Since the Calvinist’s analogy can only demonstrate God is the sole creator of life, about which we all agree, and it neither demonstrates nor even suggests that faith results from spiritual birth, I for one believe we should put it to rest. To allow the perpetuation of such a disparate example is to grant Calvinism an undeserved proof every time since it is an undeniable foregone conclusion that faith did not precede the first birth since it did not exist even as a hypothetical possibility.
The separation of church and state means that we will render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, and we will. But the preaching of the church of God does not belong to Caesar, and we will not hand it over to him. Not now. Not ever.
Kerfoot’s major contribution to his discipline was to reissue in revised form Boyce’s Abstract Although he lauded Boyce as “the greatest leader that Southern Baptists have ever had,” Kerfoot did in fact include, always in small print or footnotes, several points on which he differed from his mentor.
If there is no atonement for some people, then those people are not saveable. If no atonement exists for some, how is it possible that the gospel can be offered to those people for whom no atonement exists? If anyone is not saveable, he is not offerable. One cannot offer the gospel in any consistent way to someone for whom no atonement exists.
Piper argues for a “unique love of God for his elect that accounts for the unique effect of definite atonement in saving them.” He continues: “Others are not made alive. Therefore, this love is a distinguishing love. It is not given to all. It is given to sinners who are predestined for sonship.” Notice the logical fallacy in this argument. Granting for the sake of argument that we can distinguish different kinds of love (God’s saving love for the elect and general love for the non-elect), how does this support or entail definite atonement? It does not.