministry.
Blessings,
Chris
Leave your response!
Want your picture to show here? Get your own Gravatar!
Recent Posts
Most Commented
Hot Topics