Reid, Finn, Calvinism, and the SBC Part 2

Context:  See here.

Disclaimers:  This is not a response of the same sort that I made to Reid.  Finn’s letter is addressed to non-Calvinists in the SBC, so it is not up to me to respond to his letter.  Instead my comments are a general voice of agreement and support, although I do disagree in a couple of places with Finn.

Format: I will place Dr. Finn’s comments in blockquotes and italicized while my response will be in the regular format.

Responses:  I encourage you to read Dr. Finn’s full letter here.

  Dr. Finn begins with a short autobiographical sketch of his upbringing in the SBC, and his ‘conversion’ to Calvinism.

When I became a Calvinist in the spring of 1999, I thought for sure I would never minister in a Southern Baptist context. As late at 2001, I was afraid I would either have to become “non-denominational” or, even worse, Presbyterian. Since non-denominationalism seemed faddish and I was quite sure pedobaptism was not biblical, neither of these options were appealing. Fortunately, I learned about eight years ago that there are thousands of Southern Baptists my age that share my convictions.

Ten years later I am an ordained Southern Baptist minister who has been educated in two Southern Baptist seminaries and teaches Baptist History for a living at one of those seminaries. I am where I never thought I would be a decade ago, and I am thankful for God’s providence in putting me in this place. I wouldn’t be here if I did not love the Southern Baptist Convention. To say it as clearly as I can, I am both really Calvinist and really Southern Baptist.

I can identify with Finn’s predicament, although not exactly.  I was raised Independent Baptist, which pretty much means, Southern Baptist without the bureaucracy or the organizational missions effort (we supported independent missionaries independently).   But as a (still) young Calvinist, with a complicating issue for some (I did not marry a white middle-class American) and a much different preaching style than those in the Churches I grew up in, I too worried that I would have to leave the boundaries of Baptistic polity in order to find a place to minister.  Then I heard about Tom Ascol and Founder’s Ministries.  And my brother had just taken a pastorate in an SBC Church.  As I looked into the SBC I found that I could possibly have a place to call home.  The commitment to inerrancy, orthodox theology, and Baptist polity, coupled with an apparent love for missions and a broad umbrella which allowed for some disagreement while not flexing on non-negotiables was very inviting.

I am now a committed Southern Baptist, so much so that I have been privileged to help plant a Church and bring that Church into the SBC.

As a Calvinist who is part of a mostly non-Calvinist denomination, I want to offer the following suggestions for my friends who reject my particular views about salvation. Like my colleague Alvin Reid, I write this as humbly as I know how, from a spirit of brotherly love.

Once again, the humilty and love are apparent in this letter.

First, be sure to articulate the gospel unambiguously in your preaching and evangelism. Many of you have an obvious burden for seeing the lost come to faith in Christ, which I truly appreciate. But sometimes when I hear some non-Calvinists trying to evangelize, they confuse slogans or shibboleths with the gospel. The gospel is not “God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life” or “Jesus can straighted out your messed-up life.” This is just lingo. The gospel is also not “pray this prayer” or “ask Jesus into your heart.” These are possible ways that you can encourage sinners to respond to the gospel, but only after explaining both the good news and the nature of the response. Even biblical phrases like “repent,” “believe,” “faith,” and “sin” can be reduced to pious shibboleths when they are not clearly defined.

The gospel is the story of all that our Creator God has done through the perfect life, atoning death, and victorious resurrection of Jesus Christ to rescue sinners from destruction and redeem a fallen world. This is what we must proclaim. The proper response to this gospel is repenting of sin and putting our faith in Christ and his work on our behalf. If we do not make the gospel clear and/or if we fail to articulate the appropriate response to the gospel, then our evangelism is sub-Christian. And that has potentially horrible ramifications for the very people we wish to win.

Agreed 100%.

Second, be sure to never give the impression that the decision to become a Christian is a mere decision. Sometimes I hear non-Calvinists imply that “all you have to do” if you want to be a Christian is believe in Christ. This makes it sound like faith is a simple free will decision that can be made apart from the gracious work of the Holy Spirit. I know the vast majority of my non-Calvinist friends don’t really believe that. Even if you disagree with my Calvinism, I know most of you believe just as strongly as I do that the Holy Spirit is at work in the lives of sinners to draw them to faith in Christ.

Surely we can all agree that though faith is certainly a decision, it is never a simple decision. Becoming a Christian is more than getting all the facts right (though the facts need to be right!). Becoming a Christian is more than being baptized and joining a church. Becoming a Christian is more than opting for heaven instead of hell. Real change must happen or real faith is not present.

After I became a Calvinist, it seemed almost inevitable that I would hear phrases that would express boldly the necessity of a special work of the Spirit in salvation.  “If you are under conviction”, “If you feel the Holy Spirit drawing you”, and even “Without the drawing of the Spirit and real conviction you won’t be saved!”  The interesting thing about these phrases is that they came from preachers who were vocal in their opposition to Calvinism.  As I understood what they were saying, I would ask myself, “Do they really believe that?”  It seemed incongruous to me that these phrases would be used when their whole message seemingly contradicted these statements.  But then again, I remembered that I too believed in a special work of the Spirit that was necessary for salvation even before I became a Calvinist.  So this is one point where I do think we can be united, even though I still think it is out place in a non-Calvinist’s soteriological hermeneutic and I am glad that Dr. Finn has included this in his letter.

Finally, be careful not to turn your strategies into sacraments. I have in mind here two popular practices: altar calls and “sinner’s prayers.” Now do not misunderstand me: I am not in principle opposed to either of these practices. As someone who does mostly itinerant preaching, I offer a public invitation at the end of 95% of the sermons I preach. I also think that when most people come to faith in Christ they articulate that faith in the form of a prayer. At least this was the case in my conversion and the conversion of every person I have ever led to Christ.

I am not so much concerned with either of these strategies as I am the way they are sometimes applied. More than one observer has argued that altar calls are to many Southern Baptists what sacraments are to Roman Catholics: we are not sure folks can really be saved without them! I know of one church where the youth minister led a man to Christ after the gentleman had literally walked into the church office and asked to speak with a minister about what it meant to be a Christian. The next Sunday that man walked the aisle, only to have the senior pastor lead him in a second sinner’s prayer so the congregation could see that he really was saved. I’m dead serious.

And speaking of the sinner’s prayer, it seems there are too many among us who treat this practice as if it is the secret code to enter the Christian club house. In one extreme, folks are encouraged to “repeat after me” and then pronounced new Christians based upon their correct recitation of the prescribed formula. In another extreme, I have heard more than one pastor or evangelist argue that if you don’t get the words right, you might not be saved at all! My own teenage years were spent re-praying sinner’s prayers to make sure I “got it right” and thus have “assurance of my salvation” every time we had revival services or I went to a youth conference. I suspect I am not the only person with that testimony. The point is that both aforementioned extremes are more superstition than New Testament.

I am less inclined to offer an ‘invitation’.  I hope my messages have a clear call to repentance and faith, but i am less interested in someone making a public spectacle than I am in seeing a life transformed by the preaching of the Word.  Can an ‘altar call’ be used to accomplish this?  Maybe, but I am a little more of a ’regulative principlist’ purist than to attempt it.

I also don’t see anywhere in the Bbile where people came to faith by ‘praying’.  Yes, there is always the aspect of confession of sinfulness, but asking God to ‘save me’, or, ‘come into my heart’, or, ‘please forgive me’.  The Gospel contains commands.  Believe and repent.  Those are the responses to the Gospel that God requires.  And the Gospel also contains promises.  If you believe and repent you will be saved.  I am not sent to ask anyone to believe, I am sent to command faith and repentance in response to the Gospel and offer the promise of forgiveness of sins, justification, eternal security, and every other Gospel promise based upon true faith and repentance.

Can these responses be articulated in the form of a prayer?  Yes.  They can.  But again, I think the deeper issue is understanding faith and repentance as commands to be obeyed rather than invitations to be accepted.

In closing, let me say loud and clear that I am committed to linking arms with all Southern Baptist individuals and churches that love the gospel and want to see the good news proclaimed to all people. In my understanding, Calvinism is a secondary issue that should not preclude different churches from participating in the same network of churches. Our denominational unity should be around a common commitment to the theology of the Baptist Faith and Message, a commitment to the Baptist vision of the church, and a burden to see the gospel proclaimed in all parts of North America and to the ends of the earth. Insofar as we unite around these things and do not divide over Calvinism (or other secondary issues), we will press forward in a Great Commission Resurgence for the sake of the gospel and the glory of the living God.

Ditto.  Amen.  Selah.

I will offer some final thoughts later this week.

Reid, Finn, Calvinism, and the SBC Part 1

Context: Over at Between The Times blog, Drs. Alvin Reid and Nathan Finn each addressed open letters to Southern Baptists.  Alvin Reid’s letter was addressed to Calvinists in the SBC, while Nathan Finn’s letter was addressed to non-Calvinists in the SBC.  Between the two of them I think we’re all covered.

Timmy Brister recently summarized the letters for us here and here, and there is a lot of good discussion on Dr. Reid’s letter at his blog.  I would encourage you to read Dr. Reid’s letter before continuing to read here.

Disclaimers: As I stated at Timmy’s blog, although I believe I understand Dr. Reid’s points and agree mostly with him, I have some concerns with his letter.  While I am going to voice concerns with his letter here, I want everyone to understand that this is not an ‘attack’ on Dr. Reid, and if you have a bone to pick with him you can take it elsewhere.  But because his letter is a public letter which I take as addressed to me as a Calvinist in the SBC, I believe I have the right and responsibility to interact publicly with what he has written.  Also, I do not believe that I can speak on behalf of all Calvinists in the SBC, so understand that these words are my words and my opinions.

Format: I will place Dr. Reid’s comments in blockquotes and italicized while my response will be in the regular format.

Introduction:

As a non-Calvinist who is not an anti-Calvinist, I want to offer the following suggestions for my friends who are Calvinists. I do so out of a spirit of brotherly love and as humbly as I know how.

I’m beginning my response here because I think this is a much better introduction than the introduction that Dr. Reid chose.  May I say that in reading this letter I do get a sense of humility and love.  I really believe that Dr. Reid is expressing what he believes are valid concerns about Calvinists, especially those who are new to Calvinism.  I also truly believe that he is attempting to be as loving and humble as is possible.

Responses:

Over the course of my almost-50 years, all in a Southern Baptist context, I have watched many ideas and trends come and go. I remember well the 1970s and the eschatological fervor of the time. Of sermon series on the book of Revelation there seemed to be no end. Hal Lindsay’s Late Great Planet Earth became one of many books signaling the near return of our Lord. In the middle of such excitement there were bound to be excesses, and I saw plenty. I remember a friend who was so convinced that Jesus would return by 1976 that when the Lord tarried, he walked away from his faith. We survived those years and continued on to the future.

Now we see a rise in interest and conviction about Calvinism, which hardly caused a stir in my circles throughout college and seminary.

I’m not sure why Dr. Reid begins with this comparison.  Comparing Hal Lindsay and the End-Times hysteria of the late 70′s and 80′s to a resurgence in Calvinism just seems to me to be a little over the top and dismissive of the theological positions of Calvinists.  So I get the since that while, as he states later, he is not a “anti-Calvinist”,  that he just doesn’t care about our positions.  Calvinism is a fad and it will pass.  Never mind that this fad has lasted the 500 years since the Reformation, besides the point that I would make that ‘Calvinism’ is in fact what the Bible itself teaches.  I’m saying this, because I hope that he may have a different explanation for this introduction.

First, embrace humility. You have an obvious hunger for truth and for theological depth, which is commendable. But when your love for truth smacks of condescension, even to the point of arrogance, you do no one any good. You will not win others to your cause or promote the cause of Christ with an attitude of superiority. Encourage those across the theological spectrum to be serious about theology, but affirm humility in heart as much as you do soundness in mind.

Point well taken.  This is good advice not only for Calvinists, but for anyone who is passionate about truth.  We must all seek humility.  When you get down to it, humility is at the heat of the Gospel.  Christ humbled himself, became the servant of all, and submitted himself to the pain of death.  And he tells us that whoever would be greatest among us must be servant of all.  Humility should be embraced by all Christians.  And Reid’s point that when we speak the truth without love and humility we have become as Paul said, a clanging cymbal.  We have been commanded to speak the truth in love.  But this admonition has always bothered me for a couple of reasons.

The first reason is that for some reason when a person hears the word ‘Calvinist’ he immediately thinks ‘arrogance’.  The charge is a constant ringing in the Calvinist’s ears.  “You should be more humble!”  Just hearing it said once again makes me think that this person (not Reid) needs to get the log out of his eye.  The arrogance  of some people in telling another person that he isn’t humble is off the charts in my opinion.

Second,  apparently there is a reason that the charge keeps being leveled at Calvinists.  We are not humble in so many ways.  Even though what we believe should cultivate humility in us, many times just the opposite is true.  Yes, we should be firm and steadfast in our beliefs, but not at the expense of recognizing that we really don’t have it all figured out.

Second, avoid implying that Calvinism and the gospel are synonyms. Sometimes I hear Calvinist speakers argue (or at least imply) that Calvinism and the gospel are identical, and if one does not affirm the tenets of Calvinism he denies the gospel. Not only is this theologically arrogant, it is unkind. I would remind you that in our history as Southern Baptists we have had room for Calvinists and non-Calvinists, and I see no reason for that day to end. You unnecessarily alienate those who would be your friends when you use such uncharitable rhetoric. Be aware that others in the history of Christianity as well as today may hold to interpretations that vary from you, and that variation does not always mean heterodoxy.

I think I understand what Dr. Reid is saying here.  The Gospel is what Christ did, and the Gospel we preach is a proclamation of what Christ accomplished and a call to repentance and faith.  I agree.  Calvinism is not in and of itself the Gospel.

However, I have a hard time separating out what I believe about what Christ did from what He did.  In my mind the Gospel begins with the declaration that we as sinners need a work done both outside of us and inside of us.  We are sinners who hate God.  We would never come to love Him or follow Him if He first does not do something for us.  The Gospel stands then, in the context of total human depravity.   We are all going to Hell in a hand-basket, I mean that literally, and although we’re not happy about that, we wouldn’t change a thing because we hate God.  So there must be a point where God decides that if anyone will be saved, then He has to start it and finish.  So He starts it by choosing a people for Himself, not because of foreseen faith or any good in them because they still hate God, and He sends His Son to die for them, sends the Holy Spirit to turn their hearts towards Him through the preaching of the Gospel and its demands, and then seals them and keeps them walking in love towards Him until they arrive safely at the destination that He has prepared for them.

Athough Calvinism is not the Gospel, it is so intertwined with the Gospel that I find it hard to completely separate out from the Gospel.  If the Gospel is, as defined in 1 Corinthians 15, the death of Christ for our sins, His burial, His resurrection, His appearances, and His reign, then there must be a theological framework for understanding those statements.  Otherwise, we can repeat those statements till we’re blue in the face, but unless we explain them, there is no Gospel actually be proclaimed.  Only historical fact.  What does it mean that, “Christ died for our sins”?  That He was buried, that He rose on the third day, that He appeared to many eyewitnesses, that all enemies are being put under His feet?  Although I do understand that Calvinism itself is not the Gospel, I think that Reid is asking something more from me than I can do in good conscience.  Not that I deny that Reid has believed the Gospel, but that I deny that he has believed the best explanations of what the Gospel is and means for us.

Third, do not hesitate to call for non-Christians to turn to Christ in faith. I understand your reticence at extending a call for decision when the gospel is preached is due to more than a few who have been reckless in their handling of such invitations. But I would urge you to call for decision both personally and corporately as did our Lord, Peter, Paul and others in Scripture. I would urge you to read the works of Spurgeon and consider his passion for calling people to come to Christ.
Now whether or not you have an “altar call” at the conclusion of your service is less the issue for me than that some of you fail to give those on whom the Spirit is doing His convicting work the opportunity to follow Christ in some public manner. I would submit some of you are far better at criticizing your brothers who give public calls for decision than at offering a biblical alternative for such calls. Some of you seem to have a practical agnosticism concerning personal conversion.
As you read this particular criticism, please do not assume I think Calvinists are not evangelistic. I am using Mark Dever’s fine book on personal evangelism as one of the texts for a class (along with two by non-Calvinists, including mine!). Dever sets a good example for his fellow Calvinists (and non-Calvinists) in personal witnessing. I would ask you to provoke one another in your camp to good works in terms of evangelistic effectiveness, including not being afraid to plead with people to turn to Christ in faith.

Another fine suggestion from Dr. Reid is that Calvinists should not hesitate in calling sinners to repentance.  Nothing in Calvinism precludes inviting all men and women to repent and believe the Gospel.  Jesus was the only person ever who knew who all of the elect were, and yet he went everywhere preaching that everyone should repent and believe the Gospel.  If we believe that regeneration takes place by the Spirit through the Gospel proclaimed, then all Calvinists should be at the forefront of evangelism.  Sadly, this seems to rarely be the case.  But I don’t think the answer for this is in finding a ‘biblical alternative’ for the altar call.

I think the better answer is first, in personal evangelism, that the there be a clear presentation of the Gospel (and I don’t mean an exposition of Calvinism), and then a clear presentation of the Gospel commands of repentance and faith as a response to the truthfulness of the Gospel.

Second, I think that in our preaching we must be ‘gospel-centered’, and that part of the message that we preach must be a clear articulation of the Gospel demands of repentance and faith as a response to the Gospel.  The Gospel and that call to faith and repentance should never ever be separated from each other in our preaching.  You cannot preach the Gospel with clarity without explaining what this means for your hearers.  Preaching is the Gospel call.

My fourth and final plea comes from my own personality. Over the years I have been in ministry I have been a bridge builder, not a bridge burner. I tend to be more a Barnabas than a Jeremiah, more a “he that is not against me is with me” type than a “my way is Yahweh” fellow. So hear my heart as a Southern Baptist who is content to agree to differ on some points (I believe God is so sovereign we can do that and He still achieves His purposes!) and still work together for the glory of God and the sake of the gospel. In your conferences and other meetings, especially those directed primarily to Southern Baptists, consider involving some speakers who may not agree with you at every point.
I have heard “Together for the Gospel” meetings referred to as “Calvinists for the Gospel” events. Would the Building Bridges conference not be a better model, especially within our Convention? I recall being part of a conference on revival years ago in which Richard Owen Roberts, a wonderful student of awakenings and a Calvinist, answered a question from the floor. He was asked if every spiritual awakening was led by Calvinists. He put his hand to his head, grimaced, and with a pained look, said, “No.” He was right. As a non-Calvinist who teaches on the great awakenings I would be the first to affirm that more leaders of revivals were Calvinists than not. But I would also submit that if we could today see an awakening sweep our land through the work of both modern-day Whitefields and modern-day Wesleys, we could bury a hatchet or two and learn from one another.

Personally, I don’t really see the need for this point to be made in the context of the SBC.  If there are Calvinists in the SBC, then it must be because we want to cooperate with other Southern Baptists in the spread of the Gospel.  Who we invite to our conferences really depends on the focus of our conferences.  If we want to have a conference promoting what we understand to be a correct understanding of the Gospel, why should we be obligated to invite a speaker who does not share our views?  But if we want to have a conference promoting cooperation among Southern Baptists, then I am all for inviting speakers from all viewpoints, so long as they understand that the focus is cooperation among Southern Baptists.

I guess I am advocating unity through distinctives rather than unity through consensus.  Not that consensus is bad, I think we already have a consensus articulated in the BF&M 2000.  We have unity through our affirmation of the BF&M, we can discuss our differences, but let’s not reduce unity to some abstract idea of love and understanding.  We can learn from each other, but let’s also remember that both sides have already wrestled with the Scriptures and have formed some conclusions that conscience will not let us betray.

I will try to interact with Dr. Nathan Finn’s letter later in the week.

What’s your style of worship?

As I have talked to many people about our Church Plant here in East TN, this is one of the questions that comes up.  The other two are;

Who are you trying to attract?, and
Are you reformed?

Good questions, I guess.

First, Worship style…Gospel-centered.

If by worship we are talking about the time when our local assembly comes together to worship God, here’s what our worship ‘style’ is.  We worship God through Christ by the Spirit in the reading of the Scriptures that testify of Christ, preaching the Gospel from the Scriptures, hearing the Gospel in the Scriptures, singing the Gospel in accordance with the Scriptures, showing the Gospel as commanded in the Scriptures, and fellowshipping in the Gospel around the Scriptures.  If we’re talking about our music style…whatever is Biblical and easy to be sung by the WHOLE congregation.  Ancient, Old, Modern, New…so far in the first month we have sung them all…without music for the time being, hopefully with music in the future.

Second, Focus Group…the lost in our communities.

The conventional wisdom in Church-planting today seems to be identify a particular sub-section of culture and limit the growth of the Church those ‘four and no more’.  I know that limiting the attenders is not the purpose, but it does end up as the natural result.  Imagine a Church tailored to meet the needs of one subset of Americans…let’s say golfers.  All the illustrations in the sermon relate tothe ‘golfing’ lifestyle (is there a golfing lifestyle?), all the music sounds like the music being played in the clubhouse, and the Pastor wears Izod brand knickers to preach in every Sunday.  Who are you going to attract?  Golfers.  Who are you not going to attract?  Me.  Because I don’t feel welcome in your Church.  I have never golfed, I have worn Izod before, it was a gift, and I don’t speak the language.  Now take look at another Church.  The worship is tailored to God.  Suddenly I have something in common with everyone who attends there.  We’re all not God.  But we all need Him.  This is where I can hang my hat.  I have no doubt that we won’t attract all of Loudon County, but we have a bigger pool to draw from than the Golfer Church does.

Finally, Are you reformed?…No.

I hope I never become so comfortable with myself as to say that I’m reformed.  I hope I am always reforming.  For many being reforemd centers around five doctrines and I hold those doctrines near and dear to my heart as any regualr reader of this blog knows.  But those five doctrines do not a reformation make.  They are a good start, but they are not an end in themselves.  Orthdoxy leads to doxology which affects our orthopraxy.  In English that means that right doctrine leads us to worship God in the right way.  There are many practices in Southern Baptist Churches that stand in need of reformation.  Many churches neglect the public reading of Scripture.  Many sing songs that are simply not Biblical.  Many pull professions out of their youth under high pressure, just like the Muslim in the video from the last post.  Many do not preach thier text.  Many do not practice Church Discipline.  I could go on, but you get the point.  But the biggest point in this is that I do not believe even myself to be completely perfect, therefore as I study God’s Word I must be reforming myself and my practices by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Any questions?

Why Every Self-Respecting Baptist Is A Calvinist, or, Vice-Versa

That’s just my lame sense of humor in the title to this post. The real title might be something like;

How Calvinism Makes Me A Baptist

We’ll simply follow the TULIP acrostic and briefly look at how each of the points affect my view of Baptism.

Total Depravity- All men inherit a sin nature from their parents, which has been inherited from our first parents, Adam and Eve, and water baptism cannot take it away. Instead, it is removed by Christ’s atoning death and resurrection as we are united with Christ by faith, which is symbolically shown through water baptism.

Unconditional Election- God has chosen certain people to salvation, not based on any foreseen merit. Baptism does not profit an unbeliever as regards his election by God, making him more likely to ‘be saved’. Instead, baptism is given to the Church as a confirmation of God’s election of those who believe.

Limited Atonement- The effectualness of Christ’s atonement is limited to only those who believe. Baptism is a sign of that atonement. Baptism should be just as limited as the atonement is.

Irresistible Grace- The Holy Spirit effectually calls out all that the Father has chosen. As we have noted in Acts 2:39, baptism is commanded of all those whom are called out by God.

Perseverance of the Saints- All whom God has chosen are kept by God and persevere in faith towards Him. Baptism is the sign of the promise that his elect will be saved by Christ’s death and resurrection. Baptism should be reserved for those who have been placed into God’s preserving and protective grace.

In summary, all those who have been baptized by the Church into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit should be as close as possible to the same people that have been baptized into Christ by the Spirit.

Original Sin: part two

Berkoff’s “History of Christian Doctrine” notes that it wasn’t until the Augustine/Pelagius controversy that the doctrine of Original Sin came to the forefront.(History Of Christian Doctrine pgs 127-130 ) Until then the Greek Fathers didn’t believe in original sin. This was one of the reasons Pelagius’ views came about. But the Latin Fathers didn’t contribute significantly to the formation of the doctrine either. Tertullian, Cyprian, Hilary, and Ambrose did make some contribution toward a monergistic view of salvation and the corruption of men from Adam’s fall but it was Augustine that truly brought some substance to this doctrine.

One of my mentors in Reformed Theology has often pointed out to me that in God’s providence He allows errors to appear so that the Church can turn to God’s Word to understand what is truth and what is error. So it was in this case.

So what was the main issue between Augustine and Pelagius? It had to do with the extent of the Fall upon the descendants of Adam. As R.C. Sproul says:

The controversy began when the British monk, Pelagius, opposed at Rome Augustine’s famous prayer: “Grant what Thou commandest, and command what Thou dost desire.” Pelagius recoiled in horror at the idea that a divine gift (grace) is necessary to perform what God commands. For Pelagius and his followers responsibility always implies ability. If man has the moral responsibility to obey the law of God, he must also have the moral ability to do it.

Pelagius categorically denied the doctrine of original sin, arguing that Adam’s sin affected Adam alone and that infants at birth are in the same state as Adam was before the Fall. Pelagius also argued that though grace may facilitate the achieving of righteousness, it is not necessary to that end. Also, he insisted that the constituent nature of humanity is not convertible; it is indestructively good. (Augustine and Pelagius by R. C. Sproul)

Augustine categorically opposed what Pelagius taught. As Sprouls says:

Augustine’s view of the Fall was opposed to both Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism. He said that mankind is a massa precast, a “mess of sin,” incapable of raising itself from spiritual death. For Augustine man can no more move or incline himself to God than an empty glass can fill itself. For Augustine the initial work of divine grace by which the soul is liberated from the bondage of sin is sovereign and operative. To be sure we cooperate with this grace, but only after the initial divine work of liberation.

Augustine did not deny that fallen man still has a will and that the will is capable of making choices. He argued that fallen man still has a free will (liberium arbitrium) but has lost his moral liberty (libertas). The state of original sin leaves us in the wretched condition of being unable to refrain from sinning. We still are able to choose what we desire, but our desires remain chained by our evil impulses. He argued that the freedom that remains in the will always leads to sin. Thus in the flesh we are free only to sin, a hollow freedom indeed. It is freedom without liberty, a real moral bondage. True liberty can only come from without, from the work of God on the soul. Therefore we are not only partly dependent upon grace for our conversion but totally dependent upon grace.

(Augustine and Pelagius by R.C. Sproul)

This is articulated in the London Baptist Confession this way:

CHAPTER 6 – THE FALL OF MAN: SIN AND ITS PUNISHMENT

1. MAN, as he came from the hand of God, his creator, was upright and perfect. The righteous law which God gave him spoke of life as conditional upon his obedience, and threatened death upon his disobedience. Adam’s obedience was short-lived. Satan used the subtle serpent to draw Eve into sin. Thereupon she seduced Adam who, without any compulsion from without, willfully broke the law under which they had been created, and also God’s command not to eat of the forbidden fruit. To fulfill His own wise and holy purposes God permitted this to happen, for He was directing all to His own glory.
   Gen. 2:16,17; Gen. 3:12,13; 2 Cor.11:3.

2. By this sin our first parents lost their former righteousness, and their happy communion with God was severed. Their sin involved us all, and by it death appertained to all. All men became dead in sin, and totally polluted in all parts and faculties of both soul and body.
   Gen. 6:5; Jer. 17:9; Rom. 3:10-19,23; 5:12-21; Titus 1:15.

3. The family of man is rooted in the first human pair. As Adam and Eve stood in the room and stead of all mankind, the guilt of their sin was reckoned by God’s appointment to the account of all their posterity, who also from birth derived from them a polluted nature. Conceived in sin and by nature children subject to God’s anger, the servants of sin and the subjects of death, all men are now given up to unspeakable miseries, spiritual, temporal and eternal, unless the Lord Jesus Christ sets them free.
   Job 14:4; Ps. 51:5; Rom. 5:12-19; Rom. 6:20; 1Cor. 15:21-22, 15:45, 15:49; Eph. 2:3; 1Thess. 1:10; Heb. 2:14-15.

4. The actual sins that men commit are the fruit of the corrupt nature transmitted to them by our first parents. By reason of this corruption, all men become wholly inclined to all evil; sin disables them. They are utterly indisposed to, and, indeed, rendered opposite to, all that is good.
   Matt. 15:19; Rom. 8:7; Col. 1:21; Jas. 1:14.

5. During this earthly life corrupt nature remains in those who are born of God, that is to say, regenerated. Through Christ it is pardoned and mortified, yet both the corruption itself, and all that issues from it, are truly and properly sin.
   Eccles. 7:20; Rom. 7:18,23-25; Gal. 5:17; 1 John 1:8.

More to come…

Theology for Doxology

The Whole Gospel

Well I know Jeremy would like to close this subject for awhile but I thought I would get at least one lick in before it closes.

Now I’ve been busy trying to get some coding done and failing miserably so I haven’t been in the best of moods. But I must say that this isn’t the first time I have seen this particular line of reasoning presented. Years ago on a Reformed Christian discussion forum I sat and read a series of posts that basically said that TULIP was the gospel. The moderators of the forum, wise responsible men and women from whom I’ve learned very much, took a stand and said that was an error. And then they pointed to a source that has helped me much in understanding how to present the whole Gospel.

Will Metzger has written an excellent book that balances both God’s holiness and sovereignty along with His love. He shows us how to present the entire gospel to the people who need it the most. Take a minute and buy this book.
Tell the Truth by Will Metzger

Theology for Doxology

What Would Calvin Say?

So this big debate is raging among Calvinists about who it is exactly that God loves and if we can tell people that God loves them or that Christ died for them, or whether the Gospel in a certain video was clear enough, and I ask myself the question, “What would Calvin say?”

Luckily, I have his commentaries setting on the shelf next to my desk, so I thunk (again to myself, I’m a great conversation partner), “What better place to start to find what Calvin would say than in his Commentary on John 3:16?”

Now I already had an inkling of what Calvin would say, but nevertheless the way he said it was almost shocking. Here are some excerpts, the actual commentary on the verse covers about three pages. (Italics copied from the Commentary.)

“As the whole matter of our salvation must not be sought any where else than in Christ, so we must see whence Christ came to us, and why he was offered to be our Saviour. Both points are distinctly stated to us: namely, that faith in Christ brings life to all, and that Christ brought life, because the Heavenly Father loves the human race, and wishes that they should not perish.”

“Such is also the import of the term World, which he formerly used; for though nothing will be found in the world that is worthy of the favour of God, yet he shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when he invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life.”

“Let us remember, on the other hand, that while life is promised universally to all who believe in Christ, still faith is not common to all. For Christ is made known and held out to the view of all, but the elect alone are they whose eyes God opens, that they may seek him by faith.”

And then on verse 17 he adds,

“The word world is again repeated, that no man may think himself wholly excluded, if he only keep the road of faith.”

I’ve got to come down on the side of Calvin on this one. Jesus freely offered salvation to everyone who would believe, remember Nicodemus and the rich young ruler? This does not in any way negate his specific calling of the twelve. Both are facts. He invited all to come, and yet he chose the twelve. This paradox is communicated to us by Christ in Matthew.

At that time Jesus declared, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children; yes, Father, for such was your gracious will. All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.” (Mat 11:25-30)

So go tell the lost that God loves them and invites them to come to Christ for salvation, and he invites them regardless of their age, race, sex, or social status.

Theology for Doxology

Is The Gospel Reformed?

I’ve been reading some posts by a couple of bloggers, Frank Turk (aka Centuri0n) and Steve Camp. I’m not linking them here because I don’t want to get involved in the brouhaha and they probably don’t care what I’ve got to say anyway. Basically the disagreement between them is about this video by Francis Chan, in which Pastor Chan intends to proclaim the Good News. I’m not giving my opinion on the value of his video right now because I think that would detract from what I see as the main issue.

So anyway, I’m reading the comments and come across this comment by Greg Withrow, codename willow walker.

I also thought Pastor Chan gave a passionate and clear presentation. However the presentation that he gave was in no way the Gospel nor was it Reformed.

Before I get accused of taking this out of context and whatnot, let say up front that I don’t think that Greg Withrow was equating the Gospel to Reformed soteriology. But those two sentences brought up this question in my mind, “Is the Gospel ‘Reformed’?”

In other words, what part of the Gospel presented in, for instance, I Corinthians 15:1-11, is distinctly ‘Reformed’? My answer, and every other rational human being’s answer is probably the same, “None of it.” Now answer carefully on this next question, “Was Peter’s presentation of the Gospel on the day of Pentecost(Acts 2:14-36, for those of you in Rio Linda) distinctly ‘Reformed’? ” Again, I’m going to have answer in the negative. As a matter of fact, look at how closely Peter’s Gospel message lines up with what Paul’s to the Corinthians.

Now when I preach or teach these passages to the membership at my local church I will preach or teach them from a distinctively ‘Reformed’ perspective. But, be sure you hear me, my perspective is not the Gospel. It is a right view of the Gospel, but it in and of itself is not the Gospel.

What then is the Gospel? You’ve already read what Paul has to say and you’ve read Peter’s sermon, right? Now take a look again at what Peter says,

“Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know– this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. “(Act 2:22-23)

Peter says that God gave Jesus up to wicked men for crucifixion. Compared with John’s testimony of Jesus’ own words in John 3:16, what does this mean? It means that because God loved the world that he gave Jesus up to wicked men for crucifixion. Wrath was not God’s motivation for sending Christ into this world, His love was the motivating factor. Love for sinful men. It is love for His creation that moves God to send His Son to become the perfect sacrifice for us. And God does want to have a relationship with men. He wants to have this relationship so much that He actually ensures that that relationship will develop through election, predestination, effectual calling, and a sufficient and effectual atonement for our sins.

The relationship that God desires is a relationship of love. That why Jesus said the greatest of all the commandments was, “To love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength.” (Matthew, 22:37, Mark 12:30, Luke 10:25-28) This is a relationship where our love for God overflows into our worship of God, because you will never worship what you do not love.

So the problem as I see it is simply this, as ‘Reformed’ Christians we cannot let our doctrinal preciseness on the TULIP or the Solas black out the Gospel. Of course the way we see the Gospel will color that way we proclaim it. But we must be careful about getting signatures on our London Baptist Confession of Faith before getting the Gospel into men’s ears and praying that the Holy Spirit takes it into their hearts. Isn’t this equivalent to the charge we level at all those Baptists out there who want to get their baptisms and worry about the baptizee’s evangelization later?

How then should we preach? We should preach as Peter preached on the day of Pentecost. “For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” (Act 2:39) And then as we proclaim the promise of salvation to all, we must depend on God to ‘add to our number day by day those who were being saved.’ (Acts 2:47)

Theology for Doxology

Calvinism And Supernaturalism Revisited

I’ve been meaning to revisit this quote by Warfield since I wrote the original Calvinism and Supernaturalism post.

“Calvinism would not be badly defined, indeed, as the tendency which is determined to do justice to the immediately supernatural, as in the first, so also in the second creation.”-B. B. Warfield, Calvin and Calvinism (1932; New York: Oxford University Press, Reprinted 2003; Grand Rapids: Baker Books), 359.

I think there is more to be said about Warfield’s view of the definition of Calvinism. Obviously I left a lot unsaid about more of the supernatural works of God, specifically the miracles in Scripture, and less specifically, miraculous occurrences in modern times. But you could probably figure where I would go with that.

To set the context of what I am about to say, let me offer another couple of quotes by Warfield from the same section of his book, Calvin and Calvinism;

“What lies at the heart of [the Calvinist's] soteriology is the absolute exclusion of the creaturely element in the initiation of the saving process, that so the pure grace of God may be magnified. Only so could he express his sense of man’s complete dependence as sinner on the free mercy of a saving God; or extrude the evil leaven of Synergism by which, as he clearly sees, God is robbed of His glory and man is encouraged to think that he owes to some power, some act of choice, some initiative of his own, his participation in that salvation which is in reality grace.”

and;

“…Jesus Christ has come not to advise, or urge, or induce, or aid [sinful man] to save himself, but to save him.”

Just so we are clear, God saves me by His choice to extend His mercy and grace to me and not by my own volition. Jesus did not come to make salvation a possibility, but a fact. In other words, God’s work in salvation is not conditional, it is absolute.

Now this Gospel we proclaim is usually told in conditional terms…if you believe and if you repent you will be saved. And that’s the way it should be. And yet from the perspective of God it is always told in absolute terms. He will save his people from their sins. Nothing relative about that. It is a stated fact. And so on we go…He elected, He predestined, He sent his Son, Christ died, Christ suffered God’s wrath, Christ bore our sin, Christ gave us his righteousness, Christ rose from the dead, Christ ascended to the right hand of His Father, They sent the Spirit, the Spirit sent a preacher, the Spirit called us, the Spirit gives us faith.

The point that Warfield is making is that salvation is not a natural process. My salvation does not boil down to my natural ability to believe or disbelieve, to accept or reject, to will myself into heaven or hell. God is the cause and source of the salvation of everyone who has ever believed.

So while salvation may appear to us to be a random act of man’s will, one here, another there, in reality we see that these are God’s elect, His chosen few, those that He has foreknown from all eternity and has determined to set His love upon in order to show them the riches of His mercy and grace.

Were it not for this supernatural election, predestination, and move upon my will, my natural tendencies would carry me off into hell. I would never choice Christ. And neither would you. But thanks be to God, who makes us new creatures, we are not left to nature but to his supernatural work of salvation.

Theology for Doxology

Calvangelism

Part 1

About a block from the church I attend, there is another church. Actually there are about five churches in a one block radius of our church. Hey, it’s East Tennessee, the buckle of the Bible Belt. But one of these churches is a Primitive Baptist Church.

For those of you who don’t know, Primitive Baptist does not mean old Baptist. Primitive Baptists are Baptists who are Calvinists. They have been mischaracterized by some as being hyper-calvinists, but this is not so. They are simply Baptists who will not use any means whatsoever to evangelize. It is not that they are against evangelism, but against the use of tracts, missions agencies, etc. They also deny the proclamation of the Gospel as the means of regeneration. Notice that I said that they deny that the proclamation of the Gospel is the means of regeneration and not that they deny the need to proclaim the Gospel to the lost.
Instead they believe that the proclamation of the Gospel is needed for faith, with which we would all agree. But where we differ is in that they believe that the proclamation of the Gospel is only received once that one has been regenerated by the Spirit, whereas Southern Baptist Calvinists generally believe that the Spirit uses the proclamation of the Gospel to regenerate the lost so that they may receive the Gospel.

It’s a small difference, but a difference big enough to cause them to distance themselves from other Calvinistic Baptists by creating their own denomination. Which brings us to our point, There are no Calvinists who oppose the proclamation of the Gospel to the lost. To be sure, there are hyper-calvinists who have adopted a fatalistic view of salvation where God is willy-nilly picking whoever he wants to be saved and there is nothing we can do about it. But they are not Calvinists.

Calvinists have always been an evangelizing lot. Especially the Calvinists among the Southern Baptist denomination. (For the record, you cannot be a Southern Baptist and be against evangelization. The whole denomination is a mission board.) While there have been disagreements with others as to the methods of evangelization or whether methods should even be used in evangelization, the fact of the matter is that Calvinistic Baptists have always spread the Gospel among the lost.

So where did the idea come from that Calvinists don’t spread the Gospel? Well, to begin with it comes from a misunderstanding of the doctrine of election. Secondly, it comes from a misunderstanding of the doctrine of Total Depravity. But mostly it comes from a misunderstanding of the Calvinists understanding of the role of Scripture and preaching in salvation.

For the Calvinist verses like 1Peter 1:23 (since you have been born again, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God;) are not without meaning.
It is clear from this verse that regeneration takes place in connection with the word of God, but only by the power of the Spirit who blows where He wills. So Calvinists do not believe that just the words by themselves have the ability to regenerate, otherwise everyone who ever heard the Gospel would be saved, but that the Spirit uses the Gospel as His vehicle by which He blows new life into the elect.
Adding to this is the belief that conversion is a response to the Gospel. It is impossible to have true biblical faith unless that faith is focused upon Christ who is proclaimed in the Gospel message. Repentance form dead works and sin is a response to the commands of the Gospel. Turning from self-reliance, sin, and self-love are responses to the command of Christ to leave all and follow Him.

So for the Calvinist evangelism is an imperative. We must preach the Gospel to every creature. The preaching of the Gospel is God’s ordained means of bringing the elect to Himself. His Spirit uses the word preached to regenerate the dead and create faith in Christ in the unbeliever. So…why do Calvinists evangelize the lost? Well, because we are commanded to (Luke 24:46,47), but also because the evangel is the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes. (Romans 1:16, I Corinthians 1:21)

Part 2
In the previous Calvangelism post I tried to show that even some of those who are normally reckoned to be hyper-calvinists are not so. Even they are not opposed to sharing the Gospel of Christ. I also tried to show that the Calvinist understanding of Scripture’s role in regeneration precludes any anti-evangelistic sentiments. Now I want to show how that the doctrine of Unconditional Election does not thwart mission activity, but rather gives evangelism it’s backbone, so to speak.

Usually the allegation is made that Calvinists shouldn’t evangelize if they really believe that God has from all eternity decreed that the elect will be saved. But what those who make the allegation do not understand is that God has not only decreed that the elect will most surely be saved, He has also decreed the conditions and means of their salvation. What this means is simply this, the doctrine of election guarantees that Calvinists will be missionaries!

First, God has decreed the conditions of salvation by which the elect will be saved. What are these conditions? Faith in Christ and repentance of sin are God’s conditions to salvation. (Mark 1:15) God has ordained that all of His elect will be saved by belief in the truth of the Gospel. (Acts 13:47-48) In other words, God does not elect a person and then leave him without a Gospel witness. (Romans 10:14-17) Those who have not believed the Gospel cannot be saved. Faith is a requirement to salvation.

Second, God has decreed the means of salvation, namely, the proclamation of the Gospel, to save those who will believe. (I Corinthians 1:17-24) God has bound up salvation in the Gospel message. No one will ever be saved apart from that message.

So then, it follows that if it is true that God has sovereignly chosen certain men to salvation, then He has also sovereignly chosen to send men to preach the Gospel to those whom He has elected. It is not our duty to know who the elect are, but our duty to preach the Gospel to every creature, knowing that God has chosen some to salvation. In this way we can say that the doctrine of election actually proves that those who truly believe it will be evangelists. If God has a remnant then He also has those messengers who will take the good news of salvation to them.

Finally, the fact of an chosen people gives Calvinists a great incentive to go and spread the Gospel. If it is true that God has a people who will believe, then Calvinists can relax their confidence in themselves and depend on God to work through His means to produce the conditions necessary to bring His people to Himself. Not that Calvinist become lax in the area of Gospel preaching, but that the realize that they themselves cannot change the hearts of men and so while doing their duty of preaching the Gospel, they can rest in God’s sovereign working through their preaching. At the same time, they can have confidence that some will come to faith in Christ through their preaching since God has sent them to preach. And they know that God sends His message to the elect, and the elect will most certainly believe. What a great confidence for the Calvinist!
Much better than depending on methods and men to produce a change, don’t you think?

Part 3
This is probably the last post in this series. We have already seen how that both the Calvinist view of Scripture and the Calvinist understanding of Election actually make it a requirement that Calvinists be mission-minded. Now we will look at the Calvinist understanding of Depravity to see that Gospel preaching is the only hope for the world.

Calvinists believe in what has been called Total Depravity. Misconceptions about this doctrine are that it is the belief that man is as bad as he can be or that man can do nothing good. What Calvinists really believe is that man has been affected in all areas as a result of the fall, and that as such, he is as bad off as he can be and can do no saving good.
Man’s mind, will, affections, and any other part that you can name have all been affected by the fall. He cannot think right. His will is corrupt and in bondage to sin. His affections are for his own pleasure. He is a man without hope. He is lost. He hears God’s commands but cannot keep them, and he is so perverse that he desires to do that which has been forbidden and neglects to do that which has been commanded. He doesn’t fall into sin, but leaps headlong into hell. He cannot see the impending judgment ready to rain down on his head at any moment. He is blind, deaf, dumb, without feeling, in short, he is dead.

This is where the Gospel comes in. The Calvinist understands that the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation and the means by which the Spirit moves to regenerate the dead. So the Calvinist is left with two options;

1) Deprive the dead of the life-giving power of the Gospel, condemning the dead to hell, or
2) Declare to the dead the Gospel, depending on the Spirit of God to produce the results.

Only a sadistic, maniacal murderer would deprive oxygen to those who have drowned and still have a chance of survival. How much more should the Calvinist, armed with the life-giving Gospel, supply that to the corpse in front of him? We believe that men are hopelessly dead apart from the Gospel message, therefore, only a sadistic murdering Calvinist would deprive a lost world of that message.
So, Total Depravity demands that we Calvinists be evangelistic.

The purpose of these posts have been two-fold. First, they were intended to defend Calvinism against the false charges of so-called ‘hyper-calvinism’. Calvinists must, by our own definitions be evangelistic. Second, they were intended to be a goad for Calvinists. Don’t be what you know you’re not! Preach the Gospel to every living creature! It is the power of God and His ordained means of saving His elect.

Theology for Doxology