Thank you for the clarification. I actually don’t think we are very far apart in our understanding…..as I do not subscribe to the same language as Calvin and the some reformers on “covenant of grace” (as you have announced as trans-biblical). But there is certainty that God provided a covenant (promise) where his grace is given to those being saved and that is best seen in Christ and His New Covenant.

I’ll rest my musings for now…and I will look forward to reading your work on Baptist Origins!

Blessings,
Chris

First, actually I deny the philosophies of fatalism and determinism, so how in the world could I build my exegesis of Romans 9-11 upon them?

Second, please recognize that the Reformed doctrine of the “covenant of grace” is not the same thing as the New Covenant. Rather, by “covenant of grace,” the Reformed mean a trans-biblical covenant that depends upon some creative reading of Scripture.

Third, you are correct that we read Scripture differently, but not in the manner you describe. I certainly do affirm the sovereignty of God in salvation and his irrefutable purposes. I just believe that classical Calvinism takes its own logic and imputes it to the divine decrees or, as you term them, irrefutable purposes.

Thanks for the invitation to write on Baptist origins. I am actually doing so for publication but cannot disseminate that without violating a contract. But stay tuned!

In Christ,
Malcolm

One other quick add to this conversation that popped into my head was an article about the fears of Calvinism commented on by Leonard concerning Mohler’s historical push about Mullins ….which is similar to your earlier quip.

“Leonard said Mohler is guilty of buying into a “fallacy of Baptist origins.”
___”There is an idea that there is one kind of Baptist history, one kind of Baptist identity and if we can find it, we can be real Baptists,” Leonard explained. “The moderates have that same fallacy at times, as do the conservatives.
___”Historians have to keep reminding Baptists that they are the only post-Reformation people who began at both ends of the theological spectrum,” he added. “This idea that there’s one kind of Baptist and I know which kind it is, is to miss the point of the whole Baptist identity.”

I tend to think that Leonard was correct about Baptists…. In that Baptists need to be reminded that both roads were taken during the SBC’s formative years…making for an interesting Baptist identity.

Blessings,
Chris

It appears that you are depending upon philosophy (fatalism, determinism, etc.) to bolster your arguments against Paul’s clear teaching in Romans. Look just beyond the passage I cited concerning that it is not man’s will at all in matters of justification as Paul illuminates…. Romans 9:17-18 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER IN YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH.” (18) So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.
What you are saying to me is that it is possible to read this scripture and somehow come to the meaning that God is not the one that shows mercy and He is not the one who hardens as well….but it is man’s responsibility to make God appear righteous on His promises? Some of the Jewish converts in the Roman church did seem to have this same struggle.

Is there not a covenant of grace that God has shed abroad since the inception of making His word known to us? I’m not referring anyone to any theological system for grace (denominationally or reformed), but simply that God has provided His ways and means of grace by way of covenant. It appears to me that the New Covenant gives us a clear view of this grace…..

Hebrews 9:14-15 “how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? (15) For this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.”

As far as you and I,…it does appear that we read these texts from a different understanding of how God is operating in the world and in eternity. It also appears that we agree that confession is essential….and it appears that we both love God and have confessed him as Lord. The difference that I may proffer… is that I know God’s purposes and plans are irrefutable and not like our ways, while you seem to think that the reception of redemption depends primarily on man’s responsibility and if it does not then God is not causally reasonable to declare that to His creation.

Since this post was primarily about confession,…I am glad that we both confess Christ and follow Him alone as Lord and Savior. Another post on the true history of the SBC would be fascinating and informative and probably not much different that what is experienced even today. I too pray that God will continue to give me light to His Word,..I have much to learn!

Blessings,
Chris

Good question. Faith is a grace (Eph. 2:8, Phil. 1:29).

If you want to know more about my belief in justification and Rome’s problems, refer to the article I mentioned in the sermon. You did listen to the sermon before commenting, now, didn’t you?

Now, Mark, you have asked me two questions and I have asked you one question. Equity would seem to call upon you to answer for me this second question: Do you believe Calvinism is the gospel? If so, please provide biblical support for every doctrine in the Synod of Dort, as well as the other extrabiblical innovations introduced by Calvinism that I discuss in The Formation of Christian Doctrine, p. 155, n. 15.

In Christ,
Malcolm

You said and I agree that …for I do believe that the human being has a responsibility to believe in the gospel.

From your perspective, what role does God’s grace play in man’s ability to believe?

And one more thing if you don’t mind. A follow-up from above.

In your view, is the Gospel denied by the Roman Catholic doctrine of infused righteousness and Rome’s denial of sola fide?

Thank you,

Mark

Your understanding of Baptist beginnings in the south I am afraid may have been skewed by some very bad history emanating from among other places the Founders organization. Try reading some substantial history such as William L. Lumpkin’s Baptist Foundations in the South. He demonstrates among other things that the extra-biblical theology of the so-called covenant of grace had little place in most southern Baptists’ theology.

Theologically, the distinction you make between determinism and fatalism is interesting, but neither form is particularly visible in Scripture. Responsibility, moreover, is not opposed to grace nor is it to be equated with autonomy. Salvation is indeed all of God and none of man, but this does not mean that the determinist reading of Romans is anywhere close to being correct. Indeed, it could be easily argued that such readings, fostered by Zwingli and then Calvin, have their roots in Stoicism rather than Christianity.

My friend, you correctly point to the ecclesiological errors of the Reformed, but I fear you have yet to shed yourself of their soteriological inventions. I will pray for your eyes to be opened in this regard.

In Christ,
Malcolm

I do not believe that God has fashioned man as automatons, but he has fashioned man in His own image. And even as God has fashioned us in His image, that amazing creation does not gain man any autonomous sanction to peace beyond the counsel of God.

I certainly agree with you that Reformed Theology has many failings, especially in the ecclesiastical forms emanating during the years of Luther, Calvin and others. But, SBC Baptist’s since 1845 were firmly established in the covenant of grace that was gleaned from parts of the Reformation period. Baptists have a firm record on the biblical foundation of justification; especially those of Romans 9 and 10 where all of salvation is of God and none of man. Salvation is never gained by the good will of man, nor his best intentions. If Paul is correct… Romans 9:16 So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy.” ….. where then is the mercy of man more powerful to elevate the responsibility of the human?

The philosophical ramblings of “automatons and fatalism” are simply foreign to the language of grace and justification given to those children adopted into the family of God by the work of Christ alone.

Blessings,
Chris

You and I will have to disagree, for I do believe that the human being has a responsibility to believe in the gospel. Divine election is not to be equated with fatalism, nor does it entail making humans into automatons. These are the failings often associated with Reformed theology and why it should only have a part in the future of Baptist life.

In Christ,
Malcolm

That does seem to be the clear intent of the context of the Matthew 7 in our Lord’s sermon being that that mere profession by those of dubious intentions is far from a confession sweetly savored and known by the Lord.

I would say emphatically, along with the Apostle Paul, that the Romans 10 passage is an expression confessed by the heart changed will of the one known by Christ… “Romans 10:10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.”

Paul’s indicative thesis on Justification throughout the letter solidifies the context….and his recent previous argument Paul makes clear… Romans 9:16 “So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy.”

I don’t know if God could be any clearer to teach us that salvation is completely determined by Him alone and not by us at all. Now that does not mean that our confession is worthless. On the contrary it is not only required, but is essential, since it is that confession that brings glory to God alone and it is that confession that leaves no disappointment.

I hope that we do not have an impasse on such a clear and simple passage. Verse 13 is absolutely indicating the willingness of God to save some whether Jew or Greek as Paul is teaching throughout the section.

Blessings,
Chris