VOICEA N I N D E P E N D E N T C H U R C H J O U R N A L • J U L Y | A U G U S T 2 0 1 4

2 VOICE

VOICEAN INDEPENDENT CHURCH JOURNAL • JULY|AUGUST 2014

Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Dr . Les LofquistDesign . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jim Connelly Studio

Volume 93 Number 4

Direct all correspondence to Voice Magazine P .O . Box 810, Grandville, MI 49468-0810 616/531-1840, FAX: 616/531-1814

Voice, an Independent Church Journal (PSPS 662-140) is published bi-monthly by IFCA International .

Subscript ion Rates: $12 .00—1 year; $20 .00—2 years; $28 .00—3 years . Bundles of multiple copies to one address $9 .00 per copy per year . Any local church may subscribe for 100% of the families represented in its active membership at $10 .50 per copy per year (domestic) . Foreign subscriptions are $37 .00 per year . Please make your payment in US currency or a check drawn on a U .S . bank .

Address Change: Send your new address with the old at least 30 days before the date of issue with which it is to take effect . If possi-ble, enclose the address label . The Post Office will not forward copies unless you provide extra postage .

Postmaster: Send address changes to Voice, an Independent Church Journal, P .O . Box 810, Grandville, MI 49468-0810 . Second class postage paid at Grandville, MI 49468-0810, and at additional mailing offices .

Copyright: All material in Voice belongs to IFCA International . Duplication is prohibited prior to approval . Contact the Editorial Office at 616-531-1840 for permission . Articles and advertisements in Voice are the express position of the author and advertiser; pub-lication of either does not constitute official endorsement .

© 2014 IFCA International

www .ifca .org

ContentsFEATURE ARTICLES

3 Anabaptists, Calvinists, Pietists, Revivalists | Les Lofquist

12 Are Certain Versions of Calvinism Harmful? | Larry E . Miller

20 Sanctification Confusion | Roderick Smith

IN EVERY ISSUE

23 New Members

24 Death of His Saints

25 Fellowship News

26 Chaplain’s Diary

30 Discipling Children

31 Woman’s Voice

July|August 2014 3

Les Lofquist EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

Anabaptists, Calvinists, Pietists, Revivalists

The Lord Jesus Christ proclaimed “I will build My church and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it” (Matthew

16:18). After His ascension into heaven, Christ continued His work of building the Church from the Day of Pentecost until this very day. He is most certainly building His church.

But most of us are not familiar with what Christ’s Church has looked like through the cen-turies. We in our circles don’t talk much about the Patristic Fathers or the Seven Ecumenical Councils or the expansion of the Church in the 4th through 10th centuries or the Paulicians or Bogomils or Waldensians or Lollards or Hussites. These forgotten saints are very much part of the history of the true Church.1

We do however have a little more familiarity with the 16th century Reformation and men such as Martin Luther, John Calvin and the other Reformers. The rallying cry of the Reformation was the “Five Solas” from the Latin word sola which is translated in English as “alone”: Sola Scriptura (“by Scripture alone”), Sola fide (“by faith alone”), Sola gratia (“by grace alone”), Sola Christo (“through Christ alone”), Sola Deo gloria (“glory to God alone”). Every truly regenerated believer who has experienced justif ication by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone should be able to emphatically affirm the Five Solas. But how do they translate into theology? That was the controversy for the Reformers.

There were four main theological streams that emerged from the Reformation. Those who followed the teachings of Martin Luther ulti-mately founded the Lutheran church. Those who followed John Calvin founded the Reformed / Presbyterian church. Henry VIII founded the Church of England / Anglican Church, with many following his lead. And those who believed even more radical reformation should take place in opposition to Roman Catholic doctrine and

practices and who also believed baptism was only for believers were part of the Anabaptist move-ment. IFCA International churches share some commonality with all the Reformers in rallying around the Five Solas. But compared to those four streams of the Reformation, we f low out from the Anabaptists.

Most of us are not familiar with what Christ’s Church has looked like

through the centuries.

In the late 17th century a religious move-ment originated in Germany as a reaction to the formalism and intellectualism of that day, stressing Bible study and personal religious experience. The Pietists were concerned that many professing Christians seemed more occu-pied with a rigid orthodoxy than with a godly manner of life. They reached their peak in the 18th century and continued into the 19th cen-tury. IFCA International would share similar passions as the Pietists who stood for godliness and holy lives.

As the Pietists grew in Germany, so did the Nonconformists, Separatists and Puritans in England. Certainly members of IFCA International look upon those great movements with great respect and a kindred spirit because of their concern for purity of doctrine and a willing-ness to identify and separate from false teaching.

Then came the 18th century mission-ary movement led by the Moravians and William Carey and fueled by the Evangelical Revivalists (men like George Whitefield, John Wesley, Jonathan Edwards) and the 19th cen-tury Revivalists (men like last-of-the-Puritans Charles Spurgeon and evangelist D.L. Moody). We in IFCA International stand with that great

4 VOICE

company in their passion for evange-lism, missions and spiritual revival.

Then came the Modernist v. Fundamental ist controversy which brings us to more familiar ground in our understanding of church history.

The historic Bible Conferences of the late 19th century and the pub-lication of The Fundamentals from 1910-1915 led to the Fundamentalist movement. And the birth of IFCA began in response to a question posed by Moody Bible Institute’s Moody Monthly magazine in February, 1930: “Has the time come for Fundamentalists to promptly and literally obey the emphat-ic commandment given to believers in II Cor. 6:14-18; Eph. 5:11 and II John 9-11?” The inception of the IFCA two months later was an affirmative answer.

With that broad sweep of church history, I see inf luences of all sorts in IFCA International today. Anabaptists, Calvinists, Pietists, Revivalists a l l have varying levels of influences in our churches and members. Because of our convictions regarding the priesthood of the believer and the independence of the local church, there is freedom with-in the boundaries of the Bible and the IFCA Doctrinal Statement for individ-ual IFCA members to embrace differing elements of each historic expression of the faith. That is a ref lection of the autonomy of the local church. But it does lead to some tensions when our churches and members discuss theology and evaluate theological influences.

This article represents some of my thoughts regarding a couple of those tensions.

Theological Antinomy, Tension & Mystery

In so many theological discussions, I become dismayed. On the one hand, there are those who resist serious study of the Scripture and opt for a shallow Christian experience devoid of substan-tive theological thought. Others on this extreme mindlessly embrace mys-tery whenever God is discussed. They claim that anyone “who says they have figured out the Bible” is an authoritar-ian, closed-minded, judgmental person who is filled with certitude and loves to dominate through strong declarative statements. “We have no idea what most

of the Bible means, and yet this makes us feel like life is big again, filled with mystery.” This seems to me to be an arrogant dismissal of what the inerrant Scriptures do reveal.

On the other hand, there are those who present their theology with seem-ingly f lawless logic and conf idently explain the inexplicable. These people explain God’s mind and God’s ways as if they have perfectly comprehended Him. They have every Scriptural pas-sage neatly arranged in their theological system. I even heard some explain to me they know what God was think-ing before creation regarding the logical order of His decrees. All of this seems to me to be no more than arrogance in argumentation.

What I am arguing for is theolog-ical discourse which is founded upon the Bible as God’s truthful, accurate, understandable, written revelation AND which also understands the limitations of our human comprehension and the inability of language to describe per-fectly God and His ways. My plea is for a fully developed Bible-based theology which also accounts for antinomy, ten-sion, and mystery.

Theological AntinomyAn important theological consid-

eration for us to remember is the issue some define as antinomy. Antinomy is from two Greek words (anti: “against” + nomos: “law”). It literally means the mutual incompatibility, real or appar-ent, of two laws. It is a term used in philosophy (specif ically in logic and epistemology). It is also used in the-ology. The Oxford English Dictionary def ines the word: “a contradiction between two beliefs or conclusions that are in themselves reasonable.” Packer wrote this about antinomy: “the whole point of an antinomy - in theology, at any rate - is that it is not a real con-tradiction, though it looks like one. It is an apparent incompatibility between two apparent truths. An antinomy exists when a pair of principles stand side by side, seemingly irreconcilable, yet both undeniable.” 2

The Scr iptures revea l numer-ous antinomies. For example, how can there be a distinction between the three Persons yet a unity within the Godhead?

Or, how can Jesus be fully human and fully divine? Or, how could the eternal Son of God, the Creator of the uni-verse, die on the cross? How could the Son who always enjoyed perfect union with the Father cry out, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” How could the Bible be a completely divine, inerrant book written by completely human agents? How can salvation be totally an act of God, independent of human means, and yet require a human response to the divine initiative?

However, notice that these really only seem to be contradictions. We know that there are no errors in the Bible. That is the doctrine of inspiration and inerrancy. We also know that there is nothing logically impossible within the mind of Almighty God. That is the doctrine of Theology Proper. So, we could spend a lifetime (and indeed many have) trying to f lesh out the exact spe-cifics for our answers to the questions in the paragraph above. But I do not believe we will ever fully comprehend nor fully explain all the questions we can ask. Healthy tensions do exist in the minds of believers with regard to impor-tant biblical truths which are clearly taught in the Bible.

Antinomy & LanguageMen often have proposed and pro-

moted theological theories in an attempt to reconcile biblical antinomies. But we need to remember that where God’s Word seems to run against our sense of things, His Word must be trusted and believed rather than our man-made theological system / logical answers. Man’s understanding wi l l a lways be inferior to God’s knowledge. God doesn’t tell us everything He knows. But He does tell us truthfully what we need to know in order to be redeemed and live righteously.

It can be a painful process adapting our thinking to the truth of revelation. It requires humility to recognize and accept God’s teaching. But that is what in fact we must do.

A related problem with theologi-cal implications involves the problem of language. It is not easy to explain in language, good for all time, all the truth we believe, in just a few sentenc-es. The meaning and def initions of

July|August 2014 5

LES LOFQUIST’S ITINERARY

July 2014

14-18 Post Convention follow up

23-24 Biblical Ministries Worldwide Board Meetings, Atlanta, GA

26 Amherst, New Hampshire

27 Merrimack Valley Baptist Church 33rd Anniversary Celebration

August

13 Jamestown (MI) Baptist Church

20 Jamestown (MI) Baptist Church

25-26 2015 Pre-Convention site visit to Northern Kentucky

September

12-13 Pioneer Bible Camp Family Retreat, Eden, Utah

15-16 Intermountain Regional, Fellowship Bible Church, Eden, Utah

26 Calvary Bible College Board Meetings, Kansas City, MO

27-28 South County Bible Church, St . Louis, MO

29 Greater St . Louis Regional

words change over time, even within one generation. This is the diff iculty of semantics, which refers to the vari-ous aspects of meaning in words and the inability of mere words always to communicate perfectly our intended meaning. There is also the diff iculty that has been present ever since the judgment at the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11) when God caused the differences in languages. Having studied Hebrew, Greek, and English I am aware of the difficulties in translating from one lan-guage to another. These difficulties have huge implications whenever we engage in serious theological discourse.

God’s IneffabilityAnother related theological concept

that must be remembered is the fact of God’s ineffability. This word comes from two Latin words (in: “not” + effa-bilis: “capable of being expressed”). This refers to the inability of human language

to perfectly describe God and His ways because His majestic greatness defies description. God is eternal and inf i-nite, that is, without beginning, without limits or boundaries. We as creatures are f inite, unable to comprehend the infinite, while God is transcendent, far above His creation.

So God’s nature is not ineffable to Him, but to us, since we are limited in our ability to understand and articulate. This means:

• We can understand God’s attributes and His ways where He reveals them in Scripture.

• We can know God, but we cannot know everything about God.

• God and His ways cannot be fully comprehended nor fully articulated.

God’s ineffability does not mean that we cannot know Him nor that we can-not understand His attributes at all. We

understand whatever God has revealed about Himself in the Bible. But God cannot express perfectly, completely and comprehensively everything about Himself to us mere mortals. It is like a nuclear physicist trying to explain every-thing he knows to a Kindergartner. It just cannot be done.

There are many Bible verses that describe God’s ineffability. Here are some: “Can you search out the deep things of God? Can you find out the limits of the Almighty?” (Job 11:7). “O LORD, how great are Your works! Your thoughts are very deep” (Psalm 92:5). “Such knowledge is too wonderful for me. It is too high, I cannot attain to it” (Psalm 139:6). “For My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways,” says the LORD (Isaiah 55:8).

Paul concluded his discussion on jus-tification by faith (in Romans 1-8) and God’s future plans for Israel (in Romans 9-11) with these words: “Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearch-able are His judgments and His ways past f inding out! For who has known the mind of the LORD? Or who has become His counselor?” (Rom. 11:33-34). Paul burst into praise for the omniscient, all-wise God whose judg-ments (i.e. purposes or decrees) and ways (i.e. methods He chooses to accomplish His purposes) are past our human com-prehension. This involves the ineffability of God: the inability of human language to perfectly describe God and His ways.

What This Does Not MeanBy saying what I have above, I am

not teaching that we worship a God who is illogical or unreasonable. The Apostle Paul, engaging the skeptics on Mars Hill in Acts 17, never indicated anything other than confidence in the reasonableness and logic of God. Nor was he lacking in intellectual prow-ess. He demonstrated that reason and logic were gifts (James 1:17) to be exer-cised under the authority of Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Corinthians 10:5).

Neither do we mean that one can-not know God. In fact, to deny that one can know the God of Scripture would be to deny Christianity itself ! Such knowledge is the goal of life. In the New Testament, salvation is often referred to

6 VOICE

as “understanding,” “being enlightened,” or being “made to see.” Jesus defined what He had meant by the term “eter-nal life,” which He had used so often: “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent” ( John 17:3). We can know the truth about God because of God’s written revelation (the Bible) and because of God’s incarnation-al revelation (Jesus Christ). As the old theological maxim goes: “Know Christ, know God. No Christ, no God.”

It’s not that we can know nothing about God (excuse the double negative). We can know what He has revealed through creation (Romans 1:19-21) and through His written revelation the Bible (Ps. 19). We can know Him in a person-al sense through eternal life, that is, our salvation and adoption into His fam-ily (John 17:3). So there are aspects of God we can know. But we cannot know everything about Him.

Further, we certainly do not mean that believers cannot understand doctri-nal truth. God does not desire ignorance (Romans 10:3; 1 Corinthians 12:1). The Apostle Paul, under inspiration, sharply rebuked a group in Hebrews 5:11-14 for not “progressing” beyond “milk” (i.e. the basics). Anyone using God’s ineffabil-ity and incomprehensibility as an excuse for unbelief or laziness has ignored the teaching of Scripture.

What This Does MeanWhat I am trying to assert is that

God transcends human comprehen-sion. He is beyond human logic, beyond man’s ability to reason and deduce.

F i rst , God is incomprehensi-ble to the world. Those remaining in their sins have no “light,” and cannot “understand” (1 Corinthians 2:14). At this level, there is only the barest comprehension of God, through natu-ral revelation or creation (Romans 1-2).The world comprehends things in a way that is “earthly, sensual, devilish” (James 3:15). The world’s wisdom concludes that the Gospel message is “foolishness” and such “wisdom” is useless in knowing God (1 Corinthians 1:18-21). The unbe-liever cannot understand the hope of Christians (1 Corinthians 2:9), the love of Christ (Ephesians 3:16-19), or “the mystery of His will” (Ephesians 1:8-9).

In fact, “the natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned” (1 Corinthians 2:14).

Secondly, God is not fully known to the Church. Believers can and should understand God through His Word, but even believers can never comprehend God fully. We do not become infinite upon being born again; we are still finite creations with f inite minds that will always (on this earth) limit our concept of God and our understanding of His Word. Further, although we have the advantage (over the unbeliever) of a new nature and the indwelling Holy Spirit, our minds and language are still imper-fect and depraved until our glorification.

As believers, we cannot go beyond the boundaries of Scripture in what we believe (1 Corinthians 4:6). In theo-logical matters we do “see through a glass,” which is much more than we could see as unbelievers; however, we only see through that glass “darkly” (1 Corinthians 13:12), knowing the things of God only “in part.” We must keep in mind that God clearly reveals to us what He has sovereignly chosen to reveal. Yet He has chosen not to reveal some things: “The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law” (Deuteronomy 29:29).

This verse is not some “escape route” out of legitimate and difficult study, but neither can it be ignored. There are simply some things that the Lord has chosen not to reveal to us; it is that simple. Certain things are not revealed to us at all, while other things were revealed only after Christ came. It is not that certain doctrines should be avoided and not studied. But these examples serve to demonstrate that theology should be practiced with caution. We must be careful to keep our specula-tive imaginations within the confines of the Word of God. Let us excel in things “revealed” and be silent when encounter-ing the “secret things” that belong to God. One may certainly make valid inferences from Scripture; but when we are speaking in the realm of speculation, we should both recognize this fact and represent it plainly to others. We must also accept the exis-tence of legitimate theological antinomies.

“Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain unto it” (Psalm 139:6). The Hebrew word used here for “too wonderful” is pil ’ iy and includes the meaning of “secret.” Furthermore, the word “high” (Hebrew sagab) carries the primary meaning of “ inaccessible.” David ’s awe-struck confession should be our own when encountering the mysteries of theol-ogy. When we study God (theology) we should realize that our resources are quite limited and recognize those lim-its. Many today follow their pride and demand answers where there are none, because the only One who can give us those answers has elected not to give them. Some end up “filling in the gaps” themselves with deduction and logic, leading to erroneous teaching. In its place is erected the idol of human reason.

There is mystery, to be sure. We do not know how everything in theology does in fact work. There are some things that are beyond human understanding. That is different from asserting out-right contradiction with God. As Packer wrote, “it is not a real contradiction, though it looks like one. It is an appar-ent incompatibility.” 3 The problem is with us, with our finiteness, with our language. The problem is not with God.

So we must accept the fact of theo-logical antinomy. We must rea l ize there will be tension when we study certain theological concepts. And we must wait until the day when such mysteries are revealed. 

What I am arguing for is theological discourse which is based upon the Bible as God’s truthful, accurate, understand-able, written revelation AND which also understands the limitations of our human comprehension and the inability of language to describe perfectly God and His ways. My plea is for a fully developed Bible-based theology which also accounts for antinomy and mystery.

Theology can lead to tension and error when people manufacture answers to questions God does not choose to answer. There is another theological discussion that often breeds tension. And this tension involves two differing attempts to understand and explain the over-arching truths of the Bible.Covenant Theology & Dispensationalism

C o v e n a n t T h e o l o g y a n d

July|August 2014 7

Dispensational Theology are two historic and different attempts to develop a truly Bible-based theology and systematize and understand and explain the truths of God’s Word. Among serious schol-ars within contemporary Evangelicalism, there are ardent proponents for each theological system. Adherents on both sides attempt to be Bible-based, Christ-centered, and God-honoring. But there are distinctions that sometimes get lost in heated discussions today.

For example, the terms “Covenant Theology” and “Reformed Theology” are frequently used interchangeably as if they were equivalent. If it was once true that Reformed Theology was equivalent to Covenant Theology, it no longer is the case.

We must realize there will be tension when

we study certain theological concepts. And we must wait

until the day when such mysteries are revealed. 

Strong advocates of Reformed Theolog y do not a lways hold to Covenant Theolog y. John Piper of Beth lehem Bapt ist Church in Minneapol i s and A l Moh ler of S out he r n Bapt i s t S em i n a r y o f Louisvil le both refer to themselves as Reformed, Calvinistic Baptists (as did Charles Spurgeon) yet all three oppose the infant baptism of Covenant Theology. The late Reformed exposi-tor Dr. James Montgomery Boice was pastor of Tenth Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia; in his eschatology Boice was Premillennial (see his book The Minor Prophets)4 and Pretribulational (see his book The Last and Future World),5 yet he baptized infants into the Covenant of Grace.

Not all Calvinists are Amillennial or Postmillennial in eschatology and baptize infants (see Piper or Mohler). Neither a re a l l Premi l lennia l ists Dispensational (see Boice or George Eldon Ladd). Precise identif ication is necessary in order to be accurate.Crucial Distinguishing Issues

There are four crucial issues to dif-

ferentiate between the terms Reformed Theology, Covenant Theology, and Dispensational Theology. These issues are as follows:1. Hermeneutics: Is the theology based

upon a normal, literal understand-ing of Scriptural language or upon allegory, spiritualizing, and figura-tive language? Is the Old Testament always interpreted through the New Testament?

2. Ecclesiology: Does Israel equal the church? When did the church begin? Did the church begin with Abraham or in the time described in the Book of Acts?

3. Soteriology: Is Limited Atonement or Particular Redemption taught in the Bible? What is the extent of Christ’s atonement, or for whom did Christ die?

4. Eschatology: Does the nation Israel have a national future as a politi-cal entity in fulf i l lment of Old Testament prophecy? Are the prom-ises made to Israel being fulfilled by the Church today?

Most of those who call themselves Reformed or Calvinist (without some modifier like “Moderately” Reformed) would believe in the five doctrines of sovereign grace which are usually sum-marized with the acrostic TULIP (total depravity, unconditional elec-tion, limited atonement, irresistible grace, perseverance of the saints). But not everyone who holds firmly to those positions in soteriology would agree to a Covenant position in hermeneutics, ecclesiology, and eschatology. Many Reformed Calvinists do not adopt Covenantal positions.

However, many Covenant theolo-gians attempt to deny the legitimacy of the Reformed, Calvinist position to those who agree with them in soteriol-ogy but disagree with them regarding hermeneutics, ecclesiology, and escha-tology. For one example see the article “How Many Points?” by Dr. Richard A . Mu l ler in Calvin Theological Journal 6 where Muller insists that Calvinism remain a consistent system of soteriology and hermeneutics and

ecclesiology and eschatology. Michael Horton in his book God of Promise: Introducing Covenant Theology bold-ly states that “reformed theology is simply covenant theology,” 7 yet he docu-ments numerous individuals f irmly in the Reformed tradition who reject or strongly question one or all of these covenants.8 R.C. Sproul ’s Ligonier Ministries has published this arti-cle “Covenant Theology Is Reformed Theology” with these words: “More and more, we find that Reformed theology has been reduced to what we often call the doctrines of grace - familiar beliefs such as total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints. Of course, we should value these truths of Scripture, but when we fail to stress the larger framework that covenant theol-ogy provides, our understanding of the Bible soon begins to suffer… So when we ask ourselves, ‘What is Reformed theology?’ it wil l serve us wel l to respond, ‘Reformed theology is cov-enant theology.’” 9

Labeling can be confusing and that is why I do not refer to myself with any label such as Calvinist, Reformed or any other label other than IFCA member. I let the IFCA Doctrinal Statement def ine my theological position. But regardless of our views, we must be accurate whenever we attempt to use any of the above labels. If you fail to make the distinctions noted above, it ref lects poorly upon your understanding of the issues. For the purposes of this article, I will paint with a broad brush as an introduction. It is my desire to simply, and with fairness, introduce some of the issues involved.

Definition of Covenant TheologyEvery Bible believer understands

that there are a number of covenants in Scripture. This is not what distinguishes Covenant Theology. What does distin-guish it is the view that covenants are the interpretive framework for under-standing all the Bible. They teach that the concept of covenant is the theologi-cal structure by which the entire Biblical text organizes itself.

Covenant Theology is distinguished by the place it gives to two main cov-enants: the Covenant of Works (Law)

8 VOICE

and the Covenant of Grace (Gospel), both of which become the all-encom-passing basis for and substance of all God’s dealings with man. Many add a third covenant, the Covenant of Redemption which is the agreement between the Father (giving the Son as Head and Redeemer of the elect) and the Son (voluntarily taking the place of those whom the Father has given him).

Covenant Theology teaches that the Covenant of Works (Law) was the agree-ment between God and Adam, promising life to Adam for perfect obedience and death if Adam failed. Adam did sin in the Garden, and thus failed to meet the requirement of the Covenant of Works.

Covenant Theology teaches that the Covenant of Grace (Gospel) is defined as the agreement between the offended God and the offending sinner. They believe God promises salvation to the elect through faith in Christ and the sinner accepts this believingly, promis-ing a life of faith and obedience.

Covenant Theology also teaches that water

baptism of infants is the sign and seal of the Covenant of Grace

today replacing ritual Old Testament circumcision.

Covenant Theology teaches that there is only one people of God and that the Church is the fulfillment of Israel in New Covenant prophecy.  Covenant Theology acknowledges some kind of uniqueness of the Church, especially in its “post-Pentecost phase,” but it teaches all believers before and after Pentecost are in absolute continuity.  This aspect of Covenant Theology has great conse-quence for eschatology.

Covenant Theology also teaches that water baptism of infants is the sign and seal of the Covenant of Grace today replacing ritual Old Testament circum-cision. Infant baptism certif ies one’s entrance into the Covenantal communi-ty. This is a crucial part of their system.The History of Covenant Theology

Fu l ly s y s temat iz ed Covenant

Theology is somewhat recent in histo-ry, like all systematic theology systems. According to Former Calvin Seminary President and Professor of Systematic Theology Louis Berkhof, “In all the Church Fathers the covenant idea is not found at all.” 10 There are no ref-erences to Covenant Theology in any of the great confessions of faith until the Westminster Confession in 1647, and even then, it was not fully devel-oped until later by various Reformed theologians. This teaching does not spe-cifically appear in the writings of Luther, Zwingli, Calvin or Melanchthon which seems very curious given the fact that these men are the chief foundations for Reformed theology.

According to Berkhof, Kaspar Olevianus (1536-1587) was the real founder of Covenant Theology “ in which the concept of the covenant became for the first time the constitutive and determinitive principle of the whole system.” 11

After Olevanius, the German theo-logian Johannes Cocceius (1603-1669) became responsible for advancing and popularizing this teaching. Cocceius expounded the concept of two covenants (Works and Grace) and made these cov-enants the basis and substance of all God’s dealings with man regarding redemption.

Herman Witsius (1636-1708) was mainly responsible for extending the Covenant of Grace back into eternity. He linked the covenant idea with the eter-nal decrees. This caused some Covenant theologians to introduce the third cove-nant: the Covenant of Redemption, made in eternity past between the persons of the Godhead which is the basis for the Covenant of Grace.

Covenant theology came to the USA with the Puritans through the writings of Herman Witsius, whose ideas were championed in the new world by John Cotton and other American Puritans.

The concepts came to full devel-opment in America by the Princeton theologians Charles Hodge, A. A. Hodge, B. B. Warf ield, Geerhardus Vos and J. Gresham Machen and in the Netherlands by Herman Bavinck. They taught what has become the classic understanding of Covenant Theology: the Covenant of Redemption (between

Father and Son), the Covenant of Works (Law), and the Covenant of Grace (Gospel). B. B. Warfield assert-ed that the “architectonic principle” of the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1647 is the systematic theology he called Federal Theology, today most common-ly known as Covenant Theology. Some well-known Covenant theologians of recent years include R.C. Sproul, J. Ligon Duncan, Vern Poythress, Meredith Kline, Michael Horton, Greg Bahnsen, J. I. Packer, and O. Palmer Robertson.

Proposed Biblical Basis for Covenant Theology

T he idea s conta ined in t he Covenants of Works and Grace are not unscriptural ideas, but it cannot be dem-onstrated that they are systematized and formalized into the allencompass-ing system of Covenant Theology as claimed by the Covenant theologians. In fact, the terms “covenant of works” and “covenant of grace” never appear in Scripture.

Appeal is often made to the follow-ing Scriptural passages as proof of the two covenants:

Deuteronomy 30:15-20 for the Covenant of Works (but the promise of life found here is not as a reward for obedience but for life in the Promised Land). Also cited are passages like Hosea 6:7; Romans 2:69; 5:12-21; and 7:10 (but upon closer scrutiny, these are not relevant). For the Covenant of Grace, appeal is made to Genesis 3:15; Isaiah 53:10-11; Luke 22:20; Romans 5: 12-21; 1 Corinthians 15:22; Galatians 3: 15-29 (but upon inspection these as well are not relevant). The system must be deduced.

In each case the covenant idea is a conclusion logically deduced from selected Scriptures without direct Scriptural teaching. Berkhof admits this but is untroubled: “it is perfectly true that no such promise is explicitly recorded, but it is clearly implied.” 12 Of course the idea of covenants is a very basic idea in Scripture and there are a number of specific covenants revealed in the Bible. Yet, the Bible does not explic-itly mention a covenant of works or a covenant of grace, and to see this as the allencompassing system requires a real hermeneutical stretch.

July|August 2014 9

Hermeneutics of Covenant TheologyAs a result of the idea of the

Covenants of Works and Grace, Covenant Theology has made its most basic principle of Bible interpretation to be the rule of always interpreting the Old Testament by the New Testament (rather than the historical, literal, gram-matical rule of interpretation). Using this understanding of Bible interpreta-tion, Covenant Theology often leads to artificial exegesis and over-dependence on f igurative language, typology and allegory.

They are forced to assign meaning to certain words that cannot be considered common or ordinary. For example, accord-ing to Covenant Theology, in the Old Testament the word “Israel” can mean the nation of Israel or the Church because their theology dictates that the saved of all the ages belong to the same body.

Summary: Covenant TheologyCovenant Theology is of recent

origin. It did not originate with the initial Reformers but is an amplif ica-tion by Cocceius in the 17th century of the original idea of Olevanius. This concept was given more full expres-sion in the Westminster Confession and then completely developed by later Reformed theologians in the 19th and 20th centuries.

The theological covenants upon which the teaching is based are not spe-cif ically revealed in the Bible. Other covenants are specifically revealed but the two (or three) basic covenants upon which the entire system is based are not even mentioned in the Bible. They must rely upon deduction and logic applied to certain Scriptural passages to explain their covenant view as well as their view on soteriology (Limited / Particular Atonement). 13

The hermeneut ica l sy stem of Covenant Theology leads to an artificial exegesis and often forces the reading of the New Testament back into the Old Testament.

Covenant Theology correctly teaches that salvation in every age was exactly the same: through faith. However, they also teach that salvation came by keeping the Law since the Law was a declaration of the will of God for man’s salvation and sins could be forgiven by the ritual law.

Therefore, Covenant Theology inadver-tently teaches two ways of salvation: one by law and one by grace. Berkhof wrote: “Grace offers escape from the law only as a condition of salvation - as it is in the covenant of works - from the curse of the law, and from the law as an extra-neous power.”14 Isolated statements like that may appear to offer two methods of salvation and are certainly capable of misunderstanding and misrepresentation.

Observations About Covenant Theologians

I have benef ited f rom many of my associations with Covenant Theologians. Many of the most valued books in my library have been authored by them. Based on this experience, I have made some general observations about those who hold to Covenant Theology.

Respect for the Authority of God and His Word

Covenant theologians have an immense respect for the King of the Universe and His authoritative rule over His creation. They are meticulous exegetes of the Bible in Hebrew and Greek and their theological works are extremely valuable. They have a passion for holiness that is truly inspiring. They are careful thinkers regarding the appli-cation of church history and theology to recent issues of the past several decades such as ecumenism, Promise Keepers, Evangelicals and Catholics Together, market driven church growth strate-gies, worship and music issues, and the Emergent Church.

Christ-Centered PreachingI enjoy listening to many of the

sermons of our brothers who hold to Covenant Theology, especially when they preach on Christ ’s person and work. This is because their sermons are so often Christ centered. They correctly understand the Bible’s teaching on the nature and depravity of man and the glorious nature of God’s great work of salvation.

Tremendous Awe of God in WorshipYou find no silly, shallow trivializing

of God in their worship services. They never throw a cream pie in the pastor’s

face when the Sunday School attendance record is broken. Rarely do you hear them sing cheaply sentimental songs or shallow choruses about God-as-my-Boyfriend. They exalt God as the King of the universe.

Dignity of the Role of PastorBecause of their respect for God,

His Word, and the worship service they have a high regard for the office of pas-tor. You see few of their men chasing the latest fads in a worldly quest for relevance because they emphasize the pastor as the shepherd of souls and they honor the memory of great men of God in past history. Many of the books I own on church history were written by Covenant theologians.

These are reasons to appreciate and respect our Covenant brethren! Yet despite the above observations, it is surprising also to make these observations below about Covenant theologians.

Blurring of Bible DistinctionsCovenant Theology is forced to

gloss over many of the Bible’s distinc-tions because it teaches there are really only two major covenants: the Covenant of Works (which ended in Eden) and the Covenant of Grace. They teach that all believers since Abraham are in the church and effectively eliminate the dis-tinction between Israel and the church. According to them, everything in Scripture can be placed into their overly simplified, two covenant system.

Hermeneutical ConfusionIn order to explain the many Bible

distinctions, Covenant theologians resort to an over dependence on alle-gorical hermeneutics, often ignoring the clear, simple language of Scripture (most especially with the unconditional king-dom promises of God to Israel). The doctrine of the perspicuity of Scripture, which teaches that the Bible’s language is plainly understandable, is often over-looked in Covenant Theology. Life-long IFCA International member Dr. John Walvoord once was asked: “what do you predict will be the most signif i-cant theological issues over the next ten years?” His answer included the follow-ing: “the hermeneutical problem of not interpreting the Bible literally, especially

10 VOICE

the prophetic areas. The church today is engulfed in the idea that one cannot interpret prophecy literally.” 15 This most certainly is the trend today. Covenant theologians want to blend literal and non-literal hermeneutics. According to Dr. Walvoord, it cannot be legitimately done, without producing confusion and contradiction.

Appeal to Man’s Pride and ElitismI have observed that Covenant theo-

logians often (thankfully not always) appear elitist. I conclude this because of their detailed explanations of God and His eternal ways to their own sat-isfaction and because their theologians appeal frequently to deductive logic and history and use Latin terms, all of which connote astuteness and intelli-gence. Covenant theologians seem eager to explain all that God does, even such profound truths as the precise details of election and the specif ic rationale behind the order of decrees in the pre-Creation mind of God. They can neatly arrange these majestically mys-terious events. Also, Dispensational pastors often do not appear to be highly trained scholars and pale in compari-son to the credentials and appearance of the run-of-the-mil l Covenant pas-tors. Combined with things like the oldfashioned-looking Clarence Larkin Dispensational charts and wildly spec-ulative prophecy books and movies, Dispensationalists make easy targets for those who are already predisposed toward intellectual elitism. I have always been surprised to observe how conde-scending Covenantalists are toward Dispensationalists, even to the point of intolerance and near hostility.

Danger for Children and Grandchildren

Because of their fundamental mis-understanding of circumcision and baptism, they believe that children of professing Christians are in the covenant upon their baptism as infants. Because of this doctrine, they do not press their children to trust Christ as Savior; infant baptism is an assumption that children baptized into the covenant (their words) will be saved. Calvin wrote, “God pro-nounces that he adopts our infants as his children before they are born, when he promises that he will be a God to us

and to our seed after us. This promise includes their salvation” (Institutes, IV, 20). Former Calvin Seminary President and Professor of Systematic Theology Louis Berkhof wrote that the infant children baptized into the covenant are assumed to be regenerate unless they show evidence they are not.16 The same concept was taught by B.B. Warfield.17 There is great peril for all falsely secure children and grandchildren who are really trusting in their infant baptism for salvation and not in Christ. By personal observation and numerous anecdotes, I believe this breeds a pseudo-Christianity in many.

Suspicion About Decisions for SalvationWhen Covenant Theology grows

in dominance in a church, there also grows a suspicion toward any call to trust Christ since this is seen as a human infringement on God’s saving activi-ty. There will be great expositions of the Bible but no invitations to trust Christ, no calls for any decisions. This appears to be a logical outcome of their theology as well as an overreaction to Arminian evangelistic techniques. Compare the evangelism and mission activity of Dispensationalists versus Covenanta l ists. Dispensationa l ists seem more eager to evangelize the lost while Covenantalists seem more eager to proselytize untaught and unlearned Dispensationalists. One of my Covenant friends actually told me: “you Baptist Churches are like Kindergarten - a great place to start. But after they become Christ ians in your churches we’ l l teach them everything else beyond Kindergarten.” Look at history and see the Covenantalists’ recurring suspicions toward decisions / evangelism / mis-sions. The most familiar example is William Carey’s denominational lead-ers saying “young man, if God wants to save the heathen He is able to do so without your assistance.” There are some rare exceptions, men like George Whitefield, Jonathan Edwards, and D. James Kennedy. But just try to name many in the Covenant camp who are out there evangelizing the lost as opposed to proselytizing and correcting the poor, unlearned Dispensationalists. There are some Covenantal theologians evangeliz-ing the lost…but not many.

Our brothers who adhere to Covenant Theology have

much to commend and respect. But they are not consistent in

their hermeneutics, ecclesiology, and eschatology.

Historic Misapplications / Misappropriations

History demonstrates that the blur-ring of the Bible’s distinctions can lead to serious misapplications. If the church can claim all the promises of God in the Old Testament for today, Dutch Reformed Boers can colonize the Zulus in South Africa and put those pagans to the sword as “we Israelites / Christians conquer the land like Joshua” (see James Michener’s novel The Covenant for a vivid description of this theological misapplication in South Africa’s history). The same can be seen in United States history and our nation’s deal-ings with the Native Americans. History records the tragic misappropriation of many of the Reformers. For example, between 1542 and 1546 under John Calvin there were 58 executions in Geneva, which was a town of only 20,000 people.18 The most famous execution is Calvin’s burning at the stake of Michael Servetus for heresy (he was anti-Trinitarian). One girl was behead-ed in Geneva for striking her parents, to vindicate the Fifth Commandment19 and in 1545 more than twenty men and women were burned alive in Geneva for witchcraft.20 Calvin himself reported: “A conspiracy of men and women has lately been discovered, who for the space of three years, has spread the plague through the city by what mischievous device I know not. After fifteen women have been burnt, some men have even been punished more severely, some have committed suicide in prison, and while twenty-five are still kept prisoners - the conspirators do not cease.”21 All of these tragic actions were taken because of Calvin’s severe misapplication and misappropriation of Scripture.

We in IFCA International believe that Scripture must be interpreted in a way consistent with its context. It is critical to know the author, intended audience, and historical background of each passage being interpreted. The

July|August 2014 11

historical and cultural setting wil l often reveal what the correct mean-ing of a passage is. It is also important to remember that Scripture interprets Scripture. That is, often a passage will cover a topic or subject addressed else-where in the Bible. It is important to interpret all of these passages consis-tently with one another.

The doctrine of perspicuity asserts that Scriptural passages can be plainly understood. This means the reader can understand a passage in its normal, regular, plain, literal meaning unless the context of the passage indicates it is figurative in nature. A literal interpretation does not eliminate the possibility of f igures of speech being used. Rather, it encourages the interpreter not to read figurative lan-guage into the meaning of a passage unless it is appropriate for that context.

Our brother s who adhere to Covenant Theology have much to commend and respect. But they are not consistent in their hermeneutics, ecclesiology, and eschatology. This is why IFCA Internat iona l bel ieves Dispensational Premillennialism is more consistent and to be preferred. Conclusion

There are inf luences of all sorts in IFCA International today. Anabaptists, Calvinists, Pietists and Revivalists all have varying levels of inf luences in our churches and members. But it does lead to some tensions when our churches and members discuss theology and evalu-ate theological inf luences to determine where we fit in historic perspective of the Church. And that is why I do not refer to myself with any label such as Calvinist, Reformed or any other label other than IFCA member. I let the IFCA Doctrinal Statement define my theological position.

We affirm that we stand in the long line of true believers in the history of the Church, from the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2 to today. Christ most certainly is building His Church and He has privi-leged us to be part of that great work!

END NOTES1. These and many other heroes are largely

forgotten. Check out some great church his-tory in books such as Church History in Plain Language by Bruce L. Shelley (Nashville:

Thomas Nelson, 2008 Third Edit ion), Christianity Through the Ages by Earle Cairnes (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 1996 Third Edition) and The Pilgrim Church by E.H. Broadbent (Grand Rapids: Gospel Folio Press, 1999 reprint of 1931 edition).

2. J.I. Packer, Evangelism & The Sovereignty of God, (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1961) p.18.

3. Ibid.

4. James M. Boice, The Minor Prophets

5. James M. Boice, The Last and Future World

6. Richard Muller, “How Many Points?” Calvin Theological Journal, Vol. 28 (1993), pp. 425-433.

7. Michael Horton, God of Promise: Introducing Covenant Theology (Pub.), p. 11.

8. Ibid., pp. 78-107.

9. Richard Pratt, Jr. “Reformed Theology Is Covenant Theology,” Ligonier Ministries website http://www.ligonier.org/learn/arti-cles/reformed-theology-covenant-theology. Accessed May 15, 2014

10. Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1939), p. 211

11. Ibid.

12. Ibid., p. 213.

13. The July / August 2008 issue of VOICE had as its theme “Toward an Understanding of the Atonement” presenting the biblical basis that Christ died for the sins of the world, not just for the elect.

14. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, p. 213.

15. Ibid., p. 291.

16. Dallas Connection, Winter 1994 (Vol. 1, No. 3), p. 4.

17. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, p. 288.

18. B.B. Warf ield, Studies in Theology “The Polemics of Infant Baptism” (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2003), p. 390.

19. Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church (Charles Scribner, 1910: Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. Reprint, 1959), Vol. 8, p. 492-493.

20. Ibid.,Vol. 8, p. 491.

21. Ibid., Vol. 8, p. 492.

22. John Calvin, Opera, XII.55, cited by Schaff, Vol. 8, p. 492, footnote 27.

12 VOICE

Growing numbers of our brethren with-in Evangelicalism are passionately and aggressively promoting their version of

Calvinism as though it alone equals biblical the-ology and fully orthodox Christianity.

For example, regarding infant baptism’s place in his version of Calvinism, Dr. Michael Horton (Professor of Systematic Theology and Apologetics at Westminster Seminary California) has recently written: “I know that as surely as I see the water applied, God pledges his whole kingdom to me and my children as heirs… All Christians [emphasis mine] believe that bap-tism marks the beginning of the Christian life.”1 Not every Christian would agree with Horton on that point (certainly not me), but this provides an example of the absolute certitude and passion many of today’s Calvinists feel.

Debates and division are occurring within local churches over a number of issues being raised by passionate Calvinists. Recent contro-versy within the Southern Baptism Convention over these issues provides a microcosm view of the debate within broader Evangelicalism.2

Prior to the 1990s this issue did not seem to cause many local church problems. Yes, I witnessed occasional skirmishes and debates about the merits or demerits of the Five Points of Calvinism (and specif ically limited atone-ment), but they usually ended with a friendly agree to disagree conclusion. But in my experi-ence, with the 1990s the theological landscape began to change. In that decade there seemed to be a resurgence of Calvinism and I saw numbers of people moving from one church to another looking for a church that “was more committed to Reformed Theology.” I often asked myself: “I wonder how that individual defines Reformed Theology and which Reformed Theology is he thinking about?”

I consider myself a modif ied Calvinist. I was trained at Dallas Theological Seminary with a heritage mostly in the Calvinist tradition. Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer, founding President

of Dallas Theological Seminary, considered himself and the seminary to be “Calvinistic in theology.” 3 There is nothing within me that motivates me to inappropriately discredit any of the Reformer heroes. Numbers of my theological conclusions are consistent with John Calvin’s. I respect so much about Calvin and I’m a pas-sionate Protestant who has for nearly forty years sought to evangelize my predominantly Roman Catholic community here in Louisiana.

Debates and division are occurring within local churches

over a number of issues being raised by passionate Calvinists.

However, despite my deep respect for Calvin, the last several years some of the renewed ver-sions of Calvinism have raised suspicions within me. Why would anyone be so zealously com-mitted to Calvinism as some of its proponents appear to be? Why would anyone think John Calvin understood the Apostle Paul more accu-rately and more completely than anyone else, ever? Have the Reformers been given a free pass without appropriately evaluating their conclu-sions from a sound biblical faith grounded in accurate biblical hermeneutics? Is it ever possible to critically analyze John Calvin, especially to discern whether Calvin had completely escaped all of the corrupting theological influences of the Roman Catholic mindset of his day?

The goal of this article is to study the degree to which those in the Calvinistic tradition were, and continue to be, negatively impacted by the ”weeds of corruption” in the Roman Catholic system. Of particular concern is the possi-bility that some strains of today’s Calvinism result in either a deficient gospel or a confusing gospel or even another gospel, especially as it relates to the individual’s sufficient understand-ing and response with saving faith. This is a

Are Certain Versions of Calvinism Harmful?

Larry E. Miller

Larry Miller is an IFCA International

member and has ministered in South

Louisiana for nearly 40 years, 30 years

as Pastor of Berean Bible Church in New

Orleans. He is currently Director of Equippers

Ministry International. You may reach him at

equippersministry@cox.net

July|August 2014 13

most important issue. Since the days of the Reformation a clear gospel has been considered central to authentic Evangelicalism.4 It is my intention to provide some cautions about those who, intentionally or unintentionally, are promoting a version of Calvinism that results in a negative inf luence on the health of the church.

The Roman Catholic Church of the Middle Ages

It is important for the purposes of this study to understand the nature of the Roman Catholic Church in the Middle Ages. This will enable us to dis-cern the historical context in which John Calvin lived, studied and taught.5

Rel ig ious thought in Western Europe during the Middle Ages was dominated by the Roman Catholic Church. Understanding their religious system and theological thinking, partic-ularly as it impacted applied soteriology, is an essential starting point. Basically, the crucial question may be stated this way: how does one receive forgiveness of sin, have eternal life and enter heav-en? The Roman Catholic Church of the Middle Ages most definitely had their answer to this question.

Role of the Church in Salvation The Roman Catholic Church of

the Middle Ages (and today) saw itself to be essential to salvation through the sacrament of baptism. They taught that baptism by water into the Catholic Church, normally by a bishop or a priest,6 makes one a Christian.7 It removes origi-nal sin8 and starts one on the way toward heaven. They taught that one can become a Christian only through water bap-tism by an ordained Catholic priest or of necessity someone else.

For the Roman Catholic Church, sacramentalism is at the core of their doctrine of salvation and their entire ecclesiological system. They observe seven sacraments: baptism, confirmation, the Eucharist, penance, anointing of the sick, holy orders, and matrimony.9 Normally only Roman Catholic priests ordained under the authority of the Pope are per-mitted to conduct the sacraments. They teach that as the sacraments are experi-enced, grace and righteousness flow into the soul of the recipient independent of

their level of faith. The individual Roman Catholic person must remain in the Roman Catholic system and the sacra-ments for any hope of eternal life.

Historic Development of Sacramentalism

Where did this understanding of sacraments come from? How did such an idea come to be? And ultimately, to what degree were John Calvin and his followers negatively impacted by the Roman Catholic understanding of sacraments? Here is a brief overview of the development of sacramentalism, up through about A.D. 1500.

Religious thought in Western Europe during

the Middle Ages was dominated by the Roman

Catholic Church.

The earliest Fathers of the church (before A.D. 150) were aware of only two rites, later called sacraments: the Lord’s Table (or the Eucharist), and baptism.10 It is important to note that neither the Lord Jesus nor any of the apostles used the term sacrament.

The f irst evidence of the adop-tion of the word sacramentum as a technica l term to designate bap-tism, the Eucharist, and other rites of the Christian church occurred in the writings of Tertullian (end of 2nd and beginning of 3rd cent.)11

Cyril of Jerusalem (ca.315-397) con-nected John 3:5 with water baptism. He argued that baptism, if it is to be effectual, is really two simultaneous baptisms: a washing with water and a renewing of the Holy Spirit (to use the phrase in Titus 3:5). He wrote: “If any man does not receive baptism, he does not have salvation.” 12 Origen (ca.185-254) was the f irst to argue for the validity of infant baptism by claiming it was the apostolic custom. Origen wrote: “The church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants… (The apostles) knew that there is in everyone the stains of sin, which must be washed away through water.”13

By the Medieval era the term sacra-

ment was widely used. “The medieval church (A.D. 600-1500) wielded mas-sive power because, according to its own statements, it controlled the means of grace.” 14 During this period salva-tion was understood to come to fallen creatures through the church and its sacraments and was realized through priestly pronouncement.15

By the end of the 17th Century, and even until today, it is quite clear that sacramentalism was central to the Roman Catholic Church’s belief system. They believe the seven sacraments are the necessary and effective means by which grace and righteousness are trans-ferred from the ordained priest into the life and soul of the celebrant. Through the sacraments the recipients receive grace leading toward eternal salvation.

This understanding is clearly stated in The Catechism of the Catholic Church: “This is the meaning of the Church’s affirmation that the sacraments act ex opera operato (literally ‘by the very fact of the action performed’)… it follows that ‘the sacrament is not wrought by the righteousness of either the celebrant or the recipient, but by the power of God. From the moment that a sacrament is celebrated in accordance with the inten-tion of the church, the power of Christ and His Spirit act in and through it, independently of the personal holiness of the minister…The church affirms for believers the sacraments are necessary for salvation.16

Meaning & Use of Term Sacrament According to The Catechism of the

Catholic Church, “The Greek word mys-terion was translated into Latin by two terms: mysterium and sacramentum. In later usage during 600-1500 the term sacramentum emphasizes the visible sign of the hidden reality of salvation which was indicated by the term mysterium.”17 According to the Webster’s New World Dictionary review of the etymology for sacramentum, in its ecclesiastical Latin usage the word means “the gospel, a secret, sacrament.” 18 So the assumed meaning of sacrament implies that the reality of salvation is hidden as a mys-terium (mystery) and the sacraments make it seen. It seems probable that this “ecclesiastical meaning” came into existence as the church used the term to

14 VOICE

describe erroneous concepts of the bibli-cal grace gospel.

But this is a faulty understanding of sacrament based on a serious mistransla-tion of Jerome (ca. 345-420), the leading theologian and scholar in the Western church during the late 4th and early 5th centuries. Jerome’s Latin transla-tion of the Bible is called the Vulgate. He used the Latin word sacramentum to translate the Greek word musterion in Ephesians 1:9; 3:3,9 5:32; 1 Timothy 3:16; Revelation 1:20.

In his commentary on Ephesians, Harold Hoehner has a six page discussion on the Greek word musterion and the term mystery. Regarding the usage in Ephesians 3:3, Hoehner concluded the mystery is not something mysterious but rather a revealed secret to be understood by all believing people and not just a few elite.19 Therefore, musterion does not mean something that should remain mysterious.

Was Jerome unduly inf luenced by the developed ecclesiast ica l usage of the term in his era? The answer is almost certainly yes. According to the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Jerome’s Vulgate translation of musterion was an “an association of ideas which was greatly fostered in the early church by the rapidly growing tendency to an assimilation of Christian worship with the mystery practices of the Greek - Roman world.”20

To this day sacramental think-ing is built on an expansionist view of Scripture which believes the sixty-six books of the Bible merely provide the starting point for authoritative Christian truth and subsequent developments by Church leaders are added to this body of “truth.” These additions and traditions are considered at least equal to, or even supersede the Bible, in authority.21

The term sacramentum was not even used by the early church fathers until approximately A.D. 300. There is strong evidence that the idea of sacra-ment as it developed was the result of assimilating the mystery-practices of the Greek-Roman world into Christian worship. The Greek text of the New Testament does not use the term sacra-ment anywhere, including for the rites of baptism and the Lord’s Table. Jerome’s use of sacramentum in his Latin Vulgate translation is a serious misuse of the term.

This non-scriptural concept of sac-raments is a grave error. It has had a lasting, destructive, even devastating effect. And I believe that John Calvin was affected by the Medieval under-standing of sacraments and he had a sacramental bent to his theology. And I believe numbers of his followers have been similarly affected.

Calvin’s View on SacramentsCalvin, like Luther, saw the two

identifying characteristics of the church to be accurate doctrinal preaching and the sacraments correctly understood and administered. Calvin declared, “Wherever we see the Word of God purely preached and heard, and the sacraments administered according to Christ’s institution, there, it is not to be doubted, a church of God exists.”22

Calvin taught that the sacraments are signs and seals of grace which are inwardly communicated by the Holy Spirit. He accepted only two sacraments: baptism and the Lord’s Supper. And he completely rejected the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation (the bread becomes Christ ’s body and the cup becomes Christ’s blood), rejecting the treatment of the Supper as a sacrifice. But Calvin also could not accept the Lutheran doctrine which taught that Christ was “in, with and under” the bread and the cup.

Calvin defined baptism as the “sign of initiation by which we are received into the society of the church, in order that, ingrafted into Christ, we may be reckoned among God’s children” (Institutes IV 15.1). He defended the baptism of infants, believing that chil-dren of the godly are born members of the church by virtue of the hereditary nature of the Abrahamic Covenant cir-cumcision having been replaced by the New Covenant with baptism as a sign.23

At times Calvin seems to view bap-tism as a sign of faith to come at a future time. “Infants are baptized into a future repentance and faith, and even though these have not yet been formed in them, the seed of both lies within them by the secret working of the Spirit.” (Institutes IV.16.19) Does this mean that Calvin believed baptism guaranteed that repen-tance and faith will one day come to the baptized infant? Note this state-

ment: “God declares that he adopts our babies as his own before they are born.” (Institutes IV.15.20)

Regarding water baptism, Calvin believed baptism was necessary to have salvation. To his credit Calvin did not interpret the water in John 3:5 as refer-ring to water baptism. However, in his Commentary on John 3:5 he does write: “It is true that by neglecting baptism, we are excluded from salva-tion; and in that sense I acknowledge that it is necessary.”24

Calvin understood the term “bap-tized” in 1 Corinthians 12:13 to refer to water baptism. He wrote, referring to 1 Corinthians 12:13: “We are engrafted by baptism into Christ’s body…which is efficacious through the grace of the Spirit…Believers, along with the sacra-ment, receive the reality…The Apostle, also, observes here a most admirable medium, in teaching that the nature of baptism is to connect us with Christ’s body.”25 And, regarding the washing of regeneration in Titus 3:5 he stated, “I have no doubt that it alludes to baptism. Will not object to this passage expound-ed as relating to baptism. Baptism (is) the entrance into the Church.” 26 He considered not only 1 Corinthians 12:13 to refer to water baptism but also Galatians 3:27, Colossians 2:12; and Romans 6:1-4.27

Of course, John Calvin did much toward returning the church to Pauline theology. For that he earns our deep respec t and profound g rat it ude. However, it is apparent that he car-ried over into his theology some of the understanding of sacraments from the Roman Catholic system. This is a seri-ous issue.

Those in Calvin’s Tradition & Infant Baptism

Michael Hor ton (Professor of Systematic Theology and Apologetics at Westminster Seminary California) is the man I quoted at the beginning of my article. Here is what he had to say regarding sacraments in his book The Gospel-Driven Life: “… baptism and the Lord’s Supper are instituted by Christ as a means of grace alongside his Word. The promises [emphasis his] of the new covenant are ratified by the signs and seals that he has appointed… the sac-

July|August 2014 15

raments place God’s saving and royal seal on his beneficiaries. I know that as surely as I see the water applied, God pledges his whole kingdom to me and my children as heirs. All Christians believe that baptism marks the begin-ning of the Christian life. As God ’s sovereign pledge, baptism is the inexhaust-ible spring to which we return every day, not to compare our life with Christ’s but to find our life in Christ. [emphasis his] The children of believers are often treated in the church as non-Christians who need to ‘get saved.’ ”28

Thereafter men, if they wished to hold on to sacramentalism,

were forced to attempt to explain the gospel in ways

that are confusing and contradictory.

In his book The Peacemaking Pastor, Alfred Poirier includes some outstand-ing material on the importance of peacemaking or reconciliation between brothers and sisters in Christ. He also has some good material on discipline. However portions of his material are startling. His book has commenda-tions from Reformed stalwarts like J. I. Packer, Michael Horton, D. James Kennedy, and Dennis E. Johnson, Academic Dean and Professor of Pract ica l Theolog y, Westminster Seminary California. Poirier writes: “Here in the community of faith - the family of God - our relationships are established and regulated by our union with Christ (Eph. 4:11-16). Each of us enters this community by the gospel word, signed and sealed through the sacra-ments [emphasis mine]. Herein, in the body of Christ in union with Christ we learn that we are inextricably bound together in covenant with each other.”29

Poirier here seems to equate “com-munity of faith,” “family of God,” “body of Christ,” “union with Christ.” And he says a person enters such community “through the sacraments,” meaning water baptism. In the chapter on church dis-cipline Poirier writes: “Because baptism

includes us into God’s covenant com-munity (which covenant community he appears above to equate with the “body of Christ”, etc.), it implies we can be exclud-ed. If God signif ies by baptism, ‘My people,’ so too baptism implies that upon certain grounds there may be a forfeiture of that relationship in which God says to us, ‘Not my people. emphasis mine’”30

It appears that such views exist because of the failure to escape the well-developed but erroneous concept of sacramentalism existing in the Middle Ages. Thereafter men, if they wished to hold on to sacramentalism, were forced to attempt to explain the gospel in ways that are confusing and contradictory. That this might confuse someone on the level of applied soteriology is a major issue of concern.

Confirms? Pledges? Conveys?How do those in the tradition of

Calvin explain their view on the effi-cacy of water baptism? Daniel C. Lane makes a good point on this issue in his article in Bibliotheca Sacra.31 Some in the tradition of Calvin believe that baptism “confirms” what one already has, that is, status in the family of God. Others in the same tradition believe baptism is a “pledge” that the promise by God of such status will be fulfilled by God. Others believe baptism actually “conveys,” that is, it is an actual means of grace bringing to the recipient the benefit of Christ’s redemptive work. Which is it? All the above cannot be true.

An additional word about the mean-ing of “convey” should be helpful. In John Hannah’s highly respected work Our Legacy: The History of Christian Doctrine, he refers to the word “convey” as he reviews the development of church sacramental teaching beginning with the early church fathers. “Baptism was seen as the sign of entrance into the church, the redeemed community (true church), because it conveys [emphasis mine] the washing accepted with the forgiveness of sin.”32 J.N. D. Kelly con-cludes this regarding baptism: “From the beginning… it was always held to convey the remission of sins.”33

Also see Lane’s article in Bibliotheca Sacra34 for a discussion of the terms “confirm” and “convey” used by vari-ous Reformers. Lane supports the idea

that the term “convey” is often used by the Reformers in the sense understood above by Hannah. Note this statement by Charles Hodge: “The sacraments are real means of grace, that is, the means appointed and employed by Christ for conveying [emphasis mine] the benefits of his redemption to his people.”35

According to Webster’s New World Dictionary the most common mean-ing of convey has to do with carrying, transmitting, transporting, transferring something from a source to a recipient.36 It appears that both Hannah and Kelly are saying that water baptism, as it was practiced during the first five centuries of church development, was understood to be the means or medium by which one received the content of “forgiveness of sin(s),” and the “grace of life” - actu-ally our personal spiritual salvation. Just what do certain men in Calvin’s tradition mean by the use of the term “convey?”

Conclusion Regarding Calvin and Sacramentalism

Some may say it is challenging to seek a clear understanding of the views of Calvin as they relate to applied sote-riology (having forgiveness of sins and new life, including heaven for eternity). They respect his biblically consistent views on justification and other aspects of soteriology. And according to Church historian Philip Schaff, Calvin did depart farther from the Roman Catholic “weeds of corruption” related to sacra-mentalism than did Luther.37 However, this implies Calvin was still impacted negatively by the Roman Catholic view of sacraments. And the above evidence indicates this is the case. Calvin’s error regarding sacramentalism has serious ramif ications on the level of applied soteriology.

Besides his view on sacraments, there is another concern I have related to Calvin. It is the influence Augustine’s theology had upon Calvin.

Augustine’s Influence on CalvinCalvin made the following state-

ment: “Augustine is so wholly me, that if I wished to write a confession of my faith, I could do so with all fullness and satisfaction to myself out of his writ-ings.”38 Exactly what does that mean? Some background on Augustine would

16 VOICE

be helpful here.Augustine was born November 13,

354 and died August 28, 430. He was bishop of Hippo in North Africa (which is present day Annaba, Algeria). He was one of the most important Church Fathers and his most important books are City of God and Confessions, both of which continue to be widely read today.

Perhaps Augustine is best known for his defense of the faith against Pelagius, a British monk. Pelagius taught such controversial views as there was no impact on man’s spiritual condition due to Adam’s sin; people have a totally free will to choose good or evil; grace is assisting God but is resistible; and if there is election by God it is based on His prior knowledge of how the sinner would choose.39

Calvin’s error regarding sacramentalism has serious ramifications

on the level of applied soteriology.

August ine responded to what he perceived to be Pelagius’ threat to the life of the church with a barrage of polemical writings. He taught these contrasting views: Adam’s sin does impact all mankind both physically and morally with a nature so corrupted that natural man can do nothing but sin; mankind on his own will never choose God’s provision for sin; God’s grace is irresistible; and God’s mercies are not based on God foreseeing how a per-son might respond.40 Because of these views Augustine had a huge inf luence on Calvin, and many Protestants today similarly hold Augustine in the highest esteem. Steele and Thomas in The Five Points of Calvinism write: “The basic doctrines of the Calvinistic position had been vigorously defended by Augustine against Pelagius during the Fifth cen-tury.”41 And B. B. Warfield writes: “The system of doctrine taught by Calvin is just Augustinianism common to the whole body of the Reformers.”42

But Augustine is also one of the most highly respected saints of the Roman Catholic Church. Pope John

Paul II called Augustine “the common father of our Christian civilization.”43 In 1928 Augustine was named as one of the four original Doctors of the Church. At the sixteen hundredth anni-versary of Augustine’s conversion, Pope John Paul made a special point of refer-ring to this quote from Augustine: “I should not believe the gospel unless I were moved to do so by the authority of the Catholic Church.”44

Numerous times in his Institutes Calvin credits Augustine. Here are just a few examples. “We have come into the way of faith, ‘Says Augustine: Let us constantly adhere to it…” (III:xxi,2) “Here the words of Augustine most admirably apply…” (III:xxiii,11) “This is a faithful saying from Augustine; but because his words will perhaps have more authority than mine, let us adduce the following passage from his trea-tise…” (iii:xxxiii, 13)

This does not imply that John Calvin agreed with everything that Augustine wrote. But it does give some indi-cation of the impact and inf luence of Augustine on John Calvin’s thinking.

Further Regarding What Augustine Believed

Here is a summation of some of the other theological views of Augustine.

Regarding anthropology, sin and grace. According to Augustine’s Enchiridion, which he penned late in life, he believed that with Adam’s first act of disobedi-ence in the Garden sin came into the world and the entire human race par-ticipated, corrupting every person both physically and morally. Augustine also placed a strong emphasis on the sover-eignty of God. He taught that God’s mercies must be unconditional, which is based on His election. He also taught that salvation is rooted in God’s eternal predestination, some to salvation and some to damnation, and faith plus works is required for salvation.45 No one can be certain that he is predestined, therefore no one can have assurance of salvation (Chapter 40 of his book Retractions was entitled “No One Is Certain and Secure of His Own Predestination and Salvation”).46

Additional ly, Hannah provides insight into Augustine.47 Hannah asserts that Augustine believed the need for

grace was central, which Augustine def ined as unmerited favor. And Augustine taught that this grace is irre-sistible. Augustine also believed that God strengthens the will so that humankind can freely embrace Christ as the sinner’s only hope of forgiveness. And He will do so if the sinner is among the elect. God did not determine to save based upon a foreseen response of the sinner.

Regarding ecclesiology and other beliefs. Augustine was more committed to the Roman Catholic Church and system than many Protestants seem to have understood. Again, according to his Enchiridion Augustine made the follow-ing assertions.48 There is no truth, no gospel, no salvation outside of the one Catholic Church. His theology was sac-ramental, believing in infant baptism, even the necessity of it for regenera-tion. He believed almsgiving brings to the practitioner forgiveness of sins. He believed in purgatory and also in sacra-mental participation and alms by living friends to benefit the souls of their dead friends and loved ones.49 He also believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary.50

Hannah summarizes Augustine in the following manner.51 Though he appeared to champion grace, Augustine believed that this grace was dispensed only by the Roman Catholic Church. The one true church was alone the Catholic Church. The authority and apostolicity of the Catholic Church were established through apostolic succes-sion. Grace comes through the Roman Catholic sacraments. And in the book City of God, Augustine announced that Rome had been privileged to usher in the Millennial Kingdom (but note that the Dark Ages followed – hardly the Millennial kingdom).

When reading Augustine’s writ-ings one cannot help but be impressed with his effort at countering the views of Pelagius, especially Pelagius’ view that there is no connection between what Adam did and the spiritual condition wherein we humans are born into the world. Pelagius believed that our condi-tion is purely a voluntary one and had nothing to do with the Fall of Adam.

It is understandable to see why John Calvin held Augustine in such high regard. And all of us would agree with and be thankful for numbers of

July|August 2014 17

Augustine’s theological conclusions, such as: the serious condition of fallen man, the need of grace as God’s unmer-ited favor and the sovereignty of God. While the following issues are hotly debated by many, it would be fair to say that many in the Evangelical communi-ty would likewise appreciate Augustine’s emphasis on predestination, election, and irresistible grace. Certainly most Calvinists (I think) would begin to depart from Augustine when they read about his belief that works are a condi-tion for salvation and that no one can have assurance of salvation.

However, I do not believe that any Bible-based Evangelical would agree with these of Augustine’s views: the Catholic Church being the one true Church; outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation and it alone is the dispenser of grace; almsgiving brings forgiveness of sins; his belief in purgato-ry and that sacramental participation in alms will benefit the souls of the dead; his belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity and her freedom from (at least) temporal sin; his understanding of compulsion force by the Church.

Do you suppose John Ca lv in was negatively impacted by any of these Augustianian views in his era? Remember Calvin’s strongly worded appreciation for Augustine (“Augustine is so wholly me…”). It would be quite unreasonable to think that Calvin escaped those weeds of Augustine’s unbiblical conclusions. Note Augustine’s view on baptismal regeneration, the baptism of infants and his strong sac-ramentalism. Do you see any of those weeds in John Calvin’s thinking?

I believe the greater issue is that Ca lv in dec la red he was “whol ly ” Augustine and yet Augustine had a number of views that ought not be accepted. You might ask, “Are there any of Augustine’s views adopted by John Calvin that should be considered incorrect?” I believe the answer is yes… including double predestination, the necessity of water baptism for salvation, infant baptism, and sacramentalism to name a few. Those issues have an impact upon applied soteriology.

The Influence of the Latin Vulgate on Calvin

The Latin Vulgate was John Calvin’s Bible. It is the Latin translation of the Scriptures translated by Jerome in the Fifth century and it was “the Bible” throughout the Medieval period.

But a number of scholars have writ-ten how untrustworthy the Vulgate is. Philip Schaff stated: “The Vulgate can be charged, indeed, with innumerable faults, inaccuracies, inconsistencies, and arbitrary dealing in particulars.”52

Samuel Berger wrote regarding the Vulgate: “We might also point out that certain number of passages in which the translation assumes dogmatic or moral bearing which seems outside that of the original. Those are serious defects in our translation of Holy Writ…Well known examples of ‘far reaching error’ include the whole system of Catholic ‘penance,’ drawn from the Vulgate’s “do penance”…when the Latin should of course, have followed the Greek “repent.” Likewise the word “sacrament” was a mis-ren-dering from the Vulgate of the original word “mystery.”53 Even more significant, perhaps, was the rendering of the word “presbyter” (elder) as “priest.”54

So the Bible of Calvin’s day was not sufficiently like the original to be a reli-able source for a number of theological conclusions. It would be logical to think that this may have negatively impacted some of Calvin’s interpretations. One example illustrates the point. In his com-ments on the phrase “and the Lord added daily those which should be saved” in Acts 2:47 Calvin wrote: “thus grace is restrained unto election, that it may be the first cause of our salvation.”55 This is in line with how the last phrase of the verse is translated in the Latin Vulgate, the Douay-Rheims English translation of 1582, the Authorized Version (King James Version) and the Geneva Bible. However, the present participle is cor-rectly translated “those who are being saved” in the NASB and several other translations. This one i l lustration demonstrates how Calvin was improp-erly influenced by the Latin Vulgate and seems to be reading his presuppositional bias into the text of Scripture.

Note also the above discussion about Calvin and the term sacramentum. Since the term was misused in Jerome’s Latin Vulgate it is logical to assume that this might have influenced Calvin’s

understanding of the sacraments.

Surprising Results We owe a great debt to the heroic

and remarkable 16th Century Reformers, including John Calvin. And we have benefitted from the writings and minis-try of a number of Calvinists in our day. And I understand that one needs to be cautious about how broadly our brush strokes are used in characterizing others. For example, there certainly are those who consider themselves Calvinists but who are not tainted by an erroneous view of sacraments.

Yet my research for this article yield-ed some surprising results.

Calvin believed that God’s causal-ity in our salvation must work through divinely intended means (the sacrament of baptism). He seemed to believe in some sort of efficacy for salvation through par-ticipation in water baptism. And Calvin supported infant baptism where no per-sonal faith is capable of being exercised. And Calvin demonstrated less than trustworthy exegesis manifested in his understanding that passages such as 1 Corinthians 12:13 and Titus 3:5 refer to water baptism. And Augustine was a dominant inf luence upon Calvin. And Calvin’s Bible was the less than trustwor-thy Latin Vulgate translated by Jerome which seems to have had an influence on his interpretation at times. And followers of Calvin such as Michael Horton and Alfred Poirier have made similarly con-fusing statements about the gospel and infant baptism and the efficacy of sacra-ments. Because of all these findings, one is compelled to conclude that John Calvin and numbers of his followers appear to present a confusing gospel.

This will sound to some like inap-propriately harsh language. But let me share one personal anecdote how this works out in the understanding of some people at the lay level.

A friend of mine recently related this story about his family background. One entire side of his family was raised in a Protestant religious tradition that practiced infant baptism. And one of his aunts on this side of the family had two adult children who rejected all the bibli-cal upbringing this aunt had given them, and they had no spiritual interest at all in their lives.

18 VOICE

My friend had also been baptized as an infant in this same tradition. But he came under the conviction and bib-lical understanding that he should be baptized according to his new under-standing that the Bible teaches baptism as an infant is not a legitimate Christian baptism.

Having great respect for his aunt, my friend felt he should visit with her and let her know of his decision to obedi-ently submit to believer’s baptism. He also knew it was a very hard issue for her to accept. To his dismay, while explain-ing his upcoming baptism to his aunt, she broke down in tears. She expressed to him that the only hope she had for her two adult children (who so far had rejected Christ) was the “promise” that since she had them baptized them as infants, they would turn to Christ before they died. She went on to explain to my friend that she had a covenant promise from God that the act of baptizing these two as infants assured their eventual sal-vation. She further said that if my friend went forward with his own baptism, he would be repudiating everything she was holding on to. Of course, this response brought sadness to my friend.

I believe this is not an isolated case or rare understanding. And it is a seri-ous issue when someone’s theological understanding impacts negatively the salvation message, particularly at the applied soteriological level.

ConclusionThis study has been primarily one of

discovery for me. It has led me to some prescriptive input for the newer, aggres-sive Calvinists.

First, please listen to your friendly brethren. By this I mean, be open to hear fellow brethren like me and many other individuals, who share so much in common with you and who are raising some concerns. Please seriously consider what we have to say.

Second, consider the issues raised in this article. Do you not see enough evidence to suggest there might be some cracks in Calvin’s theological armor? Do you need to reassess the wisdom of your efforts in promoting Calvinism as solely equal to biblical theology, thus orthodox Christianity? I urge all of us not to consider any theological system as

perfect. No system will be so until our glorification.

T h i rd , r ememb e r t he r e a r e ant inomies in Scr ipture, that is , apparent contradict ions. Anyone, whether Ca lv in ist or A rmin ian, Dispensationalist or Covenantalist, who thinks he has understood the mystery of what happens between God’s sover-eign interaction with the soul and will of man and man’s responsible response has likely begun to tread on holy ground unintended for all creatures except glori-fied, sinless humans.

With every f iber of our being we believers should pursue comprehend-ing as deeply and accurately as possible our great (yet incomprehensible) God who is unmatched in glory and majesty. You, as I, have undoubtedly experienced moments of new discovery that have so penetrated the inner recesses of our souls that we could only respond with a bended knee, a wonderment of mind, and a deeply satisfied soul. Toward that end I say: continue on brethren.

Just what or who ought to be our model as students of the Word, as we learn and increasingly are led to worship in spirit? Should our models be those who appear to answer most of our ques-tions about God, sin and grace with a neat intellectual knot? Or should our model be the following man…

As we were meeting week ly to study and discuss A. W. Tozer’s book The Knowledge of the Holy, one evening my friend and I were considering the topic “God’s Infinitude.” The room in which the two of us were alone suddenly became unusually quiet. I noticed tears f lowing down my friend’s cheeks. At that moment I had the presence of mind to say nothing for what seemed like minutes. When it seemed appropriate, I gently asked him what he was thinking, what had brought about this response. He said, “I am so pleased that I have a God I cannot fully understand. To me this makes Him more trustworthy and more worthy of worship than He would be if I could explain Him.”

That is my model for study and worship. I will pitch my tent with that brother!

Regarding Romans 11:33-36, A. T. Robertson penned these words: “Paul’s argument concerning God’s elective grace

and goodness has carried him to the heights, and now he pauses on the edge of the precipice as he contemplates God’s wisdom and knowledge, fully conscious of his inability to sound the bottom with the plummet of human reason and words.”56

“Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways. For who has known the mind of the LORD, or who became His counselor? Or who has first given to Him that it might be paid back to him again? For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen.” (Romans 11:33-36)

The great men of the 16th Century Reformation like John Calvin deserve our high regard for their accomplish-ments. Calvin was unusually bright, a highly organized thinker, and a pro-lific writer. But is it a correct assumption that Calvin understood the Apostle Paul more completely and more accu-rately than anyone else, ever? The factors which I outlined above seem rather clearly to have influenced Calvin’s theological conclusions so as to result in confusion at the applied soteriology level. And this ought to be a warning for today’s newer, aggressive Calvinists.

END NOTES1. Michael Horton, The Gospel-Driven Life:

Being Good News People in a Bad News World (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2012), p. 201.

2. World Magazine, June 30, 2012, in article entitled “Reform and Reaction.”

3. John Dav id Hanna h, The Soc ia l and Intellectual History of the Origins of the Evangelical Theological College (Ph. D. Dissertation from The University of Texas at Dallas, 1988), p. 200. Also see Hannah’s published expansion of this dissertation, An Uncommon Union: Dallas Theological Seminary and Evangelicalism (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009), p. 88.

4. Hannah, Origins of the Evangelical Theological College, pp. 176-177, 233-234.

5. Larry E. Miller, unpublished paper “Roman Catholic Soteriology Revisited” available upon request at equippersministry@cox.net

6. Walter M. Abbott, The Documents of Vatican II, translated by Joseph Gallagher (New York: Guild Press, 1966) pp. 146-49, 152. Also see The Catechism of the Catholic Church, (Liguori, MO: Liguori Publications, 1994), page 317, par. 1120 and page 352, par. 1256.

7. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, page 342.

July|August 2014 1919 VOICE 19 VOICE

par. 1213, 1215 and other portions.

8. Ibid., page 114, par. 405 and other portions.

9. Ibid., page 341, par. 1210.

10. John Hannah, Our Legacy: The History of Christian Doctrine. (Navpress, 2001). p. 263.

11. J.C. Lambert, “Sacraments” in International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1976), Vol. IV, pp. 2636-2637.

12. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures. 3.10. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310103.htm. Accessed on May 15, 2014

13. Origen’s commentary on Romans 5:9 in Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans Books 1-5 (Fathers of the Church, Book 103). Translated by Thomas P. Scheck. (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University Press, 2001). Origen’s commentar y on Romans is the oldest extant commentary on Romans. This volume presents a translation of Origen’s commentary from Latin.

14. Hannah, Our Legacy: The History of Christian Doctrine, p. 276.

15. Ibid. p. 283.

16. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, (Liguori, MO: Liguori Publications, 1994), p. 319, par. 1128, 1129.

17. Ibid., page 222, par. 774.

18. Webster’s New World Dictionary, Second Edition Simon and Schuster, 1984.

19. Harold Hoehner, Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary (Baker Academic, 2002) p. 426.

20. Lamber t , “Sac raments ,” Inte rnational Standard Bible Encyclopedia, p. 2636.

21. Even in the Post-Vatican II era “both sacred tradition and sacred scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of devotion and reverence.” Walter M. Abbott, The Documents of Vatican II, translated by Joseph Gallagher (New York: Guild Press, 1966), p. 117. Also see Hannah, Our Legacy: The History of Christian Doctrine, p. 24ff.

22. Calvin’s Institutes, IV.1.9.

23. Hannah, Our Legacy: The History of Christian Doctrine, p. 292.

24. Ca lv in’s commenta r y on John 3:5 in Christian Classics Ethereal Library. “Calvin’s Commentaries - Commentary on John 1-11.” ht tp://w w w.ccel .org/ccel /ca lv in /commentaries.i.html. Accessed on May 15, 2014

25. Calv in’s commentary on 1 Corinthians 12:13 in Christian Classics Ethereal Library. “Calvin’s Commentaries - Commentary on 1 Corinthians 1-14.” http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/commentaries.i.html. Accessed on May 15, 2014

26. Ca lv in’s commentar y on Titus 3:5 in Christian Classics Ethereal Library. “Calvin’s Commentaries - Commentary on Timothy, Titus, Philemon.” http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/commentaries.i.html. Accessed on May 15, 2014

27. Refer to Calvin’s commentary on each of these verses in Christian Classics Ethereal

Library. http://www.ccel.org/ccel /calvin/commentaries.i.html. Accessed on May 15, 2014

28. Michael Horton, The Gospel-Driven Life, pp. 200-202

29. Alfred Poirier, The Peacemaking Pastor (Baker Books, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 2006) pp. 147-148.

30. Ibid., p. 229

31. Daniel C. Lane, “Some Diff icult ies in Covenant Theology’s View of Baptism As ‘Seal’” Bibliotheca Sacra, April-June, 2008, pp. 164-177.

32. Hannah, Our Legacy: The History of Christian Doctrine, p. 263.

33. J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, (NY: Harper & Row, 1978), p. 194.

34. Lane, “Some Diff icu lt ies in Covenant Theology’s View of Baptism As ‘Seal ’” pp. 164-177.

35. Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1940), 3:499.

36. Webster’s New World Dictionary, Second Edition Simon and Schuster, 1984.

37. Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church (Charles Scribner, 1910: Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. Reprint, 1959), Vol. 7, pp. 602-606.

38. John Calvin, “A Treatise on the Eternal Predestination of God,” in John Calvin, Calvin’s Calvinism , t rans. Henr y Cole (Reformed Free Publishing Association, 1987), p. 38.

39. Hannah, Our Legacy: The History of Christian Doctrine, p. 208 ff.

40. Hannah ’s summary of Augustine’s major points in Our Legacy: The History of Christian Doctrine, p. 213ff.

41. David Steele and Curtis C. Thomas, The Five points of Calvinism (Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1963), p. 19.

42. B. B. Warfield. Calvin and Augustine, ed. Samuel G. Craig (R & R Publishing Co., 1956) p. 22.

43. Richard N. Ostling, “The Second Founder of the Faith” (Time, September 29, 1986) includes this quotation. “Pope John Paul II, Sovereign Pontiff, Augustineum Hyponensem. Apostolic letter, August 28, 1986.

44 Ibid.

45. Augustine, Enchiridion , Translated and Edited by Albert C. Outler, 1955. Enchiridion was written near the end of Augustine’s life, thus it is a good source for his settled convic-tions and views. See paragraphs 26, 62, 67, 98, 100, 107

46. Augustine, Retractions, title to Chapter 40, “No One Is Certain and Secure of His Own Predestination and Salvation.”

47. Hannah, Our Legacy: The History of Christian Doctrine, p. 213.

48. For these a s ser t ions , see Aug ust ine , Enchiridion, 42, 43, 52, 65, 67, 72, 110.

49. Ibid.

50. Augustine, De Sancta Virginitate, 18.

51. Hannah, Our Legacy: The History of Christian Doctrine, pp. 270, 273.

52. Schaf f, History of the Christian Church (Charles Scribner, 1910: Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. Reprint, 1959) II, 975-76.

53. Samuel Berger, Cambridge History of the Bible, Vol. III, p. 414.

54. Ibid., p. 414.

55. Ca lv in’s commentar y on Acts 2:47 in Christian Classics Ethereal Library. “Calvin’s Commenta r ies - Commenta r y on on Acts.” ht tp://w w w.ccel .org/ccel /ca lv in /commentaries.i.html. Accessed on May 15, 2014

56. A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1931), Vol. IV, p.400)

Roderick Smith

Dr. Rick Smith is a U.S. Representative

of Biblical Ministries Worldwide. Rick served pastorates in Michigan,

Alabama and Indiana for nearly 40 years

before joining BMW two years ago.  He and his wife Joy now reside in Antioch, TN (near

Nashville) and are available for Missions and Bible Conferences.

You may reach him at <rvsmithantioch@

gmail.com>

20 VOICE

The God of the universe once described Israel ’s religion as a “cake not turned” (Hosea 7:8), a cake that is burned on

one side and raw on the other. The picture is not only apt but graphic, depicting those who in some area of faith burn hot with heat and yet neglect another area of vital concern. Something frighteningly similar is happening today. In a worthwhile desire to magnify the grace of God the justification provided in our salvation, there is a growing movement within Christianity that is sadly neglecting the holiness commanded by the imperatives of Scripture.

But first, a little background would be helpful.

Some BackgroundA debate has often raged about God’s work

in justif ication and in recent years the words monergism and synergism have been used to summarize the debate. The word monergism comes from two Greek words mono meaning “one” and ergon / ergeō meaning “to work” and hence, monergism is a “working alone.” The word synergism comes from two Greek words, syn meaning “together” and ergon / ergeō mean-ing “to work” and, hence synergism is a “working together.”

Monergism describes the position of those who believe that God, through the Holy Spirit, works alone to bring about the salvation of indi-viduals through spiritual regeneration without cooperation from the individual. Monergism is most often associated with Calvinism and the doctrines of sovereign grace and in par-ticular, the historic doctrinal differences between Calvinism on the one hand and Arminianism on the other. Monergism is often presented in contrast to synergism, the belief that God and individuals cooperate together for salvation.

The debate between monergism (al l of God) and synergism (part God/part man) has now moved into the doctrine of sanctification. And the implications should be of great con-cern to all saints.

Two Initial Questions The first question that needs to be addressed

is the viability of concern in these matters. Is this just another squabble within Evangelical Christianity that is nothing more than a vain discussion, the type of which Paul warns against in 1 Timothy 1:6 and elsewhere? Or is this something more significant? Reading the debate in these issues quickly brings the answer to the front: the controversy is over nothing less than how sanctification is to be applied to the life of the believer. It ultimately affects how one reads all the exhortations to honor the Lord in the life of a believer, thus how one interprets Scripture.

In a worthwhile desire to magnify the grace of God

the justification provided in our salvation, there is a growing movement within Christianity

that is sadly neglecting the holiness commanded by the imperatives

of Scripture.

The second question arises as to the partici-pants in the debate. Again, the discussion clearly settles the matter: this is an “in-house” family dis-pute among Evangelicals who truly wish to honor our God, Scripture, and the Gospel. For the background of this movement one needs to return to some of the theological struggles of the 20th century. While there is not space here to trace its development in detail, suffice it to say that these ideas took strong root among those who became known as the “Young, Restless, Reformed” (YRR). The name came out of a Christianity Today article by Collin Hansen published in 2006.1 The movement struck such a chord that Hansen later expanded his work in a book by the same title which was published by Crossway.

Sanctification Confusion

July|August 2014 21

In 2011 Pastor John MacArthur eva luated the posit ive side of the movement: “YRRs [Young, Restless, Reformed] have by and large eschewed the selfishness and shallowness (though not all the pragmatism) of seeker-sensi-tive religion. They are generally aware of the dangers posed by postmodernity, political correctness, and moral relativ-ism (even if they don’t always approach such dangers with sufficient caution). And while they sometimes seem to struggle to show discernment, they do seem to understand that truth is differ-ent from falsehood; sound doctrine is opposed to heresy; and true faith dis-tinct from mere religious pretense.”2

But despite the lofty goals of this theological persuasion (often tied with some kind of sovereign grace des-ignation), there are some very real over-cooked and under-cooked areas which present themselves quite clearly.

The IssuesSo what are some of the issues the

larger church of Jesus Christ is facing with the growing YRR influence? Two large doctrinal clashes can be recog-nized: the doctrine of total depravity and the doctrine of sanctification.

Even within Reformed circles the debates rage and some theologians note that the YRRs are pushing the theo-logical envelopes too far. And their teachings are spilling over into many conservative congregations beyond Reformed churches because they are being touted by some very popular authors and speakers. Many of these men are outstanding teachers and defenders of the doctrine of salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ alone. In many ways, these men are to be greatly appreciated (especially regarding their teachings about salva-tion). But in other ways, grave concerns should be raised (especially regarding their teachings about sanctification).

The Doctrine of Total Depravity Tullian Tchividjian3 sounding out

on the Gospel Coalition website (which seems to largely ref lect YRR thinking) takes up the issue of total deprav-ity. Tchividjian claims that while total depravity applies to unbelievers (he does set aside some misuses of the term such

as being as bad as one could possibly be), he believes total depravity also applies to believers. He cites Romans 7:24 (Paul’s description of himself as a “wretched man” in the midst of the battle with sin) as a Scriptural example.4 But Tchividjian is not correct; there is no such strong battle with sin in the completely unre-generate man. Such a battle can only come when another force is within, war-ring for righteousness (Romans 7:23 and Galatians 5:17). Thus TOTAL deprav-ity does not fit the believer.

Even within Reformed circles

the debates rage and some theologians note

that the YRRs are pushing the theological

envelopes too far.

Tchividjian’s self-proclaimed goal is to magnify the grace of God by affirm-ing how bad believers are in their inner being. It is the strong emphasis of YRR preachers that saints are terrible and no amount of reformation is going to help. The net result of this type of teaching is that the righteous impera-tives of Scripture directed at believers are weakened to suggestions which can-not be kept. In reviewing Tchividjian’s argument, Reformed theologian Rick Philipps writes: “When it comes to sanc-tification, then, the logical implication of Tchividjian’s reason is this: why should I exert any effort towards holiness since I am still totally depraved? For this rea-son, Tchividjian’s formula, commendably designed to exalt God’s grace, actually denigrates the grace of God in regenera-tion by leaving sinners in their totally depraved condition.”5

In his book, Surprised by Grace, Tchividjian suggests that receiving some sort of accusation of antinomi-anism (lawlessness) in disregarding the standards of Scripture might be a good litmus test of living out Christ’s actual teachings.6 But, it seems the righteous imperatives of holiness are being soft-ened in a misguided attempt to magnify the grace of God. Much more could be

developed here, but it is needful to move on to the next doctrinal misappropria-tion, closely allied to this one.

The Doctrine of SanctificationHere the rubber meets the prac-

tical road of daily living and Biblical interpretation. Because of their view of total depravity (or, perhaps, their view of sanctification has driven them back to change to a different view of total depravity), sanctification in this YRR teaching is seen as a matter fully granted at the moment of justification. One need not struggle in the issues of holiness, declares this group of leaders, for every such struggle smacks of legalism and the misuse of Biblical imperatives.

Philipps’ summary is very good, tying both the ideas of total depravity and sanctif ication: “I sincerely appre-ciate Tchividjian’s ceaseless labors to ensure that Christian live in exultant dependence on the glorious person and f inished work of our Lord Jesus Christ. Yet this noble project does not require sanctif ication to be subsumed into the doctrine of justification (a prob-lem noted in David Murrays’ review of Tchividjian’s book, Jesus + Nothing = Everything). When it comes to Tchividjian’s application of total deprav-ity to the Christian, the effect is the virtual denial of the transforming effects of regeneration.”7

Tchividjian and his followers see sanctif ication as mongeristically f in-ished in the work of God. Thus the debate that has often raged about God’s work in justification (all of God vs. part God/part man) has now been moved into the doctrine of sanctification. As with many Reformed doctrines (note especially the Covenant of Works and comprehending the order of salva-tion decrees), there is a presumption of knowledge which the Scripture does not absolutely and f inally reveal. To be sure, every bit of salvation is the ultimate and final work of God. Any human merit or effort would destroy its perfection. Certainly also the sanc-tification of life in a believer is a total work of God and His abounding grace. But the Scripture also calls on sinners to repent and believe for justif ication (human response) and to pursue godli-ness (human effort for sure) in the area

22 VOICE

of sanctification. A clearer solution will be suggested at the end of the article. Before that, the dangers of this kind of view of Scripture should be noted.

The Dangers of This ViewThe f irst danger of this view is

missing the true understanding of how justification and sanctification are related and its resultant deficiency in godly living. Defective theology translates eventual-ly into ungodly living. If sanctification is something only and totally a part of the once-for-all justification we have in Christ, no more are saints responsible for “working out” salvation (Philippians 2:12-13) or any of the imperatives relating to living the Godly life.

MacArthur, observing the tenden-cy of YRR pastors and their teachings, warned of the danger of slipping into worldly lifestyles: “Judging from cer-tain church websites and pastoral blogs, a sizeable core of young men in the YRR movement are perfectly happy to give the world the impression that cage f ighting, beer-drinking, cigar-smok-ing, hard-partying, and other forms of bad-boy-behavior are the distinguish-ing marks of their religion. Meanwhile, many others who identify with the movement evidently think any talk of holiness - not to mention any concern for taste or propriety - is tantamount to the rankest sort of legalism.”8

This leads immediately to a second danger of this view: a life-style closely allied with the world and not distinctive-ly set on holiness. One gets a sickening feeling listening to writers, theologians, pastors and church members who have bought into this YRR interpretation of sanctification and Scripture that the main reason they now hold to this position is in opposition to the repressive “legalis-tic” and often “fundamental” churches of which they have been a part in the past. That background causes them now to feel absolutely liberated in the sovereign grace of God and free, by the way, not to worry much about the details of the Christian life. This approach may work for a season; but as surely as winter follows autumn, the softening of the interpretation of Scripture will lead to a further discounting of its importance. And this historically leads to theological liberalism.

The YRR movement has made, at

this point, a fundamental error in the truths of Christian liberty. Reacting to the stringent background of legalisti-cally listing selected behaviors as the evidence of lack of true faith, YRRs have abused Christian liberty to teach that it is the believer’s right (almost their core value) to do those things on such lists. They disregard the fact that Christian liberty in the Bible has more to do with giving up rights for others (1 Corinthians 10) than an attempt to push the envelope on questionable activities.

A sizeable core of young men in the YRR movement are perfectly

happy to give the world the impression that cage fighting,

beer-drinking, cigar-smoking, hard-partying, and other

forms of bad-boy-behavior are the distinguishing marks

of their religion.

Further, this line of thinking on the imperatives of Scripture leads to insipid preaching because much of the teach-ing of the Bible must be softened or completely overlooked. Teachings such as not having any Biblical heroes but Christ Himself and not drawing impli-cations for godly living out of Biblical narratives destroy the Scripturally-declared uses of the Bible: warnings not to choose unrighteous behavior and commands to separate oneself from the world. Examples abound, but 1 Corinthians 10 is a wealth of instruction using the “examples” (vs. 6, 11) for both warning and encouragement (v. 13).

A clear example appeared recently in an article entitled “Is Sunday School Destroying our Kids?”9 Sam Williamson uses an anecdote to suggest that the reason kids grow up and miss the gos-pel is that early Church training on the heroes of the Bible overshadows Christ, implying that holiness in life is gained solely by emulating Bible characters. Williamson, like some others in the YRR movement, oversimplifies and makes two clear errors. First, no one teaching the

Scriptures correctly ever suggests that Jesus is not the “ultimate hero” and the only basis of salvation and sanctif ica-tion. Secondly, the Scriptures are full of God-intended warnings and encourage-ments by looking at the lives of others. Williamson even suggests that looking at Abraham’s faithfulness or Joseph’s good-ness is some sort of lie because one might miss the grace of the gospel and thus pro-duce a bunch of Pharisees.

The Scriptures include both heroes and failures in its accounts just so we will learn from them and turn to Christ. Denigrating Bible stories and Bible characters that God has placed there for instruction is not the way to honor Christ.10

ConclusionBelievers who are serious about

Scripture have always struggled with defi-nitions and precision. Acknowledging that we cannot explain all of God’s ways keeps us from explaining things beyond Scripture where there is no explanation ultimately given, such as the interaction of human free will and divine sovereignty. Further, understanding that the Bible uses the words related to holiness in several ways helps interpret passages. For example, having named the Corinthian believers as “saints” in 1 Corinthians 1:2 Paul takes much of the rest of the epistle to urge those same believ-ers to behave in more sanctified ways.

Sanctif ication in the Bible takes place in three interrelated aspects: positional sanctif ication (holiness) at the moment of salvation; progressive sanctification (growing in holy living) throughout one’s Christian life; ultimate sanctif ication when we are in heaven before Christ.11

If the proponents of the misun-derstanding of sanctif ication being discussed above just remembered these clear distinctions they would not be subsuming progressive sanctif ication into initial, positional sanctification at the point of justif ication.12 The Bible clearly contains strong imperatives for the Christian life (both negative and positive) as well as clear examples for living the godly life (both negative and positive) that are to be a major part of growing holiness in the Lord (Romans 15:4; 1 Corinthians 10:6).

We must not short-circuit the plan of God and the means of grace indicated in

July|August 2014 23

Scripture by neglecting to teach personal growth in holiness via personal choices. If we do, it is eventually bound to have devastating effects on the purity of the life of a believer. Writing off as legalism the clear commands regarding holiness of life in Scripture will eventually bring disastrous effects.

God described Israel ’s religion as “a cake not turned” in Hosea 4:8. He spoke through the prophet Hosea to describe the results of their half-baked theology and rebuke the nation. This should serve as a sober warning for us today to carefully consider the implica-tions of our own theological positions. “They feed on the sin of my people; and direct their desire toward their iniquity” (Hosea 4:8).

ENDNOTES1. Collin Hansen, Young, Restless, Reformed,

www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/septem-ber/42.32.html. Accessed July 26, 2013.

2. John MacArthur. Grow Up. Settle Down. Keep Reforming. www.gty.org/blog/B110720. Accessed: 7-26-13.

3. There are of course others who are leading in this movement and its teachings are not com-pletely cohesive. Timothy F. Kauffman ties Steve Brown and Tim Keller with Tchividjian in these ideas. See Timothy F. Kauffman, “Sanctif icat ion Half Ful l: The Myopic Hermeneutic of the ‘Grace’ Movement.” # 304. www.trinityfoundation.org. January-March, 2012.

4. Tullian Tchividjian. Are Christians Totally Depraved? http://thegospelcoalit ion.org/blogs/tullian/2012/11/19/are-christians-total-ly-depraved-2/. Accessed: 7-27-13.

5. Rick Phil l ips. Thank God that Christians are not Totally Depraved . ht tp: //w w w.reformation21.org/articles/thank-god-that-christ ians-are-not-tota l ly-depraved.php. Accessed:6-21-13.

6. See Hood’s clear refutation: Jason B. Hood, Heresy is Heresy, Not the Litmus Test of Gospel Preaching. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/januaryweb-only/heresyisheresy.html. Accessed: 7-27-13.

7. Phillips, Thank God…

8. John MacArthur. Grown Up Advice for YRR’s. http://www.gty.org/blog/B110725. Accessed 7-26-13.

9. Sam Williamson. Is Sunday School Destroying our Kids? http://www.churchleaders.com/children/childrens-ministry-articles/169293-is-sunday-school-destroying-our-kids.html Accessed: 8-16-13.

10. I came across the Williamson article because it appeared in a Facebook post by one of the members of the youth group of a church I

recently pastored. This is suitable warn-ing that YRR thinking is not just affecting Reformed churches but is reaching farther into many evangelical churches.

11. See 1 John 3:1-3 where the f irst aspect of sanctification is described in v. 1, the second in v. 3 and the ultimate sanctification in v. 2.

12. Obviously much more could be said to devel-op the theology of sanctification. The study of the position and walk of the believer in the Scripture yields rich rewards for living.

We Welcome these Men to our

Fellowshipo

New Members

Pastor Richard S . Bargas, Sr .Newhall, CA

Mr . Tim J . ChallyEureka, IL

SGT James W . FranklinCarthage, NY

Mr . Andrew H . HuberLeavenworth, KS

Mr . Joshua C . NeukamBoonville, IN

Rev . Robert C . ReynoldsNorthville, MI

Rev . Steve SzaszMoscow, ID

24 VOICE

Joseph L. Sebeny

Joseph L . Sebeny entered into glory on April 4, 2014 from his

home in Tomball, Texas. He was born July 31, 1940 and came to know Jesus Christ as his Savior under the ministry of IFCA Pastor Robert Mignard in New Brunswick (NJ) Bible Church. He dedi-cated his life to Jesus Christ on Word of Life Island in Schroon Lake, NY and then attended Moody Bible Institute. There he met his l ifelong partner Betty. He transferred to Northeastern Bible Institute of Essex Fells, NJ and graduated from there. Then he went to Calvary Bible College (B.S.) and Calvary Theological Seminary (M.A.). He served for several years as pastor at Calvary Bible Church in Winona, MN after which he left the pastoral minis-try. Joe ultimately retired following thirty years of secular employment and he rejoined IFCA International and returned to ministry as a chaplain at the Harris County Jail in Houston, TX. In the last ten years of his life he con-ducted 50-60 chapels a month at the jail where he preached to anywhere from 1500 to 2000 inmates a month (still preaching even as he was dying from cancer). Despite being out of the minis-try for three decades, in the final decade of his life he proclaimed the Gospel to around 200,000 people in the jail, plus he traveled to India, Korea, Hungary and Russia where he preached and taught the Bible. He also was part of the 2010 IFCA to Israel Study the Land Tour conducted by IFCA leaders Les Lofquist and Chris Bauer, two of the young peo-ple Joe led to Christ and discipled while pastoring in Winona, MN. How thrilled we are that our brother finished his life and ministry well!

5Death of His SaintsP

William D. Hungerpiller

W i l l i a m D . H u n g e r p i l l e r o f Mc Donough , GA

was born April 5, 1922 in Elloree, SC and was called home to be with the Lord on April 20, 2014. He served in the U.S. Navy on active duty in WWII for nearly four years. After discharge he attended Prairie Bible Institute in Canada for four years. After graduation, for eight years he was an Administrator and Professor at Carver Bible Institute of Atlanta (a predominantly African American school) and then was the same at Immanuel Bible College (for six years). Then he returned to Carver Bible Institute and College as President, a position he held for twenty-eight years. At age 70 he retired and he and his wife, Louise, made nine short term mis-sion trips to Kodiak, Alaska and one to Haiti. His favorite sports were hunting and fishing.

He served as Secretary/Treasurer of the Southern Accrediting Association of Bible Institutes and Colleges for many years and President for one term. He helped to establish the Carver Foreign Mission whose aim was to provide an open door for African-Americans to serve as foreign missionaries, especially in Africa. He was Director of this mis-sion for 20 years. He joined IFCA in 1951 and helped to bring Carver into IFCA organizational membership.

He is survived by his wife of 60 years and by his daughter Deborah Louise Ball. He was a faithful servant of Jesus Christ who reached across social and cultural barriers his entire ministry, so that the Gospel would go forth to all people groups.

P

Harold L. Longenecker

H a r o l d L . Longenecker was born October 12, 1926 in

Elizabethtown, PA and went home to heaven on May 16, 2014 in Des Plaines, IL. A lifelong learner, his education included Lancaster Mennonite School, Moody Bible Institute, a Th.M. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and a D.D. from Western Baptist Seminary. He was a charter member of the Community Bible Church, Marietta, PA and he and his wife Esther (mar-ried in 1947) were the first missionaries commissioned by the church with Rural Home Mission Association to serve in Dixie, AL from 1952-1958. Then he served as General Director of RHMA from 1958 to 1966. From 1966 to 1979 Harold served as President of Montana Institute of the Bible. He then served for eight years as Senior Pastor of the Des Plaines (IL) Bible Church now The Bridge Community Church and then Senior Pastor of the Racine (WI) Bible Church. In 1993 Harold became Minister at Large with RHMA and last-ly Director Emeritus.

He is survived by his daughter Carol (married to Galen Hiestand) and also by five grandchildren and eleven great-grandchildren. He loved God, loved his church and had a profound love for men-toring the next generation of Christian leaders. Scores of men and women were led into ministry through his influence. He authored three books: The Village Church (Moody), Building Town and Country Churches (Moody) and Growing Leaders by Design (Kregel). He was always a calm, wise and insightful Bible teacher and Christian leader. IFCA International honors the memory of Harold’s outstand-ing, lifelong ministry.

July|August 2014 25

Fellowship News

IFCA Army Chaplains Steve Peck (L) and Tony Petros (R) are in front of Enduring Fai t h Chap e l at B agr am Air f ie l d, Afghanistan . They have seen each other on a few occasions during the overlap of their deployment timelines and their times of fellowship have been great! Pray for all our chaplains .

At the recent Atlant ic SE Regional held in Lawrenceville, GA the men of the Regional voted to establish (along with the Cumberland and Gulf States Regional s) the Southeast Church Extension agency with Dan Nave as Director of this new venture . Jerry Smith (back row on far right) and Dan Nave (back row third from right) have been praying for this to happen for a long time . Pray for SCE as it gets off the ground!

ED Les Lofquist recently was in Auckland, New Zealand as a member of the Biblical Ministries Worldwide Board of Directors for a Southern Pacific Field Conference . There were eight IFCA members in attendance .

26 VOICE

The members of IFCA International inter-connect in so many different ways and through many different ministries. Here

is one such account.IFCA International member and Army

Chaplain (MAJ) Luis Kruger serves with the

U.S. Army’s 3rd Infantry “Old Guard” at Ft. Myer adjacent to Arlington National Cemetery. This is one of the most vis-ible units in the Army. They serve memorial affairs missions including standard and ful l honors funerals in Arlington National Cemetery. Old Guard soldiers also perform all digni-fied transfers of fallen soldiers returning to the United States. The Old Guard ’s ceremo-nial task list also includes full honor arrivals for visiting dig-nitaries, wreath ceremonies at the Tomb of the Unknowns at Arlington National Cemetery,

and full honor reviews in support of senior army leaders and retiring soldiers.

Luis has long ties to IFCA International in another way. After graduation from Dallas Theological Seminary, Luis served a pastoral internship in his wife Christy’s home church

in Oklahoma. Larry Harris, from Pioneer Bible Church in Ponca City, OK is a long-time member of IFCA International who not only serves as pastor but he also serves as a Police Chaplain. Larry ministered to Christy over the years from High School to the present. Larry counseled her to study the Bible at Dallas Theological Seminary where Christy met Luis. While serving in Ponca City, God directed Luis into the Army Chaplaincy which meant endorsement by  Bible Churches Chaplaincy, the endors-ing agency of IFCA International. Luis has been serving as an Army chaplain ever since.

Luis and Christy are so thankful for the ministry IFCA International has had in their lives over the years…from Ponca City, OK to Arlington, VA.

IFCA Interconnections

CHAPL AIN’S DIARY

July|August 2014 27

Above is one of the most sobering duties for the 3rd Infantry “Old Guard” to perform: providing full honors for funerals in Arlington National Cemetery . To the right is IFCA Chaplain Luis Kruger at a special dinner for the troops he serves, standing alongside of another staff officer . Below is IFCA Pastor Larry Harris (L) from Pioneer Bible Church of Ponca City, OK who has ministered to both Luis and Christy Kruger . Larry also serves as a Police Chaplain . In this 2005 photo, Larry was serving the victims of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans as 9000 took temporary shelter in the Super Dome . Off icers (like the one with Larry) and chaplains descended upon New Orleans to give their assistance following Katrina .

28 VOICE

As I prepared to tip the commissary bag-ger, “To the Colors” sounded. Instantly, I turned to face the f lag f lying over the

509th Bomb Wing headquarters.As I rendered honors to our f lag during the

National Anthem, a cold blast of wind hit my face. The music faded and tears formed. I was, for those few moments, transported back to the ramp at Dover Air Force Base, Delaware, where, just three weeks prior, I stood rendering similar salutes to f lags covering too many of America’s fallen warriors as they returned home one final time. I again heard the wails of sorrow and stood in sacred silence next to hundreds of grief-stricken souls.

I was f looded with faces - faces of both the living and dead. I almost broke into uncontrol-lable sobbing on the shoulder of what would have been a quite startled commissary worker. Fortunately for both him and me, the last note sounded and I returned to the present moment. I tipped the unsuspecting bagger and drove both my groceries and tears home where I shared both with my wife and children.

My memor ie s a re jumbled , but my records show that I served as the “Chaplain-in-Charge” (CHiC for short) of the Family Support Team for about 40 of our nation’s fallen during my 110-day deployment to Air Force Mortuary Affairs Operations (AFMAO) headquarters at Dover.

Fallen Service members from each military branch return home from their area of respon-sibility through AFMAO. I was responsible for shepherding (the best I could) family members of our fallen heroes through the raw emotion and shock of seeing a f lag-draped transfer case containing their loved one’s remains being car-ried by an honor guard out of the cavernous tail of a military transport, into a waiting mortuary vehicle and from there - into memory alone.

In the course of my time there, I observed nearly 400 family members and friends express their pain in myriad ways - I don’t suppose I’ll

ever forget the actions and reactions of those heroes behind our heroes. Dover has left its mark on me.

One day, my fellow deployed chaplain and I saw something particularly disturbing. He looked at me and said, “I just felt that go in and it didn’t come out.”

Whatever “that” was, I felt it too. I still feel it and can’t quite define or express it. I was given a coin, a plaque, a quilt and a glowing LOE for my service at AFMAO, but I also came back with all sorts of intangible and inexpressible “things” that are now a part of me (many of which are still working their way out).

I stood upright in salutes, cold winter blasts piercing

through what seemed at times to be my own soul. The current

foremost feeling in my heart is gratitude.

Writing this has been a month in the mak-ing. It is one of my first small steps in an attempt to bring order to the whirlwind of thoughts and emotions surrounding my ministerial experience at Dover.

I find myself reluctant to talk about my expe-riences at AFMAO. I think my reluctance may be due, in part, to a deep reverence for my mem-ories of those fallen warriors and their grieving families. In meditation, I remove my “mental shoes” as I enter my inner sanctuary in which I find the tears of hundreds stored. It is a sacred place; it is holy - set apart. In prayer, I bow my head to the God who heals and binds up wounds in expectation that He will answer and heal.

I remember quiet tears and tenderly held mementoes representing loved ones - heroes and friends. I beheld the beautiful faces of cherished memories. I joined the bereaved for a few short

Serving Those Who Fall in Combat

CHAPL AIN’S DIARY

Kevin Hostettler

Kevin Hostettler is an IFCA endorsed

USAF Chaplain (Capt.) serving with

the 509th Bomb Wing at Whiteman Air Force

Base, MO

July|August 2014 29

moments of their immeasurable sor-row; I grieved with them in my own feeble way - wishing I could magically whisk away the pain. I stood upright in salutes, cold winter blasts piercing through what seemed at times to be my own soul. The current foremost feeling in my heart is gratitude.

I am so grateful that God and the Air Force gave me the opportunity to be a piece of the healing process for the grief-stricken as they took their first steps toward recovery from the worst news of their lives. I again offer my salute, this time for the grieving - those who walked away from Dover, returning to a home forever altered by the true cost of war.

Originally appeared in Whiteman Air Force Base News, 3/3/2014 

Chaplain Hostet tler (R) receives a Commendation Medal for his outstanding ministr y while deployed to the Air Force Mortuary Affairs Operations (AFMAO) .

30 VOICE

Selecting the very best curriculum for your church to use in children’s ministry is a pivotal and challenging task, a decision to

be bathed in prayer and filtered through God’s Word. As you begin this process, think about God’s overarching purpose of Christian educa-tion: “What is God’s goal for your children?” “What does He want them to become?”

Here are ten keys to help you evaluate any curriculum…

Bible Engagement: Does the curriculum encourage children to use their own Bibles? Kids need to become self-feeders, to develop the abil-ity to open their own Bibles and learn what God has to say directly to them.

Life-change: Does the curriculum focus on the Gospel and encourage genuine life-trans-formation that only the Gospel provides? Kids need to hear the Gospel and respond to it, then respond in obedience to Jesus’ call to be His dis-ciples.

Church Compatibility: Does the curriculum dovetail with your church’s core values, doctrine and overall philosophy of ministry? Leaders need to see how the children’s ministries complement the mission of the entire church.

Scope & Sequence: Does the curriculum teach the whole counsel of God, following a clear plan that ensures your children will receive balanced spiritual growth? Kids need exposure to OT and NT book studies, practical “how-to” skills, world missions, and doctrine.

Relational Bonding: Does the curriculum encourage healthy inter-generational and peer relationships? Kids need adult mentors and trustworthy role models who believe in and understand them.

Global Perspective: Does the curriculum provide opportunities to learn what God is doing around the world? Kids need to lift their eyes from themselves and find ways to serve the needs of others.

Teacher-friendly: Do the Teacher Guides provide easy-to-follow lesson plans with creative

activity ideas? Teachers who feel confident and excited about the lesson will motivate learners to embrace Biblical truths.

Culturally Relevant: Does the curriculum speak to “where children are” in life? Kids need to see how the Bible offers wisdom for mak-ing good decisions, relates to their needs, and addresses their concerns.

Selecting the very best curriculum for

your church to use in children’s ministry is a pivotal

and challenging task

Developmentally Appropriate: Does the curriculum provide clear learning objectives for each lesson? Teachers need to help kids grow in Bible knowledge (mental/cognitive), PLUS Christ-like character (emotional/affective), PLUS godly conduct (behavioral/choices).

Church + Home: Does the curriculum sug-gest practical ways parents can become involved in the spiritual growth of their children? Kids need dads and moms who encourage and rein-force what they are learning at church.

Choose wisely! Choosing curriculum may not be easy, but making wise decisions about your resources will impact generations to come. In light of Jesus’ mandate to make disciples, choose curriculum that is intentional, relational, and transformational. Look for curriculum designed to help children know God intimately, love Him passionately, and serve Him self lessly.

Mark Steiner

Mark Steiner is Founder & President of

DiscipleLand in Fort Collins, Colorado. Visit www.discipleland.com where IFCA members

are entitled to discounts. Or call 800.284.0158.

Evaluating Kid’s Curriculum

DISCIPLING CHILDREN

July|August 2014 31

Love is reborn and becomes mature through adversity. Anyone who has sat weeping with his head in Christ’s hands

knows this. Once your love grows up it should no longer be that bratty little demanding child ready for a selfish breakdown as you round the corner to nap time.  Love is now long-suffering.  

Sisters, do you have a proper love?  Ministry is nothing but a noisy room; it’s a lot of peo-ple saying Christian things, loudly, if your love hasn’t grown up. When suffering hasn’t tender-ized your patience, kindness, and your ability to keep no record of wrong you aren’t there yet. A deeper, stronger love for others is the reward for personal pain.

You have hurts, I know that. You have deep cuts.   Are you slumped over in grief that has changed you? Well, now you have something, a comfort with which you may comfort oth-ers.  Along with it you have an ability to endure one more person who rattles on about herself, while your own heart aches, and sometimes even the ability to do it joyfully.

I have the privilege of living ministry life, side by side, with eleven elders’ wives who love properly.  Their sea legs dare the deck to topple them. Having been storm-tossed before, their feet have memorized the chips in the f loor that they use to brace their feet as they pull others to safety. They serve the body of Christ through their own personal pain. I know, because they serve me, and rescue me when my own feet f ly out from under me. They do this through prayer, the ministry of God’s word and through their own hurts. They do this consistently and they don’t give up.

This is what we are called to. When we let little things get us upset and hold little grudges, we let the church die. Are you persecuted? Are you mistreated and dishonored? Are your sheep a cranky, biting kind?   We get better at loving as we love them one more time. Pray for them one more time, go ahead, you can do it!  Forgive them one more time. Love covers a multitude of

sins. I wish I could say it didn’t. Who wants to cover a multitude of grumpy, so-called believers’ sins, over and over and over again? Jesus does. He does that for you and me, while looking back at His cross. A proper Christ-like love dies first and then brings life.

When suffering hasn’t tenderized

your patience, kindness, and your ability to keep no record of wrong you

aren’t there yet.

By His wounds we are healed. Would it be any different for us as we relate to His people?   As Christ suffered in the f lesh, arm yourselves with this same purpose, the pur-pose of a proper love, a persistent kind.   Keep dragging each other to safety with those lovely, ministry-calloused hands. Take joy in the impos-sible thought that a broken person like you has been so lovingly healed that you are now stron-ger for it.   Having died you can give life, and keep on giving it to the ones Christ died for, until He comes.

Amy DeBurgh

Amy DeBurgh is the wife of Spencer

DeBurgh. Spencer has been the Senior teaching

Pastor of Racine Bible Church, Racine, Wisconsin, for thirteen

years.  Amy is the mother of three big kids who are the adventure

and joy of her life.

A Proper Love

WOMEN’S VOICE