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 the controversy blew up, the decision was made that, due to the statement in Hebs.2:9, though understood differently by the strict calvinists, the preaching that Christ tasted death for every man would be no bar to communion. The majority viewpoint, and we mean like 95-5 or 90-10, being that Christ died for the elect only, and in 1755, when they persuaded some General Baptists to give up their General Atonement theory in NC and become Regular (read Particular Baptists). That group had a blessing in the Great Awakening some 46 years later, in 1801, when they baptized 872, whereas they had been averaging 25-30 for years.
The Sandy Creek Assn. was enlisted in the modern missionary movement by Luther Rice, the Father of Missions, who thought that since predestination, election, and other doctrines were in Scripture, you had better preach them. Rice also led Sandy Creek, chairing the committee, to adopt a Confession was was quite calvinistic; it not only taught total depravity, but total inability, the impotence of man to do anything by his own free will or ability to save himself. At that same association were the representatives of Mt. Pisgah Baptist Church from which would come the first missionary of the SBC to China, Matthew Tyson Yates. Mt. Pisgah had been organized in 1814, and its articles of faith speak of Christ dying for the church and not one word about Him dying for the whole world.
The agreement worked about about allowing for differences on the atonement was in respect to those who were unable to see the fact that in context the every one has reference to the many sons in vs.10. It is ironic to think that the First and Second Great Awakenings and the launching of the Great Century of Missions,vide, the modern missionary movement, was the work of strict calvinists, people who believed Christ died only for the elect. This had to do with the fact that the power is in the blood and not in man’s puny free will, which is, indeed, free to do what ever his fallen nature wants or chooses. And these folks with the limited atonement or particular redemption (better view…as even the General Atonement theory is Limited Atonement, since the atonement in this case is limited by man, whereas in particular redemption, the determining factor is the purposeful love of God) set out to win the whole world. If you want an example of a strict calvinist praying for the whole world and every soul in it, you might take a look at Spurgeon’s Evening by Evening Devotions for 8/6 and 12/24. The Great Missionary movement grew out of the writings of the Calvinist, Jonathan Edwards and his Humble Attempt which inspired such Calvinists as William Carey, Andrew Fuller, Adoniram Judson, Luther Rice, and a host of others to begin the mission effort.
The General Baptists of North Carolina, like those in England, were not very evangelist or very mission minded. The idea that Christ died for everybody does not necessarily produce evangelistic or missionary efforts.
But to continue, the agreement worked out in Va. and Ky. between the Regulars (Va. in 1787) spread through out the states of Tennessee, Georgia, Kentucky, the Carolinas, and further west. It is in a History of Missouri Baptists published in the 1880s, and they had folks who held to the idea of Christ tasting death for every man, while also preaching Sovereign Grace, meaning, unconditional election, and irresistible grace.
Even so there were still strict Calvinists, like Basil Manly, Sr., J.P. Boyce, J.L. Dagg, P.H. Mell. Even B.H. Carroll held to most of the doctrines of grace (and I am assuming that he followed efficiency/sufficiency…so he could call himself a strict calvinist as did Andrew Fuller….who go his ideas, in part, from Dr. John Owen’s Death of Death in the Death of Christ. The Calvinists are the people noted for being responsible. Even George W. Truett in his notable address at the Spurgeon Centenary in London (where the Prime Minister of the British Empire introduced him) in 1934 pointed out that Calvinism presses down upon the brow of man the crown of responsibility. 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. A friend of mind took forty years to change his mind on the doctrines of grace. I had told him that I had come to believe grace was irresistible. That was in 1965, and he had a revival in which he won a young lady to Christ who told him. “O it was so wonderful that I could not resist it.” He said, when she said that, what I said flashed through his mind. He took 40 years to change his mind. Funny part about is that his last name is Spurgeon and according to some genealogist he is kin to C.H. Spurgeon.
As to getting along, it is easily done. Let each preach his or her understanding of God’s grace. The doctrines are not going away. Prayers have been going up for a century for a Third Great Awakening. I first began praying for one in the Fall of 1973. Others have been praying for one even longer. In order to have a great awakening, one must have the theology that is blessed to produce such a visitation. One thing, I know from years of research in Church history and that is the theology which produced the First and Second Great Awakenings and the launching of the Great Century of Missions is the theology of Sovereign Grace which some call Calvinism…though I prefer the first term. Thus, the theology is coming back, the theology which as Baptists understood it makes all of God’s children equals before the Lord. Others want to boss folks. But if any one knows the biblical teachings on the ekklesia, our Lord said in Mt. 18, tell it to the church, the body, the fellowship of the saints, where all are brothers and sisters, on a footing of equality, which was the thing that attracted African Americans who came to know our doctrine better than most White folks today.
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 from among them.” Lloyd Mahanes spoke at one of their conferences to the effect that Boone’s Creek Baptist Church was so independent that they weren’t going to listen to the so-called indpendents and they would send their money wherever they wanted. Other than the aforementioned Mahanes, there was, at the time, a fairly large association of likeminded independent, Calvinistic, Landmark churches that has since declined in number and strength over the years. They existed largely in the Detroit area and environs, Kentucky, Tennessee, and various other scattered spots in the South and Midwest. Part of the reason their numbers are declining is the CR that has allowed many independent types back into the SBC fold because y’all aren’t “liberal” any more. It’s a fascinating historical footnote to the SBC history that is worth examining.
The group of churches I was part of was aware of the ABA who split from the SBC over Landmarkism, but were vehement in their denunciation of Calvinism. Of course we didn’t get along with them very well. Nor did we get along with the GARBC churches who affirmed, at the time, neither Calvinism nor Landmarkism.
Unity sure would be nice, but I’ve seen what happens when you get Baptists together in a room. It’s not always pretty. I agree that a lot of history supports the call for unity despite different approaches to soteriological formulas and I wish more would be able to unite under a common banner of just “Baptist,” but I’m afraid I will never live to see such a thing on this earth.
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 my being. He that begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus christ. If Grace was resistible I would still be lost.
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 get the job? 22+3 is not 26 it’s 25.
The manager said I got the closest to the answer.
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.
If you have never read J. I. Packer’s Introduction to the Death of Death in The Death of Christ by John Owen, I would strongly suggest that it is worth your while to read it.
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 Papa Bush:
ZERO TOLERANCE Knives = Good
Zero Tolerance Christians = Bad.
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. Calvinism and Arminianism together constitute the evangelical obsession.
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 the answer is not found in the Calvinist system.
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 is truth in the thought that He did not simply create man to be damned. John Gill stated that God decreed to damn no man but for sin, nor did He decree to damn any but for sin. Apparently, while He appoints the sin (cf. the worst of sins, the crucifixion of Christ), He appoints it in a way that the sinner does it freely and by choice, etc. Seems sinners need predestination even to carry out their cherished sinful desires and designs. No one ever said this would be easy, but when you lose a home of mom and dad as a child and wind up being raised on a share cropper’s farm in Arkansas, then add all the rest of life’s losses as in the case of the murder of my mother and half sisters by my step-father who also committed suicide, you turn to the Bible and you see God’s hand in the crucifixion and in everything that occurs, turning them for good. so somehow or other the evil will serve the good. Like the professor who had been Harry Truman’s pastor said in class, in my defense, “If I did not believe God had a hand in that for good, I don’t know what I would do.” (The Professor was referring to the death of his son many years before in college in an off campus housing where a leaky space heater caused his death). The class had really attacked me for even suggesting God was involved to make things turn out for good.
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 I also do not like defining myself according to which aspects of TULIP I support or reject. This is why I appeal to the “mystery” of salvation hidden in the mind of God. I think that it is incomprehensible to us, and while we can understand and affirm aspects of it, it is not possible to fully explain the complexity of the situation – how multiple things can be true at the same time. But, we see that in other aspects of God’s character, so why not here?
I am neither a Calvinist nor an Arminian. I am a confessional Baptist who sees merit and deficit in both arguments and thinks that the truth is somewhere that we cannot quite pin down definitively. And, since Truth is a person, namely Jesus, I am okay with that because He is definable and absolute in his person, work, and ministry. I am willing to simply look to Christ here.
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 Baptist Arminians that the Calvinists around here say rightly represents their viewpoints. He also said that the Traditionalist Statement sounded semi-Pelagian. He and Mohler were strange bedfellows on that one.
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 people about biblical doctrine. Something has to be wrong with that picture.
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 what you’re proposing. Your system isn’t just an interpretive model, it is truth with no tolerance for anyone else or anything else. It is “perfect” in your eyes, and all else is to be ignored and eschewed in favor of your thinking on the matter. I’m not asking you to take my interpretation as your own. 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.
You already know what we all think. You have all the answers worked out. It’s a personal crusade to show how good you are at what you do. What you do is promote Calvinism with a vengeance. Forgive me if I don’t succumb to such intransigence.
“Grace writer” indeed.
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 had a sense of humor, when they handed that off to us, except when I examine the folks who demanded consistency to the nth degree, I find them coming unglued later on. How do you allow for folks to change their mind, for them to be persuaded on their own. My ordaining pastor was a supralapsarian hyper calvinist , and he went right ahead with my ordination though he knew I didn’t even hold to either a Federal or an Augustinian view of the Fall of Adam (took about a year as a pastor to find out man was so depraved as to be disabled, then more years to work out the rest of the TULIP and then to realize it really is the most inviting of theological truths and the most liberal and the most free). Now how can that be Randy?
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 pastors very well. I have watched many of them over the years come to verses dealing with the sovereignty of God and simply skip over them altogether. Most of them came to conclusions about these doctrines in seminary and haven’t studied them since.
My point is the subject needs to be revisited but with an elimination of straw man arguments that usually accompany such discussions. A good place for folks to start would be reading the Remonstants and the Canons of Dort. I suggest people should be required to state a person’s views to their satisfaction before attempting to answer them.
I know there are some who give lip service to predestinarian doctrine for which it makes no practical difference at all. A genuine understanding of these doctrines will radically affect both our message and our methods.
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 Arminian [pardon me–“non Calvinist. I keep messing up and using those widely accepted theological terms for those who believe the free will doctrine]. I know the position well. I have been forced over the years by careful exegtical study to change my views.
One of the bains of 20th and 21st Century preaching and teaching has been the topical and textual approach. It is too easy for one to ignore those passages that don’t fit into preconceived notions. Passages must be understood in their context. We don’t know everything yet, but we can know much more if we study carefully and contextually.
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 from God’s throne as is all God’s revealed truth. We are responsible to obey his law under whatever covenant we may find ourselves. Yet, though we are responsible to obey God’s law, the Scripture tells us we are not able to be subject to it (See Rom. 8:7).
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 said,
“So if God commands you to believe the gospel and you don’t believe, are you not disobedience to that command? – See more at: https://sbcvoices.com/calvinism-controversy-blew-up-at-my-church-last-night-by-alan-cross/#comment-162564”
That assumes that the Gospel is a command to obey and not a gift. But salvation is a gift and not a reward for obedience. If one is ignorant to the truth how can one, from the heart, follow it? We read from Ephesians 4:
So this I say, and affirm together with the Lord, that you walk no longer just as the Gentiles also walk, in the futility of their mind, being darkened in their understanding, excluded from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardness of their heart; and they, having become callous, have given themselves over to sensuality for the practice of every kind of impurity with greediness.
Now their ignorance [or the blindness] is due to their sin even as ours was. But God, yes but God opened our eyes to see and saved our rebellious souls.
Ephesians continues:
But you did not learn Christ in this way, if indeed you have heard Him and have been taught in Him, just as truth is in Jesus…
Which reminds us of John 6:
No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day. It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught of God.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me.
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 of Calvinsim becoming heated is on blogs and at the SBC meeting (mainly outside of the actual meeting.)
An asipring young theologian made a really wise comment to me recently. He said, “The Baptists that call themselves Reformed are really not Reformed. They like Calvin’s system of stoteriology, but they reject infant baptism and the grace imparting aspects of the sacraments which are central to Reformed theology.”
I suspect all that we are talking about here is the renewed interest in Baptist circles of various aspects of Calvin’s soteriology. That interest is a generational one, I suspect, that may have 10 or so more years left on it before we focus on other issues. The theological issues will always be around, but I do not believe they will dominate the discussion in 10 or so more years.
Let’s just hope people in the SBC can keep cool heads and act as your church and mine does in the interim.
“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 listen to your point of view.
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 text.
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 we do our jobs very differently. None of us is perfect, but each of us thinks we have the “right” way of doing it. We argue and fuss over who does it best, fastest, prettiest, etc., but we all have the same goal: If my employer makes money, I make a living for my family. Each of us has something to share with the other, and we’re always picking up pointers from each other.
I think that such is analogous to who I am in Christ. I have a lot to learn from other people. I don’t have all the answers. But I won’t be swayed by the self-inflated opinion of the one who dismisses me or anyone else out-of-hand simply because of an interpretational or methodological disagreement.
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 usually seems to be accompanied by a willingness to misstate and misrepresent the positions they don’t like. I am not suggesting you are doing that. From what I have seem from people’s statements here, there is more agreement than is imagined. I continue to contend for a careful definition of terms. Perhaps if we agreed on definitions of terms such as “free will,” “total depravity,” and “irresistible grace,” we could make better progress.
My other concern is that doctrine affects message and practice. It will not be helpful simply to agree to disagree. Paul seems to indicate that unity comes [or is maintained] through careful study of the Scriptures, not by reducing the basis of our unity to the lowest common denominator.
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 felt of you had been in the room, especially if you are aware of the controversy in Southern Baptist life. I was more describing the expectations surrounding such a discussion in the title. The issue did indeed arise, but a solution was also found even though people disagreed with one another.
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. What seemed like a rhetorical device to me in trying to get people to read, feel the emotion of the moment, and then be surprised at a conclusion different from what they might expect, could come across as being misleading in the post title. On the one hand, I might ask for some leeway to be able to present a post in a way that could attempt to acheive the effect I desire in the reader (part of why we write, I think), while on the other hand being willing to respect your viewpoint on being mislead. Since I showed my hand at the beginning of the first paragraph, I felt that I was within the bounds of honesty. If you felt mislead by reading past the title, I apologize and will try to consider that perspective in the future.
Thanks for the feedback.
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 with joy? Thomas was such an example of Compassion that the people of India who were moved by his ministry expected the people of Jesus to be people of compassion.
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 in need that the Spirit has prepared. Compassion is a part of either approach, as there are those who have no desire to manipulate but to see true conversions. In either case, knowing the doctrines of grace gives one cause for extreme compassion. Who can not cry at the thought of loved ones or even any souls dead in trespasses and sins, helpless under Satan’s thralldom, addicted, afflicted, and abused, a slave of evils, blind, deaf, dumb, without God and without hope. My ordaining pastor, Dr. Campbell understood this matter of the decrees and, seeing that the Scriptures support the supralapsarian view of the order of the decrees, was zealous in calling on sinners to repent, to cast themselves upon Christ in faith. Whitefield and Edwards, the Erskines, Most of the Puritans, and others knew what it mean to close with a soul in pleadings for those dead eyes to open, that stony heart to dissolve in conviction for sins committed, for the hardened sinner to awaken in terror at the thought of judgment to come as John Taylor was awakened under, if memory serves correctly, Daniel Marshall. Fears of overstepping might move some hyper calvinist not to press the issue as general atonement encouraged the General Baptists in the 1700s not to be very extremely concerned, as well as many so-called Arminian Baptists of today (and I think it is idiotic to lay titles on people unless they choose them..they need the decent respect of having the right to make up their own minds…like a friend of mine who took about forty years to make up his mind). We also need to allow for differences….our Lord said to His disciples that He many things yet to say to them, but they were not able to bear them at that point in their lives. Our theology is not a billy club to brow beat others. Even Edwards took Whitefield to task on their ride to Whitefield’s next appointment after the latter had preached for him. Edwards was after Whitefield about the matter of his attacks on the unconverted ministry. Want to gather the answer: Consider how Judas was not converted, and, if we are to suppose that he, too, baptized converts as did the other Apostles there was no cry for them to be rebaptized. The verses that call for us to be strict are to be balanced with the exceptions in scripture, no easy task, I assure you, but one which requires years of reflection and careful thought and compassionate consideration. I do not wish to seem harsh toward you, for that is not my intention, but I am apprehensive lest your strictness be the means of blocking some who might well come to a more mature view of the Gospel, later on.
“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 faculties, in order that he may rightly understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good, according to the Word of Christ, John 15:5, “Without me you can do nothing.”
That is Arminianism I could agree with.
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 ONE view in the SBC on this matter – Calvinist, non-Calvinist, or Arminian leading to division upon division upon division, or we find some way to get along in Christ. I have already told you that I am not an Arminian and that our church is not Arminian. But, apparently, unless we all walk lockstep in 5 point Calvinism, then we are “ignorantly getting along.” Perhaps. But, I will take our “ignorance” over your certainty of doctrine regarding Calvinism any day.
You have entirely missed the point of this post. Either that, or you are willfully ignoring it to prove your point, which seems to be that 5 point Calvinism is the only acceptable position.
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 my word, then you are really my disciples.”
There are mysteries we will never understand. We have no responsibility to try to explain them. The things that are revealed belong to us an to our children forever. . . . We do have a responsibility to explain them. We have no right as those who are called to shepherd God’s flock to call anything a mystery that God has not called a mystery or to conceal any part of God’s revelation from his sheep.
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 with the RCC.
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 doing previous to the Baptists then….and since.
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 bacon be? But, Paul told him the truth of the gospel was at stake. I suspect they would have broken fellowship had Peter continued in his hypocrisy, and that over something as insignificant as food.
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 in this doctrine, as in the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, we have come to understand that unity in diversity is possible IF that unity is centered in what is holy to God,
and not centered in the understandings of men on which Christian unity cannot lean.
I think ALAN ‘gets it’.
That is a blessing for him and his people, and indeed that is the kind of blessing that builds up the whole Church.
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), namely, no hell, no resurrection. It seems that consistency sooner or later can lead to problems without any help. The nature of doctrines and how they affect and effect human behavior is something that I have focused on most of my life, and the arrogance of a know-it-all attitude has a built in corrective, namely, the incongruity between the expected and the actual result. If I have the truth and apply it, I expect certain results commensurate with the truth. Unfortunately or fortunately, God has built into the truth a way that short-changes the ones who are sure that because they have it alright and that they are going to get the right results. James and John, was it?, wanted to call down fire from Heaven, but they did not know what manner of men they were even as we do not know what manner of men we are.
There is a confidence in truth that believes it will when out under the conditions of freedom, though it seems to loose (or gets crucified) There is the problem of the control freak, and the person who hangs out with God and takes on the God complex. Since God is infallible, etc., and one hangs out with Him, one can think he knows the truth completely, etc.. God does not allow for such attitudes.
I am afraid you will probably not understand what I am trying to get at. Consistency is such a jewel until one finds that it can involve some real sore letdowns. The idea of the paradox, antinomy, and matters like that suggests that their is an incongruity between the desired or expected and the actual results. This is what provides the corrective. In other words, God’s word has built in correctives. Remember we are the folks who advocated religious freedom or liberty. While that is not unlimited freedom or liberty, it is still a necessary component in the equation of true faith. Kapish?
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 can’t tell what he is talking about. How can we be so arrogant as to suppose we have the prerogative to decide that certain doctrines of Scripture are not important and pretend we are unified because we ignore them? I don’t know why the apostles didn’t just say, “We don’t know why we are bothering to write this stuff down. It really isn’t important anyway.”
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 reject the Gospel.
There is a long tradition in Reformed circles of never ending argument. I read an article recently by a professor at Reformed Seminary. It is long, but it is very enlightening about the history of the Reformed movement in the U.S. and how much it has been bogged down in argument.
Here it is. http://www.frame-poythress.org/machens-warrior-children/
In the SBC context, from where I sit, I see a great deal of angst and fret about so-called Calvinists taking over the Convention. I believe that the people who are often cited are simply good people who would have been hired on their merits other than their so-called “Calvinism.”
I believe that the SBC can get along just like Alan’s church, and I believe that is where most of us are, despite our differences on some of these issues.
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.
I also believe that persons who
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 1st Century Christians, your comment might have some validity, but welcome to the 21st Cent.
“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 true if one’s evangelism starts with the so-called 5 points [actually there are five points. They are not so-called] But if one starts with what Christ and the Apostles proclaimed as is found in Scripture. . . .”
My statement is made based on the opposite assumption. The message I preach is that Jesus effectively accomplished full redemption for the most guilty sinner who will believe the gospel. A non-Calvinist preaches that Jesus did not secure the redemption of any sinner in particular, but made salvation equally possible for all sinners without exception. He did no more for those who are his redeemed people than he did for those who are perishing in torments.
The Apostles taught that the basis of our assurance of eternal security in grace is the finished work of Christ and his continual application of that finished work in intercession. Our security is not based on our faith in his work, but in his work itself. If he died equally for believers and for the perishing, what kind of confidence does that give believers?
Those are two decidedly different messages. Now can we cooperate in ministry when we are preaching contradictory messages? There is no sense in which these two messages are complementary.
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 the other.
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 and still be Judases at heart, whereas others, not so strict, who are yet the elect of God and have but little knowledge of grace, can be and are true brethren and will prove to be so in the end.
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 that was much less important than this issue. That does not mean he did not regard him as a brother in Christ; simply that they were pursuing contrary courses.
If you are helping hurricane victims or passing out soup to the homeless, there is no problem. If we are teaching theological doctrine, we must be on the same page.
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, due to the levels of understanding.
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 BF&M on regeneration, claim to be in agreement and then deny that regeneration causes faith and repentance. I don’t find much evidence that any studying is going on in regard to these doctrines, but people are absolutely sure they don’t believe them.
All I am appealing for is a real in depth discussion of these issues that eventuates in one of two conclusions: 1. We can agree on these issues or 2. We are so far apart in our theology [and we are right now] that we are following two separate roads.
I have appealed several times for some one to tell me what we can gain from an Arminian or non-Calvinist perspective that we don’t already possess as Calvinists. So far, no one has been kind enough to answer my question.
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. I knew of one Exec,-Sect.-Treas. of a state convention who hated Calvinists. Funny thing was, he served in a state in which there was no doubt as to the Calvinistic foundations of Baptists there. Some of this grows out of the controversies with Primitive Baptists (not that all of them are bad or even lacking in missionary spirit. It was funny to find they had a missionary, a medical missionary once in Haiti (a Dentist!!!). The real problem back in the primitive/missionary split had to do with the instruments of missions, e.g., societies or churches. In the South the church idea was predominant and not many back then knew that little fact. Our son pastors in an area where a group of Primitives have been noted for not caring at all for souls to be converted. After all, if the Lord intends to, He will convert them. Interestingly enough, he [reached a funeral with one elder, who got up and repeated our son’s sermon, practically, verbatim, without so much as a by your leave. I am happy to report not all Primitives are that way. They have divisions among them just like we do, but Southern Baptists have managed to keep most of this herd of cats going in the same direction. In any case, you are always going to have folks who gang up on others; it is a part of the freedom difficulty. A careful examination of our predecessors and ancestors (one of mine might have been the executor of Daniel Marshall’s Will in Ga. in 1781.) might give us a bit more wherewithal to handle the problems of differences.
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 as in, dare to speak and we will cut you off.
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 it blows up the church, but I have heard of not a few. Your experience is much to be preferred.
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 in the Presbyterian Church. I could never join their church or cooperate with them in an “infant baptism.” It has nothing to do with whether I believe they are brothers. I just don’t think they understand the nature of the church.
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 Court and Protestants have only one. A Baptists split here in NC has already occurred between the Conservatives and the Moderates, and I for one had to suffer as a result in getting churches, etc. Note: The Moderates almost kicked me out of the D.Min. program, and the Conservatives were not happy that I stood up for women in ministry by providing a biblical justifcation for Stearns and Marshall’s having eldresses. Talk about painful! Try 16 plus years of being without a church, a job, or anything but except for a few temps. and one interim. And yet, knowing the history of Baptists as I trust that I do, based upon research (though perhaps not enough), I pray for a Third Great Awakening and have for nearly 40 years (will be this Fall).
“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 in which he basically said, [sang] you can basically accuse me of any kind of heresy you wish, as long as I remain “conventional.”
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 note, Randy, that I spent about four years outside the SBC and found out that there was as much compromise, backstabbing, cruelty, prejudice, immorality, control freaks, etc., as there is in the SBC. At least with an outfit the size of the SBC there is room for one to find those with whom he can relate. And as Mr. Blackmon has pointed out there are plenty of non-five pointers who are friends and will do their best to help you. Admittedly, I have been tempted to be as dark as you on these matters, and what keeps me from going all the way is the fact that I have been there before and found that there was no satisfaction in that course of action. I have been among those seeking absolute purity, and find it strange that the control freaks can arise in that environment and they are then much worse than in the SBC where numbers can hold them back from the utmost extremities.
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 teaching of Scripture. The real reason most people who reject truth do so is because they understand what it is going to cost them to believe and teach it.
I read a statement from a Southern Baptist leader who lived early in the last century as to why he and his group did not preach the doctrines of sovereign grace. He said, “We don’t preach it because our people don’t like it very much.” I thought that spoke volumes. He did not say, “We don’t teach it because we don’t find it taught in Holy Scripture,” but “. . . .”because our people don’t like it very much.” Shame on them.
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 get attention for almost everything. I have noted that you do not really come to grips with our history and practices or with Edwards, Whitefield, and even Spurgeon on their practices which are much the same as Southern Baptists practice today. In any case, there is much to be said for truth winning the day on its own. Religious liberty counts for much more than we think.
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 you believe the death of Jesus Christ was no more effective in accomplishing the salvation of believers than it was in securing the salvation of those who will perish for eternity. Our eternal hope is not in our faith in what Jesus did, but in what he actually accomplished. My brother, one of those is the gospel; the other isn’t.
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 the road and pointed to it as the solution of his sin problems and folks were supposedly converted as a result of it. Being strict can involve one in a lot of control issues, when what we really want is the fruit of being persuaded in one’s own mind by the facts. Human beings, being what they are, are going to differ in their understandings, take years in some cases to work out the difficulties that they perceive in the teachings of grace, while others are given grace to see the solution in short order.
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 unconverted.
As for the messenger, God used donkeys and roosters to get his message across but that is not normative.
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 not make those means normative for the church.
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. During my break from this discussion I had occasion to watch a a report on the church of scientology and how they enforce their unity, and I was reminded of my days among those who demanded and enforced their brand of Calvinistic unity, a way that our ancestors and predecessors did not choose even though it jeopardized the true Gospel (not intentionally I am sure), but for the sake of liberty and freedom of the truth. Look at what had happened. In that brief period from 1740-1820, the two great awakenings transformed Protestantism from a Gospel recovery effort that was contentious, conflicted, and combative into an outgoing, we will persuade you with the truth, with the facts of the biblical revelation. Before hand, the Anglicans would whip the Baptists, the Congregationalists would not whip the Baptists they would execute the Quakers and the witchcraft practitioners (though it is doubtful that they were really dealing with much of that). Even Pennsylvania the Baptists had to intervene at one point in a dispute between two groups of Quakers who almost came to the point of violence. Only the Baptists first established by law and practice religious liberty, and the first synagogue in the new world was built in Rhode Island and still stands at the last account I had of it. John Robinson the pastor of the Pilgrims who never made it to the new world said or asked, “Who knows what new light is getting ready to come out of the Scripture.” He was suggesting that there is a depth of truth that we have still to discern in those sacred words, a depth that makes the deepest swimming hole on earth like a mud puddle for depth. I suggest that that was what happened to the Baptists in 1787-1800. I say it again with out the slightest thought of unbelief being allowed that biblical orthodoxy is the real source of liberty and liberalism of the best kind. Do we have Judson’s audacious belief that the future is as bright as the promises of God, that these folks who some tab as Arminian and get frustrated with due to their failure to really study the issues or to see the clarity of the terms as we see them? Listen, regardless of how clear the Book is, it still took a work of illumination to open our eyes to the simplest of facts. Do we believe that the Lord will open their eyes, persuade them. I have a fellow I know who did a survey of the folks in his area (over a hundred churches), and he found that the calvinists were among the leaders along with a few of what some call by other terms, that the biggest group for doing nothing were the folks who were not calvinist, like 25-35%. Now this fellow is not a calvinist, and he can identify a few of the Calvinists who are tear hairs (he has another term, a rather strong one) just like some of the non-calvinists.
What is worrying me the most in this whole discussion is that, due to every one be willing to blame the Supralapsarian Hyper Calvinists for non-evangelistic preaching and effort, Southern Baptists will shut out some one like my ordaining pastor whom Dr. Lee thought so much of that he made it legal to be sure that Dr. Campbell preached his funeral. Wome folks think that because the tear hairs in England gave Spurgeon trouble, that were called Hyper Calvinists over there, that therefore the same applies over here. It doesn’t Some have called John Gill a Hyper Calvinist, and yet his works were recommended to the ministers of the Charleston Association who were not exactly backward about missions and evangelism. Besides one biographer and historian, George Ella, who is British, I think, said it plainly that Gill was a sublapsarian. Now I am sure he mean infralapsarian, for even John R. Rice, if memory serves correctly from 55 years ago, claimed to be a sublapsarian by which he mean a whole lot of stuff totally different from John Gill.
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 understand. And no, God’s revelation is not enigmatic.
Speaking of things God hasn’t revealed, there is the issue of Lapsarianism. I have my view, and, of course, I am convinced I am right, but I would never feel I could not cooperate with a person who didn’t agree with me.
I don’t think there is much question whether Gill was superlapse.
I don’t think John Rice was even on the radar.
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 goes, “…in non-essentials, liberty, in all things, charity.” Sounds like the folks at your church get it.
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 etc.
The so-called 5 points of Calvinism (and I say “so-called” to refrence the connection to Calvin, as opposed to Dort. My understanding is that they were not formulated into 5 points until Dort, but that’s just a rough understanding), deal with significant issues but are not ones that require the message of teh Gospel to be altered.
People who disagree on these doctrines can still preach the Gospel.
I don’t disagree with your feelings about Moderates in Baptist life, your description of the SBC seminaries before the Conservative movement in the SBC or your believe that there is a superficial understanding among many pastors and others in the SBC.
But I disagree with the notion that people who may disagree, for example, about the meaning and contours of limited atonement, cannot minister together or that they are preaching different Gospels.
I know that you prefer one position on that, and that you believe it to be central to your understanding of the Gospel.
But observation through the centuries and common sense show that persons can disagree with that and still share so much in common as to be able to minister together.
I really couldn’t gather a straight answer from you about whether you are SBC or not. It seemed like you were a bit cagey in your answers, but what I was left with was that you are not in the SBC because of the distance to a good SBC church.
At any rate, having read many of your posts here, I don’t think that you would be happy in the SBC as it exists. The BFM must be a terrible disappointment, and there are literally thousands of churches and pastors in the SBC who do not agree with your perspective.
I think that your getting involved in the SBC would be very frustrating.
Btw, are you a paedo or credo Baptist?
Do you share other Reformed views outside of the ones related to soteriology? If so, which ones?
What type of a church are you in?
Are you a layman or church worker?
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 elect. Correct me if that is not your understanding of 4 pt. Cal. I only assume you believe that because that is my understanding of the historical Amyraldian position.
It would seem to me that since you and I both believe that everything that actually occurs in time was decreed by God in eternity past (I assume you believe that since you are a 4 pt Cal.), that application in effectual calling was decreed by God. He must not have decreed that application for the non-elect, since such an application was not guaranteed for them by Jesus’ death nor does such an application actually occur. What I am saying is that I don’t see a great deal of practical difference between your doctrine and mine. We both believe Jesus’ death was abundantly sufficient to save every sinner without exception. We both believe in the free offer of the gospel to sinners as sinners. We only “disagree” in that you believe Jesus’ death guaranteed its application to the elect, which means it ultimately secured their justification, etc., and I believe God intended his death, itself, to secure the salvation of the elect. It seems to me, we both believe Jesus’ death secured the salvation of the elect. I think we just phrase it differently. I would say the design of Jesus’ death was to secure the salvation of the elect, but because of the nature of his person, etc., it had sufficient value to save all if they believed. I think you would say his death was intended to remove the obstacles to the salvation of any and every sinner, but is applied only to the elect. To phrase it differently, I would say it was designed for and therefore efficient for the elect and sufficient for all. I think you would say it is sufficient for all but efficient for, because applied to, the elect.
The point I am trying to make is that I don’t think we have the level of disagreement that you seem to think I thing we have.
There are clearly other ways of viewing Jesus’ work that truly affect our gospel message.
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 separation from other Reformed persons?
Do you think the history shows otherwise? If so, why?
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 I am not saying this is true about all SBC pastors. I have known some for whom I have great respect.
Paedobaptism isn’t baptism at all.
I do not consider myself Reformed. I have much greater disagreement with Reformed Theology than agreement.
I have had no contact with Poythress in years. I had assumed he was still a prof at WTS. I don’t think he could be a Prof there without being Reformed. If he is at RTS, who knows?
I said he was “interesting” to avoid calling him “strange.” He is clearly highly intelligent; think strange goes along with highly intelligent. I found his instruction to be extremely helpful.
I am in a Baptist Church that is a very small English speaking group. We are also working with a national trying to establish a Spanish speaking church.
I think some Reformed folks have separated over issues that are not important at all. Some have insisted, for example, that you can’t worship God if you sing hymns. A person can only worship God with Psalm singing. Truth is, people are cantankerous. Did you ever try to pastor a bunch of Baptists? They will split over the color of the carpet in the SS room.
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 as a Calvinist whose cage phase is far behind.
Thanks be to God that most folks in the SBC do not require precise doctrinal alignment to cooperate. They are able to cooperate under a broad tent that leaves room for disagreement without compromise and without separation. Of course there is doctrinal misalignment that would make cooperation impossible. Your opinion of the level of requisite alignment is a good deal more precise than mine.
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 and sincerely seeking to come to truth.
4. What I do believe is that there is no real unity at the expense of truth. Perhaps someone can explain to me which of the verses in Paul’s Epistles we can feel good about ripping out of our Bibles, because we can safely do without them.
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 from God calling us out of our total inablity to respond. In other words, we respond because he enables us. Additionally, this is a distinguishing call–“why this man and not others?” That indeed is a mystery, but a God has clearly made a distinguishing choice. If the Calvinists present were not satisfied with that statement, I have no idea why.
Then you threw the other side a bone. You said, “There seems to be an element of mystery in why some reject and some accept Christ.”
You had just told them why some receive Christ and some don’t. Now you tell them it is a mystery. So which is it? No doubt the non-Calvinists present were elated to hear that you really didn’t mean what you had just said. It isn’t really because God has revealed himself to him and called him by his grace–it is a mystery. It is indeed a mystery why God would call one and not another. It is not a mystery at all why some receive Christ and others do not. Paul wrote, “but of him [God] you are in Christ Jesus. . . .” (1 Cor. 1:30). In other words, it is his doing and not ours.
What you said is not an antinomy. It is a contradiction. If it is revealed, it is not a mystery. If anyone there is thinking, they will understand you placated both sides. Call if unity if you wish; I call it misdirection.
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?