I’ve been seeing a lot of criticism of Lifeway’s new curriculum, The Gospel Project, and it all revolves around Calvinism. Of course, I have yet to read a critical article from someone who actually claims to have read any of the materials that are posted online or cited them to prove their accusations. Many claims are made about the curriculum, it’s authors and editors, and Calvinists in general. I’ve identified a few of the more prominent ones:
1. Calvinists are incapable of writing with a broad appeal
Judged solely from the negative comments, I’d guess that The Gospel Project is a modern-day Calvinist catechism. Detractors claim that this curriculum doesn’t represent the views of the majority of Southern Baptists.
2. Calvinists are subtly inserting their doctrine in the curriculum
This point is diametrically opposed to the first one. First they say that the material is reeking of Calvinism, then they say it is so subtle that the average person won’t notice it. Since sample materials from The Gospel Project have been posted online for a while, they must be so subtle that even the detractors haven’t been able to find them, since I’ve yet to see any citations of the curriculum specifically linked to Calvinist doctrine.
3. The people writing this are all Calvinists
I’ll admit that there’s quite a few Calvinists associated with The Gospel Project, though the editors have insisted that this isn’t about Calvinism and there were non-Calvinists writing for it as well. But so what if there’s a Calvinist influence on the curriculum? I’ve learned and benefited much from preachers like Adrian Rogers, and I even taught a small group class following his book What Every Christian Ought to Know. I subscribe to all five points of Calvinism, but I’m not threatened by non-Calvinists, and I’m willing to introduce new believers to points of view that differ from my own. Rogers certainly wasn’t tooting any kind of anti-Calvinist horn when he wrote the book, but he still presents election and foreknowledge in a way that is clearly counter to what Calvinists believe.
People who write music, curricula, books, etc. will necessarily show some bias towards the views and beliefs they hold. That doesn’t mean Calvinists (or non-Calvinists for that matter) are incapable of writing with a broad appeal. If an author says, “Trust in our sovereign God,” will my opinion of his book change if I know he’s writing from an Arminian perspective? From a Calvinistic perspective? Just because there are a good deal of Calvinists working on The Gospel Project doesn’t mean Calvinists are trying to sneak their doctrine into everything they write with the hopes of converting readers to Calvinism. Its the detractors who are focusing on Calvinism, not the authors.
Your Challenge
Read some of the sample materials for yourself. It’s out there, accessible to anyone who’s interested. I ask that everyone read a little of it, and if you see Calvinist propaganda, point it out in the comments below. I’m serious. I don’t want to play games with words and imaginary offenses. If you see something in there that is clearly teaching Calvinism, point it out.
Conversely, if you read anything you like, copy and paste it in the comments section. Here’s something I liked (and it could easily have come from the pen of a Calvinist or an Arminian):
“The gospel is the story of a God who issues a call to helpless sinners. In our blindness and deafness, we are imprisoned by our own sinfulness. We cannot see the goodness of God until He gives us new eyes. We cannot hear the voice of God until He opens our ears. Like Helen Keller, we struggle to make sense of the world around us—why we are here and where we are going.”
The Gospel Project, Adult Leader Pilot, Volume 1, Number 1 Fall 2012, pg.15
Andrew,
Great post. So obviously Calvinistic and yet so subtle, how deceptive. 🙂 I am interested to see the good and the bad presented here.
My church is going TGP church-wide in the fall and I can’t wait!
Mine as well.
We are especially pumped for our kids ministry.
Actually… I wrote a scathing review and updated it because I felt it was too washed out and liberal. I previewed it thoroughly, and felt it missed the mark in one area, but did well in others. Here are the links if you want to see for yourself. Surprisingly enough, I cannot see where the “Calvinist Lean” is at all… Are these people sure they even looked at the same one Lifeway had us look at???
http://stiffnecked.com/2012/04/12/the-gospel-project/
http://stiffnecked.com/2012/04/12/gospel-project-update/
I taught the 4 Free Lessons in my Adult Sunday School Class on consecutive Sundays and was less than enthused about the materials for Adults.
What I have seen for Children is impressive.
At this time we will probably transition to TGP for All age groups except adults in the Fall.
We will re-evaluate for Adults as the materials evolve.
And No – in the 4 Free Lessons there was no Calvinistic Agenda!
What were some of the things that made you less than enthused about the Adult material? I’ve seen the children’s stuff and love it. I have yet to really dig into the Adult or youth side yet. If you don’t want this to be a public discussion just shoot me an email. MIKE at FBJASPER dot ORG
What?! LifeWay is producing “Adult Material”? Those dastardly Calvinists!
Not THAT kind of adult material!
I love this quote from Herschel Hobbs on page 41 of the Leader Guide:
“The Old Testament sounds the messianic hope. The Gospels record Christ’s incarnation; Acts relates His continuing work through the Holy Spirit; the Epistles interpret His person and work; Revelation proclaims His final triumph and glory.”
Sums up the Christ-focused approach of this curriculum!
I really like that quote too. There should be a way to “like” these comments through Facebook or “+1” them through Google+.
Andrew: I would +1 your comment simply for advocating the use of G+.
“+1”
I like that quote as well. Nothing Calvinist or Arminian about it. Strictly Gospel.
Personally, I am less concerned about Calvinist indoctrination than I am about the limited scope of a Sunday School curriculum whose philosophy would seem to inadvertently reduce the entirety of God’s Word to the gospel meta-narrative. In other words, I’m not sure you can fit all of the wisdom literature, the Old Testament stories, certain prophecies, the law, and so on, inside of this project’s framework.
Admittedly, some of this depends upon your Sunday School philosophy. In my case, I want Sunday School to be a more or less comprehensive survey of the entire Bible, perhaps sacrificing depth of insight for breadth of coverage. On the other hand, as a selection for discipleship material, I might be open to a ten week, one-book study tracing the gospel story throughout Scripture in a way that helps people “connect the dots” placing the plan of salvation in the context of the overall Bible.
If The Gospel Project ever writes that ten-week study discipleship book, I promise to give it fair consideration.
Lifeway may end up creating a shorter book (or books) to complement the study as well. I saw recently that they came out with a short, young adult study called Creation Restored: The Gospel According to Genesis. My wife may end up going through it this summer with some of the high school girls from church.
http://www.lifeway.com/n/Product-Family/Creation-Restored:-The-Gospel-According-to-Genesis?intcmp=iTeam1-LWMain-Hero5-CreationRestored-20120409
Andrew,
Thanks. I’ll take a look at it.
Rick
Andrew,
Allow me to respectfully ask you this question: If someone gave the responsibility to the faculty of Southern Baptist Seminary to write articles on the BFM 2000 … interrupting each article of the document to all Southern Baptists … would it be free from more Calvinistic leanings?
Ron,
I’m not Andrew, but my answer is I don’t know. But it sparks another question in my mind: ” If someone gave the responsibility to the faculty of NOBTS to write articles on the BFM 2000 … interpreting each article of the document to all Southern Baptists … would it be free from more non-Calvinistic leanings?
Ron,
I’m not quite sure how to respond to your question. I believe you’re trying to get to the issue of bias in writing. I guess I can only respond with a quote from my post:
“People who write music, curricula, books, etc. will necessarily show some bias towards the views and beliefs they hold. That doesn’t mean Calvinists (or non-Calvinists for that matter) are incapable of writing with a broad appeal.”
My next post will deal with the question of Calvinists writing with a broad appeal and still having some Calvinist bias/inclination in their writing.
Andrew and Christ,
Yes, I knew that SBTS faculty had written articles on the BFM 2000 document, in fact, it has been posted on Baptist2Baptist website for many years and at SBTS. Dr. Thomas Nettles had the opportunity to write on: God’s Purpose of Grace – Election, Article 5a.
Dr. Nettles has been a mover and shaker in the Founders Movement since its inception. He also wrote the document on the Founders website entitled: Why Your Next Pastor Should Be a Calvinist.
Therefore, as a non-Calvinist, I would say that it was a superior strategic maneuver for the entire faculty of SBTS to be the sole source of writers for the articles concerning the BFM 2000 on an Executive Committee website … and … for Dr. Nettles to write the article on God’s Purpose of Grace and Election. Brilliant move!
It would be my guess that the strategy for the current series … would be to start out slow — show but sure!
Blessings!
I meant “Chris” … sorry.
Ron,
You failed to interact with anything that actually was written in the commentary on the BF&M. You just assume that because it was written by Calvinists it must be an effort to insert Calvinism into the churches subversively. Thus you question motives and cast aspersions, but haven’t actually demonstrated your conjecture to be correct.
That was the whole point of the article upon which we are commenting. Where is the interaction with the text of the documents? Aside from some nitpicking, I have seen nothing substantial.
What specifically in Dr. Nettle’s article on God’s Purpose of Grace did you think was overtly or subversively calvinistic? What in the Gospel Project’s samples do you find overtly or subversively calvinistic? What specifically in Thom Rainer’s ministry gives you pause or leads you to question his veracity when he places his integrity on the line and says The Gospel Project is NOT a calvinist material designed to introduce Calvinism into our churches?
Ron, I think you are making the point that Andrew was trying to make in the original post – the assumption that if a Calvinist writes something, it must be intended to promote Calvinism, as if they are incapable of doing anything else.
You might assume that a non-Calvinist could write a “neutral” article, but seem to assume that a Calvinist could never be neutral.
I think that is unfair.
Ron,
The faculty members of SBTS did produce a document that examines each article of the BF&M 2000. I suggest you go to the website of SBTS, download it, and see for yourself. It is not free from calvinistic “leanings” because the BF&M has never been free from “leanings.” Those who do not affirm eternal security, for example, are often quick to label Southern Baptists as “calvinistic.” That said, I really find it hard to believe that someone could read their explanation of the BF&M and charge them with Calvinist indoctrination or subversion in the document.
Yep, here is the link to the document:
http://www.sbts.edu/documents/bfmexposition.pdf
It is a great read for everyone.
interrupting* = interpreting?
Thanks for catching that 🙂
Ahh, yes. When an English speaker has a person immediately rendering their thoughts into a local language after each of their sentences, we kids that had some overseas experience sometimes, with a mischievous glint in the eye, called those helpers “interrupters”.
“And now you know the rest of the story.” By any chance, are you related to Paul? 😉
No. His name was actually Paul Harvey Aurandt. Shortened to just Harvey for broadcast purposes.
It’s deja vu all over again.
I’ll repost a response I made to Dave Miller’s post that was almost the same topic last month. Here it is.
Hi all,
I’ll answer Dave’s challenge now that I have finally been able to read through both the adult guides and the student learner’s guide of lessons 1-4 of TGP. I would give the project a qualified endorsement so far.
I do not believe TGP is a “Calvinist indoctrination tool” by any stretch of the imagination. But I do think the curriculum has a Refomed slant in its approach. I’ll offer a few examples.
1. In lesson 1 (on page 14 – all pages are from the Adult Leader Guide), there are some quotes like “God is not accountable to us; we are accountable to Him. God would have been fully just and righteous to create this world and leave it to natural processes, never to intervene, never to communicate with His human creatures, and never to involve Himself with our human plight. There is nothing about our existence that forces God to be a God who reveals Himself.”
This is not a false statement, of course, but it is one-sided. God may have been “fully just and righteous” to leave us alone, but it would have been against his character. The God who is love cannot help but intervene. To be a well-balanced curriculum, both truths need to be emphasized equally. In my opinion, the Reformed tradition is where it is by overemphasizing the former while comparatively ignoring the latter. I see this imbalance occurring in lesson 1 already.
2. Similar to (1.) above, on page 14 is the quote “God was under no obligation to speak the world into existence.” Of course this statement is not untrue either, but it is a misplaced emphasis. “Obligation” is not what creation is about. When we enter the world of discussing obligations, we have left the world of other-centered interpersonal relationships and entered the logic of the accounting office. We know that a relationship is on the skids when we begin discussing the presence or lack of obligations. Obligations do not define relationships between humans or between humans and God. The Law is an obligation. Love God and love others is the real foundation of that obligation, and therefore goes deeper.
3. Similar to 1. and 2., the quote “God was under no obligation to pull back the curtain and let us see aspects of His character and evidences of His power. He could have spoken the world into existence and then never spoken again, leaving us in ignorance about our Creator and our purpose.” (on page 14) misrepresents the character of God. Because God is a triune God of love, I submit he COULD NOT have left his creation alone, because he is who he is.
4. Once this imbalance of the character of God has been established, it may remain out of balance throughout. This is the reason for my qualified endorsement.
5. On page 32 of lesson 3, here is the following question: “Do you agree with the statement ‘In all God does, His first aim is to glorify Himself’? Why or why not? What are some ways that God’s glorifying Himself is a benefit to us?” This statement needs more unpacking. What does “glorifying himself” mean? How do we make sure we qualify that statement so that we maintain the balance discussed in 1-4 above? I certainly do not want to take the leap of theistic determinism that “all occurs to glorify God.” I think it is dangerous to leave that quote in that lesson without unpacking it. I would be much more comfortable with seeing the Bible’s own qualifications on God’s glory at this point, without wondering where it is going, given the Edwards-Piper theology present in the circles of the editors and known writers.
These are just my concerns. I certainly applaud the deep thinking on biblical and theological topics. I have some caution that the presuppositions evident in the beginning of the curriculum will lead directly to a Reformed/Augustinian interpretation of topics later on. In other words, I see we are on I-40 and heading east out of Nashville. The chances of us winding up in Little Rock are not good.
Thanks for the opportunity to reply.
Jim G.
If I were to read a bunch of “God was not obligated” phrases, I think I would assume that the intent was to create the distinction between love and obligation, so those phrases wouldn’t bother me too much.
I’m not keen on “God’s ultimate aim is His own glory” to be honest. It’s not that this sounds too reformed, but rather that it sounds too Piperish. I do think that all things, in the end, will ultimately glorify God, but that may be a discussion for a different time.
My biggest beef with some of the detractors has been their preemptive contingency strike on the term “Gospel”. If this curriculum comes out without an overt Calvinistic emphasis, the hard core detractors, rather than simply admitting they were wrong, will simply say (because they’ve said it already), well, the curriculum still isn’t good because Calvinists mean something different when they use the word “Gospel”.
I wasn’t barking up that tree, Bill.
Jim G.
I know.
Isn’t the beauty of grace the truth that it is a gift from an unobligated giver?
Seems to me that saying God wasn’t obligated to create the world is just a way of underscoring the love and grace He has shown in revealing Himself to us.
Amen.
@Kyle – I took it from your perspective as well. However, I do recognize that an emphasis on the fact that God wasn’t obligated to create us or reveal Himself will lead to a misrepresentation of God’s character if that’s where the conversation ends, just like an emphasis on God’s wrath towards sinners will lead to a misrepresentation of God’s character if the conversation ends before we talk about God’s love and grace towards His enemies.
“He stands in wrath because we are guilty. He stands in love because He’s that kind of God.” – D.A. Carson
Right on.
Hi Kyle,
Saying that God is “unobligated to save anyone” is of course the truth, but it is not the whole truth. God is also positively motivated out of love to save. You implicitly read God’s motivation into the “unobligated” statement (which is fine), but I think it needs to be explicitly stated to better balance the truth about God in a “gospel-centered” SS curriculum.
John 3:16 (a good short gospel summary) does not say “God was unobligated, but he gave.” Rather, it says “For God so loved, he gave.”
Jim G.
Jim,
If God is obligated to save everyone because of his nature, then why did he not save all the people groups outside of Israel? The Bible gives no indication that he ever extended any salvific love towards them but left them to their willful sin and rebellion.
I didn’t say he was so obligated, Josh. I’m just saying a lack of obligation needs to be balanced with his loving nature.
Jim G.
Truly!
Jim, I don’t mean this as confrontational as it sounds, but these marks of Calvinism seem pretty petty.
You stated that you essentially agree with each one, didn’t you?
Hi Dave,
No offense taken, and I’m only surfacing a concern I have in the direction of the language, that’s all. I have no points of serious disagreement.
Jim G.
Jim:
To begin with, I want to thank you for responding thoughtfully and thoroughly to Andrew’s article. Your tone came across as gracious and professional. I would like to offer a push-back to your observations, though, and I hope that my comments come across in the same gracious manner which you have displayed.
Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 are essentially the same sentiment. They all address quotes appearing on the same page, within a few sentences of each other, and are all contained in the same direct line of thought. As such, I’ll address your concerns jointly.
These quotations are from the subsection “The God who speaks is merciful to reveal Himself to us. (Ex. 3:2-6).” Generally speaking, this short subsection is explicitly dealing only with the topic of general revelation. More specifically, the purpose of this subheading is to express the idea that any revelation from God is an act of mercy and grace when compared to no revelation. Therefore, I think it’s best to view these comments within the narrow context in which they are given.
First, I think it’s important to remember that this is a part of a very specific discussion on the topic of revelation. Do I agree that these statements do not present a complete picture of God’s grace? Sure, but I don’t think that’s the intent. Furthermore, these comments are a reflection upon the story of Moses and the burning bush. Again, while you can certainly preach the gospel directly from this story, the author has chosen to use this story as an illustration for a different and distinct attribute of God. These attributes are then immediately contrasted with the “divine watchmaker” brand of deism, showing the difference between a god who would create the universe and then leave it to its own devices and a God who created the universe and sought to reveal himself to his creation. A discussion about “[t]he God who is love” is an important, biblical, and necessary discussion, but it’s not the topic at hand.
Second, although this entire curriculum is entitled The Gospel Project, I think it would be counterproductive to require that the fullness of the entire gospel message be placed in every discussion and subsection. Please don’t misunderstand me: I am not saying that you have made any such demand. However, I do feel like the crux of your objection is that, while the statements in and of themselves are not inaccurate or inherently Calvinistic, those statements, without more, are an incomplete picture of God’s grace and love. To that end, I agree whole heartedly. My disagreement, however, is that I do not believe that those statements are meant to be taken in a vacuum. If this were the fullness of TGP’s discussion of God’s grave, love and mercy, I would certainly be put off, but as it stands these only appear in the context of a specific topic within only the first lesson.
Third, assuming, arguendo, that these quotations did exist in a vacuum, I think it’s a stretch to say that these quotations are inherently Calvinistic. Thematically indicative of certain popular topics among contemporary Calvinist theologians? Perhaps. But inherently Calvinistic? I don’t see it. (Obviously, that’s a much more complex debate, so I’ll leave it for what it’s worth.)
When I read Session 1, I thought there was an overwhelming connection to the presuppositional apologetics of Francis Schaeffer, and not the soteriology of Calvin (or contemporary Calvinist theologians). But that’s just one man’s impression.
In No. 5, your complaint appears to be that the statement needs unpacking—not that it’s inherently Calvinistic. I would simply argue that the “Expanded Content” of Session 3, particularly on pp. 37-38, is designed to address your question directly. As I read it, the question is meant to be used as a discussion segue into God’s special revelation. Particularly, the discussion of Psalm 19 seems to be a very appropriate way to unpack the question.
From my reading, your complaints appear to have two main themes: 1) Certain quotations are not developed as fully as you’d like. And 2) certain statements concern topics which are popular among contemporary Calvinist preachers. I would submit that these complaints are not due to anything unique to Calvinism.
Thanks for replying, Zack. I would generally agree with your last paragraph. The lack of development standing alone would not be a real issue if we did not have the deeper theological topics on the horizon. The statements common to contemporary Calvinist preachers have been used throughout the Augustinian-Calvinist tradition, so I think that concern is well-founded. But it is only a concern at this point.
Jim G.
You are all predestined to embrace the doctrines of grace anyway. Why kick at the goads?
If the existing writers of our material are Arminian and broad, they would never enter Calvinistic territory. The material would be more liberal than conservative.
Bruce,
Calvinist/Arminian is absolutely, positively no indicator of liberal/conservative.
Jim G.
Jim,
I understand what you are saying. My concern with the existing material is that it does not have a broad appeal in the direction of Calvinism. It does leave out things and that waters down the truth. Watered down truth is liberalism to me. The things it waters down isn’t necessarily Calvinistic either. I have been told to just teach it the way I want to and use the material as a guideline. I really wish the material was packed with truth and doctrine and I was allowed to teach it the way I wanted to and use it only as a guideline.
Two things,
First, I think we should be careful not to confuse “non-calvinist” with “Arminian”, not that the Andrew or Bruce were confusing the two when they mentioned them.
Second, regards the Edwardian interpretation that “God’s ultimate aim is His own glory”, I have no problem with this. While I agree with Jim’s assessment that the authors of TGP emphasize the notion of “God is not obligated to us”, I believe that this may be necessary in a church-culture that is too often centered on Man.
Isn’t the purpose of the redemption of mankind much more about bringing glory to God and less of saving man from eternal damnation? I know you can’t separate the two in the biblical narrative, but shouldn’t we be careful not to give them equal emphasis?
@Anthony – RE:terminology – I know what you mean about the whole “non-Calvinist = Arminian” issue. I see it both ways. A strong emphasis on election or God’s sovereignty can lead to the Calvinist label as well
RE:obligation – See my comment above to Kyle.
Maybe I could ask it this way. What is the difference in a broad appeal from a Calvinist standpoint and a broad appeal from an Arminian standpoint?
practically speaking, I don’t know if there is a difference.
A Calvinist would make the appeal to “repent and believe” the same as an Arminian would.
However, based on my understanding, logic would dictate that an Arminian would be amiss if he were to pray to God for the salvation of someone since prevenient grace (ability to believe) has been given to everyone without exception and it is up to the sinner to “be smart” and believe.
Hi Anthony,
Your second paragraph is a prime example of why Arminianism does not follow to its logical conclusions. Neither does Calvinism. If either did, they would become absurd and quite quickly so at that.
So I think it would be wise not to accuse Arminianism of things based on logical conclusions, because the same type of accusation against Calvinism can be thrown right back.
Jim G.
Jim,
“why pray if God has pre-ordained everything to come to pass?”
There was a farmer who had a dog and Bingo was his name-o. :0)
Jim G.
By “broad appeal,” I’m referring to writing in such a way as to intentionally try to include people from various theological positions in your target readership.
Albert Mohler, for instance, has written a few books about American culture and society that have a broad evangelical appeal, though I’m sure some of what he writes in those books is influenced by his Calvinist beliefs.
The Forgotten God by Francis Chan is an example of a book I’ve recently read that is written with a broad appeal despite the fact he could be identified as a Calvinist, I believe.
Calvinist and Arminian, both, can appear to deserve the other’s label, depending on the text with which they are dealing and their faithfulness in dealing with it. Consider Jonathan Edwards sermon, Pressing Into The Kingdom, Lk.16;16. (Vol.I. Works. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust,1974.p654. He sounds more Arminian than the most Arminian, just like John Wesley used terms about forcing men to come Christ that Spurgeon said he would never use. My ordaining pastor had two sermons that were outstanding for urging and inducing sinners to seek Christ, and I heard one of the leading Independent Sovereign Grace Preachers preach a sermon on Ten Things a Man can do in Seeking Salvation. I have also ready in Wesley’s Journal where he conceded that men could reach a position from which they would never fall. This was in his letter in response to Whitefield’s effort to bring about a peaceful resolution to their differences for the sake of the Gospel. Something like that was produced among the Separate and Regular Baptists in Virginia, and it has been a hallmark of Southern Baptist practice ever since. Both sides are free to write and preach their convictions without being hateful to the other side. But there are those who forget the original agreement, if they ever knew it. The very calling of a minister involves the idea of persuasion, and, if he is not free to persuade, then he is not free at all. Persuasion is the only route open, the route of seeking to persuade others with the facts for our case, and that is the Christian position. The transformation of Protestantism from a Gospel recovery effort filled with conflict and combat and contention into a “we will persuade you with the truth” missionary effort is one of the true miracles of history, and the Baptists capped it off with the crown jewel, religious liberty, which one Methodist Historian, William Warren Sweet, conceded: Baptists deserve the credit for this freedom. While we found that we could not allow the teaching of higher critical views of the Bible to go unchecked, the truth is we were going to win the battle for the Bible anyway. My professors use to get very upset with my papers on the inspiration of Scripture, and another student wrote a paper at SEBTS that had the professor quoting the Bible to the student, saying, “Matthew and Luke believed it (the model prayer). Why can’t you?”
The student, using the critical methods, had concluded that we had only one word that was probably from Jesus, the word, “Father,” and even that was questionable. It was hilarious. I can still hear him to this day saying, “Look at it. My professor is quoting the Bible to me.” (which shows that though there were problems with the historical critical approach, the Moderates, for the most part, were not willing to go the lengths that some critics did and do). The fellow who wrote the paper had an interesting past, being from the mountains of West Va., but I forbear to say what except that it was funny, considering.
No one is going to force a bunch of Baptists to do anything that they don’t want to do. The Moderates learned the hard way, and our Conservative leaders will also discover this painful reality. You can only do so much with a bunch of folks who are willing to think and act for themselves. One thing I have learned is that you can’t do someone else’s thinking for them. It only ends in misery, when one tries to do such thing. What you want are believers and followers who are fully persuaded by the truth, by the facts. If it were to come to a vote to vote out all who are not fully committed Sovereign Grace believers, I would vote against it. There are various stages in the development of Christian believers. Not every one is at the same stage. Not every one has fully examined the facts. Some of the coldest and most indifferent can become some of the most ardent advocates. There are variations among the professors at SEBTS, and I suspect there are at SBTS, NOBTS, SWBTS, MWBTS, and GGBTS. Just like variation is allowed in eschatology, so it is in other areas of theology and the Bible.
All of the human race; every man woman and child that has ever been created, born, or will be born in the future, will fall into one of three categories:
1) Those who have heard the Gospel, Believed, and Repented.
2) Those who have heard the Gospel, Did Not Believe, and Did Not Repent.
3) Those who will live their life and never once here the Gospel.
Now, here is the great question that all who engage in thinking seriously about their faith must answer: “How does my personal Theological Opinions (System) deal with each of these? It makes no difference if you are a Calvinist, an Arminian, or a Non-(whatever), if Your Theology cannot properly account for how God will deal with all of humanity it is at best incomplete.
Grace for the Journey,
bucketheadbaptist,
Does the Explore the Bible series have a balanced approach to you?
Buckethead,
I’ve heard most everyone all my life say we are spiritually dead prior to knowing Christ based on this verse, and I did not grow up in a Calvinistic church by any strech of the imagination.
Also, your second point about Genesis 6:1-4 makes no sense and hardly does justice to Calvinists regarding spiritual warfare and even less justice to the biblical text.
Andrew,
You would be correct in pointing out the idea of being spiritually dead PRIOR to knowing Christ. That is exactly Paul’s point in the scripture… HOWEVER… the TGP’s take on it does NOT make that clear. That lesson’s objective is to take you to Total Depravity… and leave you there. That’s irresponsible.
It’s also irresponsible to totally leave out the purpose and direction that Paul was going with this scripture… it was all about Spiritual Warfare… and the TGP only focused on Sin Nature. The OLD Sin Nature before being quickened.
As for the Genesis 6:1-4 comment… it took me a long time to come to grips with the subversion of the facts that has been perpetrated by the Church leadership through the ages on not just these verses… but the rest of the entire chapter AND every passage of scripture that refers back to this area throughout the rest of the bible.
I gave one link… I can give some more if you’d like to at least get a balanced or instructive view on the problem here. I’ve got some materials I can mail to you for free if you’ve got the time and inclination… but quite frankly Andrew, its going to come down to me telling you that you’ve been lied to…. by the church… and you are not going to like finding out that some bomb-thrower like me is absolutely right.
Andrew… I really appreciate your interest and concern… but if you think I’m doing an injustice to the text… then Brother… you need to spend some time with someone who can teach it.
Here’s a link to the free Audio from the DVD I posted above… I hope you have an opportunity to check it out and to not let my passionate abrasiveness dissuade you from investigation.
http://www.khouse.org/6640/DVD107-1/
Abrasiveness aside, the position itself is sufficient to disuade me from further investigation.
The biggest barrier to discovering truth, is the assumption that you already have it.
Wow, that was an ironic statement if I ever heard one.
Buckethead,
You said, “The Augustinian/Calvinist take on the Flood account is an absolute lie. And you guys are teaching it to the little ones with the TGP.”
In what way is this an “absolute lie”?
There are two views on Genesis 6:1-4. The “Angel View”… and the “Sethite View”… Augustine introduced the Sethite view. There was no Sethite view in the early church… because the Jews taught it exactly as Angel View and had for millenia…
For centuries since Augustine… we’ve been told we can pick and choose which view you want to follow. I’m telling you … No longer. Why? Because the SBC does not take an “official” position on these views… but EFFECTIVELY they teach the Sethite view … and they do it consistently whenever it comes up in the remainder of the bible.
The Sethite View was a manufactured lie to cover up embarrassment of the scripture… and Augustinian/Calvinist Doctrine absolutely derive and depend on it.
Genesis 6:5 is the very ESSENCE of the beginning of the doctrine of Total Depravity.
But it does not address the Hybridization of mankind… the destruction of the seed of the woman by the forces of that OTHER seed.
Noah was not picked JUST because he was a righteous preacher… examine the text closer… He was free of genetic corruption … that is the main point of why he and his family was chosen.
The Sethite View… is an absolute lie. It’s Augustine’s Lie… and Calvinism 100% depends on it.
It’s Calvinisim’s Zero Point. It does not withstand honest and serious investigation… but as long as OPINION rules those in Pulpit… and not the facts… then that’s the way it goes.
Buckethead,
Would it surprise you if I could give you a name of a Calvinist who believes as you do on those being angels in Gen. 6:1-4? John MacArthur teaches that those were angels.
Your conviction that “Calvinism 100% depends on” some strange belief about the Nephilim is absurd. You need help, and the comments section on my post is not the place to get it. I strongly recommend you seek out sound biblical teachers to help you with interpreting the Bible or at minimum take this discussion to your own blog.
All,
I would strongly recommend not engaging BucketheadBaptist on this forum.
This post has been hijacked pretty egregiously. Let’s get back to the topic or move on.