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 world and proclaim it.
We also agree that God knows all thingsand has from before creation.
And because we know that and though we disagree on how to define who te elect are, we agree that God has always known who would be saved, and who would not be saved. And we agree that none of us have that information.
And because we do not know who will come to faith when the Gospel is proclaimed, we both seek to proclaim the Good News to all people everywhere. Maybe everyone unsaved in the room will bow the knee, maybe none ofthe unsaved inthe room will do so. But we agree that we are called to proclaim not knowing who will respond.
I am what people call a Calvinist.
And I have been speaking to non-Cals about these things for 35 years or so.
And I have been witnessing to the lost with nonCals as well.
ITS THE SAME GOSPEL ! ! !
If I have misrepresented the Traditional position in any way [by the above remarks], I apologize and ask for you to explain how I was wrong. Thanks
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 gospel unacceptable to Trads. 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 monumental difference and the bottom line is that the Trads’ belief and the Calvs’ belief about who will be saved and how they will be saved are as different as Heaven and Hell, day and night, black and white, left and right, right and wrong, male and female, etc.
I may have a wrong opinion about whether Calvs actually reveal to each person to whom they witness that they in fact may not be eligible for salvation since it is only available to “the elect.” I have concluded that they see no need to do so. Am I wrong?
That is exactly the point Ronnie Rogers constantly makes and I agree with him 100%. I have insisted during my nearly 68 years as a Christian that every person who has ever been born into this world and will ever be born into this world is free to exercise the God-given option to accept His offer of eternal life or reject it.
So, as you wrote, “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 world and proclaim it.”
So, while we can in fact agree on those matters, merely presenting those facts omits “the rest of the story,” which is: to whom is the invitation to make an eternal decision for salvation extended and how each person may go about reacting to it.
I repeat, Trads and Calvs will never agree that we share the same gospel when it comes to God’s Plan of Salvation.
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 choice”. Neither of us say those things because it isn’t the way the Bible presents the gospel.
Allow us to be faithful to what the Scriptures say and share the gospel the way the Bible does. I share the gospel this way (condensed a bit)
God created you. You are accountable to him. God requires that we have righteousness…to be 100% without sin.
We blow it. (take a 10 commandments test)
So what’d you get on your test score? What would Jesus have gotten on the test score?
Part of what Jesus did on the Cross is that He takes our ticket (unrighteousness) and gives to us His ticket (righteousness).
So how does Jesus’ ticket become yours? The Bible says if we repent and believe this good news that we will be saved.
I then explain a little about union with Jesus. At times I’ll go into a bit more depth and show WHY Jesus had to be the Savior (one who was both God and man). But at the end of the day when I get to the point of response I always say, “Repent and believe the gospel.”
There is not one single gospel presentation in the Bible where somebody is told to figure out whether or not they are elect. The Bible doesn’t speak this way and so I don’t either.
But whenever somebody does come to know Jesus, I’ll be happy to take them to the promises of the gospel and explain a little bit more about how God chose them before the foundation of the world. Because that’s what, I believe, the biblical authors did with things like election and predestination. It was a great comfort for BELIEVERS not something they shared in the presentation of the gospel. Don’t confuse the two. And don’t make someone who disagrees with you on Calvinism make that part of their gospel presentation when it doesn’t belong there.
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 deal: If I present to a person that and show scriptures that Jesus came and lived a sinless life and died and rose again for said persons sins and that all they have to do is repent and be baptized they will be saved (I’m using this as an example. I know that we are not saved by faith plus baptism), guess what? That person can be saved even though I would be speaking a messed up and incorrect version of the gospel message.
A person becoming a Christian is zero dependent on my accuracy in my presentation and zero dependent on the the beliefs I may or may not hold regarding who comprises the elect.
You really need to let this go brother.
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 so often used by Socialists and Communists.
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. That tells them that God loves them dearly, and assures them that they can be one of the “whosoever believes,” and explains to each and every one how he or she can unconditionally become a member of the army of God – specifically by confessing one’s sins and accepting Jesus Christ as Savior. It also makes them aware of the consequences of not doing so.
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 God’s “elect” He will not allow you to even confess Jesus as Savior.
If I am correct in my assumption, and I assume you will let me know if I am not, the only persons to whom you may witness who will be saved are “the elect.”
We who believe that salvation is never conditioned upon a Godly
pre-selection process would never give up on any person.
So, please be more specific as to what it is you would have me to “let go?”
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 God’s “elect” He will not allow you to even confess Jesus as Savior.”
“…unless you are one of God’s “elect” He will not allow you to even confess Jesus as Savior.”
No Ken. That is not the Reformed view. God will certainly allow it, but the non elect are enemies of God and want nothing to do with Jesus. The non elect especially abhor the idea of confessing Jesus as Savior. It is not that God won’t allow it. It is that the non elect are unwilling to confess Jesus as savior.
“If I am correct in my assumption, and I assume you will let me know if I am not, the only persons to whom you may witness who will be saved are “the elect.””
Incorrect. I witness to all manner of people. Elect and non elect I assume since I cannot tell the difference as I look at people and talk to people.
“We who believe that salvation is never conditioned upon a Godly
pre-selection process would never give up on any person.”
I never give up on a person. Most Reformed folks I know do not either. As long as a person has life and breath, we hold out hope that they will repent and believe and continue to witness to them and pray for their salvation.
“So, please be more specific as to what it is you would have me to “let go?””
What you need to let go of is this notion that when witnessing we must delve deep into soteriological matters that we believers often debate. As others have pointed out to you as well, no need to.
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 Love.
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. I can say that without any winks and grins.
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 God works. The message of Christ’s ministry, his death, resurrection and coming again, that Christ is the only way to salvation, how we sin and need a Redeemer is the message for unbelievers. All those without Christ.
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 only the elect should be there to begin with.
In the years since I have met some Calvinists who would completely disagree with this and some that would completely accept it.
My question is: Do you think this pastor’s letter accurately represents the beliefs of Calvinism?
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 don’t attribute those beliefs to most Calvinists.
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 is to the hope that such people are rightly marginalized in our Convention. I’m praying for you as you move forward in faithfulness to Christ!
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 some who become a little frightened when we see Calvinists continue to assume leadership positions within the SBC?
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 think he is a hyper Calvinist in any way. I get a little uneasy by the fact that so many SBC leaders were willing to anoint him as soon as his candidacy was announced, but I would feel that way regardless of his theological stance.
I know, because of my personal encounters, I am biased against Calvinists and I struggle to look past the label. I am trying, though…
Thank you for the dialogue.
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 you again.
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 in the sermon somewhere and people are told that salvation is only in Jesus and they are urged to examine if they have repented and believed in Him. We do not give what is commonly called and altar call to walk forward. People are routinely reminded that pastors and elders are available to talk more. To join our church, one normally goes through our membership class (we call it an Inquirers Class) and completes a paper application where they are asked the two EE diagnostic questions and must write their testimony and then meet with two elders for a face to face interview.
Other Calvinistic churches do it differently I’m sure.
Les
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 trust Him with the results.
David,
Hello. I usually don’t jump into too many of these conversations because, as someone else pointed out, they tend to generate more heat that light. But, I will give this one a shot.
Frankly sir, you are worried about the wrong thing in your quest to score points against the Calvinists. Your statements operate on the assumption that we humans can know who the elect are before they believe. Truth be told, we cannot, and it is not place to try to figure it out. That is one of the marks of hyper-Calvinism, that the gospel should only be presented to the elect. But it is not normative or mainstream Calvinism.
It is not our place to know who is elect. It is not our place to figure it out. Our job is to sow the gospel seed far and wide, or to cast a wide net if you will. If someone is saved, it is a work of God and not something we did. Even if a person hears the gospel and rejects it, does not mean they are not elect. The timing of a person’s salvation is in God’s hands too. If they don’t respond to the gospel today, they might respond tomorrow, or next week, or some other time. Death decides a person’s eternal fate. Those who die lost are lost. Those who are alive might still be sheep. It is not for us to determine, only to spread the gospel.
And while I am on my soapbox for a moment, let me point this out also. This is coming from a long time Calvinist. We are saved by Christ alone not by the precision of our theology. God moves in mysterious ways and so long as the sinner is clinging to Christ and nothing else, we will call that person brother or sister. Our message to the world is this, that Christ died for sinners. And every sinner who calls out to Christ for the forgiveness of sin, finds mercy. Every single one. Calvin was a brilliant theologian, as were many who followed after him. But our testimony is Christ, not Calvin.
I am sorry for rambling like that. I surprise myself. For those who take the time to read this, thank you.
John
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 Jesus is given to them.
You are right that I don’t believe that Jesus died in the same way for every person on earth. Or certainly that His benefits are not applied to everyone in the same way. And I don’t know that you’d believe that either.
So that’s why I can say without any winks or grins that Jesus died for the world…positionally…as the Savior of mankind. So that IF you turn to Jesus Christ you will be saved. That seems to me to be the way the Bible speaks.
Again we can talk about WHY someone turned to Christ and that’s where our differences likely lie. But we can say with all honesty that Jesus Christ is the Savior of humanity and that if you turn in repentance and faith you’ll be saved.
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 thats true whether you believe election is based on God’s choice or how He sees man choosing]
Therefore ONLY those God knows will be saved, will be saved. No one else. No one. No matter how much grace God gives, His knowledge is perfect and can not be wrong.
[2] Jesus suffered and died for REAL sins. ACTUAL sins. God poured out His wrath on Jesus for REAL ACTUAL sins. Thus Jesus died IN THE PLACE OF, as a substitution, for those sinners that committed those REAL ACTUAL sins.
[3] Many do not get saved. They will stand before God and be judged. They will be found condemned. Their sentence will be to go to the Lake of Fire to suffer under the wrath of God for their OWN real actual sins. But for the those Jesus died for, they will not stand before God condemned, nor can they be punished SINCE Jesus has already died IN THEIR PLACE for their real actual sins, and suffered the wrath of God due them at the cross of Calvary.
[4] No matter how you determine theologically who the elect are, those who believe in Jesus had their sins paid for by Jesus on the cross. He died in their place. He took the wrath of God due them.
[5] Therefore God had no reason to send Jesus to suffer for the sins of those who would never believe. God is not like you nor like me. He knows while we remain ignorant. The purpose of the cross was to provide a way for God to have a people unto Himself.
[6] We have a glimpse of God as we understand Justice and Mercy and Love. No one deserves mercy. No one deserves love. But we all deserve Justice. But mercy and love are things, they are graces, given out freely to the undeserving. We all have sinned and earned condemnation -thats justice. But God has mercy on some -those He loves, and rescues us from our deserved and earned destiny.
[7] Few answer simple questions, will you?
—-WHY did you believe?
—-Why did you accept grace?
—-Why cant God overcome the sinful rebellion in those who never believe?
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 people and paid for their sin, then their sins are atoned for and they will go to heaven, regardless of whether they believe. And if you respond “but they have to believe,” then the question comes: is unbelief a sin? Because if its not, why would you go to hell for it? And if it is, the Traditionalist just said Christ died for every sin.
The only possible purely logical conclusion is the heresy of Universalism.
Bottom line: We can either accuse each other of inconsistency at best or heresy at worst, or we could admit that both positions allow for a measure of mystery, and thus depend on the truth of Scripture as an authority source that is higher than our logic.
In short, we can either accuse each other, perpetually argue with each other, or we can preach the Gospel together and stop this foolish notion of seeing each other as the enemy. I choose the Gospel.
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 am surprised Baptists have stayed together as long as they have due to depth and width of the contrasts.
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 believe. Therefore according to logic AND to the Scriptures, faith precedes repentance [or any godly work of man]. And according to the Scriptures, believers [those with faith] are saved. Thus repentance follows faith, both at salvation and afterwards, since a Christian is a person of repentance.
Opportunity for salvation: I guess you believe everyone has it. But the Scriptures are plain, that salvation depends on hearing the Gospel. And millions die every year, not hearing it. And in the days before Christ, millions died not hearing any special salvific word from God. Reality brother, reality.
And since they do not hear, how do they escape Hell?
And did not God, before He created know all things, and knew that these millions upon millions would die never hearing the Good News, and went ahead and created any way? Thats the reality of life.
May our Lord keep you close.
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 He has chosen.” Theologically, Calvinists and non-Calvinists do differ about many aspects of salvation; however, it seems to me that biblically and practically both Calvinists and non-Calvinists are obliged to proclaim the good news of salvation to all.
That makes so much sense. I wish we could just leave it at that.
I know many won’t!
Mark,
A very good point. Charles Spurgeon came to the exact same conclusion. He once said, “If God would paint a white stripe down the backs of the elect he would walk about London lifting up men’s coattails. But since God has not chosen to do this, he must preach to every man and let choose His own people.”
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 of young people raised in Calvinist homes who though given the Gospel growing up were also raised deeply in reformed theology and they really think Calvinism is the gospel. And have rejected Christ believing such. This makes it very hard to reach them since the biblical gospel is reinterpreted automatically by them to mean Calvinism. They, unlike say the neighbor kids, never had an opportunity to hear of the biblical gospel without it being reinterpreted automatically in their minds for consistency the way Rogers describes. There are consequences to describing Calvinism, directly or indirectly, positively or negatively, with the gospel. Or to saturate children with Calvinism before they have a grounding in the Gospel. Or to make ones Calvinism so central to teaching and association that it sure looks like to children that Calvinism is the gospel in the eyes of their parents and teachers. Things that look like, or are, unsolvable contradictions are hard enough to handle on their own. Living one’s Calvinism this way, especially with children, is a way of flipping the sign.
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 died for some sinners, maybe you. All those who trust in Jesus (but you can’t choose to trust in Jesus unless you’re determined by God to believe in which case you must to believe) will be saved. Do you see the difference? The unbeliever reasonably gets a message that does not fit with the reformed theology.
Here would be part of a biblical gospel presentation. I have good news for you, Christ died for our sins fulfilling the prophecies and He rose again the third day and He was seen by many people (first Corinthian’s 15:1-7).[If I tell an unbeliever I have good news for them that Christ died for our sins I am necessarily implying that Christ died for them– That’s why it’s good news for them. This is unlimited atonement.] God sent Jesus to bless you in turning every one of you from your sins.(Acts 3:26) [if God sent Jesus to turn everyone listening from their sins that includes those who didn’t end up turning. This goes against unconditional election.] Here is what you must do to be saved believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved! (Acts 16:30–31) [There is something you can do to be saved, believe. We only tell people to do things they can’t do, assuming we are a good person, to point out they need to go somewhere else for help. But there’s nowhere else to go for help but in believing in the Gospel.] I’m telling you these things that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the son of God and believing have life in His name. (John 20:31) [Life follows faith, not before, regeneration – that is life – before faith.] I think anyone hearing the above gospel presentations without knowledge of any systematic theology would assume the interpretations I put in brackets. But these interpretations are in conflict with reformed theology. Note that all of the above versus our from post Pentecost clear apostolic presentations of the gospel or references to applications of the gospel.
Les, I’m only writing this for the purpose of a theological discussion. I’m not trying to discourage anyone from going out evangelizing or not presenting a biblical Gospel. As Spurgeon said, I’d rather be inconsistent with myself than with the Bible. Personally, I would rather someone think I totally misinterpreted the proper interpretation of the above passages than discourage them for doing evangelism. I know and I respect Calvinists who do evangelism. I have, and do, outreach with some. Of course, I think the best solution is to keep the Biblical gospel along with the theology that I think is Biblical!
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 dead and 4. all who trust in Christ will be saved.
I would then ask that person I was saying these truths with if he or she would be willing right now to repent of their sins and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. NOTE: In almost all cases where I am evangelizing there is more conversation than this. We are just talking the basics here.
I see nothing in this that is unbiblical or extra biblical or such. I’m open to correction though.
However, if non Calvinists think that we Calvinists MUST tell a complete systematic theology chapter on the mechanics on soteriology, well then I disagree. Who the jailer asked what he must do to be saves, what was he told? ” “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”
Yes, they “spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house.” But there is no indication he was taught the ins and outs of the order of salvation or a discussion of election and predestination ensued.
I just don’t see a problem here. We, Cal or non, tell people everywhere about the Savior of sinners. God takes it from there.
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 Faith and Message. But one militant group, the anti-Calvinists whose glee over Ken Hemphill’s candidacy is both undiluted and undisguised, are promoting a separate doctrinal statement, both supplemental to and elevated above the BFM. That doctrinal statement was drafted in private by mostly one person and has not been adopted by any group or level in Southern Baptist life. If the BFM is insufficient for our day, perhaps that can be addressed by the candidate.
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 to apply.
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, dangerous movement if you can define the other side in the harshest of lights
I believe that in the past Calvinists were guilty of this error. More recently, it has become the stock in trade of the more rabid anti-Calvinist fringe elements.
Both sides (and the MANY, perhaps MOST of us in the middle) believe that Jesus’ blood is the only hope of salvation.
Both sides (and the MANY, perhaps MOST of us in the middle) believe that only those who receive Christ (or repent and believe or come to Christ or…you choose your terminology) will experience the actual benefits of the Blood of Christ.
Both sides (and the MANY, perhaps MOST of us in the middle) believe that a genuine response of faith is required for salvation.
Both sides (and the MANY, perhaps MOST of us in the middle) believe that we should preach the gospel in every nation to every person.
Both sides (and the MANY, perhaps MOST of us in the middle) believe that the offer of the Gospel should be.made freely to every person.
Are there differences? Of course. They are undeniable. But they often play out more when we discuss our theology over lattes (no real man drinks lattes) than when we share Christ with a lost world.
Much of this is a false narrative.
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’ and the other the founder of the revered and oft-used ‘EE’ (Evangelism Explosion) method. Right- two ardent Calvinists: Spurgeon and D. James Kennedy. How do our free-grace brothers explain that?
As to the how this is reconciled, i strongly recommend our friends read JI Packer’s classic, ‘Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God.’
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 off to war (theologically speaking) and now that they had won were struggling to beat their swords into plowshares.
I wonder if some of this animosity (some, not all) is just the unwillingness to not fight over secondary issues because we have a generation of leadership who only know the battle. And they have trained a generation to look for the battle and always be diligent. That is good training, but I wonder if many in leadership now who are 2nd gen-post resurgence genuinely see this as THEIR stand for orthodoxy simply b/c they have to find one somewhere?
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, a whole network of culture warriors was developed from James Dobson’s Focus on the Family to Charles Colson’s radio broadcast called Break Point – these kept the rank and file listeners constantly aware of all of the ongoing legal battles over abortion, gay rights (remember all of the statewide laws that were passed defining marriage to only be between a man and a woman – even California passed this law) to the ability of Christian student groups to have after hours Bible studies in public schools.
I bring all of this up because there has been an almost 40 year culture war against theological and cultural liberalism, starting with the CR In the SBC in 1979 and continuing till now. Every week, listeners to Christian radio were made aware of the legal battles. Therefore, you can understand why many of those soldiers were a little taken aback when Russell Moore, who is identified with the reformed camp in the SBC, writes in a Washington Post op ed piece that the religious right is dead – their understandable response is
“Oh really, why is that after 40 years of battles?” Throughout this almost 40 year period, candidates for political office who were described as being “family friendly” were almost exclusively Republicans, too and now, the Republican candidate for President describes himself as pro-life whereas the Democratic candidate wants federal financing of abortions, yet Russell Moore is discouraging Evangelical Christians from voting for the Republican candidate.
A second major aspect of the CR was a belief that if theological liberalism in seminaries could be countered, a byproduct would be an increase in evangelism in churches and this would result in increasing numbers of baptisms. (This belief was based on a contrast to the steep decline in membership in liberal mainline denominations). To emphasize this, the pastors who ran for President of the SBC would emphasize the large number of baptisms their respective churches had. Yet, here we are in 2018 and the statistics which have been reported at the past two Annual Meetings show declining numbers of baptisms and church attendance. To add to that many SBC pastors who self identify with the Reformed movement are in theological communion with other pastors who believe in paedobaptism which has been in contrast to the historic SBC beliefs (I’m speaking of groups like The Gospel Coalition where Billy Graham’s grandson, Tuli Tuchlavian, is a PCA pastor).
Given this history, it is understandable that those in the “Traditionalist Camp” of the SBC are bewildered that in the 2016 election campaign, they were told that the “Religious right is dead” and that many in the present leadership of the SBC have a different theology than the “Soul winners” (and culture warriors) pastors like Charles Stanley and Jerry Falwell who were the initial soldiers in the CR.
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 in Jesus?
Of course it is.
But we do not merit salvation, we simply receive it.
I, however, have nothing in which to boast; for I believe anyone has the ability to trust Jesus as their Savior.
A couple of questions for you to consider:
Why did Adam choose to sin, since he did not have a sin nature?
If you believe God causes a man to believe, then should you not also believe God causes a man to not believe?
As to your question,
“Why cant God overcome the sinful rebellion in those who never believe?”
You are the one who framed the question that way, not I.
God can do anything, but He chooses to give man free will to accept or reject Him.
A very good article on the question of
“Why did you believe?”
is found here:
https://soteriology101.wordpress.com/2016/08/11/answering-calvinists-1-argument/
David R. Brumbelow
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 not even strictly theological. They are often debates over the way we respond sociologically to societal problems or issues. Those are tertiary matters that are far down the line from a strictly theological issue involving Calvinism.
But there will be people who will push both the issue of Calvinism and tertiary issues on a body that is made up of different opinions.
They will do so in the name of God, the true faith, “Defining Christianity” etc.
Southern Baptists will have to decide if we can live together. One thing that will help is not pushing divisive issues that are not clearly addressed and confirmed by the larger body in the BFM.
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 this differently. Like the Nike commercial says–“just do it.”
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 BF&M. I’m thinking here of things like altar calls, use of the sinner’s prayer, old-fashioned revivals, congregational government, emphasis on missions through CP percentage giving, cold-call evangelism, etc. If they believe these issues are important enough and that Hemphill will help restore the emphasis on these elements of traditional SBC life, are his supporters wrong to promote him as an alternative to Greear? We don’t have to agree with them, but why portray their motives as illegitimate somehow? If there’s something I’m missing, I’d be happy to be corrected.
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 can be saved and how they can be saved, but men and women are the final determiner of their individual eternal destinies.”
If I correctly understand, and it is possible I may not, the beliefs of some Calvinists, that even the elect are required to make a profession of faith in Jesus Christ in order to secure God’s “conditional election” decision. I also understand that other Calvinists believe that God’s initial “election” is final and absolute, so, that would fall in line with your understanding.
It seems to boil down to one’s belief about the difference between God’s foreknowledge and God’s fore-ordainment.
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 accurately called a Calvinist? Besides, doesn’t your group zealously object to anyone insisting, “I’m not an Arminian, and, therefore, I do think you do need to be an Arminian to have that [Libertarian]belief. (I noticed how quickly Arminians support your position)?” Most of us who are not Traditionalists have complied with the requested label, but not because we think it fits better. So if I insist that there is a vast middle view between Calvinism and Traditionalism, which is itself neither (although it overlaps both), then how could you object to that?
Consider this: it is not what Cal’s and Trad’s affirm, as much as it is what they deny, that defines them. Calvinists deny the full, free will of men (and the necessary correlate, the ability to believe); while Traditionalists deny that God ultimately determines the destiny of every man. Baptist Centrists deny neither of these—we affirm both because we find both affirmed in Scripture, and revelation trumps human reasoning and philosophy. Therefore, election is unconditional in eternity past, and salvation is conditioned on the free-will belief of men.
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.”
I confess to a certain level of frustration concerning the non-Calvinists posting here. From what I am reading from some people, they seem to think if a Calvinist is sharing the gospel with someone that they are supposed to tell them that “God has chosen an elect people and you may or may not be among them.” Or something like that. I wonder how hard it is to grasp that election is God’s concern and it is NOT a part of a gospel presentation. I have said elsewhere, it is not our concern who is and is not elect. That is God’s concern. We have been tasked with faithfully proclaiming the gospel message to everyone we can. The results are in God’s hands. The only way to know fir sure that someone is not elect is if they die lost. But as long as a person has life they may yet find out they are one of Christ’s sheep. Telling a person there are elect and non-elect people has no part in a gospel presentation. I can’t understand why this idea is difficult to grasp.
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.”
cb scott,
I don’t think anything I have stated is in any way outside the norms of Baptist theology. I was converted at a young age and I have always been told, in college, in numerous evangelism classes, that the moment of a person’s death deals their eternal fate. If you die lost the eternal lake of fire is next. If you die saved, you open your eyes to behold the face of God. I have never had anyone say anything to me to cause me to think this was anything except normative Baptist belief.
A few years age, I had the opportunity to share the gospel with a man on his death bed. Note: This is a true story. If ever there was a candidate for reprobation, this guy was it. He was a drug dealer, abusive spouse and parent, and list of other sins that would make a sailor blush. As he was dying I shared Christ’s sacrifice for sinners, even the worst of sinners. I told him Christ died and was judged as though he (Christ) were him, so that he could face God and be judged as though he was Christ. I asked, do you believe Christ died for you? He died in front of me less that a moment later, in front of me and his family, his last words on earth were “I confess Christ.” In my mind, a sheep.
On your third point, I quote Jonathan Edwards. “Let the new believer pass through the elementary school of repentance and faith before graduating to the university of election and predestination.” Election is not part of the gospel presentation. Anyone who tries to make it so is pining for a fight.
John
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: The only way you can know you are saved is if you repent and believe the gospel, otherwise you will die lost in your sins and spend eternity in hell.
Rarely will you ever hear a non-Calvinist say: “The only way to know fir sure that someone is not elect is if they die lost.” Most non-Calvinists do not speak of soteriology in that manner. Many Calvinists do.
I admit that you are not outside the parameters of Baptist theology in stating what you do. For there have always been Calvinists in the SBC.
However, the majority of Southern Baptists are not Calvinists. Therefore, your frustration would be with the majority of Southern Baptists. That is why I stated some non-Calvinists would have a “certain level of frustration” with what you are saying in your comment.
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 local PCA church and the Sunday School class lost half of its members because they kept trying to force everyone to believe in election – specifically that most are predestined to Hell. In my own experience attending one of the flagship founding churches of the PCA, the senior pastor said “Christians don’t have a choice when they sin. They sin because of spiritual Leukemia.” I agree that we all are born with a sin nature, but we choose to commit individual sins. If this is the case why bother to prosecute someone for a crime if it wasn’t their choice and they can blame it on “spiritual Leukemia”?
Overall, in the big picture, the flagship Reformed denomination in this country, the PCA, has less than 400,000 members according to Wikipedia. Why should the SBC believe that adopting the major tenants of their theology will lead to growth? I have almost come to the conclusion that many in the SBC are not as keen on growth as was seen in the 1950’s because there is a belief that the growth that occurred during that time period was a mile wide and an inch deep. Even Paige Patterson (definitely not a Calvinist) has said on YouTube video that the SBC could stand to loose about a million who he thinks are carnal – essentially a “leaner and meaner” argument.
If growth is the primary metric, then Unitarian theology is even better.
David,
I am glad you replied to me post. I have no doubt that people such as you described in your first paragraph exists. We have a phrase “cage-stage Calvinist.” I used to be one myself. During that stage, everything is Calvinism and everything you see or hear is judged against the rubric of Calvinism. If a person is fortunate, they grow up quickly. I, myself, have always taken the attitude that everyone I see is among the elect. I don’t skimp in sharing the gospel and when I share, I always expect to see a conversion. Even if a person rejects the gospel today, as I mentioned above, I think they could still be among the elect. So, I keep sharing with everyone God brings into my path, sometimes over and over. This is my practice. But, as your example points out, it is not everyone’s practice.
In your second paragraph, I certainly understand your concern. Let me give you an example in return. I own a few firearms (this should not denigrate into a gun debate). I go through the training. I practice as often as I can. I try to do everything right. Then I log into one of the news websites and I am left shaking my head in disgust as the stupid things I see people do with guns. I am rarely surprised that there are folks who think citizens should be unarmed. We gun owners certainly give them enough reason to think that.
In a like manner, I have been a Calvinist most of my adult life. I have been privileged to stand in the presence of some truly godly people. I have met people with whom I could never compete with intellectually. And yet, I see folks who abused the great doctrines we (reformed) believe. Even John Calvin called these high and holy doctrines and warned that they should be handled with the utmost care. Unfortunately, many do not.
To your last paragraph. there is a right and a wrong way to be reformed. You have pointed out a few examples of how to do it badly. I have always thought that Charles Spurgeon came the closest to doing “Baptist” right. He seemed to be that one guy that struck a right balance of almost everything he did. If the SBC could or would raise up men like Spurgeon, I think we would be ok.
Let me say sir, I appreciate the tone of your reply. You were kind to me, I hope you found my response to me in a like manner. Thanks again for replying to me.
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 elect.” The girl responded to that statement in tears.”
Shame on that person who said that. I don’t want that kind of thinking among the Reformed camp. And in 26 years, I have never heard any PCA guy say such a thing.
“A friend attended a local PCA church and the Sunday School class lost half of its members because they kept trying to force everyone to believe in election – specifically that most are predestined to Hell. In my own experience attending one of the flagship founding churches of the PCA, the senior pastor said “Christians don’t have a choice when they sin. They sin because of spiritual Leukemia.” I agree that we all are born with a sin nature, but we choose to commit individual sins. If this is the case why bother to prosecute someone for a crime if it wasn’t their choice and they can blame it on “spiritual Leukemia”?”
Also shameful. We have many members and regular attenders who do not embrace election. They are treated just like those who do and never pressured.
““Christians don’t have a choice when they sin. They sin because of spiritual Leukemia.”” I get what he is trying to say, but another misguided statement. It is true that until glory, we cannot NOT sin. so in that sense we don’t have a choice. We will sin. But the rest of the story is God transforming us in sanctification and we pray that we sin less and less as we mature. And in any one instance, we can, by God’s enabling, choose NOT to sin. I don’t think he stated it very well, or completely.
“Overall, in the big picture, the flagship Reformed denomination in this country, the PCA, has less than 400,000 members according to Wikipedia. Why should the SBC believe that adopting the major tenants of their theology will lead to growth?”
Yes, relatively small. But we were tiny when we pulled out of the liberal and awful PCUSA over doctrinal integrity. God has blessed us with steady growth from our small start. And we are still growing. But the SBC indeed need not adopt our major tenants to grow. With that I agree.
Thanks for your comments brother.
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 know that it is within their power, even if nonelect, to believe if they want.
The Calvinist only preaches to nonelect because he can’t know who they are; while Centrists and Traditionalists preach to the nonelect because there is a universal warrant to believe and be saved, and because even the nonelect could come if they wanted to. This enables the latter two to personalize the gospel in pointed ways that the former cannot do without inconsistency. Can the Calvinist tell a sinner, “Christ died to pay the penalty that you owed for your sin,” or, “The only thing standing in the way of your salvation is your own unwillingness to come. God stands ready to forgive you if you will believe in Christ, laying your sin and your life at the foot of His cross,” or, “You need not go to hell. Throw yourself on the mercy of His court by surrendering to Christ in faith, and the blood of the cross will wash away all your sins”?
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 works based on the assumption that “it is within their power, even if nonelect, to believe if they want.” Of course we Reformed would disagree that the non elect have such power. We believe that God must overpower the person’s rebellion and enslaved nature. Better to say, “Because these latter two THINK that would save them…”
2. “The Calvinist only preaches to nonelect because he can’t know who they are.”
I believe that would be accurate based on the illustration’s set up’ namely that the three can know who the non elect are. If we could know such a thing, we wouldn’t waste our time.
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 for all people of all time has not been paid. Only for the elect.
4. “The only thing standing in the way of your salvation is your own unwillingness to come. God stands ready to forgive you if you will believe in Christ, laying your sin and your life at the foot of His cross,” or, “You need not go to hell. Throw yourself on the mercy of His court by surrendering to Christ in faith, and the blood of the cross will wash away all your sins”?”
Yes, we all can say either of those statements.
Thanks for the illustration brother.
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 person x will repent and believe he/she can be saved…then whatever we hold in our heads and hearts about God’s election or non election makes no difference.
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:
But you have also said,
So then, because it is inconsistent with Reformed theology (which believes that Christ paid the penalty “only for the elect,” then Centrists and Trad’s “should not” tell a sinner, “Christ died to pay the penalty that you owed for your sin?”
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 if not all non Cals that do and that’s ok. I would evangelize along side any of my many non Cal friends and assist them even as they said to someone, “Jesus died for YOUR sins Joe…” God uses all of us. I have bungled my words and added to and left out things in many witnessing instances. I cannot thwart God’s working. God has used many, many non Cals (think Billy Graham) to bring untold numbers into the kingdom.
The burr under my saddle is the non Cal telling me that 1. I must tell each person Jesus paid for YOUR sins and 2. I must tell them they might not be elect. That burr is troublesome to me. 🙂
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:
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. 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. I had said: “…the Centrist and Traditionalist preach the gospel anyway, imploring the men to believe and be saved. Why? Because these latter two know that [God] 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.” To which you replied:
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 theology is correct on the matter.
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 ESSENTIALS?
“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.”
Of course you BELIEVE that but that is not certain. That is disputed.
“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.”
Correction. We don’t KNOW with any particular person if it is within their power to believe since we don’t know if they are elect or not. We are not “couching” our words. We are simply attempting to be true to scripture which nowhere that I know of says, “Jesus died for YOU” in evangelistic encounters.
So tell me this. If I actually completely quote scripture in a gospel encounter is that not enough?
“for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,”
“The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost.”
“The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent,”
“if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.”
Now of course I have distilled it to two verses but actually would use a few more, but you get the idea. So would I be “couching” my words to avoid what I believe about election?
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, I am sure I could sit beside him, but not football.
🙂
“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 polo, I am sure I could sit beside him, but not football.”
Well on this we agree. But I did wear that Bama hat you sent me. In Haiti. War Eagle and Roll Tide and Go Philly Eagles!
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.”
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 theology is correct on the matter.”
Some people [like me] believe in the viacarious atoning work of Christ, in that Jesus died for actual sins committed by actual people, and suffered the wrath of God for those sins in the place of those people. I gather you don’t beleive this?
And for whose sins did Jesus suffer and die for?
Leaving the question of how to define election aside, and given how I believe , Jesus suffered and died for real sins, then Jesus suffered and died for the sins of all who had and do and will believe.
And then what is the Gospel proclamation?
That Jesus, the Son of God, came and lived a perfect sinless life, and suffered and died for other’s sins, enduring the wrath of God for those sins, and rose again from the dead and now reigns forever; and that by trusting in Jesus as Lord, your sins will be forgiven and you will become a member of the family of God. Or one gets saved by believing in Jesus as the crucified risen Lord of all.
If one doesn’t believe in the vicarious atoning death of Christ, but rather that He died for the idea of sin, or the concept of sin, or whatever the doctrine is that replaces the vicarious death, then how is it personal, JUST because you say it is personal? Are you saying to them, Jesus died for your sins whether you trust Him or not? I hope not, because if you believe that Jesus died only for the concept of sin, or the idea of sin or whatever, then it wasnt their sins He died for at all.
Also, since God knows all things, he must certainly know who will believe and who will not. How is he personally dying for those who perish in their sins? And for what purpose? What is His intentions? He already knew they would never be saved! Thus His dying for them is not to save them from their sins.
But if you tell them that if they trust Jesus that He died for their sins, surely, it is true since He died for the sins of everyone who trusts Hims. Note the word, “if”. You might ask, what warrant do they have to trust in Jesus as Lord? First, everyone has that warrant since Jesus is the Lord of everyone, even of those that reject Him: He is Lord of all! Second, His promises are true, that to all who trust in Him, they recieve the forgiveness of their sins and eternal life.
But to tell them that Jesus died for them personally is to guess. For again, why would he die for those He knows will not be saved? Again -for what purpose is He dying for them? His infallible foreknowledge knows theywill not be saved. And His death does not have to be personal [in this scenario] for them to have warrant to trust Him as Lord.
Rather, consider the vicarious atoning death of Christ. There jesus died for His people, whom the Father has given Him, and when the crucified risen Lord is revealed to to the eyes of their heart, they see the glory of God in the face of Jesus, their blind eyes are opened, His love softens their cold stony hearts, and because God has pointedly made the cross personal to them, they love Him in return. Romans 5:6-8, 2nd Cor. 4:3-6 among others.
To those God is not revealing His Son as the crucified [for them] risen Lord to the eyes of their heart, those that hear the Gospel message think if foolishness. They remain unbelievers. They remain unswayed by the Word we proclaim to them. Their spiritual eyes are blind to its truth, and their hearts hard and stony. You telling them that Jesus, the Son of God, peronally died for them fazes them not, sincethey think it is a faity tale.
Did Jesus die for reals sins or not?
Did He die in the place of certain people or not?
Did He take the wrath of God upon Himself so they wouldnt have to or not?
Love you brother
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 unbelievers in Corinth and then reminded them of the same when he wrote to the church at Corinth.
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 in fact you don’t really know if He did.”
The good news is that because Jesus died and rose again, and is Lord of all, that one can be right with God through faith and trust in Him, including the forgiveness of sins and everlasting life.
That you think my words will be interpretted wrong doesn’t mean that they will be OR that imply that I know Jesus died for the person.
“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 unbelievers in Corinth and then reminded them of the same when he wrote to the church at Corinth.”
Unfortunately you made a leap of eisgesis. Paul wasn’t quoting himself. He could have orginally preached that all that put their trust in Jesus are covered by His blood and recieve forgiveness of sins and eternal life. In other words your conclusion is driven by your doctrine, not by strict exigesis.
many make the same mistake when reading from Romans 5 where it says:
6 For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. 7 For one will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die. 8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
They wrongly assume that this excerpt is speaking universally, when it is not.
Again in Isaiah 53:
Surely our griefs He Himself bore,
And our sorrows He carried;
Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken,
Smitten of God, and afflicted.
5 But He was pierced through for our transgressions,
He was crushed for our iniquities;
The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him,
And by His scourging we are healed.
6 All of us like sheep have gone astray,
Each of us has turned to his own way;
But the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all
To fall on Him.
But again, a careful reading and reading in context proves that is not referingto everyone who ever lived.
Don, may His face ever look upon you and that you will be found in His favor forever.
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, preached and delivered” unto them the Gospel. Paul is literally repeating what he first preached. If he isn’t then he is lying, because that is what he said he was doing. The very first part of the Gospel is the fact that Christ died for our sins (vs. 3). Those are Paul’s words not mine. That is why the Gospel “good news” is to be preached to every creature Mk 16:15. Because Christ dd in fact die for everyone Heb. 2:9. If he didn’t die for everyone then it’s impossible to preach good news to every creature because it would not be good news for most people.
If “LA” is correct what is the “good news” everyone is supposed to hear, since it was not intended for the majority of them?
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 for sins that were not his own. Or He died for other’s sins.
It is obvious that you do not understand Calvinism or you wouldn’t say this: “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”.
A consistent Calvinist does not feel the need to make the unsaved hearer[s] of the Gospel proclamation think that Jesus died for them in order to proclaim the Gospel truth. Thus I have no need to be “clever”.
For the truth is, it is the Holy Spirit Himself who witnesses to the heart of the one being saved, that Jesus did indeed die for that person personally. We read from the Word of God:
“For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.”
Now again, I have concluded you understand litlle of Calvinism since you think Cals have a need to make the hearer[s] of the Gospel think Jesus died for them. That is because you think faith comes by the will of man. But Cals think that faith comes to man by the will of God. So when we present the Gospel to them, if God is saving the person, God Himself will confirm the truth of the Gospel to their heart.
And if God is not saving them, the Gospel will be foolishness to the hearer[s]. We see those truths in Scripture as well:
“For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.”
Forthe unsaved man operates in his own wisdom and understanding unless God intervenes in their life, even as we read in another place:
“And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. For we do not preach ourselves but Christ Jesus as Lord, and ourselves as your bond-servants for Jesus’ sake. For God, who said, “Light shall shine out of darkness,” is the One who has shone in our hearts to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.”
But that unsaved perishing man who is blinded to the light [truth]of the Gospel, and operates in his own fallen wisdom and understanding has this said about him:
“For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written,
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
And the cleverness of the clever I will set aside.”
Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.”
According to the Scriptures, those saved are those called. For some have only their own wisdom which is the wisdom of the world and reject the Gospel message, being blind to its truth, and hence think it foolishness. But to those called, they see the Gospel message as the power of God, for they see the light of the glory of God shining in the face of the Lord Jesus.
The cleverness of it all is on the Author of it all.
May your boast always be in Jesus and in Jesus alone.
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” to a lost individual.
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 foundation of that faith? Wouldn’t it have to be the fallen persons skewered understanding of truth and of God and the world? Wouldn’t it have to be based on how the person thinks? Its not like choosing white socks over black socks, or a blue dress instead of a green one.
In other words, important choices are made through understanding and knowledge. And to trust Jesus with your life is the most impoe=rtant choice one can make, dont you think. But the unsaved person hears the Gospel, and the whole world and the system of the world, and every other religious system [formal or informal] all stand against the truth of the Gospel.
How do they know its true?
Do they first have to trust the preacher? [maybe he is in it for the money! or maybe he isjsut dumb about the way of the world].
What dothe Scriptures say?
18 For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. [1 Cor. 1]
To those who are perishing -to those not getting saved- the Gospel is foolishness. But what do you say: you say they have the power to believe it. Saving faith must be from the heart, from the depth of ones being, and if you think the Gospel is foolishness, you certainly dont have the power to believe it.
But notice the contrast! To those being saved the Gospel is the power of God.
What causes that difference?
What does the Scriptures say?
3 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, 4 in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. 5 For we do not preach ourselves but Christ Jesus as Lord, and ourselves as your bond-servants for Jesus’ sake. 6 For God, who said, “Light shall shine out of darkness,” is the One who has shone in our hearts to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ. 2nd Cor. 4
Those blind to its truth think the Gospel is foolishness. They cant from the heart embrace itas true. They dont see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ. But those who see the Gospel as the power of God are those to whom God has spoken to the heart, and to those God shines His light into the heart of, that they might see and believe. And what do theysee and believe: they see the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of the crucified and risen Lord of all.
or simply,
God has made the cross personal to them. And He saves them by the blood of Jesus.
To those who remain perishing, God has left them in their blindness, and they continue to think the Gospel foolishness.
It is God who makes the cross personal, not me, and not you. Our job is to proclaim Jesus as the crucified risen Lord. The power is all of God and not a single iota of me or of you.
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 Calvinists?
What they Scriptures do say is that while we were helpless…
For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. 7 For one will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die. 8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Romans 5
A person with power is not one that is helpless. A person with ability is not one who is helpless. And a person who exercises his power and uses his ability to achieve his desire is either acting in faith or not in faith. But if he is an unbeliever, he can’t be acting in faith since he doesn’t have it yet.
Neither can a person without faith exercise power and use his ability in a godly way that pleases God, for without faith it is impossible to please God [Hebrews 11] and anything thing done without faith is sin. [Romans 14]
And yet you think I am telling you how to preach? Rather I was speaking to the theology you put forth in your post. Since you brought up what seemed to be a criticism of others preaching, it seems a tad off for you not to also accept some criticism as well.
God uses the imperfect ways and words of Cals and Trads and others to save His people from their sins. That is because the power to save a helpless God-hating enemy lies solely in Himself and not within the rebel sinner.
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 convicting witness of the truth whenever the gospel is preached?
I affirm and you deny (if memory serves me), but neither can prove it to the other’s satisfaction. And how many times have you and I spent hours with a Bible, a computer and numerous theology books, substantively engaging each other until we (well, at least I) grew tired of continuing? I’ll admit that I’ve learned much from our debates because they forced me to think things through and study them out. But we’re at the point where we know each other’s views, and any new debate is simply a re-run. I do still enjoy discussing these things over coffee—you know where I live so come any time. But I’m not up for a written debate with you these days.
Be blessed!
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 proclaims it like every other Calvinist, nor a Traditionalist or a Centrist exactly like other Centrists or Traditionalists. But I discounted that idea since to point out a lack of conformity in that area is also quite divisive.
The Gospel preached is not the scope of the atonement preached. Maybe you are confusing the two. There is only one Gospel. It doesn’t include the atonement scope of how many or all but it is the good news that if one will put their faithand trust in Jesus Christ they will escape the destiny of eternal death and find peace with God. Neither election specifics nor the extent of the atonement are the Gospel.
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 will, but faith is more than just a choice that one can make with their will. It must be from the heart to be saving. Thus it must be from their understanding and thus from their wisdom. Its not like going into theelection booth and choosing A or B by flipping a switch. In order to put their trust in Jesus, they first have to have a vald understanding of the truth of the Gospel. A valid understanding of the Gospel truth is MORE than just understanding what the words are saying. How do they acquire that understanding of truth? You could say by the conviction of the Holy Spirit.
But if so then in your understanding of how a person comes to the point of making a choice, there is that flaw: that the they acquire understanding by the conviction of the Holy Spirit because when a erson acquires such an understanding there is a word for that: faith. The Bible is clear in that those perishing are without understanding. And that those perishing are blind to the truth of the Gospel. And the Bible is clear that God saves by opening up the blind eyes of the heart. And the Bible says the the perishing think the Gospel foolishness. Therefore how do you expect them to embrace the Gospel from the heart?
Those that do embrace the Gospel are those that God has opened up the blind eyes, and given understanding to.
You:
“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”
Two things here brother. First, I dont think any blood bought born again lover of Jesus thinks they are or even desires to boast on anything or anyone much less themselves except our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. And that includes you, and any Traditionalist brother of ours.
The second thing is in how we define faith. Belief or faith is not a good work. But it is not something you do [so how could it be a work?]. Faith is something you have. But we are not actually talking about faith but an act: the choosing of it, which you do believe happens. Faith is not a work at all, but choosing anything is. And if [and since] you believe that an unbeliever must choose faith BEFORE he has it, you believe that he must do a good work to get faith to get saved.
Now from my POV the argument is only theoretical since a person can’t choose to have faith but only to exercise it: to believe. Webelieve because we have faith. And in believing we confess Jesus is Lord and are saved. Romans 10:9-10
you: “Is it better to believe than not believe in Jesus?
Of course it is.
But we do not merit salvation, we simply receive it.
I, however, have nothing in which to boast; for I believe anyone has the ability to trust Jesus as their Savior.”
There you stumble. You exercise your ability and get eternal life.
But others do not exercise their ability and stay condemned.
The difference: you chose to exercise your ability and they did not.
That brother, despite your intention and desire to never boast on yourself, which I do believe you have such intention and desire, is a boast on yourself and against those that hear and perish.
What then is the truth of the matter?
You have no boast over anyone because anyone to whom God opens their eyes like He did yours would freely desire Him and surrender to Him,just as you did and are still doing.
You: “A couple of questions for you to consider:
Why did Adam choose to sin, since he did not have a sin nature?
If you believe God causes a man to believe, then should you not also believe God causes a man to not believe?”
Adam wasnt perfect, only God is. Thus imperfect beings do not act perfectly. They do not think perfectly. They are not perfectly moral. They are not perfectly obedient. And given the choice tthey will not respond perfectly.
Unbelief is the lack while belief has substance. A jar is empty until you put something into it. You dont cause it to be empty unless you empty it yourself. God did not cause any person to not believe. BUt where we lack, and by His will and choice, He does bring i=us to faith so that we can trust in Him and be saved.
You:
“As to your question,
“Why cant God overcome the sinful rebellion in those who never believe?”
You are the one who framed the question that way, not I.
God can do anything, but He chooses to give man free will to accept or reject Him.”
Think David before you answer, for a second.
Did God overcome your sinful rebellion?
Yes? Then why can’t He overcome everyone’s?
No? Then you did more than just accept Him, you overcame your own sinful rebellion. Which is what- a boast!
Thank you brother for your interaction, may all the blessings of our Father be yours.