Dr. Thomas Douglas
Pastor
Parkway Baptist Church
Kansas City, KS

This is the second part of series; click to read part one.

If you have pastored for even a year, you recognize among our congregations a general lack of concern for their eternal lives. It’s seen in the ease in which people dismiss services, dismiss their obligations to the church, and dismiss the commands of God’s Word for a more culturally acceptable position. As pastors, we should not be shocked that our people don’t care about the eternal souls of others because by their behavior they lack concern for their own souls. Why do our people seemingly not care for their eternal souls?  I believe it stems from a second false implication about the finished work of Christ on the cross that has settled in our Baptist churches.

False implication #2:

Because Jesus died on the cross for my sins, I don’t have to pursue salvation.

Mix some of our favorite invitation hymns (“Only trust Him, only trust Him, only trust Him now. He will save you, He will save you, He will save you now.”  “Faith is the victory!  Faith is the victory!  Faith is the victory that overcomes the world.”  “Victory in Jesus, my Savior forever. He sought me and bought me with His redeeming blood.”) with spiritual laziness on the part of the believer and you get sinners content in their rebellious lifestyle, claiming their eternal salvation based on a said belief in Jesus as the Son of God who died on the cross for their sins.

This false implication takes the complete work of the death of Christ and the biblical understanding of the security of the believer to an illogical conclusion. The thinking goes, “Since Jesus death obtains eternal salvation for me and I can’t lose my salvation, then I don’t have to pursue eternal salvation.”  This frees people to pursue the American dream instead of experiencing God in their lives. Just a few weeks ago during the Easter season, the news across America fixated on people standing in lines for hours to buy tickets for a $640 million lottery jackpot. How many of our people came to church that Sunday more disappointed that they didn’t win and had to go to work on Monday than excited about encountering the living God who bought their eternal souls with the blood of His one and only Son?

True implication: Because Jesus’ death on the cross obtains my eternal salvation through faith, I will do everything in my power to remain in a close relationship with Him.

John Bunyan’s classic work Pilgrim’s Progress chronicles the life of “Christian” who leaves behind a pursuit of the city of destruction for the Celestial city of heaven. Along his journey he encounters several others distraught by the obligations of following Jesus, discouraged by the trials followers of Jesus endure, or distracted by a love for the world. Through all the encounters, Christian perseveres and enters heaven at the end of his earthly pilgrimage. Bunyan picks up on a theme driven throughout Scriptures:  entering in to the Promised Land is not a one-time act but a life-long pursuit.

God depicts the salvation of souls in the Old Testament by establishing His people in the Promised Land. Abraham is called to go to a land God would show him. The promise is reaffirmed with Isaac and Jacob. Then, Moses leads the people out of bondage to the edge of the Promised Land which is conquered by Joshua. Space prevents us from recounting all of the adventures, challenges, setbacks, and victories experienced by the Israelites, but they rarely enjoyed rest from their journey. Even when they resided in the Promised Land, their “rest” is challenged by their disobedience to God’s commands. Then when they endured the deportation and exile, the promise for the return and rebuilding of Jerusalem kept their hope alive.

Fast forward to the New Testament and hear Jesus’ words on the Sermon on the Mount, “Seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness (Matt. 6:33)” and His emphasis on “staying/remaining” with Him in John’s gospel (1:38-39; 6:66-68; 15:1-15). Faith in the Bible is more than thinking or feeling the right things. It begins and ends with a pursuit of the salvation of our souls that’s visibly seen in our pursuit of Jesus.

The apostles in their writings continued on the theme of pursuing salvation even after people believed in Jesus. Peter tells his readers to “be all the more diligent to make certain about His calling and choosing you (2 Pet. 1:10). John states in his first letter that he writes to confirm the eternal salvation of those  who have believed in the Son of God (1 John 5:13), but with this confirmation is a call for them to love God, love their brothers, confess their sins, test the spirits, and purify themselves as they long for the return of Christ.

Perhaps Paul provides the clearest witness to a continual pursuit of eternal life for those who have placed their faith in Christ. While many passages share Paul’s desire for others to pursue salvation, the most enlightening are the autobiographical statements about Paul’s pursuit of eternal life. It can probably go without saying that Paul championed the doctrine of justification by faith alone in Christ alone; yet when he speaks about his relationship with Jesus Paul often speaks of his pursuit of eternal life. In 1 Corinthians 9, Paul speaks of his evangelistic strategy of becoming all things to all people in order to save some and concludes by making the personal comment, “I do all things for the sake of the gospel, so that I may become a fellow partaker of it (v.23).”  Paul then employs two sporting illustrations so we understand his passion in pursuing eternal life. He wants to win the eternal “prize” and disciplines his body, “so that, after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified (v.27).”

How could Paul the Apostle, the champion of justification by faith alone in Christ alone, the champion of eternal security (Rom. 8:1; 26-38), and the champion of election (Rom. 9; Eph. 1), ever think himself to become disqualified for heaven?  The answer is simple. For Paul, faith in Jesus is not something simply declared with your mouth but also demonstrated with your life. If either your confession or your life reveals a lack of genuine faith, then your soul is in danger. To ensure that Paul never endangered his soul, he pursued his salvation (“finished the race, kept the faith”) till his dying breath by pursuing his relationship with Jesus. He states in Philippians 3:12-14 “Not that I have already obtained it or have already become perfect, but I press on so that I may lay hold of that for which also I was laid hold of by Christ Jesus. Brethren, I do not regard myself as having laid hold of it yet; but one thing I do:  forgetting what lies behind and reaching forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal of the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.”

One gets the sense that salvation obtained through faith in Jesus is the greatest pursuit someone can go after in this world. For with it comes God’s indwelling presence, His abiding peace, and His never-ending power toward us who believe. Yet so many have given up the pursuit because some preacher or Sunday School teacher told them that once they prayed a prayer, then it was a lack of faith to question their salvation. So, many in our churches have faithfully abided by this encouraging but misguided advice. They have settled securely in a mental assent to the teachings of the Gospel but have stopped pursuing the eternal Promised Land. May we follow the wonderful charge by the author to Hebrews to “run with endurance the race that is set before us, fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith (Heb. 12:1-2).

Dr. Thomas Douglas
Pastor
Parkway Baptist Church
Kansas City, KS

Ever wonder how “people of the book” can get so far away from God?  Ever struggle with church members that cling to the old rugged cross to proclaim their forgiveness for continuing in their rebellious ways?  The greatest truth in all of Scripture is that because of Jesus’ sacrificial death on the cross eternal life has been obtained for all who believe in Him as the Son of God (John 20:31; Hebrews 9:12).  No one can do anything to add to the finished work of Christ’s sacrificial death (John 19:30).

Unfortunately with this great truth comes great distortion.  Some who have claimed faith in Jesus do little to nothing to develop their spiritual lives.  They grow lazy and fat in their souls.  The idea of spiritual exercise is repugnant to them.  They have become pew potatoes and have no desire to lift a single finger for the kingdom.  When you dare ask these individuals about their spiritual life they claim their faith in Jesus as proof of God’s approval of them, sing a couple verses of “There’s Power in the Blood,” and go back to their worldly, spiritually apathetic lives.

Of course, today’s generation is not the first to misapply the message of God’s grace and love for the sake of worldly pleasure.  The Apostle Paul constantly battled against those that misapplied his gospel of grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.  In Romans, he builds his case against those that claim his teachings lead to lawlessness and increase in sin.  In Galatians, he strongly defends justification by faith alone and then follows it up with the fruit of the Spirit for guidelines on how to live out faith.

Over the next four articles I will identify 4 false implications or misapplications of the death of Christ and offer a contrasting alternative that leads to the abundant life and the eternal impact God desires for followers of Christ.  Conscious or not, those living by these false implications are in danger of trampling “underfoot the Son of God” and insulting the “Spirit of grace (Heb 10:28).”

False implication #1:

Because Jesus accomplished my salvation on the cross I don’t have to pursue God.

The thinking goes like this…

Jesus’ death shows God’s ultimate pursuit for us because we don’t naturally pursue Him (Rom 3:10-18).  Therefore, since God did all the work (“It is finished.”), I do not have to nor will I pursue Him in my daily life.  Instead of pursuing a personal relationship with God through Christ, these individuals replace God with other pursuits.  Pick a popular god of this age, whether fame, fortune, power, or pleasure and go after it.  Because Jesus took care of my salvation, I am free from seriously pursuing God, so I’ll pursue whatever fancies me.  Such individuals spend their lives chasing after various dreams and desires but end up devastated, destroyed, and defeated because they neglected the greatest part of the doctrine of the cross:  Jesus’ death reconciles us with our Creator so that we can walk with Him daily.  When they fail to find fulfillment in their pursuits either because they attain them and they fail to satisfy or God withholds them, they become disenchanted with God and question His love and goodness.

Can anyone with an ounce of objectivity come to the conclusion that in response to Jesus’ death God wanted His children to ignore Him their entire lives and instead pursue relationships with other “gods”?  People live out this implication when conflicts arise between their lives and the keys to maintaining their relationship with God.  Have season tickets to your pro team?  Ignore Sunday morning worship.  Besides, it’s only a few games a season.  God won’t care.  Have a busy week ahead?  Skip that discipleship course you started attending on Sunday nights.  Feel overwhelmed with responsibilities at home, work, and church?  Cut back on serving in the church and community.  Want to replace your car, get new carpet, buy new clothes, go on that vacation, or eat out more often?  Give up on giving and tithing.  Have to get up early but don’t want to miss your favorite late night show?  Set the alarm a little later and by-pass your quiet time.  The world presents way too many opportunities for the person that uses Jesus’ finished work on the cross as an excuse not to pursue God.

True implication: Because Jesus’ death makes it possible to have a personal relationship with God, I will live each day pursuing God with all my heart, soul, and strength (Deut.6:4).

Paul tells us in Colossians 1:19-20 that “God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.”  This great act of reconciliation opens the path to a close, daily connection with God, but this connection is neither automatic nor forced upon us by God.  Consider the rest of Paul’s thought in verses 21-23, “Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior. But now he has reconciled you by Christ’s physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation — if you continue in your faith, established and firm, and do not move from the hope held out in the gospel.”

Paul gives a huge condition to the confirmation of our reconciliation: we must continue in our faith.  How do we continue in our faith in Christ?  Don Whitney’s book, Spiritual Disciplines for the Christian Life, suggests ten ways for Christians to stay connected with God and grow in our Christlikeness:  Bible intake, prayer, worship, evangelism, serving, stewardship, fasting, silence and solitude, journaling, and learning.[1]

The ultimate pursuit of us by God as demonstrated by Jesus’ sacrifice propels us to pursue God with a passionate pursuit.  Anything less than everything falls short of “living worthy of our calling.”  In Luke 9:23 Jesus challenges us, “If anyone wants to come after Me, let him deny himself, take up his cross daily, and follow Me.”  In order to determine the intensity of the pursuit one must examine the gravity of self-denial.

Kyle Idleman, in his book Not a Fan, states, “(God) wants your love.  He longs for you to passionately pursue him.”[2] Why else would God give His only Son if not for the purpose of enjoying an intimate relationship with Him that begins the moment we believe in Christ and culminates in the return of Christ?  John saw this vision at Christ’s return:  “Behold, the tabernacle of God is among men, and He will dwell among them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself will be among them (Rev 21:3).”

Don’t wait another moment to pursue God with all your heart, soul, and strength.  Join me in a passionate pursuit of God!

By David E. Crosby, Pastor,
First Baptist Church,
New Orleans, Louisiana

The lapel buttons worn by a church staff displayed “WWCS.” I asked what the letters meant and they said, “What would Calvin say?”

My response: “Who cares?” Ever since I saw those buttons I have wanted to ask those fellows why they put Calvin’s name where the name of Jesus should be.

John Calvin is my friend, of course, as historic believers may be who have influenced us in positive ways. I enjoyed reading portions of his Institutes of the Christian Religion, and he has definitely influenced my thinking about God and salvation.

Calvin did continue to baptize infants (which I do not endorse), and at one time he ran Geneva like the city belonged to him, which seems to me to be a confusion between the city of God and the city of men. Most lamentably, he consented to the execution of Servetus in Geneva as a heretic. Executing anybody for their religious opinions should be off the agenda for followers of the executed heretic, Jesus of Nazareth.

Calvin was not perfect, we all would agree. He created an amazing systematic theology which is not perfect, either. The Bible is the infallible Word of God. The Institutes are not.

The way we interpret the Bible is of utmost importance. Trying to see how these 66 books speak in unity is not always easy. Some people think that having a systematic hermeneutic is the key.

I disagree for one obvious reason. The system—any system—is a fallible human creation. The Bible does not give us a list of TULIP principles or seven dispensations or a glossary for its vocabulary.

Therefore, no system is itself the Word of God. Anyone who sees all of Scripture through a manmade system is making a critical hermeneutical error. He is imposing a flawed system upon that which is God-breathed, and the flawed system will inevitably distort what is in perfect harmony in the heart of God.

No systematic hermeneutic exists that does not result in this distortion. That is why no such hermeneutic is recorded in the Bible. The only hermeneutic worthy of a God-breathed Word is a personal hermeneutic, God himself. Jesus as the climactic revelation of the Father is the prism through which we must read all of Scripture: the written word through the living Word. As God’s supreme revelation, Christ Jesus supersedes all human reason and logic. We blur the Word made flesh by forcing upon Him these systems which are neither of Him nor by Him. We must continually go back to simple Biblicism as our source for truth, not any man-made theological system.

Bring a TULIP system to the Word of God and the simple instruction of Jesus to love our enemies must be diced and blended. In the TULIP system God hates his enemies. Why would he instruct us to love them? Jesus taught that our love of our enemies is evidence that we are children of God because that is how God loves. The love of God for enemies, strangers, outcasts, and orphans is fundamental, yet preachers are actually declaring otherwise because they hold to an uninspired system of interpretation that seeks to give intellectual harmony to God’s inspired Word. All along God intended that we should live with the tensions and mysteries of his unfettered Word, a position that requires and inspires both humility and unity in the Body of Christ.

Every eschatological system has its own supporting proof texts, but struggles to harmonize these with other texts. For example, dispensationalism has strong support from some texts, but in its classical form it relegates the teachings of the Sermon on the Mount to a future millennial kingdom, not contemporary Christian life. Every system requires scissors and paste, new definitions for common words, and contorted interpretations of obvious texts that don’t fit the system.

I have written my own systematic primer, and I know they can be useful. We all must try to put all the biblical texts together and say what they mean. But none of these human systems perfectly expresses divine truth. Hopefully, no one will suggest that mine should become the template for understanding God’s perfect Word!

Forget Calvin. Forget the systems: dispensational, premillennial, Calvinistic, etc. Pick up your Bible. Study, meditate, and memorize. Soak yourself in the Word of God more so than what other broken people say about it. Bible study aids of all kinds can and do help us with our understanding, but they must remain secondary.

Go to the primary documents and read them for themselves. Do not force them into any preconceived structures. Come up with your own thoughts and outlines. Maybe it will blow your mind. Maybe it will liberate you from the intellectual and spiritual shackles that you think are the keys to true understanding. Shed your preconceptions and see what the Book says. Take two or three steps back and regain your child-like perspective on God and His way with us.

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.

Colossians 2:7-15

⁷ having been firmly rooted and now being built up in Him and established in your faith, just as you were instructed, and overflowing with gratitude.
⁸ See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ. ⁹ For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, ¹⁰ and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority; ¹¹ and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; ¹² having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. ¹³ When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, ¹⁴ having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. ¹⁵ When He had disarmed the rulers and authorities, He made a public display of them, having triumphed over them through Him.

⁷ having been firmly rooted and now being built up in Him and established in your faith, just as you were instructed, and overflowing with gratitude.

Two very important aspects of the believer’s relationship with the Christ are given here:

Paul reminds us of the importance of being instructed in the Word of God. Every believer will demonstrate a commitment to the Father and following the instruction of Christ.

The instruction sets the standard for the faith of developing and sustaining a faithful relationship with Jesus. The believer cannot sustain a healthy faith without the support that is found in Scripture.

⁸ See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.

Nothing has changed since the very beginning of the Christian faith. Enemies of the Cross and the believer are numerous. Paul lists them as being human philosophy, deceptions of every sort and traditions of culture. Each of these finds a commonality in the very basic principles of the world in which we live. Every excuse possible is made to satisfy our personal desires if we are not practicing the teaching of Christ and John clearly states this truth, “rather that according to Christ.” WE HAVE NO EXCUSE BEFORE GOD.

⁹ For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form,

Far too often we see the Baby Jesus wrapped in a blanket. We read and study about Him along the dusty Judean country side, busy villages and synagogues. Weeping is heard as we rehearse over and over again the horrible last week of His earthly journey. Standing in awe with the disciples as the risen Lord ascends into glory. But in all of this there remains an incredible gap of understanding that God the Creator lives in the Christ on earth in human flesh. If we could only realize that the Creator of life and universe lives in the heart of everyone who calls Him ‘LORD’……

^10a and in Him you have been made complete

All around us there is the hope for fulfillment in life, no matter the strata of circumstance. The poorest of poor want to own something, and they who can purchase any object they desire are searching for the purpose of their riches. To the amazement of all of God’s human creation He has provided the source of that eternal search in His Son. In Him alone is the abundance of completeness that we need. Note that John writes, You have been made complete in Him. All that is necessary is for every believer is to know the Truth and He will set you free!!!

^10b and He is the head over all rule and authority;

Most likely I am not any different than most who live in our nation who know that something must be done at the highest levels of government in order for our present economic and political turmoil to be corrected. But the reality is that everyone must listen to the Word of God which tells us that  “He is the head over all rule and authority.” With or without our approval God is in control and everything will work out according to His design.

¹¹ and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ;

Circumcision is an outstanding promise that is mostly misunderstood by everyone. I am not certain that anyone has ever grasped the truth of this. Certainly we are able to read the text, but have we not missed the application? I tend to think so. Please note that by the circumcision of Christ the removal of the heart of flesh has been replaced by the heart of Christ. He is Lord of everyone who calls upon the Name of the Lord for Salvation and follows Him.

¹² having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.

Not enough is said about baptism. I tend to believe that baptism is much, much more than a simple symbol of following the Christ. Paul writes that we put on Christ in baptism…symbolism? Not as the Scripture says that we are raised with Him through our faith in the working of God in our hearts through the circumcision mentioned in the previous phrase. As Christ arose from the grave of death, the new believer also comes from the grave of eternal death to walk in newness of life with the risen Christ. How much better can life be???

¹³ When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions,

Christ has made the believer alive in Him because of the very fact of His act of forgiveness on the Cross. This cannot be made more clear and understandable.

¹⁴ having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.

There is no doubt that the cross event is the most important moment in the history of mankind followed by His resurrection a few days later. These two moments are the most single significant event in the course of all human history, period. The condemnation of sin has been removed and the hope of eternal life is provided. But that hope can only be known for those who do choose follow Him.

¹⁵ When He had disarmed the rulers and authorities, He made a public display of them, having triumphed over them through Him.

Glory!!!! God has disarmed all authorities and principalities on the planet. Our doubts and fears rest only in our faith in who He is. But God disarmed these fears when we place our faith and trust in Him. Only trust Him and read in Luke 21:28, “…your redemption is drawing near.”

Jesus is Lord

Recently, Barry King, pastor of Grace Baptist Church (http://tiny.cc/te1v3), Wood Green, London came into contact with some friends in Germany who are at the heart of a struggle for Biblical reformation in their land. The testimony of Anita Kupfermann is sending shock waves through the churches of Germany.  Her complete testimony was published in German in Bibel und Gemeinde in the October 2011 issue (pp. 9-14). This English translation is published here in hopes of encouraging prayer for Anita and others like her who are standing for Biblical orthodoxy in Germany.

Would you join him in prayer for God to continue to move among German Baptists?

– the Editors of SBC Today

My Life Changed! How God Gave Me Faith:
A Testimony

by Anita Kupfermann



Dear Reader,

Thank you for taking the time to read my story!

My name is Anita Kupfermann and I would like to tell you about my time studying theology.  It is my hope that this little account of my experiences will serve as a warning and an encouragement to you. I would like to warn you of how the so-called “Higher Critical” (Historical Criticism) method left my relationship with God, and therefore my entire life, severely damaged. Yet I equally hope to encourage you! I can testify with great joy and thankfulness that the Lord Jesus Christ, during my time at university, healed my unbelief and called me to follow Him.

I hope and pray that God will be glorified through these pages and that you, the reader, will be encouraged to fully trust the Word of God.

My Time At Theological College & the Higher Critical Method (HCM)

Through my parents I was confronted with the Christian faith at an early age. I regularly went to Sunday School and was baptized at the age of 14.

A full ten years later, whilst working at a nursery, I was gripped by the desire to do something else with my time, something equally meaningful.  I wanted to submit myself to the Word of God and reflect on my walk with God. Although I had been baptized, I realized that I did not know the Bible. I couldn’t say I had a living relationship with God.  I longed to know God better, to better understand what being a Christian meant. So, I decided to attend a theological college for ten months. My hope was that these ten months would supply what was missing in my faith.

Right from the beginning of my time at theological college I was confronted with Biblical criticism in the form of the “Higher Critical” method, (HCM). The HCM is the current philosophy of understanding and explaining Bible passages at German universities, as well as at many free-church theological colleges. According to this philosophy the Bible is not understood to be the inspired Word of God but a contradictory, mistake-prone, human work. Just like any other piece of literature it must be critically questioned and examined. This method of approaching the biblical texts normally leads to rejecting the historicity of the Bible – in other words, the historical accuracy and reliability of the Bible is questioned. Simply put, the Bible’s stories are just myths that never happened.

An example of this technique may help explain what it looks like in practice.

We were taught that Mark’s Gospel has its origin dated back to roughly 70 A.D. According to the HCM, it is categorically denied that it was possible for Jesus Christ to have seen the future. However Mark’s Gospel reports that Christ predicts the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. This prophecy was perfectly fulfilled: in 70 A.D. the Romans razed the temple to the ground. The majority of critical researchers believe that the prophecy in Mark is a fake prophecy, (vaticinium ex eventu). Only after the event, they assume, was Jesus’ prophecy added to the text. The Gospel of Mark cannot have predicted the future destruction of the temple, therefore it must have been written afterwards.

With this fixed, faithless presupposition, the Holy Bible is critically evaluated until all her reports are questionable. A few more short examples give a fuller picture of the results of this modern critical scientific approach to the Bible:

Adam and Eve never existed. Rather, they are merely literary symbols for all of humanity. Hence, there never was a real fall into sin.

Noah and the ark is a legend, not a real event.

The first five books of the Bible were not written by Moses. Instead they were compiled by at least three different writers over a long period of time. Moreover they are, at least in part, contradictory.

The Ten Commandments did not come from God but slowly evolved from various stories. This happened a long time after Moses had died.

The conquests such as those that are recorded in Joshua never happened.

Jesus’ words and deeds in the Gospels were often invented later by well meaning Christians. Therefore, much of the Gospels is simply fictitious. For example; Jesus never talked about His death, much less His resurrection. Furthermore His identity as the promised Christ and as the Son of God was also invented at a much later date. He never wanted to start a church or reach out to the Gentiles.

Paul is not the author of the New Testament letters to the Colossians, Ephesians, 2 Thessalonians and 1 and 2 Timothy, or Titus. Neither did Peter write the letters ascribed to him.

These are just some of countless examples. The theories of the HCM were not taught at this theological college, or in my later studies, to merely acknowledge them. Instead they were taught and proclaimed with conviction. Under the influence of such teaching, the reliability of the Bible was increasingly questioned. I became more and more convinced that the Bible is not the infallible Word of God but a jumbled collection of human, (i.e. imperfect) thoughts about God and life.

An unavoidable question-mark was now next to every person and event in the Bible. Moreover, as well as my new discoveries about the unreliability of the Bible, my ethical convictions were also brought into question. At the college we discussed themes such as homosexuality and sex outside of marriage. Were these perhaps permissible after all? In short, I felt my doubts about Christianity and the Bible grow and grow. If everything is not as it was written then, how could I be sure of anything I believed?

My skepticism blossomed as we took up the theme of world religions in our classes. Faced with a deep crisis of faith, I seriously considered giving up Christianity. My lecturers were so certain that it could only be good for me to give up the fundamentals of my former faith. Only such a “deconstruction” would give me a new mature and responsible faith. Such was their conviction for my life, and I desperately hoped that they were right.

My Time at the Theological Seminary

After these ten months I returned to my old job for a year. During this time I toyed with the idea of furthering my education. As the questions raised by the HCM still occupied my thoughts, I was keen to further study theology. In addition I rather liked the thought of becoming a pastor. So it was that 2007 saw me begin to study theology at the Theological Seminary of the German Baptist Union. I received no call to this by God, even if I tried to talk myself into believing this was the case. I talked with many people about my plans, but not with God Himself.

In the meantime I no longer sought to question the HCM as I was well familiar with its teachings from my previous time at college. However, the criticism of the Bible was to increase dramatically over the next few years.

I can still remember, for example, a lecturer leaving a lecture hall, stopping at the doorway to say, “Tomorrow we’ll kill Moses!” He meant that the following day we would be taught that historically, Moses never existed as the Bible taught. Furthermore I learnt that many of the Old Testament accounts were nothing more than myths and legends; far removed from history and reality. The Jewish worship of Yahweh, – the temple system, services, festivals, and commandments, – was mostly copied from the religions of Israel’s neighbours at that time. Over hundreds of years the biblical texts were added to, changed and consciously manipulated by numerous unknown authors. This is why the Bible is (apparently!) so full of contradictions. If given room to do so, the HCM swiftly gains power, tearing through every point of doctrine like a hurricane, until assurance of faith lies shattered.

I heard many students say that these “academic” discoveries were a great help for them; at the time I agreed, or at least talked myself into agreeing. In reality I was beginning to reap the bitter harvest of my new, “mature” faith. At the end of the second semester I came to the firm conclusion that the Bible was totally unbelievable and thus I laid it aside at the bottom of my bookshelves. I had no more desire to read it, let alone to try and live according to it. I did not pray any more, nor did I ask God for help or wisdom. I was just too confident of my new critical attitude.

Despite having no inner relationship with God, I continued with the outward appearance of wanting to be a pastor. I preached and seemed religious – at least whilst in church! It was a different story when I was with my fellow students. There I did not hold myself back, increasingly getting drunk at parties and losing my distaste for lying and cheating. I especially enjoyed gossiping and slandering the other students. In this case I had a specific target, a group of young men who annoyed me beyond all else. They wholeheartedly believed in the Scriptures as the Word of God. There was a small group of students in my semester who defended the trustworthiness of the Scriptures – even in our classes.  This greatly irritated me and other students and thus we delighted to spread rumors about them.

In doing this I was not in the least bothered by my conscience. I had long lost any fear of God or an eternal punishment. The words of warning in the Scriptures weren’t important to me. The god I had discovered through my studies did not get angry, respected people’s doubts and forgave everyone everything. What did I have to be afraid of? Why not have fun and live life to the max? This was my new philosophy for life, and this was how I lived. However, once the initial euphoria had left, life became worse and worse for me, until I felt there was nothing for me to stand on. An inner emptiness made it increasingly clear that I had no true life or peace. In books critical of the Bible and in conversations I tried to find what I was missing, but to no avail.

Finally I asked an evangelist I met at a church event to pray for me. I longed for a real relationship to God but felt unable to ask Him. It was as if I had lost any ability to pray.

The Change!

A few weeks later the preacher’s prayer was answered. On the 6th December, 2008 the Lord opened my eyes to see my guilt and godless life.

The catalyst for this was a polemical speech given by a lecturer at a film evening at the seminary. Above all, he mocked those who put their trust in the reliability of every word in the Bible. One of those being mocked sat right in front of me and didn’t react. I talked to him afterwards and he assured me that he was not ashamed of his faith. His inner peace and assurance made me stop and think. I asked myself how the rest of the Bible-believers, or “Fundys” (short for fundamentalists) as we called them, reacted to all this.

To my great amazement they did not consider boycotting the classes. Instead they continued to meet together every day to pray for the mockers, lecturers, and the entire seminary. I saw that the Lord was their shield, that He had given them a firm faith. The Bible says that Christians do not live for themselves anymore, but for Him who died for them.  Thanks to these young men I was able to see that the grace of God was working in them. They did not feel forced to defend themselves. I did not think this was a normal reaction to such a situation and I was greatly impressed. They simply passed the humiliation that they suffered on to Christ, and so anger or a desire for revenge simply had no hold on them.

After all these events, I drove home to spend Christmas with my family. There I recognized even more that I had despised God through my embrace of higher criticism. I had denied God’s word, rejected God’s grace, and mocked God’s servants. Worse than all, I had called myself a Christian and cared nothing for the atonement Christ bought at the cost of His life. This I realized to be an unbearably dreadful mistake. Over Christmas and with many tears I repented of many things, seeking God in prayer, and rejoiced to know His full and free forgiveness. With a glad heart I bought a new Bible and began to read it eagerly and joyfully; today I enjoy this book as much as I did then!

I called on the Lord Jesus Christ, humbling myself before him. I entrusted my life to Him and told Him that from now on I would believe His Word, no matter what questions I might have. To this day I do not have an answer to everything, but I am fully convinced that the Bible is completely inspired by God; inerrant and infallible in all that it teaches. I thank God from the bottom of my heart for the sovereign grace that He poured over me in letting me see my sinfulness and the Savior who has given me such forgiveness.

Dear Reader, I am so happy that you have read my testimony to the end. God has richly blessed my life and by His grace I believe that His Word is truth. (John 17: 17) It is very precious to be able to believe with childlike faith; I do not bother myself with any doubts or so-called academic discoveries that call into question the trustworthiness of the Bible. Instead I find in Christ, the true subject of Scripture, all the riches of wisdom and insight. Let us trust our Lord and Savior, for then He will bless us. My prayer is that you, too, will be saved from unbelief and that your faith in God and His Word will grow from strength to strength.

In Christ,
Anita Kupfermann

The Bible:

“This book speaks of the thoughts of God, mankind’s condition, the way of salvation, the unfortunate fate of all unrepentant sinners, and the joyous future of all believers. Its teaching is holy, its commandments binding, its decrees unchanging. Read it to become wise, believe it to be saved, obey it to become holy. It contains light to guide you, food to strengthen you, comfort to gladden you. It is the traveler’s map, the pilgrim’s staff, the seaman’s compass, the soldier’s sword and the Christian’s royal book. Here Eden is restored, Heaven is opened and the doors to Hell revealed. Christ is its great theme, our wellbeing its product, and the glory of God its one great aim. It should fill our minds, rule our hearts and determine the steps of our feet.

Read it carefully, thoughtfully, regularly, and prayerfully. It is goldmine of riches, a paradise of glory, and a river of joy. It is given to you in life, it will be opened at the day of final judgment and will remain in our hearts for all eternity. It brings the greatest responsibility with it, will reward all our efforts to live by it, and will damn all that ignore her.”

by Steve Lemke, Provost, Professor of Philosophy and Ethics, McFarland Chair of Theology, and Director of the Baptist Center for Theology and Ministry at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary.

A debate has been swirling in Apologetics circles (particularly the Evangelical Philosophical Society) between two well-known and effective Christian apologists, Norman Geisler and Michael Licona. We at SBC Today have been aware of the debate for some time, but withheld comments on it in hope that a resolution amenable to all parties would take place. After the EPS meeting in San Francisco earlier this month, it has become apparent that no such reconciliation is likely. Therefore, we want to describe our understanding of what has happened (in Part 1), particularly for those of you who were not previously aware of this controversy. In a future post (Part 2), we would like to attempt to provide some perspective on the debate.

The subject of this controversy is Mike Licona, a Christian apologist who (until recently) served as Apologetics Coordinator for the North American Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, and as a research professor at Southern Evangelical Seminary in North Carolina. He has spoken and debated on behalf of positions held by evangelical Christians in numerous venues – regional Baptist meetings, evangelism conferences, scholarly meetings, and college campuses. He is a member of the Evangelical Philosophical Society, which requires an affirmation of the inerrancy of Scripture as a prerequisite for membership. So, to summarize, Licona is a conservative evangelical and inerrantist who has served the SBC effectively in addressing Apologetics issues in conferences, churches, and college campuses.

The focus of the controversy is several pages in Licona’s new book, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach (Downer’s Grove: IVP, 2010). The overwhelming majority of this book is very positive, presenting a careful and well-researched scholarly defense of the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus. However, it is just a few pages (pp. 185-186, 548-553) out of this 718 page book around which the controversy has swirled. On these pages Licona addresses “that strange little text” (p. 548) in Matt. 27:52-53, which describes six events after the crucifixion – darkness, an earthquake, the tearing of the temple veil, rocks splitting, the opening of tombs, and some saints coming to life from the tombs. Licona mentions this scriptural account while addressing John Dominic Crossan’s hypothesis that these events were associated with the “harrowing of hell” (1 Pet. 3:19-20, 4:6). Licona suggests that apocalyptic events such as these were claimed in Greco-Roman literature at the death of kings (Romulus, Julius Caeser, Cladius, etc.) and similar significant events. Indeed, Licona notes, the Roman historian Lucian openly admitted that he embellished his stores “for the sake of ‘dullards’” (p. 549).

Licona also notes the similarity of these words and events with the apocalyptic language utilized in Old Testament texts (Judg. 5:4; 1 Kings 19:11-12; Ps. 77:18; Isa. 2:19, 5:25, 24:18; Jer. 4:23-24, 15:9; Ezek. 37:12-13; Dan. 12:2; Joel 2:2, 10, 28-32; Amos 8:8-9; Nah. 1:5-6; Zeph. 1:15-18; and Zech. 14:4). Since Matthew would have been familiar with this Old Testament apocalyptic language and the practice of “phenomenological language used in a symbolic manner in both Jewish and Roman literature relating to major events,” Licona proposes that it is “most plausible” that Matt. 27:53-54 be understood as “special effects” drawn from “eschatological Jewish texts” (p. 552). Licona also “forthrightly” acknowledges that not only these events but also including the post-resurrection appearances of angels (Matt. 28:2-7, Mark 16:5-7, Luke 24:4-7, and John 20:11-13) were possibly “mixed with legend” (p. 185). Licona holds this interpretation despite acknowledging that (a) the darkness was reported in all three Synoptic gospels, as well as by the secular historian Thallus, and (b) that earthquakes were common in that region, which would have accounted for the earthquake, the tearing of the temple veil, the rocks splitting, and the tombs opening.

Enter Norman Geisler. Norman Geisler is one of the best known conservative Christian apologists over the last few decades, the former President of Southern Evangelical Seminary and of the Evangelical Theological Society. He was a framer and original signer of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, and wrote the commentary for the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics. Geisler expressed concern that Licona’s interpretation of Matt. 27:52-53 did not pass muster with inerrancy as defined in the Chicago Statement. After a personal note received no response from Licona for a month, Geisler published his first open letter to Licona. After Licona continued not to respond, Geisler published a second open letter (August 21, 2011). Licona did respond with his own open letter (August 31), which included Licona’s reaffirmation of inerrancy, an acknowledgment that in any such book “there will always be portions in which one could have articulated a matter more appropriately,” and a statement that the furor had led him to “reexamine” his position, resulting in at least this concession: “…at present I am just as inclined to understand the narrative of the raised saints in Matthew 27 as a report of a factual (i.e., literal) event as I am to view it as an apocalyptic symbol. It may also be a report of a real event described partially in apocalyptic terms. I will be pleased to revise the relevant section in a future edition of my book.” Geisler responded with a third open letter (September 8), in which he did not find Licona’s concessions sufficient. At the ETS meeting in San Francisco, Licona presented a paper that defended the ahistorical reading of Matthew 27, but also characterized himself as “undecided” in interpreting that text. Geisler responded to Licona’s paper as well.

By this time, a number of others were weighing in on the debate. Al Mohler published a post largely critical of Licona, to which Licona responded. Baptist Press had two articles, one citing the concerns with Licona’s views, and another offering a response from Licona. Geisler then posted his response to the Baptist Press articles. Among others, Peter Lumpkins, Tim Rogers, James White, and Nick Norelli (here and here) essentially agreed with Geisler and Mohler that Licona’s interpretation of Matthew 27 (and inerrancy) was problematic. Christianity Today also published an article on the controversy, (basically pro-Licona) to which Geisler also responded.

On the other side, a number of Christian apologists and New Testament scholars rose to Licona’s defense (while not necessarily agreeing with his interpretation of Matthew 27), asserting that Licona’s view was not inconsistent with inerrancy. Some such defenders included (among many others) Licona’s son-in-law Nick Peters (here and here), Steve Hays (here and here), Jason Engwer, Max Andrews, Jacob Allee (here and here),  Randy Everist, Brian LePort, Marc Cortez, Michael Bird, Randal Rauser, J. P. Holding, and Dave Jones. In addition, after Licona’s first response to Geisler, a number of well-known evangelical scholars affirmed that despite most of them disagreeing with Licona’s specific interpretation of Matthew 27, “we are in firm agreement that it is compatible with biblical inerrancy.” This group included David Beck, Craig Blomberg, James Chancellor, William Lane Craig, Gary Habermas, Craig Keener, Douglas Moo, J. P. Moreland, Daniel B. Wallace, and Edwin Yamauchi. Paul Copan, President of EPS, while also disagreeing with Licona’s interpretation of Matthew 27, has also affirmed that Licona’s view is consistent with inerrancy.

Meanwhile, secular humanists and skeptics have gleefully enjoyed the intramural evangelical fight, though clearly siding with the Licona perspective (here, here, and here). This has led some evangelicals such as Stephen Bedard to plea for peace from both sides.

So, what do you think about all this? I’ll be providing my perspective in Part 2.

By Dan Nelson, Pastor,
First Baptist Church,
Camarillo, CA

A very distinctive mark of Baptists is our insistence that biblical authority as our sole authority for faith and practice. I realize that this is hardly an exclusive claim for every church with a high view of God’s Word. For these churches could make a similar statement. As a matter of fact, there may be a misunderstanding of perceived arrogance by Baptists about this position. So far, I have tried to disclose a biblical perspective for our emphasis. I want to do the same here.

The claim of biblical authority is not inferring that Baptists are the only ones approaching everything from a biblical perspective. What I have always said is that “we don’t say we are the only ones right in our church, but we believe the Bible is our authority and we try to follow the Bible as closely as possible”. This position is my disclaimer statement to those who feel we might sound arrogant or intolerant about this particular topic.

To understand this position, we need to understand the competitors to biblical authority. I am not saying that these competitors erase belief in biblical views but that these factors compete for that position. What are these other sources of authority?

Traditionalism: Catholicism and all who have a similar system of belief structure base their authority on tradition. Catholicism has added much tradition through the years. Cultural practices, papal bulls, biblical illiteracy, and accumulation of practice through the years in many nations contribute to this strong trend. The Bible is minimized when stacked up to tradition. Another way of looking at it is that tradition covers up biblical truth. You have the Bible on a table and you cover it with papers and stuff. The Bible is under there somewhere, but you have to peel everything away.

One of the most obvious contrasts here is that the mode and purpose of baptism is viewed differently between Baptists and Catholics. The sacramental system is built on traditional church practices through the centuries. It hardly has any biblical support.[1]

Revelation and Impulses: Charismatic churches actually suggest they believe more of the Bible today than other churches because of their acceptance of the sign gifts as operative and normative for today. The point of their validity is very well debated. In reality, though, the leadership of the Holy Spirit in their lives as they perceive Him becomes more important in priority. You will hear statements like: “God said this to me.” There are many levels of this type of thinking because of various types of charismatic influence. These churches feel they are thoroughly biblical and following existential revelation that is biblical to them.[2]

Where sign gifts are predominant, knowing the full revelation of God – as taught on a consistent basis – is minimized. Biblical authority, then, is thus deferred.

Liberalism and Cultural Relativism: The battle for the Bible in the twentieth century has led to liberalism and skepticism affecting most mainline denominational churches. Southern Baptists have had a resurgence of biblical authority by affirming our belief in the inspired, inerrant word of God.

The lack of biblical authority is apparent in these denominations when they accept homosexuality and ordain homosexual priests. Skepticism of Scripture has been the source of acceptance for many societal sins. In the political arena, a position of a political party becomes more important than moral values. Some said to me after learning of my criteria for a political candidate regarding moral values, “Why don’t you use something substantial?”[3]

The basis for a low view of Scripture is changing, and the church feels the need to change with it. Gay marriage, abortion, and a lack of religious influence in society are all accepted today by a significant portion of our culture. While I was attempting to explain the Baptist view of things in a liberal church seminar, someone said, “Don’t we need to change with society to bring more people into the church?” I answered, “We don’t change the Bible for people’s sins; we bring people to the Bible and they are changed by its message.” The decline of these mainline denominational churches in the latter part of the twentieth century proves that accepting society’s trends contradictory to the Bible does not bring more people into the church.[4]

Pragmatism: The diversion of pragmatism is more deceptive. Pragmatism is one of the driving forces of many contemporary churches. I will not lump all types of churches into this category. As already stated the driving force is usually a worthy one – to reach people for Christ by whatever means possible. “Doctrine,” unfortunately, in a majority of these churches is not a popular term.

Topical messages and need-oriented ministry predominates in typical churches driven by pragmatism. The “whatever works” mentality is different from liberalism in that it is usually driven by belief in God’s word as truth.[5] The difference in approach to Scripture is the contrast that results in minimizing not only Baptist distinctives but all biblical truths that could be emphasized.

It is easy for me to mark the differences in groups who do not have a high degree of biblical authority. There must be clear delineation of these differences. These distinctives will be broadened and find more agreement with other groups. Yet, our emphasis of these truths determines our depth of authority. These are very definite. There must be a biblical authority in what we believe and basis for why we believe it. Then we will give a reason why we are people of the Book and not just make it a catch phrase.

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.