Alan Cross blogs at Downshore Drift.
I was warned about this. Calvinism has been causing problems in the SBC for the past decade or so and has become a flashpoint of division and controversy. Currently, Frank Page of the Executive Committee has convened a task force to try and find a way forward through the difficulty. Louisiana Baptists are attempting to purge themselves of Calvinists. Many say that Calvinist and Non-Calvinist Baptists cannot co-exist in the same church or even in the same Convention. I was told that a big blow up would eventually come. So, it kind of did for a minute – but not really. Really, we just had a good discussion.
I am not a Calvinist. I am upfront about that and have been since I first came to my church as Associate Pastor 13 years ago. When they asked me to become pastor 7 1/2 years ago, I reiterated that I was not a Calvinist. Our previous pastor that I worked under WAS a Calvinist and most of our elders are Calvinists. We have a lot of Calvinists in our church. I am not one, but they seem to be able to put up with me. We have a lot of Non-Calvinists, too. We have ex-Catholics and Methodists and Presbyterians and Charismatics, too. We have had Anglicans and Lutherans as well. We have some Muslims who come and they are hearing about Jesus. We have those who were formerly of no religion and those who rejected Christ. We even have some who grew up Baptist. We have people from the North and the South and from China, Korea, Brazil, Nigeria, Jamaica, and a few other countries. We have White, Black, Asian, and Hispanic. And, we have Calvinists and Non-Calvinists.
The “blow up” (but not really) happened last night when I was teaching on the Roman Centurion who stood before Jesus as he died on the Cross. Here is the story:
“When some of those standing near heard this, they said, ‘Listen, he’s calling Elijah.’
One man ran, filled a sponge with wine vinegar, put it on a stick, and offered it to Jesus to drink. ‘Now leave him alone. Let’s see if Elijah comes to take him down,’ he said. With a loud cry, Jesus breathed his last. The curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. And when the centurion, who stood there in front of Jesus, heard his cry and saw how he died, he said, “Surely this man was the Son of God!” (Mark 15:35-39)
We went through the Gospels and looked at the other times that people had declared Jesus to be the Christ and/or the Son of God. For many, it was after a great miracle or a manifestation of Jesus’ glory and power. But, this instance was different. This Roman Centurion, who had pledged and declared that Caesar was Lord and that the Son of God, now switched his allegiance by declaring that JESUS was the Son of God. This was no small thing.
NT Wright speaks of the cult of emperor worship when he says, “If Jesus was the true king, Caesar was not.”
In Paul’s day, the cult of Caesar was the fastest-growing religion in the Mediterranean world. In Rome itself the emperors did not claim full divine honors, but they did adopt the title “son of god”-the god in question being their recently deceased, and newly deified, predecessor. And in the provinces, from Greece and Turkey through the Middle East to Egypt, divinization was standard. The people had worshiped rulers before; why shouldn’t Augustus and his successors, with their extraordinary powers, receive the same divine honors? So the imperial cult grew. Its “good news” was that Caesar, the son of God, was now the lord of the whole world, claiming allegiance from everybody in return for bringing salvation and justice to the world. Resistance was met with crucifixion. The system was based on sheer power.
The Roman Centurion was an ambassador of the “sheer power” of Rome. Crucifixion was a way of demonstrating that power. Jesus, was under the boot of Rome as he was nailed to the Cross and died there and this Centurion was the man carrying out the sentence. Why would this Centurion, highly trained and totally devoted, switch allegiance and declare that THIS man who was hanging there bloody, naked, and dead, was the Son of God instead of Caesar, the Emperor to whom he had pledged allegiance? It could ONLY have been because God revealed it to him and changed his heart. In Jesus’ dying and weakness, before he had raised from the dead even, this Gentile’s heart was changed and he saw Jesus for who He really was. It is inexplicable. My point is that salvation is a miracle and unless God reveals Himself to us and calls us by His grace none of us can respond. Why this man and not others? He saw what Peter and James and Andrew, etc. could not see at the moment. Amazing.
At this point, someone asked that if salvation was all God and God was the one who called (which they believed) then, did God call people to NOT believe and to be damned? I explained that that would be “Double Predestination” and that God called people to be saved but He did not necessarily create people to be damned – that when people rejected God’s offer of grace, they received the punishment they deserved. The truth is that we are all sinners and God’s wrath remains on us when we reject Christ (John 3:35-36) but His saving grace is granted to those who believe in Jesus.
At this point, hands went up all over the sanctuary. Our Wednesday study is very lively with lots of interaction, but it was especially so last night. One after another began to share their perspective. Questions were asked, positions were shared, agreement and disagreement occurred. I tried to moderate and answer where I could, but I was also happy to see people answering one another. It went on for about 20 minutes and it was a spirited discussion. I then sent them to their small groups after the larger teaching to discuss and told them that their small group leaders would have ALL the answers. People laughed.
I made the point that the Bible speaks of both God’s Sovereignty and Man’s Responsibility in Salvation and that there seems to be an element of mystery in why some reject and some accept Christ. Faith comes from hearing the Word of Christ (Romans 10) and the gospel must be proclaimed. But, the Gospel is the message about who Christ is and what He has done – it is not just a set of propositions to be accepted or rejected. The gospel is a person, Jesus (1 Corinthians 15:1-8). After turning our focus to Christ, the need to preach the gospel, the mystery of who and how God saves that is held in the mind of God, God’s initiative and prerogative in grace, and man’s responsibility to believe and repent, we seemed to be at some form of consensus – at least that is the impression that I got. People maintained their positions but we all got along, prayed for each other, and I believe, realized that we had far more in common than not. And, that is pretty much how it goes at our church.
Our unity is in Christ and not in adherence to a particular doctrine or perspective according to Calvinism or non-Calvinism. I am not quite sure how it works, but it just does. We value loving one another sacrificially, sharing differing viewpoints, respecting one another, listening, and, in the end, centering our faith and hope on the person and work of Jesus as the center of our faith and fellowship. We have views – sometimes strong views – but they are not a hindrance to our unity in Christ or our fellowship or cooperation in God’s Mission. Now, there are lines that we would not cross – who Jesus is, what salvation is, the Bible being the Word of God, etc., but on this issue, we get along and work together.
At the same time, I recognize that Christian unity is created by Christ and maintained by the Spirit. The manifestation of it can be shattered in an instant if we become selfish or think that we must fight for one perspective in this debate over another. I was joking, really, when I said that the Calvinism controversy “blew up” at my church. We had a lively debate, I think, but in the end, we moved forward in Christ. I think that is how it is supposed to be and I am so thankful that I serve a church with people from various backgrounds of Christianity who find their unity in Christ instead of who they follow or what perspective they clothe themselves in. Maybe this could happen in the SBC as well? Maybe it already is happening in many places but there are loud voices who want something different? Perhaps the “Middle” where people really do get along is where cooperation already is happening and we can go on from that point. Perhaps.
Great post.
Dear Alan: You enjoy your opportunity to pastor a church in the SBC which was the outgrowth of efforts on the part of strict calvinists to allow for differences. In 1787 and over a period down to 1800, the Separates and Regulars worked out an agreement to promote a union, the problem being that there were a few in the Separate Baptists who believed that, Hebs.2:9, “Christ tasted death for every man/” Because some of that number had suffered with the majority in the great struggle to obtain religious liberty, and because they had been calling one another brother until… Read more »
Dr. Willingham: “Dear Alan: You enjoy your opportunity to pastor a church in the SBC which was the outgrowth of efforts on the part of strict calvinists to allow for differences. … This denomination was primarily created by Calvinists, and it was meant to allow for differences, and for people to have the opportunity to investigate and make up their minds, not manipulated for forced to change.”
Thank you Dr. Willingham for an exceptionally helpful comment.
Given that the SBC is primarily created by Calvinists, can it not also be understood that Calvinists are Traditionalists as well?
Dr. Willingham, You stopped too soon in your history lesson. I was saved and baptized in a church that was part of a loose association of churches in the Detroit area that was formed as a reaction to the rise of liberalism in the SBC in the 1940’s. The churches were SBC culturally since they were made up of folks in the auto industry from the south. However, they were not SBC in terms of financial support and cooperation. They were pretty insistent that in order to be “truly” independent, a church had to leave the SBC and “come out… Read more »
Dear Brother: I went through a period of being a Landmarker, but had to give it up due to evidence for a two fold doctrine of the church. Not only is it visible, local, etc.; it is also spiritual, invisible, taking in a larger than local group, e.g., I Cors.12:13;1:2 (baptized into one body, and the letter is addressed to Corinth, includes baptism of Paul, and all who call upon the name of Jesus in every place. Hence, one body, spiritual, etc.). Still the Bible tells us to strive for unity among the brethren.
I would like to point out that Jesus said straight is the gate and narrow is the way that leades unto life and few be that find it. Broad is the way and wide is the gate that leades to destruction and many go in there at. So we have few compared to many, and God knows who they are on both sides of the isle. God knew it from eternity past. God also knows who his Holy Spirit will speak to (call.) I don’t consider myself a Calvinist but I do believe in irresistible Grace with every fiber of… Read more »
It was my helplessness and His irresistible work that convinced me.
Very well said. It makes no sense to me to dwell on subtle doctrinal points that never resolved themselves throughout church history.
How refreshing to hear that basic Christian courtesy is not dead…
Like.
The controversy between Calvinist and non Calvinist is just the matter of who is the closest to the Faith. Many years ago CB Scott, Frank L, and myself went and applied for the one job opening at H&R Block. All three of us desperately needed the job. We had to solve one math problem. What is 22+3, I was in a hurry, and must looked at the problem wrong with my limited vision, but I wrote down 26. Three days later I received a phone call and was told I got the job. I asked the Manager, how did I… Read more »
That right there’s funny…
Randall,
CB Scott, is still mad at me because he didn’t get the job.
Jess Alford is a Five-Whiskered-Flathead-Cal-fish
cb scott,
One of my ewes had twins today, she rejected one of them, and I’m having to bottle feed it. You will be honored to know I named him CB. His next feeding is 10:00 pm. I’m not cut out to be a mother.
JESS,
that’s a lovely comment 🙂
Jess Alford,
A mother? No. However, I am beyond sure you are an exceptional father and an honorable shepherd. Therefore:
Feed the little lamb named cb,
And some day he shall be,
A hardheaded ram like me.
🙂
There is a great difference between people accepting those with whom they disagree as brothers in Christ and engaging in evangelistic efforts with people whose messages must be radically different because based on radically different doctrines. The first makes sense; the second makes no sense at all. The differences between Calvinistic doctrine and non-Calvinistic doctrine are not minor and insignificant. It is impossible to believe Arminian doctrine and preach and practice like a Calvinist and visa versa. We don’t have to spit on each other when we pass on the street, but our doctrines send us in radically different directions.… Read more »
Gracewriterrandy,
There are no Arminians in my church that I am aware of. If one is not a Calvinist it does not make him an Arminian.
But, with many Calvinists it is a zero sum game, isn’t it? For some, if you do not fully accept the entire system, then you are denying the gospel. I reject that approach.
gracewriterrandy,
Are you in any way part of the Southern Baptist Convention?
So, Randy, I take it that you follow a “zero tolerance policy” for anyone who doesn’t approach evangelism and missions from your particular theological model? Of course, evangelism and missions are part and parcel of our work, so I guess that pretty much leaves out working together in any way whatsoever. Guess I’d have to say that’s okay with me. You do your thing and I’ll do mine. Too bad you’ll have to spend eternity in heaven with me. I’m saved, but barely.
ZERO TOLERANCE (ZT) is an American made tactical knife of the folder verity. It is an extremely well made production knife with blades of S30V stainless steel, with G-10 handle scales. The ZT knife is an excellent addition to a man’s collection of fine cutlery for special purposes. On the other hand . . . Zero Tolerance Christians are rather brittle of heart with a contagious nature which causes fractures in the body and are of little to no value in the Kingdom’s collection for the special purpose of the fulfillment of the Great Commission. To quote the former president… Read more »
I really do need to get one of those knives for my collection…….
Well, consider Whitefield and Wesley, dear brother.
Packer’s Intro can be found at:
http://www.all-of-grace.org/pub/others/deathofdeath.html
Gracewriterrandy: That the two views remain incompatible does not preclude the possiblity of learning from each side. I’m in favor of a third paradigm: we need to recognize that both sides do shed some light on the major doctrines, though neither is adequate to entirely explain it all. Perhaps much of the problem existing is our failure to tolerate paradox. It may be that some scriptural truths do not admit for formulaic expression. I’m simply amazed at the level of subtlety much of this thinking leads to, and I can’t help but reason that it’s unwarranted, artificial, time-consuming, and contentious.… Read more »
Bravo to you and your church. No knives drawn, no punches thrown, no pastors fired. Unbelievable. The best part is that it sounds like at the end of the study, regardless of theological position, all eyes were affixed upon the son of God.
I’ve recently run across a new (to me ) G. K. quote:
Sounds like you’re blessed to have a church where you can have a discussion (and even debate) and not have it interrupted by an argument.
Great post indeed!
Randy, several here have asked if you are SBC. Would you kindly answer that question, since much of the discussion here is in that context?
Thanks.
Great article, just one point of disagreement “God calling people to NOT believe and to be damned” is not double predestination. I’m not sure what it is, but it’s not double predestination. 😉
Andrew,
What I awkwardly tried to say is that God does not actively cause people to sin by creating them for the purpose of rejecting Christ so that they will be damned.
My understanding of “Double Predestination” is that God created some to be saved and he created some to be damned. That is what I was trying to say and, from my understanding, classic Calvinists reject that, although critics try to pin that view on them because it seems to be the logical conclusion of Calvinist thought.
Alan,
Do you believe that God knows all things including future events?
If so, then did He not know when He created, who would be saved and who would be damned, and yet He created anyway?
Yes, God knows all things. But, I think that you are using human logic in attributing the creation of people to do evil and be damned to God. That is an argument from I inference and logical assumptions, not from explicit revelation. And, I think that Romans 9 is talking about how God can work how He chooses and is not locked in to saving the descendents of Abraham, but can save according to faith instead of works because He is God and we are not and He sets the rules. I understand your argument – I just think that… Read more »
And, ultimately, the point of this post is not to speak for or against Calvinism, but to point out that differing views are compatable among Christians because Christ Himself is the greater reality where we find our unity.
Alan,
I agree, we can differ on these points and worship together.
I have read many calvinistic writers, trying to get to those who go all out, full tilt at predestination to Hell….It is interesting to note that most will even admit that God decreed to permit sin, the permissio (sp. Help me out you Latin folks) decree, God allows sin as it serves His purpose, and yet there is no denying His purpose is involved…behold the Lord’s sufferings and the fact that His enemies (us and all others) gathered to do whatsoever His hand determined before to be done, and yet we did it freely. God is not evil, so there… Read more »
James,
Surely some truths are hard to fathom especially since we were raised in a world that looks to the world itself for meaning. By God’s grace you see what you see and can accept by faith that He has and will work all things together for your and our good.
William T,
I was born into a Southern Baptist home, converted in a Southern Baptist Church, educated by Southern Baptists, have pastored SB churches, but am currently retired. Would you like a blood test?
Your profile give your education, Westminster TS, and your current ministry in Costa Rica with H.I.M. What church are you a member of currently? Not an SBC church one presumes?
The reason this is relevant is the context of most of the Calvinist discussions here, their relation to SBC stuff.
…not sure why asking is a problem?
I didn’t say asking was a problem. Is it against the rules for a SB to attend a Presbyterian Seminary? When I attended Seminary, the SBC still hadn’t decided whether the Bible could be trusted or not. I preferred to get a sound education.
The closest SBC church to us is two hours away and it is so shallow I wouldn’t bother to drive to it. We attend an evangelical church where God’s truth is taught in some depth.
I assumed the issues being discussed here concerned the body of Christ.
Jon,
Perhaps you could share with me something Arminianism can contribute to our understanding that Calvinism is lacking. It is not a matter of paradox. Truth usually lies not in holding to one of two extreme and seemingly contradictory views, but in holding both views simultaneously. I believe consistent sovereign grace theology does just that.
Gracewriterrandy:
I like to apply common sense to matters. Let’s look at church history. Augustine hinted at some things Calvin said, but not all orthodox Christians have been Augustinian. Since Calvin, not all orthodox Christians have been Calvinist, and in fact many haven’t. Outside the Western churches the Calvinist/Arminian debate is mostly unknown. What am I to think as a result of all this? That this is probably a very marginal matter and definately not a central one.
Jon,
Do you not understand that all these doctrines radically affect the gospel we preach and, I think more importantly, the nourishment we give God’s people for their spiritual growth? How can it be marginal and not central?
Alan C.,
If one is not a Calvinist, what does that make him then? I agree the original Arminians were much closer to truth than are people in most modern churches. Perhaps you could enlighten me as to where on the theological spectrum you think they would fall. If people believe the precise opposite of what Calvinists believe, what are they theologically?
Randy, If I affirm Perseverance of the Saints, then I am not an Arminian. If I affirm Total Depravity, then I am not an Arminian. If I affirm Unconditional Election, then I am not an Arminian. But, if I reject Irresistable Grace or Limited Atonement, then I am not a Calvinist. So, what am I? I don’t know. I hope to be a Christ-follower who tries to take Scripture for what it says in its entirety instead of trying to force everything into a system. So, I am willing to engage on the Calvinist playing field because of history, but… Read more »
Actually, Arminians hold to Total Depravity. Many also hold to Perseverance of the Saints. The classic Arminians basically said the jury’s till out on perseverance and didn’t come to any definitive statement on apostasy. Many also accept the concept of the atonement as sufficient for all but only effective for those who believe. Some Evangelical churches allow for such beliefs in their faith statements even though they come from a more Arminian background. Pick up Roger Olson’s “Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities” for a better explanation. He is extremely articulate in his explanations of Arminianism. He’s one of the few… Read more »
It seems that Arminianism and Calvinism are brothers in the family of Augustine. The Traditionalist statement and further remarks by its writers seem to have a desire to not be found under Augustine’s umbrella.
Augustine’s arms must get really tired from having to hold up such a large umbrella.
It is true. Arminianism is a far cry from Palagianism, which was pretty humanistic.
You’ll should read John Wesley’s letter in his journal on the subject. he even admits some are chosen, and some reach a place in this life from which they shall never fall. Spurgeon said Wesley used words more forceful in the conversion process than he would. Some Arminian, Wesley was. 🙂
Your summary hits about where I land, too, Alan. We both don’t fit perfectly well in either box.
And I think that’s many of us in normal Baptist life.
Thankfully, normal Baptist life doesn’t require all of us to wear chef’s hats…….
🙂
Better a chef’s hat than a duck bill! 🙂
I wear that to church when I’m cooking Wednesday night meals for the week, sometimes. It lightens the stresses.
That, of course, depends on what you mean by “irresistible grace,” and “limited atonement.” If stated as I have heard some non-Calvinists define it, I would reject it too.
Dale P, “So, Randy, I take it that you follow a “zero tolerance policy” for anyone who doesn’t approach evangelism and missions from your particular theological model.” You are quite correct. I suspect if you were going to have surgery you would want the surgeon to have a “zero tolerance policy” as far as surgical error is concerned. Why is it we want precision in every area of life but theology? We want music to be precise, haircuts to be precise, doctors to be precise etc., but it isn’t really important if we are precise when it comes to teaching… Read more »
Thanks for the reply. I appreciate your candor, if not your position. I am a bi-vocational pastor. My “day job” is as a machinist. We work within tolerances given to us by engineers. We have a “zero tolerance policy” for defects, so I get your analogy. Of course, all analogies break down at some point, and yours breaks down in that surgeons, musicians, and barbers all make mistakes. Sometimes the errors are fatal. Sometimes the errors are fixable. Sometimes the error just doesn’t matter because nobody notices. However, perfection isn’t possible in the real world, and that appears to be… Read more »
Randy, how do you explain Whitefield and Wesley? Also how do you explain Edwards taking Whitefield to task for his strong condemnation of the unconverted ministry which had him in trouble with Harvard? And then there is Whitefield’s going out of his way to be reconciled with Wesley, and that letter of Wesley’s in Wesley’s journal. May be I ought to get it out, dusted it off, and write a blog, if such would be accepted. O yes, and there is the matter of the agreement between the Separates and the Regulars which produced the fussin’ SBC. They must have… Read more »
Dr. Willingham, The Wesley/ Whitefield thing is simple. Whitefield had a great deal more grace than Wesley and certainly more than I. I have read letters in Wesley’s journals that are absolutely blasphemous. Charles on the other hand, seemed to have a pretty good grasp on the gospel. The reality is, as some have observed here, the original Arminians were much closer to the truth than whatever they wish to call themselves in our day. I understand it takes time for people to change their positions. That doesn’t seem to be the issue. I know Baptists very well. I know… Read more »
Randy: I have preached the doctrines of grace ever since the second year of my first pastorate in 1963. My pastor in childhood preached sovereign grace in the church I attended in Arkansas. My ordaining pastor was a hyper calvinist and preached the doctrines of grace very much like C.H. Spurgeon did, except Dr. Campbell had seven years of training in the Greek with his Ph.D. He could preach some of the greatest evangelistic sermons I ever heard.
You and I have been preaching the Doc of Grace for about the same amount of time. You a little longer than I. Not sure I understand your comment about your pastor who was a hyper Calvinist preaching evangelistic messages. That sounds like a contradiction unless he was only evangelizing “awakened sinners.”
Well i want to be precise but i still dont presume to know everything about God. i know more than i did last year so i guess i am growing in knowledge. i see others who know more than i especially in areas i know i know little so i presume that there are those who know more than me in all areas. Certainly there are those who know differently than i but who do more. i seekbto do more with what i know and that seems more important than knowing more.
Now i do have a question that seems to cut across both sides. i question the idea that man has a responsibility to believe. they hear the gospel and disbelieve it. if they were more responsible they would believe it? they dont think it to be true so how can they responsibly believe what they think false?
Mike, I agree that none of knows everything about God or his truth. When we know all we will ever learn in this life, mysteries and legitimate questions will still remain. What I am contending for as an indepth study of Scripture on these issues. I find that many pastors and teachers are willing simply to ignore passages of Scripture that don’t agree with their preconceived ideas. I tell people never to hold any doctrine so tightly that it can’t be dislodged by clear verses of Scripture understood in their proper context. I began my religious life as a raging… Read more »
Mike, You wrote: “Now i do have a question that seems to cut across both sides. i question the idea that man has a responsibility to believe. they hear the gospel and disbelieve it. if they were more responsible they would believe it? they dont think it to be true so how can they responsibly believe what they think false?” Please correct me if I am misstating what you are saying, but it seems you are confusing ability with responsibility. There is no question sinners act irresponsibly in rejecting the gospel. The gospel is a command that comes to us… Read more »
Randy,
It is not revealed to every hearer. Some are blind and the gospel is vieled to them. (see 2nd Cor. 4:3-6; Matt 11:25-27; Matt 13:11-16 among others)
It is revealed in the gospel. It is not illuminated to every hearer. Sinners are responsible whether they can see or not.
If the gospel is law to be obeyed it is not grace that saves but obedience.
In that sense, faith is obedience to the command of the gospel. It isn’t faith that saves anyway. God saves through faith.
Randy,
I didnt say faith saved.
We obey because we believe.
Faith leads to obedience.
Faith isnt obedience. We have faith and still we sin.
So if God commands you to believe the gospel and you don’t believe, are you not disobedience to that command?
I agree that we cannot equate faith with obedience in the broader sense. Otherwise, would preach the doctrine of justification by obedience.
And I didn’t say the gospel is law. I said it is a command.
A command from the King and Lord is law.
I am thinking about verses like John 3: 36–Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.
Certainly our justification is not based on our obedience to the commands of Christ in the New Testament Scriptures. It seems to me, the text has to be talking about obedience to Christ’s gospel command,
It is grace that saves us in regard to our obedience to the gospel command in that God enables us to believe by giving us a heart of flesh in exchange for the stony heart we were born with.
If God enables one to believe then until they are so enabled they remain an unbeliever. So how then can they obey from the heart wjat they think is false?
A: they cannot.
Thus the gospel is not uniformly revealed as truth to all who hear it.
Thus it is not a responsibility to obey what one seed ad false.
Salvation is a gift given to law breakers not a reward to command keepers
I agree with your last statement. What I don’t agree with is the idea that responsibility is only coextensive with ability.
Obedience to the gospel happens after one has been given grace and faith. We obey by confessing Jesus as Lord, by mouth and when possible, in water baptism. And we continue to seek to ealk in obedience. Faith brings obedience.
If your logic were accurate at this point, we would do well never to proclaim the gospel to anyone since it is the gospel God illuminates. If they didn’t hear the gospel they could never be responsible.
Mike,
I saw a statement of yours with which I wholeheartedly agreed, not I can’t find it any longer.
Here it is:Obedience to the gospel happens after one has been given grace and faith. We obey by confessing Jesus as Lord, by mouth and when possible, in water baptism. And we continue to seek to ealk in obedience. Faith brings obedience.
Mike,
Enjoyed the discussion. I have to go for a while. Just didn’t want you to think I was ignoring you. Perhaps we can chat more later.
Randy,
He is the one acting and we are the object He is acting upon.
Responsibility is a function of law not of grace. The responsible thing to do is the right thing to do. The irresponsible thing to do isbthe wrong thing or SIN. Salvation is not of law so we arent doing the responsible or irresponsible but being saved by God. He is doing it. We are getting saved. God is saving us.
Randy, You said, “f your logic were accurate at this point, we would do well never to proclaim the gospel to anyone since it is the gospel God illuminates. If they didn’t hear the gospel they could never be responsible. – See more at: https://sbcvoices.com/calvinism-controversy-blew-up-at-my-church-last-night-by-alan-cross/#comment-162564” Nope. I am not saying that nor does my logic lead to that. Your thinking continues to conflate law [responsibility] with Gospel [grace]. Man is responsible to obey God’s law and is held accountable for his disobedience. Law can never save since all moral agents sin. No amount of obedience can overcome one sin. you… Read more »
Alan: Great post. That’s the way it works at our church, too. I believe I am correct in saying that in 20 years, I cannot remember our pastor preaching a sermon about Calvinism. He has certainly given his perspective on scriptural passages when those passages touch on matters related to Reformed theology, but we do not have forums or messages explaining the 5 points etc. Discussions in smaller groups like the one you described have occurred, and have all ended up in helpful, friendly discussions. The only place that I personally see the discussion of theology relating to various points… Read more »
“I’m willing to work with you or any other Calvinist for the advancement of the good news of Jesus Christ. But on your team you want only those who march in lock step with you.” That is a misrepresentation of what I am saying. I want people to march in lock step with the Word of God. I don’t pretend to have all the answers, but I do think I understand the questions. Much of what I have seen from the other team misses the point altogether. If you have legitimate biblical issues to discuss, I would be happy to… Read more »
I didn’t mean to misrepresent you. My apologies. Thanks for the clarification. I try not to engage in illegitimate biblical issues.
Good. Let’s talk about the legitimate issues then.
Louis, You are right in regard to Reformed theology. I suspect none of us Baptists would want to be labeled as little viper moisteners. It is only the soteriological aspects I am referring to and not even all of that since some of the Reformed seem to believe that baptism, so-called, has something to do with regeneration. I think even the labels Cal and Armin are unfortunate. Additionally, most of us don’t sit around discussing the five points. Most of us engage in the expository method of teaching. We deal with truth as it presents itself to us in the… Read more »
Dale,
I have a question. Since you know some of your work will be flawed, do you stop aiming at the standard of perfection?
I don’t believe any of us have perfect understanding. I have great patience with those who are on the road to truth. What I don’t have patience with is those who got studying behind them in seminary and don’t want to clutter up their minds with truth.
Randy,
And yet we are commanded to have patience. Truth walked in is better than truth stuck in ones head.
I agree with what you’re saying here, Randy. As a lifelong learner, I’m always open to the truth. I’m not open to someone shouting in my ear, though, no matter how truthful it may be. I have no patience for that. Do I stop aiming for perfection? I stopped aiming for that a long time ago. I seek to do my work well, conscientiously, and within the guidelines provided by my employer. I work at the good pleasure of the company that employs me. I work with others who are in the same boat with me. We all approach how… Read more »
Dale,
of course you wont be swayed by that.
and neither should you be.
It is not the way of the Spirit.
I have never hit perfection, but I don’t intend to stop aiming for it. One of the old writers quaintly remarked that he who aims at the moon, though he miss it, will come closer to it than he who aims at a bush. I am not asking you to agree with everything I say. People must be brought to their own conclusions through diligent study of the Scriptures. I understand that takes time. What does bother me are people who have formed their views based on what seems fair to them in defiance of clear verses of Scripture. That… Read more »
Certainly there is human responsibility in learning the Word of God. But there is also the idea that the Spirit leads us into truth. That is why we teach and admonish in humility and in great patience. Our job is to be a witness of the truth and then to let the Spirit move in the hearts and minds of men.
I have more patience than you can imagine with those who are seeking truth. I have no patience at all with people who have decided they don’t need to study or think any more.
Randy,
But the command is not to be picked over but obeyed wholly. For we read in 2nd Tim 4:
I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction…
And in context you see that it is dealing with church folk.
Great patience Randy, not no patience.
Parson,
If the gospel is of grace and not commandment, how can one disobey the gospel? 2 Thessalonians 1:8In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
I do have great patience with those who are under my care. It is the false shepherds who care more about statistics than truth for whom I have no patience.
I enjoyed the piece although, with a title like that, people most certainly jump to conclusions. I am a SBC Calvinist. I love the doctrines found in both. I realize both sides need to be more cordial and loving as we sharpen each other in the Word. If your title was “A Honest Look at the Calvinism/Arminian Discourse” it would be more honest and descriptive. As it stands it will cause some to be sinful by saying “See…them there Calvinists are at it agin’! Causin’ problems!”
Thanks for modelling theological dialogue, a healthy practice for any church.
Mark, not trying to be dishonest. I was pretty clear throughout my post what happened. Questions about Calvinism and its influence came up by non-Calvinists and Calvinists in the room presented their side. Hands were going up everywhere and for 20 minutes or so, it was very lively – but civilized. Yes, I framed it a certain way in the title because it reflected what I thought about it – but, also because I wanted people to come at it with the expectation of conflict and the discover that something else altogether happened – which is how you might have… Read more »
Both of us unintentionally used loaded words. I didn’t mean to imply you were lying….just sensationalizing, perhaps. Maybe the words “Full-disclosure” would be better? I am gleeful after reading your piece. I would love to see more loving discussions about this and other important topics. “Controversy Blew Up” brings images of ad hominems, overt sinning and other typical responses sometimes waged by both sides when discussing this topic.
Keep up the good work and keep feeding the sheep! 🙂
I think what most of us would like to see is honest discussion based on careful exegesis. From what I have seen, much of what people have rejected of the Calvinistic teaching is not what Calvinist believe at all. Such misunderstandings could be better cleared up in hand to hand combat.
Hand to hand combat? That implies an adversarial relationship. Perhaps a biblical thought like “reason(ing) together” is more appropriate. 🙂
Mark, I guess that I did sensationalize in using the “blew up” language, but since I was clear in the post about what actually happened, I didn’t see a problem with it. Like I said, it was very lively, and at times, people were visibly uncomfortable. It could have gone either way and as I was scanning the room I was not sure which was it was going to go for a while there. But, it ended up in a really good place. The issue did “erupt” but it ended up being positive. I see what you are saying though.… Read more »
All’s well. I have very think skin. I had a pastor call me and a friend lost for being a Calvinist. I can take a lot…
Benefit of the doubt given…any time. 🙂
Thanks. Meant to say that I showed my hand at the “end” of the first paragraph, not beginning.
And, I think that you meant to say that you had “thick” skin instead on “think” skin. At first I thought you meant, “thin” skin. Got it after a second. 🙂
Yup. Skin is thick like my mid-section. (You know…SBC=Potlucks=Food Fellowship)…
Mark,
I’m think about suing my church for clogging up my arteries. You know how it is, each member wants you to try their food and if you don’t you will hurt their feelings.
Thanks for sharing, Alan.
The command to believe the Gospel is, from my perspective, a therapeutic paradox that enables and empowers the one for whom it is designed, and it also serves to engage the responsibility of those who either refuse to believe with the belief required or who respond with a believing of their own. Paradoxes are strange therapies, and yet they work somehow.
Do you mean by that that the gospel call is only intended for the elect or that it enables and empowers everyone who hears it?
It enables and empowers the elect, of course, but it is to be preached to all. They who do not receive the Gospel will be judged for their sinful failure. In any case, simply the lifting up of Christ will draw all of those for whom He is intended and all who feel attracted to Him (one and the same). You do know don’t you, Randy, that the first convert of the modern missionary movement, Krishna Pal, was won to Christ by one whom some identified as a Hyper Calvinist in his day, Dr. John Thomas, and Thomas went insane… Read more »
I’m not sure about your definition of hyper-Calvinist. Hyper-Calvinist don’t believe in the free offer of the gospel.
Reply to Randy Re: Hyper Calvinist not believing in Free offer: Baloney? Doesn’t matter one way or the other. any one who studies the issue will find at its root the matter of offer or presentation (i.e., lifting up of Christ in proclamation of the Gospel). The only problem with offer is the tendency on the part of humans to want to win and thus to manipulate those whom they are addressing (this is a subconscious matter). Holding up the truth, exalting it, lifting up Christ, will draw souls to Him. Preaching His invitations will touch that soul which is… Read more »
“Faith is a gift of God.”
We don’t do anything to muster it up …and we don’t have to reach out and accept the gift to make it happen. When God gives the gift of faith, He gives it. And faith lives in the one to whom the gift was given.
Thanks.
I would be quite happy if the non-Calvinists or whatever they wish to call themselves agreed with the following statement of the Remonstrants” That man does not posses saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free will, inasmuch as in his state of apostasy and sin he can of and by himself neither think, will, nor do any thing that is truly good (such as saving Faith eminently is); but that it is necessary that he be born again of God in Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, inclination, and will, and all his… Read more »
Randy,
I think that you have missed the point of this post and completely hijacked the comment stream. The point of this post was not to continue arguing about Calvinism, but to show that people who are not Calvinists and those who are can live together in harmony, love each other, and serve together in the same local church.
Yes, Scott. You are right. That was the point of this post.
There isn’t a great deal that can be said about the post itself. It is nice that folks can get along though they don’t seem to have the kind of doctrinal unity we should all be aiming at. Ignorantly getting along isn’t unity.
But accepting those with varying views is unity.
The unity that we are aiming at is in Christ alone – not in doctrinal conformity on an aspect of the order of salvation. Christ secured our unity and He preserves it. It is in Him. Salvation comes from God. Your form of unity is unsustainable and is ultimately temporary and is thus, no form of unity at all. The “unity” that you promote can easily morph into schism when someone has a different opinion, which is a form of heresy as the Body of Christ is unnecessarily divided. Here is the deal: Either we declare that there is only… Read more »
I was addressing “gracewriterrandy” not parsonsmike there.
Biblical unity is not merely in Christ alone but also in whatever he has taught both personally and through his apostles. You can’t love Jesus and ignore what he has taught.
Alan, My wife has a friend who is LDS. She gave her a tract the other day that had about 12 points of LDS doctrine. There was almost nothing in it with which a non Calvinist SB would disagree. The talk about faith in Jesus Christ as much as you do. Can we be united around Christ with members of the LDS. We have a great deal in common with RCs in our Christology. Can we be united around Christ with them? There is no real unity in Christ apart from his revealed truth. He said, “If you continue in… Read more »
My wife has a friend who is LDS. She gave her a tract the other day that had about 12 points of LDS doctrine. There was almost nothing in it with which a non Calvinist SB would disagree
I have many friends that are not 5 pointers. Heck, most of the Christians in the SBC are not 5 ponters. They have NO theological similarities with a godless cult whatsoever.
Very good Joe.
I can be good when I try. It’s just very hard and gives me a headache. LOL
And Doc,
Of course I am aware of that.
You should read the tract Joe, there were even things in it that I agreed with. My point was that we can’t just agree to have “unity” with people based on a few [or even many] things with which we disagree. If that were true, we could have unity with LDS and RCs. We can’t! I agree with you that LDS is a cult. I also believe the RCC is a cult. Can you have unity with a person who confesses that he could never be right with God apart from Jesus’ crucifixion? If you could, you could have unity… Read more »
Randy, of course, the LDS “Jesus” is different from the Biblical Jesus altogether. But, don’t let that little fact stop you from making your point that you can only have unity with 5 Point Calvinists.
Look, your views are neither believed nor desired in the SBC. I know of no Calvinists, Traditionalists, or non-Calvinists who want every person who disagrees with them to leave the SBC. That is not who we are. Why do you persist in this line of argumentation? Literally everyone here is disagreeing with you.
Alan, Randy is not aware of the fact that it was the Strict five point Calvinists who started this allowing. In addition to what I have said elsewhere about the minority group suffering in the cause for liberty, too, there is the reality that the Calvinists believed then that the truth would prevail and persuade those who did not agree. And they were willing to wait on God to do His thing in the process until the cows came home which means, to say the least, that they opted for freedom and openness, something no one else had ever considered… Read more »
Alan,
Of course, you missed my point about LDS and others calling themselves Christian. Perhaps you were trying to miss it.
I also don’t think you have read anything from me that said non-Calvinist should leave the SBC. If you can find something, please point it out to me.
Thanks
Additionally Alan,
I don’t count points of Calvinism or Arminianism. I do look at how the doctrines represented by those points as found in an exegetical study of the biblical text, affect the practice of evangelism, shepherding, and nourishing the flock of God. The system means nothing to me; the truth means everything.
Alan,
“Look, your views are neither believed nor desired in the SBC.” Sounds as if you have become the official voice of the SBC. I guess I was unaware of your importance.
Alan,
I must be wrong since everyone is disagreeing with me. Hum? Interesting point of view. Nice to know that public opinion is your standard of right and wrong.
Alan, Why don’t we talk about all the verses of Scripture that teach us we can ignore all the passages we don’t like to thing about. Maybe you can also tell me how significant a person’s actions or beliefs have to be before they begin to affect the purity of the gospel. To some, it might have seemed insignificant that Peter stopped eating bacon when the members of the Jerusalem party came down to Antioch. I bet there were even some there who thought Paul was out of line for rebuking him. I mean, how important could bacon or not… Read more »
Gracewriter . . . the people of Westboro Baptist Church have doctrinal unity, but it is not ‘in Christ’, it’s in a form of malevolence so blatant that it cannot be mistaken for ‘truth in love’ “Christian unity is created by Christ and maintained by the Spirit” if ALAN has drawn his flock together around Our Lord in this way, then ALAN knows something important about unity that you may not fully understand yet in the same way that he sees it very clearly . . . the Body of Christ is taught as a doctrine in sacred Scripture, and… Read more »
Well, Randy, it was the strict calvinists who started the process in the period from 1787-1800.
Doc,
If they were alive today, I suspect they would regret their decision.
In any case, Randy, I think you said you had joined an evangelical outfit that satisfied your particular desires for consistency though you are Southern Baptist, Is that correct? The folks back in 1787-1800 or, at least some of them, I think did come to regret it. Ambrose Dudley, as I have indicated went off into Primitive Baptists. I have traced the history of Missionary and Primitive Baptists and found them coming up with essentially the same heresies about 150 or so years after their split (this was back in the 60s when I was more cognizant of the facts),… Read more »
when out is “win out”
Doc., You seem to think I am trying to curb someone’s liberty to believe what he thinks is right. That is not the case at all. Unlike the Reformers, I don’t share the mindset or the RC that faith or belief in certain doctrines can be constrained. Nor am I suggesting that everyone who isn’t a 5pt Cal. should leave the SBC. Please hear this well. All I am suggesting is that we must unify around the revealed Word of God, and not suppose we have unity because the one at the front can phrase things so nebulously that people… Read more »
I have now read through all of these comments. Alan, I again want to say great post about your SBC church being able to get along even though there are differences about some issues. I do not think it would be helpful at all for churches to spend a great deal of time on what was said at the Council of Dort or the Remonstrants. I also believe that Christians should be known as that – Christians, not Calvinists. We are followers of Christ, not Calvin. I do not agree people who disagree with any of the so-called 5 points… Read more »
Louis, “I also believe that Christians should be known as that – Christians, not Calvinists. We are followers of Christ, not Calvin.” You can’t be serious about that statement, can you? Of course, Christians are to be known as Christians. Are you a Coptic Christian, a Roman Catholic Christian, a LDS Christian? All these people want to be called “Christians.” Is there anything about your “Christianity” that is different from theirs? If heresies had not arisen in the course of Church history, theological labels would be unnecessary to distinguish what we believe from the beliefs of others. If we were… Read more »
“I do not believe, as has been stated above, that people on either side of some doctrines associated with Reformed theology cannot effectively minister and evangelize together. That is patentily ridiculous. That may be true if one’s evangelism starts with the so-called 5 points. But if one starts with what Christ and the Apostles proclaimed as is found in Scripture, people of different persuasions of Reformed theology points can proclaim that together without difficulty.” Your statement is based on your assumption that the so-called 5 points are not about truths taught in Scriptures. Notice the contrast you draw–“That may be… Read more »
BTW, Dr. Poythress was one of my professors. Interesting guy.
… write too fast can end up with orphaned thoughts!
Louis, And, this is why I am never intimidated by the strident Calvinists. Their argument of either totally accept all of the propositions of Calvinism or you are basically abandoning the gospel is rightly seen as patently false by almost everyone – including most Calvinists. All that they do is alienate themselves, which is unfortunate, but is there choice. Plus, at the end of the day, we can only work with those who will work with us and since I do not desire power for myself in the SBC, I am not fearful of every supposed conspiracy one way or… Read more »
Alan: I start from a different premise, namely, that the strict calvinists who were like Randy started this mess of allowing for differences and it grew out of the fact that some who varied on the doctrines were called brethren and had suffered in the struggle for religious liberty in Va. The fact that the fellows back then felt ashamed that they should speak and think so harshly of men whom they had previously called brethren in real endearment bespeaks a real sense of humility. Also Randy has forgotten that some folks can jot every i and cross every t… Read more »
Dr. With all due respect, you should know better. You have to know I am not talking about whether we can accept those who disagree with us true brethren. That is not the issue at all. The issue is whether those who take the lead can do so if we are teaching contradictory messages. I contend that ” if the trumpet gives an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself for battle?” You apparently understand the doctrines of sovereign grace. You, of all people, should understand we are proclaiming different messages. The Apostle Paul parted ways with Barnabas over an issue… Read more »
Well, Randy, why did the brethren do this back in 1787-1800, and the first named member of the committee was the strictest of calvinists, later a Primitive Baptist, Ambrose Dudley? I am arguing for the fact that there are many difficult things in scripture which are hard to be understood and allowances for time and consideration must be granted. Have your read much of J.P. Boyce? He had one who took him to task and simply insisted that he wanted the brother to believe as he did, and yet in his whole argument he was recognizing the right to differ,… Read more »
Your allowing of differences so long as those who take the lead are of the right stamp as you see it is not much different than mine, except I recognize that there ain’t no freedom if the fellow I think is wrong isn’t allowed to take his place in our counsels, especially if he is willing to suffer for the cause we all represent…which is what our ancestors evidently felt…and thought.
Dr. If I thought Pastors in the SBC who oppose the doctrines of sovereign grace were truly studying the issue, my view might be different. I have known hundreds of such pastors over the last 45 years whose attitudes have been that they studied these doctrines in seminary, made up their minds and don’t intend to study it any further. This is largely because they don’t think it will sell to the public in general and they have to keep up with the statistical average. Still, they are sure those wretched Calvinists are heretics. Many of them can read the… Read more »
Randy, if I had been of your persuasion, I would never have waited patiently for a friend of mine to make up his mind. He took about 40 years to do it, and his name was Spurgeon and he has some genealogical connection to C.H., though he did not know it when he started thinking about inability and irresistible grace. If I had come at him with such strictness, I think it would have very likely alientated him from the truth. Admittedly, it is not easy task, especially when you have those who are set on rooting out the Calvinists.… Read more »
Sounds like my church. Glad to see other churches are similarly unified.
Why does this debate remind me of the U.S. Congress? Nothing ever gets done.
Jess, an Episcopalian zeroed in on our ancestors and predecessors about their fussin’ over theology, same channel, same subjects, and Dr. Bill Leonard picked up on that issue. However, them Baptists then were uniting Separates and Regulars, enlisting General Baptists into the Strict Regular Camp and Missions and Evangelism, launching the Great Century of Missions, making the South a Baptist Kingdom, and not long thereafter enjoying the blessings and benefits of the Second Great Awakening. The fussin’ can mean your awake, alive, and free, whereas the lack of it in unity, unity, unity, can be indicative of deadness and enslavement… Read more »
I liked the original article, provocative title and all, and have had several such occasions in the last church I pastored. We in the SBC can live with those attitudes. What we cannot live with is the same, tired, cliche-ist, boilerplate pseudo-discussions that cover the same ground and accomplish nothing but to alienate one another. Hyperenthused Calvinists do not intimidate me…I love ’em all…but after the entertainment factor wears off (and it did for me some years ago), I’ll pass. I would say to Alan that I have never been in a church discussion where Calvinism was so incendiary that… Read more »
Mark,
Of course it is to be reasoning, but you know as well as I do what my meaning was. Your answer, in itself, was a bit adversarial, don’t you think?
Randy,
And yours was not?
No, mine was not. I was saying that lobbing mortars is the current M.O. What we need is hand to hand combat in the sense that we get up close and personal with the ones with whom we disagree. If we did that, we might find more agreement than we thought.
If you want to see adversarial, I can do that too.
Randy, how about being adversarial for unity between those who differ while maintaining our position? The up close and personal can be devestating. And look at the exception matters that I have mentioned and how they bear upon this very issue.
Read what I just wrote. I understand it takes time for people to come to truth. I haven’t met too many who are on the road yet. I don’t even think most even really understand the issues. You have to know, if you are a true believer in sovereign grace, that our messages and methods are different. I frankly don’t see the problem with acknowledging that, parting ways, and continuing to regard one another as true brothers who are traveling different roads theologically. Is the SB name that important? I have some wonderful friends whom I regard as Christian brothers… Read more »
When you have as big a mission effort as the SBC has, it is a rending apart that is going to be very expensive and extensive. Look at our recent battle with the Moderates. This one could be far more problematic for our institutions. All the little kings would rise up with sharp swords to get themselves a part of the spoils of war. Right now, we can ill-afford to do the splitsville routine. When I came to NC in ’72, one denomination was very small. Now it is number two, and has the most members on the US Supreme… Read more »
“When you have as big a mission effort as the SBC has, it is a rending apart that is going to be very expensive and extensive. Look at our recent battle with the Moderates. This one could be far more problematic for our institutions.” At last we come to the real issue. Nothing, not even truth, is as important as the institution. That has been a SB attitude for as long as I can remember. There was a SB named Dan McBride back in the late 60s, who did a spoof of various issues among SBs. He did one song… Read more »
It might be what you say, but I think there is more to it than you say. Like allowing for differences, and the fact is we are not quite about the differences. This blog is proof in point. What we are trying to do is to work through these differences to a point where the peace will be real and not simply enforced unity or splitsville due to some one not being big enough to handle differences that can be handled and knowing those differences that demand a real separation like in the scriptural issue with the Moderates. You should… Read more »
note: Line 2 quiet not quite.
Look, I am all in favor of Doctors studying medicine learning their theory, procedures, etc., I am willing to be patient and wait for them to learn what they need to know for the practice of medicine, but if I am having surgery, I want someone who knows what he is doing. I don’t think at that point I have the luxury of being patient while he comes around.
What we are discussing here is far more serious.
Well, shall we break up all of this great effort, especially when the truth seems to becoming back to the fore on its own without any coercion, just so we can get this desired for unity that will last for only a little while and then degenerate again into another mess?
Doc, You said something about being as “dark” as I. What is “dark” about suggesting that people who claim to love God’s truth diligently study it until we come to true unity. I fail to see a problem with that. I am not so naive as to believe we will, on this globe, ever come to absolute agreement on anything. Call me cynical, but I don’t believe people reject truth because they can’t justify it exegetically. In reality, most people believe error because they have a handful of proof-texts taken out of context they use to argue against the preponderant… Read more »
Jiminy, Randy, there don’t sound like much in your comment. Why so much grousing. We all want unity, and, it may be, we just want more urgently than others. Still, we have to recognize our history and the practice of allowing differences. True, there are always those who simply don’t like the doctrines of grace for various reasons. Still this was the way chosen to do business in Southern Baptists. If we follow too rigidly on the path you seem to be advocating, we will find ourselves being rent in twain, in a time when numbers are required even to… Read more »
Interesting you should say that last line. It was the sentiment Milton held out in a tract of his favoring religious liberty. Let the ideas flow freely in the market and the truth will be known. Guess that was believable in the sixteenth century. Not sure it’s true with today’s reporting.
Jon: Regardless of today’s reporting, liberty is still the way to go. It was even less true, when our Lord preached on earth. Think of what occurred anyway.
First Great Awakening was great. Second did huge damage. Let’s hope the third is better.
Nice chatting. Gotta go for a while.
As to the Second, the problem with it began after 1820. So I simply separate that part from the main event.
It is true that every awakening goes bad after a while since it is an awakening among sinners. It has been nearly 200 years since we had one. Would be good to live to see another.
Randy, do you pray for another awakening? Do you plead the nearly one hundred promises recorded in Edwards Humble Attempt for God to open the eyes of our brethren who cannot possible believe us until He does?
I am altogether in favor of and contend for unity. Unity is a wonderful thing, but unity is not maintained by ignoring theological differences. You know as well as I there are people whose minds are like concrete–all mixed up and permanently set. You can call it unity if you like, but unity is maintained in understanding truth. The statements of Scripture are clear and understandable. What I am contending for is coming to real unity based on God’s revealed truth.
Dr, I know Baptists have not been a confessional people. I personally believe that is a mistake. I think we are telling people the Bible is so hard to understand that we can’t put in writing what we think it means. I believe in liberty of conscience. We must not constrain [indeed could not if we wished] belief in certain doctrines. I will respect your right to believe as you wish and continue to regard you as a brother in Christ. What I will not do is invite you to preach a week of evangelistic sermons if you tell me… Read more »
Tell me, Randy, what about the conversion of C.H. Spurgeon? That Methodist lay exhorter (I suppose that is what he was) very like was Arminian to the core, but still he pointed one of our greatest ministers to Christ. Any one, even with a lot of theological error, can point to Christ and the cross and leave the results with God. These Arminian type folks, and please forgive me for using the term, can do as much as any Calvinist can, like the retarded fellow that Adrian Rogers told about in one of his sermons who put a cross in… Read more »
Come on now, we both know the gospel is far more intricate than pointing people to Christ. Spurgeon had been reading the Puritans for years before he heard that message. As you know, the verse the Primitive Methodist used that snowy morning said nothing of Christ at all. It said nothing about the God who was issuing the invitation and nothing about the salvation to which he was inviting people or the nature of those being invited. Had Spurgeon entered the building in a theological vacuum [such as exists in many of our churches today], he likely would have left… Read more »
While it may not be normative, at least He does it. Fortunately, He also uses non- Calvinist Baptists who, it would appear, are little better at it than a rooster or donkey. So those of us who have nothing to offer on our own thank Him for His word and the indwelling Holy Spirit to get the job done through us, though we must admit that we are feeble in our own attempts.
I pray that each of us who hold up His word before people tomorrow would do so humbly and with no little sense of trepidation.
I am with you my brother. We are all made of flower pot material and it is amazing that God uses any of us. As to you being a non-Calvinist, I am not so sure about that but you would know that better than I. C.H. Spurgeon remarked something to the effect that every believer is a Calvinist when he is on his knees praying. I hope you did not misunderstand my remarks about asses and cocks. I was not at all suggesting that non-Calvinists are either of these, but that simply because God uses unlikely means on occasion, does… Read more »
I understood fully, and agree that the church is better off not being served by barnyard animals.
“I understood fully, and agree that the church is better off not being served by barnyard animals.” . . . or narcissistic, self-important buffoons.
Don’t feel bad, CB. the idea of barnyard animals or even something a little better, reminds me that God uses a fool, even one such as me, for I was one who said there is no God with my mouth as well as my heart.
James,
Give me a hint as to what your reference is for your comment.
I was referring to comments 171 & 172, if I understood them right.
James,
Obviously you mistook the subject of my comment . . . by several galaxies.
Entirely possible as I am very tired these days and not very alert.
🙂
Randy: While it is true that Spurgeon did not enter into that Primitive Methodist church that snowy Sunday morning, that Exhorter said something about him being the most miserable young man he had seen and then exhorted to look to Jesus based upon the text of Isa.45:22. God can and does use any thing or any one He pleases, but it is also true that that Pharisees who believed in verbal inspiration, inerrancy, and infallibility and the resurrection joined right in quite readily with the Sadducees, who rejected practically all of the supernaturalism of the biblical revelation, in crucifiying Christ.… Read more »
Doc, Your point about Pharisees and Sadducees is an interesting one. Remember you are talking about two groups of lost people. The ungodly can always lay aside their differences in pursuit of an evil cause. Please remember, all I am contending for is a unity based on truth. So-called unity purchased at the expense of truth is a false unity. I don’t believe we have the right to relegate anything God has revealed to the realm of secondary importance. If the truth we are discussing was important enough for God to reveal, it is certainly important enough for us to… Read more »
We have views – sometimes strong views – but they are not a hindrance to our unity in Christ or our fellowship or cooperation in God’s Mission. Now, there are lines that we would not cross – who Jesus is, what salvation is, the Bible being the Word of God, etc., but on this issue, we get along and work together. Excellent point. The first-order issues are essential for unity in Christ. If we agree on those we can cooperate to proclaim the gospel to those who don’t yet believe them. The other issues are important but, as the saying… Read more »
Randy: I am serious. I am a Christian, not a Calvinist and I believe 4 of the so-called points of Calvinism. Also, I could easily evangelize with someone who preaches what you said about Christ saving the worst sinner who will believe. Lots of my friends in who are not Calvinists could evangelize with someone like that. The Gospel message is that Christ came to save sinners, that he did on the cross for our sins, and that God raised him from the dead, and that those who believe in him are forgiven of their sin and receive eternal life… Read more »
Louis, First of all, I don’t see a great deal of difference between 4 and 5 point Calvinists. I simply think 4 pt Calvinists miss the point [no pun intended]. We both believe in the universal sufficiency of Christ death. We both believe in the free and universal offer of Christ death to sinners as sinners. The only area in which we disagree concerns the design of the atonement. I believe it was designed to secure the salvation of the elect. You believe it was to render all people savable but that God limited and guaranteed its application to the… Read more »
Randy: Also, I noted that you acknowledge knowing the prof at Reformed who wrote the article I posted. You called him “interesting.” I assume since he is a professor at Reformed that he embodies and believes Reformed doctrine well. Do you disagree with that? If so, why? Also, have you done a study cantankerousness in the Reformed movement, as the professor has done? What do you think of his obsevations about Reformed people having a history of arguments about lots of issues, all of which, they often claim, are so serious because they relate to the Gospel and mandate a… Read more »
Louis, You ask a bunch of questions. I don’t know if you work with people or not, but I don’t think you have to be involved with the SBC to be frustrated. I have been frustrated with SBC pastors most of my life. I find most of the ones I have known have been spineless wonders who will only take a stand for issues that will get them more “baptisms?” I am assuming you wish me not to be, what was your word? “cagey?” I believe in telling the truth and letting the chips fall where they may. Please note… Read more »
Gracewriter… I get it. You demand a high degree of agreement on all points of doctrine in order to cooperate and even to worship with another Christian. Good luck with that. You may find yourself working alone quickly. I don’t suggest compromise on doctrine but don’t have a problem worshipping and cooperating with people whose doctrine does not match mine perfectly. I know that through the years my own doctrinal position has changed. I am less sure, not more sure. I trust more and more in my savior and less in the system that describes him. I would self describe… Read more »
I worship with people I radically disagree with every Sunday. I regard them as believers in Christ, but I am not going invite any of them to teach or preach.
Thanks for weighing in. I suspect my “cage”stage is farther behind than yours. It is so encouraging to hear that you don’t think doctrinal precision is important. How much truth do you think we can deny before we compromise? Somehow I had the impression that all God’s truth was important.
Randy,
You need an email link on your website! If you get a chance and an inkling, would you shoot me an email? chris@dailycross.net
Folks, Please pay attention. 1. I have not stated that anyone who is a non-Calvinist should leave the SBC. 2. I have not stated that anyone should separate over minor points of doctrine. There are some things we just can’t know. E.g., the identity of the Sons of God in Genesis 6. Some issues are not worth arguing over. I don’t think divisive issues of Eschatology that rise from speculation, not revelation are a ground of unity. 3. I have not stated that we should not be patient with people while they are diligently studying issues that might be divisive… Read more »
Alan, I am not trying to be hard to get along with but do you not understand that you made two contradictory statements? People probably are not unified. They are probaby confused as to where you really stand. You kept “unity” by throwing both sides a bone. First you said, “My point is that salvation is a miracle and unless God reveals Himself to us and calls us by His grace none of us can respond. Why this man and not others?” That statement is quite Calvinistic? You are clear that salvation is a result of God’s self-disclosure. It results… Read more »
Randy,
You can call it whatever you like. I affirm both God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility. To say that God does the saving and that it is a work of His grace alone does not eliminate man’s responsibilty to respond to God’s grace. I am not throwing anyone a bone or trying to placate anyone.
Looks like this thread was hi-jacked into being the exact opposite of its intent. What a pity.
gracewriterandy:
The first Great Awakening included Whitefield AND Wesley, remember?