DVD Giveaway - Amazing Grace: The History and Theology of Calvinism

To enter for a free copy of Amazing Grace: The History and Theology of Calvinism just enter a comment below that you would like to be entered.  Entries will close on September 11th at 5PM (PST) and I will choose a winner by Monday September 13th and then arrange getting a mailing address.

This is a great DVD if you have not already seen it.  Even if you have a copy enter so you can give one away.

Here is a description of the DVD:

What is Calvinism? Does this teaching make man a robot and God the author of sin? What about free will? If the church accepts Calvinism won't evangelism be stifled, perhaps extinguished? How can we balance God's sovereignty and man's responsibility? What are the differences between historic Calvinism and hyper-Calvinism? Why did men like Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Spurgeon, Whitefield, Edward's and a host of evangelists deny the Arminian definition of free will and label it heresy? Why did the Roman Catholic Church condemn the Reformed teaching of predestination and election and embrace free will theology? And why do so many Protestants, perhaps unwittingly, agree with Rome on this issue?

Amazing Grace: The History and Theology of Calvinism is the first video documentary that answers these and other related questions. Hosted by Eric Holmberg ( Hell's Bells 1 & 2; The Massacre of Innocence) this fascinating three-part, four-hour presentation is detailed enough so as to not gloss over the controversy. At the same time, it is broken up into ten "Sunday-school-sized" sections so as to make the rich content manageable and accessible for the average viewer.

Part One explores the history of the debate. It begins with the pivotal dispute between Augustine and Pelagius and continues through the semi-pelagian controversy; focusing particularly on the debate between Martin Luther and Desiderius Erasmus. Many viewers will be shocked to discover that free-will theology was NOT the doctrine of the Reformation but instead the teaching of an increasingly apostate Roman Catholic Church. The history section ends with a definitive historical explanation of the issues that arose during the Calvinist/Arminian controversy. By examining the five points of Arminianism and the Synod of Dort's response, the viewer will clearly see that the Protestant Church understood how the Gospel would be compromised if Arminianism prevailed.

Part Two opens the Word of God, our ultimate authority for life and faith. The five points of Arminianism are put on trial as what would later come to be known as the "five points of Calvinism" are clearly and forcefully presented.

Part Three asks and answers the provocative question: If Calvinism is true, if God is absolutely sovereign; then why should we evangelize? It also explores the vital issue of how to and to whom the gospel should be presented so as to be faithful to the great doctrines of God's sovereignty, man's depravity, and the miracle of amazing grace.

Rich in graphics, dramatic vignettes, and biblical analogies, Amazing Grace - The History and Theology of Calvinism also features many of the finest reformed thinkers and pastors of our time: Dr. R.C. Sproul, Dr. D. James Kennedy, Dr. George Grant, Dr. Stephen Mansfield, Dr. Thomas Ascol, Dr. Thomas Nettles, Dr. Roger Schultz, Pastor Walt Chantry, Dr. Joe Morecraft, Dr. Ken Talbot, Pastor Walter Bowie and Dr. R.C. Sproul, Jr..

Doctrine of the Trinity-Part 4

One of the issues raised as an objection to the Trinity is that the word Trinity does not exist in scripture. Well, neither do we find commonly agreed upon words such as: Divinity, Atheism, or even Rapture. Simply because a term is not found explicitly in scripture does not make the word or the concept it defines unbiblical.

Another common objection is that since God is a God of order (1 Cor 14:33) why would He devise something so confusing. Simply by asking if one thinks that we will necessarily understand all of God and how He works should answer this question (Isaiah 55:8-9; 1 Cor 13:12).

“For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.” ~ Is 55:8-9

“For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.” ~ 1 Cor 13:12

Still others will claim that “Jesus never said He was God” and while those exact words are not found we will see as we go through the scriptures that look at the Trinity that Jesus indeed did claim to be God. When we look at these verses in an upcoming part it will be clear that Christ claimed to be God and those hearing Him speak understood His claims as such.

What I find in most arguments I have heard is that they revolve around the issue of apprehension and comprehension. When the two are conflated, or made equal, then often people try and reformulate doctrines to match what they see as making sense and comprehensible to them. Simply because we do not “get” a doctrine does not make it unscriptural. Because I think that many issues revolve around misunderstanding the difference between apprehending a subject, or in this case doctrine, and comprehending it I would like to touch on the difference. To apprehend something is to see it as so. Thus it is about grasping and seeing the subject in the text. Apprehending a subject is to see that it is there, that it exists in the text. However to comprehend a subject is to understand how it is so, such as how it takes place. As it relates to the Trinity apprehending its truth is to see it is so in the text of scripture while comprehending it is to understand how it takes place. We can apprehend doctrine by carful study but we will not always be able to comprehend a doctrine as God’s ways are not ours (Is 55:8-9).

In this series we will look at the doctrine of the Trinity as it is seen in scripture. This study does not however explain the “How” and that is the issue with most that question the Trinity and or deny it. Again, as we look at the Trinity we are going to look at its existence in scripture and not the manner of God’s accomplishing what the doctrine of the Trinity states. By keeping the foundational pillars (3 divine persons, Equality, Monotheism) in mind and looking at the scriptures methodically we will be able to see, apprehend, the Trinity revealed in them. To do this we will look at 4 areas in the upcoming posts:

I) That there are 3 persons
II) They are all called God
III) There is One God (Monotheism)
IV) Thus they must all be God (Trinity)


Doctrine of the Trinity Series:

Sermon Series on The Doctrine of the Trinity:  Part 1   and   Part 2

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Part 7
Part 8
Part 9
Part 10

(all verses used are from the ESV unless stated otherwise)

Doctrine of the Trinity-Part 3

With regards to the trinity it is important to see the result of denying any of the three pillars of the doctrine, which are:

1) Monotheism: There is only one God
2) There are three Divine persons - All being God
-    The three do not make up God
-    As a friend of mine shared in relating an analogy from Dr. Moorcroft: God is not like a cake mix. In that God is not made up of 1/3 the Father, 1/3 the Son and 1/3 the Holy Spirit. But He is all three at all time and all are equally divine
3) The three persons are all coequal and coeternal

The diagram below shows in a pretty basic way that if you deny any one of the three pillars mentioned above it will point you to one of three heresies. By drawing an arrow from the doctrine denied you will see the corresponding doctrinal error.

Explanation of above views:

Modalism (or Sabellianism 3rd Century):
One form of Modalism existing today is “Oneness Pentecostalism” which consists today of the United Pentecostals and United Apostolic Church. They may not word things the same historically as Modalist have but would still fit into the Modalist camp by their denial of the coexistence of three “distinct” yet equal persons. Historically Modalism stresses that the three parts of the Trinity are merely three manifestations, or as I have been told in a comment – “simultaneous aspects of the nature of God”. Modalism, again this may not be how all would relate this, has spoken of God as such:

- God is one and He has manifested Himself in the mode of the Father in the OT
- He then manifested Himself in the mode of the Son at the incarnation
- Then on Jesus departure He manifested Himself as the Holy Spirit

Key is that all never exist at the same time and thus do not coexist. Modalists will claim equality but again they will not agree to not coexistence.


Subordinationism (late 2nd to early 3rd Century):
This is a view of the relationship of the Father to the Son which subordinates the Son to the Father in essence and status. This is not denying the Son is subordinate to the father in way of submission, which is biblical as in 1 Cor 15:28:

“When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all.”

The issue to the Subordinationist is that Jesus’ nature is different than the Father. They see Christ as eternal, not created, and divine but not equal to the Father. While the Trinitarian view speaks to all three being equal in power and glory

Polytheism:
Polytheism simply says that there are more than one God. This is the claim that anti-Trinitarians often make towards those who hold a Trinitarian view of God.

Some Historical Heresies

Marcionism (144):
Marcionism claims that Christ came at the Baptism and left at the crucifixion and they believed that the wrathful Hebrew God was a separate and lower entity than the all-forgiving God of the New Testament. This is a dualistic view of God that, even if they do not realize it, many professing believers hold today. The Marcionites held that Jesus came to liberate man from the God of the Old Testament.

Arianism (modern day Jehovah’s Witnesses) 4th Century:
Arians deny the deity of Christ and personhood of the Holy Spirit. They see Christ as created being with Jehovah’s Witnesses seeing Christ as Michael the Archangel. As we have already seen this heresy was condemned at the Council of Nicea (325)

Apollinarianism – 4th Century:
This view held that Christ had no human spirit. And that the divine Logos replaced it thus making Christ a “third thing”, a middle being between God and man. Being one part divine (spirit) and two parts (body and soul) human fused into a new nature. Apollonarius was against Arianism but probably fell more into the homoiousians (similar natures) camp. This view was declared a heresy by the First Council of Constantinople in 381 as it denied what is known as the Hypostatic Union: That Jesus is completely man and completely God (John 1:1, 14 & Col 2:9)

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Jn 1:1

“And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.” Jn 1:14

"For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily," Col 2:9

Nestorianism – 5th Century:
Nestorius held that there were two distinct persons in Christ; one human and one Divine. Making Christ a God-bearing man (double personality) rather than the God-man (theanthropos) and thus got the natures correct but had Christ having two personalities. Nestorius distinguished the human Jesus, who died, from the Divine son who cannot die. This view was condemned at the Synod of Ephesus (431) where it was confirmed that Jesus was one person in two distinct and inseparable natures.

Eutychianism – 5th Century:
This view began as a reaction to Nestorius’ dual personalities view of Christ. This view made the Divine nature absorb the human nature and thus Christ only had one nature. A nature that was not like ours as He had one nature, divine. They sought to elevate the divine nature by minimizing the humanity of Christ. This too was condemned, at the Council of Chalcedon (451)


I list these heresies because I pray you hear the many explanations that people give to explain the Trinity so it conforms to what they feel comfortable with. Also, these heresies show that the arguments and human reasoning used to deny the Trinity are not new. We do not stand alone in the fight to defend what is true.

At the end of the day this all shows that Ecc 1:9 is so true:

“The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.”

In Part 4 we will begin to look at a few arguments against the Doctrine of the Trinity as well as look at what I feel is often a key issue and that is the understanding of the difference between “apprehending” the Doctrine of the Thirty and “comprehending “ it.

(Updated 8/20/10 - Due to a comment I wanted to be more clear above on Modalism)
Doctrine of the Trinity Series:

Sermon Series on The Doctrine of the Trinity:  Part 1   and   Part 2

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Part 7
Part 8
Part 9
Part 10

(all verses used are from the ESV unless stated otherwise)

Doctrine of the Trinity-Part 2

In part one I touched on our need to study the Trinity and the importance of a doctrine that to tell the truth, from my perspective, has been minimized in our pluralistic postmodern age. In this part we will look at a little history as this minimization of this important doctrine, which in truth is about the nature of God, has not always been so. As a matter of fact the nature of God was so important that the first great council, the council of Nicea in 325, dealt with this very issue; the nature of God.

The argument at the council revolved around the person of Christ and thus the Council of Nicea in 325 AD addressed the question of – Is Christ Divine? (One of 5 other issues covered but by far the most important). They did not create the doctrine of the “deity of Christ” but merely affirmed it. Also, in this council they did not touch on the person of the Holy Spirit but that is simply because that was not the issue at the time

Some may want to argue that the actual subject of the Trinity was not dealt with at the Council of Nicea. But, while the issue of the Trinity itself was not directly dealt with, the nature of Christ was and that is integral to our understanding of the Trinity. What stirred up the need for a council in large part was that Arius, where the term the “Arian Controversy” came from, had proposed that Christ had been created and had not existed eternally so therefore was not divine as God the Father was. This view had found some supporters but arguments arose in the church to oppose such a doctrine. While Emperor Constantine himself was sympathetic to the beliefs of Arius he wanted to settle the dispute and have political and cultural unity, his main objective in much of what he did. This is one of the places we see God’s hand on the events as again Constantine would have liked to see Arius win the argument but it was not to be.

At the council there were actually three positions
o The homoousians – Who proclaimed that God and Christ were of the same substance
o The Arians – Who proclaimed that God and Christ were of different substances.
o The homoiousians – A group that sought to compromise by claiming Christ was “similar” to God.

The trouble that Arius had with the orthodox view of the nature of Christ’s “substance” was the same we see today. He, as many today that deny the Trinity, sought to mold scripture to make a doctrine that is not easily comprehended comprehensible. In doing that he had to mold scripture to fit his understanding of how he thought things should be.

Mark Noll has noted, “Arius’s appeal to what he considered the logic of monotheism illustrates a recurring tendency throughout Christian history to subject the facts of divine revelation to current conceptions of ‘the reasonable’.”

I share the above glimpse at history, there is much more to read and learn about the Council of Nicea, to show that this is not a new issue & is one that others have struggled through. But it is one where truth can be found. We are to not hold tightly to the Doctrine of the Trinity because of tradition or even because of the Council of Nicea and a vote in the past. But, we should listen to what was said since God was working then as now.

We are to hold tightly to the Doctrine of the Trinity because it is biblical and those that do not hold to it are denying the true nature of Christ. Thus we need to not sit by as some deny this doctrine like it is simply a matter of taste. No this is a matter of the nature of God and we need to defend this doctrine as tenaciously as Athanasius did if necessary who himself was exiled 5 times in his defense of the nature of God. Not because God cannot defend Himself. But, because all of scripture and the promises of God hinge on His nature. If God’s nature can be manipulated by man to fit his whims, as is often done today, then ones hope is in a false god that is not God at all.

Today the issue is not only that the Trinity is denied but that people are not passionate enough about it to defend it at whatever cost. Far too many people are willing to give up this important doctrine for the sake of unity. What I would say is a false unity.

Mathew Henry has said:  "The way to preserve the peace of the church is to preserve its purity."

The purity he speaks of is not just the piety of its people but the purity of its doctrine. Thus it is not by forsaking doctrine but ensuring that the doctrine is pure and undefiled that unity is preserved. The area of the Doctrine of the Trinity is one of those areas we need to unify around. We are not to push it to the back to “just get along” but have a ready defense for who God and his nature, His Trinitarian nature.

Next in Part 3 we will look at some Historical heresies and in doing so you will see that not much has changed in 2000+ years as many of the heresies of the past are alive today.

Doctrine of the Trinity Series:

Sermon Series on The Doctrine of the Trinity:  Part 1   and   Part 2

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Part 7
Part 8
Part 9
Part 10

(all verses used are from the ESV unless stated otherwise)

Doctrine of the Trinity - Part 1

To begin this look at the Trinity I would like to look at two historical definitions of the trinity from two of the major confessions. Keep in mind that simply because these confessions support the Trinity does not make the trinity so. It is the biblical support that these confessions are based on and grounded in that makes what these statements say biblical. We simply start here to see how the trinity has been defined and we will look further at this as we move though the subject

From “The 2nd London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689”
In this divine and infinite Being there are three subsistences, the Father, the Word (or Son), and the Holy Spirit, of one substance, power, and eternity, each having the whole divine essence, yet the essence undivided: the Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son; all infinite, without beginning, therefore but one God, who is not to be divided in nature and being, but distinguished by several peculiar, relative properties and personal relations; which doctrine of the Trinity is the foundation of all our communion with God, and comfortable dependence on him.
(1 John 5:7; Matt. 28:19,2; Cor. 13:14; Exod. 3:14; John 14:11; 1 Cor. 8:6; John 1:14,18; John 15:26; Gal. 4:6.)

From “The Westminster Confession of Faith of 1649”
In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father, the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.
(Mat 3:16-17; 28:19; 2 Cor 13:14; 1 John 5:7. John 1:14, 18. John 15:26; Gal 4:6).

A somewhat easier description may be:
Within one Being that is God, there exist eternally three coequal persons, namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit

Or as I have often heard Hank Hanegraaff say:   There are three who’s and one what

Introduction
So why do we need to study the Trinity? Is it not taken for granted? Does not everyone believe in it? Well in short, NO. I have found as I look around the internet and talk to people there are many that deny the Trinity and seem to not think this places them outside the pale of orthodoxy. Some of these may deny the Trinity out of ignorance or having been taught wrongly and they need to be discipled to see the truth of this great doctrine. However there others that teach that the Trinity is false and propagate their heresy where they are able. Some may do this openly such as the Jehovah Witnesses or avoid defining their terms clearly as with the Mormon’s so as to use Trinitarian words but give them decidedly different meanings. But, they do deny its truth. Of more concern are those within the walls of the professing church that teach such heresy and are not held accountable and are often even lauded and followed

As an example from the pulpit; T.D. Jakes is a well known preacher and writer in the evangelical community and while seeking to appear not connected with any denomination he does have connections with the Oneness Pentecostals which are modalists (more on modalsim later) who deny the orthodox definition of the Trinity.

Another example is Benny Him who while often criticized for his “Health and Wealth” doctrine has claimed that the Trinity is actually 9 persons with each person of the trinity having his own personal trinity, see video below.



An example from the sound booth would be Phillips Craig and Dean who are Oneness Pentecostals, Modalists, as well. This is not simply about mistaken individuals but they are all full time minters that happen to sing together and thus by their ministries are to be accountable for teaching heresy. Sadly many listen to their songs and even after finding out that they deny the Trinity justify things by their music being good or the words of a particular song being true. I do not know how many of those that justify their actions would listen to a good song by a Mormon or Jehovah Witness, well today maybe many.

I do not put this out there to simply point out these people but to show that the Trinity, the orthodox view of the Trinity, is not a doctrine that no longer needs to be studied and preached. But that we need even more so in the pluralistic age we live in study and make sure we know the true nature of our God. We need to remember that when we speak of God He is defined by His nature and that nature is Trinitarian. Thus when we speak of Islam, Judaism and others we are not speaking of the same God as they define God’s nature differently.

Sadly there are also so called “Christian” denominations, as alluded to above, that do not hold to the a biblical Trinitarian view of God but for some reason the church as a whole is fearful of calling a heretic a heretic. I think this is where confusion begins in the congregation since if the church does not speak out how are those in its ranks to see the seriousness of the error. This is not so much about labeling but about the correct understanding of God.

As we continue in the study of the Trinity we will get to its proofs but I thought it important to see why we need to study and we will see next why that the church from very early supported and defended this view of God.

Doctrine of the Trinity Series:

Sermon Series on The Doctrine of the Trinity:  Part 1   and   Part 2

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Part 7
Part 8
Part 9
Part 10

(all verses used are from the ESV unless stated otherwise)