Saturday, August 05, 2006

 
Church and State in the Birth of Canada

The relationship between the church and state in the history of Canada is an underlying part of the present condition of Canadian statehood. The Canadian nation has found part of its identity through the process of dealing with the relationship between the church and state. The formation of Canada, as a nation, was in part, a reflection of their English Protestant influence and their French Catholic influence. During the years of Canada’s emergence as a sovereign nation, both the Protestant and Catholic forms of Christianity favored a close relation to the state. The Protestants viewed Christianized lands as part of the kingdom of God, and felt it was the duty of the state to punish those who went against their beliefs. In addition, the Roman Catholic Church’s position on the duty of the state was just as sacral, a term meaning the merger of Church and State where the two are almost impossible to differentiate. Unlike the United States, Canada’s early nation-forming years lacked the Baptist influence in considering the role of the church in relation to the state. The Baptists viewed the state as a separate ministry of God to punish evildoers. However, the state, they believed, had no right to punish acts of liberty of consciousness. This Baptist view of liberty of consciousness, we shall see, was partly responsible for bringing forth a separation of church and state in America.
The English Protestant Influence

The English Protestant influence in the role of the church and state in Canada can be examined by looking at the period of the eighteenth and nineteenth century. The cultural differences and the sacral, political-religious stance of the established Anglican Church greatly shaped the role between the church and state in Canada. Canada’s close ties with the British Empire kept her dependent on the wealth, political influence, and the established church of the British. The prominence of Anglicans in Upper Canadian society is telling of how the Anglican Church was able to secure its powerful position in Canadian government.
Also, the Church of England still remained a dominant force in Canadian politics and society during the eighteenth century, in general. The Clergy Reserves, established by the Constitution Act of 1791, provided revenue from the leasing of one-seventh of all lands in Canada in order to support the Protestant clergy.[1] The special recognition of the Protestant Church by appropriating government funds to help support the clergy is reflective of the blurring of the separation of church and state in Upper Canadian society. While the United States was moving away from the intertwining bonds of the sacralism, Upper Canada was moving at full speed to implement the sacral, Protestant view of the church and state relationship. The creation of the Clergy Reserves reveals the English Canadian desire to establish the Anglican Church as the official church in Upper Canada.
A further look into the two major regions of Canada can be used to determine the position of Canada’s stance on the relationship of the church and state during the early part of the nineteenth century. By 1792, the Provinces of Upper and Lower Canada were self-governing colonies with legislatures.[2] Upper Canada was composed of English –speaking, Protestant settlers, and Lower Canada had a “population predominantly French by descent and language, Roman Catholic in religion, with laws (outside of the criminal law) based upon the Civil Law system.”[3]
The ruling oligarchy, the Family Compact, in Upper Canada held a great amount of power and influence in political and religious circles. According to Howard Adams, “the members of the Compact were aristocratic, conservative, and Anglican, subscribing to the inherent right of privileged rule.”[4] One can begin to see the possibility of a conflict of interest in the concerns of the church with those of the state. Bishop John Strachan, a prominent Anglican leader, advocated a government-subsidized educational system for the elite in Upper Canada. Strachan was well known for “several educational successes such as the increase in the number of common schools, the improvement of grammar schools, and the formation of King’s College in 1827.[5] However, Strachan called on the state to get rid of the Anglican Church’s competition from the Methodist, further reflecting his Erastainistic beliefs.[6] The political and public educational involvement of the Anglican Church’s elite in Upper Canada is an unavoidable consequence of the blurring roles between the church and state.
Furthermore, Bishop Strachan, reflecting the sacralism of the Anglican Church “spearheaded a movement for the establishment of exclusive schools for the ruling-class families of the Province.”[7] In 1807, with the help of Bishop Strachan, the Education Act was passed. This Canadian school act “established aristocratic, sectarian, grammar schools for the upper-class families of Upper Canada; few educational provisions were made for the masses.”[8] Also, the act established secondary education for the social elite.[9] This lopsided educational act reveals the problems that underscored sacralism in the Protestant Church in Upper Canada.
Unlike the U.S. Land Ordinances of 1785, which helped provide for the establishment of public schools in America, the Education Act of 1807 reflected the sacral influence of the Anglican Church in Upper Canadian society. The public school pursuit of the United States was not realized in Upper Canada, in part, because of the indistinguishable responsibilities of its church and state. The role of the church in the policy of education in Upper Canada is indicative of the blurring of responsibilities between the political powers and the Anglican Church.
Another example of Anglican involvement in the role between the church and state is its attempt, along with the state, to establish an official church in Upper Canada. As early as 1791 John Graves Simcoe, the first Lieutenant-Governor, endorsed a constitution which gave special rights and privileges to the Church of England with the hope of establishing the Anglican Church as the official state church.[10] The Upper Canadian religious leaders can be viewed as political lobbyists with the purpose of trying to establish the Anglican Church as the official state church.[11] The favoring of the Anglican Church in Upper Canada is indicative of the former, sacral policies of the Protestant Churches found in Europe. The province of Upper Canada found no room for other religions or churches to exist within the “christian nation.”
The Protestant influence in Lower Canada was just as effective as in Upper Canada. The Royal Institution for the Advancement of Learning, established by the Education Act of 1801, was responsible for the education of Lower Canada during the early years of the nineteenth century. Jacob Mountain, Anglican Bishop of Quebec, “served as President of their Board of Commissioners that had authority over administration of the schools, textbooks, curriculum, and rules.”[12] Mountain’s role in the education of Lower Canada and his influence with the political elite is another example of the Protestant view of the relationship between the church and state. “The object of the Institution was in the first place the proselytism of all to one belief (Anglicism), and secondly, to make it subservient to other civil and political views.”[13] The result was that only those who were members of a particular church received the benefits of the Education Act of 1801.[14] The Bishop’s direct involvement with the policies of the Upper Canadian government reveals the Anglican view of the role between the church and state.
The Protestant Church’s view of a Christianized nation, encompassing every citizen, is part of the driving force behind its desire to educate all of its citizens according to its Christian understanding. Both the church and state view social policies as their joint responsibility in a Christian nation. The result of the Education Act of 1801 and the establishment of the Anglican-backed Institution was the imposition it placed on French Canadian Catholics in Lower Canada and other denominations. It must have been a policy familiar to the French Canadian Catholics, a policy also employed by the Roman Catholic Church throughout the world and throughout its history.
The French Catholic Influence

The Roman Catholic Church, like the Protestant churches, believed in a policy where the distinctions of the church and state were almost impossible to differentiate. Also, like the Protestant churches, the sacral belief of church and state of the Catholic Church, was partly based on the writings of Augustine of Hippo. Augustine, in replying to the Donatists’ schismatic beliefs, called for a single Christian state under the teachings of the universal church.
The Roman Catholic Church, left unaided with the defeat of the French by the English, was still able to exert a certain amount of political influence in certain parts of Canada. Before France’s defeat to the English, New France was closely connected with the Catholic Church “with an identical membership.”[15] After Canada became a colony of the British, with the establishment of the Quebec Act of 1774, the province of Quebec was instituted with French civil law instead of English common law. Also, the act allowed the French Canadians to retain their Catholic religion. “This created the need for an educational system in Quebec able to accommodate groups that were significantly different and potentially antagonistic.”[16]
Under the French civil law system, the province of Quebec practiced a law concerning marriage that was based on the Roman canon law.[17] The Roman canon involved annulments of marriage of Catholics and non-Catholics and it was the marriage law for the province of Quebec. The possibilities of this unique provision would have allowed the Pope to be “a legislature capable of altering the civil law in Canada.”[18] Interestingly, the marriage law was not changed by the Canadian government until the Privy Council decided Despatie v. Tremblay in 1921.[19]
Like the Protestant church and state arrangement, the Catholic Church relied on the state to advance its teaching and influence in Canadian society. The French language and distinct culture made it possible for the Roman Catholic Church to maintain control over the French Canadians in Lower Canada.[20] The support for the Catholic Church also meant support for French Canadian political power in Lower Canada. The two institutions were almost impossible to differentiate for the French Canadians in Lower Canada.
Also, the Royal Institution for the Advancement of Learning which supported the Protestant teachings of the Anglican Church caused a stir among the French Canadians living in Lower Canada. A group of political reformers in the Legislative Assembly of Lower Canada pushed for changes in the educational system and opposed the Institution because it was a foreign establishment in French Catholic Lower Canada.[21] However, in 1829 The French Catholic clergy “accepted the offer from the Institution to serve as officials on the Board and gave their support and services.”[22] The Catholic clergy’s struggle to remain politically influential is reflective of their sacral thinking.
The history of the controversy surrounding the Institution is helpful in studying the sacral tendencies of both Protestant and Catholic Church. Both believed the church and state should be reflective of the same path from God. Both churches’ strong sacral beliefs kept them close together in dealing with the educational reforms desired by the Legislative Assembly in Canada.
In the early part of the nineteenth century, the Legislative Assembly seemed to be advocating a form of separation of church and state that ran contrary to the teachings of both the Protestant and Catholic Church. “Undaunted by the opposition of the Catholic Church, the Legislative Assembly passed, in 1829, an educational program first proposed by Assemblyman Dr. Blanchet. This Education Act established a common, secular school system for the province containing many features of contemporary free public schools including granting full responsibility for the education of their to the people themselves.”[23] Also, the new education system was successful in increasing the number of schools from 381 to 1,216 and the student enrollment increased from 14,000 to 60,000.[24]
Given the success of the new educational program one would expect this to be the last of the Institution’s role in the educational system in Lower Canada. However, the Protestant and Catholic Churches were able to secure their positions in the education system. Despite the success of the new education system, the Catholic Church chose to advocate a position that ran contrary to the will of the French Canadian people, many of whom were their own parishioners of Lower Canada. In 1837, the English social elites and the Protestant and Catholic Churches were able to reverse “the new democratic developments through military intervention.”[25] The two churches’ involvement in the affairs of the state’s role in education is a reflection of their sacralism in the province of Lower Canada.
The consequences of the failed attempt of a public school system strengthened the relationship between the Catholic Church and government of Lower Canada. After the new education reforms were stifled by the intervention of the established churches, a strengthening relationship developed between the Catholic Church and the state. In 1839 “the Governor-General issued a decree giving the priests of St. Sulpice full legal title and feudal tithes to several seigneurial holdings, most of which were to remain untaxed by the government.”[26]
The Education Act of 1841 furthered the close relationship between the province of Lower Canada and the Catholic Church. The act established two separate types of religious school systems for Catholic and Protestant churches. The result of the Education Act of 1841 was that a “separatist ethic developed that permeated Canadian society and persists to the present day.”[27] This separate, sacral system helped prevent the establishment of a school system not based on religious affiliation. The result of the act went well beyond the question of secular education and kept divided the nation of Canada into two separate groups, the English Protestants and the French Catholics.
The Education Act of 1846 pushed the Catholic Church into a greater realm of social control in Lower Canada. The new education act “gave the Catholic clergy considerable dominion over education. It became almost supreme commander of many of the social institutions in Lower Canada.”[28] The education act can be seen as a determining factor in the increasing blurring of the role of the church and state in Canadian society.
By 1856 “normal schools were established under the Catholic and Protestant supervision and supported by state funds.”[29] The sacral leanings of the Catholic Church in Lower Canada helped shape the direction of the educational policies and kept separate the two major provinces of Canada. The Education Act of 1869 “placed the school system under a Council of Public Instruction, composed of ex-officio and appointed members representative of the Catholic and Protestant elements of the population.”[30] This act was another continuation of the sacral leanings of the Catholic Church in Lower Canada.
The Act of 1875 increased the church’s grip in the educational system in Quebec. The act “constituted the Catholic and Protestant sections of the Council and gave to each the authority to function as a separate supervisory body with powers to prescribe curriculums and textbooks, to supervise examinations and teacher training, and to recommend teachers for certification.”[31] This act is indicative of the increasing support of the church in its undertaking of public education in Quebec. The sacral understanding of the roles of the church and state in Quebec helped determine the direction of its education system.
The Baptist View of the Church and State

The Baptist view of the separation of church and state is a distinctive not found in the theology and teachings of the Catholic and Protestant denominations. The Anabaptists, the precursor of the modern Baptists, believed in a separation of church and state not found in the teachings of Protestant churches in Europe. It is a belief that is taken for granted in our modern American understanding of the role of the church and state.
The Catholic and Protestant churches abhorred the voluntaryism doctrine of the Anabaptists. According to Leonard Verduin, the American freedom to believe and disbelieve is “the fruitage of the vision for which the Stepchildren (Anabaptists) agonized; it is, as even foreign observers have noted, ‘not the progeny of the Enlightenment but rather the ripe fruit of the Freechurchism of the Left-wing reformers’.”[32] Also, “there is a widespread notion among Protestant groups that the separation of Church and State, and thus religious liberty was but the logical development of the principles held by all the reformers. Just where this notion arose is difficult to say, and no reputable historian of our times would endorse it, the fact is that the rise of Protestantism was accompanied by an unprecedented outburst of intolerance.”[33] This Catholic and Protestant understanding of the sacral role of the church and state is essential in order to appreciate the distinct Baptist view of the church-state relationship.
The Baptist beginnings in America start with Roger Williams (1603-1683), founder of the colony of Rhode Island. Williams, founder of the first Baptist Church in America, used the term “wall of separation” between church and state a century before Thomas Jefferson.[34] Also, Rhode Island is considered the first government to establish full liberty of conscience and religion. Here is where the Catholic and Protestant views and practices of the church-state relationship depart from the liberty of conscience view of the Baptists. The state support of a certain church, as in the case of Canada, destroys the individual’s ability to experience an authentic liberty of conscience and religion. The example of the church’s involvement in the education system in Upper and Lower Canada is what helped prevent Canada from establishing a society under a liberty of conscience and religious freedom during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.
Another leading figure in the cause for the separation of church and state in America during this time was the Baptist preacher, Isaac Backus. Backus fought for the concept of the separation of church and state in Massachusetts. In 1773, Backus wrote An Appeal to the Public, which stated “It appears to us that the true difference and exact limits between ecclesiastical and civil government is this, That the church is armed with light and truth to pull down the strongholds of iniquity and to gain souls to Christ and into his Church to be governed, while the state is armed with the sword to guard the peace and civil rights of all persons and societies and to punish those who violate the same. And where these two kinds of government, and the weapons which belong to them are well distinguished and approved according to the nature and end of their institution, the effects are happy, and they do not interfere with each other. But where they have been confounded together no tongue nor pen can fully describe the mischiefs that have ensued.”[35] It is apparent that Backus understood the dangers and injustices that are associated with a sacral church-state relationship.
Still another leading figure in the cause for the separation of church and state in America was the Baptist leader, John Leland. Leland, along with other Baptists in Virginia, was able to get James Madison to agree upon a provision in the Constitution that would guarantee religious freedom.[36] Leland wrote “Let every man speak freely without fear, maintain the principles that he believes, worship according to his own faith, either one God, no God, or twenty Gods; and let the government protect him in doing so.”[37] The efforts to help establish a separation of church and state in America by Leland, Madison and others, is found missing in the history of the development of the Canadian government.
In conclusion, the sacral teachings of both the Catholic and Protestant churches have helped prevent Canada from reaching the level of religious freedom found in the United States. The English Protestant leaders in Upper Canada were determined to enlist the help of the state in order to continue to be an important authority in Canadian society. The French Catholics leaders in Lower Canada were just as determined to remain a significant force in Canadian society. The Baptistic view of the separation of church and state is what helped shape our American vision of religion freedom.















Notes

[1] Gordon Barkwell, “The Clergy Reserves in Upper Canada: A Study in the Separation of Church and State, 1791-1854.” Church History 24, no. 4 (December 1955): 371.

[2] John S. Ewart. “The Canadian Constitution.” Columbia Law Review 8, no. 1 (January 1908): 27.

[3] William Renwick Riddell, “Constitutional Amendments in Canada.” The Yale Law Journal 28, no. 4 (February 1919): 317.

[4] Adams, 36.

[5] D.S. Woods, “The History of Education in Canada.” Review of Educational Research 6, no. 4 (October 1936): 380.

[6] Christopher Adamson, “God’s Continent Divided: Politics and Religion in Upper Canada and the Northern and Western United States, 1775 to 1841.” Comparative Studies in Society and History 36, no. 3 (July 1994): 442.

[7] Adams, 36.

[8] Adams, 36.

[9] Woods, 380.

[10] Adamson, 432.

[11] Adamson, 443.

[12] Adams, 37.

[13] Adams, 37.

[14] Adams, 37.

[15] Herbert A. Smith, “Church and State in North America.” The Yale Law Review 35, no. 4 (February 1926): 461.

[16] Woods, 379.

[17] Smith, 462.

[18] Smith, 467.

[19] Smith, 467.

[20] S.D. Clark, “Religion: The Religious Factor in Canadian Economic Development.” The Journal of Economic History 7 (1947): 92.

[21] Adams, 38.

[22] Adams, 38.

[23] Adams, 38.

[24] Adams, 39.

[25] Adams, 39.

[26] Adams, 39.

[27] Adams, 40.

[28] Adams, 40.

[29] Woods, 380.

[30] Woods, 380.

[31] Woods, 380.

[32] Leonard Verduin, The Reformers and Their Stepchildren, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1964), 92.

[33] Verduin, 93.

[34] Dr. William P. Grady, What Hath God Wrought! (Knoxville, TN: Grady Publications, 1996), 172.

[35] H. Leon McBeth, A Sourcebook for Baptist Heritage (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1990), 175.

[36] John T. Christian, A History of the Baptists (1926; online edition, Providence Baptist Ministries, 2005), (April 28, 2005).

[37] John Leland, The Writings of John Leland, ed. L.F. Greene (New York: Arno Press, 1969), 184.




Sunday, July 09, 2006

 
Gene M. Bridges Too Fails to Differentiate Between Pre-Sin Adam and Men

It seems that Mr. Bridges has added to Alan's failure to differentiate between a pre-sin Adam and men. It is this failure that placed Alan Kurschner into the realm of being a hyper-Calvinist. Gene writes:

"God’s decree includes ends and means. The means by which evil is “caused” is His permission, which is just as effacious as His activity, but the means is passive. That is, God’s decree renders an event certain, but He sometimes, through inaction permits something to occur. God’s decree is the necessary condition, His decreed means (His permission) is the sufficient condition. In permission, men are left, for all intents and purposes on their own. I find it highly ironic, and downright irrational, that Mr. Mart would then render this objection, since men are given the permission by God to do as they want to do in this scheme. Isn’t the “volitional theology” goal for men to be allowed to do what they want and for God to honor their free will decision."

Notice here the absense of dealing with a pre-sin Adam. Gene only refers to sinful men born after Adam's fall. The question that Ala has had trouble dealing with is where did pre-sin Adam get his desire to sin. Alan states that God decreed it and caused it to happen by removing His hand of grace from Adam. This removal of grace on Adam goes beyond what traditional Calvinism teaches. As stated in earlier posts, most Calvinists will either proclaim mystery or free choice because to go beyond this libels God. This is where Alan has parted company with his Calvinistic brethren.

Again Gene writes:

"I’d add that libertarian action theory (Arminianism) doesn’t get Mr. Mart off the hook. Arminians have God decreeing the fall as well. Here is the infralapsarian order of decrees in Calvinism: Creation, Fall, Election/Reprobation, Atonement, Application of Atonement; Notice the fall is decreed. Here is the Arminian order (which every Arminian should be reminded of from time to time): Creation, Fall, Atonement, General Call, Election of all who believe. Notice that Arminianism has God decreeing the Fall as well. Only the Open Theist is in a position to deny this."

But what Gene fails to understand is that God elects and decrees in accord with His foreknowledge. God does not choose apart from His foreknowledge. Again, according Edwards' view of the will, men must act according to their strongest desire based on the condition of their wills. In this view, the unregenerate man cannot do what is pleasing to God. He can only sin based on his will. But Adam was declared a good creature by God and his nature was without sin. The desire of sinning against God would have been impossible according to this view of the will. Where did Adam get his desire to sin? From God? No! Does Gene believe God gave Adam the desire to sin too?

Saturday, July 08, 2006

 
The Hyper-Calvinist Gadfly Is At Again

Alan states:
“A couple of preliminary notes before Boston’s article. When I read about the Puritans and other Reformed thinkers and pastors of the past, I am utterly embarrased by what I see in evangelicalism today and the pragmatic preaching (and non-existent teaching) that must make God gag. Many pastors—and there are those that give Reformed lip service—are governed by the fear of the sheep than the fear of the Shepherd.
Thomas Boston is a model of pastoral Biblical integrity for today’s pastor.”

Alan should be embarrassed for promoting an infant baptizer. Alan seems to always put his view of soteriology above all other doctrines. He has failed to give warning to Thomas Boston’s false teachings concerning baptism. Boston was a Scottish Presbyterian minister who held to the error filled Westminster Confession of Faith. Here is what the WCF says about baptism:

III. Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but Baptism is rightly administered by pouring, or sprinkling water upon the person.
IV. Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ,[11] but also the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized.
VI. The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongs unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time.
VII. The sacrament of Baptism is but once to be administered unto any person.

The readers will notice the numerous errors concerning baptism. First, immersion is necessary according to the practice found in the New Testament and dipping is manmade device designed to alter the true teachings of the Bible. Second, infants are not to be baptized. This practice is not found in the scriptures. Third, baptism does not confer grace upon the recipient. Fourth, baptism is to be administered a “second” time if that believing individual was baptized as an infant. This second baptism or rebaptism was the main reason thousands of Baptistic believers were persecuted throughout history by both Roman Catholics and Protestants.

Thomas Boston: ‘The sacraments are not converting, but confirming, ordinances; they are appointed for the use and benefit of God’s children, not of others; they are given to believers as believers, so that none others are capable of the same before the Lord’ (page 282 cited by Henry G. Weston). Weston “How the positions thus avowed can be reconciled with the practice of infant baptism is not for me to say.” (Henry G. Weston’s “Regenerate Church Membership”). Weston was right in recognizing the inconsistency of Boston’s view concerning baptism. Mr. Kurschner, on the other hand, has failed to point out any errors concerning Boston. Alan has no problem promoting padobaptists as long as they share the same view of soteriology. This is irresponsible and an embarrassment to those who call ourselves Baptists.

Sunday, July 02, 2006

 

The Calvinist Gadfly Refuses to Differentiate Between the Pre-Sin Adam and Christians


Alan Kurschner has continued to act like his views concerning the cause of Adam’s sin falls are in line with Reformed theology. However, as I have already demonstrated he has failed to provide any Reformed sources that will support his view. I have provided several Reformed theologians who hold different views than that of Mr. Kurschner’s.

Alan states “You first have to ask this question: Who gave Lucifer the desire not to sin? Answer: God. Was this gracious for God to give Lucifer this desire not to sin? Answer: yes. So, does God not have the freedom to remove his hand of grace from Lucifer? Answer: yes. If God chose to remove his hand from Lucifer, then Lucifer in and of himself being a creature apart from God’s grace would allow him to have this desire to sin. Lucifer had the desire to sin because God removed what enabled him in the first place to not sin.”

Where do you find this happening in scripture? Nowhere. Instead, we find “How YOU HAVE FALLEN FROM HEAVEN, O morning star, son of the dawn! YOU HAVE BEEN CAST DOWN TO THE EARTH, you who once laid low the nations! You said in your heart, ‘I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly, on the utmost heights of the sacred mountain. I will ascend above the tops of the clouds. I WILL MAKE MYSELF LIKE THE MOST HIGH.’”—Isaiah 14:12-14. And “Your heart became proud on account of your beauty, and you corrupted your wisdom because of your splendor. So I threw you to the earth.”—Ezekiel 28:17.

When asked “Did God remove his grace on his good creatures, Alan? Created in His own image and declared good and yet removed his grace on them?”

Alan responded with “Again, Yes.”

Again Alan writes:
“God was not obligated to persevere Adam’s faith. Imagine that Rob…God would withdraw his gracious presence from us to demonstrate our weakness and dependency on Him.”

And “Yes, God’s wisdom is absurd to our creaturely sensibilities. Again, imagine that Rob, God would actually withdraw his hand of grace to demonstrate to the creature his weakness and dependence on Him.”

Again, Mr. Kurschner fails to differentiate between the pre-sin Adam and us, Christians. The pre-sin Adam had a nature quite different from our natures. His was without sin. He was declared a good creature by God. Edwards’ view of the will says that men must act according to their strongest desire at the moment based on their natures. Adam’s nature was without sin so the idea of sin was foreign to his nature. He could only act according to his nature which was good. He could not sin based on his good, sinless nature. So where did Adam get his desire to sin? Alan says God decreed it but this goes further than what Reformed theology teaches.

Here is where Alan parts company with Reformed theology and enters into the realm of hyper-Calvinism.

Alan writes:
"Your a troubler who is not interested in truthful interaction. I don’t mind if you disagree all day with me, but I am tired and done with spending 95% of my time in my comments with you correcting your misrepresentations of Reformed theology."

But he has yet provided ANY reformed theologians that agree with his position! And I am accused of misrepresenting Reformed theology? I have asked him to provide the names of any reformed theologians who support his view of the cause of Adam’s sin and he hasn’t provided ONE source!

Alan writes:
“You are not well read at all in Reformed theology. Your name-calling such as “hyper-Calvinism” shows your ignorance of the historical meaning of the term. Hyper-Calvinism is heresy, indeed, it is anti-Calvinism. You have come on this blog with the pretense of thinking you understand Reformed theology, let alone basic confessions such as the Westminster!

Alan thinks he knows how well read I am in Reformed theology but he does not even know me personally. How can he make this claim? I am the only one who quoted from Reformed sources and he has not!
My calling him a hyper-Calvinist comes from the definition provided by Monergism.com.

Alan writes:
“Your arguments and behavior over the past month or so, prove to me that you are prideful and full of arrogant ignorance. And I am not too fond of discussing these truths with those who do not represent my views truthfully.”

But yet he wrote earlier in the same post:
“I actually thought that Rob Mart was going to be an exception and be a level-headed anti-Calvinist commentator on my blog. But my hopes were soon vanished in some of his recent absurd comments about God’s freedom to give grace and his freedom to withdraw his grace.”

My comments concerning the withdrawal of grace came only a few days ago on June 28th 2006. In fact, I only started posting comments on his blog in late May of 2006. So which one is it? It seems like Alan is a little confused or maybe it is a cop out. He has banned me from posting anymore comments on his blog but yet he continues to leave comments concerning the errors of views.

He wrote the a day after his banning me from his blog:
“What Rob has failed to distinguish is that there is an immediate cause of Adam’s sin (temptation/self-centeredness), and God’s purpose in his decree of Adam’s sin. We know what the former is certainly, but the latter is what I am suggesting as the best plausible explanation: God in his all-wise council has chosen not to give Adam sufficient grace to overcome that particular sin to bring about his glorious purposes in redemptive history.

For some strange reason, this rubs Rob the wrong way. All Reformers would agree that God could have given Adam sufficient grace to overcome that temptation. Why Rob calls this “hyper-calvinism” demonstrates his absolute ignorance of Reformed theology. What is interesting as well, there are many Arminians who would agree that God could have given Adam the sufficient grace to overcome this temptation. Rob is filtering his theology to what makes “sense” to how he thinks God’s grace should operate in accord with his sensibilities.”

I guess it is easier to point the “errors” of someone when that someone CANNOT respond!

Friday, June 30, 2006

 

Is the Calvinist Gadfly Now a Hyper-Calvinist Gadfly?

Mr. Alan Kurschner seems to have morphed into a different type of gadfly. His view of the cause of Adam and Lucifer's sin seems to have pushed him beyond the teachings of traditional Calvinism into that of Hyper-Calvinism. While most Reformed people will claim mystery or free choice as the cause of Adam's sin, Alan claims God decreed Adam to sin. This makes God the author or cause of sin.

Here is what Kurschner had to say about Lucifer's reason for sinning:
"You first have to ask this question: Who gave Lucifer the desire not to sin? Answer: God. Was this gracious for God to give Lucifer this desire not to sin? Answer: yes. So, does God not have the freedom to remove his hand of grace from Lucifer? Answer: yes. If God chose to remove his hand from Lucifer, then Lucifer in and of himself being a creature apart from God’s grace would allow him to have this desire to sin. Lucifer had the desire to sin because God removed what enabled him in the first place to not sin."

So here we have Kurschner admitting that God can reove his grace from good creatures. But this is the biblical account of the real reason behind Lucifer's rebellion against God.
How YOU HAVE FALLEN FROM HEAVEN, O morning star, son of the dawn! YOU HAVE BEEN CAST DOWN TO THE EARTH, you who once laid low the nations! You said in your heart, ‘I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly, on the utmost heights of the sacred mountain. I will ascend above the tops of the clouds. I WILL MAKE MYSELF LIKE THE MOST HIGH.’”—Isaiah 14:12-14. And “Your heart became proud on account of your beauty, and you corrupted your wisdom because of your splendor. So I threw you to the earth.”—Ezekiel 28:17.

Here is what Alan had to say about the cause of Adam's sin:
"It was God’s freedom to widthraw his hand of grace from Adam, and in so doing it was Adam left apart from God’s grace who desired to sin. That is gross to suggest that God is the cause of sin because he chose to widthraw his hand of grace from the creature."

What the Calvinist Gadfly fails to realize is that Adam was made in God's own image and was declared to be a good creature. Alan's explanation moves well beyond Calvinism into Hyper-Calvinism. Here is what R.C. Sproul had to say when presented with the same question concerning Adam:
“But Adam and Eve were not created fallen. They had no sin nature. They were good creatures with a free will. Yet they chose to sin. Why? I don’t know. Nor have I found anyone yet who does know.”

And here is John Gerstner's reply to Geisler when asked who gave Lucifer the desire to rebel against God?:
Gerstner replied “Mystery,mystery, a great mystery!”

And finally here is what John MacArthur had to say concerning the why Adam sinned:
“Why did Adam sin? The best answer to that is that Adam sinned because he loved Eve and once she was what she was, he wanted to be what she was. In addition to that, there is no answer. But apparently–and most scholars say–to be what Eve was. I mean, at that point he didn’t have a lot of choice; she was the only woman around! If you wanted any kind of compatibility, that was how it was. It shows you the foolishness of man’s first decision.”

Notice here how MacArthur places the cause solely on Adam's free choice! The answers given by Sproul, Gerstner, And MacArthur are quite different from the answers Alan gives.
Here is how Monergism.com defines Hyper-Calvinsm:
Most Calvinists reject as deplorable the following hyper-Calvinistic and destructive beliefs:
that God is the author of sin and of evil

This is where Alan's view of God removing grace on his good creature falls into the theology of Hyper-Calvinism. Our Calvinist Gadfly seems to have changed into a Hyper-Calvinist Gadfly!

Friday, June 02, 2006

 
The James White/Tom Ascol and Caner Brothers Debate

Why are all the Calvinists out there putting out so many things about this debate before it even starts? I see so many blogs out there acting as if James has already won the debate. When I went searching for this debate on the Caner's website I found nothing about it. And yet, when I went to White's site I am almost overwhelmed with all of the background info about this debate. I think White crossed the line when he disclosed his personal email correspondence with Dr. Caner. He really seemed to bully his way into getting Caner to debate with him.

I am curious to know why I don't see too much about White's debate with Bob Wilkini on the Calvinist blogs. It seemed like White was not prepared for the debate. It sounded like he was expecting to be able to build his Arminian straw man so he could easily knock it down. Poor White had to act as if Bob was hurting his feelings by claiming White wasn't really preaching sola fide. Poor White! And White was probably shocked at Wilkin's response to his John 6:44 comment and 1 John comments.

Finally, White said that we would need to slow the tapes. He repeated this a few times, obviously frustrated. Poor Whitey!

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?