Author Archive

Neither Calvinists nor Arminians but Baptists, 2/3

sbctoday_new_logo_550

If you missed part 1, click HERE.

Neither Calvinists

Let us address the negative side of this position statement, “We are neither Calvinists nor Arminians.” The book itself outlines many reasons why we are not Calvinists, but three of those bear repeating in light of our own priorities. First, we do not believe that Dortian Calvinism properly represents the gospel of Jesus Christ in its simplicity and profundity according to the Bible. We are uncomfortable with Dortian Calvinism because we believe its rigid structure is imposed upon Scripture and that it does not allow Scripture to form theology. As philosopher Steve Lemke queried about the Calvinist belief in irresistible grace, “Is Scripture being shaped to make it agree with one’s theological system, or is one’s theological system being shaped according to Scripture?” (127). Malcolm Yarnell was similarly concerned that an exemplary Reformed theologian’s methodological approaches to Scripture “reflect a thoroughgoing rationalism that is prior to and formative for his treatment of Scripture” (The Formation of Christian Doctrine, 50).

Read more ...

Neither Calvinists nor Arminians but Baptists, 1/3

sbctoday_new_logo_550

“The primary focus of Christians should be to carry out the Great Commission under the lordship of Jesus Christ according to the guidelines found in the inerrant Word of God.”

White Paper 36
Published by the Center for Theological Research
at www.BaptistTheology.org
© 2010 BaptistTheology.org

Permissions: The purpose of this material is to serve the churches. Please feel free to distribute as widely as possible. We ask that you maintain the integrity of the document and the author’s wording by not making any alterations. For special requests please contact the editorial board for the White Papers for approval at ctr@swbts.edu.

Read more ...

Tornados, Tragedies & Truth / Rev. Robin Foster

RobinFoster

There is no doubt that many of our thoughts and prayers are focused on the victims of the tornados and tragedies that struck Mayflower, Vilonia, and other areas. While we can and will rebuild, the greatest loss is that of life. Friends have asked me how God could allow this to happen. This is a tough question, indeed, and a Christian’s response to it can bring someone closer to God, or drive them away.

Read more ...

Dr. Johnny Hunt at NOBTS / Rom. 12.2

johnnyhunt

On March 13, Dr. Johnny Hunt — pastor of FBC, Woodstock, Ga., — preached the chapel sermon at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary from Romans 12.2:

“And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.”

The quotes below are “teasers” from the sermon. Scroll to the bottom of the page to click the link and watch/hear one of the best sermons on Rom. 12.2 text.

Read more ...

There’s a Fire in Adam’s House / Doug Sayers

Crosses

Ed’s. note: Doug Sayers is a layman and former Calvinist who has posted two essays at this blog:

1) “SBC and Calvinism: All In? or All out?”, wherein Doug related how God used the near-fatal accident of his toddler son to bring Doug to a biblical understanding of the implications of original sin.
2) “Led Zeppelin, Calvinism and Words with Multiple Meanings.”

Becoming a Calvinist shortly after his 1975 conversion to Christ, Doug ultimately wrestled with Calvin’s tenets and eventually left the system. Doug wrote a book of almost 500 pages about Calvinism titled: “Chosen or Not?: A Layman’s Study of Biblical Election and Assurance.”

Doug is an active member of the Gideons International.
=====================================================================

What must a sinner do to be saved, (that is, to be forgiven of his/her sin)? I’m sure most readers of this blog know the biblical answer to that question. But this question begs a second one, which is not so easy: How can salvation be “all of grace” and yet require a condition, which must be met by the sinner alone?

This is a very important, if not crucial question in understanding the biblical doctrines of salvation. It helps us to identify the differences between the biblical teaching of salvation by grace and the Calvinistic teaching of salvation by irresistible grace. The presence of any voluntary or independent human condition would suggest that salvation might be somehow “merited.” The problem, as most know, is that the word grace means “unmerited favor.” How you answer this second question will help determine whether you are a Calvinist.

I have always felt some sympathy for kids who are told that they can’t do anything to be saved, but they are also told that they must repent of their sin and believe in Jesus, if they want to be saved. This could also confuse an adult.

Calvinists, and those influenced by them, often struggle with this question. Some Calvinistic teachers will scoff at the very notion that we each must meet a human condition in order to be forgiven. This would be, in their minds, salvation by works. It would be the same as paying money or sacrificing animals to be saved. Their system is really simple and easy to illustrate. It goes like this:

Adam’s house is on fire and all of his descendants are to blame for starting the fire. They are all overcome by the fire; in fact, they have already died in the fire. God simply chooses some of Adam’s deceased family to be rescued and brought back to life. Jesus drags them from the inferno and leaves the rest to burn. End of story.

In this brand of Calvinism, it is not about having an opportunity to be saved. It is only about God’s choice of whom to save. This understanding is sometimes called “Hyper (or Extreme) Calvinism.” The chosen sinners played no essential role in their own salvation.

Now, most Calvinistic pastors and teachers are a little more nuanced than that. (Note: The term “nuanced” can sometimes be code word for inconsistent or illogical; as one person’s “mystery” is another’s “contradiction.”) Most Calvinists will also scoff at the notion of a conditional salvation in one sermon, but then in another sermon, they teach that salvation has a necessary human condition. Thus, they implore sinners to repent and trust Christ, but they really don’t like the idea of an independent condition, which must be met by the chosen sinner. Nevertheless, the nuanced Calvinist tends to agree that the “chosen” sinners still must repent and believe the truth or they will not be saved. This would be their story:

Every person is trapped by the fire in Adam’s house, which they helped to start. These Calvinists also assume that everyone has already died in the fire. Jesus rushes in and commands everyone to cry out to Him if they want to be rescued. He promises that if they do, then He will take them to safety. However, no one answers because dead people can’t hear and answer the call. So God resuscitates the chosen souls in such a way that they can now cry out for help. They are no longer capable of silence. Thus, they cry out for help, and Jesus drags them to safety. In this scenario, it appears that the rescued sinners were “voluntarily” asking to be rescued–but not really. That is all they could do once they were resuscitated. God benevolently and irresistibly enabled them to cry out for help and then He “answered” their irresistible prayer. They did not meet the condition independently. They were “graciously enabled” to meet the condition. They could not do otherwise. If you buy into this story as biblical, then you will make a good Calvinist. However, I hope you can see that there isn’t much meaningful difference between this scenario and the first one.

(Personal confession: When I was a Calvinist, I had more trouble fending off hyper-Calvinism than non-Calvinism. I really didn’t want to be a hyper-Calvinist, but I came to see that there wasn’t any real and substantive difference.)

A Calvinistic pastor teaches that those who are not chosen (the reprobate) will not receive the ability to have faith; therefore, they cannot meet the “condition” which is attached to salvation and they will be consumed by the fire in Adam’s house. They weren’t chosen for rescue. They won’t enjoy God forever. God never really wanted them to enjoy Him forever. They were created as “vessels of wrath” to be eternally destroyed. They would never have a genuine opportunity to be saved. If God had wanted them to trust Him, then He would have given them the ability to trust Him.

A non-Calvinist pastor, on the other hand, insists that God’s offer of mercy is genuine for every sinner, since it is backed up by the death of Christ for everyone in the whole world. He teaches that God has given everyone the capacity to repent. In his system, everyone is trapped by the guilt of their own actual sin in Adam’s burning house. They didn’t start the fire, but they have thrown gasoline on it and cannot escape on their own. They cannot put the fire out, but they can actually cry out for help. If they do, then Jesus will drag them to safety. This pastor teaches that God has sovereignly decreed that the individual sinner will play a vital, meaningful, and co-operative role in his/her eternal destiny. 

Again, the Calvinistic position is simple:
If God chose you for salvation, then you can’t resist choosing life. If He did not choose you for salvation, then you cannot resist choosing death.

In the Reformed system, it is not about having an “opportunity” to be saved. Either you will be saved by God or you will not. An opportunity suggests there would be a meaningful condition for salvation.

The beauty and brilliance of the biblical gospel is that sinners must meet a condition – one that is impossible to be proud of. The nature of the law of faith assures that “boasting is excluded” (Rom 3:27).