I hate hidden agendas – they are unworthy of God’s people. Paul said, in 2 Corinthians 4:2 that he renounced secret and shameful ways. So, I want to come clean here and tell you exactly what I am doing.
In the book, “Anyone Can Be Saved: A Defense of ‘Traditional’ Southern Baptist Soteriology” edited by David L. Allen, Eric Hankins, and Adam Harwood, Dr. Allen opens the discussion with an excellent essay entitled, “The Current SBC Calvinism Debate: Observations, Clarifications, and Suggestions.” It is one of the best things I have read on the topic. What I’d like to do is simply copy it here for you to read in full, but there’s this little hindrance called a copyright and the good folks at Wipf and Stock might object. So, I will interact with what Dr. Allen wrote in enough detail to give you a good idea of what he said without, hopefully, running afoul of any laws!
He begins by asserting the obvious.
Two things are crystal clear. The issue of Calvinism in the SBC is not going away, and finding our way forward is not going to be easy.
He is absolutely right. Southern Baptists have been “discussing” this topic (with varying hues of red faces) since the convention was founded, with both the Sandy Creek and the Charleston streams flowing free. If the Lord tarries and the convention survives, in 100 years there will be Calvinists and non-Calvinists arguing still. Hopefully, they will also be partnering for the gospel.
Dr. Allen makes eight key points, which I believe both diagnose the problem in our current Calvinism discussions and provide an effective course of treatment.
1. As Southern Baptists, our agreements outnumber our disagreements.
To hear some, Calvinists and Traditionalists preach different gospels, but Dr. Allen highlights the doctrines we hold in common. We confess the BF&M 2000, the Lordship of Christ, the inerrancy and sufficiency of Scripture, the lostness of humanity and the exclusivity of the gospel, and that salvation is by grace through faith alone. Bart Barber had a post years ago in which he listed common doctrines of Calvinist and non-Calvinist Baptists. Seems like the list ran over 40 items.
Dr. Allens asserts that this is a necessary discussion, though I’ve seen great damage come from it. If the attitude Dr. Allen promotes can prevail, I’d rethink that. He speaks of the unity of Baptist Calvinists and Traditionalists around the BF&M.
It is sufficiently broad in latitude that we can all live, breathe, and work under its umbrella. In fact, Calvinists and Traditionalists, for the most part, have been doing that already for quite a number of decades.
Preach!
2. Because of this common ground, we should avoid “the Scylla of attempting to run all Calvinists out of Dodge and the Charybdis of attempting to return us as a convention to the Calvinistic theology of some of the founders.”
These attempts foster division. Some insist Calvinism is outside of “Southern Baptist soteriology” and others wish to paint the founders of the SBC as monolithically Calvinist. These are attempts to assert “superior Baptistitude” (yeah, just made that us). Instead, we must accept one another as equal partners in the SBC world.
If we are to come together in unity, we must do so as Baptists, not as Calvinists and Traditionalists. We must unite around Baptist distinctives which include the only glue that can hold us together; a biblical, Baptist theology wedded to a Great Commission resurgence of evangelism and missions. We don’t have to cease to be Calvinists or Traditionalists to be Baptists.
Can I get a witness?
3. We need to love and respect one another even though we are not in complete agreement on every theological point.
He says,
We should speak the truth in love and avoid strident, emotive language.
Well, there goes blogging.
Seriously, in blogging, few of us avoid the periodic (or frequent) violation of these wise words, but many now see the Bible’s calls to unity, gentleness, and respect as markers of a lack of conviction. One blogger recently labeled unity an idol. Thankfully, he is extreme, but many use the words of Jesus to the Pharisees in Matthew 23 as justification for verbally eviscerating one another and ignoring the calls to build up, to be meek, to guard our words, and to be loving in all we do. That takes real courage and conviction.
Yes, there are charlatans and sinners who must be confronted, but kindness, love, and respect must be our default.
4. We need to be reminded that the truth of a given position is in no way related to who or how many hold that position.
Are you saying that a LifeWay survey of how many Baptists identify with each side doesn’t establish truth?
If it could be proven that a majority of our founders believed in Calvinism, it is not proven. If we can show that 97.2% of key leaders in the SBC today reject Calvinism, it does not disprove it. The Berean spirit (Acts 17:11) must prevail as we are guided by God’s word.
Obviously, all sides believe that their position is established in Scripture. That is why love and respect are needed. We accept one another as brethren (and sistern) while we grow in the knowledge of God’s word and its author.
5. Generally speaking, all Southern Baptists are concerned about theology.
Dr. Allen makes an important point, even if we all know Baptists who couldn’t care less about theology and doctrine.
He graciously includes a rejoinder to Traditionalists not to disrespect the theological competency of Calvinists. Some dismiss Calvinists as more concerned with systematics than biblical theology, as shaping their theology from confessions and creeds more than from exegesis, and of tending to get lost in the weeds of hero worship (Piper said it, I believe it, that settles it).
But I’ve been involved enough with Calvinists to deliver a friendly word of rebuke. Many Calvinists tend to look at Non-Calvinists and especially at Traditionalists as theological rubes who just don’t have the insight or intelligence to see the Bible correctly. I’ve heard solid Bible scholars spoken of dismissively simply because they hold to non-Calvinist positions. One can be intelligent, a scholar of God’s word, deeply in love with Jesus, and come to a position different than yours.
Dr. Allen gives a list of 8 errors to avoid in theological debate.
- Do not subsume one set of Scriptures under another.
- Prejudicing that which is logical in Scripture over that which is paradoxical. (I believe paradox, or antinomy, may be the key to all hermeneutics)
- Succumbing to logical fallacies to maintain our particular theology.
- Doing systematic theology before biblical theology. (This should, perhaps, be #1?)
- Confusing one’s theological system with the gospel and reacting to criticism of the system as a challenge to the gospel.
- Confusing a critique of someone’s theological system as a critique of that person.
- Engaging in ad hominem attacks.
- Questioning the motives of others in theological discussion.
6. Avoid misrepresenting another’s theology.
This is at the heart of much of our problem in Calvinism discussions. People say, “This is what Calvinists believe,” and Calvinists say, “but it isn’t.” The Traditionalist then enforces his interpretation of Calvinist belief over what the Calvinist claims to believe. The TS comes out and Calvinists shout, “Semi-pelagian.” Traditionalists say, “We are not Semi-pelagian because….” but Calvinists continue to enforce the Semi-Pelagian accusation. We speak but do not listen.
The key to any discussion is to be able to present the views of the other side in a way that the OTHER SIDE UNDERSTANDS.
I have been in some form of ministry for nearly four decades, and have noticed that every marriage I have ever seen that is in trouble has the same problem. Communication. The problem can present in terms of money or sex or children or a hundred other things, but 100% of the couples that end up in my office for counseling are terrible at talking to one another. No, that’s not it. They are terrible at LISTENING to each other.
Ever heard of active listening? That’s where a man sits on the couch with his wife and asks her how her day went. She speaks and then he says, “What I heard you saying was…” and he tries to accurately restate what she said. If he gets it wrong she helps him clarify until he can succinctly restate what she was saying. Then, and only then, after he’s listened carefully to what she said, does he respond. Then, she says, “What I heard you saying was…” It takes hours to have a simple conversation! But when a marriage is in trouble, it is because man and wife have stopped listening to each other. They are interpreting and overblowing and forming their responses before they’ve actually listened.
The SBC is a giant dysfunctional marriage and we are terrible at listening to one another. What if Calvinists made a good-faith effort to genuinely understand what Traditionalists and other non-Calvinists believed, and the various non-Calvinists did the same thing? It would be a great first step.
Dr. Allen makes a distinction between understanding a theological system and examining its implications. This is always going to be tricky. The key issue with non-Calvinist views of Calvinism is their belief that they are deterministic. Calvinists deny that in various ways. But Traditionalists and other non-Calvinists make the claim that the implications of the Calvinist system are deterministic. Calvinists do similar things when they examine the implications of various free-will systems.
If we begin with a genuine effort to understand the theology the other side believes, then simply argue at the level of implications, it may not lead to easy resolution, but it is a good first step. The key is that we cannot willfully, ignorantly, or through laziness, misrepresent the other side in our discussions.
7. Is the TS divisive?
Dr. Allen distinguishes several kinds of division, some of which are healthy and others not so.
Any Baptist is free to state his or her theological position. Doctrine by its nature is divisive but that division is not inherently unhealthy. It becomes so when we respond badly. Has the TS been divisive? Undeniable so. But it was wholly appropriate for Eric Hankins to write and release this. It was wholly appropriate for others to critique it – to affirm it and to disagree with it. We are a deliberative body. We discuss and we disagree.
But too often our disagreements have been unhealthy because of how we have behaved. That isn’t the fault of the TS but of the way people have behaved either in support of it or in opposition to it. Establishing and advocating for a theological position – that is wholly appropriate. How we’ve done that often is not.
8. The entire enterprise calls for a healthy dose of humility and prayer.
I’m not sure what to add to Dr. Allen’s words.
The goal in this dialogue should not be to win at all costs. The goal should be to win the world to Christ at all costs.
What Dr. Allen said.
David Allen for president. I don’t know of what…but something.
“We believe in election from eternity, effectual calling by the Holy Spirit of God, and justification in his sight only by the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. And we believe that they who are thus elected, effectually called, and justified, will persevere through grace to the end, that none of them be lost.” Where is this from? The Principles of Faith of the Sandy Creek Association! This body of churches and those of the Charleston Tradition, rooted in the 1689 Confession, were the matrix of the Southern Baptists: clearly a Reformed matrix.
Posted on Face Book by Dr Haykin.
Maybe clearly Calvinistic , but not clearly a reformed matrix.
Those terms get used interchangeably; so I’m curious how you are distinguishing them.
Calvinism really only covers the doctrine of salvation. Reformed is a broader theological terms which includes other areas of doctrine. In other words, one can be Calvinistic and dispensational, but they can’t really be reformed and dispensational.
Thanks.
Just wanted to make sure I had my categories correct for the distinction you were making; I doubt most people who speak of a reformed perspective delineate in that way as the discussion usually stops at soteriology.
First of all, I enjoy this blog.
I am a deacon at a SBC church, who teaches an adult Sunday school class, ( yes some churches still have those).
We have been looking at church history, and when we got to Erasmus, we had to look at KJV onlyism, textual criticism, if was not a Sunday walk in the park, telling people for the first time about the “ comma Johanneum” and the “periscope adultera”. But dealing with church history has been even harder, reformation, drowning, inprisoning parents because they would not baptize their infant children, but we also looked at Calvinism ( sadly for the first time in my church), and of all things we have looked at, this has been the most eye opening issue, of church history. I would describe my church as a “ traditional”, who so ever will, all really means all, Baptist Church. When we dove into the five point tulip breakdown, you talk about the deer in the headlights response. When I got to the “L” I think some people threw up a little bit in their mouths. This class is mostly all north of sixty years old, and the idea of limited atonement is beyond the belief, they can’t go there, and I feel this is by far the majority view of most southern baptist over fifty.
But here is my point, as I dug deep into calvinismi realized that they are all over the map in terms of soteriology as well as the non Calvinist are. I have viewed Mohler, Piper, Sproul, (rip); MacArthur, and the rest and to me Calvinism just not logical, I watched a video from Dr. Mohler speaking on apologetics and he said I can’t for the life of me understand how some people accept the gospel, and how some people reject the gospel.
And then I watch at video clip of David Platt say about the sinners prayer, “ the sinners prayer is not a biblical response to the gospel, should it not concern us that there is no such superstitious prayer in the New Testament, should it not concern us that the Bible never uses the phrase accept Jesus into your heart”.
This all being said I purchased Dr. Allen’s book at ebay, and look forward to reading it, and very much look forward to your coming blogs on this subject..
Benny,
Thank you for your service to the Body.
I am a 5 pt C.
And while Platt is right that there is no such prayer in the Bible, it doesn’t make the sinners prayer superstitious.
Do You believe that Jesus died in the place of others?
And that He is the Son of God who rose from the dead?
If yes to those two questions, then we agree on the Gospel.
Mike, thanks for the thanks, and yes I whole heartedly agree with your two beliefs.
But , and I am trying to arrive at a complete understanding of your 5 pt. C beliefs, and do believe we are brothers in Christ, I can’t see how you guys make the leap that you do, so if you don’t mind can I ask you a few questions?
Doing my research for our church history class I have reached out to multiple reformed brethren in my community, and after the formal pleasantries, after they have agreeed to enlighten me, they never respond back to me, and to be honest when I am not in person I admit I can seem to be sarcastic, but all I am really trying to do is really, fully understand how your reformed theology plays out.
Benny,
What leap?
But on your other point, and i dont who you are talking about, so this is just a general and a possibility, but many times people learn a system of beliefs and they never investigate the Word themselves to grasp how what they believe interacts with the whoe counsel of God. So they are not confortable speaking outside of their own ‘system’.
The people I have interacted with to observe this are probably not pastors. But they are from all sets of different Christian beliefs. They know what they know and they are happy to ‘live’ in that set of understandings. People get comfortable with their understandings and dont want to upset the apple cart.
And as long as they hold to the true Gospel I consider them brothers in Christ.
So what leap?
Let me say this first, I heard John MacArthur say in a q & a at a conference, “ I am sure I am wrong somewhere in my doctrine, I just don’t know where it is, if someone can point it out to me, and prove me wrong, I will change.. I agree with that, and I have gone into the study of Calvinism with that mind set, I’ve tried to take emotions out of the study, and all my presuppositions out as well.
I love your comment about seeing what the word says, totally agree, to that point, the few responses I get about Calvinism allude more to, confessions, council of orange, synod of Dort etc;
As to the leap, and in referencing staying in the word, to me the leap is, I can’t find a vesrse or verses that say unequivocally that we are so totally depraved to that we are unable to respond. I believe we are separated from God, we are spiritually separated, but not spiritually dead.
Second leap ( to me anyway) I don’t think we are robots, I do hold to the belief that God is sovereign, and he is so sovereign, that he can deal with man having a libertine free will to accept or reject the gospel.
And most every Calvinist I dialogue with, when that is mentioned, they cannot even consider it for a nano second.
To my first post, I am curious, what do you think about my quote of Dr Al Mohler, how can a 5 pt C say with a straight face,
That they don’t know why some people reject the gospel ?
What about the play on words of 1 John 4:19 (kjv) We love him because he first loved us.
Could a reprobate honestly say ?
“ I hate him because he first hated me”
Benny,
As you mentioned, there is not just one Calvinistic position, so I can only speak for myself. I can’t explain Dr. Mohlers words or John McCarthur’s either.
So let me answer the questions you have raised, from my point of view.
You said:
“What about the play on words of 1 John 4:19 (kjv) We love him because he first loved us.
Could a reprobate honestly say ?
“ I hate him because he first hated me””
No C I know would give the reprobate that excuse. First, before He demonstrated His love to you in saving you, you hated Him. You didn’t hate Him because He hated you [since He did and does not] so why did you hate Him? Romans 5:10 says you were His enemy before He reconciled you. Romans 8 says this: 7 The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so.
Those verses aren’t Calvinistic doctrine, Benny, they are the Word of God. The Bible then is clear, before a person is saved, if ever saved, they hate God. And it looks like you have bought into a false narrative, that if God doesn’t’t love everyone salvifically then they have an excuse to hate Him. So why did you hate the God who loved you?
You asked:
“To my first post, I am curious, what do you think about my quote of Dr Al Mohler, how can a 5 pt C say with a straight face,
That they don’t know why some people reject the gospel ?”
I can’t speak to his thoughts, I just have no idea. Even if I heard it in context, any answer I woud give woud be a guess. But I can tell you what the Bible says. 1st Cor. 1 says this: 18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. Why do they reject the Gospel? Because they think it is foolishness. In fact Benny, if they think it is foolishness, they sure cant accept it from their heart. In another place, we read: 3 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. 4 The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. [2 Cor. 4] What does the Bible say, in just these two place?
The Bible says that the perishing reject the Bible because they think it is foolishness and they are blind to its truth.
You also mentioned:
“Second leap ( to me anyway) I don’t think we are robots, I do hold to the belief that God is sovereign, and he is so sovereign, that he can deal with man having a libertine free will to accept or reject the gospel.”
Calvinists [as well as most philosophisers] dont believe in libertine free will. We believe in a free will of man that is compatible with God’s will. Look at the verses from the last questioned answered. Those perishing freely rejected the Gospel, and why? Because they thought it was foolishness. That is the essence of free will -making choices based on your own understanding. That ties the freedom of choice to the understanding. Simply saying that a person can choose any which way cuts off the choice from the persons mind and heart, because in salvation, one must believe from the heart.
And your first question:
“As to the leap, and in referencing staying in the word, to me the leap is, I can’t find a vesrse or verses that say unequivocally that we are so totally depraved to that we are unable to respond. I believe we are separated from God, we are spiritually separated, but not spiritually dead.”
I can’t find any verse that says unequivocally that God is triune or that He is a trinity. But as to what we are as it correspnds to our ability to respond, again, I have already covered but two or so of those verses. If a person thinks the Gospel foolishness, he is unable to respond positively from the heart. If a person is blind to the truthof the Gospel, he is unable to respond positively from the heart. We also read this from Romans 8:
“5 Those who live according to the flesh have their minds set on what the flesh desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. 6 The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace. 7 The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so.”
And since we all once were living in the flesh, how can anyone be saved? How were we saved? The Bible tells us how:
“5 For what we preach is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake. 6 For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of God’s glory displayed in the face of Christ.” [2nd Cor 4]
Please look at these passages in context. And if you any other questions about what I believe, feel free to ask.
Blessings
Mike, thanks for your response, I am going into meetings for rest of today, I will respond this evening.
I do have a response, and a few more questions, thanks for the back and forth..
Mike wrote:Calvinists [as well as most philosophisers] dont believe in libertine free will.
Mike and Benny, this is true because most philosophers aren’t Christians. But among Christian philosophers the opposite is true. As one Calvinist doing his doctoral program put it, “I’ve always found it a little disturbing that very few Christian philosophers have been willing to tolerate Calvinism. It’s almost an orthodoxy among Christian philosophers that libertarianism is true. I myself received a pretty damning condemnation of my denial of libertarian free will from Alvin Plantinga[The leading living Christian philosopher] in personal conversation when I was an undergrad, enough that his whole demeanor and desire to continue talking with me changed drastically once I mentioned what my senior thesis was trying to argue…Keith quotes Dean Zimmerman, former faculty member at Syracuse where I am doing my Ph.D., to the effect that the main explanation for philosophers’ abandonment of Calvinism is largely because philosophers have to deal more closely with nonbelievers in the secular academy, while theologians are more involved with in-house Christian circles due to teaching in seminaries.
http://parablemania.ektopos.com/archives/2007/02/calvinism_philosophers.html
Plantinga dismisses compatibilism, stating “this objection… seems utterly implausible. One might as well claim that being in jail doesn’t really limit one’s freedom on the grounds that if one were not in jail, he’d be free to come and go as he pleased”
Immanuel Kant (A Christian and for better or worse the most influential modern philosopher) called compatiblism a “wretched subterfuge” and “word jugglery”.
So Mike your statement is technically accurate only because most philosophers are not Christians. Compatiblism is popular among atheists and Calvinists. Christian philosophers, commonly operating in a secular setting, go against the secular cultural flow by embracing libertarian free will.
This is been my general experience; people who engage unbelievers either believe in libertarian free will or present themselves to unbelievers in a way that the unbeliever perceives they believe in libertarian free will.
Paul,
Thanks for your response.
I get it that you believe in Libertarian Free Will, but you didn’t really address my criticisms of it.
As to those who engage unbelievers either believing in LFW or conduct themselves in such a way that the unbeliever thinks they do, that isa red herring. First, most unbelievers rightly believe they have free will, and have no need to understand if it id Libertarian or Compatibilistic.
Second, they appear the same in conversation. One cant tell what kind of free will [as if they really care, which they don’t] a person has simply in conversing with them.
When the Gospel is presented, the unsaved hearers have a choice. That choice has nothing to do with how the proclaimer views free will. As an example, Calvinists have implored men for 500 years to turn to Christ and be saved, even as non-C’s have also done.
Have a great day Paul, and many blessings to you.
Paul,
Enjoyed your post….
Andy, It may be semantics, but I also believe that we are incapable to save ourselves, and God always makes the first move to call us, through the holy spirit. I just believe that we do have a choice to make to accept after the spirit makes us aware that we need a savior, but when I listen to John Piper say that the salvation cake was baked long before I was born, and that It has already been decided who the elect are, It gives me a lot of things to think about.
Did God determine that Satan would fall?
What does Satan really hope to accomplish, if it is irresistible grace? none that the Farther has given the son can be plucked from his hand.
If all of creation is totally blinded, and dead, why did Jesus speak in parables do we really need to put blindfolds on dead people?
C speak of tension about these things, and I can see why they do.
And when the elect share the gospel ( as we are all commanded to do), In doing so, to share is that a free will choice to share, or when we are in line at the DMV to renew our car tag, and we get the prompting from the spirit to share the gospel with the guy in front of me, who always seems to not be able to find his car title and holds up the line, and I know to share, but for some reason, I don’t talk to him about Jesus, was that predestined that I have the prompting to share, and why didn’t I do it, but it really want matter, if he elect he will still get in, for that matter, if he is a reprobate he still can’t get in, even if I do share the gospel, not trying to beat a dead horse….
Benny,
You said…
“And when the elect share the gospel ( as we are all commanded to do), In doing so, to share is that a free will choice to share, or when we are in line at the DMV to renew our car tag, and we get the prompting from the spirit to share the gospel with the guy in front of me, who always seems to not be able to find his car title and holds up the line, and I know to share, but for some reason, I don’t talk to him about Jesus, was that predestined that I have the prompting to share, and why didn’t I do it, but it really want matter, if he elect he will still get in, for that matter, if he is a reprobate he still can’t get in, even if I do share the gospel, not trying to beat a dead horse….”
And why would you, no C does.
We are commanded to share the Gospel, not every point of doctrine.
And you and I have already agreed on what the Gospel is.
And every right thinking C agrees with us.
AS to parables, the Lord tells us:
10 The disciples came to him and asked, “Why do you speak to the people in parables?”
11 He replied, “Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. 12 Whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them. 13 This is why I speak to them in parables:
“Though seeing, they do not see;
though hearing, they do not hear or understand.
14 In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:
“‘You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.
15 For this people’s heart has become calloused;
they hardly hear with their ears,
and they have closed their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts
and turn, and I would heal them.’ [Matthew 13]
And yet you think they are not blind [“If all of creation is totally blinded, and dead, why did Jesus speak in parables do we really need to put blindfolds on dead people?”]
Question the Lord not a Calvinist on that.
Maybe you don’t understand the nature of revealed truth and how it opens the eyes of the heart and cause the stone deaf to hear. Certainly the parables are understandable by the perishing on one level: they know what the words and sentences mean and they get the physical/worldly idea of what He is saying. Don’t you think? But yet He stills says they can not see or understand.
Note that revealed truth is more than physically hearing it. Truth revealed to the heart by the Spirit is revealed truth. And what does the Lord say about those who grasp it:
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts
and turn, and I would heal them.’
Note how this dove tails in with 2nd Cor. 4:
3 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. 4 The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. 5 For what we preach is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake. 6 For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of God’s glory displayed in the face of Christ.
The perishing are blind to the Gospel: they cannot see spiritual truth. Thus they cannot turn and be healed. But God opens our eyes so we might see the glory of God in Jesus, salvation! Healing!
Many blessings to you.
Mike, Sorry if I misunderstood you, but I may have made an assumption, your first response to my post was that you are a 5 pt C, are you saying you don’t subscribe to Total depravity, as in so dead that a person can’t respond, dead?
Mike, I use the same example you used ( the Bible never mentions trinity), but with the full cannon we come to believe in the trinity.
I finished James white’s book on the trinity a while back, and enjoyed it.
C are dogmatic of total dapravity ( trinity example), but I think the full flow of the Bible ( trinity example) takes us in the free will path, we are separated from God spiritually, but not spiritually dead.
C take the T/D road.
To me your whole system breaks down on T/D, if the reprobate is doomed from the womb, and has absolutely no chance of reconciliation with God, ( and many will/would say God gets glory from that),
I get the potter/clay verses, but it does seem the eternal one made the first move, didn’t Calvin coin the phrase doomed from the womb, (this was my point about who hated who first, ) or God loves all creation, just only some in a salvific love, don’t really get that, most Calvinist say, about Romans 9
Forget hating Esau, I am just in awe that he could even love Jacob.. ( easy to say if you view yourself as one of the elect), my view is he didn’t hate Esau, he just loved Jacob more, similar to Rachel and Leah.
Luke 14:26 Jesus says if any man come unto me and “ hate” not his farther and mother…
I think the Greek will confirm he means we are to love Christ more, than all our earthly loves.
This is part of why I think C’s have built a bridge too far, to try to understand the mysteries of God’s word…
Benny,
I agree that we don’t want to go beyond what scripture says, but we also want to be careful not to deny what scripture states, even if we then seek to clarify what those statements mean.
So I personally would be uncomfortable denying that we are spiritually dead, given that Ephesians 2 says twice that we were “dead in trespasses”. Combined with Romans 8 saying the natural man “cannot” please God, and romans 3 saying “no one seeks God.” I would say it seems at minimum, due to the fall, and left to ourselves, no one would seek God. Now this doesn’t necessarily mean we don’t make free choices, but that our spiritual nature is so damaged that none would even seek god’s salvation without some initiation from him. Now, this could take the form of Calvinisms irresistible drawing, or the form of Arminianism’s “prevenient grace” that is applied to all, but I would be uncomfortable saying the natural man “seeks God,” or “is not spiritually dead” because it seems those statements contradict what scripture says.
However, I do realize there is room to discuss these things, and a necessity to be both precise and clear in definitions of words and statements when things seem to contradict each other.
After all, If I began to argue that “a person is justified by works and not by faith alone”… I COULD be a heretic…or I could be James, brother of Jesus, author of scripture. 🙂
Benny,
Thanks for your reply.
Note that I didn’t use the phrase Total Depravity. I used some Scripture to show why those perishing reject the Gospel. Note as well, that I beieve they do so of their own free will.
And those same Scriptures show why they COULD NOT freely accept the Gospel.
I expect that in our conversation, that you might address what I actually have said, since you pointed out that not all C’s think the same about every doctrine.
Otherwise, I would be led to think that your objections are based not on the actual Scriptures but on hw you feel about things.
Calvinists deny free will usually as a reaction to LFW, in the sense that they are denying LFW. But they do not deny free will otherwise, and they do not promote robotic humans.
When presented by the Gospel, an unsaved person either freely surrenders to the Lord, or they freely reject the Lord. The question to ask is *WHY* and the answer is not *because they have free will* for that answers HOW not WHY. The WHY question speaks to their understanding.
Simply espousing LFW does not explain WHY someone accepts or rejects the words of the cross. Billy Graham, among others i am sure, said that one’s choice on the Gospel is the most important decision a person could ever make in their life. That anyone would advocate someone making such a choice without addressing their understanding of the truth of the issue is an incomplete theology.
And the Bible is not incomplete in this area.
Tell me Benny, if you will, why you chose to surrender to the cross of Christ?
Benny,
you said:
“Forget hating Esau, I am just in awe that he could even love Jacob.. ( easy to say if you view yourself as one of the elect), my view is he didn’t hate Esau, he just loved Jacob more, similar to Rachel and Leah.
Luke 14:26 Jesus says if any man come unto me and “ hate” not his farther and mother…
I think the Greek will confirm he means we are to love Christ more, than all our earthly loves.
This is part of why I think C’s have built a bridge too far, to try to understand the mysteries of God’s word…”
There is some truth in what you say. How would you define love? Idefine it like this: putting ones beloved needs ahead of one’s own life.
And thus I see the big picture this way:
God knows all things and did so before he created the world.
He knew who would get saved and who would perish, by name.
He wanted a people for Himself. [the saved people]
He created knowing the above.
How then in His creating does he love those he knows will perish?
He doesn’t.
He knows ahead of time and He sends Jesus to die for other’s sins.
He knows exactly who will gain from the cross. Those he has forseen as saved.
He knows that the the rest will not, but will die in their sins and go to the Lake of Fire for eternity.
He still sends Jesus.
Who is He loving by the sending of His Son?
Those that will NEVER benefit from it salvifically? Nope.
He is loving those He knows will be saved by it and become part of His forever family.
In talking about who God loves from God’s point of view, it seems those things are clear.
Have a wonderful say brother.
So, just to be clear, you believe that God created individual souls just so He could send them to Hell, with no choice on their part possible?
Kevin,
Let’s be clear.
You believe God knows all things including the future, right?
Assuming so, and thus assuming you are not an Open Theist, then you know that God knew by name who would perish no matter what and created anyway.
You also then know that God knew exactly who would not be helped by the Cross but made Jesus the only provision for salvation anyway.
Then we are in agreement, right?
Dr. David Allen is a brilliant scholar and will be the co-recipient, along with Dr. Steve Lemke, of the 2018 Jerry Vines Award, which will be presented at the Connect 316 Celebration in Dallas. They will join earlier winners Jerry Vines (2015), Paige Patterson (2016), and Steve Gaines (2017).
Dr. Allen is also my former Youth Minister. When I was born again in the early 1980’s at Prestonwood Baptist Church in Dallas, I sat down with David Allen for my decision counseling and I am quite certain he led me in praying the Sinner’s Prayer.
I deeply appreciate his sharp mind, godly heart and irenic spirit. And I agree with Dave that he would make a great President…of anything.
Hi Rick! I saw your post and reference to Prestonwood. Our senior pastor here in Augusta,Ga is Dr. David McKinley, who came up under Jack Graham. I wondered if you had. Tossed paths with either while you were there. Small, small world!
Hi Donna,
It is indeed a small world. I certainly know the name David McKinley. He was on staff, but he would probably not remember me. I sang a few times in church, including one or two duets with Christy Spackey. I also played the lead (Peter) in the 1983 youth musical entitled, “The Witness.” Since I was active in the Youth Choir, I was closer to Chris and Diane Machen, and of course, Dick Baker. My Sunday School teachers were John and Lori Simmons and Dave Gibson. I have very fond memories of Prestonwood.
Blessings,
Rick
Dave,
I agree with you, that Dr. Allen’s essay is excellent.
I agree with each of his points.
I dont understand why it is in a book that has a divisive title.
May the true Gospel continued to be proclaimed by all Southern Baptists.
I wonder if David Platt believes the prayer that the Publican in Luke 18 is best described like this “the sinners prayer is not a biblical response to the gospel, should it not concern us that there is no such superstitious prayer in the New Testament, should it not concern us that the Bible never uses the phrase accept Jesus into your heart”.
I would note it was the Son of God who told the story and he also told a woman at the well ” “If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, ‘Give Me a drink,’ you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water.
“Ask him He would have given you. ”
Just wondering
Dr. Allen’s excellent points are common sense to me.
I loathed stepping into the landmines of this debate – albeit unwittingly – in the Baptist church. Simply asking a sincere ‘beginner’s’ question about a Bible verse got this response from my SS teacher: “You’re a Calvinist!” I had to ask what’s a Calvinist??? While I was Baptist, I was constantly reading that one camp or another was stealthily infiltrating, or making a power grab, or luring us sheep into some terrible type of Christianity that shames Jesus, repels the lost and kills churches. I’m not kidding. Someone once anonymously mailed me a book called something like “How Calvinism Kills Churches”! That was my intro to Calvinism. In attempting to learn more online, I discovered that questions were unwelcome, & often earned suspicious rebukes. I was once asked who I “represented.” Uh…stay at home housewives? Condescension reigned, because everyone apparently was a scholar, author, pastor or theologian.
I have exited that entire toxic debate in favor of personal, long-term study of God’s word. In one venue, Bible Study Fellowship, we are studying Romans all year. I see women grappling with the deep passages. We caution them against imposing the human philosophy of logic to push the Scriptures beyond what’s stated; to consider other Scripture; to always return to God’s character & Jesus’ sacrifice as core truth; to remember that God has not revealed all, but enough; and to value striving to know God & His ways. I don’t care if they ever know what the Council of Dort is, or any philosopher or historian.
I went down the path years ago, that it seems you are traveling now, if we have a hunger for The word of God, we will eventually come to some forks in the road, do your research and choose wisely. Are you familiar with who wrote the BSF study on the book of Romans?
Also don’t be too afraid of philosophy in studying the Bible, we all have to use it.
When Jesus says in John 10:7 “ I am the door” we use philosophy to discern that he doesn’t really mean that he has 3 hinges super glued to his back, and a doorknob protruding from his stomach, we understand him to mean, that he is the entryway, and all must enter through him, the very narrow road…..
Hi Benny,
Yes I investigated BSF, but overall have relied on my experience with it off and on over 20 years, as a participant and a leader. What I love about it is the grassroots approach of you & God’s word first, relying on His Spirit. BSF doesn’t tell me what to think, it invites me to a disciplined individual study of God’s living word, and sharing this in community. We don’t use commentaries. We read Romans & other Scripture that relates. I’m a group leader. Each week I facilitate women sharing what they’ve learned from their individual study, and how God is leading us to apply it in our lives. I don’t give them answers or tell them what to think or how to believe. They truly wrestled with Romans 8-9, wanting me to give answers; I told them that their struggle to trust God in who He is and what He says is worthy & precious to God. In BSF the written notes (only received AFTER studying & discussion the week’s passage) offer fuller explanation of the passage, and are heavily footnoted to other scripture. The notes occasionally describe various views on difficult Scripture. For example, in the Revelation study, the notes fairly described premillenial, postmillenial & amillenial (? is that correct?) views.
Maybe the best credential of this deep, individual, committed, skip-nothing, add nothing, unidiluted Bible study ( which can happen anywhere…doesn’t have to be BSF) is the power. I just watch God work, transforming women, discipling & maturing them, even saving some. It is especially rewarding to see women come OUT of human philosophy-based beliefs (such as several from China). Their very testimonies are that human philosophy lead them to a dead end & despair, but Christ gave them life – which they learned by deeply reading the Bible.
I guess I don’t understand how philosophy is needed to understand, for example, John 10:7. Kind of a cart-horse problem for me, and not just historically. Use of symbols & metaphors is of interest to philosophers, but do we need their input to understand what God reveals?
Karen, thanks for the response, I normally don’t have much time to respond at all to any of the interesting post , or comments on this blog, but my vehicle is down, and I am stuck in the office.
I have enjoyed the back and forth on the current state of the SBC, with the certain election of J.D. Greear coming this summer, and I listen and read about all the chest thumping by both sides, and since it is among believers it doesn’t really bother me at all. I do have my own views, and all us have bias within our own world view, and we should have that bias, the most important decision any of us ever make, is how we choose to worship God, my main focus in life, and how I teach an adult S/S class is apologetics, as John Stott said, the gospel and apologetics are the two sides of the same coin.
It gives me a chuckle when people denounce philosophy in attempt to fully study the bible, when they criticize using philosophy, most of the time they don’t realize that they are using philosophy to warn people about using philosophy. I commend your effort to lead a BSF group, but I do have issues with their Romans study, I have a few ladies in my S/S class that are in it now.
If you don’t mind, and forgive me in advance in you do, can I ask you ( since this is a SBC blog) Do you hold to, or attend any certain denomination?
Karen,
Don’t be too hard on philosophy or for history,
I have taught Sunday School for over 20 years, and sadly I have first hand knowledge, most Southern Baptist know very little about church history, which not to get off topic but to me that has a lot to do with the current dust up about the growing vein of Calvinism in the SBC.
If we don’t know church history, how do we know why we believe anything?
We know what we believe, but sadly a lot of times we struggle to know why we believe this doctrine over another doctrine.
Become a lover of church history…
I appreciate those who love church history! I’m glad to know some, but I won’t pursue it. Three times I got into it were 1) when in a Baptist church, to catch up on Baptist beliefs, distinctives & those two big landmines: recent history leading to split conventions, and the Calvinism debate; 2) reading biographies such as Francis Schaeffer, Baker James Cauthen, and several missionaries; and 3) when The DaVinci Code book came out, I researched & taught my adult SS class the historical problems with that book, and some factual church history.
#1 above had almost no power or fruit, but several negative effects. Colossians 2 and I Cor. 2 & 3 have become so meaningful to me, redirecting me to prune some things away. Some may be called to delve into church history & so edify/warn/educate the body. I respect that calling.
Former Baptist, now nondenominational Bible church in Fort Worth, Texas. And too wordy, sorry!
Benny,
In response to this:
“Mike, Sorry if I misunderstood you, but I may have made an assumption, your first response to my post was that you are a 5 pt C, are you saying you don’t subscribe to Total depravity, as in so dead that a person can’t respond, dead?”
Many people think they know what C teaches, and maybe you do. But you also have pointed out that C belief is nt monolithic. So it seems you want to discus the points of C. I have found out that many who do so [on both sides] dont know the Scriptures of the what they believe .
So Benny, forgetting what men teach, and looking at the Word of God, whatdo we see? And I pointed out to you what it said, and you have ignored it. God says that the perishing are blind to the truth of the Gospel. God says that if they would see it, they would turn and be healed. God says the perishing see the Gospel, the words of the cross, as foolishness. God says salvation is a result of believing from the heart. God says before salvation that men hate God, and are His enemies. God says that those men mind the things of flesh and not of the Spirit.
God says that those in the flesh cannot please God. That they are not subject to His Law and neither indeed can be.
Now can such a person respond to the Gospel?
I said as much: those perishing freely reject Jesus. A negative response.
Positively?
Well of course, I did, you did, the Apostle Paul did.
So,why did you Benny, respond positively to the Gospel?
Mike, my intent was to respond to your questions, I guess I got caught up in your statement of being a five pointer that I looked past what you said,
and just started talking past what you were saying, sorry my bad.. I will state what I believe from the word, and try not to refer to any extra biblical writings.
I was prior to my conversion, leaving in my own righteousness, as best I could at least, or so I thought. Romans 10:3
I heard the gospel proclaimed, ( invited to church by my future wife, the holy spirit convicted me of my sin, even though I was separated from God,
I took Jesus up on his offer John 7:37- “If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.” Jesus made me an offer, and I chose to accept, and I drank..
By believing in Christ I was saved…. ( to God be the glory !!)
John 20:31- But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
I believed ( had faith that he was able, and willing to save me) and by believing I received life through his name… I am sure you remember the story of Paul and Silas with the prison guard..
Acts 16:30,31- Sirs what must I do to be saved? ..- ..And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved…
That was me also, the gospel was proclaimed, and I, like them decided to become a follower of Christ… by my accepting the offer, the gift of eternal life I was then regenerated, and born again….
Benny,
Full day today.
Thanks for your testimony. It is great!
Let me recap without the doctrine thrown in
You were a sinner.
You were invited to church.
You were convicted of your sin.
You heard the Gospel.
You had faith in His Word.
You believed and were saved.
Now let us look at the Scriptures that talk about salvation.
The Scriptures, as laid out above, say that you hated God, and were His enemy.
They say you were blind to the Gospel truth and were perishing.
They say that when God opens your eyes you are no longer blind to the Gospel but see its truth.
And since you see its truth you are no longer of the perishing.
Have I misspoke or missed anything?
Assuming no, I press on.
Not putting God into a boxbecause He works at different speeds for different people. Its not boom bang done all in one fell swoop. At least not always although sometimes it is. The seeds of the Gospel are planted, and watered, and harvested. Sometimes it takes years or decades. Sometimes it happens fast. But the principles in the Scripture don’t change with the timing.
When the Scritures say that the perishing are blind to the truth of the Gospel, it cant mean that see today and are blind later on. It means, unless they see and are saved, they remain blind and perish. Thus there is a principle there: that when God opens the eyes of the spiritually blind, they see and are no longer of the perishing.
That is not to say you have no will. But it speaks to WHY you were once spiritually blind and a hater of God, to become one willing to surrender your life to Him. Something changed [and I’m not arguing here for regeneration]. Your understanding changed. You saw the truth of the cross and saw it as the power of God unto salvation [See Romans 1 :16, 1st Cor. 1 :18], whereas before you were living in your own righteousness. You saw your need and you saw His provision: you no longer saw the words of the cross as foolishness. But who sees the cross as that? The perishing thats who. Which means what? That you were no longer of the perishing but you were being saved. as we read:
“For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.”
And then , as you say, you drank.
And I bet every believer, like you, and like me, has a similar story of their conversion. Romans 10 puts it like this:
” “The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,” that is, the message concerning faith that we proclaim: If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved.”
Before our will *drinks* we believe. And this is the way of the Lord, because without faith, we are told in Hebrews 11, nothing we do [read will and do] can please God.
Blessings brother.
I’ve commented quite a bit on this one post, and side tracked myself from the start, so as to the book and Dave’s excerpts and comments.
I will watch from a distance and see what transpires within the SBC, and as I read last night about the dust up about The website, LBC, and the campaigning for the upcoming election, this is so sad, but I think it is a preview of coming attractions. Will the SBC split over the Calvinist vs. non Calvinist debate, no I don’t think so, with all the autonomy that is built into the SBC, when JD wins this election, and I think he will, non C churches will start voting with their checkbook, and in the not to distance future, instead of voting for candidates that will help SBC grow, sadly we will look to who will do the best job of managing the decline, we are seeing that play out at the IMB with David Platt.
And when I read the phrase, “ we should speak the truth in love and avoid strident, emotive language.”
My first thought was to Dr Al Mohler at a convocation when he said “ I do believe that the non Calvinist soteriology is a deficient soteriology “. Was he speaking the truth in love, or being emotive?
I say it was the former, but most Traditionalist will say the latter.
All I will say about this simmering struggle is this, G.K. Chesterton once said, when you come upon a fence in the field, and you want to tear it down, just pause for five minutes and ask your self why the fence was put there in the first place…
If most all the SBC roots do in fact flow from an original Calvinist tree, why did it lay dormant for so many, many years?
Benny,
you asked:
“If most all the SBC roots do in fact flow from an original Calvinist tree, why did it lay dormant for so many, many years?”
How can any one know the answer to this question. But actually, it wasn’t dormant. It wasnt gone or even asleep. It just wasn’t as prominent as it is now.
Second, not all SBC roots flow from an original C tree, but there was two strands. And as i am sure you agree, popularity doesn’t mean truth.
For any interested, here is a paper on the the doctrinal divide in the SBC.
I think everyone will find it fair and even handed.
https://aquila.usm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1119&context=honors_theses
Dave, this is a really good article, and you and David ALLEN are right. If everyone in the SBC would listen to what was written here, then we could truly have peace in the SBC. It will take a mighty moving of the Holy Spirit to fix what’s broken in the SBC.
Hoppeful and Prayerfully,
David