This is a transcript of my talk ( session 2) given to the SOLA 5 Conference 2015 .
The organisation that
has been called into being 10 years ago
under the good and gracious hand
of our God finds itself in need
of renewed definition. That is not a bad
problem to have. Long may we
continue to examine ourselves on a
regular basis! The unexamined life is not worth living. [1]
Any organisation - and
SOLA 5 is an organisation of God centered churches in Southern Africa
- any such organisation is in need of periodic
review and of course correction. You know how a little deviation at the
beginning can later lead to a
significant deviation from the true
destination. A ship that sets
course
from Cape Town, say to
Hamburg in Germany, veering
only a marginal and insignificant 1 degree
from its course at the beginning and maintaining such a deviation, will in due time find itself hundreds of nautical miles off course. It will never reach Hamburg by ignoring the
compass.
This is not easy. I remind you that sin
and decay and all
their ugly cousins, such as deceit, pride, laziness and compromise
are forever with us, calling us from
their various places on the corners of
every street and from the market place (Prov.
7:12), seeking to lead us away from
the purity of the Word. Since decay (the second law of thermodynamics) is written into
the DNA of this fallen world, leaving not even the church untouched, it is always necessary that she should adjust her
course by the navigational
standards prescribed in the Word of God.
The British poet T.S. Elliot
understood this when he wrote :[2]
“…
here upon earth you have the reward of the good and ill that was done by
those who have gone before you.
And all that is ill you may repair if
you walk together in humble repentance, expiating the sins of your fathers;
And all that was good you must fight to
keep with hearts as devoted as those of your fathers who fought to gain
it.
The
Church must be forever building, for it is forever decaying within and
attacked from without;
For this is the law of life; and you
must remember that while there is time of prosperity .
The people will neglect the Temple,
and in time of adversity they will decry it.
What life have you if you have
not life together?
There is no life that is not in
community, and no community not lived in praise of God…
I remind you that SOLA 5 was founded in
April 2005 as a community to the praise of God (SOLI DEO GLORIA), and
10 years later we have not only seen
progress, but there can be no doubt that
we have also been subjected to
decay and resultant fatigue as a result of the relentless battle.
Why then
are we here? The founding fathers, if you may call them
that, have called this organisation into being for a time
such as this,in order
to provide for an
unambiguous and a shared identity for
those that are committed to the historic faith, the gospel as it was once preached by the apostles of the
Lord Jesus Christ[3], and many others since
them, not forgetting the Reformers of the 16th century [4]. The Reformers were given
the grace to restore the centrality of
the Word to the world in their time.
The solemn
fact is this: From one
generation to the next the gospel may be lost, if we do not uphold it and
pass it on in our own day. We, as churches identifying with SOLA 5, and in co- operation with all those of similar conviction, are called to uphold the gospel in this generation.
Our founding fathers wanted a forum
for glorifying God our Father through
a living attachment to our Lord Jesus, living by the power of the Holy Spirit, within the
framework of a robust dependence upon the written Word of God, issuing in
the manifestation of a God
centered life of faith, living in dependence upon divine grace, and issuing in
a gracious and winsome way of
living. In this we
have wanted to create a
forum for prayer
and awareness concerning the work of God in Southern Africa and beyond.
We have wanted a mutual accountability among ourselves. We have dreamed of publishing sound evangelistic and theological
material. We have thought of a website and conferences such as this one , and many
other interactive forums by which we can stay in touch with
each other. We have spoken much
about the need of theological education and of missionary co-operation and of mutual
support in church planting ventures.
How then
have we been doing? And how shall we
ensure that what we believe to
be essential and biblical to do in this age, in which we are privileged to carry the torch
for a little while - how shall
we ensure that we shall be faithful
to our Lord Jesus, our heavenly and soon coming bridegroom?
In the case of SOLA 5 we must understand that
we are not a geographically closely knit community. We are separated by
great distances. Lusaka is over 3000
kilometres from Cape Town. The basis of our association can therefore not be
based on proximity
or ease of access to one
another. We do, of course, have a distinct advantage in terms of the various modern means of communication, but
the reality remains that we
are as widely separated as
Athens in Greece, and
Ephesus in Asia Minor, and
Antioch in Syria were separated from Jerusalem
in Israel. And yet, it is remarkable, is it not, that these churches did maintain a unique fellowship in their day.
Here’s the reason why. The apostle Paul worked hard to keep these distant churches in touch.
Here’s the reason why. The apostle Paul worked hard to keep these distant churches in touch.
Firstly by constantly
taking people along with him to
and from these various areas where he had sown the gospel seeds . In that
process he always connected and
introduced men and women from these
various churches to one another. The 16th chapter of Romans provides an impressive list of Paul’s contacts and relationships in the world. He also had many travel companions, men such as
Barnabas the encourager and Luke the Physician (Col. 4:14) on his outward journeys. He took Timothy, born in the Greek world, back to Jerusalem, where he also had him
circumcised in order not to give offence to the Jewish brothers in Jerusalem (Acts 16:1-3). Paul also constantly gave feedback to the churches that supported his mission to the gentiles (Acts 14:27 –Antioch and Acts 15- Jerusalem). Paul was a true
communicator and as such he serves as a
real model for us today.
Secondly, by keeping
the churches in touch with gospel truths (e.g. 1 Corinthians 15:1-11) and with sound doctrine by means of his apostolic letters which were shared among the churches (e.g. Col.
4:16). The churches in Paul’s
generation therefore stayed connected in the truth, as they were constantly made
aware of the heart of the gospel (and
also the threats against the gospel), as well
as being aware of one another’s existential difficulties,
challenges and encouragements. Paul also created an awareness of the needs that existed in some of these
new churches
(e.g. the economic difficulties
of the Jerusalem church ) and
then encouraged other
distant churches (e.g. the Macedonians - 2
Cor. 8&9) to help their
brothers and sisters.
One grand truth however stands out above all regarding
Paul’s mission. The association that Paul had in mind among the churches was
founded not primarily on
principles of friendship or social
engagement, though it undoubtedly
included those elements, but it was founded
primarily on the gospel
of Christ. Jesus was the sum and
the substance of what Paul
preached everywhere, and so churches everywhere, whether in Athens, Corinth, Philippi, Ephesus
, Antioch or Jerusalem were primarily
connected and founded and built on
that same gospel basis. The practical details and the very real social problems that
surrounded each church
became something that was going to be
worked out in the context of the gospel.
But it is that word ‘gospel’,
that is in constant need of
clarification. We do not have time to consider the many aberrant versions
of what is claimed to be the gospel, e.g.
the way in which the health, wealth and prosperity movement,
or the social gospel of the liberals
define the gospel. My task is now
to help you to
clarify the heart of SOLA 5,
defining the gospel in terms of what is known as the doctrines of Grace.
I trust that you are
not unfamiliar with the concept of the Doctrines of Grace. Allow me to briefly remind you concerning
these. The Doctrines of Grace are sometimes also known as the five
points of Calvinism, which also sometimes have been summed up in the acronym TULIP:
·
Total Depravity
·
Unconditional Election
·
Limited Atonement
·
Irresistible Grace
·
Perseverance of
the Saints
This
acronym came about somewhat indirectly as
the result of a controversy which
had developed around the teachings of a man named Jacobus
Arminius [5]
(1560-1609), who was a professor at the
University of Leiden, in Holland. He
began a doctrinal dispute by publishing five articles against John
Calvin’s [6]
(1509 – 1564) basic teachings concerning
the nature of
the biblical doctrine of salvation, as they
were described in the Belgic Confession[7]
and also in the Heidelberg Catechism.
He wanted
to revise these confessions, in a subtle way.
He said in essence , “yes, there was a fall; yes, there is
such a thing as original sin; yes, the constituent nature of humanity has been
changed by this state of corruption and all parts of our humanity have been
significantly weakened by the fall, so much so that without the assistance of
divine grace nobody can possibly be redeemed, so that grace is not only helpful
but it’s absolutely necessary for salvation.”
But
then he went on to also say this, in
essence :
“While we are so fallen that we can’t be
saved without grace, we are not so fallen that we don’t have the ability to
accept or reject the grace when it’s offered to us. The will is weakened
but is not enslaved. There remains in the core of our being an island
of righteousness that remains untouched by the fall. It’s out of that
little island of righteousness, that little parcel of goodness that is still
intact in the soul or in the will that is the determinative difference between
heaven and hell. It’s that little island that must be exercised when God does
his thousand steps of reaching out to us, but in the final analysis it’s that
one step that we take that determines whether we go to heaven or hell — whether
we exercise that little righteousness that is in the core of our being or
whether we don’t. “ [8]
Arminius was never
able to conclude his disputation , for he died rather suddenly, in 1609, at the age of 49. His teaching was propagated
by his followers, who were also
known as “the Remonstrants”. These were subsequently taken to task by the
synods of Dort in Holland in 1618 and
1619, at which time ‘Arminianism’
was declared an ‘anathema’.
The formulation of the five points of Calvinism, or as we prefer to call
it, ‘The
Doctrines of Grace’ became the response to Arminius’ so called
five disputations. To be clear,
the actual acronym TULIP , which we commonly use today as a summary of the Doctrines of Grace, was
not used at that time, for TULIP is an
English and not a Dutch acronym. The earliest use of TULIP has been
attributed to Cleland Boyd McAfee in 1905, when he delivered a lecture to the
Presbyterian Union, in Newark, New Jersey.
But it was apparently Lorraine Boettner in his popular
book, “The Reformed Doctrine of
Predestination” (first
published in 1932) [9]
, that popularized the use of TULIP.
The Relevance of this old debate
for our day
So what does this 400
year old debate have to do with
our times? Why has the Steering Committee asked me to speak to you concerning this?
I began my paper by
pointing out the ever present danger of losing the true gospel, due to
a subtle departure from the
biblical course. I remind you,
brothers and sisters, that the
gospel is easily lost if we are not careful and prayerful expositors of the
Bible. The Old Covenant people of the Exodus
generation lost their adherence to the truth within the span of a single
generation, because they disregarded the
Word that God spoke through Moses.
The New Covenant
people faced the same dilemma. Consider
both, the Galatian and
Corinthian churches. Both were in danger
of losing the gospel, because in both churches the members were beginning to submit to the opinions of men rather than
the plain Word of God, which
reminds us that Christ, and not human personalities are
central to the life of the church. Listen
for instance to Paul's perplexity as he pours out his heart to the Galatians
who had been taken captive by false teachers:
“I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel – not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.” (Gal. 1:6,7)
Paul clearly saw what this deviation would accomplish in the Galatian and in the Corinthian churches, where legalism and libertinism respectively were threatening to undermine the gospel foundations that Paul had so clearly established as an expert builder (1 Cor. 3:10).
Now the matters that Arminius disputed concerning
Calvin and Luther’s understanding
of the nature of salvation was in
essence a deviation from the biblical
course and the Synod of Dort had the wisdom to see this.
This is in fact
an age old and an ongoing dispute
in the Christian church- at least as long as she has
existed. This dispute has reared
its head many times, and in many different ways in the course of church
history.
I remind you that long before the so-called the ‘ Arminius
vs. Calvin debate’[10]
there was the
‘Pelagius vs Augustine’ controversy in the 5th century AD, which ran along similar lines.[11]
Pelagius (ca.354 – 420 AD) was an English monk who lived in Rome in Augustine's (354 – 430 AD) day. He
categorically denied the doctrine of original sin, and asserted that human
nature is good and able to do all it is
commanded to do. Therefore Pelagius was shocked when he read in Augustine's Confessions,
"Give me the grace [O Lord] to do as
you command, and command me to do what you will! . . . O holy God . . . when
your commands are obeyed, it is from you that we receive the power to obey
them." Pelagius saw this as an assault on human goodness and freedom
and responsibility.
The same thing
is true about the
theological differences
between George Whitefield and John
Wesley (1703-1791). While Whitefield was a so called ‘Calvinist’, Wesley was a self proclaimed
‘Arminian’. Iain Murray writes in an article [12] :
From the
time of his conversion in 1735, Whitefield
had been profoundly conscious of man's entire depravity, his need of
the new birth, and the fact that God can save and God alone. Describing an
experience which occurred a few weeks after his conversion, he wrote:
"About this time God was pleased to enlighten my soul, and bring me into
the knowledge of His free grace . . ." Strengthened by his reading of the
Scriptures, the Reformers and the Puritans, Whitefield gradually grasped the
great related chain of truths revealed in the New Testament—the Father's
electing love, Christ's substitutionary death on behalf of those whom the
Father had given Him, and the Spirit's infallible work in bringing to salvation
those for whom it was appointed. These doctrines of "free grace" were
the essential theology of his ministry from the very first and consequently the
theology of the movement which began under his preaching in 1737.
The fact is
that while John Wesley had at
his conversion in May 1738 accepted evangelical views on sin, faith, and the
re-birth, he had at the same time retained his pre-conversion opinions on
the doctrines of predestination and the extent of the atonement. As the
religious influences which had moulded Wesley prior to his conversion were High
Anglican, it is not surprising that these opinions were Arminian and not orthodox. His views on these
points were not part of his new evangelical experience but arose, as Howell Harris declared to him,
"from the prejudices of your education, your books, your companions, and
the remains of your carnal reason.”
The same Howell Harris also once wrote to Wesley: "You grieve God's people by your opposition
to electing love; and many poor souls believe your doctrine simply because
you hold it." [13] All too often we are overawed by the
views that influential men hold, more
than the view that the Bible holds. It
is always easier to follow than to study the Bible for yourself.
Choosing the opinions of men
rather than holding on to the clear directives of God ‘s Word is what kills churches, because this grieves the Spirit. Today, we face the same
challenges as we face the perpetual issue of the man- centered versus the God centered gospel.
Please note, that SOLA 5 is deliberately called
“an Association of God-centered
Churches”. SOLA 5 strenuously seeks to be intentionally God centered because we
know that so many churches in our
day are practically following the likes of Pelagius, Arminius and John Wesley, whose systems quickly
lead us away from the true gospel. The same is incidentally also true for those who are merely “Reformed”
in name. Many so called Reformed churches are
in fact ‘Arminian’ in practice , since they would practically build
their doctrine of conversion upon the
ability of man, rather than upon the biblical doctrine of the Sovereignty of
God.
This age old controversy between the man-centered attempts to deal with the Bible, forcing interpretations into the Bible , and letting the Bible speak
for itself, in the plainest sense of the word is really
the reason why SOLA 5 has been
called into existence. The truth is that
the world ( that is us) is
naturally drawn to the Pelagian – Arminian – Wesleyan view of things. We seem to intuitively believe
that we have the ability and the power to redeem themselves. We are
all by nature Arminians and Pelagians. This
is what R.C. Sproul referred to when he wrote
an article, entitled “The Pelagian Captivity of the Church”[14].
The Doctrines of Grace re- affirmed in our day
TOTAL DEPRAVITY:
(Read Ephesians 2: 1- 9).
We need to preach that total depravity is not just random
badness or ignorance, but that it is in
fact total blindness and deadness. Blind men cannot see, and dead men cannot respond to the gospel, unless someone
opens their eyes and unless someone first makes them alive to
see and hear the truth. We believe that to this end , God has called the church and
her messengers to preach the Word in
season and out of season (2 Tim. 4:2), trusting that the Holy
Spirit will give real life to our
hearers (John 3:1-8). We say this
against the background that many think
and believe that there is sufficient ability and goodness in men to see
these things and so to make that essential step to save
themselves.
UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION:
(Read Ephesians 1: 3-6; Romans 8:28-30 ; Romans 9). We need to preach with conviction that our salvation
is not secured by the
power or the will of man (John
1:12,13) , nor by personal merit , nor by personal choices
which we choose to make in respect to our salvation. We affirm
that the Bible teaches
unambiguously that God, in eternity
has predestined His people for salvation, giving
them the grace of faith and repentance to believe in time.
We affirm and preach that those
whom God has sovereignly chosen, He also brings to true repentance by the power of the Holy Spirit. Thus, God's choice of the sinner, not the
sinner's choice of Christ, is the ultimate cause of salvation. We say this , because the prevalent mode of evangelism affirms
the Arminian view. This view has
produced a huge nominal Christianity , who
have in fact become twice hardened!
LIMITED ATONEMENT: ( Read
John 10:1-21 ;
John 17: 2,9, 12)
We need to preach that Jesus
died for His sheep alone. What does this mean in terms of our gospel preaching? Well, we preach the Gospel freely to all. We make God’s gracious offer
of reconciliation through Christ universally known. But the Lord Jesus teaches us explicitly that only His sheep will hear His
voice (John 10). And we must preach that Christ’s death
does not just potentially secure people’s salvation (as Arminius taught), but that Christ effectually saves His people. Spurgeon
used this doctrine effectively in his evangelism, provoking his
listeners to ask whether they were in
fact of the elect . This caused
that many under Spurgeon’s ministry to examine themselves and to
call out for God’s saving mercy. Jesus promises that all who come to Him burdened with their sin and
in need of forgiveness, He will not drive away.(Matt. 11:28-30). We must preach the full and free offer of the gospel to all , and with tears and real pleading but unlike many modern preachers we must not use underhanded ways to
get people to make
commitments that are not rooted in the saving power of Christ .
IRRESISTIBLE GRACE : (Read John 1 :12-13 ; John 3:1-8 ; 3:16 ; 6:44.)
We need
to preach boldly that the general
gospel call , which is made to all
without distinction, can be, and often
is, rejected. The particular call however is always heard by the elect, and always at
the right time, always resulting in a
true conversion.Conversion is
evidenced by the grace seen in the life
of the converted person. Grace is simply irresistible. There should be no
second guessing as to who is converted !
Jesus has saved us that our joy may be complete
(1 John 1:4). We shall be known by our fruit. We say this ,
for there are many people in this world that
lack assurance. It is imperative that we must provide gospel clarity for people. Nobody is half - saved!
PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS :
(Read John 3:16 ;
6: 35-40 and John 17).
We need to make it clear that Christ’s sheep are kept secure because the
Great Shepherd has paid for the price of
their sin. Furthermore He continues to pray for them (Rom.
8:34; Jn. 17:9), and He keeps them (Jn.
17:11). They are kept in faith by the
power of Almighty God, and thus persevere to the end through all affliction and suffering.
We need to preach this in an age where many have taught that it is possible to
lose your salvation. This makes the power and the death of Christ a mockery and
it must be denounced as a heresy. arnings must however be issued that spurious
or temporary believers (Hebr. 6:1-6) who
have been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and who
have shared in the Holy Spirit and the powers of the age that is to come, if they fall away - that it is impossible
to restore them to repentance , since they hold Christ in contempt. (i.e. they went out from us but they did not continue
with us 1 Jn. 2:19)
CONCLUSION :
The Doctrines of Grace are thus
an explanation of the gospel.
SOLA 5 exists to make the clarity of the gospel known.
The doctrines of grace to that end
are essential affirmations of the
biblical doctrine of salvation. Each one of these aspects has
been assaulted, and each one must be defended, if we hope to stay a biblical
church.
We thank God that a rediscovery of the doctrines of
grace worldwide has been a wonderful antidote to the current sorry state
of evangelicalism. But we need greater boldness, and more encouragement to stand where our fathers have stood , and
to seek many more platforms to preach
these truths.
This is where SOLA 5 stands. This is what we have covenanted
ourselves to, and here we wish to stand with all like -minded believers in
Southern Africa and in the world.
Unto Him be glory in
the church, and in Christ Jesus throughout
all generations, forever and ever. Amen
! (Eph. 3:21)
[1] Apparently uttered by Socrates at his trial for impiety and corrupting the
youth, for which he was subsequently sentenced to die, as described in Plato's
Apology. See also 2 Corinthians 13:5
[2] T.S. Elliot
: ‘ Choruses from the Rock’ : COLLECTED POEMS 1909- 1935 [101]
[3]
E.g. Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:1-11
[4] In
two years’ time, on the 31st October 2017 we shall be remembering the 500th anniversary
of the beginning of the Protestant Reformation
[5]
His real name was Jakob
Hermanzoon. He was a professor at the University of Leiden . He wrote many
books and treatises on theology and his
views became the basis of Arminiansim and the Dutch Remonstrant movement.
[6]
In French he was called Jehan Cauvin
[7] The oldest of the doctrinal standards of the Reformed
Churches is the Belgic Confession written
in 1561, 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 Brès, a preacher of the Reformed churches of the
Netherlands, who died as a martyr in
1567.
[8]
Taken from R.C. Sproul’s article :
The Pelagian Captivity of the Church
[9]
Theopedia : TULIP http://www.theopedia.com/tulip
[10] This debate was not held between Calvin and Arminius, but between their followers. They were not contemporaries, for
Calvin ( 1509 -1564) was long dead
when Arminius ( 1560-1609) had become
a respected scholar at the University of Leiden , Holland.
[11]
Although Arminius was not nearly as extreme as Pelagius in his pronunciations
against the Sovereignty of God. Arminius has sometimes been called a ‘
semi-Pelagian’.
[12] Iain Murray on Whitefield
and Wesley: This article first appeared in the 1960 edition
of Whitefield's Journals, published by The Banner of Truth Trust.
Here Iain Murray discusses the historical
background that led to George Whitefield's famous letter to John Wesley
[13] Ibid
[14] You
can find this on the Internet
No comments:
Post a Comment