John Calvin or Menno Simons?

I still have trouble understanding why some Baptists have such a love affair with John Calvin, the Reformation and Reformed Theology, seeing none of these are linked with Baptist history or heritage. Calvin had no love for the Baptists, nor did the Reformers (with the exception of Erasmus). In my readings, I would think that Baptists would be better served with looking toward men like Menno Simons and groups like the Reformation-era Anabaptists, the Mennonites and the Brethren groups.

Comparing Menno Simons with John Calvin reveals a world of difference and theological attitudes.

1. Menno never persecuted anyone while Calvin did.
2. Menno never had anyone put to death while Calvin did.
3. Menno was every bit a scholar as was Calvin.
4. Menno held to religious liberty while Calvin did not.
5. Menno opposed state churches while Calvin didn’t.
6. Menno made a cleaner break with Rome than Calvin did.
7. Menno suffered more persecution than Calvin did (Calvin faced some early in his life, before he came under the protection of a state church, an advantage Menno never had).
8. The Mennonites are much closer to modern Baptists than are the Protestants.

Baptists really should look toward Menno, and the Brethren/Anabaptist/Brethren groups rather than the Reformed Protestants for our inspiration and historical instruction. After all, we are all related theologically, while the same cannot be said of any Baptist relationship with the Calvinistic branch of the Reformation.

I have really come to appreciate the Mennonite/Brethren groups more over the years as a genuine Pilgrim/Remnant movement in church history. Naturally, they have their problems today (who doesn’t?) and no human theological group is perfect. I am well familiar with Menno’s struggles over some issues of Christology. But Calvin had many theological errors as well, such as his teachings of predestination and election, so neither man was perfect theologically. But what a world of difference in reading Calvin and Menno Simons! Menno is not forever quoting Augustine and his language is more more Christian than is Calvin’s. Calvin could almost sound like Peter Ruckman in attacking his enemies. Menno displayed a much better Christian spirit in his life and writings.

Part of my appreciation of the Mennonite/Brethren groups may come from a close geographic association I have with them. There is a sizable Mennonite and Amish population here in central Delaware and I spend a lot of time in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. I’ve always believed that the true “Bible Belt” in the United States is not “down south” but runs from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania to near Philadelphia, through southern Pennsylvania, where there is a higher percentage of these Baptistic groups. Mennonites and the Brethren are my spiritual “cousins” and I can have a much deeper affinity with them than I could every hope to have with Martin Luther or John Calvin.

Adventures Among the Uninsured III

The bills are now starting to roll in from my wife’s gall-bladder surgery:
Emergency room- $2300
Doctors (two bills) $3800 for both

The surgeon did knock of $1000 off her bill since my wife was uninsured. She mentioned that self-pays are usually billed at higher rates than those with insurance. I was surprised as I assumed the opposite might be true, since there would be no insurance company to “gouge”.

We haven’t received any bills from the hospital itself or from the radiologists, which is where the bulk of the billing would come from.

Our medical sharing plan has already sent us their claim forms and as soon as we receive all the bills, we will submit our needs to them.

Reformation Day- So What?

One truth of Church History is that Baptists are not Protestants. We pre-dated the Reformation due to our association with the Donatists, Waldensians and other groups. This goes for our spiritual cousins, the Mennonites and Anabaptists. Baptists have nothing to do with Luther, Calvin and the rest of the bunch. Since most Protestants of that era hated Baptist people and even persecuted them (how many Anabaptists were martyred by Protestants?), why should Baptist people “celebrate” Reformation Day? It is a day for the Lutherans, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Methodists, etc, not Baptists. Whenever a Baptist identifies as a Protestant, he forgets his grand and glorious heritage that has very little to do with the Reformers.

Of course, the Reformers were only partially “reformed” as they maintain many Roman Catholic doctrines and practices, including infant baptism, baptism by pouring or sprinkling, state churches, persecution, among others. They went so far, then they stopped when they achieved some degree of political power and independence. Only the non-Reformed Baptists were totally separated from Rome in doctrine and practice. Only the Baptists can be said to be truly “reformed” as only the Baptists made the clean and total break from Rome early on (as early as the 3rd century). The current idol of neo-fundamentalism, John Calvin, worshipped at the foot of the Roman Catholic Augustine, persecuted his theological opponents, ran Geneva like a Soviet gulag and did nothing to advance the ideals of religious freedom. Why celebrate that?

Even I Wouldn’t Burn an ESV…

A North Carolina pastor to have an old-fashioned book burning, modern Bible Versions included

Um, no.

Now I’m as staunch a King James Bible defender as there is and I’ve been very critical on the modern version glut as well. But even an ESV or an NIV has enough truth in it for it to have some value. As D. A. Waite noted, after his exhaustive research, the critical text versions agree with the King James about 93% of the time on average. I know 93% isn’t good enough to use (it has to be 100%, or as close as we can get) when dealing with souls and the truth, but there are more rational ways to express your opposition to modern versions than this.

This pastor has given the enemies of the King James great occasion to blaspheme. Most anti-King James/pro-modern version bloggers jump on this as an excuse to pull out their broad brush and paint every traditional text supporter as no better than this pastor. Such assertions are a violation of the Ninth Commandment, regarding bearing false witness and these men have great need to repent. I have yet to meet or read about any genuine, rational King James man who would go this far or support this nonsense.

As for Rick Warren and Billy Graham, well, let them take care of themselves. If their God is God, then He would certainly plead for them on His behalf.

Adventures Among the Uninsured Part 3

Teresa came home from the hospital today from her gallbladder surgery.

I took a pain prescription to the local Rite Aid, which put me back $17.50, but they gave me a card for 10% off future orders, which is something Rite Aid does for customers who have no insurance. That’s a nice program!

Going Back to Rome?

Rome invites disillusioned Anglicans back into the fold.

It makes sense of you are an Anglican, I guess. There isn’t too much difference between an Anglican/Episcopalian and a Romanist except for the Mary-worship and bowing down to the pope. The old joke was that an Anglican was just a Catholic who flunked his Latin.

If Rome allows married Anglican priests to become Catholic priests, is that fair to the current crop of bachelor Catholic priests? If a Catholic priest isn’t allowed to marry, how can Rome allow Anglican-turned-Catholic priests who are married to serve up mass? Would there be a lot of resentment among the Catholic priesthood?

Adventures Among the Uninsured Part 2

My wife is still in the hospital as a few complications still nag at her.

We were visited by two social workers, who gave us forms to fill out to apply for various grants that could lop off 25% or more from our final bill. It’s only a 2-page form, with the usual questions about income and dependents. They want 4 weeks of paycheck stubs, last year’s tax returns and a few other things I can’t remember right now. We’ll send that material off when Teresa gets out of the hospital, hopefully tomorrow.

Adventures Among the Uninsured

Okay, this isn’t theological but political. With all the health care reform hot gas out there, the Lord has put my family in a unique position to “test the system”.

I have good health insurance from my secular employment but my wife has none. I simply cannot afford the $400 a month it would cost to add her to my policy. We have her enrolled in the Good Samaritan medical sharing program. For all intents, she is uninsured.

Last week, my wife’s gall bladder practically “died”. It was removed on October 19 and her surgeon said it was the nastiest gallbladder she ever saw- infected, full of stones, three times normal size. All of this included two trips to the emergency room, surgery and so far, 3 days in the hospital. The bill will be substantial.

So how does an uninsured person deal with this? Besides our medical sharing program, which should cover a good chunk of it, we have been told that there are grants and other state programs to help uninsured patients. The surgeon told my wife not to worry that much about her bill.

Over the next several weeks, we will no doubt see our health care system in action, up close and personal. Watch this space to see not only how the Lord will meet our financial need, but how He does and and by what agencies. This all will go to answer the question “Is our health care system really so broken that we need Obama and the Socialists in Congress to ‘fix’ it for us?” Personally, I can think of a ton of improvements to improve our health care system that would require little or no new legislation (medical saving plans, like IRAs, allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines, removal of government mandated coverages, etc). But the days ahead should be “interesting” to say the least.

Dicoese of Wilmington Declares Bankruptcy

The Roman Catholic Diocese of Wilmington, Delaware declares bankruptcy. This is nothing more than a cheap attempt to save their financial bacon in the light of possibly 100 sexual abuse lawsuits that would probably drain its coffers. It’s an old story- sexual perverts in the Roman Catholic priesthood that were tolerated and sheltered. Hopefully, the courts will allow the lawsuits to proceed so justice can be done.

The Pelagianism of Charles Finney

Continuing our analysis of the heresies of Charles Finney from my doctoral dissertation Nettleton vs Finney: The Shift in American Evangelicalism 1820-1830:

Finney’s Pelagianism

Here is the sore point in Finney’s doctrine that no one wants to talk about! I have read very few articles questioning Finney’s soteriology. The reason is obvious. Since Finney is the “hero” of modern revivalism, no negative articles can be tolerated regarding his doctrines. If Finney was a Pelagian then he can in no way be used as an acceptable model in either doctrine or practice.

The fact that Finney rejected evangelical Calvinism so strongly ought to immediately set up the red flag in our minds. Now we do not identify ourselves with a Calvinistic theological system personally, but we recognize that there is truth in Calvinism. However, much of this truth in simply out of balance in a Calvinistic system. Yet Biblicists would readily agree with the sovereignty of God in salvation and revival, the depravity of man, the indwelling sin nature in man and the need for a change of nature in salvation. All this Calvinism stresses. All this Finney rejected. Finney believed such doctrine put too many constraints on evangelism and revival. Fewer people would be saved under such a system. A softer, friendlier soteriological system must be erected in order to get more conversions. Yet Finney ignored the fact that God sent powerful revivals under just such a system in years past.

The charge of Pelagianism against Finney is an old one, going back to the late 1820s. After the Troy, New York conference with Nettleton in 1827, the charges flew. A deputation of “Old School” ministers led by Lyman Beecher sat in on the Troy meetings of Finney to observe the New Measures in action first hand. They
came away shocked. The main point of contention was that the New Measures sought to produce conversions through the arm of flesh. The power God was nowhere seen nor did it seem to be required. By 1835, Finney was being widely denounced as a Pelagian.

Pelagianism was developed in the early years of the 5th century by a British monk Pelagius, a Christian moralist who lived in Rome. Distressed by the moral laxity of Christians of his day, he urged them to live moral lives and to reform themselves. Pelagius taught that men could reform themselves and live free from sin if only they wanted to. Human nature is sufficient as created by God to bring about the desired moral changes. The will is always free to choose good or evil without divine aid. The inherited Adamic sin nature is denied. Adam’s fall and sin had no influence upon mankind. Adam’s sin affected only himself. Pelagius also denied the need of internal grace to keep God’s commands. Human nature was created good and was endowed by its Creator with power to live a morally upright life if a man desired to. “By his free will man is emancipated from God.” This statement by the Pelagian Julian is the key to Pelagianism, which is nothing more than a rationalized moralism (David Broughton Knox, “Pelagianism”, Baker’s Dictionary of Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1960, pages 399-400). It put a very strong stress on morality.

Does not this definition fit Finney? A sinner may be saved if he desires and that desire is the only requirement for conversion. There is no need for divine conviction. Finney strongly believed that individuals possessed the power within themselves to make the choice for Christ and for holy living. The issue comes down to “Do you want to be saved or not? If so, just ‘decide for God’!” Here is where the term “Make your decision for Christ” comes from. Salvation is not a “decision”, it is a new birth, where the Holy Spirit brings the repentant sinner to repentance and gives him a new divine nature. Human responsibility is a factor of course, but the Holy Spirit must be considered. Revivalism downplays the work of the Spirit, dumping all of the responsibility on man, who may be saved if only he will.

Salvation then is a mere decision, a proper use of the will. Finney will continue to talk as though he believed in the divine work in salvation but he cannot honestly believe it. Remember, we already noted that Finney rejected any element of the supernatural in revival. Revival was nothing more than the right use of appointed means. Is not the new birth seen in the same light? If salvation is simply the making of a “right choice” for God, is it supernatural? If it is all of man, where does God fit in? If it is of man then it cannot be a work of God, cannot be supernatural, cannot be a miracle. Finney then robs the new birth of its miraculous nature as he does with revival.

Emphasis on morality is also a dead giveaway for Pelagianism. Morality is a manmade substitute for holiness. God is holy while man is moral. Holiness is a state of being while morality stems from a moral code of do’s and don’ts. Man can be moral without God. Some sinners are more moral than Christians. Many sinners do not lie, cheat or steal. This makes them moral but not holy.

Morality or Holiness?

In his theological writings, Finney is obsessed with the Moral Law of God. He dwells much on “Moral Law” and “Moral Obligation”. He spends much time discussing our moral obligations toward God and how God operates according to a moral law. There is much emphasis on morality but not as much corresponding discussion of holiness. Finney neglected the holiness of God and the obligations of Christians to live holy lives in favor of morality. Again, it is not hard to understand why. Finney’s gospel is man-centered and dependent upon human ability. Morality is man-generated goodness. Anyone can be moral if he sets his mind to it. Sinners can be moral. All a man has to do is quite drinking, swearing and beating his wife and he may be considered as moral.

Holiness is quite something else. Holiness is divine while morality is human. Man can be moral without God but he cannot be holy. Holiness, both positional and practical, is divine in origin. Man can do nothing to attain it. He cannot decide for holiness as he could for holiness. This explains Finney’s fixation on morality. To the Pelagian Finney, who centers on human ability in salvation and sanctification, morality is the substitute for holiness. To be moral is to be holy. Absolute morality is the goal in complete sanctification of Finney’s
Perfectionism.

This explain the poor quality of Finney’s converts. They got plenty of morality but not much holiness, which would accompany a true divine regeneration. True Biblical salvation emphasizes the work in the Spirit in the heart of the believer, empowering him to live right nd to bring forth spiritual fruit. Since Finney forsook the divinity of the new birth and since the Holy Spirit was not at the center of his soteriology, all Finney could offer his converts was “Strive for moral perfection!” That takes no grace. One can be moral and still be wicked. So as long as one was “moral” and outwardly righteous, these converts were satisfied with their spiritual condition. After all, they did what Finney told them to do. Sanctification is morality. Be moral and you must be saved. Be even more moral and you can attain entire sanctification. “Make yourself a new heart” and all will be will. We rather preach “let Christ make you a new heart.” This is the crux of the difference. Who saves- you or Christ? Who sanctifies- you or Christ? Do you want to be moral or holy?

Later Doctrinal Problems: Sinless Perfection

Finney’s Pelagianism led him to greater errors later in life. After he took the position of professor at Oberlin College, he fell into the pit of total sanctification. It is easy to understand how he could adopt this doctrine. Remember, Finney rejected the teaching of the indwelling sin nature of man as being too “Calvinistic”. The root of the sin problem in man lay in his will and not in his nature. All a sinner needed to do for salvation was to “choose” to forsake sin and stop sinning. He would “choose” against the world and “make a decision for Christ”.

If salvation was to be understood as nothing greater than deciding to turn on a light, then why would it be so hard for Christians to attain total sanctification? Finney recognized that Christians were still sinning after conversion. Why would this be so? Could not a Christian make a simple exercise of his will and stop sinning as a Christian? He did so at his conversion, why not so again for his sanctification? Could he come into total obedience to the moral law of God? Thus Finney began teaching that a Christian could grow in grace to the point where he completely fulfilled the moral law of God. This is called Oberlin Theology, after the school where Finney served as a professor and later president.

Oberlin Theology is an attempt to force a marriage between “liberal” or “New School” Calvinism (the New Haven Theology) with Methodist perfectionism. To Finney, God was benevolent and man was capable of growing toward perfection, although not absolutely.

A. A. Hodge, in his Outlines of Theology, defines Finney’s teaching of perfection, taken from Finney’s own writings in The Oberlin Evangelist: “It is a full and perfect discharge of our entire duty, of all existing obligations to God, and all other beings. It is perfect obedience to the moral law. A Christian may attain a state of “perfect and disinterested benevolence,” may be “according to his knowledge, as upright as God is,” and be “perfectly conformed to the will of God (A. A. Hodge, Outlines of Theology. Chicago: The Bible Institute Colportage Association, 1878, page 534).”

Hodge would continue with the question “State the points of agreement and disagreement between these several theories, Pelagian, Romish, Arminian and Oberlin (Finney)?”
1st. They all agree in maintaining that it is possible for men in this life to attain a state in which they may habitually and perfectly fulfill all their obligations, i.e., to be and do perfectly all that God requires them to be or do at present.
2d. The Pelagian theory differs from all the rest, in denying the deterioration of our natural and moral powers, and consequently, identifying the necessity of the intervention of supernatural grace to the end of making men perfect.
3d. The Pelagian and Oberlin theories agree in making the original moral law of God the standard of perfection (Ibid.).

This is the cornerstone of Finney’s perfection, his fixation on the moral law of God. His Systematic Theology is obsessed with the supposed necessity of keeping the moral law of God in order to attain perfection.
Finney put too much faith in the ability of man to reform himself without divine aid. Finney’s evangelism did not require the convicting power of the Holy Spirit to bring the sinner to salvation. All that was needed was for the sinner to desire to be saved and to make the right use of his will in order to be “converted”. Perfection or Finney’s concept of Christian maturity also excluded the need for divine aid. A Christian could fulfill the moral law of God in his own power, will and desire. No divine quickening was required. Again, the issue with man, either sinner or saint, is not nature but ability. The sinner has the ability to be saved within himself and the saint has the same inner ability to fulfill the moral law of God.

Origins of the Oberlin Theology: Birthed in Failure

What moved Finney in the direction of perfectionism in the first place? It grew from his successes in the revivals of the late 1820s and 1830s. Many were saved in areas where religion was very low. Since the churches were in a very low state (according to Finney), the level of spirituality in the areas visited by revival would continue to be lower than desirable. Religion was neglected before the revivals and there was no strong moral foundation by which to build up the new converts.

Finney despaired over the relatively low percentage of true converts out of the great multitudes who made professions in his revivals. Why were so few truly saved? Finney believed it was because he had brought the professors only into a traditional Christianity but not into perfectionism. Finney got a profession out of them but did not disciplize them and follow up on them. Finney said “I was often instrumental in bringing Christians under great conviction and into a state of temporary repentance and faith.” So up to 1836, Finney admits that the great number of his converts merely were responding to their “great conviction” but were not necessarily getting saved. Finney admitted that his revivalistic techniques were unable to produce permanent results. Something along the lines of discipleship was still missing in the lives of the “converts”. Finney came to believe that if he had only preached his doctrine of perfectionism earlier in his ministry, he would have seen greater numbers of permanent converts.

The low level of the revivalist converts was of great concern to Finney and his followers. There were so many professions yet so little true fruit. The “converts” must be brought into a more positive relationship with God. If the Holy Spirit could not (or would not) bring them into a true Christian life, then the “converts” must do the work themselves. This idea is not so extreme if we remember that these people were largely responsible for their own “salvation.” Man saves himself under a Pelagian gospel by the proper use of his will to reform. Salvation in Pelagianism is nothing more than a moral reformation, not a true spiritual regeneration. This moral reformation must extend past the initial conversion to the entire life. The way to a good Christian life and testimony was to determine to obey the moral law of God to its fullest extent. This is the aim of Oberlin Perfectionism. Save yourself and them pull yourself up by your own bootstraps and live right. No inward help from the Holy Spirit is required, although it would obviously be a nice thing to have. We have already seen where salvation to Finney was no miracle at all, simply the making of a moral choice. With such a low, naturalistic concept of salvation, is it any surprise that the spiritual quality of its adherents would be so low? A low view of salvation produces a low level of spirituality.