I hate talking about Calvinism on this blog. I hate it. For about 6 months, I pretty much banned it, with a few slip ups that I usually regretted. When the Calvinism committee issued its report, one of the things they called for was constructive engagement. Calvinists and non-Calvinists (including Traditionalists) need to talk to one another, calmly, biblically and graciously. So, I opened the door.
And, of course, foodfights ensued!
So, with much fear and trepidation, I am going to enter into the fray and try to add a perspective on the subject. I am committed to seeking to build unity in the SBC between Calvinists and Traditionalists. I am also painfully aware that discussions of Calvinism generally widen the rift instead of closing it. But I add these words to the debate anyway, because I have come to believe this:
Avoiding the discussion of Calvinism will not foster unity. We need to fundamentally change the way we have the discussion!
So, in that spirit, I give these thoughts.
A Little Background
It was just about a year ago that I took a long walk one Wednesday morning. I had gotten a call asking me to allow my name to be placed in nomination as 2nd VP in NOLA. I had decided to turn the nomination down, but before I called the person who had contacted me, I thought I should give it a little more prayer and thought. So, I prayer-thought-walked for an hour.
I was not interested in becoming a combatant in the Calvinist-Traditionalist fracas that was burning at such a fever pitch last year. But, as I prayed about it that day, I had a moment that I cannot describe without offending all you cessationists who think that God doesn’t speak directly to human hearts today. I sensed that God was in this, that I ought to allow my nomination. There were two reasons for this.
1) I would represent and promote Southern Baptist work in Iowa and the Midwest. We don’t even get representation on boards in the SBC, so I thought this was one way to raise a little awareness. Frankly, I think Iowa Baptists and perhaps those in the Dakotas, Minnesota-Wisconsin, Illinois and other areas were happy to see someone from our region elected.
2) My chief concern, though, was to promote unity in the SBC. I knew then in theory, and I know now in reality, that the SBC 2nd VP has no authority and almost no significant role, but I knew that being elected would give me a chance to speak out on this issue.
I believe the SBC will splinter and shatter into pieces unless we learn to get along and partner with one another in Great Commission tasks.
Unity, to me, is more important than Calvinism – pro or con. I know I come across at times like Sandra Bullock’s character in Miss Congeniality advocating for some kind of meaningless and nebulous “world peace.” But it is not meaningless or nebulous to me. We were redeemed and baptized by the Spirit into one Body. We all drink of the same Spirit and our unity is a precious thing to God. It is a primary teaching in God’s Word. We are to be an earthly reflection of the heavenly unity of the Trinity. And we fail miserably at that!
I have been called a pollyanna by some for this stand, preferring wishful thinking to serious theological debate. I have been called a fraud, someone who only used unity as a means of self-promotion. I have been called a traitor to the Calvinist cause. One man I would have considered a friend circulated emails telling people how I’d sold out the Calvinist side. I have been told that I lack the theological sophistication to understand the issues and their significance. But in spite of all this I remained convinced that:
- Unity is essential in the church and in our denomination if we hope to see God’s blessing and the reversal of the SBC’s statistical decline.
- Unity is a theological imperative – rooted in divine nature and the redemptive purpose of God.
- Unity is possible for Southern Baptists because the ground of our unity is greater than the areas of our disagreements.
- Unity is broken not by theological disagreement among Calvinists and non-Calvinists, but by fleshly behavior such as strife, envy, rivalry, anger and malice.
- Unity is possible if Calvinists and non-Calvinists alike walk together in a commitment to the Word, the Great Commission and fullness of the Holy Spirit.
Not Everyone Agrees
Of that I am very well aware. Some on the Reformed side view the modern church as compromised and corrupted and see the only solution as a thorough-going reformation along soteriological and practical lines. Some among Traditionalists have made it clear that there is no place for Calvinists in the leadership of the SBC – it must be uprooted and banished. Others, not quite so extreme, see an unhealthy advance of Calvinism and believe it needs to be stayed and perhaps reversed, at least to some degree.
Each of these groups must be allowed to hold to and operate on the basis of their convictions. But I also must continue to disagree with both sides and state that I think the conversation has often been lacking in grace and our treatment of one another has not given evidence of 1 Corinthians 13-type love.
What I think is necessary
I have said for years that one of our great needs is to hold one another accountable. For too long, Calvinists have tried to hold non-Calvinists accountable for their words and actions, and Traditionalists have sought to hold Calvinists accountable for their words and actions. It has not worked.
I’ve seen it a thousand times. The foodfight begins and accusations are hurled at one another. When people are called on their words, they invariably reply, “They started it.” “What they did is worse than what we did.”
- We Calvinists may not be perfect, but our words are justified based on the misinterpretation, misunderstanding and misrepresentations of Calvinism and by the wild accusations of the Traditionalists.
- We Traditionalists are only responding to the power grabs, the accusations of heresy (semi-heresy?) and the exclusionary language of the Calvinists.
- We can get along, but only if THEY will change (first)!
We are practicing “weighted guilt” – as if our responsibility to walk in the fruit of the Spirit is abrogated by the failure of the other side to do so. That is the way Democrats and Republicans behave, but it is not the way of the Kingdom or of the Church of the Risen Lord! Nothing another does ever justifies sin that I commit.
We must break the cycle of blame and justification. The solution, I believe is simple. I must hold “my side” accountable. Hey, if we are, if fact, the “right” side then ought not our behavior show that more than even our theological argument?
So that is what I am going to do. I’m going to anger my own side. I’m going to tell you what I think my side is doing wrong. I am going to call my side to repentance and reformation – to a new commitment to change the way we talk with and relate to the other side.
I am a Calvinist
Well, sort of. If you pin me down and tickle me till I talk (and that would be pretty creepy, wouldn’t it?) I will tell you that I am a Calvinist. There was a time when I was a fire-breathing, cage-phase, 5-point, passionate, proselytizing Calvinist. Talk to my college friends. I have moderated my views a little as time has gone by – I believe it is because of a greater understanding of scripture, but obviously others will share other opinions.
I believe that God, based on no merit in us or any anticipation of future action by us, chose before the creation of the world those lost, hell-deserving sinners that he would save. That choice was based on his sovereign purpose alone.
However, I also have some moderating positions:
- I believe in antinomy – that the Bible reveals truths that are contradictory by human logic but are both true in superior heavenly logic. We must accept these antinomies as revealed without understanding them. God is one God in three persons. Logic says he can’t be both, but he is! Jesus is both God and man – fully.
- So, based on the antinomy principle, I believe in human choice in the faith response in a way that would likely not be satisfactory to the monergists out there.
- I can see the logic of particular redemption within the Calvinist system, but there are too many John 3:16-type verses in the Bible for me to accept limited atonement.
- I have some questions about the order of events in salvation. I’m not sure whether the chicken of faith or the egg of regeneration came first.
- I flat-out reject much of the Reformed system. I think there is some biblical truth in it, but a lot of human tradition mixed in. I reject covenant theology and the amillennialism that often accompanies it (because I have a Bible! – sorry, I kid) and other aspects of the Reformed system.
So, in general, I’m a Calvinist. But I’m a Calvinist who gets frustrated with a lot of Calvinists, especially Calvinist bloggers. I have expressed this before and the reaction has not been well-received. Confronting my side was viewed as an act of treachery. So, let me be a traitor again.
I think that if we are going to foster peace, if we are going to partner for the Kingdom, there are some changes that WE need to make in the way we talk and in the way we act. Do the Traditionalists need to change their ways. Yes, I think some of them do. But that is not my concern. Those in the Traditionalist movement need to check themselves and their ways. But my purpose is to confront what I see as problems on the side I’m on!
What Calvinists MUST Do to Maintain Unity in the SBC
1) Repent
Yes, I said it. We have sinned. We have been arrogant, condescending and dismissive of our brothers and sisters on the other side. We need to call our actions what they are – sin. And we need to reject them.
- To all of you Traditionalists I have offended by dismissing your viewpoint, I ask your forgiveness.
- To those I have disdained or harshly criticized, I ask your forgiveness.
There will be no healing as long as we justify our actions based on our perception that the actions of the other side have been worse. Maybe they have. Maybe they haven’t. But no actions on the Traditionalist side justify sin on our side.
2) Relax
Calvinists often practice the fine art of building mountains out of molehills. There is a reason we talk about Cage-stage Calvinists. When you discover this crucial doctrine of the sovereignty of God, it often fills your heart and mind with a passion that can get a little out of balance. I honestly believe that much of the trouble in the SBC has been created by overbearing, obnoxious, proselytizing Calvinists (like me – I speak from experience) who simply overwhelm, intimidate and annoy those who do not see the scriptures the same way.
Not every issue needs to be taken to the mattresses. Has there been an unhealthy civil-religion aspect in many SBC churches? I think so. Does that mean that any display of patriotism in a worship service is offensive to God? Maybe so. Maybe not. But is the display of a flag or an expression of patriotic fervor really that inimical to the glory of God? Do views on tithing, alcoholic consumption, even styles of government really rise to the level they are sometimes given? Altar calls and sinners prayer – I have personally seen them be abused. But are they really the evil practices we have sometimes made them out to be?
And let’s dispense with the tendency to see disagreeing with Calvinist views as a personal attack, even if those disagreements are based on misunderstandings.
3) Respect
There is some vibrant, powerful, genuine Christianity outside of the Reformed world, but you wouldn’t know that to talk to some Calvinists. There is sometimes a messianic, manifest-destiny attitude displayed among us. We are here to correct the inadequate theology, right the wrongs, and reform the unreformed.
I am a Calvinist, but I became very uncomfortable by the prominent (and since, I think, corrected) use of the term “gospel-centered” to refer to Calvinist/Reformed theology and practice. Do you realize what that does to a non-Calvinist? How can he not feel slighted when we intimate that disagreement with our views is not just a theological difference, but a failure to understand the gospel. When we act as if the church was morally, spiritually and theologically corrupt, compromised and crumbling until the Reformed movement appeared to set things right, how do you expect non-Calvinists to react?
I’ve known plenty of non-Calvinists who love the gospel. They put some of the aspects of salvation in slightly different logical order than I do, but they are gospel-centered nonetheless. There have been some pretty good things that have gone on in the SBC and in non-Calvinist churches back in my day when Calvinists were rarer than Republicans voting in some Philadelphia precincts!
A little humility is necessary here. I believe what I believe because I have studied God’s Word and have come to these views. But I also need the humility to realize that some people who love God and the Word come to very different positions. Look, the greatest minds of Christianity have pondered the relationship of divine sovereignty and human choice since the days of the post-apostolic fathers. They have not solved all the issues, dotted all the i’s or crossed all the t’s in these issues. Are you really so certain you have it all figured out?
What I am advocating here is respect for those who disagree. They love Jesus and they love the Word. Perhaps you might even learn something from them! And I believe that the doctrines we believe would likely have a better hearing if we demonstrated more respect and humility toward others as we promote them.
4) Reveal
I have now been the pastor (senior pastor) of three churches – one in Virginia and two in Iowa. I never discussed my Calvinistic views with any of the churches or committees in the selection process. They never asked. I never brought it up. Why? I never had an agenda to make my churches Calvinistic strongholds. When I preached a passage that touched on the subject, I made my viewpoint known. I had no agenda to “reform” the church, to conform it to a certain ecclesiological style or practices. Nothing wrong with having an agenda, but hiding demonstrates a lack of integrity.
If you enter a church with an agenda, you are sinning against God if you do not reveal that agenda. You are deceiving the church and there is simply no justification for that. I don’t care how godly or biblical you think your agenda is, to go into a church with an agenda that you do not reveal is beneath a man of God!
And yes, this happens. It should not, but it does. It may not be as common as some have made it out to be, but let’s make this commitment – it must NEVER happen again.
5) Remember to season your words with grace.
If we are advocates of the biblical teaching of grace, ought not that grace invade every area of our lives, including the way we speak? We ought to guard our words carefully, to build up, encourage, and promote fellowship (Ephesians 4:29). Our truth must be spoken in love, not in arrogance, condescension or ridicule.
6) Reserve “heresy” for heresy.
I had some good friends years ago with a simple theological system. Whatever R.C. Sproul said was true, everything that disagreed with him was heresy. We drop the h-bomb all too quickly. There are some real heresies out there – just about every fundamental doctrine of the faith is under some form of attack today. But within the SBC, we are having family disagreements. We should save the word heresy for those doctrines and practices that undermine the gospel or denigrate the nature of God.
7) Rely on the Holy Spirit!
I know some of you are not the Henry Blackaby fans that I am, but I learned a life-changing, ministry-changing principle from him years ago. If you are operating on God’s agenda, then the Holy Spirit is your ally. If you are doing your own thing, you must convince, motivate, manipulate and cajole others to get your way. But if you are doing God’s things, the Holy Spirit is the convincer and the motivator.
If we are right about the “doctrines of grace” then we don’t have to be overbearing, manipulative, or harassing in our interactions with non-Calvinists. If the Word is on our side, then the Spirit is on our side. If the Word and the Spirit are not on our side, we ought not really be doing it anyway, right? I can proclaim truth as I understand it and then trust the Spirit of God to do his miraculous, transformational work on others.
I don’t have to convince anyone – the Spirit of God will do that in his time!
8) Remember, there are a LOT of issues out there that matter.
Don’t get bogged down on ONE thing. Calvinism may matter, but it is not ALL that matters.
My dad said something years ago, back in the day that Baptist churches had prayer meeting on Wednesday night, and business meeting once a month at the same time (pretty standard where I grew up). He said,
“The people who scare me the most are those who come to business meeting but not to prayer meeting.”
Bazinga!
The Calvinists who scare me the most are those who only want to talk about Calvinism. We have great posts on ministry – they ignore them. We post biblical interpretations, denominational issues and myriad other topics. Nothing. But, when someone posts on a topic remotely related to Calvinism, they come out of their crags and gnaw the topic to the bone.
If all you want to talk about is Calvinism, know that there is one overweight preacher in Iowa who thinks you have a problem with your priorities.
My Heart
I am not saying that it is all our fault. Traditionalists have plenty of fault on their side. But I am calling out MY side. I think we need to change the way we engage in the debate. We need to demonstrate grace, humility, respect and trust in God’s Spirit instead of a warrior spirit and obnoxious attitudes which have been all too common.
Non-Calvinist, Traditionalist friends, this is not a comment stream for you. In playground football, we used to call it “piling on.” Please don’t do it. I’ve called my Calvinist friends to consider the way they respond in this debate. This will be a locker-room debate on the Calvinist side.
I also need some Baptist brownie points for making my headings all begin with R.
Impressive. Brownie points awarded.
This is a very good post. Unrevealed agendas are horrible, and so is the attitude of the guy with lots of new sovereigntist knowledge and little wisdom.
But I have a little problem with this:
“The Calvinists who scare me the most are those who only want to talk about Calvinism. We have great posts on ministry – they ignore them. We post biblical interpretations, denominational issues and myriad other topics. Nothing. But, when someone posts on a topic remotely related to Calvinism, they come out of their crags and gnaw the topic to the bone.”
Not that you don’t have a point here, you do, but so many times on posts that are biblical interp’s or something denominational, I read it, think it sounds good and move on. There wasn’t any ‘watershed’ issue to comment on, no faulty reasoning to contradict, it was just there – food for thought – so I read, thought and moved on.
A couple times I commented just so people wouldn’t think that the only thing that gets commented on is the calvinism debate. Then I felt silly ’cause I didn’t really say much.
There are many times calvinism comes up and I don’t comment on it, to be sure. But now and then, when attacked or misconstrued I sense a need to – graciously as I can – set the record straight.
So, with gladness over the Cal-Com report, I look forward to greater unity, less arguing, and more agreeing on the essentials for the sake of the ministry.
I get your point and I’m not trying to make rules, but I hope you also get my point (seems like you do).
And you are right. Really good ministry posts often get a lot of facebook shares and tweets, but few comments. That’s understandable.
As I understand Reformed theology from RC Sproul, you are not a Calvinist because you do not hold to particular redemption.
Good word, Dave. Much needed call to reason for “our side”.
I also love the line from your dad…I’m going to use that.
Yeah, the old guy had some good ones from time to time.
Good word Dave. Some words from Romans 11 we would do well to heed:
“10 Love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one another in showing honor.
11 Do not be slothful in zeal, be fervent in spirit, serve the Lord.
12 Rejoice in hope, be patient in tribulation, be constant in prayer.
13 Contribute to the needs of the saints and seek to show hospitality.
14 Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them.
15 Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep.
16 Live in harmony with one another. Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly. Never be wise in your own sight.
17 Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all.
18 If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all.”
Les
Excellent!
Good post. I hadn’t been aware you were a Calvinist.
Our experiences differ. I simply don’t run into folks who’d argue about Calvinism but not talk about Jesus. And I think I do what you probably do, too .. when I’m teaching and happen across a verse that the Calvinists .. or the Traditionalists really camp on, that’s what I tell the class. I think it was Spurgeon who said that when he came to a passage the spoke of God’s sovereignty and predestination/election, he had no choice but to preach that. Similarly, when he came to a verse that talked about Jesus dying for the sins of the whole world, he had no choice but to preach that. And that it was only the sinful nature of man that tried to make those into two doctrines.
Before I went to one of the “Unity Conferences” a few years ago, I told my pastor he ought to go, too. I said “I’m a Pentecostal and a Calvinist, and you’re neither; yet you don’t object to my teaching Sunday School”. His answer was classic:
“I’ll tell you why .. when I look at you, I don’t see a Calvinist, or a Pentecostal… I see a brother”.
Amen. When we all get to that point, the problem over these things will go away.
Dave,
Very well stated. I am probably very close to where you are on the issue of Calvinism (scary, I know), but I, too, have moderated my views in the last ten years. That’s why I consider myself an inconsistent Calvinist or a Calvinistic Traditionalist. In theory, I am much more Calvinistic. In practice, I am less so. Thanks again for the insightful post. Look forward to catching up with you in Houston next week, Lord willing! God bless,
Howell
Howell: “I am probably very close to where you are on the issue of Calvinism.”
Dave: Time to rethink my position??
“Don’t stand so, don’t stand so, don’t stand so close to me”?
Only if you want to be wrong 😉
Wow. Dave, if you want to repent you can start repenting of some of the hostile things you’ve said towards Calvinists in the last few months – on and off of social media. This is a display of false humility, “I need to call my side to repent…” We hardly see you on our side, Dave. On the fence, on the other hand, you seem to be pretty comfortable. It seems that almost every time a self-fancied “peace-maker” gallantly takes the high road to call their side to repentance they pronounce themselves a Calvinist (self-loathingly so) and then speak of antinomy and deny limited atonement – meaning they are not a Calvinist at all (by the very definition of Calvinism). What I see here is self-righteous denominational and political posturing. What I see here is that the middle ground is a quicker route to denominational noteriety. When many within our Convention like Joe Aguillard or the Hankins duo use Calvinism as a wedge issue to bolster their career, we need those of prominence in the SBC to soundly denounce it. I tire of the “tone police” complining about others sounding “condescending” or “arrogant.” We need to be grown up and look at the real underlying issues instead of fixating on whether or not someone “sounds” one way or another. We can’t even have a serious discussion without a denominatonal hall monitor throwing a flag on the grounds we’re not treating each other enough like Girl Scouts. What I see in this post is pandering and patronizing. There have been some real scandals in the SBC this year and last with some severe underlying issues – blog on that for a change. Start with what has happened in Louisiana and call Aguillard and Hankins to repentance. Start with the John 3:16 Conference perhaps and their intentional Molotov cocktail thrown up on this entire situation. Start with the Great Evangelical Cover Up with the Caner duo and how we’ve never fessed up to. Start with the controversies and financial waste in NAMB. And for crying outloud, stop this self-righteous political pat-on-the-backing you’re engaging in at the moment.
But, Jordan, my mother thinks I’m wonderful.
Yeah, but does she read your blog posts?
Sometimes.
Well said, J.D. Of course, that makes me an angry, aggressive Calvinist in need of repentance.
And he’s a Yankees fan. Don’t forget that. And go Sprurs.
JD, you could have said these things in a much more godly manner without assuming the worst of Dave. You validated some of his concern friend. What if Dave actually believes everything he just wrote, and it’s not “denominational and political posturing”? Then, you owe him an apology.
You cannot protect Calvinism or bring repentance in the SBC by sinning. It’s evil, just on the other side of the spectrum.
I suppose if we were all dealing with endless hypotheticals, Jared, you could be right. But we are not dealing with endless hypotheticals. First, if Dave sincerely believes all of these things (including putting himself in the “Calinist” camp in good position for a rebuke at his own team) he is sincerely wrong. I don’t give brownie points for that. Secondly, this is common fair for those in Dave’s position – take the moderate (and equally insincere) high road. I’m telling you, Monergists in the SBC tire of being rebuked by taking theology seriously (and how that inevitibly comes across in discourse) like we were at last year’s convention for “doctrinal idolatry” (which is technically impossible if the doctrine points to God). I would also challenge your characterization of my post as less than “godly.” What is “godly” to you people? Coat it with sugar, I suppose (just like Jesus or Paul did?). Furthermore, Dave accuses Calvinists of being dismissive and then dismissively ignored the entire content of my post, instead referring to me as his “bff” – of which I could lob a similiar characterization of it being “condescending” or “arrogant.”
I certianly will not apologize for labeling this blog entry as political posturing, because that is EXACTLY what it is. By the way, what are you running for again, Jared? Go ahead. Play the denominational hall moniter. It will be good for your career.
Look, you come on here with guns blazing to insult me. Fine. If you have a comment, a question, or a point to make, fine. I will engage. But I’m not going to get in a spitting match with you.
If you’d like to talk, fine. I have no interest in the kind of conversation you began with.
If you’d like to talk about conversation, perhaps you wouldn’t mind if I posted a screen shot from a certain social networking site in which you castigated me (and pretty much all other Calvinists in the Convention) although you stated you did not know me and you do not know the situation in Montana. At the very moment I entered the conversation (which appeared to surprise you that I was watching the interaction) you split and run, refusing to interact and up until now, have still refused to repent. And then imagine my surprise when I see that the very same Dave Miller is rebuking Calvinists for doing the VERY same thing for which you yourself have been guilty (and have not repented of).
Again, if you would like to discuss something, let me know.
JD, If I was a seven point Calvinist, I still wouldn’t want you representing me. Even if some of your points are right, you destroy any chance of gaining any ground in the SBC because you don’t present the truth in love. That’s my issue with you.
I don’t want you to sugar-coat anything. Preach the truth. There, however, wasn’t much truth in what you wrote; a lot of judgmental accusations though; and judgmental statements in what you wrote to me as well. So, if I disagree with you, I want votes? Nobody knows you or me in the SBC JD. I won’t gain any votes by replying to you. I replied to you because you were unloving in your response. You communicate your views in the worst-possible way while painting your opposition in the worst-possible light. It’s uncalled for.
By the same wishy-washy, subjective standards I could say the exact same thing about your rebuke of me – unloving, judgmental, et al. Someone else can judge whether my take that this is political pandering is true – feel free. But I believe it to be. And that is precisely because this is not the attitude I’ve seen from Dave in personal interactions in the past – and it seems like awfully convenient timing and an awfully popular position to take.
“Seven point Calvinist!”””
Come on, Jared. What kind of flower would that be.
By the way, if you are a Calvinist, are you allowed to choose which petals you like and which you don’t–or in your case, add a few more 🙂
JD, tell the truth in love; don’t tell the truth in sin. It defeats your purpose. You’re defeating yourself brother. You would make a greater impact in evangelism if you dropped the rhetoric and spoke the truth in love.
Wow! Dave Miller and “moderate” in the same sentence!
I guess I’m one who does not “take theology seriously” because I consider myself a Pointless Calvinist. I’m not a “Five Pointer” so I must be a theological lightweight–or worse, a moderate in disguise.
I’ve been called a lot of things: moderate has not been one of them.
Also, I’ve seen the Lime Green Suit: what ever humility Dave displayed is well-deserved. Oh wait, I think I thought you said, “humiliation.”
Jared, the fact is there is no possible way to say what needs to be said (for example, that this post is political posturing) without being accused of being unloving. Perhaps you could inbox me some great ways to avoid that perception, I’d be eager to hear. But if we can’t wade through the perceived “tone” to hear or listen to the content of what’s actually being said, then we’re in deep trouble as a people.
jD, I don’t expect you to believe my word, but this post comes from my heart and convictions. Political posturing is not a motive I consider honorable, and I try not to let that motivate me.
Last I knew, you are not the Holy Spirit, do not see hearts, and on this matter, you are simply wrong.
You my not like what I say, but these are my convictions.
So, you should stop making that false accusation as a personal insult.
JD, if you’d just drop the constant pejoratives in your various interactions across the Internet, you’d do so much more for the SBC and the Kingdom of God. Speak the truth in love.
JD: my dad’s primary concern with Calvinists is that they pose at intellectualism and are arrogant. He said that to my face when I told him I am one.
Instead of arguing with him, I’ve made sure to share his story with my Calvinist friends. I expect that you understand why I would do that. If there is any legitimacy at all to what he says, you’ve proved it.
Greg,
I’m not saying your dad is because I don’t know your dad, but I have observed that many charges of arrogance are made arrogantly. We all want to be important and often indignance at someone else’s display of self-importance is a result of feeling that our own inflated importance is being unduly challenged. The reason I bring this up is that this sinful pattern is part of what’s fueling the lack of peace.
Jim:
Let’s imagine that my dad is the most arrogant person in the world. Now imagine how his son is if the first sentence is true. I think you get my point in sharing the story.
Greg,
I’m not sure I follow you there. My goal wasn’t to disparage you or your father but to amplify your general point because I think I agree with you. If arrogance is responded to arrogantly, then we double the outward working of the sin. The charge may be true, but it is often (not always) true of the one making the charge. It’s like the old childhood adage, “It takes one to know one.”
If, as you posed, your father really is arrogant, then you were right not to answer him. We must pick our battles wisely, and I think you picked the right way to use this account. It’s the difference between Prov 26, vv. 4 and 5.
JD,
This is pretty bad. You are taking screen shots? Seriously? Of a blog discussion so you can use it later against someone because they aren’t Calvinist enough for you?
Taking theology seriously …
That’s rather reductionist.
Just responding to your own admissions.
First, JARED, once again – if you could cut through the incessant subjectivity (that was unloving, wasn’t it) you could see that your rebuke of me being “unloving” (in your overly-emotional, subjective opinion) is by your own standards equally as unloving, if not judgmental. I’m tired of “speak truth in love” being taken as synonymous for “don’t speak the truth if it offends.” And Alan, the point of the screenshot is to demonstrate that Dave has been equally as judgmental, condescending and dismissive (without repentance) toward Calvinists as he is now rebuking others for and that his behavior in social networking appears different than his behavior on this blog. Once again, I’m sure this is unloving…
JD, I haven’t said, “don’t speak the truth if it offends.” I’ve asked you to “speak the truth in love.” The truth should be what offends your hearers, not how you present it.
Frankly, how you present the truth often offends me, even when I agree with the truth you’re presenting. Once again, please drop the rhetoric, and just preach the truth. I realize you hate the emphasis on pragmatism in the SBC (I do as well), but what you do with your rhetoric is just another form of veiled pragmatism, because you try to produce repentance through your harsh rhetoric instead of trusting the truth to bring repentance (IMO). That’s what I mean by preaching the truth in love. The truth is always loving. Just preach it and drop the rhetoric.
JD: I am more Calvinist than not. I am not 100% but when it comes to the subject of salvation, I am very Calvinist.
You have over 5,0000 followers on Twitter. You have written a book entitled “Help Mom, There Are Arminians Under My Bed.” Both these facts bother me in light of the comments I have seen you make here and on other blogs that would disagree with you. I am one who disagrees with much of what you say and certainly how you say it. It’s not an attitude I would want in the SBC. It’s not an attitude that Christ would have no matter how you would try to say so. Christ’s admonitions had nothing to do with Calvinist or non-Calvinist.
To add to my comment above, the SBC is not 100% Calvinist, it is not 100% non-Calvinist. It is a mixed bag on non-essential doctrines. Dave has some good points in this post that need our attention if we are going to survive as a denomination. The wars have to end. There is no need for them. We have a mission to do and it has been sidetracked for 6 or more years. It needs to stop so we can focus on missions, church planting and our missionaries who for too long have gotten neglected in any discussion.
I don’t by any stretch of the imagination agree with those who would call themselves traditionalists, but I am beginning to understand their fears. It’s things like you write JD that are spurring those fears. I want to say knock it off, you are wrong in your approach and goals. I have read some of your tweets and frankly they are way out of bounds and touch on at least 3 of Dave’s points.
The middle ground isn’t the only way to denominational popularity. One can carve out a niche of celebrity within a smaller theological circle and build a Twitter following and a fan base and maybe even write a book or two. Maybe JD’s posturing is all about building his career. Is JD “off the fence” just for the sake of his popularity among the small circle he wants to impress? It’s heady stuff when you have a group of people who look to you as the paragon of biblical faithfulness, as the great prophet who won’t compromise. But of course, because of the internet medium and lack of personal relationship, we don’t have much insight into JD’s motives. And this is the key problem with his criticism of Dave. JD is assuming that Dave says what he says for the sake of political posturing when it could be (and more likely is) the case that Dave is speaking from conviction that springs from a life of studying the Scriptures and serving in the ministry of the gospel.
Dave,
Thanks for your post. Thanks for your heart. Thanks for your clarity. Thank you for attempting to be Christlike.
Steve In Montana
Thank you.
Dave,
Good post. But unconditional election in itself does not make you a Calvinist. Like me, your Calvinist card gets revoked when you start moving toward the middle with antinomy, etc.
Yeah, Ken. I’m always unsure whether to call myself a Calvinist or not. I’m comfortable calling myself by that name, but as my BFF Jordan Hall said above, I don’t really fit all the parameters.
Wonderful article! I have never been in the majority at any Baptist church I have attended. I am an ESV carrying Calvinist who is a non-cessationist, I prefer the term non-cessationist over charismatic. My fellow brethern, and I, work together in spite of our minor theological differences. We do agree on many things, though. For example, I am your stereotypical Southern Baptist in as much as I adhere to dispensational premillenialism, and I extend an invitation after every sermon I preach.
I like eclectic.
Dave,
You certainly are electric. You constantly shock me.
I’m not sure that I qualify as a card-carrying Calvinist either. On the TULIP scale, I simultaneously accept 4 1/2 points on the Calvinist side and 3 1/2 points on the non-Calvinist side. I guess that makes me… an antinomist who doesn’t believe a true believer will ever fall away.
In any case, while there is far more in this post that I agree with than I disagree with, and at the risk of sidetracking the comment stream, I wanted to throw out the following thought:
I think we need to be careful in these discussions to not conflate unity in the Body of Christ and unity in the SBC. Yes, to the degree we are all brothers and sisters in Christ in the SBC, we need to walk in unity… just like we need to walk in unity with our brothers and sisters in Christ in other denominations. What joins us together particularly as Southern Baptists, though, is not our unity in Christ, per se, but rather our joint commitment to cooperate together for the fulfillment of the Great Commission and the advance of God’s kingdom.
Whenever any among us decide they can more effectively fulfill their Christian calling and mission within the context of another denomination or network of Christians, that shouldn’t mean we believe they have broken unity for doing so. The whole justification for denominations, in the first place, as I understand it, is the liberty of each believer and congregation to follow their own convictions in submission to the Word of God. And history and observation teach us, as well as the Word of God itself, that true brothers and sisters will always disagree with each other on this or that. Sometimes these disagreements, as in the case of Paul and Barnabas, justify the need to work separately (though ultimately on the same team).
That being said, it seems to me that the defined parameters of our working agreement for cooperative ministry in the SBC demand some degree of tolerance for those on either side of the Calvinist/non-Calvinist question. If one’s convictions on these issues, on either side, are so strong they can’t work with those on the other side, perhaps it would be best for them to work together in another group with those who hold the same convictions as they do.
In the meantime, whether you are a Calvinist, a non-Calvinist, an antinomist like me, or some other type of critter, if you are truly my brother or sister in Christ, I believe I have a responsibility before God to walk in unity with you. If you choose to remain in the SBC and cooperate together in our joint ministry projects, I have a responsibility to walk in unity with you. If you choose to leave the SBC and work with another group of believers for the advance of the kingdom, I still have a responsibility to walk in unity with you.
If our agreement as Southern Baptists implies a certain degree of tolerance for those on other sides of the Calvinist question (and I believe it does), then those who insist that we should not permit this tolerance are guilty of sowing seeds of discord. If you feel that strongly about it, it is probably best for you to join either an exclusively Calvinist denomination or network, or an exclusively non-Calvinist one, as the case may be.
And we can never go wrong with the old adage: “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; and in all things, charity.” No matter what we believe on these issues, and with whom we choose to cooperate, there is never any excuse to be rude to one another, or to not treat each other, if we are truly brothers and sisters, with love and respect.
And, that tolerance you spoke of is not a lack of theological concern or precision, but a value placed on the Body of Christ and a sense of theological perspective.
Keep in mind that Sandra also called for tougher sentences for parole violations as well as world peace.
In other words: smile, wave, and let’s actually wrestle with a few of the nuts and bolts that underlie the problems that prevent world peace. A few of them are endemic to those of us that fall more on the Calvinist side specifically, while many of the problems we have that get blamed on the Particular Baptist leanings are more because we’re sinful people. I’d be whiny and self-centered if I were a Methodist, too, so the belief in a GMO Tulip isn’t to blame for that.
That being said–it is disturbing how quickly we’ll go on the defensive as a preventative measure. Let it go. Grace is enough to save us, and grace is there for those who are against every petal on our flowers. In all, our fighting reminds me of the Orcs that were hunting Frodo and Sam in the last book of Lord of the Rings: the scout and warrior were bickering with each other until one killed the other, and their mission to catch the hobbits failed. Sam expresses that he’d like to see that all over Mordor, and Frodo points out that this is Mordor, but that if the orcs had seen them, unity would have prevailed and the hobbits would have been captured.
Until we hate seeing people go to Hell never hearing the Gospel more than we hate to see those outside our group as professors, influence-holders, church-leaders, or what-not, then we will fight until we kill ourselves off. Too often we hate the hint of possible error that might potentially become heresy if nobody reads their Bible ever again more than we hate people spending an eternity in the wrath of God. What does that make us?
I’d embrace a long-term hold on blog discussions and one-sided conferences on this issue and only have it debated in local group-based face-to-face public discussion. I think we might be surprised how much better we could find common ground if, instead of me arguing at a distance with someone from a small church in Tennessee that I’ll never meet this side of heaven, I’m standing face-to-face with the guy from the next town, in front of church members and ministers from both of our associations. I’d probably choose my words more carefully and weigh my sarcasm better.
Good ideas, my friend.
Want a slice of Doug is crazy? Click over to my blog in about 20 minutes when the post on my night is up. You’ll laugh enough to not care that the Spurs are going to slam the Heat.
Oh, and any comment with this kind of reference to LOTR is always well taken.
I’ve come to the conclusion that some on both sides of the issue are too enamored of hear their own tongues wag. They eventually drown themselves out with their vitriol. Marginalization will be their ultimate end because of their spit and vinegar approach to the discussion. We can all see who they are. Much of the time they are simply to be ignored like your aunt’s yappy chihuahua.
Is it possible that the problem we face as Southern Baptists is now an influx of information? Even in the CR, there were a few bloggers but by in large that was fueled by charismatic preachers and leaders that had a national voice and people listened and followed.
Today, we have guys seeing more details that what most are used to seeing. We know when someone says something that we do not agree with or appreciate and we have a vehicle to voice those disagreements. Google picks up our blogs; links get posted both favorable and unfavorable but people get to read what we write and they are then educated to make up their own minds as to which group best fits their position or in a lot of cases, they learn from what we write and it actually helps them gain a foundation they might otherwise have.
I received an email today from a pastor in Georgia saying he had NO IDEA that all this was going on! He thanked me for making this plain where he could understand what I had written. Of course, I get emails expressing disappointment as well.
My point is this: the rules have all changed with this influx of information at our fingertips and like it or not, everyone has become an expert. We also have different aspects dealing with the issues and sometimes people fail to recognize those aspects and they create arguments that really have nothing to do with what someone is really trying to say.
One final note is this. The notion that people talk more about calvinism than they do Jesus is really a cheap shot in my opinion.. and I have heard that one tossed around by people on both sides and it is not that someone like me has nothing more to do than criticize calvinists; nothing could be further from the truth. However, when I or everyone else are commenting on blogs, we are commenting on topic and those topics of interest deal that we are commenting on are usually on calvinism. Sometimes we can be too critical of individuals instead of keeping our comments related to the issue. I think that is what frustrates me the most. People do not want to comment on WHAT someone says or will refuse to answer a question but attack the messenger instead of responding to the message.
Anyway… I am trying to just chime in on the jest of the post as I see it.
Looking forward to seeing any of you in Houston. Let me invite you to join a group that will meet at Truett McConnell’s table (simply because it will be a place to meet) at lunch on Tuesday. Randall Cofield and I talked today and set that up. All of you are invited. It should be announced at SBC Today soon.
May God bless you all this weekend and may He bless the annual meeting of the SBC next week.
I get so frustrated with this argument. I am a middle of the road Calvinist who is trying to revive a church that is deader than a door nail. They do not care if I am a Calvinist they just care if I will be there when there Grandma passes and will I preach the gospel to them. I disagree with the traditionalists on many points especially methodology but I work with them everyday in my community, association, and state. We must stop this argument it does nothing but discourage pastors and most people in our pews don’t care.
I hope at Houston this argument is never brought up.
Andrew, I am praying for you and your church. Your situation is very common and is why much of the debates on this subject are just off-putting. Your church (and thousands others) are exactly why we don’t need to divide over this issue when we can unite around the preaching of the Gospel and calling people to repent and believe. Dr. Russ Moore’s article today was insightful when he says (in my paraphrase) that we agree on the “what” and “why” of salvation, and agree on the “who” of Jesus Christ accomplishing it…there is no need to divide over the “how” despite our very obvious differences.
Churches like yours are also why I agree, but hesitantly so, with the whole “you need to share everything you believe” argument. Most churches are not able to have that discussion because they do not know anything about the subject and to introduce a new controversy when you have more important issues to deal with seems silly. Why would I want to cause confusion over what I truly believe is a lesser issue when I am going in trying to teach the Gospel and fix major issues. That isn’t an attempt to be devious, it is an attempt to prioritize and focus on the most crucial things.
Just to be clear…my church knows full well what I believe on these issues, but I refuse to make it a major issue, I refuse to use extra-biblical terminology to describe what I believe/teach (like “calvinism”), and I refuse to elevate this to a degree of determining fellowship inside our church. I don’t shy away from teaching what I believe and being open to answering questions about it…but I want to be known as a passionate preacher that declares the Gospel and calls men to repent and believe, not as a promoter of a particular theology (though I clearly have one). John Wylie was at my church this past week, perhaps he could give an outsiders view and tell me if I am successful in that or not. LOL
Agree
Andrew, I’m with you.
I find myself sometimes falling into the “inside baseball” debates.
I have them often face to face/over the phone with other pastors I know…I’ll say I enjoy those much better than these “conversations”.. For one it’s harder to be a jerk when there’s relational consequences for it.
The blogesphere makes it too easy to marginalize others, thier comments, and throw the heresy word around. I read more than I post, but I sure think some relationship hampering ungodly thoughts , and sometimes post them.
I need to be more careful.
Also, Dave I enjoy reading your articles. I would love to see mor articles on the page about church revitilization. I am kind of learning on the job.
“Can two walk together, unless they are agreed?” Amos 3:3
It is best that we find one person of similar belief to minister our gifts together in the church. We can learn together how to be in unity, like Christ would have us do, then fulfill the sharpening of our beliefs together. I have ministered in a non-Calvinist church to learn the things that are important and the things that are not important.
Good post, Dave.
Bruce H,
Too often I think we misread Amos 3:3: “How can two walk together unless they agree with me?”
Andrew,
My friend from Seminary days and now Professor at Southern, Hershael York, stated that most of his church members did not know he was a Cakvinist until he spoke on a panel in Kentucky. They did know he preached the Bible, shared the Gospel, ministered to them.
Steve in Montana
Great post Dave.
I am glad to have you as a voice for Iowa in the SBC.
Keep up the great work.
Jon “Ole” Olsen
Thank you, sir.
(Today, the role of Joe Blackmon will be played by JD Hall)
Dave
Great article.
That’s funny right there. I don’t care who you are.
Yeah, Joe has his moments.
D’oh!!!!!
Does anyone know what’s happened to Dr. Willingham? His voice has been strangely silent for quite some time around here……..
This is encouraging…
“Lottie Moon mission gifts grow to $149.3M, third-largest ever”
http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=40461
Dale, thank you for asking I have been thinking of Dr. Willingham for the last few days myself. I cannot say that I read every word he shares with us but I do miss him not contributing lately.
I know that he and his wife both have health concerns. I’m hopeful that his absence is simply by choice and not because of any sickness.
I hope he’s okay.
I’ve been wondering about Jim.
I know a pastor whose soteriology has changed over the years from less reformed to more reformed. The whole time he has built the church he pastors on solid expository preaching and raising up a battery of similarly sound teachers. Much of the church consists of newer members. Older members remember the positions he used to take and have come to him with questions such as “Why are you teaching this now? That’s not what you taught us 20 years ago.” It’s not that the older members would have been upset at the time if he taught a more reformed soteriology, but that they followed what he taught wholeheartedly and now they are trying to make sense out of what they are being asked to believe that is different.
My point with this is that pastors may have more influence over their congregations than they often realize. While much of the vitriol in this debate has been limited to the blogs, I’ve seen more than enough videos of pastors preaching this kind of vitriol to their congregations. The congregation in my church is fairly technologically savvy, but I dare say that most of them don’t read blogs. They take their cues from the pastoral staff.
Some of us who frequent this blog are not pastors, but many are. I’ve stopped commenting on articles here that talk about Calvinism because I don’t have time to sort through the food fight emailed directly to my inbox to see if anyone wanted to interact with my comment. And who do I see throwing much of the food? Pastors.
Now, I have a great deal of respect for pastors and I don’t want to sound like I’m bashing God’s appointed leadership, but you all are the example for the little guys like me. It starts with the way you handle this publicly, online and in the pulpit. You never know who is watching and to what extent they will take your example.
” Start with the John 3:16 Conference perhaps and their intentional Molotov cocktail thrown up on this entire situation. Start with the Great Evangelical Cover Up with the Caner duo and how we’ve never fessed up to.” – JD
JD,
I’d love to hear more about these. How was the John 3:16 Conference an “intentional Molotov cocktail” and what sort of cover-up was Emir evolved it?
Donald
Dave
I want to thank you for your post and honesty. Often when I read this website I leave feeling that it mainly caters to five point Calvinist. I have stated my concern of some leaders in the SBC trying to indoctrinate the churches and students to accept such a view. I myself, believe in some of the tenants of Calvinism but oppose unconditional election and limited atonement. I too believe that in some areas the Scripture seems to point to free choice and at other times it does not. After reading your article I noticed that we, who struggle in our quest for truth are closer to one another in our beliefs concerning Calvinism that I would have ever thought. I also give thanks to JD Hall for providing an example of what you were warning against. I hope that there could be more conversations that deals with our agreements rather than our disagreements. I also appreciated how many of the Calvinist stood against one of their own whose conduct was beneath that of a Christian. I respect each and I am more open to their conversations.
As a reformed leaning pastor myself – I think there’s wisdom and godly counsel in Dave’s post. I don’t agree with all of it, but there’s certainly some godly value in it I am going to take the fried chicken approach as I always do when reading the opines of man… “eat the meat, and toss any bone aside.”
Jared, i dont know you…but ill say this. you have earned my vote at the convention by your handling of yourself on this and other blog posts in recent days. Thank you.
JD, I don’t know you either (I don’t really know anyone here,I don’t think) but you are not behaving in a Christlike manner and are doing damage to any positive influence on this blog that you may have had. Its not irreparable….we all fall prey to the flesh from time to time and place ourselves in need of forgiveness from others. Be humble enough to ask for it. I know I’ve had to do it enough over the years.
My mother and father often told me and my brothers the following; “it’s not always what you said that gets you in trouble, as much as it is oftentimes how you say it.”
My parents are wise people.
God Bless.
I have been out of circulation for two solid weeks, having been made to move by a new landlord who wanted the trailer for his daughter and a heart attack (read as in stopped and having my heart restart beating by a defibilator), spending five days in a hospital, getting a stent (sp?), getting back on line with a new internet carrier, and, finally finding the time to read some of the posts.
This one interests me, Dave, because I had written a blog for SBC Today, a take off on Dr. Patterson’s blog last Fall on Election. My point was to call attention to the fact that what Dr. Patterson had written actually could provide the grounds for a beginning show of unity. In other words, he said some things about election that even a Calvinist could not have said any better. I.e., the doctrine promotes humility (a center of the target hit). In any case, the move, an invalid wife, a wedding (where the heart problem manifested), and the stoppage interfered with further developments on that matter. And now SBC today is changing formats or something. However, what Dr. Patterson wrote was and is crucial to a resolution of our difficulties, if what I wrote on the blog was indicator of the reality of what he had written.
More than that, having participated in a race relations conference during the massive integration of the Orangeburg Public Schools on a massive scare back in the Fall of 1970 and having some idea of the difficulties of bring diverse parties together (and this just 2-3 years after the Orangeburg Massacre, I realized the value of group leaders for the parties and the use of the Johari Window for understanding and years ago suggested the same for an attempt to work throught theological difficulties. One of the problems we face is that conflict plays to the inferior-superior motif in man’s fallen nature. Loving to win above all, there is a tendency on the part of us all to use any and every means possible to that end. The result is often a pyrric (sp?) victory, when what we really desire is for truth to win on its own merit…and not by manipulation. Also it is not really victory unless we can take it to the level of a win-win situation. As John Leland said concerning the union of Regulars and Separates, he felt himself the gainer by it. That is how both the Traditionalists and the Calvinists must feel about it. The question is this: Can we move things intellectually, methodologically, structurally, and etc. to the point where that becomes a reality with which we will all gladly live. My answer is, hopefully, yes.
We need trained mediators and agents of reconciliation, people in both camps who understand both cases thoroughly, so thoroughly that they know when one is violating a basic principle to win a point. I had training in Counseling along this line, and, more specifically, training to be a mediator for the Superior Courts of North Carolina. While I never completed the training, the last five sessions of supervised mediation, I did get some insights into the process. One of the things we really need to learn is the need for liberty and freedom, the liberty and freedom to study, to make up one’s mind, to change one’s mind in the process of coming to a theological position, vis-a-vis, Traditionalism and Calvinism.
It might be hard for Calvinists to believe, but they are the originators of this liberal approach. Back in the 1700s part of it grew out of the Hebs.2:9 statement that Christ tasted death for every man, and people who read that were usually unacquainted with the answers to the statement. These same people (not many in number even among the Separate Baptists where they took their rise) were involved in the struggle for religious liberty, and they paid the price in beatings and imprisonments. The more Calvinistic bethren began to be upset with the emphasis laid on the matter, and the groups at first drew apart. Then they both became ashamed of themselves for thinking hard thoughts of men they had called brethren a short while before. This led back to the effort at mediation and the adjustment that “the preaching that Christ tasted death for every man would be no bar to communion.” One of the first named members of the committee for that Union of Separates and Regulars was Ambrose Dudley ( suppose that being named first put him in the relative position of being chairman and he was a Separate Baptist of the more strict kind…later he would become a Primitive Baptist). In any case, the agreement was worked out and Baptists would carry it to Missouri and work Calvinists and Traditionalists (the present term but applicable considering the issues and groups) together, letting people preach as they felt led by their grasp of the texts.
All of this produced some interesting anomalies. I had a Calvinistic Pastor once who preached on this subject, “Ten Things A Sinner Can Do To Be Saved.” My ordaining pastor was a supralapsarian, a hyper calvinist (his terms in the pulpit and in conversation). He was a great soul winner, founder of the American Race Track Chaplaincy (according to Who’s Who in Religion.2nd edn.Chicago: Marquis Pubs., 1977). Dr. Ernest R. Campbell ordained me to the ministry, when I did not believe like him at all. He also ordained my brother-in-law who is to this day a Traditionalist. Today we have a mutual admiration society of two concerning which of us is the sharpest in theology. I say he is, calling him the cat’s meow and the cheshire cat’s grin. We all need to laugh at ourselves now and then brethren. After all, the depth of our Bible is as the omniscience of God Himself which inspires the word thereof, making the deepest swimming hole on earth (the Mariannas Trench) look like puddle by comparison.
We can beat this difficulty, I believe, if we are willing to work at it, to develop agents of reconciliation and mediation, who enable each person free to pursue his (or her) own sense of God’s leadership in these matters and to be able to preach the same. This allows for Traditionalists to become Calvinists and Calvinists to become Traditionalists. Just avoid the hatefulness that can be manifested in heated arguments. I have a big issue with Calvinists myself even though I count myself a full Fledged five point sovereign Grace believer, and my issue is that of equality. I am an egalitarian whereas most today seem to be complementarians. The doctrines of Grace in my opinion for what it is worth bring us all to the level at the foot of the cross.
One other thing, and I will quit. Part of our problems are the texts with which we struggle. They admit of a greater depth than the human mind can comprehend. Indeed, it seems to take a miracle of God’s grace to help us grasp them at times. Some verses magnify God’s Sovereignty and put man in the dust. Others lift up man and hold him so utterly responsibile that it is enought to drive one mad. Mr. Miller picked up on a term used by Dr. J.I. Packer in his Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God which reflects the reality of the problem. I refer to antinomy. Others had used various terms. I even offer an invented one, crisonist. Our Bible has therapeutic paradoxes, ideological holisms; it offers a scientific method that we are still trying to grasp, one not merely analytical, but, rather, one that is synthetical, one that can take in two seemingly antithetical ideas at one and the same time, making the believer feel a blessed tension that enables and empowers a balanced, flexible, creative, constant, and magnetic approach to living the Christian life that is God’s best advertisement of His Gospel.