Dumb And Dumber 2 Starring Ed Young Jr.

My old rugby league coach used to call an act of inexplicable stupidity on the sporting field a "brain explosion". I think he would have to ratchet that phrase up several notches to describe the recent "rant" by Ed Young Jr. against Calvinism. This may well be dumber than anything I have ever heard Jesse Duplantis say. "Not possible" I hear you say? Your skepticism is entirely understandable but wrong nonetheless . . .





Calvinism is clearly in the firing line right now. But why would any Arminian need an enemy when you have someone as unqualified and incompetent as Ed Young fighting for your cause?

In all fairness to "Pastor Ed", when your schedule is packed with providing fashion tips for pastors, producing bad rap music for sensitive seekers, scouring the world for superficial novelties to amuse undiscerning church goers, and polishing your private jet; it is entirely understandable why he cannot find the time to make an appointment with a Bible. And having such "creative flair" would certainly seem to eliminate the need for such an old book.

But it is hard to hide your stupidity when you get something wrong on so many levels. This is full of so many errors, straw men, delusions of grandeur, and false accusations I just don't know where to begin. Reformed theology is about digging wells in Africa? Phariseticalism? Calvinists have built in election detectors? Calvinism is sexy and cool? Has RC Sproul been getting around in skinny jeans? Well at least Ed can speak with a great deal of authority about "deformed ecclesiology" as he is certainly an expert in that field. I do have James White's phone number - why don't you give him a call Ed so you can straighten him out on all that Hebrew and Greek stuff you know so much about? Nonetheless there is one question that does intrigue me concerning this whole Ed Young brain explosion on steroids. As the Calvinist debate takes front and center stage in the Southern Baptist Convention and since Ed Young Jr. is a part of that convention - will he be disciplined by the SBC for using the pulpit for lying and slandering? Just wondering . . .

PS In a desperate attempt to defend the ridiculous claims he made, Ed Young Jr. has just submitted what he calls "Exhibit A"

John Macarthur's Journey Through The Calvin Arminian Divide

John Macarthur is categorized as a Calvinist but prefers to call himself a biblicist. Here are some wise words from Dr. Macarthur during a Q&A session:

One of the benefits that I had, is I grew up in an environment where my dad was the preacher and it was basically a Baptist kind of environment. And what I learned growing up was sort of a middle ground. In my upbringing, we didn’t like the Calvinists and we didn’t like the Arminians; we sort of had that Baptist middle ground. That’s probably what a lot of you…you grew in the same kind of environment. You didn’t talk about predestination or election--that was kind of a frightening thing and that was for dead Presbyterians, and there were only about 30 of them in the whole city of Los Angeles--at the time, and they were over in a room somewhere contemplating their navel and reading John Calvin. You know, it was very introspective and they were thrilled with their theology, but they were a small little group and we weren’t into that.

I went away to college and essentially I went to two colleges, the roots of which were both Methodist. So, they were steeped in Arminian theology. One was sort of a Revivalist environment, and the other was a more traditional Wesleyan environment, where we read Wiley and Miley and all of that, and we had to imbibe all of this Arminian theology. I got out of that; I went to a seminary that had Presbyterian influences. So, I went from the Arminian kind of side to the Reformed side, and there I was in the middle of this mix and I just decided I’d go to the Bible and find out what the Bible said. I think, in a sense, all of that experience sort of canceled each other out, which was good for me, and I went back to the Word of God and in the Word of God, without all the presuppositions cast in stone, I was able to let the Bible speak. Through the years, the Bible I believe speaks very clearly about what the truth is.

But, I think if people could divest themselves of their presuppositions and if they could be willing to eat a little humble pie and say, “It’s possible that I might be wrong,” and take another hard look at the Word of God, they would come to the right answers. It’s a very simple point to make, and it is this: if two people take two opposing views of something, they cannot both be right. Somebody is wrong. And it’s not us, right? Well, I mean, I don’t say that in a proud way. I just believe that we are where we are because we believe this is true.

As many of us immerse ourselves in this debate, we would do well to immerse ourselves in Scripture and abandon the turbulant sea of subjective emotionalism of taking a side based on studying the behavior of advocates from either side. I was once rebuked by someone I found to be obnoxious - and with good reason. By the grace of God I managed to evaluate his rebuke in the light of Scripture rather than his behavior. Good thing too - because he was right!

When Not To Be Divisive

There's a lot of heat out there in the evangelical world right now over the centuries old debate between Calvinism and Arminianism. So much could be said about this and how foolish would I be to think that I could resolve the conflict. If you want to hear a strong case for each side of the debate then I recommend Robert Shanks's book Life In The Son for the Arminian case and John Macarthur's teaching series The Doctrines Of Grace for an overview of Calvinistic theology.

My post today is intended to be of a more conciliatory nature. The assaults on the Gospel in this present day demand that true believers don't end up shooting at the wrong targets. Consider the following conversation (paraphrased by John Piper) that occurred in the 18th century between Calvinist Charles Simeon and Arminian John Wesley. The conversation is instructive about how we should deal with people we disagree with, and about how sometimes moderates from both sides of a theological debate are closer than we realise.

Charles Simeon - Sir, I understand that you are called an Arminian; and I have been sometimes called a Calvinist; and therefore I suppose we are to draw daggers. But before I consent to begin the combat, with your permission I will ask you a few questions. Pray, Sir, do you feel yourself a depraved creature, so depraved that you would never have thought of turning to God, if God had not first put it into your heart?

John Wesley - Yes, I do indeed.

Charles Simeon - And do you utterly despair of recommending yourself to God by anything you can do; and look for salvation solely through the blood and righteousness of Christ?

John Wesley - Yes, solely through Christ.

Charles Simeon - But, Sir, supposing you were at first saved by Christ, are you not somehow or other to save yourself afterwards by your own works?

John Wesley - No, I must be saved by Christ from first to last.

Charles Simeon - Allowing, then, that you were first turned by the grace of God, are you not in some way or other to keep yourself by your own power?

John Wesley - No.

Charles Simeon - What then, are you to be upheld every hour and every moment by God, as much as an infant in its mother’s arms?

John Wesley - Yes, altogether.

Charles Simeon - And is all your hope in the grace and mercy of God to preserve you unto His heavenly kingdom?

John Wesley - Yes, I have no hope but in Him.

Charles Simeon - Then, Sir, with your leave I will put up my dagger again; for this is all my Calvinism; this is my election, my justification by faith, my final perseverance: it is in substance all that I hold, and as I hold it; and therefore, if you please, instead of searching out terms and phrases to be a ground of contention between us, we will cordially unite in those things wherein we agree.

Now this conciliatory approach in no way suggests compromising the Gospel. The Gospel is the good news of Jesus Christ. The good news is that the Holy Just, Righteous, and Loving God created man. Man rebelled and all of humanity has the sin nature. People are radically depraved and exceedingly sinful. They hate God and are deserving of His wrath and eternal condemnation. God's character demands that he must judge and punish all sin to meet the requirements of His justice. But to demonstrate His great love He sent His Son, fully God/fully man to fulfill the requirements of His law and then die under the punishment of God's Holy Wrath in the place of sinners. That the sins of the sinner would be imputed to Christ's account, and the rightoeusness of Christ would be imputed to the sinner's account. God now calls on all men everywhere to repent from sin and put their trust in Christ that they might be saved from the wrath to come. This is the major theme woven throughout the whole of Scripture - God's plan of redemption and being glorified by saving sinners. Many Arminians and Calvinists would preach this Gospel side by side.

I have been mailed by the odd angry Arminian and the odd hyper Calvinist only to hear them rail about the twisting of Scripture in the "opposing camp". But church history is littered with genuine Christian scholars who practised sound hermeneutical principles and yet arrived at different conclusions on difficult points of theology. Good theology involves harmonizing all of God's Word and that has proven difficult throughout church history on the issue of Calvinism v Arminianism. God speaks of predestining every soul and knows all the names written in the Lamb's book of life, yet He takes no delight in the destruction of the wicked desiring that he would repent. Repentance is a gift from God and yet God holds all men accountable to repent of their wickedness. These truths coexist in Scripture. We should be comforted in the knowledge that God can resolve what is beyond our grasp. All who are saved see the scarlet thread of redemption woven through the entirity of Scripture, but to scale the heights of God's election and man's responsibility is to search out the unsearchable - we all look into this glass darkly. There are tensions in Scripture that are beyond human understanding and different scholars throughout church history have developed theology that attempts to reconcile these tensions. We need to have the grace to recognize that no two people agree on every single point of doctrine and that we can live and serve God within that tension.

There are doctrines that are so important salvation depends on them (these are life and death and must be fought at all costs).

There are doctrines that cause us to fellowship at different local churches but we still extend the hand of fellowship to our genuinely born again brothers who differ on these doctrines.

There are also doctrines which we can differ on but still attend the same fellowship and sit down and lovingly reason from the Scriptures.

Please be big enough to do that for the sake of Christ's great Name and the furtherance of His glorious Gospel.

Southern Baptists And Pelagians Together

A key question as to how we understand the Gospel concerns our doctrine of man. Are we sinners because we sin or do we sin because we are sinners. Think carefully about this. Is it our sinful actions that make us a sinner or is it our sinful nature that causes us to sin. The former requires a gospel that persuades bad men to change their behavior. The latter requires a gospel that is about resurrecting men who are dead in sin. The former sounds very much like Charles Finney's heretical view of humanity:

Moral depravity cannot consist in any attribute of nature or constitution, nor in any lapsed or fallen state of nature. . . . Moral depravity, as I use the term, does not consist in, nor imply a sinful nature, in the sense that the human soul is sinful in itself. It is not a constitutional sinfulness [Finney's Systematic Theology, 245].

Finney's view echoes that put forward by Pelagius in the fourth century AD:

Pelagius was a monk from Britain, whose reputation and theology came into prominence after he went to Rome sometime in the 380's A.D. The historic Pelagian theological controversy involved the nature of man and the doctrine of original sin.

Pelagius believed that the consequences of Adam and Eve’s sin (the Fall) were restricted to themselves only; and thereby denied the belief that original sin was passed on (or transferred) to the children of Adam and thus to the human race. Adam's sin merely "set a bad example" for his progeny and Jesus "set a good example" for mankind (thus counteracting Adam's bad example). Pelagianism teaches that human beings are born in a state of innocence with a nature that is as pure as that which Adam was given at his creation.

As a result of his basic assumption, Pelagius taught that man has an unimpaired moral ability to choose that which is spiritually good and possesses the free will, ability, and capacity to do that which is spiritually good. This resulted in a gospel of salvation based on human works. Man could choose to follow the precepts of God and then follow those precepts because he had the power within himself to do so.

The controversy came to a head when Pelagian teaching came into contact with Augustine. Augustine did not deny that man had a will and that he could make choices. But, Augustine recognized that man did not have a free will in moral issues related to God, asserting that the effects original sin were passed to the children of Adam and Eve and that mankind’s nature was thereby corrupted. Man could choose what he desired, but those desires were influenced by his sinful nature and he was unable to refrain from sinning. (courtesy of Theopedia)

The strongest repudiation of Pelagian theology is reserved for the clear teaching of Scripture itself:

Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous. (Romans 5:18-19)

Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me. (Psalm 51:5)

With this Pelagian view of man considered it is interesting to see that this heresy, defeated by Augustine many centuries ago, still lives on in a variety of forms. I have been reluctant to bring to light the surprising emergence of this doctrine from an unexpected place. I was hopeful it would be internally resolved by the many capable theologians in the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC). However, it has now been broadcast far and wide so I wanted to take this opportunity to weigh in and comment on a recent document called A Statement of the Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God’s Plan of Salvation which had high profile signatories including Paige Patterson (President of Southwestern Seminary and a key figure in driving liberalism out of the SBC) and Jerry Vines (former SBC President and fellow hero of the "conservative resurgence"). Their aim, as staunch Arminians, in this document was to make a critical response to the rise of Calvinism within the SBC. Unfortunately, in their efforts to distance themselves from Calvinism they veered in to the land of Pelagianism. Though I am a Calvinist and disagree with much of what is on this document, I can respectfully disagree and understand why they arrive at some of the conclusions they do. But one conclusion in particular has caused the ire of many, myself included. That there are Calvinists and Arminians alike who are making the same objection to this document, should be cause enough for performing major surgery on such a significant statement. This key contention with the SBC statement on salvation is with article two. Article two, in its entirety, reads:

We affirm that, because of the fall of Adam, every person inherits a nature and environment inclined toward sin and that every person who is capable of moral action will sin. Each person’s sin alone brings the wrath of a holy God, broken fellowship with Him, ever-worsening selfishness and destructiveness, death, and condemnation to an eternity in hell.

We deny that Adam’s sin resulted in the incapacitation of any person’s free will or rendered any person guilty before he has personally sinned. While no sinner is remotely capable of achieving salvation through his own effort, we deny that any sinner is saved apart from a free response to the Holy Spirit’s drawing through the Gospel.

Even Roger Olsen, who is an unabashed high profile Arminian apologist has said:

Leaving the statement as it stands, without a clear affirmation of the bondage of the will to sin apart from supernatural grace, inevitably hands the Calvinists ammunition to use against non-Calvinist Baptists. It doesn’t matter what “most Baptists” believe or what is the “traditional Southern Baptist understanding.” For a long time I’ve been stating that most American Christians, including most Baptists, are semi-Pelagian, not Arminian and not merely non-Calvinist. Calvinists and Arminians stand together, with Scripture, against semi-Pelagianism. (Romans 3:11 and 1 Corinthians 4:7 to name just two passages.) (online source)

Both Vines and Patterson have a legacy of destroying liberalism within the SBC for which I owe a deep level of gratitude. Calvinists like Al Mohler would not have taken the Presidency at their flagship seminary (Southern baptist Theological Seminary) without their years of dedication to the cause of conservative biblical Christianity. This makes their latest labor all the more surprising because those who signed this document are either Pelagian (or some might say semi-Pelagian) or ignorant of what they signed. Both possibilities are disturbing and I sincerely hope that such a large and significant Christian movement will move rapidly to rectify errors of this caliber.

Exposing And Expelling Heretics (Part 7)

Today we pick up from where we left off on our expository journey through the Epistle of Jude. Jude represents the first expository assignment I have been tasked with in our church plant in Denmark - Kristuskirken. Though short in length, Jude is a letter jam packed with information on why we should hunt down false teachers that conceal themselves in the church, how we should identify them, and that we as Christians should go to war against them secure in the knowledge of being kept in the safety of God's preserving grace. Much of the credit for this series must go to John MacArthur whose teaching on this Epistle has been my major source.

1 Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James, To those who are called, beloved in God the Father and kept for Jesus Christ: 2 May mercy, peace, and love be multiplied to you. 3 Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints. 4 For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ. (Jude 1-4)

In John 6 we see a great apostacy when Jesus has a great crowd following Him and most of them leave because of Jesus’ hard sayings. In the Old Testament apostacy always refers to Israel when they abandon God and Jeremiah 2 is a great example of this. But let’s look again at verse 4 of Jude as we head to one of the very controversial parts of Jude and perhaps in all of the Bible. Jude describes these apostates as people "who long ago were designated for this condemnation“. We know that this apostacy had been prophecied long ago, even as far back as Enoch before the flood of Noah. Jude says in verses 14 and 15 that:

It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, "Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of his holy ones, to execute judgment on all and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness that they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things that ungodly sinners have spoken against him." (Jude 14-15)

But there is even more to this. We have already discussed how Jude comforts the believers with the doctrine of their election. Those who God elects He calls, those who God calls He keeps. The same is true of these apostates. These are false teachers that God has already appointed to damnation. This is a doctrine which I cannot deal with by pretending it is not in Scripture. I cannot deal with it by ignoring it. And I cannot fully explain it within the infinite mind of God. But I will tell you what the Scripture says of it. When Arminians ask if I believe in double Predestination I find it to be a redundant and antagonistic term. Antagonistic because they find the idea of God predestining people to damnation to be repulsive. Redundant because I can't see how God's Sovereign predestination could mean anything other than everyone being predestined otherwise God is not Sovereign. But there is far more to the equation than the oversimplified Arminian objections as we shall see from Scripture.

First of all we should not argue with God about anything because He made everything, He owns everything, and He knows a lot of things that we don’t know:

Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or do you begrudge my generosity? (Matthew 20:15)

Second, the wicked serve their own evil desires, but this still ultimately serves the sovereign purposes of God:

The LORD has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble.(Proverbs 16:4)

Third, even though God works all things together, including evil, for His glory – they are fully responsible for their sin.

You refuse to come to me that you may have life. (John 5:40)

Fourth God desires to see wicked people come to repentance:

Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, declares the Lord GOD, and not rather that he should turn from his way and live? (Ezekiel 18:23)

The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. (2 Peter 3:9)

And fifth, though we struggle to understand this, all these things fit together in the infinite mind of God:

You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory — even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? As indeed he says in Hosea, "Those who were not my people I will call 'my people,' and her who was not beloved I will call 'beloved.'" "And in the very place where it was said to them, 'You are not my people,' there they will be called 'sons of the living God.'" (Romans 9:19-26)

This is a difficult subject and these verses are well worth meditating on. This is a real subject but one I prefer to leave in the hands of the Sovereign God Whose work is perfect and all His ways are just. As Abraham said "shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is right" (Genesis 18:25b). I also recommend RC Sproul's very helpful book on this subject - “Chosen by God”.

To be continued in three weeks time . . .

Go On To Part 8
Go Back To Part 6
Go Back To Part 1

Just Added - Confessions And Creeds

Knowing our church history is one of our highest learning priorities after the study of Scripture itself. This fascinating and educational list of creeds and confessions from church history will be a helpful resource in the study of Christian doctrine, knowledge of church history, and identifying "modern heresies" that usually turn out to be recycled old heresies. The following list can also be found in the "store" section in the right hand column of this blog under the heading of Confessions and Creeds.

APOSTLES' CREED
First Or Second Century AD
View Here
The Apostles' Creed is an early statement of Christian belief, possibly from the first or second century, but in its current form more likely post-Nicene Creed in the early 4th Century AD. The theological specifics of the creed appear to be a refutation of the early heresy of Gnosticism. The Apostles' Creed is widely used by a number of Christian denominations for both liturgical and catechetical purposes, most visibly by liturgical churches of western tradition, including Lutheran churches, Anglican and Episcopalian churches. Important note: the word catholic, as it appears in this creed, refers not to the Roman Catholic church but to the church universal.


NICENE CREED
325 AD
View Here
The Nicene Creed is a Christian statement of faith accepted by the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, and most Protestant churches. It gets its name from the First Council of Nicaea (325 A.D.), where it was initially adopted, and from the First Council of Constantinople (381 A.D.), where a revised version was accepted. Thus it may be referred to specifically as the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed to distinguish it from the original 325 A.D. version. The original Nicene Creed adopted in 325 ended just after the words, "We believe in the Holy Spirit..." Content was added at the First Ecumenical Council of Constantinople in 381 A.D.; hence the name "Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed", which refers to the modified or updated creed. The Third Ecumenical Council in Ephesus (431 A.D.) reaffirmed the creed in this form and explicitly forbade making additional revisions to it. There have been other subsequent creeds formulated to guard against perceived heresy, but this one, as revised in 381 A.D., was the last time both the Western (Catholic) and Eastern (Orthodox) churches were in united agreement on a Credo. This creed is not to be confused with the later Athanasian Creed.


ATHANASIAN CREED
340 - 397 AD
View Here
The Athanasian Creed is a statement of Christian doctrine traditionally ascribed to Athanasius (298 - 373 A.D.), Archbishop of Alexandria. However most of today's historians agree that in all probability it was originally written in Latin, not in Greek, and thus Athanasius cannot have been the original author. Its theology is closely akin to that found in the writing of western theologians, especially Ambrose of Milan (340 - 397 A.D.). It was designed to clearly affirm the deity of Christ and the doctrine of the Trinity as opposed to forms of Arianism. This creed really highlights the critical importance that the early church placed on defining God rightly. After all, anything else is idolatry!


COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON
451 AD
View Here
The Council of Chalcedon was an ecumenical council that took place from October 8-November 1, 451 A.D at Chalcedon, a city of Bithynia in Asia Minor. It is the fourth of the first seven Ecumenical Councils in Christianity. It repudiated the Eutychian doctrine of monophysitism, and set forth the Chalcedonian Creed, which describes the full humanity and full divinity of Jesus Christ, the second person of the Holy Trinity.



BELGIC CONFESSION
1561
View Here
The oldest of the doctrinal standards of the Reformed Churches is the Confession of Faith, popularly known as the Belgic Confession, following the seventeenth-century Latin designation "Confessio Belgica." "Belgica" referred to the whole of the Netherlands, both north and south, which today is divided into the Netherlands and Belgium. The confession's chief author was Guido de Bras, a preacher of the Reformed churches of the Netherlands, who died a martyr to the faith in the year 1567.
During the sixteenth century the churches in this country were exposed to the most terrible persecution by the Roman Catholic government. To protest against this cruel oppression, and to prove to the persecutors that the adherents of the Reformed faith were not rebels, as was laid to their charge, but law-abiding citizens who professed the true Christian doctrine according to the Holy Scriptures, de Bräs prepared this confession in the year 1561. In the following year a copy was sent to King Philip II, together with an address in which the petitioners declared that they were ready to obey the government in all lawful things, but that they would "offer their backs to stripes, their tongues to knives, their mouths to gags, and their whole bodies to the fire," rather than deny the truth expressed in this confession. Although the immediate purpose of securing freedom from persecution was not attained, and de Bräs himself fell as one of the many thousands who sealed their faith with their lives, his work has endured. The text, not the contents, was revised again at the Synod of Dort in 1618-19 and adopted as one of the doctrinal standards to which all officebearers in the Reformed churches were required to subscribe. The confession stands as one of the best symbolical statements of Reformed doctrine.


HEIDELBERG CATECHISM
1563
View Here
The Heidelberg Catechism is a Protestant confessional document taking the form of a series of questions and answers, for use in teaching Reformed Christian doctrine. It has been translated into many languages and is regarded as one of the most influential of the Reformed catechisms. Elector Frederick III, sovereign of the Palatinate from 1559 to 1576, commissioned the composition of a new Catechism for his territory. Frederick wanted to even out the religious situation of the territory, but also to draw up a statement of belief that would combine the best of Lutheran and Reformed wisdom and could instruct ordinary people on the basics of the newfound Protestant version of the Christian faith. One of the aims of the catechism was to counteract the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, and so it based each of its statements on the text of the Bible. The Catechism is divided into fifty-two sections, called "Lord's Days," which were designed to be taught on each of the 52 Sundays of the year. The Synod of Heidelberg approved the catechism in 1563. In the Netherlands, the Catechism was approved as well as the great Synod of Dort, which adopted it as one of the Three Forms of Unity, together with the Belgic Confession and the Canons of Dort. Elders and deacons were required to subscribe and adhere to it, and ministers were required to preach on a section of the Catechism each Sunday so as to increase the often poor theological knowledge of the church members. In many Dutch Reformed denominations this practice is still continued.


SECOND HELVETIC CONFESSION
1566
View Here
The word "Helvetic" is Latin for "Swiss." The setting of the Second Helvetic Confession is Swiss-German Reformed Protestantism.
After the great Reformer Ulrich Zwingli died in battle in 1531, Heinrich Bullinger succeeded him as minister of the church in Zurich. Bullinger was a model Reformed minister. In 1561, Bullinger composed the document that later became known as the Second Helvetic Confession. The churches of Switzerland adopted Bullinger's confession as their new confession of faith. Soon finding wide acceptance throughout Europe and beyond, it was translated into French, English, Dutch, Polish, Hungarian, Italian, Arabic, and Turkish. Reflecting the theological maturity of the Reformed churches, the Second Helvetic Confession is moderate in tone and catholic in spirit. From the opening paragraphs it emphasizes the church and its life and affirms the authority of the Scriptures for the church's government and reformation. By including an article on predestination, the confession asks the church to trust in God's free and gracious election of its membership in Jesus Christ. At the same time, the confession addresses the practical life of the gathered community, detailing matters of worship, church order and conflict, ministry, the sacraments, and marriage.


CANONS OF DORDT
1618
View Here
The Canons of Dordt constitute the judgment of the Synod of Dordt held in the Dutch city of Dordrecht in 1618-1619.
These canons are in actuality a judicial decision on the doctrinal points in dispute from the Arminian controversy of that day. Following the death of Jacobus Arminius (1560-1609), his followers set forth a Five articles of Remonstrance (published in 1610) formulating their points of departure from the stricter Calvinism of the Belgic Confession. The Canons of Dordt is the judgment of the Synod against this Remonstrance. However, Arminian theology later received official toleration by the State and has since continued in various forms within Protestantism. The Canons were not intended to be a comprehensive explanation of Reformed doctrine, but only an exposition on the five points of doctrine in dispute. These Canons set forth what is often referred to as the Five Points of Calvinism. Today, the Canons of Dordt form one of the confessional standards of many of the Reformed churches around the world, including the Netherlands, Australia, and North America.


WESTMINSTER CONFESSION OF FAITH
1646
View Here
The Westminster Confession of Faith is a Reformed confession of faith, in the Calvinist theological tradition. Although drawn up by the 1646 Westminster Assembly, largely of the Church of England, it became and remains the 'subordinate standard' of doctrine in the Church of Scotland, and has been influential within Presbyterian churches worldwide. In 1643, the English Parliament called upon "learned, godly and judicious Divines", to meet at Westminster Abbey in order to provide advice on issues of worship, doctrine, government and discipline of the Church of England. Their meetings, over a period of five years, produced the confession of faith, as well as a Larger Catechism and a Shorter Catechism. For more than three centuries, various churches around the world have adopted the confession and the catechisms as their standards of doctrine, subordinate to the Bible. The Westminster Confession of Faith was modified and adopted by Congregationalists in England in the form of the Savoy Declaration (1658). Likewise, the Baptists of England modified the Savoy Declaration to produce the Second London Baptist Confession (1689). English Presbyterians, Congregationalists, and Baptists would together (with others) come to be known as Nonconformists, because they did not conform to the Act of Uniformity (1662) establishing the Church of England as the only legally-approved church.


BAPTIST CONFESSION OF FAITH
1689
View Here
This is the Confession that has been adopted by my home fellowship in Denmark and of which C. H. Spurgeon said - 'Here the youngest members of our church will have a body of Truth in small compass, and by means of the scriptural proofs, will be able to give a reason of the hope that is in them.' The 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith was written by Calvinistic Baptists in England to give a formal expression of the Reformed and Protestant Christian faith with an obvious Baptist perspective. This confession, like the Westminster Confession of Faith (1646) and the Savoy Declaration (1658), was written by evangelical Puritans who were concerned that their particular church organization reflect what they perceived to be Biblical teaching. The creation of the 1689 Confession is linked to Early English Baptist history and the differences between the “General” and “Particular” brands of Baptist belief. In the early 17th century, English Baptists were mainly a loose organization of churches, rather than an established denomination. With the advent of Arminianism at around the same time, many Baptist churches adopted the Arminian concepts of Christ's atonement and man's free will. The General Baptists were so-called because they held to an Arminian general atonement, in which Christ died for all alike. On the other hand, many Baptists rejected the teaching of Arminianism and asserted that a Christian's salvation was ultimately the work of God and his sovereign choice. These Baptists were called “Particular” because they held to the Calvinistic particular atonement, in which Christ's atonement was limited to those whom God had chosen to save. Both General and Particular Baptists suffered severe persecution from the established Church of England. Virtually all Baptists had left the established church because they were convinced that the Bible did not support either an Episcopalian form of church government, nor the role of the Monarch in determining the affairs of the church. The assertion by Baptist churches that only adult converts could be Baptized also put them at odds with the Church of England. Though many of the Presbyterian Puritans also opposed the Baptist view of believer Baptism, this document did much to affirm the vital common ground they shared with the Particular Baptists in their understanding of Scripture and salvation.

How To Defeat Calvinism

This blog has rarely touched on the Calvinism v Arminianism debate that has raged for centuries with no clear cut resolution in sight. I'm just not delusional enough to think that I can weigh into it with any new insight. Truth be known my background is Arminian but I now lean very much in favor of Calvinism with a few remaining question marks and I also think that the epidemic of decisionism that we now see has strong connections to the "ugly side" of Arminianism. To be sure there are some intelligent and articulate arguments from Scripture on both sides and I don't doubt for one minute that there are many genuinely born again people on each side of the fence.

But what does warrant a response is the many ridiculous ill-informed strawman attacks that have been launched against Calvinism in recent times. They are attacks that misrepresent and do great harm to many true servants of God. Monica Dennington who has a fairly prominent youtube channel (with some decent content as far as I can see) is a good example. She recently posted a video calling all Calvinists to repentance. Her critique is so laughable and absurd that there was even a non-calvinist radio station that took her to task. Her argument shows a complete and total ignorance of the issues that are up for debate. Lane Chaplin posted this video courtesy of Chris Rosebrough as a necessary response. It is long but a helpful voice of clarity amidst the confused and damaging rhetoric of many of the ill-founded attacks floating around right now - whichever side you find yourself on . . .