Here’s another submission from our friend William Thornton, the SBC Plodder. Somehow, I’m guessing this one could be a little lively.
I’m of the opinion that the internet was made for Calvinists, since there seems to be so many of them who love endless discussions. I’ve been interacting with my Calvinistic brethren/sistren online for almost twenty years, going back to the SBC’s old SBCNet Forum in the 1990s. I do like some things about them:
Almost all of the calvinists I know are serious about their beliefs.
An old prof said to our class years ago, “All you have is what you believe. Figure it out and stand behind it.” OK, so calivinists think they have figured it all out, but I don’t fault them for being studious and serious about Christian doctrine. After all it really doesn’t matter what music we use in churches, what the buildings are like, or even what programs we employ if we’re not serious Christians preaching and teaching the body of belief once for all delivered to the saints.
While most SBC clergy I have known would quickly subscribe to the Baptist Faith and Message Statement, am I far from the mark to speculate that practical theology is the only theology they are deeply familiar with.
Calvinists are willing to address egregious church practices.
One example: The SBC’s Annual Church Profile collects data on the numbers of baptisms of kids under five years of age and there are hundreds, thousands of little kiddies age 4, perhaps younger, baptized. I’ve yet to meet the four-year-old who has sufficient comprehension, who can manage abstract thinking to the degree necessary to place their faith in Christ. Calvinists would address this even if it meant incurring the ire or mom, dad, and granny over a refusal to baptize their exceptionally spiritual three year old.
Calvinists recognize a problem with manipulative evangelism and practices whose main purpose is to generate statistics rather than accomplish God’s will.
I once examined baptism statistics for a state and learned that in one year, half of the baptisms reported were rebaptisms – folks who had already been immersed or sprinkled. Many pastors would be surprised at the numbers of their members who were immersed at 7, 8, or 11 years of age and then again at 20 or 24.
Something has to be amiss here and calvinists I believe would both recognize and address it. We all know evangelists whose main thrust is to get church members lost, then saved, then baptized all over again.
We all know pastors who can generate enough baptisms to lead the association or state convention but who show no church growth as a result. I surmise that my wonderful calvinist pastor colleagues would not participate in such charades.
OK, so I’m having trouble after three. What else might be something good to say about calvinists?
Chris Roberts (63)
Dave Miller (61)
Bob Hadley (48)
Debbie Kaufman (45)
dr. james willingham (44)
Les (30)
cb scott (29)
Rick Patrick (27)
Bill Mac (26)
Christiane (26)
we generate lots of blog traffic????
I like Calvinists because we have the best pick up lines–
“Is your name Grace? It must be because you’re so irresistible.”
“God predestined us to be together.”
“You may not have chosen me, but I have chosen you.”
Those are pretty funny, Joe. I wonder if any of those lines help a relationship persevere.
Jim G.
Those comments are totally depraved, Joe.
Only if she is a saint, Jim.
lol
That last line reminds me of this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZdoSG0IdNE
Enjoy!
lol I passed this along to “several” of my friends!
That’s the funniest video I have seen in a long time
“I’m of the opinion that the internet was made for Calvinists, since there seems to be so many of them who love endless discussions.”
. . . .Wovenist.
I had trouble after three as well, but I — a self-professed Southern Baptist Arminian — Amen every word from our brother.
I’ll add to the conversation of praising my Calvinist brothers and sisters. I find it rare to meet a Calvinist who does not fervently defend the Inerrancy of Scripture. I cannot applaud the defense enough! Thank God for conservative Calvinists who continue to argue that every word of Scripture is “breathed out by God” (2 Tim. 3:16 ESV).
With those three, you really don’t need any more.
William,
Good post. Enjoyable.
I would add:
There is no question that calvinists will be conservative. They will hold to inerrancy and sufficiency of Scripture. In the post-CR SBC, that is very important. You won’t find them giving up ground on that or other areas of orthodoxy. (Maybe this is related to your #1.)
Hi Jason,
I think that is true today – in the SBC and in the wider Evangelical circles too. It has not been always true historically, though. Calvinists (or at least those who identify themselves as “Reformed”) have been as susceptible to Protestant Liberalism and other Enlightenment-inspired movements as non-Calvinists. Schleiermacher, the fountainhead of Protestant Liberalism, was German Reformed. Lots of New England (Calvinist) Congregationalists fell into Unitarianism. Within ten years of B. B. Warfield’s death, Princeton was fully Liberal.
But I do agree it is true today, though.
Jim G.
Fair caveat.
I have found that those who call themselves Calvinists (or Wovenists for that matter) have more faith. This isn’t a shot, but those who are Biblical Calvinists (Wovenists) have the faith to say “I don’t understand it, but I trust God and His word that He is just and this is His doing”. Just my opinion.
When you mentioned Wovenists earlier, I thought it was some obscure play on words that I didn’t get. But here it is again. So do tell – what is a Wovenist and what is the background of the term? So far, Google hasn’t been much help.
“what is a Wovenist and what is the background of the term? So far, Google hasn’t been much help”
I don’t mean to be offensive, Dan, but I do not think Wovenist is going to catch on. It sounds a bit Druidic.
Ahhhh http://sbcvoices.com/no-more-c-word/
Lydia, I am not offended, and I am sure that is what they told Luther, and Calvin.
Dan,
Do you seriously believe that Calvinists have more faith? lol
wow.
some of the people I’ve known, who’ve had the greatest faith I’ve ever seen, were not 5 pt. Calvinists.
David
“Do you seriously believe that Calvinists have more faith? lol”
I’d have thought you’d like this one, taking it perhaps along the lines of the old dig, “It takes more faith to be an atheist!”
Chris,
lol….true…it does take more faith to be a Calvinist…I see your point. It takes more faith to believe TULIP, than it does to just believe….
Well, I wont go there….
They have almost as much faith as volunteer vans. Talk about praying for a miracle.
I have seen that a biblical Calvinist has the faith to accept things that they can’t completely understand or rationalize. Just because we can’t fathom it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t believe it.
Very good point, Dan.
It depends on how one construes faith. The definition is pretty simple, but the Biblical import can be incredibly complex. While the definition of pistis is pretty straighforward, James, for example, draws a distinction between merely holding something to be true and acting as though it were true. But to consider that Christ claimed to be truth, what we believe is far more than a set of strictures; we believe, or trust in, the source of life. Therefore, our trust is in Him, not ourselves. By appealing to the work of God rather than the work of men Calvinists, by this import, may be said to have more faith.
You left off the most obvious: we are right- you gotta love that! (just kidding!! ((not really)))
“OK, so I’m having trouble after three. What else might be something good to say about calvinists?”:
They don’t let the term “Calvinist” define them.
)
Great post, btw, and I agree with all of it. We should have a bumper sticker made: Have you hugged a Calvinist today?
And Jim, thanks for pointing out that historically Calvinist have been known to turn liberal. However, the PCUSA is in my city and I can tell you it is liberal with a capital L. And that is right now….
To be fair, what group HASN’T turned liberal?
But to be fair, “calvinists” haven’t been known historically to turn liberal….some forms of presbyterians have been known to turn liberal. (Lydia, I know you don’t make a distinction, but most of us do.) But that is an unfair statement.
The difference? When they turned liberal they also stopped being calvinists. They no longer held onto the distinctive doctrines of reformed theology. They were probably never convictional calvinists, just traditional presbyterians. They rejected inerrancy, they rejected any form of orthodox understanding of the cross, etc. So, they weren’t “liberal calvinists” they simply were “liberal”.
My point was that modern calvinists (especially those in the SBC) are not calvinists by lineage, but by conviction. So they also convictionally hold to inerrancy and the like.
Jason,
And, to be even more fair, most of the non Calvinists churches that turned liberal quit being Bible believing, Jesus loving, sin hating Believers….I mean, it’s not just that the Presbyterians quit being Calvinists….but, good, sound, Bible believing denominations and Churches also quit being good, sound, Bible believing denominations and churches…..
So, they werent “liberal, good, sound, Bible Believing, Jesus loving Believers,” they wre simply “liberals.”
Modern Believers are not Believers by lineage, but by conviction.
David
I do not disagree, brother.
“The difference? When they turned liberal they also stopped being calvinists. They no longer held onto the distinctive doctrines of reformed theology. They were probably never convictional calvinists, just traditional presbyterians.”
Maybe the PCUSA thought they were predestined to be liberal. (wink)
All I know is they claimed Calvin and are liberal. If they have disowned Calvin, I have not heard about it. Perhaps they have and I did not get the memo. But even after the split the more liberal wing claimed Calvin, too.
You might want to take it up with them to see how that played out.
I used to do quite a bit of business with the PC seminary here (across the street from SBTS)and am speaking from what I have seen and heard. They were great people to do business with, btw.
But I understand you….I am appalled at the Free Will folks who turned liberal seeker in the church growth movement. A bunch of quasi Osteens.
“All I know is they claimed Calvin and are liberal.”
Yes, but by the same token, lots of people also claim to be three-point Calvinists; Rob Bell claims to be an evangelical; John Hagee claims to be reasonable; O. J. Simpson claims he is innocent; many 50-yr-old women claim to be 40; etc, etc. Someone claiming a label doesn’t make it so.
I guess I claim to be a free throw Calvinist (one point) :0)
Just trying to be funny, but comedy was never one of my strong points.
Jim G.
“Yes, but by the same token, lots of people also claim to be three-point Calvinists; Rob Bell claims to be an evangelical; John Hagee claims to be reasonable; O. J. Simpson claims he is innocent; many 50-yr-old women claim to be 40; etc, etc. Someone claiming a label doesn’t make it so.”
Sounds like an excellent arguement to stop using the label!
)
“Sounds like an excellent arguement to stop using the label!”
Terrible idea. Then we wouldn’t know what we were fighting about!
“The difference? When they turned liberal they also stopped being calvinists. They no longer held onto the distinctive doctrines of reformed theology. They were probably never convictional calvinists, just traditional presbyterians.”
BINGO!!!
It has been my experience that the Calvinists are not the ones that have become liberal. Almost all Christians if asked say they believe in the sovereignty of God yet when it comes to salvation it is another matter. There was nothing in me that chose God-I ran from Him! Romans 9 says Jacob have I loved,but Esau have I hated before they were born or had done good or evil so that the doctrine of election would stand. So you all are saying that it does not stand? Isn’t that a little scary?
Yes,I love to talk about the Bible with anyone. I could talk about it 24/7. When I am cut-I want to bleed scripture. I guess that makes me a Calvinist.
***
I just wanted to add that I do not mean to be offensive to anyone and am not trying to “convert” anyone. If one believes the gospel and has been born again through the Holy Spirit praise God!
Here is something I like about Calvinists. As a non-Calvinist, I really appreciate the balance that Calvinists give me in my faith and my understanding. I am far from perfect and my methodology always has its flaws. I think a good stress on things like the sovereignty of God helps me see things that can get left to the side in my own thinking. I know I have had some good conversations with Chris, Jason, and Jared over the last few days/months, and I have always come away better for it, even if in the end I remained unconvinced.
But even more than these, the Calvinists are my brothers and sisters. What’s not to like? (except maybe some point of theological disagreement, when we already agree 99.9% of the time)
Jim G.
The reality is that most of us in the SBC are more alike than we are different. Yes, we may differ on this issue, but we are all very similar in our desire for healthy churches, faithful preaching, passionate evangelism, heartfelt missions, and compassionate ministry.
I had a guy come to me a few months ago and he said, “I heard someone say that you believed in election and all that stuff….but I heard you preach the Gospel and call the lost to repent, so I don’t know where they are getting that stuff.”
Exactly.
Now, that was then. He now knows that you can believe those things and still be passionate about evangelism. But I want people to hear me preach and KNOW that I desperately want people to repent and believe. I also want them to be taught theology and doctrine. I don’t see those things as contradictory.
In fact, I think all of us (here, at least) want that.
(I hope that reinforces your point, Jim.)
I couldn’t have said it better yourself. :0)
Jim G.
http://youtu.be/iAauH2A2BY8
Ritalin…that was a good one.
Jim G.
another one…
http://youtu.be/RtEAywFIjP8
of course the old one…but a good’un…
http://youtu.be/R1ckoCBtXvU
Group hug :>)
I like Calvinists because they’re easy to beat with a touchdown. 6 points always beats 5!
Sorry Doug, no joy their either; there is a resurgence of ten-point Calvinism: http://www.amazon.com/Are-five-points-enough-Calvinism/dp/0960473009
I guess I’ll have to get out my 12-point sockets to loosen that 10-point Calvinist nut. :0)
Jim G.
You forgot about the “6-point hyper Calvinists.” You will need an extra point conversion to beat those guys.
Yikes.
“I’m of the opinion that the internet was made for Calvinists, since there seems to be so many of them who love endless discussions.”
There are, but many like myself don’t waste our time arguing our salvation and our faith endlessly.
It is given to me by God and that’s the end for me, no arguments or discussions required.
If calvinists were smart and savvy
they would press the sub-calvinists on the matter of rebaptisms, toddler baptisms, and disappearing baptizees. This sordid trinity is really a scandal in the SBC.
…but I’m all for having a lot of luv on SBCV for a change…
The true liberal is a true calvinist or sovereign grace believer. He or she believes that the Lord Himself must do the persuading and converting in a way that is contrary to manipulation. Some folks have the mistaken notion that they must win even if they have to tell lies to get the job done. Go back in history and study the advocates of Sovereign Grace, and it will surprise you at how open they wer to change. Today’s liberals are today’s skeptics, solipsistic, cynical, critical, doubtful, self-centered, selfish, harsh, htateful, and hating. When God shakes Heaven once more as He has promised in Hebs.12, perhaps He will do so by dropping the essence of the Heavenly influence down upon all mankind (Drop down Ye Heavens, Isa,45:8). Imagine what it is like to have Heaven so present, so real, so overwhelming in Holiness and Love, melting the heart like the flame melts the bar of iron. One half hour of an experience like that left an indelible impression on my mind and heart which prepared me for some great and severe trials. Imagine what it will be like, when that presence comes to prepare us for the great ingathering of souls in the Third Great Awakening, the one which begins, Hopefully in this generation, to win every soul in one generation and continues for a total of 1000 generations and a thousand thousand worlds ( man goes to the stars – perhaps?). God grant it is my prayer.
I think you have redefined liberal here, James. At least you have done so as I originally stated it.
Jim G.
Here’s the comment I left over at the Plodder’s site. Figured I would re-post it here:
Plodder,
I think you’ve overlooked probably the most important aspect of Calvinism for Southern Baptists:
They wholeheatedly affirm the inerrancy of Scripture and fight hard to preserve this core doctrine.
In fact, consider that many of the best resources on inerrancy came from Reformed thinkers. One of the best historical defenses of inerrancy came from Clark Pinnock (who later rejected what he wrote and became an open theist) – Biblical Revelation: The Foundation of Christian Theology. At the time, however, Pinnock was an avowed Calvinist.
Another great defense of inerrancy is found in the late Reformed Southern Baptist Seminary Professor Carl F.H. Henry’s 6-volume magnum opus, God, Revelation, and Authority.
A recent Reformed contribution that may end up become the standard textbook for the Doctrine of Scripture is John Frame’s The Doctrine of the Word of God, the final tome in his Theology of Lordship series.
Other works on inerrancy by Reformed thinkers would include:
The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible by B.B. Warfield
Scripture and Truth and Hermeneutics, Authority, and Canon – both edited by D. A. Carson and John Woodbridge
Biblical Authority by John Woodbridge
There are also excellent articles by Calvinists Greg Bahnsen, Paul Feinberg, and (recently) Jim Hamilton (of SBTS) that are worthy additions to a study of inerrancy.
A couple of stories seems appropriate to relate as well. First, Paige Patterson allowed Ernie Reisinger to pass out copies of The Abstract of Principles at Criswell College in the 70s (after Reisinger had gotten kicked off every SBC seminary campus for doing so) on the basis of the fact that The Abstract essentially taught inerrancy.
Second, last year when some bloggers were up in arms over Al Mohler’s statement in Christianity Today that “Non-Calvinist conservatives are not aware of the basic structures of thought, rightly described as Reformed, that are necessary to protect the very gospel they insist is to be eagerly shared”, many of them failed to read the introductory sentence and realize that he was talking about the influence of Reformed thinkers on the development of the Doctrine of Inerrancy – (Worthen wrote immediately before the above quote, “Mohler believes that the only intellectually robust defense of biblical inerrancy lies in the Reformed scholasticism that emerged from the Synod of Dort (1618) and enjoyed its apogee at late-19th-century Princeton Theological Seminary, where James Boyce trained.”)
Indeed what most don’t realize is that many contemporary Non-Calvinistic defenses of inerrancy rely heavily on previously Reformed ones, dating at least as far back as B.B. Warfield and A.A. Hodge, if not to Dort or even Calvin. And today Calvinists like Frame, Hamilton, and Carson continue that tradition of being dedicated to the Doctrine of Inerrancy.
Hi D. R.,
I agree that all of us owe a great deal to the work of Reformed scholarship in defending inspiration and inerrancy. No argument there.
But, Mohler was unnecessarily inflammatory in that quote. It is that prideful dismissal of the other side that is causing the rift between Cs and non-Cs, as well as the refusal to see the “log in our own eye” on doctrinal matters. Both sides are guilty of it (though not everyone on both sides). That type of behavior is the problem. I think our intellectual leaders in the SBC should be at the forefront in rejecting that type of non-self-critical and dismissive behavior.
But I do agree with the service of the Reformed thinkers in the inerrancy of Scripture. No question.
Jim G.
Jim,
I don’t think his quote was all that inflammatory. I think he was trying to be informative not provocative. It’s hard to know exactly what his tone was from Worthen’s article. Many have criticized her for writing with a clear bias. We don’t know what she asked Mohler that elicited that response. I think it’s always dangerous to assume motive and tone from quotes in an article, especially when the author is clearly biased against her subject.
This is actually quite simple. The best thing about Calvinisits- those that adhere to the doctrines of grace- or their theology, is that they hold to the God-glorifying nature of election, etc. In other words, they affirm a phrase I oftgen use in this debate, “when in doubt, give God the credit.” Can there be any firmer foudnation or footing than that?
I’m continually mystified as to why Armenian leaning brothers have to take the credit from God for their salvation. Why the struggle?
Don’t misrepresent, Bernie. No classical or Wesleyan Arminian takes the credit for their own salvation. They understand salvation as a work of God. If you think that Arminianism logically entails taking credit for salvation from God and giving it to humans, you are incorrect, but you still have a right to believe it. But to say that is what Arminians actually do is accusing Arminians of being full or semi-Pelagians, which they assuredly are not.
Jim G.
Because we are fallen,prideful and want to create a god in our image. When I first heard of the doctrine of election I was angry. I said “that’s not fair” and “how can God hold us accountable?” I could not believe when reading Romans 9 Paul admonished the very things I was saying! He says how dare we question God. He will show mercy to anyone He chooses.
I do not pretend to understand the tension between this doctrine(and several others) but I would love someone to explain to me(as I mentioned earlier in this blog) how we can say the doctrine of election does not stand when God says He chose one over the other so this doctrine would stand.
Group hug to all my brothers and sisters in Christ.
Connie, the doctrine of ‘election’ is not interpreted in the same among all Christian people.
What made you ‘angry’ might have been an encounter with a form of the doctrine of ‘election’ that portrayed God like a monster.
Not all expressions of the doctrine of ‘the elect’ paint God as a monster.
Well, you certainly paint God as a monster, L’s. Your god lies. In scripture, Jesus clearly says “No one comes to the Father but by me.” However, the god you proclaim accepts muslims or mormons, for instance, without them ever having trusted Christ to save them on the basis of Christ’s death without them consciously knowing it. Therefore, your god lies in scripture by proclaiming Christ as the only way to heaven.
A lying god=a monster.
The true God, the One revealed in scripture, will not save anyone who doesn’t repent of their sincs and consciously trust Christ to save them.
Bernie,
No one would praise a person because they had the good sense to accept a gift. While I would never call myself Arminian leaning, from the calvinist perspective they would put me in that category, I would tell you all the credit in salvation goes to the LORD. Just because we believe a person must accept the gift, in no way means that we give man any credit. Do you brag on yourself for accepting birthday or Christmas presents? No you praise the gift Giver.
That being said, I like Calvinists of the Baptist persuasion for a number of reasons: 1.) They are dedicated to Bible exposition 2.) They help the convention stay conservative 3.) They have shown grace by staying in the convention in spite of not being accepted by many on my side of the spectrum.
What we must all remember is that the calvinism vs. arminianism debate has always been a part of being Baptist. Neither one can claim to exclusively be the historic Baptist faith. And quite frankly in spite of comments to the contrary most Baptists have found themselves somewhere in between those two positions.
Hi John,
Historically, there are only three points of real disagreement between Arminians and Calvinists.
1. The conditionality of election (Calvinists are unconditional, Arminians are conditional)
2. The extent of atonement (Calvinists are particular, Arminians are general)
3. The force of grace (Calvinists find it irresistible, Arminians find it resistible)
That’s really it. Some Arminians believe that salvation can be lost, but not all do. Since there are three positions of disagreement with two possible alternatives each, that would make a total of 8 different possible views of election, extent, and resistibility. Since classical Calvinism occupies one possibility and classical Arminianism occupies another, that would mean there are six possible positions “in the middle” between Calvinism and Arminianism:
a. Unconditional election, general atonement, irresistible grace: this would result in a mechanical universalism
b. Unconditional election, general atonement, resistible grace: this position is held by Barth, Torrance, and others and is viable
c. Unconditional election, particular atonement, resistible grace:
this seems logically incompatible to me
d. Conditional election, general atonement, irresistible grace:
this seems mechanical and I am unaware of any in this camp
e. Conditional election, particular atonement, irresistible grace:
this could be a Calvinist variant, but I know no one who is here
f. Conditional election, particular atonement, resistible grace:
this doesn’t seem possible either
I find it really hard to be in the “middle” between Calvinism and Arminianism. Middle positions just don’t seem to be tenable. The position of Barth and Torrance is viable, but election there is corporate, rather than individual. So it is really a third option, rather than a mediating position. The other “middle positions” just are not satisfactory (in the case of universalism) or not practiced by anyone I know of. If you know someone that lives in any of those 5 camps, please let me know, because I would be interested to see how they handle some of the difficulties of being there.
Jim G.
Hi JIM G.
So the ‘middle knowledge’ has no appeal for you ?
Jim G.
I want to say I really like talking with you. But I must disagree respectfully because there are other areas of disagreement between the two camps. For instance, the two camps actually disagree on the total depravity point as well, because in general (or maybe particular…lol) calvinists bring in the total inability view. Arminians believe we have no ability outside of God initiating, but when He initiates we now have a God given prerogative to respond. So that adds a fourth demension to the argument. Because arminians define total depravity differently than calvinists. You see the definitions differ between the two camps, therefore, in truth arminians differ with calvinists in all 5 points. And for this reason I maintain that a middle ground position is tenable.
Of course a “middle ground” would assume that these are the two outlying positions. I would say they are not.
But even if they were, it does not mean that a mitigating position is wise. It would mean that one’s position was derived, not from the text, but from 2 systems viewed as flawed.
Moreover, just because a position seems extreme does not mean it is wring. Especially when we have a divine means of evaluation of belief (Scripture).
Hi John,
I think Arminians see depravity as inability too. I know Arminius did. Where they differ (at least as I see it) is in the enabling grace that allows a response. To the Calvinist, because enabling grace is only given to the elect and is irresistible, it is effectual in bringing about the repentance of the one who was unable on his own to respond.
To the Arminian, because enabling grace is given to all and can be resisted, then the total inability is overcome by the work of God first, followed by enabled human faith.
In reality, both sides must affirm a total inability to respond salvifically absent enabling grace. An ability to respond salvifically to God without enabling grace is semi-Pelagianism – something for which Armianism gets wrongfully accused all the time.
The difference, then, lies in our view of enabling grace. If enabling grace is particular and irresistible, then those who do not respond (because they are not elect) remain unable. The Arminian doctrine of universal prevenient (enabling) grace seems to conflict with the Calvinist idea of total depravity but in reality it does not. All Arminians would believe that we are utterly unable to respond without enabling grace. Arminians just believe enabling grace is general and resistible.
So it still comes down to the three differences I outlined above.
The fifth point (perseverance) is debated among Arminians and that is why I did not include it. There is no “official” classical Arminian position there.
Jim G.
Jim G.
Hi Jason,
I would agree they are not the extremes. I would almost group them closer to the middle than to the edges. The other possible combinations are not biblically or logically viable, in my opinion, save for the Barth/Torrance view. And I still do not believe the Barth/Torrance view is between the two views, but rather a third way altogether.
Jim G.
Jason,
You said, “But even if they were, it does not mean that a mitigating position is wise. It would mean that one’s position was derived, not from the text, but from 2 systems viewed as flawed.”
Or could it possibly mean that the position was derived from the scriptures in contradiction to two flawed systems? Just a thought.
“Or could it possibly mean that the position was derived from the scriptures in contradiction to two flawed systems? Just a thought.”
Yes. Of course if it is derived from scripture, then there really is no need to call it a “middle ground” position. Middle ground suggests a starting point of the two outlying positions.
If it is wholly derived from Scripture, then I wouldn’t refer to it as “middle ground”.
You see what I mean?
Jason,
I’m sorry I was a little slow on the uptake brother. I see your point completely.
Hey now, leave the Armenians out of this!
Makes me think of the villagers at the opening of Robin Hood Men In Tights: “Every time they make a Robin Hood movie they burn our village down! Leave us alone, Mel Brooks!”
Those poor Armenians, as if their troubled history didn’t saddle them with enough problems, they get drug into too many debates to stand in the place of Arminians.
Armenians get blamed for too much stuff.
Jim G.
D.R., I don’t see calvinists contribution to the Conservative Resurgence as anything but indirect and, uh, moderate. The CR leaders are folks whose preaching and practices make calvinists (those with hair anyway) hair curl. I’ve heard Adrian say things that calvinists would get up and walk out on him for. And Mr. Rebaptism, Bailey Smith…well never mind.
I thought the CR was carried out by people in the pews not just those on the stage.
I would say the impact of Criswell on the CR was crucial. I would say Mohler was important in recovering the mother seminary.
But more than that, wouldn’t you say that calvinists were on the right side of the debate? I don’t know any SBC calvinists who went CBF or who worked against the CR.
A lot of people do not realize that Dr. Criswell was a calvinist, but I’ve heard and read in his sermons him refer to himself as one. And yes he was very much working behind the scenes in the CR.
Was W. A. Criswell a Calvinist? Yes, and no. He was certainly a Calvinist in the sense that all Southern Baptists are Calvinists; at least agreeing on eternal security.
But I think the 5-point Calvinist would be sorely disappointed in Criswell on a number of matters.
David R. Brumbelow
Do you think Criswell was ignorant of what a calvinist was when he repeatedly referred to himself as one?
Jason,
No, but he may have been ignorant of your definition of what a Calvinist is.
David R. Brumbelow
David, do you have any evidence that Dr. Criswell was “ignorant” of the historical definition of what a Calvinist is??? Because I am pretty sure that is the definition that both Dr. Cristwell was using & the one that Jason is using….
So, just yield this little point to Jason… Dr. Criswell was a Calvinist and said so himself. I mean, if a man own words still have any meaning at all in today’s crazy world of online debating then we should all be willing to accept them at face value.
David,
I’m pretty sure Criswell knew enough about what calvinism is, even generically, to not call himself one if all he affirmed was eternal security.
Come on, brother.
I’ve tried to be nothing but humorous in my comments on this post (I know, I’ve failed repeatedly) but I’ll offer one seriousish comment:
Bailey Smith gots issues.
Chris, I Agree!
William,
I wasn’t necessarily claiming that the Calvinists had a huge impact on the CR, but according to Reisinger, they did have some impact on Patterson and certainly Calvinism had a huge impact on Southern Seminary, which was by far the most liberal SBC institution at that time. Carl F.H. Henry’s impact was indeed far reaching as well, though his contributions have not been honored as much as they should be. Additionally, D. James Kennedy served as a big supporter of the CR from the greater Evangelical tent (he was even a speaker at the Pastor’s Conference in 1985, during the throes of the CR).
So while Calvinists didn’t play a huge role, I don’t think it would be accurate to say that it was indirect or even moderate.
I defined liberalism in terms from the 16 and 1700s. I was amazed to find a different way of looking at the issue. Back then calvinists were the leaders of western civilization, noted advocates for science, etc.
If yall think that Dr. Criswell was a Calvinist, like some of the 5 pointers of today, then you’re badly mistaken.
I’ve heard several sermons from him, and have read his thoughts on giving an invitation, that a lot of 5 pointers I know would have the heebie jeebies about….
He was not a Calvinist. He was a calvinist. He was calvinistic in his theology, as are everyone, who’s really a Baptist.
What is the distinction between a big C and a little C?
Jim G.
Big C Calvinists are obsessed with Calvinism. They teach it, promote it, and try to convert others to it. They will probably even make it a point of fellowship.
Little c calvinists may be 5 pointers, but you really couldnt tell it. They just preach and teach the Bible. They dont talk about Calvinism. They arent out there trying to convert people to Calvinism, etc.
So, now Criswell was a 5-pointer? I am confused by your comments. He was a “calvinist” but not a “Calvinist”?
Does calling yourself a calvinist from the pulpit make you a “Calvinist”? I mean that is promoting it…seemingly to get others to buy into it. It is definitely promoting it.
I think I would steer clear of that distinction, Vol.
Jim G.
It’s sad that you think you know more about what he believes than he knows about himself.
He calls himself a Calvinist. He was a smart man. He knew the labels. He knew the theology. He wouldn’t claim it for himself if he didn’t believe it.
If you think he said “I am a Calvinist” to describe his view on eternal security, you are mistaken. You are making him out to be ignorant on the entire argument. Heck, even other non-calvinists here are saying “yes, he was a Calvinist”. I suggest you read/listen to/watch his sermons on election. I saw/heard him say he was a Calvinist during THAT sermon. Pretty sure he would distance himself from those beliefs in that sermon if he was not a calvinist.
David, I think it’s time for you to hang it up on this one. You are simply wrong.
I’ve heard his sermon on election. It’s a good one. Have you read his handbook for Pastors? You might want to read his views on how to give a good invitation…then, tell me would he be a Founders Friendly Church….
Also, have you heard him preach evangelistic messages? Well, he would preach a little differently than most 5 point Calvinists that I’ve heard….have you heard them?
Dr. Criswell was a lot like Spurgeon.
Well, I preach evangelistic messages and give an invitation. So, I don’t see the problem with being a calvinist (or Calvinist) and doing those things.
There are 287 definitions of Calvinism. To which one do you refer? There are Calvinists in the sense that if you believe in eternal security you are a Calvinist. There are Calvinists who say a true Calvinist must believe in all 5 points of Calvinism (TULIP). Then, you get into who defines, and how they define, each of the five points…
Read Criswell’s “Guidebook for Pastors;” he sure doesn’t sound like a 5-point Calvinist.
W. A. Criswell said, “It was according to the foreknowledge and the elective purpose of God that we were begotten.”
Criswell quotes Peter, “We are elect according to the foreknowledge of God.”
Criswell said of Jesus, “The sins of the whole world were heaped upon His soul.”
Criswell said, “Our Lord stooped and on Him was placed the burden of all the sins of all humanity, and He bore it to the cross and there made atonement for our sins.”
Criswell was very insistent in the use of the public invitation and revival meetings. One who knew him well said he was so programmatic he made a friendly accusation that Criswell was an Arminian.
I have no doubt Criswell occasionally claimed to be a Calvinist. But what he meant by that may not be what some claim.
David R. Brumbelow
Who defines “calvinism” as believing in eternal security? Other than the 2 Davids claiming that here, I have never seen that. That seems a rather spurious claim.
Of course there are a range of views within calvinism, but they aren’t a broad range of views. They are a nuanced range of views.
As I have said before, the use of a public invitation and revival meetings do not preclude people from being calvinists.
The only statements you quoted that I would want further explanation on is the ones on the atonement. But that is a common point of clarification and nuance within calvinist circles. I have no problem with him saying he’s a calvinist and then having a discussion on the extenet/intent/design of the atonement.
I find it funny that you guys think he didn’t understand what he was claiming. In a sermon on election, he claims he is a calvinist, and people say “well, maybe he meant only in perseverance”. Riiiiiight. In a sermon on election, THAT seems reasonable. (Sigh) The man was smart. He knew the positions. He wouldn’t claim something he was against. He wouldn’t call himself something he knew he was not.
That is an insult to him and to reasonable discussion.
I also find it funny some of you are so bent on proving he was not a calvinist. Just let it go. He said he was…let it go.
I am a non calvinist, and I would never ever call myself a calvinist in the pulpit simply because I believe in eternal security. Dr. Criswell was a scholar’s scholar and I guarantee you he knew exactly what he was talking about when he called himself a calvinist. He wouldn’t have opened himself up to all kinds of misunderstanding if he didn’t mean exactly what he said. Every one of us who have heard him and read his sermons know that he was an artist with his words and he would have never carelessly called himself a calvinist.
Exactly.
John,
You live in a different era than Dr. Criswell.
Riiiight, David.
If only Calvinism had been around in the 1970s, then Criswell would have a clue what he was talking about.
Geez.
I know an 83 yr old man, who probably knew Dr. Criswell. I’m almost sure he did. I’ll have to ask him. But, this 83 yr old man claims to be a Calvinist. When you ask him to define the 5 points…well, according to his definition, then every Baptist is a Calvinist.
I doubt very seriously if Dr. Criswell believed in limited atonement. To read his views on giving an invitation, I would doubt very seriously that he believed in irresistible grace. I can almost assure you that he didnt believe in regeneration before salvation….
Jason, read his Handbook for Pastors, especially the part on invitations.
Also, I love to use one of Charles Spurgeon’s illustrations on predestination, election, the sovereignty of God, and the responsiblity of man….the illustration of the mountain having 2 sides…one side of the mtn. you have predestination, election, and the sovereignty of God….on the other side, you have the responsibility of man….both sides are equally true…and, they come together at some point in the clouds….we cant see it…. all we can know is that both sides are true….
Man must make choices, and he’s reponsible for the choices he makes…and the death of Jesus is sufficient to forgive the sins of everyone in the world….but, also, God planned to save us, chose to save us, and works to accomplish His sovereign will in this world. How do we reconcile these things? We cant…. not this side of Heaven. I dont know….you dont know…Founders dont know…Beza didnt know…Arminius didnt know…even though many people think they have it figured out..well, they dont.
David
I don’t know anyone who would disagree with those comments about God electing and man being responsible.
Maybe you haven’t been listening to what Calvinists actually believe about that issue.
As for your anecdote about the 83 year old man……seriously? So, some 83 year old guy doesn’t know what calvinism is, therefore Criswell probably didn’t know either?
Come on, that stretch makes your argument about wine look reasonable.
David W.,
I’ve heard that type definition many times over the years. Definitions and nuances change over the years. I’ve heard many describe themselves as mild Calvinists, moderate Calvinists, bad Calvinists, one to four point Calvinists…
Now with Calvinism being more controversial, some would not define themselves that way today. But again, I have no doubt Criswell claimed to be a Calvinist; but maybe not what some read into that.
David R. Brumbelow
People that understand the issues don’t call themselves a calvinist for no good reason.
Are you saying Criswell was unaware of what calvinists are/were and what they believed?
David,
Not every Baptist is a Calvinist… just those who have read, and believe what is found in the BFM 2000…
You say:
“I doubt very seriously if Dr. Criswell believed in limited atonement…” You are wrong, He Did! Or else he would have been a Universal-ist, and he was not. You see everyone except Universal-ist limit the atonement one way or the other. The Arminian limit the atonement by Man’s Choice, while the Calvinist limit the atonement by God’s Choice.
You say:
“To read his views on giving an invitation, I would doubt very seriously that he believed in irresistible grace.” That makes no since at all… You give an invitation with the desire/hope/belief that those in the audience will find the Gospel “irresistible” and come to Christ in repentance and faith.
“I can almost assure you that he didnt believe in regeneration before salvation….” What? Care to back that one up? You do know that Dr. Criswell often would not baptize children right? That when they came forward during the invitation time he would say they were “taking a step toward salvation today.” (or something very similar to that)
Where do you get all your knowledge about Dr. Criswell… I hope it is not from your 83 year old man, because his memory appears to be slipping.
Grace for the Journey,
David
You said: W. A. Criswell said, “It was according to the foreknowledge and the elective purpose of God that we were begotten.”
In your interpretation of Dr. Criswell’s words here (and the scripture text he is referring to) you are guilty of reading a meaning into the words/text that is not there.
When Dr. Criswell says “according to the foreknowledge” you read into the meaning of “according to the foreknowledge of man’s future decision to choose Christ”. That is not what the text says at all… and you are guilty of changing the text of Scripture to say what you want it to say. Once again I will return to the issue of proper “Biblical Translation”… If that was the proper meaning of the Original Language then our English Bible Translators (again just as with the wine issue) Have all gotten it massively wrong!!!
So tell me… who is wrong here… Our English Bible Translators /Translations, or your Interpretation of that Translation???
Grace for the Journey,
David W. and I, two “Calvinists”
, would I think agree that we wholehearted endorse W. A. Criswell.
Get his books, read them, learn and be encouraged. Criswell is my kind of Calvinist.
wacriswell.com
David R. Brumbelow
I was reading one this morning, what an orator and a word smith. Will there ever be anymore like him? I hope so.
Criswell was a 4-point Calvinist. He did reject limited atonement, but his beliefs are similar to probably the majority of those who consider themselves Calvinists in the SBC – including many of those associated with Founders. In fact, despite what some of you might think, most of our Reformed SBC professors are likely 4-pointers (yes, even those at SBTS like Russell Moore and Bruce Ware).
Very true.
If you listen to those guys discuss the atonement, they are not all far off from each other. They nuance the heck out of the atonement. Everyone does.
That’s why when people just assume beliefs of calvinists it isn’t fair. There is a range of understanding on the atonement.
The reality is that the dividing line between calvinists and non-calvinists usually comes at election before discussion of the atonement even starts.
Jason,
That’s true the basis of election is usually the first point of disagreement. Although the issue of atonement is the biggest sticking point for most non calvinists.
Yeah, I don’t think I know any non-calvinists that hold to a limited view of the atonement…but a few that do hold to unconditional election.
Usually when someone want to “pick a fight” with me about calvinism they start with election, not the atonement…for whatever reason. Of course, I like to start back with depravity….where I start every theological conversation, evangelistic or discipleship-y.
A professor I had in seminary who was a 4-pointer always gave me a hard time about my view of Limited Atonement, though he never actually asked me what I specifically believed about it (I don’t use the term “limited” and I see Christ’s death as applying to all in some aspects, but particularly and definitely to the elect in other aspects).
That same professor once asked “What is the minimum requirement for one to be a Calvinist?” His answer was Unconditional Election. I agree with him. Either you hold that God foreknew who would choose Him and He elected based on what you would do, or you believe that Romans 9:10-12 speaks of individual election on the basis of God’s unconditional will. They are diametrically opposed viewpoints and thus the foundation of one’s soteriology.
By the way, here is a sermon by Criswell on Romans 9:15-16.
http://bit.ly/rnQO2o
It’s pretty clear he believed that the Scriptures taught Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Irresistible Grace, and Perseverance of the Saints.
Hey, David Brumbelow, I guess you and I are calvinists and didnt know it. Can all of you Calvinists, out there, give us a warm welcome into the club? Can we get a whoop whoop from yall? How bout it?
David
So David, you are saying you can fully affirm Criswell’s sermon on Romans 9? If so, then that’s awesome. Praise the Lord, you are a Calvinist and didn’t know it! But if you think Romans 9 is about nations and not individual election like Criswell did, then unfortunately you and Criswell disagree sharply about election.
Vol,
I always knowed you were a Calvinist even if you wouldn’t admit it. Now we can send you the secret decoder ring**, membership certificate (suitable for framing), and ID badge.
**The first secret message you’ll find listening to John MacArthur’s sermons is “Drink more Ovaltine”. Oh, Fudge!!! LOL
Welcome to the base and simple……I Corinthians 1:20-30
DR,
I believe that God chose to save me, personally, before the world began…because that’s in the Bible. I believe that God planned to save me before the creation…because that’s what the Bible teaches. I’ve believed this for years and years and years.
But, I also believe that God really does desire to save everyone on this planet, and that the Holy Spirit is calling and convicting everyone…according to the light that they have. And, I really do believe that man really does have to make that choice…that he truly does have to respond to God’s calling and convicting… in order to be saved. And, he’s fully responsible for the choice he makes…and for all the choices he makes. That’s also in the Bible.
So, I dont know what that makes me, and furthermore, I dont really care to be labeled as anything but a Believer. I’m a Christian, who just believes the Bible. I’m a Believer, who is convinced that Baptist doctrine is accurate to the Scriptures. That’s why I belong to a Baptist Church. But, I’m not really into any man-made systems. I’m not sold out to anything but to Jesus and to His Word.
Sooooo….once again, I’ll say….we should be more concerned with being Believers, and preaching the Gospel, and teaching God’s Word; than we are about converting people to Calvinism, or Arminianism, or any other “ism.” Amen?
Your Friendly, Lovable, Huggable, Brother in Christ,
David
Connie,
Get a grip, girl.
David
007:
You said to Connie:”Get a grip, girl.”
Do you realize how sexist and condescending your remark is? You owe Connie an apology.
Tom,
Yes, it was condescending. I meant it to be. There was nothing sexist about it. No more than if I’d said to you, “Tom, why dont you get that burr out of your britches, Man.”
Connie was being very condescending towards me first, with her statement. Dont you think?
007:
You said to Connie:””Get a grip, girl.”
I guess no apology from you to her?
Sadly, I am not surprised.
I will try to get a grip here,lol.And a big Amen to your last comment! I am not fond of being labeled a Calvinist or even a Baptist. I do go to a Baptist church because when I moved here 3 years ago I had a difficult time finding a church that taught the whole counsel of God. Some did not teach at all on sin,just God’s love. After months of looking I found a Southern Babtist church that loved the Lord,strived to serve Him and others,and taught the scriptures. I am probably the only member that believes in election,but that does not matter. The gospel is preached and that is all that is important to me.
I do not believe it was God’s plan to save everyone or they would be saved and hell would never have been created.
I did not choose God,I ran from Him,was ignorant of His goodness and mercy,yet He choice to save me and keep me. If I could lose my salvation,I would lose it everyday. So all the praise and glory goes to God.
Thank you so much for this blog. I cannot begin to tell you how I have loved reading all the comments from godly men who love the Lord. As iron sharpens iron,a friend sharpens a friend.
(Note: I am not sure exactly where this comment will end up, but it is not necessarily intended for the person immediately above it. It is a general comment.)
To Everyone For Whom This Shoe Fits,
I am on vacation and I can’t manage the comment stream much – internet is spotty and I’m not going to waste my time I could be with my grandson and family monitoring people who don’t know how to carry on a decent conversation and exhibit self control. .
Either demonstrate respect to one another – even if you disagree – or when I get back home tonight, I will have to place several of you on comment moderation.
Control yourselves people. You can disagree without being jerks. You can. And if you can’t, please just walk away.
I hated the “wild west” days of blogging and I have no intent of managing a blog that reverts to those types of conversations.
Dave Miller:
I know that I am guilty and will just walk away. Thanks for reminding me that sometimes the best response is no response.
I hope you have a great trip with your grandson!!
I am. Yep, one of the hardest lessons to learn is just to walk away, isn’t it?
William awaits me in the pool. Have a great day.
Baptists are always fussin, feudin, frettin. A few years ago Dr. Leonard, then Pres. of Wake Forest Divinity School gave an address in which he cited some Episcopalian from the 1700s who noted the Baptists for fighting. I pointed out in several blogs at the time that just when they were having all those contretemps, they were also helping to secure religious liberty, launching anti-slavery movments, using educated and uneducated ministers together, persuading General Baptists who were not very evangelistic at tht time to become Particular Baptists who were, uniting Separate and Regular Baptists, evangelizing in quantity and quality. Some times the set-tos are just an indication of life.
Very interesting observation, Dr. Willingham.
David
Interestingly you left out the most “Baptistic” trait: “fracturing.”
So, I’m not sure if you agree or disagree with the statement about the dismantling of the SBC.
Do any of yall see the dismantling of the SBC taking place right now, with all the different opinions and theology and emphasis? as some of my friends are suggesting?
Or, has the SBC lasted a long time, and has always had what’s going on in it, with the 5 pt. Calvinist, and the non Calvinist, and the emerging crowd, and the traditional crowd, etc…and will weather this storm, as well?
David
I don’t think we’re seeing the dismantling of the SBC. We may argue but we’re all still here. But, to be honest, I think we could stand to lose the emerging crowd. Their not going to do anything but steer the SBC back to the left and we’ll need another CR.
David,
I think we are seeing the “potential dismantling” of the SBC. I don’t think it is unavoidable at this time, but the lean is definitely in a concerning orientation.
I don’t think you can pin it down to any single issue. More of a general identity crisis in my opinion coupled with two other pressures.
One, the general trend of culture (especially in America) away from a world-view informed by Christianity. This can be bad for the SBC and good for the Kingdom at large which is in one way disconcerting and in another hopeful.
Second, is the pure economics of America. We are headed for a crash regardless of what the talking heads are saying to gain votes for their party. The CP is a “financial program for funding missions.” We still have a strong sense of missions, but our finances are in a crash dive in most churches of which I am aware.
Without a strong, unified identity I don’t see the SBC surviving these two external pressures — at least not as we have know the Convention.
Also, if another CR is needed, I think we are totally sunk. I don’t see a new crowd coming up with the guts or commitment to an identity it would take to sustain a movement like the CR.
Frank, I agree but probably not for the same reason. I don’t think it will be any great doctrinal split but the pressures already facing us that are more economic and cultural.
More and more people are waking up to the beat the sheep sermons on “tithing” and wondering why spend all this money for buildings or even missons when I can send support directly to a missionary I scype with or a missions group that is much leaner than the SBC CP. Social media is a big factor in this. we simply know more in real time.
Then there are those who do not beat the sheep over tithing who are going to have the same economic pressures to run the church building. We need a new roof, carpet, soundsystem, etc. How do these things directly relate to Gospel? I know of a mega church right now that has a 20,000/mo electric bill. Is this a sustainable system when it has climaxed in growth and is now focusing on starting sat churches to grow? You all know as well as I do the cost to maintain any church system even small ones is a problem.
As churches need money to operate, they wll have to decide on where to spend limited funds. I know many are saying they are giving more to missions but I do not see this trend increasing. And for the social media reasons I give above. People want to be more engaged directly and are questioning why pay all the bureaucrats to distribute the money. It is a different mindset. And quite frankly it is only about 10 years old but will continue to grow as the norm.
Yet, I believe missions will be stronger just not done the way we have always done it which might make the SBC as a cooperating denomination, moot.. And I think more and more pastors are going to have to get day jobs.
I do not think this will happen overnight. but it is trending that way.
Do any of yall see the beginnings of a “Great Awakening” of the SBC taking place right now?
With the Resurgence of “Passionate Evangelical Calvinism” gaining momentum in the SBC with an emphasis on expository preaching, sound doctrine, missions, and church planting… I believe our best days are ahead of us.
Just wondering if anyone else agrees?
I see what you did there.
“With the Resurgence of “Passionate Evangelical Calvinism” gaining momentum in the SBC with an emphasis on expository preaching, sound doctrine, missions, and church planting… I believe our best days are ahead of us.
Greg, You might want to change the moniker and make it about Jesus instead of Calvin. (wink)
Well… Seeing as “Calvinism” is synonymous with “The Gospel of Jesus Christ” I really think… … … (wink)
I was just thinking of all those people who don’t know Calvin would be better served if we mention Jesus instead. wink wink
I don’t think we are seeing any dismantling of the SBC – what I see is a fracturing into various cliches and branches. What will destroy us is if we push theological requirements beyond our current Confession of Faith. What will keep us together is dedication to missions and commitment to our Confession of Faith (which includes allowing those we disagree with to be a part of the SBC and even to lead as long as they affirm missions and our Confession of Faith). The problem comes when we require everyone who leads or follows to toe the SBC “majority” line and when we disallow or disparage diversity within the boundaries of our Confession of Faith.
I’ll give that a heartfelt AMEN!!!
I agree.
Cliches certainly abound in the SBC, particularly from the pulpit. Some of the brethren sound as if they pastor by cliche and as if they never met a cliche that they weren’t willing to use and abuse as their own.
OTOH, cliques abound in churches and have been known to cause pastors problems. I’ve never heard of a cliche causing one of us a problem.
William,
Good catch. I had cliches on the brain just before I read this article. There’s a good post on such things that I had just read over at Christianity Today. Here’s the post – “Doing Authentic Ministry with My Smokin’ Hot Bride”:
http://bit.ly/qIVaLn
Dave should do a blog on Southern Baptist chiches and overused words like “Brother” and “bless the gift and the giver”. Again, good catch. I need to learn to proofread even my short comments before I say something that makes me look even dumber.
AHHH … I did it again. Sorry “Southern Baptist cliches” not “chiches”
I though it was a chance for some humor, D. R.
Yeah, tired old pulpit cliches would be a good topic here.
More “over used,” SB cliches….
“The fat, SB Pastors with big bellies like to condemn alcohol drinking, but they dont say a word about gluttony.”
“How can someone, who cant see his feet due to his big belly, then condemn drinking a little, Jack Daniels….yuck, yuck, yuck, hee, hee, hee….wheeeww.”
“We need to be going on mission trips, rather than supporting missionaries with our money. We need to go, not give.”
“Let’s go to Starbucks.”
“We’re a missional Church.”
“We go to this Church, because they’ve got a great coffee bar in the lobby, and the music and band are great.”
“God wants us to be green.”
“We’re free at our Church…we’re not legalistic.”
“We accept people, who were sprinkled, rather than baptised. Oh yeah, infant baptism is okay, too.”
“Oh, how long did it take you to grow your goatee? And, who do you get to cut your hair with that ‘bedhead’ look?”
“Have you seen my new, cool jeans, and striped shirt that I leave hanging out?”
“Did you see gender neutral, sensitive acting man wearing the lime green t-shirt with ‘Real Men Love Unicorns’ at Church yesterday? You know, the one wearing flip flops, and he had a toe ring on his pinkie toe? I was so glad that the Pastor didnt preach on the sin of homosexuality….whew!”
“I’m attending a missional, church planting, cool, hip, good coffee, conference with David Platt, John Piper, Mark Driscoll, and JC Grear.”
lol
David
PS. A disclaimer….I hate wearing ties….I go on mission trips, and encourage my people to go, too…I think fulltime, always there, missionaries do a better job of reaching a people group, than a group going 3 or 4 times per year….I love to drink coffee…I save my diet coke cans to give the money to the TN Baptist Childrens Homes…I’ve always tried to lead my church to be “missional”, not just all of a sudden when it’s become cool to do so….I love homosexual people, and would love to see everyone of them get saved and go to Heaven….etc, etc, etc, etc…..
007:
Sincere question. Are you overly sensitive about your size?
007:
Let me try it this way. How tall are you and how much do you weigh?
Hmmm….David,
Looks like you had a desire to attack some folks with whom you disagree and decided to use this as an opportunity. Certainly little (if any) of what you wrote qualifies as a “cliche”. Might want to check that definition – “a trite phrase or expression.”
no attacks…just quoting some cliches of SB’s…..
D. R. Randle:
David, 007, loves to play this little game, where he attacks folks in a seemingly joking manner, but then if someone calls him on it, he is aw shucks man, I’m just saying.
The phrase passive-aggressive comes to my mind for this type of behavior.
Here’s a little something for those of you, who were saying that Dr. Criswell was a 5 pt. Calvinist like the Founders types of today…
From a sermon entitled “Life’s Greatest Question” preached on 7/9/78…
“How does God deal with the question of free moral agency? That is, how does God not violate my own personality? God made me free, God gave me choice. And He cannot coerce me, and He cannot force me, and He cannot make me, and at the same time I be free. God violates me if He makes me, if He forces me, if He coerces me. How does God face the question of my free moral creation—me and not violate my freedom of choice and my personality? How does God face that? This is the way God faces the question of my free moral agency. He lays, in His goodness and grace, the plan of salvation before me. And then He gives me an ultimate choice; I can look or not look, I can believe or not believe, I can accept or not accept, I can trust or not trust. I can come to Him or refuse and the choice is up to me.. God honors my personality, and my freedom, and the way He made me. And God’s appeal is always one of wooing, of inviting, of pleading, of opening the door, of welcoming, that is His choice for you…”
I guess that probably somes up what kind of a “calvinist” Dr. Criswell was….
I have no idea about Criswell. Don’t know a thing about him. But Calvinists don’t believe God forces people to be saved against their will. Calvinists believe God changes a person’s heart so that they become willing to embrace the Gospel. No Calvinist believes that man does not have to choose, they simply believe that God turns their heart of stone into a heart of flesh so that their choice of “no” becomes a choice of “yes”.
Hi Bill,
But doesn’t that just take things one step backward? Maybe God does not save someone against their will, but doesn’t he change their heart against their will? People don’t will to have their heart changed, do they?
Jim G.
who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. John 1:13
Jim,
Amen.
David
Debbie,
amen.
David
Jim: Sure. I don’t see anything in scripture that indicates that man’s will is outside of the sovereignty of God or somehow inviolate. Pharoah is an example. He is the Potter, we are the clay. If you could change the heart of your unbelieving friends and family so that they willingly received the Gospel, would you not do it?
Think of it this way. Satan has blinded us. Does God need our permission to give us sight?
Hi Bill,
I didn’t say that human will is outside of God’s sovereignty. It believe that our will is very much within the boundaries of his sovereignty. I was replying to your statement here:
“But Calvinists don’t believe God forces people to be saved against their will. Calvinists believe God changes a person’s heart so that they become willing to embrace the Gospel. No Calvinist believes that man does not have to choose, they simply believe that God turns their heart of stone into a heart of flesh so that their choice of “no” becomes a choice of “yes”.”
I would change the hearts of the whole world if I could, but I am not powerful enough to do so and I am not wise enough to know if that way is right. I leave that to God. My point is that saying God will not force salvation on people but instead will forcibly change one’s will to agreeably accept salvation is a semantical difference. God still forces a change (in the Calvinist system) and that change of will leads irresistibly to salvation, so in reality God does force salvation on the elect. If you (or anyone else) is a Calvinist and that is what you believe, don’t apologize for it, but say it as it is.
Jim G.
Jim G.
Jim,
After reading your response here I’m really curious. Using your definition here of “forcing people” do you believe that God “forces salvation” on those that are saved?
If you say “no”. Then I’m curious…how, as you read Scripture are people saved? Or to put that another way how do people dead in sin, with their minds blind to the beauty of Jesus, with hearts of stone and at enmity with God…how do they believe?
Hi Mike,
You didn’t read closely enough. I didn’t say that God could not force salvation on people. What I said was that there is no real difference in forcing salvation and forcing a change in will that results in a decision to salvation. It is saying the same thing in a rubric of irresistible grace.
But there is an answer to your question: it is universal prevenient grace. It is a staple of Arminianism, especially of the Wesleyan variety. It holds that, since Jesus was God incarnate and so identified with our humanity in his suffering, that his death and resurrection provides enabling grace to all people. Humanity on his own is totally unable to believe, but enabling grace to believe has been given to him by God. It at least takes seriously the text that Christ died for all without slipping into universalism.
Jim G.
Jim,
Thanks for the clarification! After I typed it I figured that prevenient grace may be the answer b/c it basically nulls all those adjectives I used to describe mankind.
Jim,
You said “But there is an answer to your question: it is universal prevenient grace…”
The problem is that Scripture and History both prove that God’s grace (prevenient?) is most certainly NOT UNIVERSAL unto all mankind. That is that God does not deal “universally equal” with all men. In scripture we find such examples as “Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated… “. And in history we find that God chose the nation of Israel alone to reveal Himself to… and we must remember that the vast majority of Humanity will enter into Judgment and Eternity having never head the Gospel Message… yet some have heard it over and over. Is God’s grace universally equal unto these two groups of men… Absolutely Not.
So if God has shown favor unto Israel above all other nations, and He has shown favor unto those who have heard the Gospel above those who have not… Has He not Elected, or Chosen, them above all others?
If one is saved by his own free will (as you argue), and not by Gods intervention of grace, then one is also condemned to Hell by his own free will and there is nothing that God can do to prevent it. I do not think that is the picture of God we find in the Scriptures.
Furthermore, if some are saved after hearing the Gospel yet others live their entire lives never hearing the Gospel even once and thereby never given a chance to choose Christ… has not God violated there free will by withholding the Gospel from them while repeatedly bestowing it upon others?
You may think that the Arminian invention of “universal prevenient grace” solves this issue quite nicely… However as I have shown you it is an empty doctrine that in truth solves nothing at all.
Grace for the Journey,
Hi Greg,
Go back and read what I said more closely. I did not say that God deals with everyone equally. All I said was that under the doctrine of universal prevenient (or enabling) grace, all humanity is able to accept God’s free offer.
I also did not say that God saves us by our own free will. Salvation is a work of God. Saying that Arminians believe God saves us by our own free will is about as silly as saying Calvinists believe that God saves us by our own free will.
Don’t be so quick to pat yourself on the back. If all it takes is one blog post to show prevenient grace is empty as you say, then we have wasted 300 years of church history – and some very intelligent and godly people missed something that could have been typed out in 10 minutes. Not to mention that the idea of universal prevenient grace is all over the church fathers.
Jim G.
7What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.
8(According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day. Romans 11:7&8
16So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
17For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
18Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
19Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
20Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
21Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
22What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
23And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
24Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? Romans 9:16-24
26But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.
27My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: John 10:26-27
9And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not.
10Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed. Isaiah 6:9-10
12That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them Mark 4:12
10And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand. Luke 8:10
43Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.
44Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
47He that is of God heareth God’s words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God. John 8:43-44, 47
Titus 3:5 5Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
The first stage of regeneration is not done by us cooperating. It is solely done by God. John 3:8 tell us
8The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
The word regeneration means reborn, or a completely new person.
The mode God chooses to use is the preaching of the Bible. This doesn’t dampen evangelism and missions, it inspires it. The new birth is so miraculous, so overpowering that we want to tell anyone who will listen, like the woman at the well was so overwhelmed by Jesus’ words she wanted to tell people. It’s no different with us.
I want the whole world to be saved, I want the whole world to know, but the fact is that not all are saved and it is not God desiring the world to be saved and then sitting back inactive. He is very active in everything. He also doesn’t sit back and hope we choose him, he is active in our choosing Him.
“Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called.”—Romans 8:30
HE GREAT BOOK OF GOD’S DECREES is fast closed against the curiosity of man. Vain man would be wise; he would break the seven seals thereof, and read the mysteries of eternity. But this cannot be; the time has not yet come when the book shall be opened, and even then the seals shall not be broken by mortal hand, but it shall be said, “The lion of the tribe of Judah hath prevailed to open the book and break the seven seals thereof.”
Eternal Father, who shall look
Into thy secret will?
None but the Lamb shall take the book,
And open every seal.
None but he shall ever unroll that sacred record and read it to the assembled world. How then am I to know whether I am predestinated by God unto eternal life or not? It is a question in which my eternal interests are involved; am I among that unhappy number who shall be left to live in sin and reap the due reward of their iniquity; or do I belong to that goodly company, who albeit that they have sinned shall nevertheless be washed in the blood of Christ, and shall in white robes walk the golden streets of paradise? Until this question be answered my heart cannot rest, for I am intensely anxious about it. My eternal destiny infinitely more concerns me than all the affairs of time. Tell me, oh, tell me, if ye know, seers and prophets, is my name recorded in that book of life? Am I one of those who are ordained unto eternal life, or am I to be left to follow my own lusts and passions, and to destroy my own soul? Oh! man, there is an answer to thy inquiry; the book cannot be opened, but God himself hath published many a page thereof. He hath not published the page whereon the actual names of the redeemed are written; but that page of the sacred decree whereon their character is recorded is published in his Word, and shall be proclaimed to thee this day. The sacred record of God’s hand is this day published everywhere under heaven, and he that hath an ear let him hear what the Spirit saith unto him. O my hearer, by thy name I know thee not, and by thy name God’s Word doth not declare thee, but by thy character thou mayest read thy name; and if thou hast been a partaker of the calling which is mentioned in the text, then mayest thou conclude beyond a doubt that thou art among the predestinated—”For whom he did predestinate, them he also called.” And if thou be called, it follows as a natural inference thou art predestinated.-Charles Spurgeon Predestination and Calling, March 6 1859
Jim,
You are the one that said “there is an answer to your question: it is universal prevenient grace…”
Notice… You said “Universal…” as unto all men…
You also said “It is a staple of Arminianism, especially of the Wesleyan variety. It holds that, since Jesus was God incarnate and so identified with our humanity in his suffering, that his death and resurrection provides enabling grace to all people. Humanity on his own is totally unable to believe, but enabling grace to believe has been given to him by God.”
This you throw out as if it just answers all questions… Talk about patting oneself on the back… how about a little tiny bit of scripture to back up your wonderful doctrine of preventive grace??? Any at all would be nice??? No???
According to the empty doctrine of preventive grace all men are regenerated (a little scripture here would really be nice to see) and in no more need of God & Christ… all he needs is to be convinced to make a choice for Jesus. According to this erroneous doctrine God is completely passive (has nothing more to do) in salvation… God has done all that he can do for the salvation of all mankind and now it is up to every man to do his part. So they why do we pray unto God for the salvation of souls… if God has already done his part, they why pray? And if anything else is needed then just what is the point of your preventive grace?
Lastly, you say… ” the idea of universal prevenient grace is all over the church fathers.” Again you make a wild claim with no evidence… See Debbie’s three post below for an example of how to document something.
Grace for the Journey,
Jim,
You are absolutely correct in your statement above…and that’s exactly what a 5 pt. Calvinist would have to believe…if they’d be completely logical…
It’s a form of fatalism.
David
Hi David,
I will not charge Calvinism with fatalism. I might think it logically seems to lead there, but it is unfair to make the charge, since no Calvinist I know is fatalistic. So I won’t say they are fatalistic because they surely don’t say it.
Jim G.
You know calvinists are not fatalists. Give it up, brother.
Do we really want to sit here and point out where your views head and where your views are inconsistent? Come on.
David,
“It’s a form of fatalism…”
PLEASE… You can do better than that…
So tell us David… In you understanding of Scripture “Does God play any active role in the Salvation of Sinners?”
Grace for the Journey,
David W.,
.
Great W. A. Criswell quote. You’re right, we need to start a new Calvinist group. Maybe the 1-4 Point Baptist Calvinist Society
David R. Brumbelow
Only you would think that four-pointers are closer to one-pointers than fivers. LOL
Your dislike of five-pointers seems to know no logical boundaries.
As long as we’re proof-texting Criswell and calling Calvinism fatalism and whatever other “loving” misrepresentations and contentiousness may be throw out from that bastion of brotherly love that reigns in the Tennessee hills, here’s one for you.
- THE EFFECTIVE CALL OF GOD.
Mark,
You may be surprised to know I agree with all the Criswell quotes given. Many (most?) Baptists would agree with tenents of Calvinism and also agree with the seemingly contradictory tenents of non-Calvinism. But I trust we will either get it all figured out in Heaven, or when we get there we will no longer care.
David R. Brumbelow
“”"when we get there we will no longer care.”"”
For what it’s worth: some of us don’t much care, now
Here is a simple question of all….
“Is God Active or Passive in Salvation?”
I am going to go out on a limb and say that the Arminians here know better than try to answer that question… but we shall see if any are willing to risk it???
Grace for the Journey,
Are there any Arminians in here?
David
PS. I’d imagine that everyone in here believes that God is active in salvation. I know I do.
David, how do you define ‘Arminian’ ?
Sorry, I’m pretty sure Christiane is an Arminian.
David,
I am not convinced that there are no Arminians here… Some people so hate Calvinism (or at least the gross form of Calvinism that they hold in their mind) that they would embrace anything that might give them a refuge (no matter how weak) from the rising tide of Calvinism in the SBC.
If God is (as you say you believe) “active in salvation”… then is he equally active in the life every man that has ever lived? And what does this activity look like in the lives of all men?
Is it not true that through out human history some men have been privileged by God, in that he has granted them his Word and the witness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, while others have been denied this privilege? Yet if their salvation hinges upon a “mere choice” of the will of man… how can they be expected to choose (believe on) Christ whom they have never heard?
There is really no way to avoid the Sovereignty of God in all this. No man chooses the time, place, and circumstances of his birth… Yet to have been born in the deep jungles of Africa or South America some 2,000 years ago all but guarantied them that they would not know of Jesus Christ. To which we ask “What choice did they ever have?” If we answer honestly we must acknowledge that they had — “No choice at all…”
It is by Grace, and Grace Alone that any are save… And yes David, we do choose… and no one is ever saved who has not chosen Jesus… Yet, if not for God we would have no choice.
And if God does not choose to be active in bringing someone to faith today… they might as well have been born in Africa or South America 2,000 ago the results are the same.
Grace for the Journey,
Greg,
God is active in salvation. Anyone who thinks he is passive is at best a semi-Pelagian.
Let me give you some good advice. I see you are a pastor. What you are trying to do might “preach” well, but it is unfair. If you are going to castigate a position with which you disagree, do not…I repeat…do not caricature it. Understand it and argue against what it really teaches. I read Mark’s post above. I don’t know much about Criswell, but I know he misrepresented Arminianism too. Don’t repeat his mistake.
I am neither a Calvinist nor an Arminian, in either classical sense. I hold to total depravity, unconditional election in Christ, general atonement, resistible grace, and true assurance that guides perseverance. But I suppose I fall closer to Arminianism in my rejection of the L and the I in the TULIP and my different understanding of U.
I know you don’t like it when others misrepresent Calvinism to you. Two wrongs don’t make it right.
Jim G.
Hey Jim,
Hey Jim,
Hey Jim,
Let me give you some good advice… making a grand claim without any evidence is not going to cut it here.
Okay Greg,
I’m getting a little tired of the name calling and the caricatures. Which “grand claim” would you like me to back up? I will be happy to do it. And by the way, speak to me like a brother in the Lord. You have an ethical standard as a Christian to maintain whether you are preaching or blogging. You can disagree without being disagreeable.
If you don’t like what I believe, that is certainly your right. But your posts betray a very poor caricature of Arminianism that no Arminian believes. I have bent over backwards to try to be fair with my Calvinist brothers. I think Calvinism taken to its logical conclusions is a horrible thing indeed. But I don’t take them there. Why? Because no Calvinist does. Who am I to put words in someone else’s mouth? How can I expect a fair hearing if I don’t give one?
If you want to have a civil discussion, I’ll be glad to do so. But I won’t put up with incivility, nor will I continue to dialog with someone who really does not put forth an attempt to fairly represent the other side. It will go nowhere.
Jim G.
Jim,
What in the world are you talking about???
“I’m getting a little tired of the name calling and the caricatures.”
I have neither called you a name, neither have I put forth any caricatures… If I have please show them to me. And quite honestly I am getting a little tired of the accusations from you that I have.
If you are unwilling to even attempt to defend your positions, and your only defense is to play the victim, by making false claims that someone is calling you names (????) then so be it… but that is really not going to work with most of the readers of this site when they can read every word that I have said to you.
“And by the way, speak to me like a brother in the Lord. You have an ethical standard as a Christian to maintain whether you are preaching or blogging. You can disagree without being disagreeable.”
Excuse me Sir! I suppose anyone who does not agree with you is not treating you as a brother in the Lord? I wonder if Paul was not treating Peter as a brother in the Lord when he correct him “to his face”??? Brother, let me assure you I know what my “ethical standard as a Christian” is! And I am offended by your suggesting that I do not!!!
If you don’t want to have a discussion that’s fine… just don’t respond… but I will most assuredly post a response to your Arminian Errors and false accusation when I see fit to do so.
Grace for the Journey,
Here is what you are looking for, Greg:
These are your words from a post above:
“According to the empty doctrine of preventive grace all men are regenerated (a little scripture here would really be nice to see) and in no more need of God & Christ… all he needs is to be convinced to make a choice for Jesus. According to this erroneous doctrine God is completely passive (has nothing more to do) in salvation… God has done all that he can do for the salvation of all mankind and now it is up to every man to do his part. So they why do we pray unto God for the salvation of souls… if God has already done his part, they why pray? And if anything else is needed then just what is the point of your preventive grace?”
No Arminian in the world believes what you wrote. (And it’s “prevenient,” not “preventive.”) God is never completely passive. Every step from total rejection of God to one’s embrace of God is supported by grace. Without God first loving us, it would be impossible for us to love him.
I’ll tell you what. If you can find one real classical or Wesleyan Arminian (Just one – one who is smart enough to know the difference between Arminianism and Pelagianism) in print that says that is what he believes, I’ll publicly apologize to you and publicly repent of falsely accusing you. (By the way, don’t go with Finney, because all see him as semi-Pelagian at best.) If you can’t, then quit putting words in their mouths!
I’m not playing any victim. I asked you in the post above, what do you want defended? I’m willing to do so, if you are willing to stop misrepresenting Arminianism.
I didn’t take what you said personally to myself. You are accusing Arminians falsely. Like I said before, no Arminian I know of believes what you say they believe. If you think the logical conclusion leads to what you state, then say that. But don’t put the belief onto an Arminian. Much the same could be (and has been) done to Calvinists, just as unfairly.
And, as I posted before, I’m not even a real Arminian. I hold to unconditional election. I just don’t like to see anyone, especially brothers in Christ, falsely accused. Know this much – and the readers on this board who know me know it too – that I would come to your side if I thought your views were being misrepresented too.
Whether you like it or not, misrepresentation is unethical. But I stand by what I said. If you fine one real Arminian who believes what you wrote, I will eat crow.
Jim G.
Jim,
I will say this one more time… I did not call you a name! If you are going to question my Christian Ethics for what you consider my misrepresentation of the Armianian position (something I did not do…) then I think it only appropriate for me to remind you that making a false accusation against a brother is serious breach of Christian Ethics. You might want to pay a little closer attention to the accusations you make…
Also expressing my views that “Prevenient” Grace is an empty doctrine… is not a caricature of anyone, and my pointing out the logical conclusion of a “Universal” doctrine of Prevenient Grace is not misrepresentation of Arminianism.
By the way what Arminian was you quoting that said Prevenient Grace is given “Universal” unto all men? That is something I have not found any Classical Arminian saying… So are you not the one who is misrepresenting what Arminians actually believe?
O, if you actually find those Arminians who are claiming that Prevenient Grace is “Universal” please post them as my reply to you for Armininas that actually believe what I said was the logical conclusion of “Universal Prevenient Grace”.
Ok… here is my bottom line on Prevenient Grace… It is an empty doctrine because it accomplishes absolutely nothing… just reading the first paragraph of this article by R.L. Bush is a case study in “circular reasoning”… http://www.imarc.cc/pregrace/v7n1brush.html
Grace for the Journey,
“Every step from total rejection of God to one’s embrace of God is supported by grace. Without God first loving us, it would be impossible for us to love him. ”
God sends His Blessings on all . . . the rain, the sun, and even life itself comes from His Hand; of course, all that is good in our lives ultimately has its source in Him. I wish we all see that more clearly, I think we would be so much more thankful, and so much more humble.
Greg,
I never said you called me anything personally. I said you are misrepresenting Arminianism by saying Arminians believe something which no Arminian I know of holds.
Two really good examples of Arminians holding to universal prevenient grace are Thomas Oden and John Wesley. Have you read what they said concerning prevenient grace? Did you read Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities by Roger Olson? In the Arminian system, prevenient grace is universal because if it were not, the atonement would be necessarily limited.
I read the article you linked. The reasoning is not circular. You might not agree with it, but circular it is not.
Please hear me, Greg. I’m not accusing you of attacking me personally. I’m saying that you are taking what you think are the logical conclusions of Arminianism and saying that is what Arminians believe. That is misrepresentation. Why not let Arminians (such as Olson, Wesley, Arminius, Watson, Oden, Shelton, etc.) speak for themselves?
You are free to disagree with me and with Arminians. That is your right. You should, however, allow Arminians to speak for themselves as to what they believe. I really try hard to let Calvinists speak for themselves, even though I disagree with their teaching. I don’t want a fight. I’d much rather have a civil discussion. Wouldn’t you?
Jim G.
Jim,
I have no problem letting an Arminian speak for himself… I do however strongly disagree with much (if not all) of what most Arminins put forth as not being based in Scripture.
Therefore I will challenge these doctrines whenever I have an opportunity to do so. I hope you can see the difference between opposing someones doctrinal errors and opposing them personally. I don’t know you Jim, you seem like a likable guy… and I don’t wish to carry on any discussion that would appear to be personal.
However the doctrine of “universal prevenient grace” is not (in my opinion) based upon scripture. And I think it proper to speak up against any doctrine that is not grounded in the Word of God.
Brother, I don’t think bringing Roger Olson into this debate is going to help you case at all… Here is a quote from Rodger Olson in his own words…
“Well, I don’t defend EVERY controversial book! But I have gone out on a limb to defend Love Wins (by Rob Bell) and Open Theism (God does not even know the future)” Words in () are mine.
I don’t want to beat you over the head with this, but Olson is a Ultra-Liberal, as are most Arminians. That is the natural progression of all theology that becomes un-moored from the Inerrant Word. I do not think that many of us conservative Southern Baptist, who hold to the doctrine of the “Inerrancy of the Scriptures”, are going to be accept the views of Olson anytime soon.
But that is a discussion for another time….
Grace for the Journey,
Greg,
I’m going to bump my reply down to a new thread at the bottom. This reply chain is getting too long. My reply will be up in a minute.
Jim G.
Alford and others,
When you believe that some people are gonna be saved…no matter what….based on no choice on their part…and others are not gonna be saved…no matter what…based on no choice on their part…that’s a form of fatalism….
whoever’s gonna be saved is gonna be saved, and whoever’s not gonna be saved are not gonna be saved….well, that sounds like fatalism to me.
Sorry if I offended you with my true and honest thoughts.
David
David Volfan007,
It is clear that despite having 007 in your nickname you are not undercover. Can you find Calvinists who believes what you just stated? You know, this part –
So maybe you could define fatalism and then give some in context quotes from Calvinists which would line up with the definition.
I honestly don’t know why you came back to actively commenting here. Most everything you post are seemingly rhetorical comments with the intent to inflame rather than seek to add to the dialogue. I’m not saying we all aren’t guilty of this at some point, but that seems to be your consistent M.O.
No one believes that.
If you had actually spent any time listening to what calvinists believe, you wouldn’t spout that type of nonsense out. Since you say these are your “true and honest thoughts”, then the only conclusion I can draw is that you are ignorant of what calvinists actually believe.
It is offensive because it is inaccurate and unfair. I would expect a pastor to not settle for constant misrepresentation, but even when he disagrees, to represent people fairly and accurately. You have shown zero desire to do so.
Jason,
I don’t believe 007 needs my protection, but what you said simply seems argumentative (as much of this Calvin-NonCalvin debate).
You apparently know the definitive version of Calvinism, as you with certainly point out 007 does not. I’m no expert on Calvinism. I find definitions and descriptions of it to be all over the board.
I plead guilty to your charge: I do not know what Calvinists believe. So, could you please state the same in a couple of sentences so that I will not be “inaccurate and unfair” and therefore, “offensive” in the future?
Just a simple, conclusive description that all Calvinists will agree on. That will suffice. Once you have made it perfectly clear what Calvinists believe, if someone like 007 misrepresents your group in the future: I’ll refer them to this post.
Thank you for your time.
Frank,
The issue is not me knowing “the definitive version of Calvinism”. The issue is David claiming something that NO CALVINIST HERE believes…or any Calvinist I have ever heard.
So, you have missed the point.
Of course Calvinists believe different things on different issues, or maybe more precisely, we place emphasis on different aspects of belief as we see it from Scripture. Discussion on those things is fair. There is a range of explanation of some topics. But when someone claims Calvinists believe something OUTSIDE of that range or something that everyone posting on here has denied or something that there are no quotes from any Calvinist cited…then it is an unfair statement and one that deserved a frank response that “no one believes that”. If no one believes something, no defense is needed. To make attacks based on that misunderstanding (misrepresentation) is bad form.
I appreciate your response…but you missed the issue entirely.
Jason,
Sorry I was so far off the mark and there is so much agreement amongst those who believe as you do. I guess I just don’t see David as vicious and misleading as you do.
But, in my missing the point, you proved my point . . .
there is no definitive description of Calvinism — not even one Calvin would agree with completely. And, Arminius was not even a contemporary of Calvin so it gets a bit confusing when his points of view are raised — much in the same manner that he would no doubt not agree. So, when you speak so “definitively” in your condemnation of another, it raised questions in my mind as to whether perhaps you could articulate what “Calvinism” really is. You could not. That’s my point in missing your point.
Until someone can give a definitive answer — which you could not do — this discussion will continue to be a sweet little merry-go-round moving up and down but going nowhere.
That was my point in missing your point.
Frank,
I still don’t think you get it.
Sure, there is a range of belief (albeit a rather small range in the scheme of things) within Calvinism. But there is a clear mark of things that are NOT Calvinism.
That should be easy to see.
So, when someone charges Calvinists with believing something that is “not Calvinism” it is inaccurate and unfair accusation.
I spoke “definitively”, not in a defense of Calvinism, but AGAINST a representation that is clearly NOT Calvinism. Me giving a “defense of Calvinism” is rather irrelevant in the scheme of things. The discussion is around something ALL CALVINISTS DENY. I mean, do you want me to lay out ALL of the things Calvinists deny? There are lots of things Calvinists deny….among them is the charge levied by David. No Calvinist believes what he is saying they believe.
So, while I could outline the beliefs of calvinists, or the range thereof, it is still missing the point. One need not know all the beliefs of Calvinists to recognize that when they all deny a belief, that said belief is not part of Calvinism.
THAT is the point.
Jason,
You win. I agree I’m just too stupid to understand the point. Try this just for discussion: some “non-Calvinists” reject self-declared Calvinists because they are “so sure” they are right. Anybody who does not fall in line “just doesn’t get it.”
My opinion. . . and it is just that, an opinion, is it is the “neat and tidy” attitude of some Calvinists (some might call it arrogance) that rubs less Calvinistic people the wrong way.
That’s what I get from David’s posts. Perhaps he states his case too strongly. Perhaps that is why every time the subject comes up it is like two separate monologues instead of a dialogue.
I’ve now batted this back and forth with you several times and you still have not given any succinct definition of Calvinism which could serve as a starting point for a discussion. You just accuse me of “not getting the point.”
You say you could outline what Calvinists believe in general, but you haven’t. My suspicion is: 1) any description would of necessity be book length and be two unmanagable; or, 2) no two Calvinists would agree with your definition.
Enjoy the merry-go-round. I’m going to bed.
Frank,
First, I didn’t call you stupid. There is no need for that tactic in here. Playing that card is cheap and beneath you.
Second, I tried to demonstrate what the issue here is with David’s statement. Your refusal to accept my argument isn’t about my supposed arrogance or of whatever else you want to accuse me.
Third, perhaps an analogy will help this discussion. If someone were to say “Christians believe in murdering people who do not agree with them”. What would your response be? It would be a reasonable response of, “no, they don’t”. That person might say, “well, I’ve heard of people that do” or they might mention the Crusades. Your response would be: “but no Christian anywhere believes what you are accusing them of believing…find me some quotes or something.” If the accuser’s response was then “well, to prove that, tell me EVERYTHING that Christians believe”. You would think they are crazy. Sure, you could write a systematic theology to demonstrate what Christians believe, and of course you could note that there is a range of beliefs within Christianity. But there are clear lines of what Christians believe and what they don’t…and wherever you draw that line, it definitely does not include “Christains believe in killing those that disagree”. You could write that systematic theology, but it is unnecessary to write it in order to clearly state “Christians do not believe THAT”. In fact, the burden of proof would rest on the one making the accusation, wouldn’t it?
I hope you can understand the analogy and how it applies.
My refusal to write a tome defending calvinism sheds no light on my ability to do so….it is simply unnecessary. The burden of proof is on David to provide any proof, any citation, any quote whatsoever that proves that anyone believes what he is saying they believe.
So, me giving you a brief explanation of calvinism does not provide a starting point….because the idea that David talks about is not included in that scope of belief.
If you want someone to prove something, ask David to prove his point and not simply throw out ridiculous accusations…burden of proof lies on him.
Who in the whole SBC believes that whoever’s gonna be saved is gonna be saved “based on no choice on their part?” No Calvinist I ever met believes that and your trying to muddy the waters with those kinds of statements sounds like the refuge of an ignorant or an arrogant man. Sorry if I offend you with my true and honest thoughts.
I have Mark Dever on record addressing the baptism problem…and he did it in an independent fundamentalist crowd to boot. I don’t know how he made it out the door…
And the manipulative evangelism thing is huge. Some of us are vulnerable to that sort of thing…it’s dangerous…caused much damage in my life, until God put it right by means of some Calvinists.
Also here’s what I like about Calvinists. The consistent ones know God is in control no matter what. They believe Romans 8:28, and have a God that can actually do it.
First of all, chill out. Man, you 5 pointers are so sensitive. If anyone disagrees with you, or says something you dont like about 5 pointism, then yall blow a gasket and start accusing and calling names and just go bonkers…wow….lol…
Okay, you 5 pt. Calvinists believe that a person is chosen to be saved, and you believe in irresistible grace….correct? So, the person has no choice….in your view. He’s chosen by God, and he’s gonna get saved….no matter what…correct?
Also, a person, who doesnt get saved, is because God did not choose to save him….according to your view…correct? And, a lost man cannot come to God…so, if he’s not chosen by God, and he’s totally depraved and unable to come to God…so, he’s gonna be lost no matter what…correct? He will NOT be saved…correct?
Is that not a form of fatalism? Everything’s predetermined…set in stone….thus, a form of fatalism? One man is saved by God, totally apart from any choice on his part…it’s all the choosing of God and totally the working of God….planned before time began…so, why would that not be a form of fatalism?
David
David,
Please don’t play the martyr card. You misrepresented what everyone here believes, stated it as fact, and then wrote people off and jumped to a massive conclusion based on your faulty premise.
Don’t be shocked when someone calls you on it.
All that said…your logic fails to recognize tensions that Scripture calls all of us to hold, including yourself.
For example, in your view of this issue…..does God know all things that will happen perfectly? If he does, then they cannot happen any other way. They MUST happen the way He knows it will happen. So, if they MUST happen that way, then is that not a form of fatalism?
Jason,
I’m not playing any cards….it’s true that if someone says something that 5 pointers dont like…then, they start accusing that person of misrepresenting, hating, being deceptive, not being sincere, and a host of other, not so nice things….So, no one’s playing anything….5 pointers do this, often, when someone says something that they dont like….I believe I was called “ignorant, arrogant, was spouting nonsense, etc, etc.”
Jason, you, nor anyone else, has responded to what I said about fatalism….all yall have done is say that I misrepresent, and am spouting nonsense, and no Calvinists believes in fatalism….
Okay, I guess I’ll just have to take yall’s word for it…without any evidence of the contrary…just because yall say so.
But, if you believe in irresistible grace, then the person doesnt really have a choice. I believe that people really do have a choice… like Dr. Criswell believed. And, if someone really doesnt have a choice, because it’s all predetermined, either someone’s going to Heaven or Hell, then that really does seem to be a form of fatalism to me….
David
Jason,
Also, I do believe that God chose me, planned to save me, and that He is sovereign.
But, I also believe that man is a free moral agent….that he really does make choices….chooses whether to be saved, or not…and is fully responsible for the choices that he makes.
How these doctrines all fit together…I dont know. I just believe them, because the Bible teaches them.
But, since I’m just upsetting everyone, and making people uncomfortable, and saying things that cause people such heartache in here….I will most certainly not comment anymore. I can go away from this site….never to come back again. Believe me, I have many, many other things to do. I took a long, long, long break from blogging….and I come back….and, then I remember why I took the long, long break.
BTW, I, and all other Calvinists, also believe that man makes real moral decisions…that he “really does make choice”…and that he is “fully responsible for the choices he makes”. We all agree on that.
You either are not paying attention or you are choosing to ignore the fact that we all agree on those points.
Look I believe what I believe because the Bible teaches them…I have no other reason to do so. So, again, we are all on the same page with that.
There is no reason to do the “I’m going home” thing. All I have asked you to do is to represent what we believe accurately. When everyone here is saying “that is not what I or any Calvinist believe” and when you can’t find any SBC Calvinist who holds to those views….you have to stop saying “nuh uh” and listen to what we actually believe. It’s the honest thing to do.
David, I replied to your statement of fatalism by saying that all of us that believe God knows the future perfectly can be charged with that exact same charge….a form of fatalism.
You can ignore it, but it is real.
Jason,
I would not say that 5 pointers are fatalistic, if they really believed that man had a true choice in whether they’re saved, or not. To believe in TULIP as most 5 pointers believe in TULIP, seems to me that man really does not have any choice. To not have any choice smacks of a fatalistic view to me. No offense meant.
Now, to believe as I do, and apparently as Dr. Criswell, and many others do…is not fatalistic, at all….even though I’m sure that there are some people, who might accuse us of it. Why? Because we really believe that man has to make the choice of being saved, or not….by responding to the working of God.
But “seems to you” isn’t what anyone believes. Just because you don’t understand why we believe what we do, does not mean it doesn’t make sense or that it is not biblical.
I can hold the tensions with no problem.
The Bible claims man makes real moral decisions for which he is responsible.
Man must believe to be saved.
The Bible also claims that no one comes unless the Spirit draws them and He draws them they come.
God gives faith and repentance as gifts.
How does that work itself out? Not sure. But to deny either one is to deny what Scripture teaches.
As I said before….if you believe God knows the future, then you could be accused of fatalism, to some degree. I spelled that out pretty simply.
I think it is funny that you keep claiming Criswell, do you think that if you cite him enough that the rest of us will forget what he said about election, drawing, and being a calvinist? LOL
Jason,
Maybe you missed the quote from Criswell’s sermon that I posted?
Also, Jason, are you a 5 pointer? And, if so, did you choose God? And, can your neighbor, who’s not saved, and will not be saved before he dies, does God truly want to save him?
I believe in election and predestination….I believe that no man can be saved unless the Spirit draw him…
The problem is your questions are not respective of the complicated issues that they dip into.
I would say “yes” to all of your questions, but you might not like how I explain my “yes”.
I’d love to answer your charge of fatalism David. First, fatalism is cold and impersonal. God is very personal. In fact he has the very hairs of our head numbered and He knew us before we were even created.
I think a more unBiblical statement would be that God plans nothing. Everything that happens, even the evil in this world has a purpose. God works out His purpose in everything, including election. Predestination.
God is personal and His plans are personal.
The London Baptist Confession of 1687 says:
“Chapter 10: Of Effectual Calling
1. Those whom God hath predestinated unto life, He is pleased in His appointed, and accepted time, effectually to call, by his Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God; taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them a heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and by His almighty power determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ; yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by His grace.
2. This effectual call is of God’s free and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man, nor from any power or agency in the creature, being wholly passive therein, being dead in sins and trespasses, until being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit; he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it, and that by no less power than that which raised up Christ from the dead.”
Genesis 50:20, “As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive.”
Jason,
If a person’s will is made to want God, then did the person really choose? If person’s will is unable to choose God, and it takes God changing that person’s will to choose God; then is it really a choice? It doesnt sound like a choice to me….
Irresistible grace seems to take any choice of man right out of the equation….does it not?
David
David,
Your logic and what it “seems” to you isn’t the standard of belief. If Scripture teaches it, I believe it.
Do you believe in irresistible grace?
Not the way you understand it. Your understanding is deficient of both the biblical teaching on calling and drawing, and it is a misunderstanding of what calvinists believe.
Brother, I may not understand everything that every Calvinist believes. I admit that I’m not the brightest bulb in the chandelier. But, from what I’ve heard from some of the Calvinists that have talked to me, and from what I have read….it sounds to me like that there are some people, who are gonna be saved….based on no REAL choice of their own…but instead, from what I’ve gleaned…God has chosen some to be saved….man is a dead man, in the sense that he’s like a corpse laying on the pavement….that he cannot choose God….and that he is irresistibly called to salvation.
To me, that’s not really a choice….that is God making the choice, and causing the man to make the choice to be saved….a choice that he was predetermined to make…no matter what…it was gonna happen….correct?
Again, how it seems to you is not the issue.
I seriously doubt you have heard any calvinist say that man doesn’t make real choices.
I’ll say it again…since it appears you missed it (based on your non-response)…
If you believe God knows the future perfectly (which I assume you do)…then the future MUST happen the way God knows it. The future cannot happen any other way. If it can’t happen any other way, then someone could make the charge that it is “fatalistic” and that “our choices can’t change things”.
But though we hold to the fact that God perfectly knows the future…we also hold to the fact that man makes real choices. But that seems contradictory. Well, just because something “seems” a certain way, does not mean it IS a certain way.
Jason,
I’ve said many times that I believe that God perfectly knows the future. I’ve said that I believe that God chose me…that He planned to save me….that He is sovereign….
And, I said above that I’m sure that someone could accuse me of fatalism, as well….except, I do beleive that man really does have to choose whether to be saved, or not. I do not believe in irresistible grace. Do you?
Then you proved my point. Making the charge of “fatalism” is foolish. It doesn’t see the scope of the issue.
Know what David? I don’t care. If I would have chosen I would never have chosen Christ. Christ broke through as he revealed himself through the Bible to me(or anyone else), as my heart was softened to not become a passive hearer but for those words to penetrate into me and the light bulb came on. If I didn’t choose, thank God he chose me and caused me to choose him. I am no longer on my way to hell and have peace, assurance that I am his child. So does it matter if a person chooses? No. The matter is one more person in Christ’s family.
Well, I’ve gotta go. I am preaching twice tomorrow…as I always do…plus, I’m baptising 2 people….plus, I have a part in the funeral of one of my Deacons…so, I need to go and get some sleep.
Good night….God bless.
David
Praying for you, brother. I, too, am preaching twice tomorrow.
Preach Christ well.
Thanks, you, too, Brother…preach Jesus…lift up His great and holy name!
You know, I guess the biggest difference that I have with most 5 pointers, is that I believe that God really does desire to save all men, everywhere…that He’s working all over this world to save whoever will surrender to Him in faith…really desiring to save them…that man really does have to choose whether to be saved, or not…that the death of Jesus is sufficient to cover the sins of every person on this planet….
In other words, I dont believe in irresistible grace, nor in limited atonement, if you mean He died only for the elect.
David
All goodness comes FROM GOD. And grace is a FREE gift, but what that means to theologians is much disputed.
If you go all the way back to the Creation, God intended for Adam and Eve to be happy with Him eternally, and for reasons we may not understand now, God gave them the freedom to obey Him, or to choose ‘another way’.
He commanded them concerning what they were permitted to do and what they must not do.
We know what happened.
Perhaps the reason God wishes for all men to be saved, is because that is what He originally wanted . . . and He is immutable, He does not change, nor does He contradict Himself.
Grace and mercy are offered to the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve, and this has come to us freely by the merits of Lord Jesus Christ.
But we are asked to ‘choose life’, and Christ is ‘the Life’.
What is under dispute is whether or not ALL men, by God’s free grace, are called to faith in Christ.
Some end the discussion right there by saying ‘no’.
But is they have said ‘yes’, then we may proceed to the next question:
“Does God call us by a grace that is not freely given, but is a force that overpowers the freedom of choice given to the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve ?”
Some say YES, the grace is ‘irresistable’. And for them, the discussion ends there.
But for those who understand God’s grace differently, there is room for the humility of being able to say we do not understand all of God’s ways. It is enough that we may trust the knowledge we have been given from Our Lord Christ, from His Words, and His teachings and commandments to us.
He is the fullness of God’s revelation to us until the end of time . . . when we shall no longer see ‘through a glass darkly’.
All else concerning the ‘mysteries’ of God are withheld from us at this time as our own human capacity to grasp these mysteries are not enough to comprehend the full story.
For us, Christ remains ‘the Truth’, the One needful thing.
All other ‘knowledge’ is human vanity.
Jim G.,
Would you agree that prevenient grace is irresistible?
Hi Mark,
I don’t see prevenient grace as irresistible. If it were irresistible, we’d have universalism.
Jim G.
Jim: What???
Hey Jim,
I’m now confused by your answer. Do you hold that prevenient grace is effectual grace? I’m not sure how else to make sense of your comment.
My understanding of prevenient grace is that it universally frees the will overcoming total depravity escaping the charge of any type of pelagianism so it could not be said that man came to faith on his own without God’s grace.
We’re saying the same thing, Mark. Or at least I think we are.
Jim G.
OK, then would you say that prevenient grace is irresistible?
I ask because if it is universal and frees the will from a totally depraved natural state then it seems that it must be irresistible or else we are back to a form of pelagianism. IOW, a totally depraved person must have God’s grace in order to exercise faith and if he does not then he must be able to ask God for this prevenient grace prior to said grace which falls back to pelagianism.
Make sense?
(I actually have a post on this making the case.)
Hi Mark,
I think I understand. And I think I misunderstood what you wrote above. I was thinking you meant that saving grace was irresistible in Arminian thought. Forgive me for misunderstanding.
I don’t even know if “resistibility” is a right category to look at prevenient grace, any more than the Reformed notion of “common grace” would be.
But as for the differences between Pelagianism, semi-Pelagianism, Arminianism, and Calvinism, they are really easy to differentiate.
Pelagianism: no grace necessary
Semi-Pelagianism: humans take the first step, God then responds with grace (“God helps those who help themselves”)
Arminianism: Grace given universally to enable human response
Calvinism: Grace given particularly to enable sure human response
If grace comes first, it cannot be Pelagian.
Jim G.
Jim,
I appreciate the fact that you dont blow up, and start accusing Mark of all sorts of things, after he misrepresents you, and accuses you of Pelagianism.
Wow, Mark, and you blew up on me for even suggesting that 5 pointers are fatalistic in their theology.
lol
David,
I didn’t misrepresent Jim. I was asking for clarification on his position in an attempt to have a discussion. I understand this approach of very much unlike your own approach of drive-by rhetoric. This comment is another example of your approach.
See, even though Jim and I may not see eye to eye theologically we can still have a respectful discussion.
And I didn’t “blow-up” I’m as cool as a cucumber.
Yea, right. I would say that you suggested that Jim was into Pelagianism….
BTW, I’m not doing drive by’s…I’m here…answering whatever… and you really dont know my motives, nor my intentions. You are not God.
David
David,
If anything, I misunderstood Mark. I am way more to blame.
Jim G.
You are a gracious man, Jim. I appreciate that.
David
Jim G.,
I hope you see that I was inquiring about your position and not misrepresenting you. As I recall, I asked questions rather than making accusations.
I’ve got all that concerning the theological positions. We agree there. You missed my point, I think, probably because I wasn’t clear. Actually, I was building a case, but that’s okay.
I was curious of your position on PG being irresistible because of the charge sometimes given that the Calvinist position is unfair. Whether it’s prevenient grace or common grace, both are given to sinners who do not ask for it i.e. against their will, if you will.
No…there was no misrepresentation. If anything, there was misunderstanding on my part. I’m big enough to admit my own goofs. :0)
I’m also the first to admit that I don’t understand it all. I know there are weaknesses in what I believe. I don’t think I can explain all of the biblical data with equal strength on this issue. I’ll be the first to fess up.
I just don’t think anyone else can, either. We all have weak spots and blind spots. I have chosen the way in which I see less tension (that is, the fewest number of Bible texts that are not fully explained). I am okay with folks who see the least amount of tension in another direction.
I’m a little less patient with people who see no tensions in their system but see all the tensions in the other systems.
I don’t think it is unfair that God can change someone’s will. I’ve never (to my knowledge) said otherwise. As a matter of fact, I don’t think any part of Calvinism can be charged with unfairness (except for individual Calvinists who do not take the time or effort to understand the position of those who disagree with them and caricature their beliefs, but as I’ve said before, that road runs both ways.). Calvinism’s greatest tension comes with squaring unconditional individual election with a God who reveals himself as love both in Scripture and in the person of Christ.
Jim G.
Jim G.,
I think we’ve reach a good place in our dialogue. I appreciate your admission that you have your own theological weaknesses as we all do. And I also appreciate that you are not willing to caricature Calvinist positions. You did not say it was unfair of God to change anyone’s will. I was just stating that this has been said. Please forgive me if it seemed I was claiming that as your position.
Despite theological tensions built into theological systems, I’m glad we can stand together in the gospel.
And just in case you’re interested the article I mentioned is here: Irresistible Prevenient Grace.
Hi Mark,
I never thought you claimed it as my position, so no worries!
I don’t think anyone has grounds to claim unfairness for God working in the world. It’s his world, after all. He can do anything he wants with it, provided what he does is consistent with who he is.
That’s why I don’t make a big deal about irresistible grace. It’s not the leading idea in Calvinism, nor is resistible grace the leading idea in Arminianism. Election and extent of the atonement to me are much bigger fish.
Jim G.
Then you would have a hard time with me, I see no tensions in Calvinism. I see it as as close to scripture as human interpretation can get. It’s why I believe it. If I saw tension I wouldn’t believe it.
I had never written on a blog before this one(and the wine issue) because it is so easy to misunderstand what someone is saying as did Volfan regarding my 1 Corinthians 1:19-30. I was only responding to your “give me a whoop” because you were a calvinist and did not know it. I did not mean that as condescending,yet looking back,I can see how you could take it that way. So I do apologize for that misunderstanding. Which,by the way,still did not justify a return remark that was meant to be condescending.
Christiane,I do not think I was angry because I viewed God as a monster! I think it was just my fallen,prideful nature thinking of my rights or whatever. I am not really sure myself. I do know that I am all that is described in 1 Cor. first chapter(base,lacking wisdom,foolish)and no one will boast before God for his salvation,as it states,only boast in what God has done. Now ,why would God say that if He didn’t think we would boast. Same with Paul in Romans 9,why would he argue the very things that we say when we hear of this doctine? Why are we the clay arguing with the Potter. And last but not least, why do so many people accept the fact that God chose the Jews? I never hear anyone say that is not fair.
I think next time I decide to join in comments instead of just read,I will pick a much lighter subject.lol. Peace
Connie: You make an important point. Nowhere in scripture is God revealed as fair. He is Just and he cannot sin in whatever he does, he cannot be wrong, He is God. We cannot even fathom what the holiness of God is especially compared to humans. There is no comparison. But God is never revealed to be fair. Life isn’t always fair.
Amen Debbie!
Connie,
Think nothing else about it. it’s in the past and should stay there. I’m sorry if I misunderstood, as well.
God bless you.
David
Hi Greg,
I copied your last post here:
Jim,
I have no problem letting an Arminian speak for himself… I do however strongly disagree with much (if not all) of what most Arminins put forth as not being based in Scripture.
Therefore I will challenge these doctrines whenever I have an opportunity to do so. I hope you can see the difference between opposing someones doctrinal errors and opposing them personally. I don’t know you Jim, you seem like a likable guy… and I don’t wish to carry on any discussion that would appear to be personal.
However the doctrine of “universal prevenient grace” is not (in my opinion) based upon scripture. And I think it proper to speak up against any doctrine that is not grounded in the Word of God.
Brother, I don’t think bringing Roger Olson into this debate is going to help you case at all… Here is a quote from Rodger Olson in his own words…
“Well, I don’t defend EVERY controversial book! But I have gone out on a limb to defend Love Wins (by Rob Bell) and Open Theism (God does not even know the future)” Words in () are mine.
I don’t want to beat you over the head with this, but Olson is a Ultra-Liberal, as are most Arminians. That is the natural progression of all theology that becomes un-moored from the Inerrant Word. I do not think that many of us conservative Southern Baptist, who hold to the doctrine of the “Inerrancy of the Scriptures”, are going to be accept the views of Olson anytime soon.
But that is a discussion for another time….
Grace for the Journey,
Now, let me unpack this a little bit.
I support you in your right to oppose what you perceive is wrong. I think you are right to direct your attacks toward the belief and not to the person. We are in agreement there.
You are also right to state where you believe the logic leads in any set of ideas. You are free to state those plainly. Just understand that the people who hold the beliefs you are critiquing may not carry them to their logical conclusion. I think as a Calvinist you should be able to respect that. You (or your fellow Calvinists) get caricatured all the time for that. Calvinism carried to its logical conclusions is quite an ugly thing indeed.
Universal prevenient grace is not explicitly taught in Scripture. However, neither is irresistible efficacious grace. Both are logical deductions from within respective belief systems. It’s hard for any critique to start with grace, but that’s just how it is.
Now here comes another HUGE misrepresentation by you. Olson is not even close to a Liberal, and “most” Arminians are very conservative. Protestant Liberalism is maximal accommodation to the ideals of modernity, and Olson falls far short of that. Read him for yourself and see. Even if he supports Bell, that does not make him a Liberal. He upholds the authority and infallibility of Scripture, conciliar orthodoxy, justification by faith, and all the other Protestant distinctives. He also happens to be one of the best historical and Arminian theologians in the country. I’m not here to defend his beliefs. But he is a recognized authority on Arminianism, and his words about his specialty carry considerable weight.
As for Arminianism leading to Liberalism, we had this discussion before a few months ago. I see it didn’t take hold. Arminianism does not lead to Liberalism any more than Calvinism does – I would argue the Calvinism-to-Liberalism slide over the past 200 years is far greater than the Arminianism-to-Liberalism slide. The Calvinists lost the Congregationalists and Presbyterians, as well as many particular Baptists, in both the ABC and SBC. Let us not forget that Schleiermacher himself was German Reformed. The Arminians lost some general Baptists and United Methodists. Whole sections of Arminianism remained (and remain) conservative, such as Wesleyan and Free Methodists, the old United Brethren, numerous holiness denominations, and almost all Pentecostals, the vast majority of which are Arminian.
So to say that “most” Arminians are liberal is just completely uninformed, which again, intentional or not, is a misrepresentation of what others believe.
I’m not sure who your influences are that are leading you in your ideas about Arminianism, but whoever they are, they are leading you astray.
Jim G.
Jim,
Now let me unpack you comments for you…
You said “Universal prevenient grace is not explicitly taught in Scripture. However, neither is irresistible efficacious grace.” Brother, I am not sure where you are getting your theology from but I beg to differ… I will give you just one Scripture quote (howbeit the words of Jesus Himself) “All that the Father giveth me shall come to me,…” That’s irresistible grace, and it is not derived from anyone’s logical deduction… Notice the word “shall”?
Now here comes another HUGE misrepresentation by you. You say “Olson is not even close to a Liberal, and “most” Arminians are very conservative.” Seriously??? Can you name just a few Conservative “Southern Baptist” who have endorsed Rob Bell’s book and Open Theism??? Most Arminians are very conservative… Dude, now your are just jerking my chain… You mean like the conservatives in the United Methodist Church??? Again can you name me just a few Conservative Southern Baptist who are Arminians???
You comment that “The Calvinists lost the Congregationalists and Presbyterians, as well as many particular Baptists, in both the ABC and SBC. Yes, and they went from Conservative Calvinist to Liberal Arminian. You are completely uninformed, or just blinded by your love for Arminianism in this matter. However no amount of spin will change true history these churches that have fallen from grace (wink).
My influences are NOT Olson, Wesley, and Arminius… that much is for sure.
By the way, westbygodtheology… Who are you?
I would have to disagree with the idea that resistible grace not being biblical. Matt. 23:37 “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!”
Act 7:51 “You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you.”
And actually I know of no liberal Presbyterians who have become Arminian. The fact is that there are both calvinists and arminians who are liberal. Neither one necessarily lends itself to liberalism.
John, you are absolutely correct… both text you give clearly teach that the unregenerate man will not, of his unregenerate sin enslaved will, come to Jesus.
That is not what the doctrine of irresistible grace is talking about… The doctrine of irresistible grace teaches that in God’s timing all whom are of the Elect will, at some point in their life, experience regeneration by the grace of God alone… and because of this regeneration his will, which before was unwilling, is now made willing (psalms 110:3) and they will come to Jesus of their now set free will.
Labels are totally useless nowadays, and I should stop using them I know… We have Liberals & Conservatives who claim to be Presbyterians, Baptist, etc. I do not however know of a single person I would classify as a Liberal who is a true Calvinist… Perhaps a former Calvinist, but not someone who currently holds to the major tenets of the Reformed Faith.
With all due respect those scriptures teach that God wanted them to respond but they would not.
John,
You are correct. Amen, Bro.
David
John, what part of “Your are absolutely correct” was I unclear about?
God desires that all men repent and come to faith… but unless God intervenes (in some active way) no one will ever come to faith. Do you disagree with that?
Grace for the Journey,
Hi Greg,
My name is Jim Gifford. I have a blog called westbygodtheology, which I am sorry to say has been inactive for a few weeks now. I guess I’m not as disciplined a blogger as I wish I were. I am a theology professor at a few different schools at the moment. I did my terminal degree (PhD) at Southeastern in Wake Forest in systematic theology.
If you have read my posts, you will know that I do not consider myself an Arminian based on my view of unconditional election. Since I do uphold unlimited atonement and resistible grace, I would fairly say I lean closer to Arminianism than Calvinism.
As for historical theology, I am hardly uninformed. It is my business to know it and know it well. You can wink all you want, but saying Arminianism leads to liberalism is like saying being left-handed leads to heart disease. And Roger Olson is a good historical theologian. He is in my top 5 living historical theologians.
I can name (and personally know) LOTS of Southern Baptists who are either Arminian or lean very heavily towards Arminianism within thinking circles of the SBC. Many of my professors at SEBTS were non-Calvinists. I think good places to start are the authors of the recent “Whosoever Will” essays, about half of the authors from the recent Ridgecrest “Building Bridges” conference, and Paige Patterson.
Being a self-professed Arminian in the SBC seminary right now does not seem to be a good political move. The seminaries in the convention are becoming much more Calvinistic (Southwestern being a huge exception). Most who are truly Arminian may be a little afraid to admit it, to be honest. I see this trend continuing for a long time, unfortunately. And I won’t name names for that reason, but I have given you about 20 or so names to sift through if you have the books. If not, google them and get the list of contributors.
I won’t comment on Bell, because I haven’t read the book. I am not an open theist (neither is Olson) but he defends it as an evangelical option. I happen to disagree with him on that, but I understand why he says what he says. And, yes, the vast majority of Arminians are conservative. There aren’t that many United Methodists left, but there are LOTS of pentecostals.
Stop accusing me of being uninformed, please.
Jim G.
Jim,
Thanks for the name… I was starting to get a little concerned that I might be dealing with an Arminian that I have dealt with in the past who is a Hyper-Anti-Calvinist. That guy is not a Southern Baptist and just likes to bash Calvinism up one side and down the other. I have no desire to deal with him again… and besides that I just wanted to know who you are.
You are a theology professor with a PhD in systematic theology! That’s not fair… you do this for a living
Ok… I must admit that I was “Jerking you chain” by calling you uninformed… but honestly brother I was just doing so because you kept calling me uninformed. I may not always take the time to put together a carefully worded reply here… (I probably should not blog on the fly)… but let me assure you I am well informed in matters of Historic Theology. Actually I have regretted much of the direction this discussion has taken… so let me try to press the reset button for this whole discussion.
I do not wish to discuss Olson, Bell, Open Theism, who is a Liberal, who is a conservative, or any of that stuff… Honestly you have your opinion on these, and I have mine, so arguing back and forth will not accomplish anything.
You are correct that “Being a self-professed Arminian in the SBC seminary right now does not seem to be a good political move.” Actually Southern Baptist are all over the map, claiming to be anything from 1 to 5 point Calvinist; but it is very hard to find someone who claims to be an Arminian in the SBC. Even at Southwestern you don’t find professors claiming to be Arminian… (at least as far as l know) Why do you think that is???
You really peaked my interest with the comment “I do not consider myself an Arminian based on my view of unconditional election. Since I do uphold unlimited atonement and resistible grace, I would fairly say I lean closer to Arminianism than Calvinism.”
If you don’t mind can I join you class for a while… (the check is in the mail)
You hold to the doctrine of unconditional election; Yes? Do you also hold to the doctrine of perseverance of the saints? If not I am unsure how someone can be unconditionally elected by God, yet not persevere in their salvation? In this case would it not stand to reason that their not persevering in the faith actually negates God’s will in election?
How do you define “unlimited atonement”? Are you referring to the sufficiency of the atonement, or the actually application of the atonement? I’m betting it is the sufficiency of the atonement you are referring to… but one never knows.
You also mention “resistible grace”… and you have already said you hold to “universal prevenient grace”? That would make sense… What I am confused about is the “universal” part?
Thanks for your reply, and for hanging in there with this Obnoxious Calvinist…
Grace for the Journey,
Hi Greg,
I’m okay with pressing the reset button, too. Just take it on good advice from now on to critique what people really believe and not where you think the beliefs lead. If we agree to that, I’ll be a happy man. :0)
You asked a lot in the last post, and I will try to answer it as best I can.
I think there are a number of reasons SBC folks avoid the tag of Arminianism. One is the Baptist teaching of eternal security. Most Baptists think Arminianism denies it (Wesleyan Arminianism does, but classical Arminians need not deny it – Arminius himself believed in perseverance). Another is that people think Arminianism necessarily leads to a denial of the necessity of grace (i.e. some form of Pelagianism). It doesn’t, of course, but old stereotypes die hard.
Another reason is the resurgence of Calvinism in the SBC. I know Calvinists are still an overwhelming numerical minority convention-wide, but Calvinists might have what I would call a “strategic majority.” Calvinists occupy a lot of key positions of influence in SBC life, and the trend is definitely moving in that direction. Everyone wants on the elevator that is going up, so to speak.
I know people talk about numbers of points, but I personally find that a little silly. First, all evangelical Protestants hold to total depravity – Arminians and Calvinists alike. So in that sense everybody is a “1-pointer.” A classical Arminian believing in perseverance is a “2-pointer.” Being a “3-pointer” is a little more tricky. I don’t see it as possible to logically keep together without serious modifications to the doctrines at hand. Self-identified “4-pointers” usually see the atonement as sufficient for all and efficient for the elect. And of course there are the “5-pointers,” who hold to the entire TULIP.
There is not space to fully lay out my take on soteriology here, but I will give a sketch of it. I hold to unconditional corporate election, which believes that there is only one elect person – Jesus Christ. Because he is fully God, he is sufficiently able to contain all the rest of us. His life and work made the atonement available for all and his offer of grace is resistible. There are lots of twists and nuances to it, which are there to help me avoid the nasty side-effects of traditional Calvinism on one side and conditional election on the other.
If you have questions, ask. But remember, the above is only a sketch and there are lots of nuances in it. I’ll be glad to share my ideas with you if you want to dialog about them.
Jim G.
Jim,
Thanks for your reply… Yes there are a lot of nuances in theology and we could spend years I suppose outlining, discussing, and defending various theological positions. While I would very much enjoy this, it is something that I would rather do over cups of strong coffee and fresh doughnuts
One of the things that makes theological discussions difficult, if not outright impossible, online is that while we may all use the same or similar terminology often we have very a different understanding/definition of these terms. Each theological camp/tradition defines the terms is slightly different (nuanced) ways, so it is that we wind up assuming something of the other person that simply is not true… which is never good for honest debate.
Anyway Brother Jim… the next time you are in the Panhandle of Florida let me know and the Coffee and Doughnuts are on me.
You are right, Greg. Those things are much better done face-to-face. The internet is great, but it is hard to do the nuancing from a keyboard without writing a book!
I’ve never been to Florida, but if I ever get down there, I’ll look you up!
Jim G.
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 1 trackback }