By Bob Hadley, Pastor of Westside Baptist Church in Daytona Beach, Florida, and Chancellor of Atlantic Coast Bible College and Seminary.


This article is the fifth in a series that offers an alternative to the classical Reformed T.U.L.I.P. The entire series by Hadley is available at
http://www.transformedtheology.com
The previous articles are:
Total Lostness
Unconditional Love
Limiting Atonement
Irrefutable Gospel

The fifth plank of Conversionism is the Perseverance of the Savior as opposed to the Calvinist plank of the Perseverance of the Saints. The author of Hebrews says, “Let us hold on firmly to the hope we profess, because we can trust God to keep His promise” (Heb. 10:23). Man’s hope is not in his own perseverance, but in Christ’s perseverance that is rooted in the promises and the character of God. Man’s hope will be found only in what God does in His Son, Jesus. Salvation is based on the person and work of the Lord Jesus and not based on man’s works. The believer’s security is for eternity. Salvation is kept by the grace and the power of God and not by the self-sufficiency of the believer.

According to the Center for Reformed Theology and Apologetics website,

Perseverance of the Saints is a doctrine which states that the saints (those whom God has saved) will remain in God’s hand until they are glorified and brought to abide with Him in heaven. Romans 8:28-39 makes it clear that when a person truly has been regenerated by God, he will remain in God’s stead. The work of sanctification which God has brought about in His elect will continue until it reaches its fulfillment in eternal life (Phil. 1:6). Christ assures the elect that He will not lose them and that they will be glorified at the “last day” (John 6:39). The Calvinist stands upon the Word of God and trusts in Christ’s promise that He will perfectly fulfill the will of the Father in saving all the elect.[1].

One of the Baptist distinctives can be seen in the phrase, “the Eternal Security of the Believer.” There is a marked difference between the Perseverance of the Saints and the Eternal Security of the Believer – they are not at all synonymous. For the Southern Baptist, the concept of the Eternal Security of the Believer assures the individual who has placed his faith in the promises of God and his trust in the claims of Christ that He (Christ) will hold onto him (the believer) forever. This is the basis for the fifth plank of Conversionism, the Perseverance of the Savior. This is what Paul says in Rom. 8:38-39: “³⁸ For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, ³⁹ nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Jesus says of those to whom He gives eternal life, “^28b and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. ²⁹ My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father’s hand” (John 10:28-29). When an individual comes to Christ and is adopted into God’s forever family, the Holy Spirit takes up residence in his heart and becomes God’s guarantee of that individual’s hope in eternity (see also 2 Cor. 1:22, 5:5; Eph. 1:14).

The problem with the Calvinist position is that this assurance is not as well defined. Where Eternal Security and the Perseverance of the Saints rests on the promises of God and Christ Himself, the Perseverance of the Saints really rests on the “persevering or performance” of the elect. The key to understanding this position is found in the persevering and not in the promise. For the Calvinist, if an individual does not persevere, then he was not saved in the first place. Since a Calvinist cannot discern the will of God without the efficacious work of the Holy Spirit in his or her heart, there is always a question, “Is my life the work of the Holy Spirit or my own hopes and works of righteousness? Has God really saved me? Am I really among God’s elect?” In the Reformed mindset, no one really knows what it means to be “regenerated” and because of that it can be argued that the only way to ultimately know for sure that one is even truly saved, is to actually persevere to the end and be welcomed into Glory by the Lord Himself. It can be argued that this doctrine does not provide any real security to the believer at all.

There is always this “possibility” that an individual may not persevere to the end, indicating that he was never truly saved in the first place. Understand, according to the Calvinist platform, the elect will persevere, but no one really knows who is and who is not the elect until this life is over and judgment is rendered. A Calvinist Christian may live an exemplary Christian life and then divorce his wife at 65 years old and move in with his next door neighbor. At this point, the exemplary Christian, in the eyes of the church, is now living in sin. If he stays in that place and does not repent, the doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints will declare this man a reprobate. It will be determined that he was not saved in the beginning and is in need of repentance and conversion. This is in effect what the Perseverance of the Saints really says.

It can be argued that the same thing is true for those holding onto the Eternal Security of the Believer. Ultimately, the true test of faith for both will be determined when the believer closes his eyes in this life and opens them in the life to come. However from a doctrinal standpoint, the fundamental difference in these two perspectives clearly rests on where one’s faith is actually placed. For the Eternal Security position, faith rests in the promises of God whereas with the Calvinist position one’s security rests in the persevering itself and the individual’s holding on to the end.

The real difference in the two positions can be seen in the living out of the lives of those who make professions of faith, confess Jesus as Savior and Lord, be baptized, join a church, and then turn away from that decision at a later date. Jesus warns his followers that there will be those who will call Him Lord but will not do what He has commanded them to do (Luke 6:46):

²¹ Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. ²² Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ ²³ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’ (Matt. 7:21-23, see also Luke 13:26-27).

The test of love all throughout the Bible is seen in the “keeping of God’s commandments.” This is true in the Old Testament (see Ex. 19:5, 20:6; Deut. 5:10; and Prov. 3:1, 4:4) as well as the New Testament.

Ironically, Calvinists have been criticized for being no different than Arminians in this aspect of persevering. While Arminians know they are saved, they have no assurance that they will keep their salvation. Calvinists know they cannot lose their salvation; they just have no real assurance that they are actually saved in the first place.[2] It can be argued that both positions are really based on works, following a James 2 mandate; and that test is actually more important than Irresistible Grace and the efficacious calling in Unconditional Election. The true test of God’s sovereignty is not demonstrated in the call but in the perseverance. It might even be argued that perseverance is more important than regeneration in the salvific process, since it is the persevering and not regeneration that actually determines one’s final salvation. Granted, for the Calvinist, regeneration is the foundation for perseverance, but perseverance ultimately is the test for glorification.

In looking at the Perseverance of the Savior, Jesus says that His priority was to do what His Father had sent Him to do:

³⁹ This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day. ⁴⁰ And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day” (John 6:39-40).

Eternity is God’s goal for humanity. Men are born to live forever. Sin has upset that goal. God has provided a lamb that has come to take away the sin of the world (John 1:29).

In John 10, Jesus makes a very interesting statement. He tells the Jewish leaders questioning His coming, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in My Father’s name, they bear witness of Me. But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep.” Jesus continues, “as I said to you My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me.” The question is who are His sheep? Jesus explains who His sheep are. “Most assuredly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep . . . If anyone enters by Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture.” Jesus’ sheep are those who enter the sheepfold through Him by the way of the cross, which is what He is about to speak of in verse 11. “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd gives His life for the sheep.” Jesus then goes on to talk about the hireling who is not willing to risk his life for the sheep; Jesus cares more for the safety of the sheep than He does His own life.

Jesus’ sheep are those who hear Him and follow Him. He knows who they are. Jesus knows who His Sheep are because they are those who hear Him and heed Him (John 10:25-27). This is a consistent message for Jesus. “If you love Me, keep My commandments” (John 14:15). “⁹ As the Father loved Me, I also have loved you; abide in My love. ¹⁰ If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love, just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love” (John 15:9-10).

Jesus describes Himself by saying, “I am the door” and He makes it clear that those who enter by Him, do so by hearing Him and then believing His promises. These are those who shall be “saved.” These are the ones who shall have life and have it more abundantly (John 10:7-10). These are the sheep those who hear Jesus’ voice, and Jesus promises them eternal life:

²⁸ And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. ²⁹ My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father’s hand. ³⁰ I and My Father are one (John 10:28-30).

John continues in 1 John with the following declaration:

⁴ For whatever is born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world—our faith. ⁵ Who is he who overcomes the world, but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God? (1 John 5:4-5).

Those who overcome the world are those who believe in the “Overcomer” who is Jesus and He will raise them up in the end.

Peter reinforces this hope that the believer has in Christ Jesus. Peter clearly indicates that the believer’s hope is “^3b a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, ⁴ to an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled and that does not fade away, reserved in heaven for you, ⁵ who are kept by the power of God through faith for salvation ready to be revealed in the last time” (1 Pet. 1:3b-5, emphasis added). At issue here is not the perseverance of the saint; the One who perseveres is the Savior. Jesus is the constant and not the individual. The differential component in this comparison is vitally important. While the Calvinist plank certainly finds its source of validity in the sufficiency of Christ, it is still predicated on the individual’s “persevering.”

In the doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints, the individual’s life becomes the ultimate test of his conversion experience. In fact, this tenet actually demands that there is no way for a person to know for sure if he is even saved until the end because his perseverance itself is the actual test of his conversion experience. The Perseverance of the Savior corrects that deficiency by placing one’s eternal hope in the sufficiency of the Lord Himself, and not in the individual’s process of sanctification, which is the gradual transforming of one’s sinful, selfish mind to the mind of Christ. This is just as much the will of God as one’s conversion is and to some degree even more so. For it can certainly be argued that spiritual maturity is the goal of conversion, otherwise God would see men converted and He would simply bring them on home at that point (1 Cor. 2:16).

²⁰ For all the promises of God in Him are Yes, and in Him Amen, to the glory of God through us. ²¹ Now He who establishes us with you in Christ and has anointed us is God, ²² who also has sealed us and given us the Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee (2 Cor. 1:20-22).

¹⁶ The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, ¹⁷ and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him, that we may also be glorified together (Rom. 8:16-17).

¹ For we know that if our earthly house, this tent, is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. ² For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed with our habitation which is from heaven, ³ if indeed, having been clothed, we shall not be found naked. ⁴ For we who are in this tent groan, being burdened, not because we want to be unclothed, but further clothed, that mortality may be swallowed up by life. ⁵ Now He who has prepared us for this very thing is God, who also has given us the Spirit as a guarantee.
⁶ So we are always confident, knowing that while we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord. ⁷ For we walk by faith, not by sight. ⁸ We are confident, yes, well pleased rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord (2 Cor. 5:1-8).

This is a faithful saying, and these things I want you to affirm constantly, that those who have believed in God should be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable to men (Titus 3:8).

¹¹ In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will, ¹² that we who first trusted in Christ should be to the praise of His glory.
¹³ In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, ¹⁴ who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory (Eph. 1:11-14).

This idea that the new born child of God is protected in and by the sufficiency of Christ is not an opportunity to do what he or she wants to do. “Here is the patience of the saints; here are those who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus” (Rev. 14:12). Paul makes it abundantly clear that the Christian is no longer to live in the flesh for “^10b the body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. ¹¹ But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you” (Rom. 8:10b-11).

Shall the Christian just live in sin knowing that his or her eternity is secure in Christ Jesus?

² Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? ³ Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? ⁴ Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life (Rom. 6:2-4).

Obviously, Paul is emphasizing the importance of living out one’s faith. However, it is important to understand the living out of that faith is not what guarantees one’s salvation. Salvation is in Christ alone and His Grace alone and not of works lest any man should boast. The Calvinists drive this home in conversion but turn away from it in perseverance.

In the doctrine of the Perseverance of the Savior, an individual’s salvation is affected by faith in Christ and his hope is guaranteed by faith in that same Savior. When an individual comes to Christ and the Holy Spirit takes up residence in his heart, he is adopted into God’s forever family and he becomes an heir of God and a joint heir with Jesus and that settles the question of a believer’s eternal security whether he understands or accepts it or not.

By Bob Williford, former director of the Hope Migrant Mission Center at the Migrant Farm Labor Center near Hope, Arkansas (a ministry of the Arkansas Baptist Convention), and author of Fence Post Digest blog.

Someone has said that the issue of Predestination is only an issue for those of us who are NOT in the Reformed camp. However, this is an issue that is seen almost on a daily basis somewhere and is an important discussion.

This sort of reminds me of the issues on the political horizon that deal with socialism, homosexuality, drugs, illegal immigration, freedom of religion in the United States, etc. Some have the idea that if we look the other way that each of these ideologies will simply go away. I believe that we have neglected these and look at what has happened in our nation…..look the other way and the movement of Predestination will flourish.

Remembering the so-called Conservative Resurgence of the last quarter of the 20th Century and I am thankful for those who took the ‘Bull by the Horns’. Liberalism did not go away, but the roots were taken somewhere else. Let us not forget our history, but rather rise to the occasion and be faithful to the Truth of the Gospel message….

Christianity is not established by men and cannot be taught as truth as we understand truth. The Truth that Christians hold is found only in the Person of Jesus Christ.

Paul writes to the church in Ephesus that God predestined us before the foundation of the world. John tells us in Revelation, He has placed YOUR name in the Lamb’s Book of Life before the foundation of the world — and that is a very, very long time ago! The Holy Spirit utilizes the word PREDESTINATION and we must remember that Jesus left this world and sent the Spirit to teach us all things. Remember that God not only knew, but also determined salvation for every person before He formed them in their mother’s womb. The difficulty in all of this is both believing and understanding God’s truth…a truly serious issue.

Jesus tells us in Mark 8:34-35, “If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me. For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake and the gospel’s will save it.” This really does present a problem for those who accept predestination without “If anyone who wishes to come after me….”  Christ has given us the freedom to choose the way of the Christ. Has Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, told us something quite different? No, within the context of Paul’s epistles and everyone else who penned the New Testament we also find freedom.

As a seven year old boy I did not say to myself, “I think that I am going get saved because I have been predestined for this moment.” I may know less of predestination now than I did then…but I decided to make a choice to follow the Christ. Freedom.

Believing the truth of God’s Word is fundamentally necessary. Not simply believing this verse or this verse and discarding others as it seems to fit the situation for the moment, but we must trust the entire Book as God’s truth for everyone.

God’s Word teaches us that His plan of predestination, His plan for election for salvation comes by His grace and faith. Scripture says often that what we know as the ‘Elect’ is according to the foreknowledge of God. The “Elect” are in Him.

We find in Luke’s account in Acts that the “Elect” were not yet saved but they were already considered His people because of the principle of salvation in election. I believe in the concept of freedom and the principle of election because both are fundamental to the heart of the Gospel message. Freedom and election are found in John 3. Remember that Christ tells us that everyone is free to choose to accept or deny Him, but that everyone who receives Him is predestined for salvation.

Freedom to choose His provision is fundamental beginning in Genesis 1:1, “In the Beginning God” and is completed in Revelation 22:21, “The grace of the Lord Jesus be with all. Amen.”

The problem is not whether these things are believed, but the real issue is how to synchronize them in daily living. They are synchronized by faith in the perfect and inerrant Word of God. Without this, they remain at odds in the mind of many. But please be reminded that God is NOT the Author of confusion…….we are. “God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints” (1 Cor. 14:33).

Jesus is Lord!

By Bob Hadley, Pastor of Westside Baptist Church in Daytona Beach, Florida, and Chancellor of Atlantic Coast Bible College and Seminary


This article is the fourth in a series that offers an alternative to the classical Reformed T.U.L.I.P. The entire series by Hadley is available at
http://www.transformedtheology.com
The previous articles are:
Total Lostness
Unconditional Love
Limiting Atonement

The fourth point of Conversionism is an Irrefutable Gospel as opposed to Calvinism’s Irresistible Grace. The latter basically states that there is nothing an individual can do to keep from being saved if it is indeed God’s will for that individual be saved. God’s elect will be saved. God gives His grace to those that He foreknew before the foundation of the world; this gift of God’s grace is both unmerited and unexpected on man’s part. Unregenerate man has nothing to do with the gift of God’s grace and is powerless to resist this grace. There’s absolutely no question that salvation is the work of God’s amazing grace (Eph. 2:8). God’s grace is His unmerited and undeserved favor offered to sinful men who deserve death and eternal separation from God. God’s grace has been defined or characterized as His giving to sinful men what they do not deserve. God’s mercy has been defined as His not giving men what they do deserve. Mercy and grace often go hand in hand.

Instead of looking at God’s grace being irresistible, consider the plausibility of God’s gospel being irrefutable. For Paul says,

¹⁶ For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek. ¹⁷ For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “The just shall live by faith (Rom. 1:16-17).

Understand, God’s grace is absolutely essential to any movement on man’s part toward God. Jesus made that abundantly clear when he said, “No man comes unto the Father but by Me” (John 14:6b), Salvation is the work of the Holy Spirit as He draws men unto Christ. Jesus identifies this drawing as one of the purposes for His coming to the Earth in the first place. He said, “And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself” (John 12:32). In Hebrews 7 Paul explains that the old law was unable to make anyone perfect. The best that man had to offer could never satisfy the penalty that God had set for sin. God told Adam when he was in the garden before he ever committed the first sin, “but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die” (Gen. 2:17). But Paul contends, that in Christ “there is the bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God” (Heb. 7:19b). This drawing that Paul speaks of is God reconciling the world to Himself in Christ (2 Cor. 5:19).This drawing takes hold of man’s heart as the gospel is shared and it is this gospel that is absolutely irrefutable. Salvation or conversion is not possible apart from it. This drawing is from God alone, by grace alone and in Christ alone. God’s grace is seen in His gospel message that is irrefutable. This drawing however is not irresistible.

In Hebrews chapter 10 Paul explains that Jesus’ sacrificial death on the cross should be reason enough for men to draw near to God with a true heart in full assurance of faith, because their hearts have been sprinkled from an evil conscience and their bodies washed with pure water. Paul goes on to say,

²³ Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful. ²⁴ And let us consider one another in order to stir up love and good works, ²⁵ not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as you see the Day approaching (Heb. 10:23-25).

This exhortation is critical to anyone’s relationship to Christ. This exhortation is irrefutable; it is not irresistible.

Consider Paul’s statement in Heb. 10: 26-30:

²⁶ For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, ²⁷ but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries. ²⁸ Anyone who has rejected Moses’ law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. ²⁹ Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace? ³⁰ For we know Him who said, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. And again, “The LORD will judge His people.”

God’s Holy Spirit draws men to Christ. It is the Holy Spirit who gives the knowledge of truth, which is seen in the proclamation (reconciliation) and presentation (revelation) of the gospel, to sinful men but that’s where the work of the Holy Spirit stops. The Holy Spirit does not force His way into a lost person’s heart. In Luke 12, Jesus emphasizes the importance of man’s response to the drawing of the Holy Spirit. Here Jesus says,

⁸ “Also I say to you, whoever confesses Me before men, him the Son of Man also will confess before the angels of God. ⁹ But he who denies Me before men will be denied before the angels of God. ¹⁰ And anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but to him who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven” (Luke 12:8-10).

The power of the gospel is essential and irrefutable in the salvific process; the gospel is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believes; it simply is not irresistible. If it were irresistible, there would be no reason for Jesus to warn people about blaspheming against the drawing of the Holy Spirit. The gospel message is irrefutable; it is not irresistible.

James makes the following statement,

² You lust and do not have. You murder and covet and cannot obtain. You fight and war. Yet you do not have because you do not ask. ³ You ask and do not receive, because you ask amiss, that you may spend it on your pleasures. ⁴ Adulterers and adulteresses! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Whoever therefore wants to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God. ⁵ Or do you think that the Scripture says in vain, “The Spirit who dwells in us yearns jealously”? (Jam. 4:2-5).

There are a couple of statements in this passage that are very revealing as one considers this concept of irresistible grace. In this passage in James is discussing the role that the lust of the world plays in the problems mankind faces. If someone wants to be a friend to the world that person is automatically an enemy of God. This is a choice that man makes; it is not a choice that God makes for him; for James says, “You have not because you ask not; you ask and do not receive, because you ask amiss, that you may spend it on your pleasures” (Jam. 4:3, emphasis added). The pleasures that James is talking about are the pleasures that come by being a friend to the world. James’ question in verse 5 is an interesting question: “Or do you think that the Scripture says in vain, the Spirit who dwells in us yearns jealously?” (Jam. 4:5). This spirit that dwells in us that James is speaking is the Holy Spirit. If the work of the Holy Spirit were irresistible, there would be no jealous yearning. Again, the gospel message is irrefutable; it is not irresistible.

James does not stop there; he continues, “But He gives more grace. Therefore He says: ‘God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble’” (Jam. 4:6). Why does God resist the proud? That is very simple; God resists the proud because the proud resist God! Likewise God gives grace to the humble because humility is a choice that men make. In both of these statements it is crystal clear that God’s choice to resist or give grace is predicated by man’s choice to be proud or to be humble. When James says God gives grace to those who are humble, it is important to understand exactly what it is that James is saying. James makes it clear that God does not give grace to make one humble; God gives grace to those who are humble. This is a very important distinction. Once again the drawing of the Holy Spirit as seen through the gospel message helps an individual choose humility over pride and that choice that an individual makes has everything to do with God’s response to him.

With this in mind James continues, “Therefore, submit yourself to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you” (Jam. 4:7). Once again, submission is a choice that an individual makes. How does one submit himself to God so that he can resist the devil? James answers that question: “Draw near to God and He will draw near to you” (Jam. 4:8a). This is an amazing statement. It is not even remotely possible in the Calvinistic mindset for an individual to draw near to God causing God to draw near to him. James is not finished describing this process of submitting oneself to God. As the Holy Spirit works on the cold, calloused heart of a lost person, He cleanses this lost man’s hands and purifies his heart and humbles him in the sight of the Lord and God will lift him up (Jam. 4:2-10). Once again God draws; this is no doubt that this drawing is both premeditated and predetermined. God knew exactly what He was going to do. Once God has cast the lifeline, it is up to the sinful man to grab hold of Christ and live. God’s grace as demonstrated in the gospel message is absolutely irrefutable; it simply is not irresistible.

In Malachi the first chapter, God is chiding His people. He says,

A son honors his father,
And a servant his master.
If then I am the Father,
Where is My honor?
And if I am a Master,
Where is My reverence? (Mal. 1:6a)

God goes on to accuse them of offering lame animals as sacrifices and bringing pitiful offerings to Him. God tells them, “offer it to your governor!” (Mal. 1:8b). See how much he likes it and how well he accepts you. The underlying truth here is that no one would ever consider giving these pitiful offerings to the governor or anyone in authority for that matter. It’s very clear that God is not pleased with what has been going on either. Listen to God’s word of instruction to the children of Israel to correct this displeasing situation: “But now entreat God’s favor, that He may be gracious to us. While this is being done by your hands, Will He accept you favorably? Says the Lord of hosts” (Mal. 1:9). Once again, God’s favor will be determined by their response to repent and turn back to Him.

In the third chapter of Malachi, God tells the children of Israel

“Yet from the days of your fathers
You have gone away from My ordinances
And have not kept them.
Return to Me, and I will return to you,”
Says the LORD of hosts.
“But you said,
‘In what way shall we return?’” (Mal. 3:7).

Apparently God’s grace is not irresistible in the Old Testament for the children of Israel were guilty of going away from God’s ordinances and not keeping them. Even though his grace is not irresistible, His gospel message is irrefutable because there is always hope for the children of Israel. God tells them to return to Him and He would return to them. How are the children of Israel supposed to return to God? God provides that answer in verse 10:

“And try Me now in this,”
Says the LORD of hosts,
If I will not open for you the windows of heaven
And pour out for you such blessing
That there will not be room enough to receive it (Mal. 3:10b).

Imagine that: God telling the children of Israel to try Him first and then watch to see what He does in response to what they do first.

In 1 John 4 God’s love for man is set as the standard for a man’s love for God and for one another. For

⁸ He who does not love does not know God, for God is love. ⁹ In this the love of God was manifested toward us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him. ¹⁰ In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins (1 John 4:8-10).

This is a very important statement. Christ’s sacrificial death on the cross was the propitiation or appeasement paid to God for man’s sin. Now with that in mind, John says, “Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another” (1 John 4:11). In this passage of Scripture one thing is clear; God’s love for man was clearly demonstrated on the cross and that love ought to be enough for man to love God and his fellow man in return. It is the cross that is central in the gospel message and the love that was demonstrated at Calvary was what ought to cause men to love God and one other. God’s irreplaceable grace is evident in every scene that surrounds the cross. This grace is everything but irresistible; because it is clear that while men ought to love one another, many refused to do so.

In 1 John 5, John highlights the importance of believing in the Son of God for salvation, which is obviously the crux of the gospel. John says in verse 10, “He who believes in the Son of God has the witness in himself; he who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed the testimony that God has given of His Son” (1 John 5:10). If indeed it is God’s grace that allows an individual to believe in God in the first place, that grace cannot be irresistible if men are not able to believe the testimony that God has given them in His Son. But that’s exactly what John has just said happens. The qualifying distinction between those who have the Son and have life and those who do not have the Son of God and do not have life, is predicated upon what they believe and in whom they believe. John writes in verse 13, “These things have I have written to you (the gospel) who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God” (1 John 5:13). This believing involves two things: there is the convicting work of the Holy Spirit through revelation and then there is the convincing work of the Holy Spirit (reconciliation) at work in the heart of an individual to move them to believe. Once again God’s grace as presented in the gospel message is irrefutable in the salvific process but His grace is not irresistible for there are many who refuse or fail to believe in Christ.

In looking at this issue of an irrefutable gospel versus irresistible grace, Jesus’ encounter with the Samaritan woman at the well is a very interesting story. He asks the Samaritan woman for a drink of water. This sample request leads to a rather deep and detailed dialogue between Jesus and this woman. Using the analogy of drawing water, Jesus simply tells her,

¹⁰ Jesus answered and said to her, “If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, ‘Give Me a drink,’ you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water.”
¹¹ The woman said to Him, “Sir, You have nothing to draw with, and the well is deep. Where then do You get that living water? ¹² Are You greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well, and drank from it himself, as well as his sons and his livestock?”
¹³ Jesus answered and said to her, “Whoever drinks of this water will thirst again, ¹⁴ but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst. But the water that I shall give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life.”
¹⁵ The woman said to Him, “Sir, give me this water, that I may not thirst, nor come here to draw” (John 4:10-15).

Jesus tells the woman to go and get her husband and of course she replies, “I don’t have a husband.” Jesus acknowledges the woman’s reply and reveals to her that He knows that she has had five husbands and the man that she is now living with is not her husband. At this point the Holy Spirit has cut her heart to the core. Jesus has this woman’s attention. The woman said to Him, “I know that Messiah is coming” (who is called Christ). “When He comes, He will tell us all things.” Jesus said to her, “I who speak to you am He.” (John 4:17-26).

It is at this point that this Samaritan woman was compelled to answer life’s crucial question: “what am I going to do with this man who is called Christ?” This woman’s decision is not immediately known. The disciples come up and they basically run this woman off wondering why Jesus would speak to this kind of woman in public in the first place. While the disciples are grilling Jesus about his actions, this woman whose lifestyle has made her a social outcast and a public nuisance went into town and began telling people, “I have met the Messiah! He is told me everything about my life; He is not like any other man that I’ve ever met. He has forgiven me of my sin and he has made me a new person. Come and see Him for yourselves!” (John 4: 29-30a, my paraphrase).

Once again the irrefutable gospel of God is seen at work in this Samaritan community. God’s grace changed this Samaritan woman’s heart as well as her life. The testimony of her lips and the evidence of her life caused many of the Samaritans of that city to believe in Jesus. The Samaritans asked Jesus to stay with them and he stayed for two days and many more believed in Christ, not because of what the woman said, but because of what they heard Jesus do and say; for they knew in their hearts that he was the Christ, the Savior of the world. Salvation came to those individuals who like the Samaritan woman heard the gospel claims of Christ and believed in their hearts that this man called Jesus was indeed the Messiah, the Savior of the world. John was careful to say many believed in Christ. No doubt there were many others who heard the same testimony and saw the same results that everyone else witnessed, but they refused to believe that this man could be their Savior. God’s amazing grace was poured out on this community and many responded (John 4:1-42).

Consider once again Jesus’ lament over Jerusalem.

³⁷ “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing! ³⁸ See! Your house is left to you desolate; ³⁹ for I say to you, you shall see Me no more till you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the LORD!’” (Matt. 23:37-39).

God’s grace can be seen in Jesus’ desire to draw the people of Jerusalem unto Himself. The tenet of Irresistible Grace is actually debunked by Jesus’ statement that “they were not willing” to do what Jesus so much wanted them to do. If God’s will was indeed irresistible as Calvinist’s claim, Jesus would have had no reason to weep over Israel because “all that the Father had given to Him would come to Him.” God’s Grace as presented in the gospel message is irrefutable; it is not irresistible.

Consider the following passage in Ephesians 1.

¹³ In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, ¹⁴ who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory (Eph. 1:13-14).

In speaking of the irrefutable gospel, this passage says it all. Paul acknowledged their having trusted Christ AFTER hearing the word of truth, “THE GOSPEL of your salvation,” Paul said, and then notice something very interesting. Paul says, “having believed, you WERE sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise” (Eph. 1:13).

It appears that several things are evident. First of all, hearing the gospel prompted a response. It is the natural progression of revelation to solicit a response. Now, he says, “having believed” indicating their response to this gospel, they were THEN sealed by the Holy Spirit. Regeneration is not possible without the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the new believer’s heart. That is what gives the old man this new nature. Here it is clear that belief in this word of truth, which is the gospel of salvation, must be believed in order to live. God does not “make us alive so that we can believe.” It appears that this passage of Scripture settles that argument.

Finally consider the Great Commission recorded in Matthew 28 and its importance in the salvific process.

¹⁸ And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. ¹⁹ Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, ²⁰ teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen (Matt. 28:18-20).

The admonition for every born again child of God is to “go and make disciples of all nations.” Of course the first responsibility is to share the gospel message that Jesus Christ has come to seek and to save those that are lost. God does not arbitrarily choose lost men and women and simply “birth them” into His family. He has commanded His children, the elect who have been gloriously saved by His marvelous mercy and His amazing grace to go out and tell people what He has done for them and so them from the pages of the Bible the promises that He will do the same for them if they will hear His promises and repent and turn to God for forgiveness and adoption into His forever family. This is what the Irrefutable Gospel does; “^16b it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek. ¹⁷ For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, ‘The just shall live by faith’” (Rom. 1:16b-17).

By Ron F. Hale,
Minister of Missions,
West Jackson Baptist Church,
Jackson, TN

Jesus did not call us to anonymity, living and lurking in a shadowy secret society.

Jesus calls us out into the open and into the arena of our community and culture. He promised, “Whosoever confesses me before men, him will I also confess before My Father in heaven” (Matt 10:32). On the other hand, He warned, “But whoever denies me before men, him I will also deny before My Father who is in heaven” (v.33). How this has been done publicly has fueled heavy debate through the centuries.

My more Calvinistic brothers have things that we non- or less-Calvinistic brothers need to hear and learn and vice versa. How we share with one another is very important. But when it is done as a doctrinal dressing-down, it is not received sympathetically.

Paul challenged Timothy to do the work of an evangelist as he ministered and proclaimed the Gospel.[1] Every minister or member has a responsibility in sharing the Good News! The Great Commission gives us a compelling reason to be proactive and persistent in our outreach; this commission is for those who stand behind pulpits and those sitting in pews. My motive and means for evangelism should stem from a loving relationship with Jesus; He is to be first and foremost! Sharing Jesus should be done with a dependence on the Holy Spirit and with a humble desire to unfold the Gospel plainly and practically so that a lost person can hear, understand, and respond to God according to His will.

Some years ago, I started seeing the word “decisionism” and related words like “decisional regeneration” or “decision theology.” It is usually referenced by those who are more Calvinistic (Reformed) along with other terms like: “Altar calls,” “clever emotional devices,” “the modern invitational system,” “easy-believism,” “decision cards,” “walking the aisle,” “mourner’s bench,” and “the sinner’s prayer.” It became obvious to me that critics and cynics of invitations and altar calls consider these approaches as dangerous . . . for it is too anthropocentric, meaning it gives man too much control over his salvation or is tantamount to a man-centered salvation by works.

Writing on this subject, Dr. Jay E. Adams explains:

One may read thousands of pages of the history of the Christian Church without finding a single reference to the “old-fashioned altar call” before the last century. Most Christians are surprised to learn that history before the time of Charles G. Finney (1792-1875) knows nothing of this type of “invitation.” The practice of urging men and women to make a physical movement at the conclusion of a meeting was introduced by Mr. Finney in the second decade of the nineteenth century. Dr. Albert B. Dod, a professor of theology at Princeton Seminary at the time of Mr. Finney’s ministry, pointed out the newness of the practice and showed that this method was without historical precedent. In his review of Finney’s Lectures on Revival, Professor Dod stated that one will search the volumes of church history in vain for a single example of this practice before the 1820?s.⁷ Instead, history tells us that whenever the gospel was preached men were invited to Christ — not to decide at the end of a sermon whether or not to perform some physical action.

The Apostle Paul, the great evangelist, never heard of an altar call, yet today some consider the altar call to be a necessary mark of an evangelical church. In fact, churches which do not practice it are often accused of having no concern for the lost. Neither Paul nor Peter ever climaxed his preaching with forcing upon his hearers the decision to walk or not to walk. It is not only with church history, then, but with Scriptural history as well that the altar call is in conflict.[2]

It becomes apparent that Adams (and others) regards the altar call or invitation as new phenomenon in the modern evangelical world and Charles Finney as the instigator of the modern day “invitational system.” Is this a fair assessment of public invitations?

Michael Green studied evangelism in the early church and concludes that early Christians had a basic pattern in their content of sharing the Word. First, they preached a person. Their message was Christo-centric. They preached Jesus to them! They stressed the cross, resurrection, and His present power and significance. Secondly, they proclaimed a gift; the gift of forgiveness, the gift of the Spirit, the gift of adoption, of reconciliation. The Jews had done nothing to merit it, any more than the Gentiles had: it proceeded entirely from the grace of God. Thirdly, they looked for a response. The apostles were not shy about asking men to decide for or against the God who had decided for them. They expected results. They challenged men to do something about the message they had heard. “What shall we do?” was the response of crowd on the day of Pentecost.[3] Thus, we see the early church growing and not being silent about the Christ.

Was Finney the first minister to employ gospel invitations? In his chapter entitled: The Public Invitation and Calvinism, Dr. R. Alan Streett traces back through American history and says,

By the time Finney had stepped onto the scene, the public invitation had been practiced in one form or another for over a century. Among Finney’s contemporaries and staunchest Calvinistic opponents were “old Light” Congregationalists, who, like Calvin two centuries before, ironically called for church members publicly to profess faith in Christ and declare assurance of salvation before taking Communion. These same opponents pointed to Asahel Nettleton (1783-1844), the first American-born evangelist and Finney contemporary, as the ideal evangelist who preached sinners into the kingdom without issuing an invitation. Historical records tell a different story. Nettleton actually gave a delayed-response invitation at the conclusion of his evangelistic sermons, exhorting listeners to attend an “inquirer’s meeting” after the service where they would receive special instruction regarding their soul’s salvation. He used the inquiry room “for those who felt they were ready for such an adventure.”[4]

Streett shares a quote by C.E. Autrey,[5] who said,

The inquiry room gave him [Asahel Nettleton] a chance to separate those under conviction from the rest of the congregation in order to instruct them properly. In the inquiry room individuals could speak with others without the excitement and pressure of the crowd.[6]

George Whitefield and Jonathan Edwards, both strong Calvinists used the method of inviting and exhorting sinners at the close of their sermons to meet with them privately for spiritual counsel. These after-meetings were held in various places in the church, parsonage, or buildings nearby. Many came to Christ in these delayed-response invitations. During the Second Great Awakening public invitations were greatly used. The Awakening of the East Coast, led by Yale President Timothy Dwight, combined Calvinism and revivalism and employed the after-meeting model of the invitation.[7]

In the early 1740’s, some 90 years before Finney’s preaching, Eleazar Wheelock, a strict Calvinist and founder of Dartmouth College, called out to spiritually distressed souls to gather in the seats below in order to converse with them more conveniently.[8]

I’m not sure who coined the term “decisionism” but it is obvious that “more Calvinistic” groups and “less Calvinistic” groups have used various forms of public invitations over the last three hundred years. Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones (1899-1981) was a major opponent of the public invitation and charged that it is based on defective theology.[9] If his statement is true, then both camps share in this “defective” theology.

Could it be that Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones experienced some truly bad examples of public invitations in the less Calvinistic camp and those experiences tainted his assessment of public invitations altogether? Surely he would not have assessed the more Calvinistic Dr. John MacArthur Jr. as being “defective” in his theology and practice. Dr. MacArthur has led his church in growing from 450 people to more than 5,000 during his ministry, and he has said, “We see hundreds saved and baptized every year. We never have a service without an invitation, and we never have an invitation without people coming into our prayer room.”[10]

Have you read the book entitled: Calvinism: A Southern Baptist Dialogue? Dr. Chuck Lawless does an outstanding job in his chapter entitled: “Southern Baptist Non-Calvinists – Who Are We Really? . . .” in calling non-Calvinists to a higher degree of integrity in our evangelism practices while helping our more Calvinistic brothers better understand certain driving forces in our hearts. He gives both camps strong and straightforward words of wisdom. My respect and appreciation for Dr. Lawless grew exponentially as he served as our Interim Pastor before going to the International Mission Board. He preached the Gospel with enthusiasm and extended public invitations with passionate sensitivity to the leading of the Holy Spirit.

Dr. Lawless shares that non-Calvinists still want to be heard in at least four areas.

• “Do not assume that our approach to evangelism is faulty if we sometimes use a tract in a one-time encounter.” He also encourages us to use tracts that explain the gospel well and calls for the proper response to the gospel.
• “Please allow us to talk about ‘persuading’ others to believe . . . without assuming that we somehow turn anthropocentric and trump God’s sovereignty when we work to convince. Clearly changing the heart is the work of God (John 16:8; Eph 2:4-5), but still we must often work through proper apologetics and passionate reasoning to teach others the truth of the gospel.”
• “Understand that many of us who still use a public invitation following the preaching of the Word are striving to do so with utmost integrity.” Here we are reminded to help people understand that it is Jesus who saves and not the physical public response of walking down front with tears in their eyes. The one who extends the invitation has the awesome responsibility to clearly communicate the Gospel and give an opportunity for the lost to express publicly their faith in Jesus.
• “Please do not be gravely concerned if we still use the word decision and lead a repentant sinner to pray a prayer.” Here we are encouraged to properly present the gospel and have a right understanding of the response that the gospel demands.[11]

Public invitations and altar calls will be extended within SBC congregations for many years to come. Many of us believe that “persuasive” preaching always confronts the sinner with a choice of two destinies. These destinies are as real as the air in our lungs. Therefore, some kind of public call to repentance will be extended in most of our congregations.

Where do we go from here? Here are some closing questions to consider and discuss:

• Who has been your model or mentor in extending a public invitation for the lost to hear, understand, and respond to the moving of God’s Spirit?
• Can you share a “model” church that is doing a great job in teaching their people to effectively share the gospel and training new believers to follow Jesus?
• If it is right to ask a lost person to repent and receive Jesus in a one-on-one personal witnessing encounter, why is it not alright to extend an invitation to many sinners in a church service?
• For congregations not extending a public invitation, how do they discover “new believers” from their worship services and small groups?

By Bob Hadley, Pastor of Westside Baptist Church in Daytona Beach, Florida, and Chancellor of Atlantic Coast Bible College and Seminary

This article is the third in a series that offer an alternative to the classical Reformed T.U.L.I.P. The entire series by Hadley is available at www.transformedtheology.com. The first two articles addressed “Total Lostness,” and “Unconditional Love.”

The foundational, bed rock tenet of Reformed Theology is contained in the third point of Calvinism, commonly referred to as Limited Atonement. Wayne Grudem defines limited atonement in the following way: “The Reformed view that Christ’s death actually paid for the sins of those whom He knew would ultimately be saved. Another term for this view is ‘particular redemption’ in that the power of the atonement is not limited, but rather it is fully effective for particular people.”[1] In a sermon preached at the Music Hall, Royal Surrey Gardens in London on February 28, 1959, Charles H. Spurgeon made the following comment in a message dealing with Limited Atonement; he said, “The doctrine of Redemption is one of the most important doctrines of the system of faith. A mistake on this point will inevitably lead to a mistake through the entire system of our belief.”[2] Whether one accepts his conclusions on this matter or not, Spurgeon statement was absolutely correct.

The issue of Limited Atonement offers a number of valid answers to the many questions dealing with Christ’s atoning work on the cross. Most of the problems that surface with respect to the doctrine of Limited Atonement do so when its proponents carry it to its extremes. Most, if not all, Southern Baptists agree with a concept of Limited Atonement. Anyone who is not a proponent of universalism must by default favor some concept of Limited Atonement. Because Christ’s sacrificial death on the cross paid the penalty for “the sin of the world” there are a couple of things that necessarily follow. First, the penalty for all sin, which is death, was paid when Christ died on the cross and second, God is “in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them” (2 Cor. 5:19). One interpretation of this passage opens the door to Universalism. However, a closer look at the context from which this phrase is contained, reveals a much different picture. First of all Paul says, “¹⁷ Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new. ¹⁸ Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ” (2 Cor. 2:17-18a). Obviously, Paul is clear in this discourse that those whom God has reconciled to Himself, are those who are “in Christ” and are a new creation in Christ Jesus. Paul goes on to say that God has given all who have been reconciled into Him a ministry of reconciliation; “that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself” (2 Cor. 5:19a). This is not a statement describing God’s character or purpose as much as it is a statement describing the ministry of reconciliation that every born again child of God shares a responsibility to be a part of. Not only is God not directly responsible for the choices men make in accepting the redemption made possible by Jesus’ death on the cross, those who have received this redemption are responsible for leading lost men to the cross where they too may find redemption for themselves.

Anyone who rejects the idea of Universalism by default accepts the concept of Limited Atonement. In its most basic application, limited atonement simply says Christ’s atoning sacrifice at Calvary is by necessity limited to a certain group of people. Reformed Theology proponents identify this “certain group of people” as the “elect.” Non-Calvinist will define this “certain group of people” as those individuals who by faith in Christ Jesus and His atoning work on the cross are convicted by the Holy Spirit of their lostness and in repentance turn from their own attempts at righteousness and turn to God for forgiveness and adoption into His forever family. This “certain group of people” is referred to in the New Testament as believers, those who have been born again, children of God, the church, as well as “the elect.” Here the term “the elect” is synonymous with the believer or that Christian who is in Christ, who is a new creation for whom “old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new” (2 Cor. 5:17b).

Since Reformed Theology proponents have defined limited atonement as it relates exclusively to the elect, the third point of Conversionism will be labeled Limiting Atonement. This modified point will highlight the limitless ability of Christ’s work of atonement as God seeks to reconcile a lost and dying world unto Himself and the limiting aspects of that atonement. This Limiting Atonement is available to anyone who by faith in the Lord Jesus repents of their sin and turns to God for forgiveness initiating the new birth or conversion, whereby the Holy Spirit begins the transforming process of giving this new creation the mind of Christ. This is the process that Paul speaks of in Colossians 3 where he says, “¹ If then you were raised with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ is, sitting at the right hand of God. ² Set your mind on things above, not on things on the earth. ³ For you died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God” (Col. 3:1-3). This process begins somewhere and that somewhere is conversion or regeneration.

⁴ When Christ who is our life appears, then you also will appear with Him in glory.
⁵ Therefore put to death your members which are on the earth: fornication, uncleanness, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry. ⁶ Because of these things the wrath of God is coming upon the sons of disobedience, ⁷ in which you yourselves once walked when you lived in them.
⁸ But now you yourselves are to put off all these: anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy language out of your mouth. ⁹ Do not lie to one another, since you have put off the old man with his deeds, ¹⁰ and have put on the new man who is renewed in knowledge according to the image of Him who created him, ¹¹ where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised nor uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave nor free, but Christ is all and in all (Col. 3:4-11).

Listen to what Paul says in 2 Corinthians 5 as he speaks about this ministry of reconciliation that God has given not only to him but to all who are in Christ Jesus. The critical issue raised in verse 20 speaks to the extent of the issue of limited atonement. Paul clearly says that he sees himself as “an ambassador for Christ” and it was “as though God were pleading through us,” through his preaching and teaching with a lost and dying world to come to Christ. For this reason Paul says, “we implore you on Christ’s behalf, be reconciled to God” (2 Cor. 5:20). Paul no doubt believed in his preaching of this glorious gospel message that God loved everyone so much that He sent Jesus to be born of a virgin and live a perfect life so that He could offer Himself as a sinless sacrifice and pay the penalty for sin for any person who was willing to call upon the name of the Lord, and believing in the saving, transforming power of Christ that individual might turn to God in repentance and find forgiveness as he or she responds to this reconciling work of God.

This is exactly what Paul said in 1 Corinthians where he said, “it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe” (1 Cor. 1:21a). The scope of the cross is indeed limitless to save to the uttermost all that come to Christ. This is the defining qualifier of those for whom the atonement is applied. While Christ died to pay the penalty for sin for mankind, the benefits of the atonement are made effective by the individual’s faith in Christ. Man’s response to God’s provisions is what brings the benefits of the provision. The fact that the benefits go untapped in no way takes away from neither the purpose of the benefits nor the effectiveness of the benefits. The atonement was completed at Calvary. Jesus paid the penalty for sin with His own death. Now, the benefits of the atonement are not automatically applied to all men. They are available to those who come to Christ in repentance and faith. Consider the examples of men’s responses to God’s work in their hearts as seen in Scripture.

Jesus spoke to the issue of man’s response to preaching as he said of the people of Nineveh, “for they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and indeed a greater than Jonah is here” (Luke 11:32b). The Ninevites were terribly wicked people. Their communities were not just dangerous places to wander into; the Ninevites went outside their borders and brought danger and destruction to neighboring areas, including Israel. There’s no evidence or mention of any process of regeneration nor any particular selection on God’s part where the Ninevites were concerned as Jonah began to preach a message of destruction if the people did not immediately repent. This biblical account plainly says the people heard Jonah’s message and they repented and God spared their city. These people did not repent because they were among God’s elect. They heard the warning proclaimed by this Israelite who took his life in his own hands by even coming to Nineveh to preach in the first place. No doubt the spirit of God convicted them of their sin and convinced them of the benefits of repenting and that is exactly what they did (Jon. 3:1-4:11). God’s desire and opportunity to forgive is second only to His desire to love. This whole notion that man is dead in his sin and incapable of even acknowledging his sin does not really make rational sense. The people of Nineveh knew that they were mean and wicked. Perhaps like Saul on the road to Damascus, they knew that God could kill them as easily as He could speak to them. The fact that He offered them an opportunity to repent was reason enough for them to do so.

The Bible says that “Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all kinds of sickness and all kinds of disease among the people” (Matt. 4:23; see also Matt. 9:35, 12:41; Mark 1:14, 35, 39; Luke 8:1, 9:6, 11:32). Jesus’ ministry focuses on His teaching and preaching. Jesus spoke to the masses that came to hear Him. As Jesus would speak to various groups the Bible says many believed (John 8:30, 31; 10:42). Jesus spoke on a number of occasions in the synagogues and the Apostle John tells us that many of the religious leaders believed on the Lord as well. It is clear in a number of passages that Jesus expected the Jews not only to understand the word of God presented in the Old Testament, but He also expected them to believe His words as well (John 5:38, 47; 8:45; 10:25, 37, 38).

Listen to a discourse that took place between Jesus and Philip:

⁸ Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is sufficient for us.”
⁹ Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? ¹⁰ Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works. ¹¹ Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me, or else believe Me for the sake of the works themselves (John 14:8-11).

In verse 11 Jesus admonishes Philip to believe Him as He identifies Himself with the Father. Jesus tells Philip to believe what He has said or He tells Philip to believe in the works that he has seen Jesus perform. There is no picture of limited atonement in Jesus’ preaching. He expects people to hear Him and then believe what He says. Jesus’ invitation is simple, “²⁸ Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. ²⁹ 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. ³⁰ For My yoke is easy and My burden is light.” (Matt. 11:28-30).

In John Chapter 7 Jesus makes the following statement,

“If anyone thirsts, let him come to Me and drink. ³⁸ He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.” ³⁹ But this He spoke concerning the Spirit, whom those believing in Him would receive; for the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified (John 7:37b-39).

It is clear that Jesus’ invitation to come to Him and drink was to anyone who thirsts. There is no ambiguity in this invitation; there’s no question about who Jesus is speaking to. His invitation is simple; “if anyone thirsts, let him come to Me and drink.” Jesus’ ability to make atonement for man’s sin is indeed limitless and is available to anyone who thirsts. There is no qualification dealing with the elect in Jesus statement. The same invitation is found in Rev. 22:17: “And the Spirit and the bride say, ‘Come!’ And let him who hears say, ‘Come!’ And let him who thirsts come. Whoever desires, let him take the water of life freely.” Jesus’ atonement is limitless in that it has the ability to save to the uttermost those who come to Him in repentance and faith.

In 1 Tim. 2, Paul wrote,

¹ Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, ² for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence. ³ For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, ⁴ who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. ⁵ For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, ⁶ who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time, ⁷ for which I was appointed a preacher and an apostle—I am speaking the truth in Christ and not lying—a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth (1 Tim. 2:1-7).

Nowhere in this passage of scripture is there any hint of Jesus’ sacrificial death on the cross limited. It is absolutely clear that God is “not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance” (2 Pet. 3:9b). Finally, 1 John 2 says,

¹ My little children, these things I write to you, so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. ² And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world (1 John 2:1-2).

How do these passages and the interaction relate to Limiting Atonement? They relate to the scope of the atonement or the application of the benefits of the atonement. The problem with the atonement as seen in the majority of theological debate has to do with the substitutionary aspect of the atonement. The question asked is, “Who did Jesus die for?” The general thought process simply stated is: If Jesus died for all men, then all men must be saved because the penalty for their sin has already been paid; but if all men are not saved, then that means Jesus cold not have died for all men. Therefore His atonement is limited. Thus Calvinism offers the suggestion that Jesus died on the cross for the elect and not those who die without Christ and are damned to an eternity in hell. This is why we have the Reformed view “that Christ’s death actually paid for the sins of those whom He knew would ultimately be saved. Another term for this view is ‘particular redemption’ in that the power of the atonement is not limited, but rather it is fully effective for particular people.”[3]

Limiting Atonement sees the atonement as complete and fully sufficient to save all men, but the benefits of the atonement are available to those that place their faith in the promises and provisions of God who made the atonement possible in the first place. Instead of seeing the atonement as being made for “a particular people,” the benefits of the atonement, which are limitless to save, are seen as being limited to those who believe.

By Bob Hadley, Pastor of Westside Baptist Church in Daytona Beach, Florida, and Chancellor of Atlantic Coast Bible College and Seminary

This article is the second in a series that offer an alternative to the classical Reformed T.U.L.I.P. The entire series is available at www.transformedtheology.com. The first “Total Lostness.”

If there’s anything that’s unconditional where God is concerned, it would have to be His love for man. “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life” (John 3:16).[1] “What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? ³² He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things?” (Romans 8:31-32). Here is the real story. God did not spare His own Son but allowed Him to be sacrificed on the cross to pay the penalty for an unholy and ungodly world. In analyzing this, the apostle Paul makes the following statement:

⁷ For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. ⁸ But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. ⁹ Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him. ¹⁰ For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life (Romans 5:7-10).

The Apostle John makes the following declaration in 1 John 4,

⁹ In this the love of God was manifested toward us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him. ¹⁰ In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins (1 John 4:9-10).

In 1 John 2 he writes,

¹ My little children, these things I write to you, so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. ² And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world (1 John 2:1-2).

What did John mean when he said that God sent His Son to be “the propitiation for our sins?” Wayne Grudem defines propitiation as “a sacrifice that bears God’s wrath to the end and in doing so changes God’s wrath toward us into favor.”[2] God sent His Son to be an atoning sacrifice that would change God’s wrath toward man to one of favor. In Hebrews 2 Paul explains that it was necessary for Jesus to come to the earth and “be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people” (Hebrews 2:17b).

Jesus did more than “offer” an atoning sacrifice that would change God’s wrath to favor; Jesus became that atoning sacrifice. So the question shifts from what is propitiation to how did Christ become the propitiation for man’s sin? Paul answers this question in Romans 3: “But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, ²² even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe” (Romans 3:21-22a). Once again Paul makes it abundantly clear that God’s righteousness is made available to sinful men “through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe.” In verse 23 Paul qualifies the “all who believe”:

^22b For there is no difference; ²³ for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, ²⁴ being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, ²⁵ whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, ²⁶ to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus (Romans 3:22b-26).

In Romans 6:23 Paul warns that the wages of sin is death. Sin separates man from God; God is both creator and sustainer of life. This is what Jesus meant when he said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes to the Father except through Me” (John 14:6b). In this sense, sin causes separation from God and death is separation from life. In order to restore this relationship with God and to bridge this separation that sin has caused, God sent His Son who is The Light of the World and The Life for the World and The Way to God “to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus (Romans 3:26).

What is “redemption?” Once again looking to Grudem’s Systematic Theology, he defines redemption as “Christ’s saving work viewed as an act of buying back sinners out of their bondage to sin and to Satan through the payment of a ransom.”[3] A ransom is the price paid to secure someone’s freedom. Jesus gave his life on the cross as a ransom to satisfy God’s justice and wrath concerning the penalty of sin that must be paid (Matthew 20:28 and Mark 10:45). The Apostle Paul tells young Timothy,

¹ Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, ² for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence. ³ For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, ⁴ who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. ⁵ For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, ⁶ who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time, ⁷ for which I was appointed a preacher and an apostle—I am speaking the truth in Christ and not lying—a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth (1 Timothy 2:1-7).

Christ’s propitiatory sacrifice satisfied God’s Law of justice and retribution set in place because of man’s sin. Christ’s sacrificial death on the cross was “payment in full” for the sin of the world. Paul notes that this sacrifice that Christ gave was different than any other sacrifice ever offered to God:

¹² Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. ¹³ For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh, ¹⁴ how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? ¹⁵ And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. (Hebrews 9:12-15).

Jesus Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the world. All men have sinned and because of that sin they are condemned to die. But God loved the world so much that He sent his Son to pay the penalty for that sin. Christ redeemed us by His blood. He bore our sins in and on His body on the cross. He paid the price for man’s sin so that God could forgive men without violating His own righteousness. A ransom was paid to set sinful men free from this awful penalty for sin. At one’s conversion, through faith, repentance and confession, an individual passes from death unto life as he is redeemed by the blood of The Lamb. His sins are washed away (Acts 22:16); and he has the promise that he will be reconciled to God (Romans 5:10).

God indeed so loved the world that He gave the life of His only begotten Son to die on the cross to pay a penalty He did not owe for a penalty men could not pay. In speaking of the children of Israel following a long period of disobedience and captivity, the Lord spoke through Jeremiah saying: “Yes, I have loved you with an everlasting love” (Jeremiah 31:3b). Israel has had a long history of being on the mountaintop with God and then being in the Valley without Him. They have been disobedient to Him and then in repentance they have come back to Him. Israel’s history has been a long cycle of God’s blessings, their disobedience, God’s delivering them to their enemies, their cry for forgiveness and deliverance and God’s mercy and His grace as He redeems them and brings them back into fellowship with Him. God loved Israel then and He still loves His people today. While it is easy to see God’s Unconditional Love, it is difficult to see evidences of unconditional election in the nation of Israel’s rocky history.

Some have argued that God’s choice of election can be seen in God’s special relationship with Israel. However, if God’s special love for Israel is a means that will allow Him to establish His love and a relationship with the whole world, then it may be argued that His love for Israel is not specific at all, but rather a demonstration of His love so that all the world could come to Him and worship Him in spirit and in truth. There is no picture of unconditional election in the life of Israel but God’s Unconditional Love can be seen on every page not only in the Old Testament but the New as well.

Perhaps one of the greatest demonstrations of God’s Unconditional Love can be seen in Revelation 2, where Jesus is speaking to the church in Thyatira. He mentions a wicked woman who calls herself a prophetess who was either teaching in the church or the city and was responsible for seducing some of the church members to commit sexual immorality and eat foods that have been offered to idols. Listen to what Jesus said about this woman, “And I gave her time to repent of her sexual immorality, and she did not repent. ²² Indeed I will cast her into a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of their deeds” (Revelation 2:21-22). Two things are obvious here. First of all, Jesus gave this woman time to repent. He also gave those who committed adultery with her time to repent as well. The second thing that’s equally obvious is the fact that Jesus expected them to repent. This wicked prophetess did not repent and no doubt there were some who committed adultery with her who did not repent as well. There are eternal consequences to the choices men make. Jesus is addressing those consequences when He says that He will cast those who do not repent into great tribulation. He goes on to say, “I will kill her children with death” (v. 23a), which is an obvious reference to the second death.

Did God love this wicked prophetess who had this spirit of Jezebel? His willingness for her not to perish and His patience for her to repent certainly lends credibility to an affirmative answer to this question. Extend this question one step further. Since God so loved the world He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believes in Him would not perish but have everlasting life, and since Jesus expected this woman to repent, He must have died on the cross to pay the penalty for her sin just as He did for everyone else. The provisions for her repentance had already been met at Calvary. Those who are cast into the great tribulation are those who did not repent of their evil deeds (Revelation 2:21–23). Even in one of the most extreme examples of human depravity in the Bible, God’s unconditional love is demonstrated and His forgiveness is offered and repentance is expected, even though it was refused.

A good illustration of this can be seen in the following illustration. Suppose a father loved his four children who had gone out into the world and wasted their lives and had gone deeply into debt. The debt was about to destroy each of the four children. The father unbeknown to his children wrote a check out to each of his four children that would pay their debts in full and leave them with enough money to live the rest of their lives very comfortably. The father placed the checks in cards that were addressed to each child and placed them on a mantle in his den. He called each child and asked them one by one to come see him and share a meal together. They never came. He called them a number of times asking them to come but each time they made excuses and never came. Now, the love of the father was evident in the gift he prepared for each of his four children. Each gift was more than adequate to supply their need, which was substantial. His invitation was for them to come and sit down with him for a simple meal together. The only thing the father wanted was for his children to come and dine with him. Now, did the fact that his children did not come have anything to do with this father’s love for his children? No. In the same way, men’s refusal to come and dine with the Lord has nothing to do with God’s love and desire to meet their great need in the provisions that are already set aside for everyone who will simply come to Jesus. This love can also be seen in the wedding feast of Matthew 22.

In going back to God’s statement to Israel in Jeremiah 31:3b, God says, “I have loved you with an everlasting love. With loving kindness I have drawn you.” In looking at this question of unconditional love and unconditional election, what did He mean in the second part of this verse, when He said, “with loving kindness I have drawn you”? Once again the question must be asked, does everyone that God draws with His loving kindness respond as God wants them to respond? Since Israel’s history was up and down and they were in and out of captivity because of their disobedience to His word, both before and after this statement was made, it can be argued that the answer to this question is a resounding “no.” Add to this the overriding fact that no one fully responds to God’s drawing as He would have them respond, for all men, saved and unsaved, continue to sin and come short of the glory of God:

⁸ If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. ⁹ If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. ¹⁰ If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us (1 John 1:8-10).

It is clear that God’s unconditional love supersedes any Biblical concept of unconditional election.

Consider Paul’s comments to Titus in chapter 3. Here Paul instructs Titus to remind those that he will minister to:

¹ Remind them to be subject to rulers and authorities, to obey, to be ready for every good work, ² to speak evil of no one, to be peaceable, gentle, showing all humility to all men. ³ For we ourselves were also once foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving various lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful and hating one another. ⁴ But when the kindness and the love of God our Savior toward man appeared, ⁵ not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, ⁶ whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, ⁷ that having been justified by His grace we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life. (Titus 3:1-7).

Does this passage speak to the issue of God’s Unconditional Love or does it speak to the issue of unconditional election? Obviously Paul attributes their salvation to God’s love and His kindness toward them, even though their hearts were wicked and their lives were completely out of control. Paul acknowledges that it is God’s mercy that saved them and not works of righteousness that they had done themselves. Had Paul stopped here, one could argue that God’s love is unconditional, and one could even argue the validity of regeneration and unconditional election in God’s salvific process. However, Paul did not stop there. He goes on to remind everyone how God saved them when “the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared to man;” he said, “This is a faithful saying, and these things I want you to affirm constantly, that those who have believed in God should be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable to men” (Titus 3:8). Once again Paul is clear; it is God’s unconditional love demonstrated by Christ at Calvary that compels men to “believe in Him,” and that by believing in Him they “shall not perish but have everlasting life.” For those who do not believe in Christ are already condemned because they have not believed in the Name of the only begotten Son of God (John 3:16-17).

Consider one of the more tender scenes in Scripture painting a picture of Christ’s love for the world He created. Listen to His heart as He laments over Jerusalem before turning His eyes to the cross.

³⁷ “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing! ³⁸ See! Your house is left to you desolate; ³⁹ for I say to you, you shall see Me no more till you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the LORD!’” (Matthew 23:37-39).

Jesus’ love for the world is seen here as well as in every scene and heard in every syllable and demonstrated in every situation that He found Himself. He is still seeking to save them that are lost. He is still reaching out to gather His children together so that His house is not left desolate. Blessed indeed are all who come in the Name of the Lord. Praise God, man’s Total Lostness is overshadowed by God’s Unconditional Love.

By Bob Hadley, Pastor of Westside Baptist Church in Daytona Beach, Florida, and Chancellor of Atlantic Coast Bible College and Seminary

This article is the first in a series that offer an alternative to the classical Reformed T.U.L.I.P. The entire series is available at www.transformedtheology.com. This article addresses “Total Lostness.”

Calvinism and Arminianism have been a major part of the theological landscape for centuries and the debate today is no closer to being resolved than it was in the days of Calvin and Arminius, themselves. A number of attempts have been made to strike a balance between the two. Conversionism and Transformed Theology is an attempt to begin that process. There are a number of ways that one might establish a new identity associated with a change in terminology from Calvinism to Conversionism and from Reformed Theology to Transformed Theology. One way involves modifying the framework that Reformed Theology has built itself around, namely the TULIP which is an acronym representing the five points of Calvinism. By using the same five letters, this section will focus on a new identity that will find its significance in a New Tulip. Consider the following acrostic:

• An Argument for Total Lostness
• An Argument for Unconditional Love
• An Argument for Limiting Atonement
• An Argument for Irrefutable Gospel
• An Argument for Perseverance of the Savior

In evaluating this new proposed position, it is important to remember that each plank must rest on its own merit based on what the Bible has to say as opposed to interpreting each through the lens of some preconceived premise. For example it can be argued that each of the points of Calvinism have been so developed to support the underlying premise that Jesus’ sacrificial death on the cross could not have been for all men because it is obvious that not all men are saved and headed for heaven. While the latter part of this statement is absolutely true, that does not validate the former part of the statement. To be fair, there is always a tendency no matter how well intended, to frame one’s theology around certain preconceived theological foundations and frameworks. Just as every man is a product of his own environment, so is his theology a product of his overall evaluation of the Scripture itself. However, when questions concerning theology are presented, it behooves those on both sides of the issue to consider certain arguments on their own merit in light of a standard, which must be the Word of God. Please consider the following points with an open Bible and an objective mind.

An Argument for Total Lostness

The first step in establishing a new identity based on this new terminology being proposed is an argument for Total Lostness as opposed to the Calvinist plank of Total Depravity. This tenet says that man by willful transgression fell from a state of righteousness and holiness in which he was first created. Man, since the fall of Adam, has inherited this fallen nature and exists in a state of total spiritual depravity or lostness. This is a state of death in trespasses and sins in which he is held as a slave of sin and an enemy of God. If left in this sinful state, he will face the eternal consequences of his sin in eternal punishment, which is the second death. Sinful man is lost in that he is unable to attain divine righteousness by his own efforts and he must be redeemed and delivered by the power of the gospel of Jesus Christ as it is revealed to him by the convicting work of the Holy Spirit (Romans 3:23-25, 5:12-21; 1 Corinthians 15:1-4; 2 Corinthians 4:3-4).

Make no mistake about it; man is no doubt depraved in his humanity. The Bible is absolutely clear on this point. All men, both Jews and Greeks are under sin.

¹⁰ As it is written:
“There is none righteous, no, not one;
¹¹ There is none who understands;
There is none who seeks after God.
¹² They have all turned aside;
They have together become unprofitable;
There is none who does good, no, not one.”
¹³ “Their throat is an open tomb;
With their tongues they have practiced deceit”;
“The poison of asps is under their lips”;
¹⁴ “Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness.”
¹⁵ “Their feet are swift to shed blood;
¹⁶ Destruction and misery are in their ways;
¹⁷ And the way of peace they have not known.”
¹⁸ “There is no fear of God before their eyes.” (Romans 3:10-18; see also Leviticus 23:40-45).[1]

The purpose of the Law was to establish man’s guilt before God and “by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin” (Romans 3:20). “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). “If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us” (1 John 1:8; see also 1 John 2:4). “All our righteousnesses are like filthy rags” (Isaiah 64:6). As the children of Israel made their way through the wilderness on their way from Egypt to the Promised Land, they repeatedly acknowledged their sin before the Lord.[2]

Because all men have sinned against God, they are hopelessly and helplessly lost (Jeremiah 50:4-6). In Psalm 119, David acknowledged his sin and says, “I have gone astray like a lost sheep” (Psalm 119:176). In Matthew 18, Jesus Himself speaks to this issue of being lost. He says, “For the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost” (Matthew 18:11). In verses 12 through 14, Jesus asked the question:

¹² “What do you think? If a man has a hundred sheep, and one of them goes astray, does he not leave the ninety-nine and go to the mountains to seek the one that is straying? ¹³ And if he should find it, assuredly, I say to you, he rejoices more over that sheep than over the ninety-nine that did not go astray. ¹⁴ Even so it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish (Matthew 18: 12–14).

Luke expands on Jesus’ parable and adds the following statement, “I will say to you that likewise there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine just persons who need no repentance” (Luke 15:7). Luke goes on to record two more parables dealing with lostness that Jesus gave. The second is of the lost coin. In this parable (Luke 15:8–10) Jesus speaks of a woman who had 10 coins and realizes that one has been lost and she searches her house until she finds that one lost coin. Jesus makes the following concluding statement, “Likewise, I say to you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents” (verse 10).

The third parable that Jesus used as He spoke on the subject of lostness is of the lost son, which is often referred to as the parable of the prodigal son. In this parable a father has two sons. The younger son comes to his father and asks him for his inheritance, which the father gives to him. The son leaves home and squanders away everything his father gave him. Jesus makes an interesting statement in Luke 15:17-19:

¹⁷ “But when he came to himself, he said, ‘How many of my father’s hired servants have bread enough and to spare, and I perish with hunger! ¹⁸ I will arise and go to my father, and will say to him, “Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you, ¹⁹ and I am no longer worthy to be called your son. Make me like one of your hired servants.”’
The young man makes his way back home. He is greeted by his father, and he asks for his father’s forgiveness. Listen to his father’s response:
²² “But the father said to his servants, ‘Bring out the best robe and put it on him, and put a ring on his hand and sandals on his feet. ²³ And bring the fatted calf here and kill it, and let us eat and be merry; ²⁴ for this my son was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’ And they began to be merry” (Luke 15:22-24).

The son fully understood his situation. He knew he was down and depraved. He knew he needed help. He knew his father could take care of his needs. He knew all the details with the exception of one: he had no idea what his father’s response would be. This lost son had a choice to make. He could keep on doing what he was doing, and he would have kept on getting what he had always gotten. Or, he could get up and make the journey home where he would be able to live. This son had a choice to come home or to continue on in the hog pen.

In the parable of the lost or prodigal son, Jesus adds a very important twist to this issue of being lost. This is Jesus’ final story in this trilogy of parables. In verse 17 Jesus intentionally mentions the young man’s “coming to himself.” Now it is clear that in coming to himself, he is still hopelessly and helplessly lost. The importance of this intentional phrase is seen in what the young man does as he turns from his present condition and goes back to his father. While this young man was no doubt depraved, he had not forgotten how his father had provided for him for most of his life. The young son understood that his father represented the only hope he really had. He made a choice to walk away from his immediate past and walked toward a future that only his father could provide. Here is one of the clearest passages in the Bible that deal with the lost condition suffered by all who are outside of a relationship with God through faith in Jesus Christ (Luke 15:17).

Jesus understood the tragedy of man’s lostness. Jesus underscored the significance of the inability of the lost coin and the lost sheep to find themselves and no longer be lost. The shepherd went out to find the lost sheep and the woman searched until she found the lost coin. In Luke 19 Jesus spoke to a tax collector named Zaccheaus; He told Zaccheaus to come down out of the tree, because He wanted to go to Zaccheaus’ house for dinner. Jesus was criticized sorely when people said that he ate with sinners! Jesus’ response was, “^9b ‘Today salvation has come to this house, because he also is a son of Abraham; ¹⁰ for the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost.’” (Luke 19:9b-10).

Jesus identified what it meant to be lost. In the third chapter of John, Jesus explains to Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews, what he must do – as one who is lost – to be found. The Bible is not clear why Nicodemus came to Jesus; it simply says he came. Because Jesus understood Nicodemus’ greatest need, He ignored his flattering tribute and He told Nicodemus,

^5b “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. ⁶ That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. ⁷ Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ ⁸ The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit” (John 3:5b-8).

Here Jesus equates being found with being born again or being born from above. This is vitally important because just as was the case with the lost sheep and the lost coin, an individual who is lost cannot find himself. He cannot simply come to himself and realize and recognize that he is lost; he cannot correct that on his own. He must do as the prodigal son did as he turned from his sinful present state to his father. In looking at the prodigal’s “coming to himself” we must understand that he was able to do this because of the promises and provisions he had experienced personally, which was the result of the personal relationship he enjoyed with his father. He came to himself and turned and went to his father. It was his father who forgave him and made him part of his family once again. The son came asking to be a servant; his father restored his sonship. The actions of the young man’s father are what changed his status from “lost” to “found.” Praise the Lord God who can do the same to all who come to Him!

In Nicodemus’s case, he too left the comfort of his environment and he came to Jesus looking for answers. No doubt Nicodemus had a number of questions he wanted to ask Jesus. Jesus addressed the only question that mattered. In order to go to heaven, Nicodemus was lost and needed to be found; he needed to be born from above. Nicodemus needed what only Jesus could provide. Jesus goes on to explain what He meant when He said to Nicodemus, you must be born again. Nicodemus asks a very simple question:

⁹ Nicodemus answered and said to Him, “How can these things be?”
¹⁰ Jesus answered and said to him, “Are you the teacher of Israel, and do not know these things? ¹¹ Most assuredly, I say to you, We speak what We know and testify what We have seen, and you do not receive Our witness. ¹² If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? (John 3:9-12).

Basically what Jesus was saying here was that Nicodemus along with the other Jewish leaders and teachers of the Scriptures should have recognized Jesus for who He was, for the Old Testament was full of passages that spoke of His coming. Instead of Nicodemus coming to Jesus with questions, he should have been coming to Jesus with answers! The gospel is the same way for men today. God has given mankind every reason to come to Christ just as Nicodemus did.

In verses 14 through 21 Jesus goes on to explain to Nicodemus what it means to be born again or born from above:

¹⁴ And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, ¹⁵ that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. ¹⁶ For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life (John 3:14-16).

Just as the prodigal son came to himself and made his way to his father, so was it Nicodemus’s responsibility to “come to himself,” and by believing in the promises of God that are clearly laid out in the Scriptures, Nicodemus would not perish but have everlasting life. By believing in Christ, Nicodemus would be saved or born again, and in that process he would pass from death to life, from being lost to being found.

In Matthew 19, another wealthy young ruler came to Jesus and asked Him:

^16b “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”
¹⁷ “Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.”
¹⁸ “Which ones?” he inquired.
Jesus replied, “‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, ¹⁹ honor your father and mother,’ and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’”
²⁰ “All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?”
²¹ Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
²² When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth (Matthew 19:16b-22).

What is the difference in the results of the visits of these two men? Both came asking essentially the same thing. Nicodemus went away with Christ and the other went away sorrowful because he made the mistake of thinking what he had was more important than what Christ had for him. This was a choice the two men made themselves. Jesus did not decide that one would be saved and the other lost.

Make no mistake about it; Jesus understood man’s lost state. He understood the gravity of sin. It was for this reason that Jesus left heaven in the first place. “For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved” (John 3:17) Jesus did not need to leave heaven to condemn the world. Man, in his sin, was already condemned. It was Christ’s sacrificial death on the cross that provided man any hope at all. That’s why Jesus said what He did in verse 18; “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.” Verse 19 addresses this issue of Total Depravity or Total Lostness. Listen to what Jesus said about the extent of man’s depravity:

¹⁹ And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. ²⁰ For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. ²¹ But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God (John 3:19-21; see also Jeremiah 50:4-6, 15-21).

Man’s depravity is pictured in Jesus’ statement that “light has come and the world and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil” (verse 19). Had Jesus stopped there, we could draw a number of conclusions. We even might be able to conclude that men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil; and they were so depraved that they were blind and could not see the light without God first opening their eyes. But the text prohibits that interpretation. First of all Jesus chides Nicodemus for being a teacher of the Law and not understanding these things. Verse 20 explains why men love darkness and hate the light. Men do not hate the light because they’re blind and cannot see it; they hate it because they see it and do not like what it reveals – their evil deeds. Men do not want to be told the truth. They want to do what seems right in their own eyes (Psalm 36:2; Proverbs 3:7; 16:2; 21:2; 26:12, 16; 30:12). But there are those who see the Light for what it is; and not liking what it reveals, they choose to move toward the Light instead of away from it. This is the choice that Jesus offers those who are lost, those who He has come to seek and to save.

By Ron F. Hale,
Minister of Missions,
West Jackson Baptist Church,
Jackson, TN

My fingers eagerly tore into a package that resulted in a “free” book. The book came to me as I pastored in the Kansas City area in 1989. The title of the book was: Southern Baptists and the Doctrine of Election by Robert B. Selph. Later I learned that Pastor Selph had sent this book to every pastor in the SBC. This was no small endeavor for the pastor of a small church in Prescott, Arizona.

Selph had been inspired by Founders Ministries and their early work called the Boyce Project. Ernest C. Reisinger (the founder of the Founders Ministries) had the goal of republishing the Abstract of Systematic Theology by James Petigru Boyce, the primary founder and first theology teacher of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. The second phase of the strategy was to get Boyce’s Abstract to every student graduating from the six official Southern Baptist seminaries and a few more.[1]

In his book, Selph shares the following concerning Election and Evangelism: “If you really want to be invigorated in your faith and renewed in your courage to the task of evangelism, reflect upon how God has used the preaching of the historic doctrines of grace (election, predestination, etc.) to bring many to Himself in salvation!”[2]

History reveals that Selph’s view of election and evangelism caused meager results in reaching his community with the Gospel. Over the last twenty-four years (since the printing of his book), his church has reported only forty people being baptized, that is less than two people per year. The membership has gone from 118 members in 1988 (the year he wrote the book) down to 60 members in 2011.

Also, Ernest C. Reisinger’s church (North Pompano Baptist Church, FL), the one he wrote about us being gloriously reformed (under his leadership) seems no longer to exist; it merged with another church in 2005 to form a new congregation. Since both Reisinger and Selph have chastised Southern Baptists for shallow, man-centered evangelism, one has to wonder about the theology they ardently proclaimed and its effect on church health and disciple making. I contend that a proper understanding of election leads to dynamic evangelism and church health.

I want to share several statements of faith (confessions) on election and consider the differences on election.

The Baptist Faith and Message 2000 – Southern Baptist Convention (SBC)

Election is the gracious purpose of God, according to which He regenerates, justifies, sanctifies, and glorifies sinners. It is consistent with the free agency of man, and comprehends all the means in connection with the end. It is the glorious display of God’s sovereign goodness, and is infinitely wise, holy, and unchangeable. It excludes boasting and promotes humility (BFM 2000, V. God’s Purpose of Grace).

The Westminster Confession of Faith – Presbyterian Church in America (PCA)

By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death.

As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath He, by the eternal and most free purpose of His will, foreordained all the means thereunto. Wherefore, they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ, are effectually called unto faith in Christ by His Spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by His power, through faith, unto salvation. Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.

The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extendeth or witholdeth mercy, as He pleaseth, for the glory of His sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonour and wrath for their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice (WCF, 3^rd Edition with Corrections, Ch III, points 3, 6, 7).

The Baptist Faith and Message (BFM) sees election as God’s wonderful plan and eternal purpose for all mankind. God initiated this glorious salvation and accomplishes it! Election is consistent with the freedom of man and God’s sovereignty. While the BFM speaks of election, there is no mention of non-election or reprobation. Non-Calvinists believe the death of Jesus provides saving grace to all who believe the gospel and those rejecting the gospel face God’s judgment leading to damnation (hell).

What confuses many of us non-Calvinists is that some Calvinists (supralapsarians) hold a more deterministic view of election, while other Calvinists (infralapsarians) do not. The supralapsarians see reprobation as God’s rejection of persons (the non-elect or individuals); in essence, they view the reprobate becoming a lost sinner because God (in eternity) chose to reject him. This concept is foreign to most Southern Baptists that I have known. Instead, damnation is different (instead of God rejecting the sinner), here the sinner rejects God’s free offer of the gospel and suffers God’s judgment.

The BFM leaves room for non-Calvinists and Calvinists to walk the balance beam between the twin truths of God’s sovereignty and man’s freedom while maintaining a preferred side upon which to fall. When too many fall to one side of the balance beam seeking to pull others to their side, tensions build in the SBC.

SBC leaders like Herschel Hobbs saw that God sovereignly chose a method of election (a specific plan), that he “marked out beforehand,” which reflect the basic meaning of the word proorisas (predestine, Eph.1:4). This election is “in Christ.” Basically, Hobbs was saying that in eternity God “marked out” or set a boundary. Just like a builder would mark off a piece of property for a new church facility, in eternity God determined (marked off) that all who are “in Christ” are the elect of all the ages. God sovereignly determined the boundary (in Christ), and those who obey the gospel by believing and receiving Christ are saved by grace through faith. The believer becomes “the Elect of God” because they are now “in Christ.”

In the more Calvinistic confessions like the Westminster Confession, the doctrine of election seems to be anchored in the doctrine of decrees, that is, God decided from eternity to manifest His glory. All of the actions of God are subordinate to this goal (decree). God wills to reveal His glory by electing some people (a certain number), but not all. Some humans are elected on the basis of divine mercy, and others are rejected on the basis of divine justice. A person does not become one of the “elect” based on any act of will or any religious work, but solely on God’s sovereign decision that was made before the foundation of the world. They see election as unconditional, that is, the sinner doesn’t become part of the elect by meeting a condition (even repentance and faith), but that God graciously chooses and enables the elect through a special call (effectual call) to repent and believe by first regenerating their hearts. Thus, many Calvinist see that regeneration precedes faith.

Most Southern Baptists view election applied only to those who hear the Gospel and freely respond in faith and not tied to a “decree,” where God only gives faith to His elect ones through a special effectual call and regenerates them in order for them to believe. The major difference in these two systems and its effect on one’s personal theology of election and evangelism can be profound.

The biggest question either side faces is: Based on your belief in election can you look into the eyes of any and every person you meet and hold a conviction that Jesus Christ not only loves them but that he actually died for them (His atonement is sufficient to save them). Jesus commands us to go into all the world to preach the gospel; and any force, foe, or feeling that inhibits and hampers us in this Great Commission task is flawed. The answer to that “election” question will impact your personal evangelism and church growth.

By Dr. Lemke, Provost, Professor of Philosophy and Ethics, occupying the McFarland Chair of Theology, Director of the Baptist Center for Theology and Ministry, and Editor of the Journal for Baptist Theology and Ministry at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary.

Reflections on the Daviess-McLean Decision

In Part 1, I shared my perceptions (from admittedly incomplete knowledge) about the decision of Daviess-McLean Baptist Association (DMBA) to deny the membership request from Pleasant Valley Community Church (PVCC). The main point was that although theological issues were involved in the decision because of the strongly Calvinistic doctrine of PVCC, the decision appears to have been based more on attitudinal issues by PVCC that the member churches of DMBC felt could be divisive. Here are some brief reflections on my understanding of the significance of the association’s decision to deny membership to PVCC, and the implications of this action for other churches and associations as we move forward.

(1)   The local church is the center of (earthly) authority in Baptist polity. Local church autonomy is a distinctive Baptist belief (as I have discussed). The local churches in Daviess-McLean Baptist Association were perfectly within their rights to deny membership to Pleasant Valley Community Church. This determination was made not by associational officials, but by duly authorized messengers from the member churches of DMBA. They were voting as representatives of their own local church, not as representatives of the association as a whole. At the same time, DMBA has no authority to force PVCC to change their doctrine or practice. PVCC can worship as they choose, believe as they choose, and do church as they choose. The biblical foundation of church autonomy, of course, is the priority given to local churches in the New Testament. However, theologically it reflects that through the priesthood of believers (another Baptist distinctive), each member seeks the will of God, the headship of Jesus Christ, and the leadership of the Holy Spirit, and represents that divine leadership in voting on decisions in the church. This collective reflection of the will of God is much more reliable than putting this decision solely in the hands of a few fallible authoritarian leaders. This is a wonderful and marvelous thing that inflexible top-down hierarchical denominations like Catholics and Presbyterians “desire to look into” (1 Pet. 1:12, KJV).

(2)  Doctrine matters. The Daviess-McLean Baptist Association decision has underscored the fact that doctrine really does matter. Birds of a feather flock together. Churches that are in agreement in faith and practice tend to be more unified and harmonious. In this case, while acknowledging that the theology of PVCC was not heretical, and not going into specific detail about their theological concerns, the association did “recognize that it [PVCC’s theology] is vastly different than the majority of churches within the DMBA,” and thus would be potentially divisive. This decision is a powerful antidote to the strong pluralistic, ecumenical forces in our day that threaten to dull the doctrinal distinctives of evangelical Christians and denominations to be merged into an amorphous lowest common denominator which does not truly represent anyone’s real beliefs.

(3)  Those who want to be accepted should make themselves acceptable. It is befitting for those seeking acceptance from others to try to minimize any possible hindrances to acceptance. It was PVCC seeking membership in DMBA, not vice versa. The onus of responsibility was thus on PVCC to demonstrate their cooperativeness and fit with DMBA and demonstrate their worthiness to join DMBA, not vice versa. Without knowing most of the details of this situation, it is evident from the overwhelming 104-9 vote of DMBA that PVCC did not take common sense steps to connect in positive ways with the association. PVCC did demonstrate that they valued and sought interaction with other faraway groups in such as the Acts 29 Network based in Seattle, Washington than they did fellowship with Southern Baptist churches in their own area. And when interaction did take place between PVCC and the local churches in DMBA, it evidently was not predominantly a positive experience. The Credential Committee’s findings noted that PVCC had not given evidence that it “would be sympathetic with the purpose and work of the body of the DMBA,” and noted that PVCC had practiced “an overall lack of the key elements of cooperation found in patience, humility, kindness, compassion and gentleness.” It clearly appeared to be these perceived uncooperative and somewhat arrogant attitudinal problems that “ultimately” led to the denial of PVCC from DMBA. This was a preventable tragedy, but PVCC (perhaps in part because of the inexperienced leadership and/or a doctrinaire inflexibility) must bear much of the responsibility for their own rejection.

(4)  This DMBA decision has a very limited impact on PVCC.  The main impact of this decision is that messengers from PVCC cannot vote in the annual session of DMBA.  I don’t think that being denied this minor privilege is going to cripple the ministry of PVCC. The DMBA’s decision does not bar PVCC from attending DMBA meetings. It does not delimit PVCC from attending DMBA training events, such as Sunday School training or Vacation Bible School training, if PVCC had any interest in these. It does not prohibit PVCC from membership in the Kentucky Baptist Convention or the SBC. It does not bar PVCC from participating in the evangelistic or missions efforts of DMBA (if PVCC’s theology did not prevent the church from desiring to do so). It does not prohibit PVCC from sending their youth or children to camps sponsored by the DMBA. It does not prevent PVCC from inviting other DMBA pastors to speak in their church for revivals (if PVCC’s doctrine does not prohibit themselves from having revivals) or in other worship services. It does not prevent PVCC from partnering on projects with individual DMBA churches. It does not prohibit PVCC from contributing money to DMBA or its related ministries. If PVCC were genuinely interested in demonstrating their cooperative spirit to DMBA, doing any or all of these things (and doing so in a sweet spirit) would go a long way in changing the perception of the churches in the association that PVCC has an uncooperative spirit. Again, the point is that one should not make more of this decision than the minor impact it has on PVCC.

(5)  Sometimes unity requires division. As I noted in an earlier series of articles about the fault lines that divide Southern Baptists, there is a point at which it does not appear fruitful for two groups to continue walking together.  More unity is found by dividing into two groups rather than continuing irritating each other by constantly arguing and bickering with each other in the same group. I described this as the “in Adam” option – unity through division (that is, taking human fallenness into consideration, divisions like this are inevitable). This was true of Southern Baptists and the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, and it may yet (and the odds are, it will) cause further such divisions over the issue of Calvinism (as SBC Executive Committee CEO Frank Page noted in a recent SBC Today interview) and/or along other fault lines in Southern Baptist life (as I have noted). For example, if churches like PVCC continue finding more commonality with groups such as Acts 29 or the Founders group prior to and over against local associations – networking with them, going to their meetings, seeking their counsel, etc., as Pastor Edwards’ interview on the Acts 29 website indicates – it is inevitable that these alternative groups like Acts 29 and Founders will functionally become an association to themselves, start breaking down into statewide and regional fellowships, and eventually split into another denomination. If narrow doctrinal agreement is required for fellowship, these sorts of splits are inevitable in the SBC in the interest of unity and harmony.

(6)  True unity requires toleration of a greater range of differences. I believe that the Lord’s ideal for his churches is not that they splinter and divide, but that they “dwell together in unity” (Ps. 133:1). This is what I have called the “in Christ” option – unity through diversity. For such a broader unity to be a reality, it is necessary that believers (and churches) be more tolerant and forgiving of each other. It requires that we must be content to agree on major points and agree to disagree on other points. It means in this case, for example, that PVCC not describe widely accepted Baptist patterns of church governance as “unbiblical.” Had Edwards just said in the interview that PVCC sought to discover the church polity that they felt the Bible affirmed, that would have been fine. But to condemn the polity of others as “unbiblical” does not build unity. Again, the DMBA finding that PVCC demonstrated “an overall lack of the key elements of cooperation found in patience, humility, kindness, compassion and gentleness” indicates that DMBA did not consider PVCC willing to demonstrate the tolerant attitudes demanded of true unity.

Unfortunately, the association’s written findings were rather vague both in regard to the specific doctrinal issues which were problematic and in listing specific examples of the attitudinal issues which they found problematic. However, DMBA’s overwhelming 104-9 vote suggests that PVCC wasn’t even close to being acceptable. This was evidently not a hard decision for the association.

However, to achieve unity in a broader spectrum of churches, we must tolerate a wider range of differences. We must respect the autonomy of each local church, and respect the right of that church to be different in some ways. We must not insist that our perspective is the only biblical perspective on operational issues that are not clearly required in Scripture. We must have some flexibility in doctrinal issues, as long as they are not clearly unbiblical. We must strive to improve our communication and the attitudes we express in working with fellow believers to avoid repeated experiences such as this one in other associations.

By Dr. Lemke, Provost, Professor of Philosophy and Ethics, occupying the McFarland Chair of Theology, Director of the Baptist Center for Theology and Ministry, and Editor of the Journal for Baptist Theology and Ministry at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary.

News stories from the Western Recorder, from Associated Baptist Press, and Baptist Press reported last week that the Daviess-McLean Baptist Association in Kentucky chose to deny membership to Pleasant Valley Community Church, purportedly in part because of the strong Calvinism affirmed by Pleasant Valley Community Church. In this article, I want to suggest my best guess of the factors which led to this decision. In Part 2 I want to suggest what could be some implications of this decision for other churches and associations in the SBC.

Some Important Caveats

These are some wise dictums which we should normally heed as guidelines for wise living:

Dictum 1: Don’t get enmeshed in other people’s fights.

Dictum 2:  Don’t speak about things about which you have little knowledge, because when you open your mouth you’ll reveal your ignorance.

I’m going to risk cautiously disobeying these wise dictums in order to comment on the denial of the application of Pleasant Valley Community Church to join Daviess-McLean Baptist Association in Kentucky. (I could note that many blog commentators frequently violate both of these dictums). So let me do so with these important caveats:

(a) I do not know anyone on either side associated with this event, nor have I spoken with them personally or communicated with them. The only thing I know comes through published reports and commentaries, and a couple of conversations with persons closer to the situation who have communicated with some of the persons involved. I have not read all of the documents associated with the event. So I am writing based on the limited published information I have seen, along with some hearsay evidence. That’s not very strong evidence in a court of law or in the scholarly world, and as a former journalist I would not publish such unconfirmed opinions as a factual news story. So what I am sharing is just my opinion or speculation based on my best understanding of the limited information I have.

(b) I am not a member of a church in the Daviess-McLean Baptist Association, so I have no real standing in this discussion. This is their decision, not mine. I am simply commenting on the event as an outside observer.

With those important caveats in mind, I will share my perception in this Part 1 of the root causes of this event. As I best understand it, there are two primary contributing causes that led to this event – one more theological in character, and the other more attitudinal in nature. At this point, I am more interested in describing the perceptions involved than the realities involved – that is, I’m attempting to understand what perceptions may have led to this decision.  I have no way of judging the accuracy of those perceptions. Perceptions aren’t always the same as reality, but they do impact reality. Again, I want to be very clear that some of this at least to some degree speculation on my part, based on the available evidence. Then, in Part 2, I’ll suggest some implications of this decision in other associations, and propose a way that might help avoid repeated occurrences of similar events in other associations.

The Theological Aspect

The presenting problem, as it has been described in all the published reports, is the theological problem that the other churches in the Daviess-McLean Baptist Association (DMBA) found the strong Calvinism of Pleasant Valley Community Church to be unpalatable. The brief DMBA statement unfortunately offers an overly abbreviated their discussion of this issue, rather than providing a more detailed discussion. As reported in the Associated Baptist Press story, the Credentials Committee noted that the doctrine of Pleasant Valley Community Church was “Calvinistic in nature,” and “affirms the doctrine of election and grace.” Clearly, this alone would not make the doctrine of Pleasant Valley Community Church unbaptistic. Article V of the Baptist Faith and Message is entitled “God’s Purpose of Grace,” and begins with the words, “Election is the gracious purpose of God, according to which God regenerates, justifies, sanctifies, and glorifies sinners. It is consistent with the free agency of man, and comprehends all the means in connection with the end.” So belief in election and grace would make a church’s doctrine baptistic, not unbaptistic. The association would have to go into much greater detail than their statement does (at least, the part of it quoted in published reports) to clarify what they found problematic in PVCC’s doctrine. It would have been especially helpful to us outside observers had the association been more specific about the doctrinal issue involved.

However, from what we can discern about Pleasant Valley Community Church, its doctrine was apparently so obviously and distinctively Calvinistic that a more detailed statement seemed unnecessary to the association for this purpose.  It was sufficient for the Credentials Committee to note that “we do recognize that it [the theology of PVCC] is vastly different than the majority of churches within the DMBA.”  The association voted 104-9 to deny admittance to Pleasant Valley Community Church to DMBA. This wasn’t a close vote. This indicates that the doctrine of PVCC was well known among the ministers in the association, and it was significantly different in some important ways.

It is not surprising that that the overwhelming majority of pastors in this or another association would differ in doctrine from a church that is strongly and exceptionally Calvinist in its doctrine. LifeWay statistics indicate that 90 percent of Southern Baptist pastors are not five point Calvinists. If most associations were minded to deny or remove from membership all Reformed churches, the majority of most associations could do so merely by voting their own doctrinal beliefs. In fact, however, few associations have denied membership to churches over the doctrines of Calvinism, and the pastor who nominated PVCC for membership in DMBA was not a five-point Calvinist. By and large, associations that are made up predominantly of non-Calvinist churches have been accepting of Calvinist churches into their fellowship. So what made PVCC stand out so much from DMBA?

The “Pastor of Preaching and Vision” of Pleasant Valley Community Church, recent Southern Baptist Theological Seminary graduate Jamus Edwards (whose picture reflects a handsome young man), downplayed his church’s distinctive Calvinism to the Western Recorder, telling them that the church does not self-identify as Calvinist because it is not “helpful in most contexts” but rather “distracting and largely misunderstood, precisely like it was in this situation with the DMBA.” However, Edwards’ statement seems a little disingenuous in light of a number of factors. First of all, not only did PVCC refrain from using “Baptist” in their name, but also rather than making the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 their confession, the church has its own 60 page doctrinal confession instead, which is unambiguously Calvinistic. For example, the PVCC confession affirms hard determinism:

“From before the foundation of the world, in order to display His glory, God freely and unchangeably ordained all things that would come to pass. From the casting of the lot, to the bird falling from the sky, to the activities of the nations, to the plans of politicians, to the secret acts of individuals, to what will happen to us tomorrow, to scheduling the very day that we will die, God has written our stories and the stories of the entire universe.”

Also in the PVCC confession, God’s absolute predestination of everything that happens includes “the results of His plan of salvation as set forth in the Gospel of Jesus Christ” in double predestination:

“We believe that God’s election is unconditional — from Old Testament Israel to individual sinners. That is, from before the foundation of the world, God chose in His grace to save for Himself an elect people through Jesus Christ. God’s choice of His elect was in no way affected, or conditioned by, some merit or deed that He foresaw these individuals would possess. Neither (as many argue) did God make His choice based upon those whom He foresaw ‘would’ have chosen Him of their own will and accord.”

Another piece of evidence – PVCC’s strong identification with the Acts 29 Network – undermines Edwards’ claim that PVCC does not self-identify itself with Calvinists. Edwards has an interview in the Acts 29 Network website in which he clearly identifies PVCC with that group (giving special appreciation to the influence of Mark Driscoll on his life). Since the Acts 29 confession requires agreement with Calvinistic theology (note Acts 29 doctrine four, being “Reformed” in its view of salvation) as a prerequisite for participation, it appears that Edwards should have at least qualified his statement somewhat. Indeed, it is evident from the article that PVCC sought the approval of the Acts 29 Network before it sought membership in the DMBC.

Furthermore, Edwards states in the interview that in becoming pastor he “inherited an unbiblical leadership model (church government structure).” [Edwards does not describe specifically what this “unbiblical leadership model” was, but one could imagine that it was a polity common in Baptist churches, and perhaps closer to the polity outlined in the Baptist Faith and Message than PVCC’s elder-led polity]. Edwards continues: “In an effort to transition out of this unbiblical model, we took over a year to teach through 1 Timothy and the biblical model for church government. The Scriptures began to do the work and eventually the church body eagerly accepted the elder-led model.”  However Pastor Edwards reads 1 Timothy 3, the chapter that discusses the qualifications and responsibilities of the two scriptural offices in a New Testament church, it cannot possibly advocate the Presbyterian elder-led model as opposed to Baptist polity – in fact, the word “elder” doesn’t even appear in that chapter! Edwards obviously appears to be reading his Calvinistic theology into Scripture, rather than allowing Scripture to determine his theology.

So, taking all this evidence into account, it appears that Edwards’ claim that the church did not self-identify as a Calvinist fellowship is somewhat inaccurate. In fact, the church took a number of steps to distinguish themselves from other Baptist churches in name and doctrine, and sought to align themselves with Calvinistic groups before seeking membership in the DMBC. This unambiguous Calvinism was evident to the other churches in DMBA.

This is not the first time or the only issue that the Daviess-McLean Baptist Association has chosen not to be in fellowship with a church whose doctrinal views significantly differed from the other churches in the association. As the Associated Baptist Press story mentioned, DMBA voted 242-24 to withdraw fellowship from the Journey Fellowship (formerly named Seven Hills Baptist Church in Owensboro) because they hosted a group which they viewed as accepting or endorsing homosexuality. So the DMBA does not appear to be on a one-issue “witch hunt” about Calvinism, but is interested that the churches in the association be of like faith and practice in the interest of unity. This concern for doctrinal agreement is commendable. In fact, associations in general tend to be rather generous (perhaps overly so at times) in allowing for doctrinal diversity and respecting local congregational autonomy. For example, Broadway Baptist Church in Fort Worth, Texas has been removed from membership from both the Southern Baptist Convention and the Baptist General Convention of Texas because of their open advocacy of a homosexual lifestyle, but last I heard, they are still members in good standing with the Tarrant Baptist Association.

However, returning to the DMBA issue, as we often discover in counseling, it is often the case that the “presenting issue” cited as the problem at the beginning of the conversation turns out to be not the major issue when the problem is explored in greater depth. It becomes evident that there is some other deeper issue which is the most basic problem. While I’m confident that discussions about Calvinist doctrine were an important aspect of these discussions, it seems to me that the doctrinal issue was more of a “presenting issue” than a “real issue.” That leads me to the next section, the Attitudinal Aspect.

The Attitudinal Aspect

As the Baptist Press story on this issue underscored (and this has been confirmed to me by persons familiar with the situation and have talked with some of the persons involved), although it appears that there were doctrinal issues involved in denying membership to PVCC, the issues involving Calvinism did not appear to be the primary problem.  (The Baptist Press story brought out this attitudinal aspect more, while the Associated Baptist Press story underscored the theological aspect of the decision). Indeed, according to published reports, the association’s Credentials Committee said, “Ultimately, we were not satisfied that Pleasant Valley Community Church would be sympathetic with the purpose and work of the body of the DMBA,” and expressed concern about “an overall lack of the key elements of cooperation found in patience, humility, kindness, compassion and gentleness” from PVCC.

The Daviess-McLean Baptist Association committee openly acknowledged in their documents that the Pleasant Valley Community Church’s doctrine was not heretical or aberrant. According to published reports, the Credentials Committee findings stated that “We believe the teaching of Pleasant Valley Community Church to be sound in their doctrine,” and that “We know the doctrine is not heresy.” Clearly, then, the association had no question about the fact that PVCC was not aberrant or heretical in doctrine, but they did “recognize that it is vastly different than the majority of churches within the DMBA.” So, although the “presenting issue” in this case was doctrinal, it would appear that this was not just the doctrinal issue, and in fact, the issue clearly appears to be primarily one of fellowship, not doctrine.  It may be (and this is just my speculation) that the mention of Calvinism in the decision was directed more toward the nexus of negative attitudes and actions sometimes associated with some neo-Calvinists than purely the theological issues per se.

One public relations or image problem being experienced by contemporary neo-Calvinism is that the negative attitudes and actions of a few have come to stereotype the whole. This is not an observation made only by persons on the opposite side of this issue. Calvinists and other non-agenda driven friends such as Ed Stetzer, Joe Thorn (and here), Dave Miller, William Thornton (and here), Howell Scott, and others have expressed concern and even embarrassment about some neo-Calvinists who express these attitudes. As they correctly note, these attitudes give “angry Calvinists” (and their Lord) a bad name. It was a high Calvinist who taught me the term “Calvinazis,” referring to a fringe group of neo-Calvinists who sometimes exemplify strongly negative attitudes and actions at times. They characterize persons of this ilk as sometimes being angry, argumentative, arrogant, belligerent, combative, contemptuous, divisive, and schismatic. By no means are these attitudes represented by all or most neo-Calvinists, and nor am I suggesting that these attitudes were necessarily represented by anyone associated with PVCC. However, it is the nature of such stereotypes that the negative attitudes and actions of a few can color the reputation of the many. In this cyberspace age, a pastor of a small Reformed church plant can have as much or more impact through the evangelical blogosphere as larger church pastors and respected leaders. The extreme actions of a few color the perceptions of the many. Hence there is need for more circumspect neo-Calvinists to attempt to control those within their own fellowship who are more extreme in expressing these negative attitudes and actions (as many of the articles cited above sought to do).

The 104-9 vote by the messengers of local churches in Daviess-McLean Baptist Association to deny admittance to Pleasant Valley Community Church suggests that DMBA had experienced some problems with the attitudinal perspectives expressed by PVCC in a way that made the churches in DMBA reluctant to enter into fellowship with them. This was evidently why, despite acknowledging that PVCC had no doctrinal error, the member churches of the association agreed with the Credentials Committee that “ultimately” there was reason to doubt that “Pleasant Valley Community Church would be sympathetic with the purpose and work of the body of the DMBA,” and that PVCC demonstrated “an overall lack of the key elements of cooperation found in patience, humility, kindness, compassion and gentleness.” It was evidently the offensive attitudes that were exhibited by PVCC (as perceived by the member churches of DMBA), perhaps some of the attitudes stereotypically associated with some neo-Calvinists, which led the DMBA to choose to deny membership to PVCC in DMBA. The churches of DMBA (by overwhelming numbers) evidently valued harmony and unity in the association over the inclusion of a church whose leadership had already given the churches in DMBA a perception that they were lacking in cooperativeness and gentleness of spirit.

Conclusion

Let me say again that my knowledge of this situation is limited and from outside the situation, so it is possible that I may have read the situation incorrectly. But this is the sense I got from reading the published reports and talking with people familiar with the situation. In Part 2 of this article, I will suggest some possible implications of the DMBA decision for future similar situations in other churches and associations in the SBC.