God Loves… Himself

I am responding to an article in the June 07 Banner of Truth magazine. It was written by Solano Portela and is entitled “A Sin That Threatens Calvinists-Spiritual Pride.” In reality, while I am responding to his article, I am also responding to Reformed theology as set out and practiced today and Evangelicalism as a whole.

What does it mean to be tolerant? Some of the synonyms for it are interesting. The word means liberal, broadminded, open-minded, forbearing, understanding, and charitable. Some of the meanings of the word are not acceptable to the believer, but we can settle on charitable. However, we must be very careful. We must never take our practice of being charitable to being broadminded or open- minded in regards to the Gospel. The Gospel is that which all who do not believe it in truth will be damned. It is that vital. Are we to be charitable in regards to many different issues? Of course we are, but that must never extend to the Gospel itself.

Let us think through this issue again and with a little more provocation. What is the real issue between Arminianism and Reformed theology in terms of the Gospel? That is the real and vital question. If there is a difference at that point, then it is a major point regardless of what other differences there are. Are we to be tolerant on the issue of the Gospel? Do we remember Paul’s toleration of different gospels in Galatians 1:6-10? If we hold what Scripture teaches us about the nature of Scripture, then what we have is the level of God’s tolerance toward other gospels as well. As seen from quotes I gave from Luther in the June 21 newsletter, Luther said that the issue revolved around the nature of free-will. In the mind and writings of Luther free-will was directly opposed to a true Gospel of grace and so was opposed to the Gospel.

Let us wade into this issue without trying to water things down. Martin Luther thought that Arminianism and Pelagianism were different gospels than that of the Bible. Let us not pretend that he did not. The real question was whether he was right or wrong on that. Another real issue is what the different theological positions really meant and really mean. It is my position that many that go under the banner of “Arminian” actually operate with Pelagian principles and theology in terms of the gospel. We will never be faithful to the Gospel of Jesus Christ unless we stand up and say that Pelagianism is heresy and against the Gospel. So this is one point that the Banner article is woefully inadequate on. We cannot go around and extend charity to people until we know what they really believe.

Arminians have slipped into the principles of Pelagianism, but what has filled the void that Arminians have once held? It is my contention that some if not many within the Reformed community are actually more in line with historical Arminianism. What would Luther say about many people in the Reformed community today? I believe he would think that they had more in common with Erasmus than with himself (Luther). Theological precision and biblical fidelity have given way to a weak form of sentimentality and fear of the opinions of men. In Galatians 1:10 Paul noted that if we fear men we do not fear God. The practice of being tolerant, gracious, and winsome can be nothing more than a fear of man and not standing for the Gospel. Let us not use those terms to avoid being ostracized and mocked for the Gospel.

Let a few more words from the historical introduction to Luther’s Bondage of the Will sink in: “Justification by faith only is a truth that needs interpretation. The principle of sola fide is not rightly understood till it is seen as anchored in the broader principle of sola gratia” (p. 59). If the Gospel of Jesus Christ is centered on justification by faith alone, then we need to be sure that we have the correct understanding of justification. If we don’t understand justification, we don’t understand the Gospel and so do not believe it. This does not mean that we have to understand every part perfectly, but we must understand the essentials. If we are going to say that Luther was correct on the Gospel, then we need to understand what Luther said about the Gospel. It is not enough to have an academic understanding of the issue if we are going to understand it like Luther, but we must see what grace really means in order to know what he meant by the Gospel. I fear that we have little understanding of grace in our day. By that I mean a real experiential understanding of grace that only comes from the depths of the heart when the soul learns it by the experience of a sinful and broken heart. But again, we must take note that justification by faith alone (sola fide) cannot be understood apart from justification by grace alone (sola gratia). Modern Arminian teaching as a whole denies what Luther taught about grace and the will. It is not the same Gospel. Is that intolerant? Luther was intolerant of false gospels and so was John Knox. More importantly, Jesus and Paul were.

This entry was posted on June 22, 2007 at 11:51 pm and is filed under The Gospel. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.