Category Archives: Uncategorized

Calvinism and Arminianism

Posted on by
Reply

pills

John Calvin (1509-1564) was a prominent French theologian during the Protestant Reformation and the father of the theological system known as Calvinism.  (Read more here.)

Jacobus Arminius (1560-1609), was a Dutch Reformed theologian and professor of theology at the University of Leiden. He is most noted for his departure from the Reformed theology of the Belgic Confession resulting in what became the Calvinist-Arminian controversy addressed at the Synod of Dort (1618-1619).  (Read more here.)

Last week in our Foundations of the Faith Class Pastor John spoke about The Doctrine of Election (Why Did God choose Me?).  Part of his intro was noting the difference between the origin of our faith and the object of our faith.  Calvinists would say that the origin of our faith is God awakening our heart to believe.  Arminianists would say the origin of our faith is a combination of God drawing us along with our free will to chose to respond to God.  While Calvinists and Arminianists disagree on the ORIGIN of faith they are in agreement OBJECT of our faith — Jesus Christ.

Can Calvinists and Arminianists co-exist in the same church?  ABSOLUTELY!  Our humble and respectful dialogue will only sharpen us.

Where does KHC stand?  Over the past several years KHC has migrated toward a Calvinist (or Reformed) perspective.  For most churches with a mix of Calvinists and Arminianists in attendance it would require a 2-3 year very careful, prayerful, and studied process to move to one end of the continuum or the other.

This Thursday (4/21) Pastor John will address

The Doctrine of Substitution 

(What Took Place on the Cross?)

7-8:30pm in the Harbor Room

ACCORDING TO CALVINISM

Salvation is accomplished by the almighty power of the Triune God. The Father chose a people, the Son died for them, the Holy Spirit makes Christ’s death effective by bringing the elect to faith and repentance, thereby causing them to willingly obey the gospel. The entire process (election, redemption, regeneration) is the work of God and is by grace alone. Thus God, not man, determines who will be the recipients of the gift of salvation.

ACCORDING TO ARMINIANISM

Salvation is accomplished through the combined efforts of God (who takes the initiative) and man (who must respond) – man’s response being the determining factor. God has provided salvation for everyone, but His provision becomes effective only for those who, of their own free will, “choose” to cooperate with Him and accept His offer of grace. At the crucial point, man’s will plays a decisive role; thus man, not God, determines who will be recipients of the gift of salvation.

The Five Points of Calvinism, also known by the acronym T.U.L.I.P., are actually a response to the Five Points of Arminianism.

CALVINISM ARMINIANISM
T – Total Inability or Total Depravity Free-Will or Human Ability
Because of the fall, man is unable of himself to savingly believe the gospel. The sinner is dead, blind, and deaf to the things of God; his heart is deceitful and desperately corrupt. His will is not free, it is in bondage to his evil nature, therefore, he will not – indeed he cannot – choose good over evil in the spiritual realm. Consequently, it takes much more than the Spirit’s assistance to bring a sinner to Christ – it takes regeneration by which the Spirit makes the sinner alive and gives him a new nature. Faith is not something man contributes to salvation but is itself a part of God’s gift of salvation – it is God’s gift to the sinner, not the sinner’s gift to God.

 

 

 Although human nature was seriously affected by the fall, man has not been left in a state of total spiritual helplessness. God graciously enables every sinner to repent and believe, but He does not interfere with man’s freedom. Each sinner possesses a free will, and his eternal destiny depends on how he uses it. Man’s freedom consists of his ability to choose good over evil in spiritual matters; his will is not enslaved to his sinful nature. The sinner has the power to either cooperate with God’s Spirit and be regenerated or resist God’s grace and perish. The lost sinner needs the Spirit’s assistance, but he does not have to be regenerated by the Spirit before he can believe, for faith is man’s act and precedes the new birth. Faith is the sinner’s gift to God; it is man’s contribution to salvation.
CALVINISM  ARMINIANISM
U – Unconditional Election Conditional Election
God’s choice of certain individuals unto salvation before the foundation of the world rested solely in His own sovereign will. His choice of particular sinners was not based on any foreseen response of obedience on their part, such as faith, repentance, etc. On the contrary, God gives faith and repentance to each individual whom He selected. These acts are the result, not the cause of God’s choice. Election therefore was not determined by or conditioned upon any virtuous quality or act foreseen in man. Those whom God sovereignly elected He brings through the power of the Spirit to a willing acceptance of Christ. Thus God’s choice of the sinner, not the sinner’s choice of Christ, is the ultimate cause of salvation.

 

 God’s choice of certain individuals unto salvation before the foundation of the world was based upon His foreseeing that they would respond to His call. He selected only those whom He knew would of themselves freely believe the gospel. Election therefore was determined by or conditioned upon what man would do. The faith which God foresaw and upon which He based His choice was not given to the sinner by God (it was not created by the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit) but resulted solely from man’s will. It was left entirely up to man as to who would believe and therefore as to who would be elected unto salvation. God chose those whom He knew would, of their own free will, choose Christ. Thus the sinner’s choice of Christ, not God’s choice of the sinner, is the ultimate cause of salvation.
CALVINISM ARMINIANISM
L- Limited Atonement/ Particular Redemption Universal Redemption or General Atonement
Christ’s redeeming work was intended to save the elect only and actually secured salvation for them. His death was substitutionary endurance of the penalty of sin in the place of certain specified sinners. In addition to putting away the sins of His people, Christ’s redemption secured everything necessary for their salvation, including faith which unites them to Him. The gift of faith is infallibly applied by the Spirit to all for whom Christ died, therefore guaranteeing their salvation. Christ’s redeeming work made it possible for everyone to be saved but did not actually secure the salvation of anyone. Although Christ died for all men and for every man, only those who believe on Him are saved. His death enabled God to pardon sinners on the condition that they believe, but it did not actually put away anyone’s sins. Christ’s redemption becomes effective only if man chooses to accept it.

 

 
CALVINISM ARMINIANISM
I – Irresistible Grace or the Efficacious Call of the Spirit The Holy Spirit Can Be Effectually Resisted
In addition to the outward general call to salvation which is made to everyone who hears the gospel, the Holy Spirit extends to the elect a special inward call that inevitably brings them to salvation. The internal call (which is made only to the elect) cannot be rejected; it always results in conversion. By means of this special call the Spirit irresistibly draws sinners to Christ. He is not limited in His work of applying salvation by man’s will, nor is He dependent upon man’s cooperation for success. The Spirit graciously causes the elect sinner to cooperate, to believe, to repent, to come freely and willingly to Christ. God’s grace, therefore, is invincible; it never fails to result in the salvation of those to whom it is extended. The Spirit calls inwardly all those who are called outwardly by the gospel invitation; He does all that He can to bring every sinner to salvation. But inasmuch as man is free, he can successfully resist the Spirit’s call. The Spirit cannot regenerate the sinner until he believes; faith (which is man’s contribution) proceeds and makes possible the new birth. Thus, man’s free will limits the Spirit in the application of Christ’s saving work. The Holy Spirit can only draw to Christ those who allow Him to have His way with them. Until the sinner responds, the Spirit cannot give life. God’s grace, therefore, is not invincible; it can be, and often is, resisted and thwarted by man.
CALVINISM ARMINIANISM
P – Perseverance of the Saints Falling from Grace
All who are chosen by God, redeemed by Christ, and given faith by the Spirit are eternally saved. They are kept in faith by the power of Almighty God and thus persevere to the end.

 

 Those who believe and are truly saved can lose their salvation by failing to keep up their faith, etc. All Arminians have not been agreed on this point; some have held that believers are eternally secure in Christ – that once a sinner is regenerated, he can never be lost.

 

KHC Core Values Update

Posted on by
Reply

core-values

In Summit #2 we collected a lot of input regarding KHC’s core values update.  Since then we have gone through several iterations by the Transition Team, Staff, and other leaders.  The elders will have the final say on all communication related to values, mission, vision, and doctrine — yet they are appreciative of everyone’s input!

We will use this version for Summit #3 where we will consider mission and vision.  There are two duplicate sessions: Sunday (4/17) 4-6:30pm (with childcare) and Monday  (4/18) 6:30-9pm (no childcare).  You can register here.

KHC Core Values – Update *

Core values bring clarity to the things that matter most at KHC.

 1. CULTIVATING a passionate relationship with God by enjoying God, being satisfied in God, and treasuring Jesus Christ as gain above all else.

That we were created to enjoy God now and for all eternity is a life-altering discovery. We enjoy God through accurately and intimately knowing God in both private and public settings. Privately, we seek to know and enjoy God through personal devotion, reflection, prayer, and study. Publicly, we seek to know and enjoy God in weekend worship services where we experience God afresh in profound and participative ways that enrich our souls through worship, which includes singing, prayer, giving tithes and offerings to God, reading and teaching the Bible, and being refreshed by the gospel’s redeeming grace.

Psalm 16:11, 37:4, 42:1, 73:25, 95:6-7, 99:5; Nehemiah 8:10; Romans 5:5; Philippians 3:10; Hebrews 10:25, 12:2; 1 John 1:3-4

2. PROCLAIMING to all people the good news of reconciliation with God through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit.

The ultimate good news is found in the gospel, which is based solely on what God has done for us, not what we do for God. God has reconciled us through the sacrificial love of Jesus that was accomplished by His death and confirmed by His resurrection. We never outgrow our need for the gospel because it not only saves us, but also sanctifies us through the active presence and power of the Holy Spirit. With this in mind, KHC has adopted a “gospel-centered” focus where we seek to identify and proclaim the good news of the gospel in all our teaching and preaching of God’s word. Additionally, we seek to equip every believer to share the good news of the gospel with others in timely and effective ways. We also seek to train and release people into vocational ministry both locally and globally.

Isaiah 6:8; Matthew 28:18-19; Mark 16:15; Luke 10:1-12, 24:46-47; John 3:16, 20:21; Acts 1:8, 28:28; Romans 10:15; Colossians 1:23-29; Ephesians 4:11-16

3. BUILDING a strong church family that meets consistently in various small group settings to “do life” together with one another.

The gospel saves us into God’s family. KHC is one expression of God’s global family. Because the gospel changes our heart, identity, and motivation, we will relinquish our tendency to isolate in order to pursue a deep and authentic sharing of ourselves. We do this through meeting together in small (and mid-size) group settings to laugh and cry together, pray together, study the Bible together, eat together, and serve together. As we grow in gospel grace (discipleship), we will learn to trust God and one another in new ways, becoming quick to repent, forgive, and reconcile. Whenever possible, we desire to do things through organic community and lay ministry rather than through staff-led programs.

Psalm 133:1; Matthew 28:19-20; Acts 2:42-47, 4:32; Romans 12:15; 1 Corinthians 1:10; Ephesians 4:3, 16; Hebrews 10:24-25; 1 Peter 3:8

4. REACHING out to the poor, lost, sick, broken-hearted, and marginalized in the South Bay and beyond with active love, care, and service.

Reaching out is one of the most biblical of values. The Bible records God continually reaching out to and pursuing a fractured humanity. Ultimately, God sent us His Son, Jesus, to restore and reconcile us to God. When our heart is awakened to this new reality we are compelled to share our time, energy, and resources with others in grateful response to God’s persistent mercy and compassion. At KHC we have a rich history of reaching out beyond ourselves, partnering with several local, national, and international organizations.

Deuteronomy 7:7-8; Psalm 18:16, 23:6, 139; Matthew 5:14-16, 25:40; Luke 4:18-19, 14:13; Galatians 4:4-7; Philippians 2:3; 1 John 4:19

 

* Our current thinking is that on the website, only the first portion of each core value will be seen. When someone clicks on the link the larger paragraph + verses will be displayed.

Let’s Get Healthy People!

Posted on by
Reply

Healthy

by Jesse Carey

Americans are suffering from a health crisis.

The Mayo Clinic recently released new research that suggests more than 97% of the entire U.S. population does not meet the minimum standards of “healthy.”

To fall in the top 2.7 percent, a person has to take part in “moderate or vigorous exercise” for at least two a half hours a week, maintain a diet score in the top 40 percent of the “Healthy Eating Index” (so, basically, eating moderately healthy), have (what they consider) a healthy percentage of body fat (under 20 percent for men and under 30 percent for women) and not smoke.

According to the Mayo research, just a tiny fraction of Americans meet all four of these criteria. The unhealthy lifestyle—as defined by the study—carries with it a greater risk of cardiovascular disease and other longterm health risks.

“Health”—especially when it involves issues like diet, body fat and exercise—can be a sensitive subject, and, rightly so. Unhealthy messages about body image and body shaming can have damaging effects on individuals’ self-image and even mental well-being. By very definition, our own embodiment is literally one of the most personal topics that we can think of.

But, the intention of the Mayo Clinic study isn’t to shame 97.3 percent of the population. Considering it involves almost every American, the problem it underscores—widespread unhealthy lifestyles—isn’t really just an individual issue. It’s a cultural one. It’s a collective one. It’s one we’re (almost) all suffering from.

It’s an issue to which the Church needs to be part of the solution.

Body and Soul

Our physical bodies matter to God. We are, after all, made in His image.

Throughout scripture, there is a unique tension in the relationship between the body and soul. In the Old Testament, good health—which is closely linked with access to abundant food and high harvest yields—is frequently associated with God’s blessing. But, in the New Testament, things get more complicated.

Following the resurrection and ascension of Jesus, the Holy Spirit finds a new earthly dwelling place. Instead of residing in the “Holy of Holies” inside of the Temple, where only select members of the religious community can access, human bodies of believers become living temples.

In 1 Corinthians 6, Paul underscores this idea, writing, “Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies.” Though he’s primarily warning against sexual immorality here, the principle is clear: Our physical bodies matter to God. We are, after all, made in His image.

Beyond the fact that they serve a supernatural purpose, Scripture also tells us that our bodies (“the flesh”) can be in conflict with the spiritual nature God desires. Along with emotions that can lead to actions taken in anger, vengeance, greed or fear, Galatians also warns of “sins of the flesh” like “sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery.”

Paul writes, “For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with each other, so that you are not to do whatever you want.”

That’s partly why the concept of fasting has so much power. Not only are we demonstrating discipline to focus on communicating with God when we intentionally deprive ourselves of food for predetermined periods of time, but we are taking power over basic physical desires, and instead becoming reliant on Him.

Finding the Balance

Good food, nutrition and health are important to our personal well-being. Our bodies have been designed by God to operate in specific ways. And, God wants us to enjoy food, feasts and bounty. They are constantly used as metaphors for His favor.

But, the reason why we are encouraged to fast and warned to avoid the sins of gluttony and drunkenness is because the tension between enjoying God’s blessings and succumbing to the power of the flesh is always present.

Spirit and flesh work together, but are also at odds.

That’s why, in the current health crisis, the Church has such an important role.

 

Reprinted from Relevant Magazine: Society Has Become Super Unhealthy. The Church Needs to Help. To view the article click here.

The Lost Art of Disagreement

Posted on by
2

article_john_adams_and_thomas_jefferson-july_4th_1826By Samuel D. James

Toward the end of their lives, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were estranged. Years of political tensions, ideological disagreements, personal rivalries and perhaps bit of misunderstanding had all but snuffed out one of the great friendships in American political history. But one day, Adams’ physician and fellow Revolutionary, Benjamin Rush, suggested that his aging patient write to Mr. Jefferson, ceasing decades of silence. For reasons still not entirely clear, Adams did write, and the result was the beginning of what historian and Adams biographer David McCullough describes as “one of the most extraordinary correspondences in American history.”

The Adams-Jefferson letters are remarkable, but not because of their powerful rhetoric or political genius. Rather, the private conversation of the second and third presidents’ reveals a profound respect and affection for one another, even as the two patriots were decidedly in opposition on many issues. These letters did not settle such disputes; they were never intended to. To their dying day (both Adams and Jefferson passed away on July 4, 1826) the men argued and debated everything from religion to revolution. But their respect and good faith in each other was rekindled, never to wane again.

Adams and Jefferson exemplified the art of disagreement. We would do well to contemplate their example, for it seems that contemporary American culture is rapidly forfeiting this art.

Consider the recent grandstanding from a gaggle of American governors, who have issued “non-essential travel bans” to North Carolina. The reason? Voters in the Tar Heel state recently moved to preemptively prevent litigation from creating mixed-sex, public restrooms. This is apparently enough to warrant a rhetorical persona non grata from state executives who disagree.

Our sexual politics have become so intensely value-laden that every movement away from legal and cultural orthodoxy triggers ostracism and shaming. The prevailing notion seems to be that transgressions against very novel doctrines of gender ideology and sexual psychology should be subjected, not to debate and persuasion, but to punishment. Our public square is shrinking to exclude all who question majority thought.

The loss of good faith in public dialogue isn’t exclusive to one side of the aisle. Crank conservatism has found a patriarch in the 2016 Republican frontrunner, whose relentless personal attacks on any and all who challenge him are exposing a deep and systematic animus in right-wing politics. You don’t even have to explore what he says about immigrants and minorities to see this; a look at how he treats journalists and even party cohorts is jarring enough.

Politicians often love to mention how “divided” the country is, and how it Just Wasn’t Like This when the party opposite was in power. This may be a reliable talking point for stump speeches, but there’s no small amount of partisan opportunism in it either. “Bringing the country together” is admittedly often a shorthand for eliminating as much as possible the idea that the opposing party was on to something.

The ritual of honest, principled disagreement between people who respect one another and mutually assume the best intentions has done an astonishing disappearing act in much of our culture.

Yet as dubious as the motivations behind this rhetoric may be, there’s an important element of truth here. The ritual of honest, principled disagreement between people who respect one another and mutually assume the best intentions has done an astonishing disappearing act in much of our culture. Instead, our religious and political dialogue is either unhinged and bitter, passive aggressive and condescending, or else completely neutered to the point of meaninglessness.

We shouldn’t assume that politicians are the worst offenders. The digital age has fostered such online animus and abuse amongst ordinary Americans that many digital journals and newspapers have responded by disabling on-site commenting, considered just a few years ago a dynamic way of promoting publications and driving conversation. Abusive online behavior is epidemic, as is the “shame culture” of social media.

Trolling is relatively straightforward, but not all evidence for the lost art of civil discourse is so obvious. The inability to disagree well in American culture often takes a more passive aggressive form. Consider the trends now at work across university campuses, what sociologists have dubbed the “coddling of the American mind.” The appearance of expectations of college administrators to protect students from ideas they dislike or literature they find uncomfortable is a less unhinged but not less serious manifestation of an intellectual paralysis when it comes to disagreement. Students now demand “safe spaces” from institutions that were created for the explicit purpose of not providing such things. Whereas the university has traditionally been considered a place where learners are confronted with realities and then expected to make sense of them, contemporaries insist that schools accommodate the expectations and worldview of the students—provided, of course, that the students’ belief systems are congruent with secular forms of progressivism.

Principled, civil disagreement requires a moral imagination able to empathize with an opposing point of view, to understand how it is possible for a person with good intentions can nonetheless arrive at an opposite conclusion. Adams and Jefferson never reconciled many of their political opinions, but they were able to throw aside the cynicism and suspicions of evil intent that had crept into their friendship.

It’s this willingness to accept the possibility of disagreement between two parties that both intend good that seems lost in much of our culture. The effect is double-sided: Many conversations that deserve nuance and good faith never happen, and demagogues who actually merit censure sound more “authentic.”

Both of these trends, the virulent nastiness and passive coddling, might seem to be restricted to a very select portions of American culture. But the popularity of bullish, epithet-laden political campaigns suggests that they signal a much wider cultural malady. Efforts at self-justification that emphasize “honesty” and glow about “telling it like it is” are merely shibboleths. They mask the decay of an important ethic: The willingness to accept one’s own fallibility and live in light of it.

Honest, empathetic disagreement may not make for exciting talk radio or high cable ratings, but it is essential both for civic liberty and Christian mission.

The art of disagreement is crucial not just to our own personal lives but to the health of the public square. If we cultivate suspicion and conspiracy theories instead of good faith, we will eventually crave those attributes in our leaders. On the other hand, if we practice the public virtues of courage, conviction, and kindness, our ideological differences will help us sharpen our own thinking as learn from–and try to convince–one another.

Honest, empathetic disagreement may not make for exciting talk radio or high cable ratings, but it is essential both for civic liberty and Christian mission. Persuasion is, after all, harder and less titillating than bombast, but without it, our heralding of both spiritual and political truth is undermined. We must not stray irretrievably far from the spirit of Adams and Jefferson. To do so would be to lose much more than an election.

Samuel D. James currently serves as Communications Specialist to the Office of the President at the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. His writing has been featured in such places as TIME, World Magazine, The Gospel Coalition, 9 Marks, and more. You can find his blogsite here.