Horse Racing is said to be the sport of kings. The sport of slinging mud has, however, a wider following. Pillorying the Puritans, in particular, has long been a popular pastime both sides of the Atlantic, and most people’s image of Puritanism still has on it much disfiguring dirt that needs to be scraped off. ‘Puritan’ as a name was, in fact, mud from the start. Coined in the early 1560’s, it was always a satirical smear word implying peevishness, censoriousness, conceit, and a measure of hypocrisy, over and above its basic implication of religiously motivated discontent with what was seen as Elizabeth’s Laodicean and compromising Church of England.

(more…)

By popular demand I am posting the essay on heresies-in-the-early-churh.doc with due acknowledgement to Robert Jones who has written a number of first class Church History courses for adult Sunday School classes. Check out his work by following the links in the document.

A Rick Wade post (PROBE)

There are several important and interrelated reasons for the persecution of the early church.

First was the problem of identity. Christianity was identified at first with Judaism, but people quickly came to see it as a different religion. Jews were left alone for the most part; it seemed best to Rome to just confine them and leave them alone. Christianity, however, was a strange, new cult, and it began to spread across people groups and geographical boundaries.{1} People felt threatened by this oddball new religion.

The next problem was with the religious activities of the Christians, with what they did do and didn’t do.

In the days of the Roman empire, the worship of pagan gods and the emperor was a part of everyone’s life. Two problems arose because of this. First, because they didn’t participate in pagan rituals but tended to keep to themselves, Christians were considered anti-social. When the imperial police took an interest in them, they became more secretive which added fuel to the fire. They became associated with the collegia–clubs or secret societies–and leaders were suspicious of these groups because of the threat of sedition.{2} Second, since Christians wouldn’t join in with the religious activities which were believed to placate the gods, they became a threat to the very well-being of the community. Writing in about A.D. 196, Tertullian said, “The Christians are to blame for every public disaster and every misfortune that befalls the people. If the Tiber rises to the walls, if the Nile fails to rise and flood the fields, if the sky withholds its rain, if there is earthquake or famine or plague, straightway the cry arises: ‘The Christians to the lions!’”{3} (more…)

Charles D. Myers, Jr., writes on the place of Romans in the genuine correspondence of Paul (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, v. 5, p. 817):

A relative chronology of the Pauline Epistles can be constructed by means of references in Paul’s genuine epistles to the Jerusalem collection. This collection was inaugurated at the apostolic council described in Galatians 2, when Paul agrees to “remember the poor” (Gal 2:10). The collection was introduced to the Corinthians in 1 Cor 16:1-4, where Paul provides directions for collecting money. Then in 2 Corinthians 8-9 (esp. 8:6, 10; 9:1) Paul exhorts the Corinthians to complete what they have begun. When Paul writes Romans, he is ready to travel to Jerusalem with what has been collected among the gentile believers in Macadonia and Achaia (Rom 15:25-26). Prior to the time of writing Romans, therefore, Paul had already written Galatians, and 1 and 2 Corinthians, in addition to 1 Thessalonians (believed to be Paul’s earliest extant epistle), and perhaps Philippians as well.

Myers writes on the relationship between the ideas in Romans and in his earlier epistles (op. cit., v. 5, p. 817):

Moreover, Romans is heavily indebted to those epistles that have gone before. As G. Bornkamm (1963: 2-14) has rightly pointed out, a number of topics that are present in Paul’s earlier epistles surface in Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. Among those topics are justification by faith and not by the works of the law (Galatians 3-5; Philippians 3; Romans 1-4); the fatherhood of Abraham (Galatians 3; Romans 4); Adam as the head of the old order of humanity and Christ the head of a new order (1 Cor 15:21-22, 45-49; Rom 5:12-19); the church as Christ’s body composed of diverse elements (1 Corinthians 12; Rom 12:4-8); the need to exercise personal freedoms with consideration for the consciences of others (1 Corinthians 8-10; Romans 14-15) - to name only a few. But in Romans, Paul does not merely reiterate these ideas; rather he reformulates and refines them. Romans, therefore, evidences a greater theological maturity than the other Pauline epistles.

Myers comments on the importance of Romans (op. cit., v. 5, p. 817):

The Epistles to the Romans has also contributed significantly to the history of Christian doctrine. Almost every influential Christian thinker has dealt with Romans. Origen, Thomas Aquinas, and Philip Melanchthon, to mention only a few, wrote noteworthy commentaries on Romans. And numerous theological notions have been derived solely or in part from Romans. Augustine acquired his idea of original sin from Romans 5, Luther gained his understanding of justification by faith alone from Romans 3-4, John Calvin obtained his doctrine of double predestination from Romans 9-11, John Wesley got his distinctive teaching on sanctification from Romans 6 and 8, and Karl Barth learned of the importance of the righteousness of God from Romans 1 and 2. In short, this epistle has exerted a powerful influence on all branches of the Christian Church, and its impact on the lives and thought of prominent Christian thinkers through the years has been second, perhaps, only to the canonical gospels.

This article was posted over at Arminian Perspectives by Kangeroodort. In the article he discusses the differences between Calvinists and Arminians on this issue. He asks a question that I have asked in the past. In fact, when I first started to study Reformed Theology this was one of my first objections.

Kangeroodort said

Is a God who can only control His universe through cause and effect bigger or smaller than a God who can allow for true contingency in His creatures and still accomplish His will?

Likewise, Arminians consider that this view magnifies God’s power, in at least two interrelated ways.

1. God was able to create a being who was not merely “determined,” but an actor who also “determines” things, a being who is free and in His own image. He of the only true sovereign will was able to endow man with a will that really has the power of decision and choice.

2. God is able to govern the truly free exercise of men’s wills in such a way that all goes according to His plan. A God who created a complex universe inhabited by beings pre-programmed to act out His will for them would be great. But one who can make men with wills of their own and set them free to act in ways He has not determined for them, and still govern the whole in perfect accord with His purpose is greater.” [page 43, italics his]

This was my position. I can still understand the argument. After all, in what way is God more powerful…when He controls everything or when He allows his creatures to have free will and He is still able to have His will accomplished? The answer seemed obvious. It makes so much sense, doesn’t it? Well on the surface it does. But there is so much more to this. The biggest problem I now see with this position is that it does not accurately account for the depravity of man. The depravity is total meaning that it permeates our whole being to the point of enslaving our will. Click here to read a more thorough discussion of Total Depravity. When we understand the true condition that our will is in we can understand that we can not have free will.

A.W. Pink explains it this way in Ch. 7 of The Sovereignty of God. He said

To will is to choose, and to choose is to decide between two or more alternatives. But there is something which influences the choice; something which determines the decision. Hence the will cannot be Sovereign because it is the servant of that something. The will cannot be both Sovereign and servant. It cannot be both cause and effect. The will is not causative, because, as we have said, something causes it to choose, therefore that something must be the causative agent. Choice itself is affected by certain considerations, is determined by various influences brought to bear upon the individual himself, hence, volition is the effect of these considerations and influences, and if the effect, it must be their servant; and if the will is their servant then it is not Sovereign, and if the will is not Sovereign, we certainly cannot predicate absolute “freedom” of it.

All men have free will but they are only able to make choices within and in cooperation with their nature.  For unregenerate people that nature is the sinful nature inherited from the Fall.  For regenerate people that nature is the new nature given to them at the point they are made alive and freed from the bondage of the sinful nature.  The new nature is one that seeks after God and can respond when the Gospel is proclaimed to them.

Post from Everyday Christian