This blog has moved

This blog is now located at http://scotts_blog.sstarker.org/.
You will be automatically redirected in 30 seconds, or you may click here.

For feed subscribers, please update your feed subscriptions to
http://scotts_blog.sstarker.org/feeds/posts/default.

Calvinism verses Arminianism

In college just after I became a Christian I was in New Jersey for an evangelism/discipleship summer project. It was at that time that I learned about Calvinism from a brother in Christ. He explained a lot of things which I didn’t agree with. I couldn’t understand why everything that was done was by the will of God! I couldn’t understand how the thoughts in my mind would be the will of God—even sin which God hates! I couldn’t understand how I wouldn’t have the freedom to do something I wanted to! Calvinism was going totally against my thinking. I was so upset by that that I was rude to that brother (of which I apologize). I made a long distant call to a good friend of mine and he defined the other end of the spectrum—Arminianism. Of course, I knew that I was an Arminian. God wasn’t able to do his will at times. God didn’t put everything in my mind, especially not the sin which he hates. I have the freedom of will to do anything I want to do.

A few years after I graduated from college I went to Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (TEDS). Among other positions the professors were both Calvinists and Arminians. One of the points of my seminary education was (I think it came from a student) you cannot sit on the fence… you either had to be a Calvinist or an Arminian. I graduated from TEDS with my MDiv. One of the other things bestowed upon me from seminary was that I was more firmly an Arminian.

A number of years ago I was reading several commentaries when I realized that Calvinism and Arminianism were simply philosophies by men and not the written Word of God. Huh… As an Arminian, I would have to preach on the Arminian passages and skip the Calvinist passages. And, if I were a Calvinist I would have to preach on the Calvinist passages and skip the Arminian passages. In other words, I would preach through “half” of the Word of God!

Then I read the doctoral dissertation by D. A. Carson (a Research Professor of New Testament at TEDS and one of my favorite authors/teachers/preachers) called Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility and the subtitle Biblical Perspectives in Tension. He examines the Old Testament, intertestamental literature and the gospel of John. With Scripture (not philosophy) the book opened my eyes. I was not “sitting on the fence” when you are hard at work really examining Calvinism verses Arminianism. God is God. His Word is correct. He can do anything that is possible. One of these things is there is not as contradiction between Divine sovereignty and human responsibility (free will¹). However, I’m not able to say what that is! I don’t know of anybody who can!

This can be seen all over the Bible. For example, a Calvinist passage would be Eph. 1:4b-12 "...even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love ⁵ he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, ⁶ to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. ⁷ In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, ⁸ which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight ⁹ making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ ¹⁰ as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth. ¹¹ In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, ¹² so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory." And, immediately following that an Arminian passage would be Eph. 1:13-14 "In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, ¹⁴ who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory." One can see God's sovereignty right next to human responsibility in these verses without any equivocation!

So, I’m neither a Calvinist nor an Arminian for I do not adhere to a philosophy of man, like I had done previously, but to the Word of God. When God says it I believe it even if he indicates that there is no distinction between Divine sovereignty and human free will.

²⁵ "To whom will you compare me? Or who is my equal?" says the Holy One. ²⁶ Lift your eyes and look to the heavens: Who created all these? He who brings out the starry host one by one, and calls them each by name. Because of his great power and mighty strength, not one of them is missing. ²⁷ Why do you say, O Jacob, and complain, O Israel, "My way is hidden from the LORD; my cause is disregarded by my God"? ²⁸ Do you not know? Have you not heard? The LORD is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. He will not grow tired or weary, and his understanding no one can fathom. (Isa 40:25-28 NIV)

____________________
¹ Carson says that “free will” equals “free agency” which I don’t think it is. “The conclusion drawn is that ‘God’s control is absolute in the sense that men do only that which he ordained that they should do; yet they are truly free agents in the sense that their decisions are their own, and they are morally responsible for them.’ [J. I. Packer]”. p. 207.

Take Out the Word "Baptist"?

It is not just the word “Baptist”, in spite of all of the negative criticism about having the word “Baptist” in our name (the big scandal of the Baptist Foundation over money, etc.), the word “Baptist” has a whole history behind it.

I grew up as a “Lutheran” until I became a Christian my first year in college. I did not know what the gospel was until I heard it from a guy in college. After I decided to become a true follower of Jesus, I no longer wanted to attend a Lutheran church because, as far as I knew, the gospel wasn’t being preached there. Being a new believer I knew I had to find a Bible-believing church. And, I did not want to attend a church with a name like “Streams in the Desert” without the denomination as part of the church’s name (I am using the word “denomination” very loosely. See below.). It could, in fact, have been a Lutheran church! It could also have been a cult. I deliberately chose a church based on the name of the denomination (although it wasn’t a Baptist church) that was found within the church’s name. That was extremely important to me and still is.

“Conservative” Baptists can usually be expected to accept non-infant Baptism, Holy Communion as “symbolism” (instead of transubstantiation, consubstantiation, etc.), inerrancy of the Bible, Genesis creation, the Trinity, the virgin birth, perfect life and substitutionary atonement of Christ, and His literal return, the work of the Holy Spirit in our lives, etc. But, sadly, all churches do not believe in these things.

Someone once said history is so important because you can't know where you're going unless you know where you've been. Thomas Helwys, the first Baptist pastor in England in the early 1600s, who directly challenged the authority of the king of England to deny religious freedom to English citizens, spent the rest of his life in prison for his faith where he died as a martyr. In 1612, Edward Wightman, a Baptist, perished at the stake in England. In 1644, Mr. Painter, a Baptist from Boston, was the first one to be tested by public whipping. In 1651, Obadiah Holmes, who became a Baptist in 1648, was the second to sufferer in the same cruel manner. There were many, many Baptists who were martyrs for our faith. When you are faced with the potential of being martyred for your faith remember the Baptist martyrs before you! These are some of the things the word “Baptist” in our church’s name means. Leaving the word “Baptist” in our church’s name means learning and preserving our “Baptist” history and, in the future, children, grand children, great-grand children, etc. will do the same (or already have done).

I was talking to someone who said that there are too many different types of Baptist churches: Arminian, Calvinist, etc. There are currently more than 50 denominations of Baptists in North America. But, the Baptist history and basic theological distinctions are still there (see above). Similarly, there are 36 different types of Lutheran synods in North America. The churches that have the word “Lutheran” in the names include the word "Lutheran" without reference to the particular synod they not belong to. There remains that history and basic theological distinction that they can embrace and they show it in the name of the churches.

The history of life of our church body has had positive influences on us. We are experiencing the fruit of prayerful labor and faithful stewardship of a body of strong believers in our Baptist church. The Elders have prayerfully guided us to make an extraordinary move from this neighborhood to that neighborhood, remaining true to the vision of our Baptist church. You have taken us back in the history of our church and we have seen that there were those at least a generation ago who knew the church would move even before it had happened! The history of our church is related to the history of the Baptist church. If you have not had the opportunity, perhaps now might be a good time to read up on Baptist history. You might not consider pulling out the word “Baptist” form our church's name.

Almost all churches have principles shared by other churches. This is what I term to be a denomination. All of the churches should bear the denomination they are associated with in the name of the church. Denominations are not sinful. That is they basically say what a church believes in. I know of a guy that works for Wycliffe Bible Translators. As a non-denominational organization his members attend a variety of churches—Lutherans (yes, some of them are Christians!), Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, Assemblies of God, Evangelical Free Churches, Evangelical Covenant Churches, Brethren Church, etc. But, he knows of a few denominations that he would not want to personally attend a church not because he dislike the people he works with for he loves them but because he has a problem with the denomination of their churches.

If you were to say that, just as a pastor has said to me, the pastor in the assembled congregation is the means for any non-Christians to put their faith in Christ. Therefore, it is necessary for the church to change its name. But, contra the “seeker-friendly” churches, etc., I don’t believe this to be the case. The pastor has nothing to do with non-Christians becoming Christians inside the church. Rather, it is the Christians telling non-Christians the gospel outside of the church. Take a look at the letter of the Ephesians. The latter half of the letter Paul is writing, more or less, about the good things that Christians should be doing. In Eph. 4:7 Paul says that Christ has given each one of us gifts. In Eph. 4:11–12 Paul says, “And he gave the apostles (gift number 1), the prophets (gift number 2), the evangelists (gift number 3), the shepherds and teachers (gift number 4 or 4 and 5), to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ…” Although “pastor” isn’t in the Greek texts of the New Testament the words “shepherd and teacher” applies to pastors. The gifts of “shepherds and teachers” are “to equip the saints” (i.e., Christians who go outside of the congregation to witness of the love of God) “for the work of ministry” (including sharing the gospel) and, in effect, “for building up the body of Christ…” (i.e., raising up new disciples and allowing them to grow). It doesn’t say anything about “shepherds and teachers” who go outside of the congregation and witness of the love of God—only the “saints” (i.e., all of us as Christians).

All of this is why I want the denomination of the church in our name.

Respectfully,

Scott Starker

Missions equals Evangelism?

The word "missions" is not in the Bible so I can understand how somebody could disagree with somebody else about what it means. The difference between missions and evangelism is not semantics. When I became a Christian in college I was with Campus Crusade for Christ. We had worship every Thursday night, training about sharing your faith, speakers to be brought in to the campus (Josh McDowell, etc.), sharing you faith, going on trips to Florida on Spring Break to share your faith, going on a summer project in Ocean City, NJ, again, to share your faith. Everything I did was called evangelism and wasn't called missions.

Take a look at the book called, "Perspectives on the World Christian Movement". (Perspectives is a "class" that meets weekly for 12 weeks all over the country. In Arizona the courses are called "Pathways".) There are many books about missions both in biographies and non-fiction. This is a basic book and if I were to teach a class on "Missions" I would use parts of this book (as well as other books). My book was published in 1981. Chapter 32 was written by Ralph D. Winter. It's called "The Task Remaining: All Humanity in Mission Perspective". We are all involved in evangelism--that includes missionaries. If you where to read the section called "Evangelism and Missions" you'll get a better picture of what I am trying to say. There is a rating for evangelism: E0, E1, E2 and E3. E2 and E3 means going across cultures, learning a language, etc. E2 and E3 describe "missions" and the people who do it are called "missionaries".

One can say, "I'm going downtown to the homeless people and do evangelism down there. I'm going to learn their language and a culture that's not my own. Therefore, I'm a missionary." To answer that question I would say I remember back in the 70s when "CB"-talk (Citizen Band radio) was quite common (breaker 1-9, breaker 1-9, what's your 10-20?, etc.). I believe it still exists today primarily among truck drivers. Paula's uncle (and some cousins) drive trucks. We get along with them real well. Their "truck driver lingo" doesn't affect me at all when I ask them "Where are you at?". I would not consider myself as learning another language or learning another culture just to share my faith with them. (Although, once a person becomes a Christian they have a tendency to want to return to the same place where you were saved from and share your faith.) Our daughter is getting to the age of "texting"-talk when you use abbreviations and numbers for words. But she still understands "Go do your homework!". They use a different "lingo" rather than another language and culture. Therefore, the person whose going downtown to the homeless people to do evangelism is not a missionary.

Evangelism is something that all Christians are to do. A missionary is a person who normal travels out of the country, learns another language, lives in another culture, on foreign land, etc. to do evangelism; i.e. share the Good News about Jesus!

The difference between missions and evangelism is not semantics. One of the reasons is that the budget of the church requires that you make a distinction between missions and evangelism. We've got to keep the money we spend on missions separate from the money that we spend on just evangelism. Therefore, the money that we spend on missions will increase because the missions budget amount will increase, as well. I'm reminded of the verses found in Rev. 7:9-10 that say, "After this I looked, and behold, a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands, 10 and crying out with a loud voice, "Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!"". Now that's missions!

The meaning of Ephesians 5:18: "...be filled with the Spirit..."

What Paul says in Eph. 5:18 "...be filled with the Spirit..." is a command. If we are truly a Christian we must obey it. But, it is possible to disobey this command too. The question is, "How do we obey this?" Verses 19-21 are built around five participles (“speaking”, “singing”, “making music”, “giving thanks” and “submitting”) following the imperative verb "be filled" (in Greek it's plerousthe) in verse 18. Each participle has a function describing how it is used in the sentence. The question that we need to ask is how are these participles related to the verb plerousthe of verse 18? First, they could be imperatival and function simply as imperatives in their own phrases. This is possible because many translations reflect this interpretation. Second, they could be adverbial under which there are numerous sub-types:

• instrumental/modal—“be filled by speaking...”
• telic/purposive/result—“be filled in order to or and so speak...”
• or circumstantial/concomitant—“as you are filled also speak...”
• or a combination of sub-types

If the participles are taken as instrumental/modal then Paul has in fact told us how to be filled with the Spirit. This, however, does not seem likely because it is hard to see how an imperative verb could be followed by five modal participles (five ways of doing something). On the other hand, the imperatival force is not lost if the participles are taken as concomitant (attendant circumstances).

I found no author who really discusses this issue. In a private discussion with Dr. M. J. Harris, he offers the suggestion that the participles function as both telic and concomitant. He suggests that there exists aspects of each: the actions described by the participles are both simultaneous (not subsequent) to and the results of being filled. If this is indeed the case then Paul is offering some solid objective evidences for the fullness of the Spirit. If they have the function of "by" or "through" these participles show us "how" to be filled with the Spirit. But, this has the wrong idea of "be filled with the Spirit". The Spirit here means the "Holy Spirit". The Holy Spirit is a person. The person is God himself. I don't know how you can be filled with the person of the Holy Spirit by "...addressing one another...", "...singing and making melody...", "...giving thanks..." and "...submitting to one another...". Thus, the function of the participles mean "simultaneous to and as the result of being filled with the Holy Spirit".

But the function of these participles is not modal ("by" or "through") so, once again, how do you be filled with the Spirit? The first part of verse 18 has to go with the second part of the verse--"...do not get drunk with wine...". It is the filling of wine contrasted to the filling of the Spirit. Do not be filled with wine but by the Holy Spirit. If we remember that the Holy Spirit is a person "being filled" means to let the person of the Holy Spirit repeatedly and constantly infiltrate you with intangible qualities and be overly-supplied by him. "...addressing one another...", "...singing and making melody...", "...giving thanks..." and "...submitting to one another..." inherently comes simultaneous to and as the result of being filled with the Holy Spirit.

This is important because "how to be filled with the Spirit" is defined. And that will be part of my book, Be Holy.

My first entry!

Greetings! This is my very first blog entry. I would like this blog to contain parts of my book, Be Holy, and my thoughts on things. And, of course, may God be the glory forever!