I try to stay out of most of the discussions in the SBC on Calvinism. It’s been my experience that more heat than light is delivered in these debates. So, it’s with some trepidation that I even write this article. Or rather rewrite this article and update it a bit for our Voices audience. (Original is here)
Ken Hemphill seems like a nice guy and a solid choice for SBC President. But I’m a bit bothered by the way in which he is being promoted as the pro-John 3:16 candidate as if JD Greear isn’t. Or that Ken Hemphill is a man who can say “whosoever will may come” whereas JD Greear cannot. I believe the missions track record of The Summit Church should decry any notion that this brother isn’t passionate about telling everyone about the gospel. And he’s not being inconsistent when he does this. That’s what I hope to show today.
All of this reminded me of an article I read awhile back by Ronnie Rogers at SBCToday. In the article Rogers urges Calvinists to “speak in such a way that all can be reminded” that not everyone will respond to the good news. He tweaks a quote from Piper and says this:
…without opportunity for all sinners to accept, Piper’s message should be changed to say, “Some can be glad in God if He predestined you” or “God loves to exalt Himself by showing mercy to some sinners.”
Rogers believes that in order to be consistent Calvinists ought to share the gospel in this way. My response is to urge him—and others—to not force Calvinists to speak in a way that the Bible doesn’t.
Someone once explained it this way (I say someone because I think I’ve heard Spurgeon, Ironside, Barnhouse, and Moody credited with the saying—but its mostly attributed to Spurgeon):
When the sinner comes to the gates of Heaven, above the gate it reads “Whosoever will, let him come” (Rev. 22:17
). As he accepts this gracious invitation and goes through the gates into Heaven, he sees written on the other side – “Chosen…in Him before the foundation of the world” (Eph. 1:4
That is the way that we, Calvinists, believe that the Bible speaks. There is no gospel presentation in the Bible that says to unbelievers, “make every effort to make your calling and election sure.” The gospel proclamation is always, “repent and believe. Come to Jesus.”
That double-sided placard (“whoever will” on one side and “chosen before the foundation” on the other) is not one that can be flipped. It’s not like the open/closed sign on the barber shop. It’s immovable. The Bible never urges us to speak differently.
Most Calvinists that I know are less concerned with being “faithful to Calvinism” and more faithful to the Bible. That’s why we speak in the language that we do.
For All Who Hear?
Rogers goes on to question the “righteous legitimacy of indiscriminately declaring the gospel so construed that, in any way, intimates that it is for all who hear because it is emphatically not…” In other words, it is dishonest for a Calvinist to tell every man that the gospel is for him.
As I read that sentence I have to wonder what Rogers means that the gospel is “for” all those that hear. Does he mean that all who hear the gospel are called to repent and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and if they do, they will be saved? If he does, then I don’t see how a Calvinist cannot say this.
I think we both believe that the gospel is only good news for those that repent and believe. The reign of King Jesus is not good news if you remain a rebel to that kingdom. It’s only good news if “kiss the Son”. For that reason, I’d prefer that we say that the gospel is for all who believe—rather than all that hear.
I have no problem speaking biblically to any sinner. There is no hidden motive or wink when I tell men and women, “repent and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved”. Jesus Christ is the rightful King. He is rooting out of His world all sin and unbelief and replacing it with passionate worshippers from every people, tribe, tongue, and nation. Believe in the Son and you’ll be saved. Reject him and you’ll be rooted out of His kingdom.
That is what the placard says to every unbelieving man and woman.
We can discuss what we believe it says on the other side of the placard, but let’s not force brothers and sisters to speak to unbelievers in a way that the Bible doesn’t speak.
Thanks Mike for writing this. Some want to emphasis the differences between C’s and T’s for whatever reason. But what about the points they agree on? We agree that Jesus is the Lord of all, and that only through faith in Him can one be saved. We agree that He lived a perfect life, without sin, was crucified on the cross, suffered under the wrath of His Father, died, and rose again. We agree that in order to be saved, a person must hear the Gospel, and we agree that our Lord has commanded us to go into all the… Read more »
Mike White: It is with great trepidation that I respond to your request for advising you wherein you are wrong, realizing what lies in store for anyone disputing Calvinist teachings on this blog. Much of what you wrote about where Cavs and Trads are in agreement cannot be disputed. However, what you didn’t say speaks volumes against your point that Calvs and Trads believe and practice the same gospel. When it comes to the salvation message, the Trad message is all-inclusive while the Calv message is exclusive. That is what makes your statement that Calvs and Trads share the same… Read more »
Ken, please forgive me for responding to your question/comment to Mike White. I only do so because this is a perfect illustration of the point I made in the article. No Calvinist that I know of would ever in a gospel presentation say, “but this might not be for you because you might not be one of the elect”. And we don’t do that for the same reason that you don’t say, “but really God already knows which decision you are going to make today because he looked down the corridors of time and elected you based upon your foreseen… Read more »
Ken, I cannot help jumping in here brother. You said, “More specifically, when a Calv presents the “gospel” message to a lost person it is my understanding that the presenter does not make it clear to the person to whom witness is being made that the message may not be applied to each one since only those who have been “elected” by God for salvation before the foundation of the world will be allowed by God to make a profession of faith.” That is a very uninformed (apparently by pastor Roger) paragraphs I have seen in a while. Here’s the… Read more »
Les: I don’t know whether to conclude that I am misinformed, as you charge, or confused about your remarkable statement. To me, the whole issue is a matter of honesty and integrity. Your position of obfuscation reminds me of the physician who repeatedly tells a terminally ill person “you are doing fine” while all the time knowing full well that death is imminent, thereby giving the person a false hope of survival. Whatever the physician’s reasons for doing so, it is a dishonorable act. It also reminds me of that false adage, “the end justifies the means,” that sickly axiom… Read more »
Ken, I will try to be specific in my reply to what you just wrote. “My idea of witnessing to a lost person includes reading to him or her John 3:14-18, commonly referred to as the gospel in miniature, thereby giving them a capsule summary of the who, what, why, where, when and how of salvation.” I can and have done the same thing. “From reading some of your comments in the past, as well as comments made by other Calvinists, I am under the impression that you hold to one common Calvinist theory that unless you are one of… Read more »
Mike Leake,
Help me to understand something. Are you stating, by the content of this post, that SBC Voices is a Calvinist blog? I ask that due to the way you structured your past statement:
“We can discuss what we believe it says on the other side of the placard, but let’s not force brothers and sisters to speak to unbelievers in a way that the Bible doesn’t speak.”
Non-Calvinists do not believe the Bible “speaks” the same way Calvinists “speak.”
Not “past” statement. Rather it should be “last” statement.
This is a crossover post from my own blog, CB.
I’m not tracking with what you are saying but I can say unequivocally that SBCVoices is not a Calvinist blog. My last statement is meant to say that we can discuss what’s on the other side of the sign “chosen before the foundation of the world” but we shouldn’t try to make others flip the sign and speak in a way that the Bible doesn’t.
I don’t know if that clears it up or not because I’m honestly not 100% following what you are saying.
I am not a Calvinist, but the pastor I was saved under is, and have had other pastors in my life who are. Most of my pastors, including my current pastor, however, have been traditionalists. And no matter how I try to wrap my head around it, I cannot understand the statement “Non-Calvinists do not believe the Bible ‘speaks’ the way Calvinists believe the Bible ‘speaks.'” What in the word does that mean?
I’m not a Calvanist, never have been and never will be.
As I study the tenants of Calvanism I see the same tenants that the Church of Christ believe.
Instead of “When we all get to heaven” their hymnbook states “When the saved get to heaven”
Jesus said “And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw ALL men to me.” That is not exclusive but inclusive. That is good enough for me. There is no Limited Atonement.
Wait, so you believe that unsaved people get to heaven?
John J. Volk,
It does not matter if you are or are not a Calvinist. It does not matter if you are or are not a non-Calvinist. That which you stated in your comment is not the gospel. Your comment smacks with Universalist heresy.
Only saved people go to Heaven….Calvinist and Traditionalist both believe this. What you just said is blatant heretical universalism. All men will not go to Heaven, only those who have trusted Christ for salvation will.
John, There will be a day, when the dead shall rise, and stand before the judge, the sheep on one side, and the goats on the other. The sheep will be welcomed into the eternal kingdom and the goats sent to that terrible place. In no other way, has or will be that all men are drawn to Christ. Many die never hearing the needed Gospel, and thus die in their sins. Think it through. Seek understanding from the Word.not just trying to fit the Word into your own understanding. May God bless you and draw you to Him in… Read more »
Mike Leake,
Thanks for clearing up the main purpose of my question.
You stated, “For that reason, I’d prefer that we say that the gospel is for all who believe—rather than all that hear.”
However, most Non-Calvinists believe the gospel is for “all” to hear and all who hear and believe are birthed by God into the Kingdom. Those who refuse to believe what they hear are doomed to hell.
When I say “for all who believe” I mean “applied to all who believe”. I believe that the gospel is for “all” to hear as well…we likely differ a bit on the “and all who hear and believe are birthed by God into the kingdom”. I tend to believe that regeneration precedes faith…but in my mind that gets us to a discussion on the other side of the sign. Practically speaking we are in agreement that everyone needs to hear the gospel and that the gospel benefits are applied to everyone who believes upon Christ. And that’s my main point.… Read more »
Mike Leake,
Thanks for the answer and you are right. We agree on what you stated we agree. We do not agree that regeneration precedes faith.
I would say that the intricate details that Calvinists believe is more a message for the believer than the unbeliever. There are parts of the Bible that speak to the believer and parts that speak to the unbeliever. That is where the non-Calvinist on the other blog and other places get it wrong I think. They take the messages for the believer and try to apply it to the unbeliever. Is that clear as mud? For example: When the Bible(as I interpret it) speaks to the elect and the chosen, that message is for us as believers in explaining how… Read more »
A sincere question for my Calvinists brothers. I must admit I am biased because my experience with Calvinists has been less than pleasant. Not long after I was called to be pastor at my church I received a letter from a reformed Baptist Pastor. He said many churches are closing and ours would be next if we did not embrace Calvinism. As a complaint against us he said we gave people false hope by presenting the gospel to people who may not be able to accept it. He also said we should not present the gospel in the church because… Read more »
That’s just silly. Calvinistic churches close just as non-Calvinistic churches do. And truth be told that letter is actually betraying the tenants of Calvinism. It’s assuming that good theology (please pardon me using that phrase) is what will keep the doors open and help the church grow. And that statement about not presenting the gospel in church because only the elect should be there anyways is just silly as well. Even if one wanted to argue that only believers should be in church…Paul was still eager to preach the gospel to the BELIEVERS in Rome. That letter is nonsense. Please… Read more »
Johnathon,
The pastor who said, “As a complaint against us he said we gave people false hope by presenting the gospel to people who may not be able to accept it. He also said we should not present the gospel in the church because only the elect should be there to begin with” does not represent Calvinism. What he said in that quote is not at all consistent with Calvinistic theology.
Jonathan, I’m very sorry for your experience with this pastor. His is an aberrant position that is foreign to the Scripture and the Gospel it proclaims. You were right to respond with distaste. The issue of the relationship between sovereignty and human freedom has been an “agree to disagree” issue for the past 500 years. Most of the pastors I know and have worked with (Over 500 of them in the state convention I helped serve for 11 years) have differing opinions on this issue, but would stand together against the idiocy you encountered when you read that letter. Here… Read more »
No…no way…not at all…fake news…nope!
Mike, Les, Thank you for replying. I kept that letter in my desk drawer for a few years before I threw it out because I realized it was a source of bitterness within me. However, as I said I have had similar encounters with other Calvinists (one lady told me that accepting all 5 points of TULIP was the only evidence of true election) and on the flip side a small number of Calvinists who have been great encouragers and solid brothers in Christ. With that backdrop (and again I am biased) can you begin to see the nervousness of… Read more »
Johnathon, I’ve ministered with and been around Calvinists for over 30 years now. I can honestly say I have never encountered personally any Calvinist who espouses what that pastor or that lady espouses. I’m not saying what you encountered is not true. I am saying that so called Calvinists who espouse their version are not Calvinists (hyper Cals maybe) and thankfully are miniscule. But each grouping has their few wackos. 🙂 I really don’t think that Southern Baptists have anything to fear from someone like Greear. I mean just look at his practice as a pastor.
Thank you Les, I worked for several years in a local Christian bookstore. The lady I mentioned would come in and corner employees and ask them if they were a Calvinist. If we said no (we happened to not have any Calvinist there at the time) she would grab Sproul and Piper books off the shelf and follow us around trying to convert us. In all fairness, she said she was a member of the Presbyterian Church and not a Baptist, but her emphasis was on Calvinism all the way. I too like and respect JD Greear. I do not… Read more »
Johnathon, you said, “In all fairness, she said she was a member of the Presbyterian Church and not a Baptist, but her emphasis was on Calvinism all the way.”
Oops. Brother, I am a former Southern Baptist pastor and have been in the Presbyterian (PCA) church for 26 of those over 30 years I mentioned above. Most of my history is around Presbyterians (PCA folks) and none of those folks, including Sproul, would agree with that lady, whom I’m sure meant well even if she was not a good representative of Calvinistic theology. God bless.
Les, My apologies, I did not intend that as a dig against Presbyterians, but as a clarification for our discussion about Calvinist leaders in the SBC. As an aside, could you possibly suggest a resource on what a Calvinist would consider a proper way to present the gospel and a proper response to the gospel. Would it be a prayer of repentance, a simple acknowledgement of agreement, or simply taking your place on the pew? I ask because that seems to be an area of fierce disagreement and, I want my disagreements to at least be honest and informed. Thank… Read more »
I’m not Led, but i would say Tell the Truth by Wil Metzger
Johnathon, I didn’t take your comment as a dig. No worries brother. We are all good. As far as a resource, I think there is surely some variation among Calvinists as to some of the methods of presenting the gospel and how Calvinists ask for responses, etc. Dr. Jim Kennedy, now with the Lord of course, created Evangelism Explosion back in the early 1960s while at Coral Ridge Presbyterian (PCA) and EE has an excellent presentation of the gospel and opportunities to respond in prayer and contact with a local church. In my PCA church, an invitation is always offered… Read more »
Tell the Truth by Wil Metzger is an excellent resource.
Also a little booklet “Coming to Faith in Christ.” John Benton. The banner of Truth Trust. 1977. 3 Murrayfield Road, Edinburgh EH12 6EL. P.O. Box 621, Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013, USA.
You can read it here. https://www.monergism.com/coming-faith-christ
Mike, Les,
Thank you again for your responses. Les, amazingly what you described for your church is not extremely different from what we do in ours. 🙂
Thank you again, everyone, and God Bless.
Mike,
You do well to point out where Calvinists and Traditionalists (or non-Calvinists) agree. We have many points of agreement.
But you would have to agree – there really are some differences.
A Traditionalist believes Jesus died for all mankind. The Calvinist (5-point) does not.
And, if Jesus did not die for you, there is no way you can ever be saved. You can never believe, for you have nothing to believe in.
We should be honest and open about our similarities.
We should also be honest and open about the points in which we differ.
David R. Brumbelow
David, if a Traditionalist believes Jesus died for all mankind and a Calvinist (5-point) does not believe that the atonement was intended to pay for the sins of all mankind, what practical difference does it make anyway if both are out telling people indiscriminately that Jesus is the only way of salvation and urging hearers to repent and believe in Jesus?
Les–you bring up a good question, b/c practically it does not…
It’s amazing how much we get caught up on “is it limited or unlimited”?
SBC Cals/Trads/And All In Between believe that you’re only going to be saved if you hear the gospel and respond to it in faith, and therefore we need to share the gospel with all we can in the hopes that they’ll repent and believe. What we believe about the specific scope of the atonement doesn’t play at all into that, but we wave the banners like it’s a battle line.
It shouldn’t be.
Les,
I understand what you are saying.
But, if Jesus did not die for you, it makes a big difference, practical and otherwise.
David R. Brumbelow
David, “But, if Jesus did not die for you, it makes a big difference, practical and otherwise.” Of course for those who are not of the elect, yes it makes a difference. But,, what I was saying is that it doesn’t make a difference in missions and evangelistic practice. Both are out telling people indiscriminately that Jesus is the only way of salvation and urging hearers to repent and believe in Jesus? See? No difference. Remember, we all agree that no one of us can tell who the elect are ahead of time. So we preach Jesus to all and… Read more »
There is a stream within 5-point Calvinism which wouldn’t disagree that in some sense Jesus died for all mankind. Sufficient for all efficacious only for the elect. (Now we’re talking about the other side of the sign…so I want to be careful with that). What do you mean by Jesus died FOR all mankind? If you mean that he died a vicarious substitutionary death FOR all humanity then why isn’t everyone saved? And if you say that it’s applied to only those who believe then you are saying much the same thing that I’m saying. Whoever believes the blood of… Read more »
Sufficient for all, efficient for anyone who believes:
https://sbcvoices.com/toward-theological-reconciliation-atonement-by-ken-hamrick/
“If you mean that he died a vicarious substitutionary death FOR all humanity then why isn’t everyone saved?”
Mike Leake, I believe the answer to your question is the reason everyone is not saved is because not everyone repents and believes the gospel even upon hearing the gospel. The great majority of humankind reject the gospel.
Only those sinners who, upon recognizing they have sinned against a just and holy God, having been convicted of this reality by the Holy Spirit and repent and believe the biblical gospel of Christ shall be saved.
David, Brother, you said this: “A Traditionalist believes Jesus died for all mankind. The Calvinist (5-point) does not.And, if Jesus did not die for you, there is no way you can ever be saved. You can never believe, for you have nothing to believe in.” Theology isn’t a single point here or another one over there, but God is one and rational and cohesive. So when I look at the whole, here is what I see: [1]God knows all things. God knew from before the foundation of the world, exactly who would be saved, and knew them by name. [And… Read more »
David, both positions contain logical ends that no faithful Baptist will allow himself/herself to reach. For the Calvinist, you have described it pretty well I think. If Christ in fact paid only for the sins of the elect, then the purely logical conclusion would be to believe that some people can never be saved. But you left out the other extreme. If a Traditionalist believes that Christ paid for the sins of every person on the earth who has ever lived in the history of the world, then the purely logical conclusion is Universalism. Because if Jesus died for all… Read more »
Joel,
But your position has a logical end as well. For it is wrong to think that Jesus died for all or that Jesus died for just some, than what is left? Logically: He died for none.
Your argument against Traditionalism speaks to substitutionary atonement. You say it can’t be that He died for all. If His death was a substitutionary atonement then He died for some and not all.
Point we can agree on : Jesus died on the cross for sinners, and rose again from the grave. Points we disagree on: 1) Who can be saved – elect only, or anyone 2)how they are saved- regeneration by God preceding faith, or personal faith that effects regeneration 3) role of repentance – after salvation, versus requirement for salvation 4) opportunity for Heaven for anyone – no, yes 5) any way to escape Hell – no, yes Some of these admittedly overlap, and the list can be longer on points of agreement/disagreement, but there is a serious divide here. I… Read more »
Also points that we agree on, the Bible is the inspired Word of God. Faith in Christ is the only way to salvation. There is not more than one road to Christ.
Kevin, You didn’t say, so I ask, do you believe that those who believe the Gospel will be saved? And conversely, do you believe those that think the words of the cross foolish, believe the Gospel? My guess is you believe the former and not the latter. So if one doesn’t believe the Gospel it means they do nothave faith. They don’t believe Jesus died for their sins, that He was the Son of God, and that He rose again. Since they dont believe [they dont have faith] why would they repent? So who repents, Kevin? Well, only those who… Read more »
About ten years ago I taught a class on personal evangelism at Southern Baptist Seminary. During the course, this issue arose. So, I asked the students, “Do believe that only the predestined will be saved?” They readily affirmed that they so believed. Then I asked, “How can you identify those folks? Do they wear distinctive clothing or have a mark on their foreheads?” They students replied that they had no way to visually identify people who are elected to salvation. So, I said, “In that case just present the gospel to everyone and trust God to bring to salvation those… Read more »
That makes so much sense. I wish we could just leave it at that.
I know many won’t!
Mike, I agree we should all preach the gospel the way the Bible does. My concern is someone who heard a biblical presentation of the gospel would reasonably come to conclusions that would contradict reformed theology. This would imply, if the Bible did teach high Calvinist theology, that God was being deceptive. And we know God cannot lie. So the reason unbelievers receive the biblical gospel is that they don’t know, or take into account, the reformed nuances and redefinitions that make it say something other than what it says in it’s plain presentation. Unfortunately, I’ve come across the number… Read more »
Hi Paul. You said, “My concern is someone who heard a biblical presentation of the gospel would reasonably come to conclusions that would contradict reformed theology. ”
Could you please present an example of what you mean by a biblical gospel that would contradict Reformed theology? I’m having a hard time understanding what that might be.
Thanks brother.
Les, thanks for your response. Here are a couple examples. I once read a Calvinist say you present the gospel this way: you are a sinner and Christ died for sinners and rose from the dead. All those who trust in Jesus Christ will be saved. Someone hearing this would think that since Christ died for sinners and he is a sinner that Christ died for him. And the Christian was telling of this message because he could choose to trust in Jesus, otherwise why would he be telling him? But the Calvinist means: you are a sinner and Christ… Read more »
Thanks Paul. You said the Calvinist said he shared the gospel like, “you are a sinner and Christ died for sinners and rose from the dead. All those who trust in Jesus Christ will be saved. Someone hearing this would think that since Christ died for sinners and he is a sinner that Christ died for him.” I am Reformed, thoroughly, and I would agree with the way he said he’d share the gospel. The fact is that 1. the person I am talking to is a sinner and 2. Christ did indeed die for sinners and rose from the… Read more »
The C’s &T’s are not the only reasonable biblical views available. They’re just the loudest. Many Baptists have found the middle to be closest to what they find in Scripture, affirming both unconditional election AND a salvation conditioned on the free-will belief of men.
The concept of the binary choice is held to firmly by those who want an us against them battle. If middle positions are allowed, it messes up the battle lines
Dave,
Messing up their battle lines might actually clarify some things for many of us.
Do you remember the suggestion to keep this discussion under control by inviting three or so proponents to post their word-count-limited views, without comments, and then posting limited rebuttals?
A productive discussion comes from substantive engagement. Anyone can cast aspersions in comments.
Here is, I think, a reasonable article that includes a bit of a chronological synopsis of the issue.
https://conventionalfutures.com/2016/05/23/is-there-really-a-calvinistnon-calvinist-divide-in-the-younger-generation/
That’s a good article, although I doubt folks will bother to read it all. Five years ago when Southern Baptists thought it important enough to have a Calvinist Advisory Committee to take a good look at the conflict, part of the conclusion was that, “We are a confessional people, who stand together upon the doctrines most vital to us all, confessed together in The Baptist Faith and Message.” Here we are today where both candidates and the groups that support them, and folks who haven’t given it a lot of thought at al, affirm the same statement of faith, Baptist… Read more »
In the workings of your last paragraph, isn’t the BF&M functioning like it is supposed to. The BF&M states itself that it is not exhaustive or exclusive (Scripture is), but is rather a consensus. Doesn’t that by definition make the BF&M a document of basic doctrine sufficient for cooperation and not a document of deep theology sufficient for systematic theological understanding? It is not, in my opinion, that the BF&M is insufficient for our day; but rather too many churches are expecting too much from the BF&M. They are expecting a level of clarity the BF&M was simply never intended… Read more »
I read the article. It seemed to me to neglect the more accurate view of this as a spectrum(with a middle) rather than a binary choice—except for this enlightening statement by Ed Stetzer:
I don’t disagree. The definitions, charts, and diagrams are high weeds to most pastors, which is why militant cals or anti-cals revert to demonizing their opponents to achieve some measure of persuasion.
You don’t have to be a Calvinist to believe that God is the ultimate determiner of the destinies of men; and neither do you have to deny unconditional election to believe that men freely choose (and are rightly accountable for that).
Ken,
You said, “You don’t have to be a Calvinist to believe that God is the ultimate determiner of the destinies of men; and neither do you have to deny unconditional election to believe that men freely choose (and are rightly accountable for that).”
As one who is Reformed, I 100% agree with that statement. Good word brother.
I don’t believe man’s free will is a barrier to God.
Well, I don’t believe that the Bible teaches that man’s will is free regarding salvation but I get what you’re saying Bill Mac.
My antipathy toward debates over Calvinist doctrine has grown through the years because I have found them pointless. I have been told often that, “We Southern Baptists have to have this discussion.” That’s as might be, but the problem is not THAT we have discussions but HOW we discuss. This one, so far, has been remarkably calm and even productive. A big part of the problem has been the insistence of people on one side that they be allowed to define the doctrine of the other. It is much easier to promote the presence of a conspiracy or some nefarious,… Read more »
Dave Miller, that is absolutely spot on.
Your insight is persuasive, poignant and pithy.
Great comment, sir.
Well said Mike and Dave. It’s amazing to me that there are brothers in the faith who still doubt the evangelistic fervor of those that hold to the doctrines of grace and God’s sovereignty in salvation. Acknowledging God’s sovereign and monergistic role in salvation in NO WAY mitigates the responsibility for all believers and ministers to preach the gospel. How can one arrive at such a conclusion? BTW: interesting food for thought: Who arguably were among the two greatest preaching evangelists of their time in both the 19th and 20th centuries? Hint: one was known as the ‘Prince of Preachers’… Read more »
I agree with your sentiment in totality, and would like your opinion on something. I wonder if an idea that was given to me when I was a seminary student (2005 – 2007) is coming to fruition. My best friend as a seminary student was in his early 50’s and going through ministry training a second time (previous graduate of Columbia Bible College who “ran” from the ministry). His parents were both Bob Jones grads. He noted the leadership of our Convention were those who came out of the Resurgence, and were people who “came up fighting”. These were men… Read more »
Michael Labate, there is validity in your point that the leaders of the CR were soldiers who only knew the battle. I think the battle expanded beyond just the theological issues related to liberal theology in seminaries to the larger culture war over issues as Russell Moore has aptly called the Sexual Revolution Industrial Complex where abortion and the gay agenda were in the forefront. The founders of the Moral Majority, Charles Stanley and Jerry Falwell, were two SBC pastors who were also leaders in the CR. As a result of the CR and the founding of the Moral Majority,… Read more »
David ?,
Your defining of the CR is somewhat overly simplistic. In addition, Charles Stanley and Jerry Falwell were not “initial soldiers in the CR.”
The CR really was a “grassroots” movement in its infancy and the primary reason for the CR was theological.
Mike White, You asked me, “WHY did you believe? Why did you accept grace? Why cant God overcome the sinful rebellion in those who never believe?” God gave man a free will, and with that free will, through the conviction of the Holy Spirit, some choose to believe and some chose not to believe. It should be emphasized – Belief, or faith, is not in itself a good work. But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness. -Romans 4:5 Is it better to believe than not believe… Read more »
John 6:29 says that believing in Jesus is a work… a work of God.
David B: I have a question. Were Adam and Eve perfect? The Bible says: “God saw every thing that he had made, and behold, it was very good” it however does not say perfect.
Another question would be: Was Christ and his ministry on earth, death etc. a second thought to God? “Oh no, man sinned, I have to think of something quick.”
Such an interesting article and discussion. I think we have 2 good candidates, and I would be fine with either becoming the SBC President. I believe that the BFM is sufficient, and that we should not add to it. The issue of Calvinism/Non-Calvinism, however, is the kind of debate that is appropriate for religious bodies, generally. Problem here is that the SBC has had both kinds in its fold for decades. That’s why the BFM doesn’t take this issue on. It allows for folks of both stripes to work together. The other issues that get us all worked up are… Read more »
When I first took up golf, I bought a training video by Gary Player, the famous South African golfer. He laid out the fundamentals of the grip and the swing, but then cautioned those listening to not succumb to the “Paralysis of Analysis”. Once you learn the basics, you need to swing the club and hit the ball.
The conversations between Cals and Trads seemingly always runs to a “Paralysis of Analysis”. As Dr. Terry said earlier, just go and share the good news of Jesus and leave the results to God.
Yes.
I recently read that JD Greear said the following:
“I try to pray like it’s all up to God, and then preach Christ like it’s all up to me. The strange thing is, the more people I share Christ with, the more people seem to keep getting elected.”
Over 20 years ago I heard another guy say the same thing almost word for word in a meeting I attended about evangelism. It stuck with me all these years.
The guy’s name was Jerry Falwell. Amazing, huh?
To me it made sense then and it makes sense now.
Jerry Falwell got that from D James Kennedy Who said it in a convocation at Liberty University while I was a student there way back in early to mid 90’s – Dr. Falwell praised that line of Kennedy’s sermon and told him “I’ll be borrowing that one”.
Jerry repeated the phrase often in the years to come.
Thank you for the confirmation, Tarheel. ‘Cause I didn’t want to have to call a “Eastern Kentucky Feud” on anyone who called me a liar, saying Jerry Falwell would never say such a thing. 😉 😉
But no matter from whence the statement came… I agree with you it’s a good one.
Dr. Al Mohler, the President of Southern Baptist Seminary, is a staunch Calvinist, as most Voices readers know. Some years ago he made this statement in a chapel service: “If your Calvinism does not motivate you to share Jesus Christ with others, then take your Calvinism and leave.” Now, I may not remember his statement word perfect, but what I’ve written is close. In Luke 24:47 Jesus commanded: “and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in his name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.” (NASB) I can’t see how Calvinists or non-Calvinists would interpret or practice… Read more »
I agree with Mike Leake’s point (echoed by many commenters here) that Southern Baptists who are Calvinists can (and do) evangelize and present a gospel invitation sincerely. And if the Lord allows me to make it to Dallas this summer, I plan to vote for J.D. Greear. However, I don’t see anything improper or disappointing in Ken Hemphill’s candidacy. It seems to me that the traditionalists who support Hemphill are concerned not only with the finer points of soteriology but with a movement away from what many SBC churches have considered Baptist distinctives–even if they are not enshrined in the… Read more »
I agree with your second paragraph completely, Jeff. Did you have Hebrew with Dr Galeotti while you were at SEBTS? If so, I think we had that together…quite a character he was/is!
Kevin,
Unfortunately, I did not take Hebrew at SEBTS. My M.Div was in Christian Education, and we did not have to have all the language credits. There were several students named Jeff Johnson at the school while I was there.
Ken Hamrick: There wasn’t a “Reply” choice in your post so I found it necessary to post my reply in the general category. You wrote, “You don’t have to be a Calvinist to believe that God is the ultimate determiner of the destinies of men.” I’m not a Calvinist, and, therefore, I do think you do need to be a Calvinist to have that belief. (I noticed how quickly Les supported your position). However, I could agree with you if you modified your statement to read, as concerning the way to salvation, that “God is the ultimate determiner of who… Read more »
Ken Miller, Calvinism comes with certain unavoidable baggage—certain repugnant extremes (as I see them)—which, without them, one is not a Calvinist. Now, of course, there are those who insist on sorting out the whole spectrum as Calvinists of some sort—five, four, three, two and even one-pointers—and I’m sure that even you qualify as a Calvinist under that method. But as I see it, Calvinism necessarily includes regeneration prior to faith, and it generally includes an inability of the sinner to believe that is literally absolute. Therefore, if one does not hold to either of these, then how can one be… Read more »
Ken,
And if what Ed Stetzer said is true, then I am far from alone in this: “It is fascinating how much debate is occurring right now on this topic when most pastors indicate that neither end of the spectrum correctly identifies their church.”
John Sneed,
It could be said that some of the non-Calvinists who post here have a “certain level of frustration” with your stating:
” The only way to know fir sure that someone is not elect is if they die lost.”
They might also be frustrated with your stating:
“. . .as long as a person has life they may yet find out they are one of Christ’s sheep.”
However, I think few non-Calvinists would be frustrated with you for stating:
“Telling a person there are elect and non-elect people has no part in a gospel presentation.”
John Sneed, Non-Calvinists do not believe that one ” may yet find out they are one of Christ’s sheep.” Non-Calvinists for the most part believe one must be convicted by the Holy Spirit that he or she has sinned against a just and holy God, repent of sin and believe the biblical gospel to be saved. They do not believe a person may one day “find out” he or she is “one of Christ’s sheep.” The lost are lost from birth. They are condemned to damnation unless they repent and believe the gospel. Non- Calvinists speak of the saved/elect thusly:… Read more »
Consider an illustration… Three evangelists are given the opportunity to preach to a group of unbelievers. One is a Calvinist, one a Centrist and one a Traditionalist. All three have the unique spiritual ability to recognize when someone is elect; and they find that no one in the group is elect. So the Calvinist gathers his things and leaves; while the Centrist and Traditionalist preach the gospel anyway, imploring the men to believe and be saved. Why? Because these latter two know that would save them if they would only drop their rebellion and come to Him; and they also… Read more »
Ken I like your illustration. And I am a full on Reformed guy to boot. Of course the illustration is based on an impossibility…that anyone could know who the elect and non elect actually are. A few thoughts as I read it. 1. “…the Centrist and Traditionalist preach the gospel anyway, imploring the men to believe and be saved. Why? Because these latter two know that would save them if they would only drop their rebellion and come to Him; and they also know that it is within their power, even if nonelect, to believe if they want.” This only… Read more »
Thanks, Les. Since the purpose of this discussion is not to argue over the differences, but to determine whether those differences necessarily affect how the gospel is presented, then, am I right in sensing that you agree that the differences do affect the preaching of the gospel?
Ken, “am I right in sensing that you agree that the differences do affect the preaching of the gospel?” No not really or necessarily. Since the illustration is based on a hypothetical that is an impossibility, it doesn’t;t seem to me to be able to carry over to how we actually do share the gospel. The fact is, that in essence we all, the three groups you mention, share the same way. Or we should. If we proclaim that all people are sinners in need of a Savior and that God sent that Savior to save sinners, and that if… Read more »
Les, My point in offering the illustration was to support my contention that Calvinists are unable to personalize the gospel the way that Centrists and Trad’s can. The illustration was hypothetical, but what it illustrated remains true and even acknowledged by you. Calvinists would not preach to the nonelect if they could recognize them as such. You stated: 3. “Can the Calvinist tell a sinner, “Christ died to pay the penalty that you owed for your sin,” He can, but IMO he should not, since the biblical examples do no such thing and we Reformed folk believe that the penalty… Read more »
Ken, I’m getting dizzy going up and down this page. 🙂 “My point in offering the illustration was to support my contention that Calvinists are unable to personalize the gospel the way that Centrists and Trad’s can.” Right. As I wrote, I do not believe that telling a random person, “Jesus paid for YOUR sins, you Joe, He died and washed away all your sins” is appropriate since I have no way of knowing that. I also don’t see that example in the scriptures. Let me hasten to add though, I know some Calvinists that do and of course many… Read more »
Les, What I keep hearing from Calvinists here seems to be not what actually happens but what they think we all could agree to. And because it is possible for a gospel presentation to be without objection from either end, then it is claimed that our differences do not affect how the gospel is preached. You stated: If we proclaim that all people are sinners in need of a Savior and that God sent that Savior to save sinners, and that if person x will repent and believe he/she can be saved…then whatever we hold in our heads and hearts… Read more »
Ken, your post, “What I keep hearing from Calvinists here seems to be not what actually happens but…”
I have to run. I am doing a membership interview (of all things) in 15 minutes and then out to dinner. Much I want to say. Later brother.
Ken, you said, “The effects of what one holds about election can be kept out of the gospel presentation by carefully crafting the wording to ensure that it is. But in practice, it is only the Calvinists who need to be careful about this.” What do you mean by the “effects?” That word in your statement is crucial. “But saying that there need be no difference merely because by minimizing the presentation to the essentials we can carefully avoiding differences does not do justice to why those differences are there.” Is there more that we NEED to say other than… Read more »
Les,
Suffice it to say that I’m not trying to tell Calvinists how they ought to preach. I was just saying that there are inevitable differences. But I don’t want to argue this any further.
I appreciate your acknowledgement that my illustration above was not off the mark.
Ken, thanks for the conversation brother.
While we are addressing differences and agreements between Calvinists and non-Calvinists, and there are major differences, I would like to take this opportunity to state that I could work along Les Prouty most anywhere to reach people for Christ. I have never had the opportunity to met Les in person, but I just know in the core of my soul I could easily work with him for the advancement of the Kingdom. However, I also know I could never sit on the same side of the stadium with him at an Auburn-Alabama football game. Baseball, basketball, tennis, or water polo,… Read more »
🙂 “I could work along Les Prouty most anywhere to reach people for Christ. I have never had the opportunity to met Les in person, but I just know in the core of my soul I could easily work with him for the advancement of the Kingdom.” Thank you my Bama brother. I could with you as well and hope some day to meet you and share a cup of joe with you. “However, I also know I could never sit on the same side of the stadium with him at an Auburn-Alabama football game. Baseball, basketball, tennis, or water… Read more »
Amen! Let me also affirm that “I could work along Les Prouty most anywhere to reach people for Christ. I have never had the opportunity to met Les in person, but I just know in the core of my soul I could easily work with him for the advancement of the Kingdom.”
John Sneed, the problem with your argument is that while the Calvinists may not say during a Gospel presentation “God has chosen an elect people and you may or may not be among them.” , I have heard them say it later in a Sunday School Class. In a specific class, I heard a young woman say that she was concerned about her sister who was not saved, to which the teacher replied, “You have to embrace the truth that she may not be one of the elect.” The girl responded to that statement in tears. A friend attended a… Read more »
If growth is the primary metric, then Unitarian theology is even better.
John Sneed. Full disclosure. I am PCA for 26 years now. I have been a TE (pastor) and am now a RE (layman elder) over the course of those 26 years. Former SB pastor too and have a great love for my SB family and friends. You said, “I have heard them say it later in a Sunday School Class. In a specific class, I heard a young woman say that she was concerned about her sister who was not saved, to which the teacher replied, “You have to embrace the truth that she may not be one of the… Read more »
As has been said on this blog before the heart of the division in the SBC is not theological. One side can’t even accurately describe the position of the other. The division is in fact cultural. It’s an an us versus them division about power and shares and influence and the way that things “used to be”. The division arises out of alienation and separation, not out of whether regeneration comes before repentance.
The language tends to be the language of politics, firing up the home crowd, creating wrongs to be righted and demonizing the other.
Dead on, JohnR!
Ken, you said, “Right here, then, is a significant difference in how the gospel is preached. We preach to all men, personalizing it to them regardless of whether or not they are elect because we believe that it is within their power to believe if they want. You don’t believe it’s within their power, so you have to couch your words in such a way that you do not personalize it too much—lest you imply that they do have the power. As for whether or not we “should” preach in this manner, you’re begging the question in assuming that Reformed… Read more »
Mike, Why say He “died for other’s sin”? Is that not being deceptive? Are you not trying to hide your belief from the individual to whom you are witnessing? If the “good news” is Jesus died for some people, would it not be better to simply that your belief? Instead you are leading the individual to believe Christ died for him, when in fact you don’t really know if He did. Fortunately, the Bible tells what to say: “how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures” 1 Cor. 15:3. That was the message Paul preached to the… Read more »
I refuse to answer that question anymore until someone gives me THEIR definition of Calvinist. By some definitions, I probably am. By others, definitely not.
I cannot see how JD’s answer would offend anyone – even if they do not completely agree with it. It certainly seems within the boundaries of the Great Commission and Southern Baptist tradition.
Don, “Why say He died for others sins, is that not being deceptive?” Since He did not die for His own sins, it is not only NOT deceptive but it is the unvarnished truth. ” Are you not trying to hide your belief from the individual to whom you are witnessing?” Not in any way brother. That is my belief: that Jesus died for other’s sins. ” If the “good news” is Jesus died for some people, would it not be better to simply that your belief? Instead you are leading the individual to believe Christ died for him, when… Read more »
Mike, It’s true Christ died for others sins. However, when you say “others” don’t you really mean “some others”? I know you believe in “limited atonement” since we’ve been down this road before. So when you say “others” it satisfies your beliefs on “LA” and yet at the same time it convey’s to the listener that you believe in an unlimited atonement. When the listener hears “others” they assume that it applies to them, since after all they are an “other.” Clever. With respect to 1 Cor. 15:3 you accuse me of eisegesis when I state Paul said he “declared,… Read more »
Get a Calvinist discussion(argument?) going and who shows up every time, although we don’t see him for any other discussion and he is not SBC? Good ole Don Johnson.
Don, You said: “It’s true Christ died for others sins. However, when you say “others” don’t you really mean “some others”? I know you believe in “limited atonement” since we’ve been down this road before. So when you say “others” it satisfies your beliefs on “LA” and yet at the same time it convey’s to the listener that you believe in an unlimited atonement. When the listener hears “others” they assume that it applies to them, since after all they are an “other.” Clever.” I said what I meant. Maybe you didn’t catch it. So I will repeat: Jesus died… Read more »
Mike, Maybe I do understand little of Calvinism as you say. But, since all 5 pointers believe Christ died for “some sinners” and not all sinners, why are Calvinists afraid to tell the unsaved Christ only died for some? Why must one get saved before they are told about “LA”? I think Calvinists are afraid to mention “LA” to a lost sinner because they themselves don’t really believe in “UE” and “IG”. Now of course they will say they believe them, but their speech betrayeth them. If I’m wrong please tell me why you think they’re afraid to mention “LA”… Read more »
Ken, Might I add… You said: “We preach to all men, personalizing it to them regardless of whether or not they are elect because we believe that it is within their power to believe if they want.” Taking your words as you said them, are you not saying the power to be saved is in each person? For without faith how can anyone be saved? And you say everyone has the power to believe. Now what does that actually mean? Are you saying that faith is generated by fallen man’s will? What then is the ground of that faith? The… Read more »
Mike,
There are so many things in your two comments here with which I object that it would take multiple pages to address (and no doubt, a protracted and lengthy debate). But is debating over doctrinal differences the point of this discussion? Isn’t the point, rather, to discuss whether these differences can or ought to be kept out of the gospel presentation? I’m not telling you how you ought to preach, so why are you seeming to insist that I preach according to your understanding?
Ken, You said: “Right here, then, is a significant difference in how the gospel is preached. We preach to all men, personalizing it to them regardless of whether or not they are elect because we believe that it is within their power to believe if they want. You don’t believe it’s within their power, so you have to couch your words in such a way that you do not personalize it too much—lest you imply that they do have the power. ” Please then tell me how you personalize it for all men? And how it is impersonally preached by… Read more »
Mike, I was not intending to criticize how Calvinists preach, but only to establish that there are inevitable differences in how the gospel is presented. I was arguing for a difference in Calvinist preaching. You’re arguing for a superiority in Calvinist preaching. I’m not currently interested in engaging in that argument with you. And after nearly two decades of intense, in-person debate between us, you already know that the difference between your view and mine comes down to basically two questions: (1) Does God love all men and not merely the elect?; and (2) Does the Holy Spirit bear a… Read more »
Ken,
Actually Ken, there is not usually inevitable differences when the Gospel is reached according to the Word.
Now if it is preached that Jesus died for all, well then yes there is those differences.
I’ll text you to set up some ‘coffee’ time. (-:
Mike—Wow! So there are no differences as long as all sides accept Calvinism’s view of things—right? You say, “…according to the Word,” but what that Word means on this matter is under dispute. Ever hear of “begging the question?”
Coffee’s on…
Ken. WOW? There is only ONE Gospel Ken. Are you disputing that Calvinists preach the ONE TRUE Gospel? Is that what you mean, dear brother? Is the idea that Jesus died for all part of the Gospel proclamation? If yes, then you must think that those who fail to include it in their proclamation and those who outright deny it as true, are preaching a false Gospel. On the other side from the above thought is the idea that different words are used to convey the One True Gospel. But that is true across every spectrum, for not every Calvinist… Read more »
David Brumbelow, Thank you brother for answering. Sorry my reply isnt timely. Lots of traffic on this. you: “Mike White, You asked me, “WHY did you believe? Why did you accept grace? Why cant God overcome the sinful rebellion in those who never believe?” God gave man a free will, and with that free will, through the conviction of the Holy Spirit, some choose to believe and some chose not to believe.” First, before a person hears the Gospel, they arealready an unbeliever. They don’t have to choose anything not to believe for they just dont. Second, man has free… Read more »