Considering Theological Over-Reaction

The Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) has a strange history. Many, not all, of the Founders of the SBC would have self-identified as Calvinists, or Particular Baptists. J.L. Dagg’s Systematic Theology is one example. Tom Nettles traces the history in By His Grace and For His Glory. Over the years, Arminianism took root in the SBC. There has been a resurgence of Calvinism that parallels the resurgence of Calvinism prompted, in large part, by the ministries of men like J.I. Packer and R.C. Sproul. Men like Tom Nettles and Tom Ascol formed the Founders’ Conference. Let’s just say there has been some push back from the SBC at large.

The latest has emerged in a series of Affirmations and Denials in A Statement of the Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God’s Plan of Salvation. As I read the document, my thought was that they gutted the gospel in an attempt, in their minds, to save the gospel from those pernicious Calvinists. The affirmations and denials, in their own words, ultimately cause problems in understanding the gospel. This is an exercise in theological over-reaction. They fulfilled one of the CavCorollaries: in theological disputation we tend to move to greater extremes.

We deny that only a select few are capable of responding to the Gospel while the rest are predestined to an eternity in hell.

I would take issue with the phrase “select few”. I believe there will be a numberless multitude according to Revelation. They don’t affirm what Scripture means when it talks about election, chosen in Christ before the creation of the world (Eph. 1). But early on, you can see they are asserting a particular view of free will. They don’t seem to realize that Calvinists hold to free will (there is a whole chapter on it in the Westminster Confession of Faith). The difference is that they don’t really see much of an effect from Adam’s sin to the will of man.

We deny that Adam’s sin resulted in the incapacitation of any person’s free will or rendered any person guilty before he has personally sinned. While no sinner is remotely capable of achieving salvation through his own effort, we deny that any sinner is saved apart from a free response to the Holy Spirit’s drawing through the Gospel.

Here is a denial of what we find in Romans 5- the imputation of Adam’s sin to all. Paul teaches that all sinned in Adam. He stresses the “one man’s trespass” in contrast to the “one man’s obedience”. You see, if you deny the imputation of Adam’s sin, you lose the basis for the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. You … gut the gospel. Paul is teaching covenant theology here as the basis for the fall of humanity and salvation in Christ.

We deny that grace negates the necessity of a free response of faith or that it cannot be resisted. We deny that the response of faith is in any way a meritorious work that earns salvation.

Read Full Post »

Considering Jesus and the Free Offer of the Gospel

The other day I was reading John 6 for my personal devotions. I’ve had quite a few conversations about the free offer of the gospel. Often, I find people putting logic over revelation in the discussion. They think the logical conclusion of what is commonly called Calvinism is that the gospel is not offered freely to all. I’m not interested in recapping the arguments. Sometimes people mean something different from what has commonly and historically been meant. They apply that “devilish reason” (as Luther called it) to it and come away thinking it means God is confused and willing the salvation of reprobate.

Back to John 6. Beginning in verse 22 Jesus is addressing the crowd that has found him in a synagogue. So, we have the same discourse and the same audience for the comments we find that some would find in direct conflict.

²⁸ Then they said to him, “What must we do, to be doing the works of God?” ²⁹ Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.”

He’s been encouraging them to seek the bread that leads to eternal life. He is saying these things precisely because they are seeking him for another miracle like the feeding of the 5,000. They want food, not life. They ask what work they should be doing. He tells them to believe in him, the one God has sent. Jesus tells an audience, that is not seeking eternal life, that has no interest in the gospel, to believe in him.

Read Full Post »

Considering Reason and Revelation

Some pastoral questions have brought the disagreement between Van Til and Gordon Clark to mind.  It isn’t so much the views of those men, but some problems I see emerging when reason is elevated above revelation.

This is one of the dangers of “Christian rationalism”.  The mind subtly usurps the authority of Scripture, or special revelation.  They wouldn’t admit to this (I think), but you see it when there is the denial of various doctrines because it does not make sense in light of other doctrines.  They have a hard time reasoning these apparently opposite doctrines that are found in Scripture.  Rather than submit their minds before Scripture, they make the Scriptures submit to their “rational” theology.

There are 2 doctrines in particular that have been problematic for many who espouse Clark’s views.  They affirm the doctrine of election or predestination.  This is the problem, so to speak.  They have a difficult time with both common grace and the free offer of the gospel.  These don’t doctrines don’t make “sense” in light of election, but our minds are not the measure of truth.  Our theology is not to settle for “reasonable” but to reflect revelation.

Read Full Post »

Considering Election and Righteousness

I have been a Christian who holds to the theology expressed in the 5-Points of Calvinism (a response to the Arminians) for approximately 20 years.  It was a view that grew out of my reading of Scripture, but the puzzle became clear when I read R.C. Sproul’s Chosen by God.

You can imagine that I’ve heard a few objections, theological and philosophical over the years.  There are also practical objections that are common raised as well.  One of them is that the Reformed doctrine of election undermines personal holiness or righteousness.  It is an important objection, though I think an unfounded objection.  Sure, there are people who are confessionally Calvinists but who are either in great obedience or are counterfeit Christians.  Rightly understood, the biblical texts regarding election point us in a very different direction.

Let’s start in Genesis 18.  God is speaking of Abraham.

¹⁹ For I have chosen him, so that he will direct his children and his household after him to keep the way of the LORD by doing what is right and just, so that the LORD will bring about for Abraham what he has promised him.” (NIV, 1984)

The Hebrew for chosen here is ‘yada’ which means to know.  It can mean to know intimately.  As such it is often used as a euphemism for sexual intercourse.  It can also mean to discriminate or distinguish.  This is the meaning the majority of modern translators use.  God knew Abraham and chose him.

Here we see one of the purposes tied with the great promises of Genesis 12.  He was to direct his children in the “way of the Lord”, a way that means doing what is righteous and just.  Abraham was not chosen because he was righteous and just, but so that God would make him righteous and just.

In order to be a blessing to the nations, Israel had to be righteous and just.  To be righteous is to live in conformity to the law (which is a reflection of God’s character).  It is about our actions with respect to the law.  To be just is to act toward others with respect to their actions with respect the law.  I give them what they deserve.  Just people protect the oppressed and bring the oppressors to account for how they exploit others.  Our sin and injustice curses others.

Righteous and just communities are formed by families that are righteous and just.  Those families are not accidental, but have parents (particularly fathers) who instruct their children in God’s ways.  This is the point of Deuteronomy 6:6-7.  Godliness usually begins in the home.  Proverbs was written to instruct children in godly living- which starts in that commitment of faith the book calls them to in the early chapters.

Read Full Post »

Considering Christlikeness

The second neglected aspect of discipleship John Stott addresses in The Radical Disciple is Christlikeness.  This, in my mind, is the very goal of discipleship.  So I guess that if there is actually neglected, we don’t even have discipleship.  That is a radical concept.

Stott lays out 3 texts that are foundational to this concept of Christlikeness.  The first is from Romans 8.

²⁸And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. ²⁹For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. (ESV)

Here the process of becoming conformed to the likeness of Christ (instead of the world) is largely passive on our part.  It is God who is working all things in our lives (including our sin) for this purpose.  His love resulted in election with this purpose of being conformed into the image of Jesus.  God’s goal, as C.S. Lewis put it, is perfection and He will not rest until He is done.  It will often be an arduous process for us.

Paul returns to the process in Romans 12.  Again, we are the objects of transformation.  This time it is not through our circumstances (God’s providential working in our lives), but the renewal of the mind.  This won’t happen unless we actually read the Scriptures, but God is at work when we do to transform us so we are no longer conformed to the likeness of the world.

From Romans we see, in part, that God is ultimately in control of the process not us.  One of the strengths of the Puritan’s theology was providence, and seeing sanctification as taking place (in part) through those providentially arranged circumstances.  Instead of avoiding hardship, they wanted to be shaped by it through the gospel.

Where Stott errs is in limiting this text (Romans 8) to the past.  Our election takes place in the past, but God is working now to conform us to the image of Jesus.  That is a small problem, not a big one.

The second is 2 Corinthians 3:18.

6But when one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed. ¹⁷Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. ¹⁸And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another. For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit. (ESV)

One again we are passive.  At conversion, God removes the veil that covers our faces when we read the Old Covenant.  Interesting, the problem is not the Old Covenant but the veil which is removed.  Now we are being transformed from glory to glory.  When?  When we we behold the glory of the Lord in the face of Jesus (4:6).  Once again Scripture is central to our sanctification, for it is there that we behold Jesus (not in some mystical experience).  After all, Paul was talking about reading the Old Covenant to see the glory of God.  But we do see the present work of God to remake us in the image of Jesus.

Read Full Post »

Considering Differences Among Us

In The Letters of John Newton, the last letter to Rev. Symonds concerns the differences that exist among Christians.  Some of those are differences in belief, and some are differences in practice.  Newton’s comments lead us toward charity on the non-essentials.

He had recently moved from Olney to London.  There in London his sphere of influence was greatly enlarged.  This mean that a wide range of people were coming to hear him preach.  He mentions “Churchmen and Dissenters, Calvinists and Arminians, Moravians and Methodists, now and then I believe Papists and Quakers sit quietly to hear me.”

I know that in the churches I’ve served, this can often be true.  There have been a hodge-podge of backgrounds and present views.  And you just never know where that visitor is coming from.

What he says in the rest of the letter concerns our brothers with whom we disagree.  Don’t take them as applying to denominational standards.  The greater the bond the greater the agreement must be.  Denominations do well to have statements of faith that are binding (even if I disagree with many a denomination’s’ particulars).

“Whoever wants to confine me to follow his sentiments, whether as to doctrine or order, is so far a papist.  Whoever encourages me to read the Scriptures, and to pray for the teaching of the Holy Spirit, and then will let me follow the life the Lord Jesus gives me, without being angry with me because I cannot and will not see with his eyes, nor wear his shoes, is a consistent Protestant.”

He accuses those who demand that others believe as they do, and do as they do of acting like a Pope.  Such people, though often claiming to be Protestants, condemn all who disagree with them.  For instance, this is the issue the Ray Ortlund, Jr. has with the “Truly Reformed“.  In their zeal for truth, particularly Reformed Theology, they condemn all who do not believe (and do) as they believe (and do).  They have lapsed into functional papacy.

This does not mean we should not expect others to hold to essentials of the faith (unless we start thinking everything is essential, which is what these folks do).  He continues:

“The depravity of human nature; the deity of the Savior; the influences of the Holy Spirit; a separation from the world, and a devotedness to God- these are principles which I deem fundamental; and though I would love and serve all mankind, I can have no religious union or communion with those who deny them.”

There are certain minimal beliefs that make one an orthodox Christian.  Newton does not deny this.  But he does not want to hold people to the maximum standard before admitting them as brothers.

“Though a man does not accord with my views of election; yet if he gives me good evidence that he is effectually called of God, he is my brother.  Though he seems afraid of the doctrine of final perseverance; yet if grace enable him to persevere, he is my brother still.  If he love Jesus, I will love him; whatever hard name he may be called by, and whatever incidental mistakes I may think he holds.  His different from me will not always prove him to be wrong, except I am infallible myself.”

Newton looks for evidences of the grace of God in them, not theological consistency.  The key word is “incidental” mistakes.  For instance, Rob Bell’s increasing syncretism is not an “incidental mistake”.  Rob needs the real gospel.  But Protestants can disagree on issues regarding baptism, the Table, election, the covenants, the millennium etc.  I did say Protestants since the Roman views of baptism and the Table depart too far from Scripture as to be heretical.

Newton gets to the main point at the very end.  We cannot expect everyone to agree with us, submitting to our view of things unless we somehow mistakenly think we are infallible- that we are the Pope speaking ex cathedra (from his chair on matters of faith and morals).  No mere man is infallible, but we all err.  And this ought to humble us as we interact with brothers on matters of dispute.  Treat them as brothers, not enemies.  Grant one another grace and continued love.

Read Full Post »

Considering Good Works, Perseverance & Assurance

Some more from the Westminster Confession of Faith for you.  Since I’m covering the Perseverance of the Saints today, I’ll toss out a great quote as a freebie.

“There is one grace you cannot counterfeit … the grace of perseverance.”  Gardiner Spring

Chapter XVI: Of Good Works

168. What makes a good work good?  They are works that God has commanded, done in faith by the power of the Spirit to the glory of God.

169. Is man saved by his good works?  No!

170. Why are good works necessary for a Christian?  They are fruits and evidence of saving faith (James 2).

171. Can a sinner outside of Christ do any good work? No, their acts remain sinful for they are done from an impure motive (not from the love for God- violating the 1st commandment).

172. Are the good works of believers meritorious? No, they are not meritorious.  We cannot attain eternal life through them.  Our good works are only accepted in Christ.

173. What is the motive for good works?  Our motive is to be the glory of God, and trust in His Word accompanied by love for God and gratitude for such a great salvation.

174. Is any good work ever pure? If not, then how are they accepted by God as good?  No, all our best works remain tainted by sin.  They are accepted as good by God because of Christ whose blood removes the stains from our works.

175. How would you respond to a statement such as the following: “I know people who make no profession of Christian faith and yet they live morally better than many Christians. Does that not please God? Does He take note of this?”  Outwardly they live better lives than many Christians- but Christianity is not about how righteous we are, but how Christ alone saves us.  God not only demands perfection, but truly good works flow out of a person’s love of God (Ex. 20).  Those that don’t violate the first commandment and are therefore actually sin.

 

Read Full Post »

Considering the Aftermath

Here is one guy’s take on the election and its meaning.  The presentation is fun.

On a different note- at the end of Wednesday evening’s Law and Orderseason premiere we overheard the following: “Mr. McCoy, any truth to the rumor that you’ve been invited to join the Obama administration?”  Wonder if they had 2 different voice overs, or actually think Obama will have conservatives in his administration.  Just to make us go “hmmmm”.

Read Full Post »

Considering Your Vote

This is a very interesting election season, to say the least.  I’ve been reading people’s blog posts, looking at internet boards my wife and I are involved in, etc. and seeing some interesting shifts among people of faith.

Words are interesting things- they have both the power to reveal AND conceal.  I am not a one issue voter.  Seems that people think Christians are supposed to be, or have been, one issue voters.  As a result, they hear another candidate talk about some issues close to their heart and they begin to align with that candidate.

As a Christian, I am concerned about the poor, the environment, abortion, justice and more things than you can shake a stick at.  Some candidates, and parties, are better than others about mentioning some of those issues.  Both Presidential candidates, if you have been listening, say they want to reduce abortions, address climate change issues, eliminate torture, pursue economic advancement to reduce poverty, etc.  So they seem equal.

But we must be careful- raising an issue is not to be confused with having a good solution for that issue.  All proposals are not created equally, so we must examine how the various candidates want to address those issues.

Poverty seems to be one of the issues that touches base with a number of other issues.  You can’t talk about abortion without talking about poverty.  You can’t talk about the environment without talking about poverty.  You can’t talk about taxes without talking about poverty.  That is because some of the solutions to those issues will greatly impact poverty here in America, and therefore around the world.  Solutions that actually reduce jobs (for instance, taxes on small businesses making over $250k- which is NOT much if you own a small business- will put people out of work increasing poverty, or climate change initiatives that strangle an economy increase poverty) will increase poverty here and abroad.  Issues do not exist in a vacuum.  There are unintended consequences that idealists tend not to recognize. 

I find it hard to believe that a candidate cares for America when he does not care for its most vulnerable members.  I find it hard to believe that a candidate cares for America when his economic policies will put people out of work and on the government dole.  Don’t vote on the basis of emotion (he talks about the issues I care about), but take some time to learn how he approaches those issues and if that makes sound sense (not just a great emotional appeal).  Discover HOW the economy works so you can choose a candidate who will make choices that facilitate its growth so people have opportunities to advance and voluntarily spread their wealth (called charitable giving).  Vote with your head AND your heart.

Read Full Post »

Considering God’s Eternal Decrees

Now here is an interesting and (sadly) controversial subject.  Not here to argue the case, but present the summary of the Westminster Confession on this matter as I prepare for my licensure exam on Wednesday.

Chapter III: Of God’s Eternal Decree

38. What are the decrees of God?  God, from all eternity, did freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass.

39. What is the basis of the decrees of God?  God’s most wise and holy counsel.

40. Distinguish between the Westminster doctrine of the decree and the view refuted in III.2 which bases God’s decree upon “foreknowledge”. Relate this to Romans 8:29.  The false view is that God issues decrees based on what he knows we will do rather than God decreeing events.  In Romans 8:29 it is the people, not their actions, which are foreknown meaning that God had loved them before time.

41. What are the so called “Five Points of Calvinism”?  Total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace and perseverance of the saints.

42. Are you personally committed to the doctrine of predestination?  Yes!

43. Demonstrate from Scripture that election is a sovereign, free act of God and totally unconditional. Are you personally committed to this doctrine?  Romans 9- “I will have mercy upon whom I will have mercy; I will have compassion upon whom I will have compassion.  It does not depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy.”

44. How is election important for the doctrine of assurance? It is vital for our assurance rests on God’s work rather than our fleeting experiences.

45. What is the significance of having been chosen in Christ?  None are saved apart from Christ.  God didn’t just ordain who would be saved, but how they would be saved and experience that salvation- thru Christ and in union with Christ.

46. Why did the divines distinguish between the “predestination” of the elect, and the foreordination” of the non-elect (III.3)? God actively works to save the elect, but passively passes over the non-elect.  He does not actively prevent them from coming to a saving knowledge of Christ.  The language seeks to make this distinction.

47. What does it mean that God has “foreordained all the means” unto election (III.6)? He ordained the ordo saludus- the process by which we are saved- redemption accomplished by Christ and applied by the Spirit.

48. Why does the Confession say God “passes by” those ordained to dishonor and wrath (III.7)? God does not actively prevent them from being saved.  He withholds grace that they might receive the proper penalty of their sin. 

49. Why do you think God revealed this doctrine of election?   To humble us and exalt Himself.

Read Full Post »

Band of Brothers: Ivan Lambert

On his blog, former Ligonier co-worker Anthony Carter asked some friends of his questions for a book he’s working on.  He wants to show how some African-American Christians came to embrace Reformed Theology.  So I thought it would be interesting to ask my friends these same questions to see their answers.  Perhaps they will help some of you as you think about these things, or help others think about them.  I suspect we’ll see God using many different instruments.

The first to respond was Ivan Lambert.  Ivan and I went to RTS Orlando at the same time.  We didn’t know each other well.  We were both Calvinistic Baptists, but he was a commuter on the 4 year plan.  We both graduated as Calvinistic Baptists.  5 or 6 years later we ended up in contact: both of us having become conservative Presbyterians.  A little over 2 years ago, Ivan became the pastor of Covenant PCA here in town.  We have enjoyed time talking about theology and ministry.  We meet with a few other guys monthly to encourage and pray for one another.  He’s gracious enough to grant me pulpit supply opportunities during my transition.

Here is (some of) his story.

1. What was the first book you read that introduced you to Reformed Theology?  Study Guide on Bible’s Teaching on Election by John MacArthur
2. Besides the Bible, list the five most influential books in your Reformed theological journey.  Knowing God                                         J I Packer
       Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God     J I Packer
       The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination   Lorraine Boettner
       The Christian Life                                   Sinclair Ferguson
       Putting Amazing Back into Grace              Michael Horton
3. List three preachers and/or teachers who were most influential in your journey.  John MacArthur    [used by God to introduce me to Salvation by Grace Alone: teaching God's election, and that regeneration precedes faith!]
       J I Packer            [MacArthur suggested Knowing God, I read it, and realized I've been missing out] this led to some guys named Sproul, Boice and Horton
       Michael Horton    [His Putting Amazing Back into Grace, Where in the World is the Church, were very instrumental for me]
    
       Sinclair Ferguson, Tim Keller: haven’t read a whole lot by these guys, but each one has helped me see grace / Christ as my merit.
4. If you could give one book to someone interested in Reformed theology, what book would you give them?  Man, that is tough:
       a. to one who is in the Word, needs a pastoral, softer touch; I’d offer The Christian Life by Sinclair Ferguson
       b. to one who wants to argue or needs a polemical approach: I’d give Chosen by God -Sproul or Putting Amazing Back into Grace-Horton
5. What doctrine would you say distinguishes Reformed Theology?  A particular doctrine?  How do I answer this one?
       At the time I entered RTS I would have answered “God is Sovereign”, then while at RTS I would have answered “Justification”
       Toward the end of my RTS days, I would have answered “Grace” because I had just read “When Being Good isn’t Good Enough”
       Man, I don’t know, I think for about the last five years I might have answered up until about a year ago “Adoption”
       Now days, I honestly view this much more as a perspectival approach to “In Christ”:
       The gospel is much more than “being Reformed”, believing “God is Sovereign” more than “Justification”, or “Adoption”
       Also included are: “Election, Substitution, Propitiation, Redemption, Regeneration, Reconciliation,  Sanctification, Glorification” and whatever else I am forgetting at this time..
    
   If you must have one particular doctrine, I have sat on this for ten minutes now and I’ve narrowed it to three: Gospel, Substitution, Jesus is Savior of sinners”
    
   How About if I say Grace Alone [because all those others are -I think- perspectives that flow from the whole gospel of Grace.

Read Full Post »

A Self-Respecting Amil Calvinist

With no apologies to Rev. MacArthur by the way.  I promised myself I’d tackle this baby, but made sure I didn’t just jot something down while I was still annoyed.  One of those little things you learn as a pastor- don’t respond immediately because you tend to make things worse. 

Here is an excerpt from THE Live-Blogging Machine that is Tim Challies:

“MacArthur made the point that those who most celebrate the sovereign grace of election regarding the church and its place in God’s purpose and those who defend the truth of promise and fulfillment and believe in election being divine, unashamedly deny the same for elect Israel. This is a strange division. “It’s too late for Calvin,” he said,” but it’s not too late for the rest of you. If Calvin were here he would join our movement.”

“The thrust of the message was simple: Of all people to be pre-millennialist it should be the Calvinist–those who believe in sovereign election. A-millennialism is ideal for Arminians because according to their theology God elects nobody and preserves nobody. A-millennialism is consistent with Arminianism. Yet it is inconsistent with Reformed theology and its emphasis on God’s electing grace.

“For those who “get it” that God is sovereign and the only one who can determine who will be saved and when they will be saved and is the only one who can save them, A-millennialism makes no sense because it says that Israel, on their own, forfeited the promises. The central argument went like this: If you get Israel right, you will get eschatology right. If you don’t get Israel right, you will never get eschatology right and you’ll drift forever from view-to-view. You get Israel right when you get the Old Testament promises and covenants right and you get these when you get the interpretation right which you get right when you use a proper hermeneutic (Did you get all that?). Essentially, you move from a proper hermeneutic to a proper interpretation to a proper view of the covenant and Old Testament promises and then you get Israel right. And then, of course, your eschatology is right. If you go wrong at the base, and set aside proper methods of hermeneutics, you have no chance to get anything else right.”

Okay…. I will make some comments about the summary and then spend some time in Romans 9-11 to flesh some of this issue out.  I guess I’m stumbling over the question of “elect Israel”.  As a nation, they were chosen for some specific tasks.  As individuals, many were chosen for salvation.  But the nation as a whole was not chosen for salvation, for salvation has always been by grace thru faith.  As a Calvinist and biblicist, I recognize BOTH types of election in Scripture (unlike some Arminians who only recognize the former, and John who seems to have forgotten the former).  To say God has some as yet unfulfilled promises to the nation of Israel is a function of his dispensational hermeneutic- one which was initially devised in the 1800′s by John Nelson Darby which has some serious issues in dealing with biblical data (IMO).  So, John MacArthur is confusing/conflating the 2 types of election but says we are inconsistent regarding election unto salvation.  That is not a sound premise.

Read Full Post »