Why I Am Concerned about Today's Non-Calvinist Movement

As those who know me or read this blog—all 3 of you!—know, Calvinism is something that I have wrestled with for several years. My position at this point is one that I call "tensionism," where I see both God's providence and mankind's responsibility as being in tension—but not contradiction—with one another. In other words, I see the tension here similar to how I see the Trinity. There is mystery here, there is tension here, but there is no contradiction. Hopefully I can follow these thoughts up later with another post.

My purpose in this post today might be somewhat controversial. I am writing as someone who has engaged with, and been a part of, the modern non-Calvinist movement for the past few years. I am writing as someone who appreciates many of the voices involved and as someone who thinks we need both Calvinist and non-Calvinist voices in theology to help us maintain a healthy balance. But I have seen some trends in contemporary non-Calvinism that concern me. I will not be talking here about those on the fringes, such as those who call Calvinists "demon-possessed" or any similar such foolishness. Rather, I will be addressing the mainstream of non-Calvinists. For the purposes of this post, I have identified 5 problematic tendencies, some of which I can speak to with more confidence than others, but all of which call for caution. 

First, I am concerned about the move towards Pelagian theology. Now, I want to be careful here. I do not think classical Arminianism is in anyway pelagian or semi-pelagian. Nor do I think most of the scholarly non-Calvinists in organizations such as the SBC are pelagian or semi-pelagian. However, I have read statements that unfortunately do border on such a problematic theology. I don't use that label to demonize someone, but simply as a shorthand to represent a belief system. Such a view of mankind is unbiblical and should be rejected. Now many non-Calvinists would never go this far—certainly no classical Arminian would. But the view is out there and it's not necessarily obscure.

Second, I am concerned about the rise of open theism. Open theism as it is defined today has been around for a couple of decades or so, although its roots go back further into older heresies. Open theism teaches that God does not know the future free decisions of creatures, either because they do not exist for him to know or because he limits his foreknowledge. Such an understanding is contrary to orthodoxy and, more importantly, to Scripture. It is an aberrant doctrine that we should flee from. Many good books have been written responding to open theism, but I'll recommend one in particular: Millard Erickson's What Does God Know and When Does He Know It?* If the choice comes down to hard-line 5 point Calvinism or open theism, I'll take Calvinism every day of the week and twice on the Sabbath. 

Third, I am troubled by the willingness to platform problematic teachers just because they are non-Calvinists. I have seen non-Calvinists whom I respect give a voice to open theists and pelagians simply because they agree on non-Calvinism. Brothers and sisters, we must have higher standards than that! Calvinists have lately been guilty of the same thing, in their case associating with heretics simply because they agree politically. But let's do better! We are—or should be!—far closer to our Calvinist brothers and sisters than to heretics or the heterodox! Let's unite over the essentials and not forget that Calvinism is not an essential doctrine, regardless of one's opinion on it! 

Fourth, I fret over the division caused by non-Calvinists. Folks, Calvinists do not have exclusive rights to causing division among Christians. Some non-Calvinists have become so vitriolic and passionate in their opposition to Calvinism that they end up dividing over the same doctrines they lament the Calvinists dividing over. We need to have unity in the essentials! Let's critique one another, but let's do so with a view to unity. We must oppose heresy, as I mentioned above, but we should have unity around essential orthodoxy. And please, let's stop both attacking the person who holds a different view, and let's stop misrepresenting what others believe.

Fifth and finally, I am troubled by non-Calvinists embracing the New Perspective on Paul. Now I want to say at the outset that I am in no way an expert on the NPP. But from what I know, it causes me some serious concerns. I do not believe it is inherently heretical, but I do believe it is problematic. (Again, I am open to clarification on this issue, as the discussions are quite complex and it is quite possible I am mistaken at points). I do not think non-Calvinism needs to associate with this movement and, at this point, I believe it would be healthier if it did not. 

These are just a few of my concerns about the current trajectory of non-Calvinism. Once again, my exhortation to all of us is to get in the Word and build our doctrine from there. 

Grace and peace,

Curtis 

*https://www.amazon.com/What-Does-Know-When-Foreknowledge-ebook/dp/B002SW8Y5Q/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=what+does+god+know+and+when+does+he+know+it&qid=1672871132&sprefix=what+does+God+know+and+%2Caps%2C748&sr=8-1

Funerals Are Not a Time for Rejoicing

I have preached a lot of funerals over the past year. Most were those of folks who were connected in some way with my church. One was for my uncle. All of them brought their own unique challenges, but all of them were opportunities to reflect both on the nature of mortality and the hope that is ours in Jesus Christ. 

    One statement that is common to hear, at least in Christian circles, is that people do not want their funeral to be a sad time, but rather a time of rejoicing. On the surface, this statement is admirable. This statement shows that the person has a confident faith in their eternal home with Jesus. This statement shows that the person wants their loved ones to have rest in Christ. But, ultimately, this desire betrays a misunderstanding of the biblical view of death and grief. 

    While Paul did indeed say, "For to me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain" (Phil 1:21 NKJV) and he did speak of "having a desire to depart and be with Christ, which is far better" (1:23), these are not the same thing as saying, "So celebrate when I die." There are two main problems with the view of "funerals as celebrations."

    First, the Bible views death as an enemy, not as a positive occasion. The basic text for this idea is found in 1 Cor 15:25–26, where Paul is discussing some of the events surrounding Jesus' return. He writes, "For He [Jesus] must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be destroyed is death." Death is an enemy, and is, in fact, seen as the ultimate enemy that Jesus will destroy upon his return. Later on in the same chapter, Paul will show how death now is "defanged" in Christ, having lost its former threat for those who believe (15:54–57). (See also Heb 2:14–15). 

    In fact, we see a similar picture in Revelation. After Jesus' return, after the Millennial Kingdom, and after the judgment upon unbelievers, we read: "Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death" (Rev 20:14). Death is here personified and shown as being destroyed along with the other enemies of God. Why? Because death is an enemy. 

    Second, the Bible recognizes the legitimacy and importance of grief. This topic could fill several books, so I will just mention a couple of examples. Paul, when speaking of Christ's return, writes, "But I do not want you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning those who have fallen asleep, lest you sorrow as others who have no hope" (1 Thess 4:13). This passage teaches us both that it is legitimate for us to sorrow over the death of loved ones (here, specifically, believers), and that our sorrow is different than those who do not know Jesus, because it is a sorrow shot through with hope. 

    Another key example of the legitimacy of sorrow is found in Acts 20. Paul has called the Ephesian elders to meet him at Miletus as he prepares to journey to Jerusalem. Paul makes clear that while he does not know the future, he believes he will never see these men again while alive. Let's look at the final paragraph of the passage: "And when he [Paul] had said these things, he knelt down and prayed with them all. Then they all wept freely, and fell on Paul's neck and kissed him, sorrowing most of all for the words which he spoke, that they would see his face no more" (Acts 20:36–38). Here we see the appropriateness of grief when it comes to earthly partings, of which death is the most significant. 

    I could go on and on. But I hope this brief blog post has helped you to reconsider viewing your own funeral as a time of rejoicing. If you know the Lord Jesus, then you should absolutely look forward to your eternity with him. But that does not mean that the grief of those who are left is not important and should not be experienced. Jesus wept at the death of a loved one, even though he knew he would shortly raise him from the dead (John 11:35). Death is an enemy. But, in our Lord Jesus Christ, it is a defeated enemy. 

(If you would like to know more about the hope that can be yours in Jesus, please let me know in the comments!) 

The SBC Scandal: A Few Thoughts

Like many of you, I am both saddened and horrified at the recently released report chronicling sexual abuse and subsequent cover-up in the SBC. My point in this post is just to get a few thoughts down on paper as we strive to pray for this situation and to be like our Lord in being a safe place for the vulnerable and abused. 

First, aspects of our polity seem to have been problematic in this regard. It seems to me that the Executive Committee has had too much power, at least in some ways. However, I am not sure what the answer to this issue is. I do not believe the NT is excessively precise on the ways to structure churches and denominations/conventions, but it does provide us with some key principles. It is also clear that simply having a more hierarchical structure will not solve the problem—examine the Roman Catholic scandals from a few years ago. 

Second, it is also clear to me that the culture of celebrity pastors and denominational "statesmen" needs to burn to the ground. Let's stop venerating one another and instead fix our eyes on Jesus. Sinners do not need stained glass windows of them, nor do they need buildings named after them. Men will fail us; Jesus never will.

Third, we must do better. We must be a safe place for everyone. To abuse anyone is so diametrically opposed to our Lord's character that it should boggle our mind that anyone could name the name of Christ and still engage in such heinous sins. Our churches and entities must take every step to protect others. 

Fourth, we must stress the Gospel. The Gospel is good news for the abused and the abuser. Even sexual abuse, as heinous as it is, is not beyond God's power to forgive in Christ. The pain and trauma experienced by the abused can also be healed at the cross. 

Fifth, we need to insist on maintaining a high character for our leaders. Those of us who are pastors should feel the weight of 1 Timothy 3 and the qualifications for elders we find there. Certain sins are disqualifying from ministry. We do not need to be quick to restore a fallen elder. Quick to forgive? Absolutely and every time. But that does not mean quick to restore to leadership.

Sixth, despite what some have suggested, the issue is not simply complementarianism vs. egalitarianism. As a (soft) complementarian, I find it unbelievable that those who share such belief would not feel strongly about protecting women and children. It is shameful. But I also would say that this debate is not at the core of our faith. Sexual abuse is a much bigger issue than technical debates about the roles of women in the church.

Finally, be encouraged. As I have seen written elsewhere, this scandal is not an SBC problem; it is a sin problem. We need to be encouraged that our messengers overwhelmingly supported waiving attorney-client privilege. We need to be encouraged by this fact. I believe our messengers will arrive in Anaheim ready to demand change. Let us pray and let us work for change. Let us demand better. But ultimately, let us find our hope in the Lord Jesus. 

The Question of Apostasy: A Plea for Rapprochement

One of the saddest realities facing us as believers is when those who profess Christ turn their back on him, seemingly forever. We usually call such defection "apostasy." We can see it happening all around us, on a scale I am not sure we've seen before. But my object in this post is not to lament this occurrence, although we should indeed do that. My point is more a theological question. 

    We all recognize apostasy. But we cannot wrestle with the subject without broaching the question of whether or not salvation can be lost. Traditionally, those of a Calvinist persuasion would say "no," and would view apostasy as those who were never truly saved abandoning the faith they merely professed. Those of Arminian persuasion would typically, though not always, say that at least some apostates were genuine believers who abandoned the faith and became lost. These people are not lost because they happened to sin too much, but because they completely abandoned the faith.* 

    These two positions—the classic Calvinist position that says true believers will in fact persevere, and the classic Arminian position that says that someone can choose to fully and finally abandon the faith—may be thought as occupying two positions on the middle of the spectrum. Others go further. Some have suggested that believers can lose their salvation because of sin, perhaps unconfessed sin, and then need to be born again again. Others, particularly those who zealously shout "Once saved, always saved," have taught that someone who believes remains saved even if they completely walk away from the faith. I would argue that both of these extremes are unbalanced and unbiblical. The only valid options for us are the two in the middle—the classic Calvinist and the classic Arminian positions. 

    I myself, while not claiming Calvinism in all its details, embrace the former option. I believe that true believers will persevere and that those who turn their back fully and finally on Jesus were never actually saved to begin with. That being said, I can understand how those of a classic Arminian persuasion arrive at their position, as well. Because I can understand their position, I'd like to suggest a potential avenue for rapprochement between these two middle positions. 

    The bottom line is that both positions end up arguing for similar things. Both positions say that those who fully and finally turn their back are not saved. Both positions say that true believers are secure. That is, those who are trusting in Jesus and persevering in the faith are secure. Those who are insensitive to sin and are wandering away from Jesus must be concerned about their eternal state. In issues of pastoral counseling, both positions will treat such a person as potentially an unbeliever who needs salvation. And none of us would declare the person beyond hope of repentance. Only our Lord knows that. 

    So, at the end of the day, why can we not have more unity on this question and even leave it open-ended in terms of fellowship? Those with different positions on election can worship and serve together; why not those with different positions on apostasy? Of course, those who believe you can simply "lose" your salvation through sin and those who think that even full-on apostasy does not jeopardize your eternal standing will not be able to fellowship beyond a certain point. But those of us who hold more moderating and biblical positions should be able to attain greater unity than has historically been the case. At least, those are my current thoughts on the matter. At any rate, let us pray and combat the rising tide of apostasy, and "let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God" (Hebrews 12:1–2 ESV).

*Interestingly, Arminius himself might be an exception. While he's famous for saying that he was agnostic on the matter, he also seemed to believe that David lost his salvation after the incident with Bathsheba and Uriah and would have died reprobate had Nathan not moved him to confession and repentance. See Keith D. Stanglin and Thomas H. McCall, Jacob Arminius: Theologian of Grace (New York: Oxford, 2012). 

A Challenge from Ajith Fernando

I just finished reading a truly excellent book by Ajith Fernando entitled Jesus Driven Ministry. If you are in ministry in any role and in any capacity, you should definitely read this book. It's helpful, challenging, and encouraging. Most importantly, it is steadfastly biblical. 

    Fernando has many helpful things to say throughout the book, but I wanted to highlight one particularly poignant section. In his chapter on "Ministering to the Sick and Demon-Possessed," he shares the following insights:

    "We are seeing more and more people today who are moving to churches 'where they feel most comfortable.' When did comfort become such a high value in ministry and church life? Was it when we left the path of biblical Christianity? The gospel is too radical and the needs of the world too urgent for us to ever be comfortable! But many Christians today have come to think that a major goal of the church is to entertain people and supply them with services that they want, such as a good youth program or music program. In such an environment, we are going to see people moving to churches where they are comfortable. The result will be that churches are going to miss out on some vital sources of enrichment through discomfort. They will become unhealthy by missing out on biblical wholeness. Biblical churches always are uncomfortable places because they are always looking for biblical wholeness."

As someone who has a sinful tendency to idealize comfort, I find this challenge convicting. I also find it encouraging, because it shows us that the goal is not to please people but to please God. And thankfully he is a patient and forgiving God! May we take Fernando's words, based as they are upon Scripture, to heart. 

The quote is from Ajith Fernando, Jesus Driven Ministry (Wheaton: Crossway, 2002), 197.

Forgetting, Reaching Forward, and Pressing Toward

 “Not that I have already attained [the resurrection of the dead], or am already perfected; but I press on, that I may lay hold of that for which Christ Jesus has also laid hold of me. Brethren, I do not count myself to have apprehended; but one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind and reaching forward to those things which are ahead, I press toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus” (Phil 3:12–14 NKJV). 

            Brothers and sisters, Happy New Year! As we begin another year filled with uncertainty, I wanted to take a moment to reflect on things that are certain—the goodness of God, the promise of God, and the Word of God. As we reflect on the truths of Christ, may He guide us in following Him more closely this next year.

            Let’s be honest. Most of us tend to make New Years resolutions without really intending to passionately pursue such resolutions. Or, if we do have such strong intentions, we still only manage to fulfill our resolutions for a few weeks at most. 

Now, there’s nothing wrong with making resolutions. Furthermore, we do not need to necessarily feel guilty for failing to meet our resolutions—depending on what they are, of course! I have made silly resolutions in the past, as well as “noble” resolutions. My record of resolution-keeping is hardly exemplary. But that hasn’t stopped me from making a resolution for this year, involving a spiritual pursuit. Nevertheless, my point in this message is not to direct anyone to make specific resolutions that aren’t found in Scripture.

As I mentioned above, I believe that the only hope for another uncertain year is to cling to the bedrock of Christ. We need to dive into His Word and hold fast. As Paul writes in Phil 3:12–14, we need to do three things. If a specific resolution helps you pursue what Paul discusses, then by all means go for it! But the most important thing is what the Lord has shown us in His Word. 

First, Paul shows us by his example to forget. Obviously, we will remember the past. But we are not to dwell on the past. We are not to constantly look back, either regretfully or fondly, at our life before Christ. Nor are we to fall into the trap of thinking that all of God’s great work lies in the past! A.W. Tozer said, “The man who is constantly reciting the evils of his unconverted days is looking in the wrong direction. He is like a man trying to run a race while looking back over his shoulder.” (A.W. Tozer, in The Alliance Weekly/Witness, 1960). And see the principle set forth in Isaiah 43:18–19: “Do not remember the former things, nor consider the things of old. Behold, I will do a new thing, now it shall spring forth; shall you not know it? I will even make a road in the wilderness and rivers in the desert.” We do not dwell on the past, but look to the future, because God is still at work! 

But we don’t merely forget. Second, Paul says that we are to “reach forward.” Brothers and sisters, we are to set our minds on things above, where Christ is (Colossians 3:1–4). We are to look to Christ, looking forward to what He will do in and through us, and to our eternal future with Him! We keep 1 John 3:2 before us: “Beloved, now we are children of God; and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is.” Look to Christ and look to eternity!

Finally, Paul tells us to “press toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.” Brothers and sisters, we have eternity with the Lord ahead of us. Let us live in light of this truth and aim to please God in whatever we do! We do not do this to try and earn God’s acceptance, for we already have that if we are in Christ! But out of love for God, we press on for His glory! 

My prayer for us all is that we would live for Christ more and more in this New Year, showing Him to everyone we encounter. Let us rest in the Good News of Jesus—that we are accepted, loved, and saved by God’s grace alone, not anything we do—including keeping resolutions! But in light of the grace of God, let us press forward to more and more Christlikeness! 

Confessions of a Bible Translation Geek

I love Bible translations. It has only been in the past few years that I've stopped my quest to own every single English translation that arrives on the scene—much to the delight of my wife! I've studied various translations for years and I find it a fascinating subject. 

    I myself have utilized several translations in my ministry. (Primarily the NASB, ESV, CSB, NKJV). I have migrated most of my ministry over to the NKJV, because I prefer the Byzantine textual tradition. I really like the way the CSB reads and I like the NASB's transparency to the underlying Hebrew and Greek. We are abundantly blessed to have so many excellent translations, including several that I did not mention here. 

    But enough is enough. We do not need more translations into English, at least not at this point. (I might make an exception for a translation based on the Majority Text that has the backing of a major Bible publisher, but I digress). While language does change, it does change every year to the point that we need a new translation every few months! We also don't need more and more editions of the Bibles we have. Why not spend our efforts and resources doing three things?

    First, why not content ourselves with updating the current translations every decade or so as they need it? These changes can be minor and shouldn't necessarily make the translation feel completely different to its readers. 

    Second, why not spend our money and effort at getting Scripture into the hands of those who do not have a translation in their language? We can support organizations like Wycliffe and perhaps even see if we can get directly involved somehow. 

    Finally, why not insist our pastors and teachers dive deeper into Hebrew and Greek? I'm certainly not perfect in this regard, but I think it's an admirable goal. We as pastors don't have to be experts in the languages, but we should be making an effort to improve our skills so that we are "correctly teaching the word of truth" (2 Tim 2:15 CSB). I'm auditing a class on Advanced Greek Grammar with David Alan Black at the moment and it's really driving this home to me, including showing me how very much I still have to learn! There are many resources out there that can help us persevere in language study. 

    Brothers and sisters, let us long to see God's Word in the hands of all people in their own language. Let's divert resources from making more English translations to making more for those who need it. 

soli Deo gloria