The Real Problem
In the past year a number of prominent leaders within our Convention have been passionately speaking against Calvinism and Calvinist churches. Most of the time a straw man is set up and knocked down. It is very easy to dismiss a caricature of Calvinism rather than the exegetical work that tradition has produced. Lately I have been hearing ridiculous charges leveled against this small but growing segment of our Convention. It goes something like this; “You people are semi-Presbyterian, anti-evangelistic, church killers.” I believe we need to engage and challenge these assertions, though I will not do that in detail here. I will respond to them, but I primarily want to make one point – what I believe the real problem is in our Convention.
Presbyterianism is a branch of Christianity that traces its heritage back to John Calvin. They practice infant baptism and hold to a form of church government that is a hierarchy. Each church is controlled by the elders, and each church must answer to a local Presbytery, which answers to a General Assembly. In one sense, the essence of Presbyterianism is church order, not soteriology. Many Presbyterian churches, and even whole branches, have distanced themselves from Calvin; yet they remain “Presbyterian.”
In no sense are we, as Calvinist churches in the SBC, Presbyterian, or even semi-Pres’. By definition our churchnes are autonomous and do not answer to a presbytery, synod or general assembly. The presence of elders is not anti-baptistic either, for many of our Baptist churches throughout history have used elders as a part of their church government. For an excellent treatment of this check out Mark Dever’s work here. of course we do not believe infant baptism is a valid form of baptism. Baptists affirm credo-baptism; immersion in water, as a believer, in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
That Calvinists are anti-evangelistic is perhaps the most common criticism. To be honest, most of the time this comes from those who do not understand that many of our greatest missionaries and evangelists were “five point Calvinists.” John Bunyan, George Whitefield, Charles Spurgeon, William Carey just to name a few. A cursory reading of Baptist history will reveal Calvinists to have been very evangelistic and motivated to share Christ because of the doctrine of election (I may elaborate on that in a subsequent post). Though we may not use the “altar call,” we do publicly invite people to repent of their sins, believe in Jesus Christ and find forgiveness for their sins. We call people to respond today, and we do so with urgency. If you want to see pure Calvinism work itself evangelistically read some puritan sermons.
Are we church killers? Certainly no more than anyone else. A look at our own Convention’s stats will reveal bloated numbers of “conversions” with two thirds disappearing into the ether never to be seen again. Many Southern Baptist churches are plateaued or declining, many of our church plants are failing, and all of this with a very small percentage of Calvinist theology in the mix.
Here is my point. You see, I don’t think our big problem is Calvinism, nor do I think it is Wesleyan or Amyraldian theology. I don’t even think our problem is arrogant big-mouths who pick fights with those they disagree with creating division with little justification. We have a little of all of this in our Convention, but something else is killing us.
Our problem, both for the Calvinist and the non-Calvinist, is a lack of “heart religion.” Our problem, both for the Calvinist and the non-Calvinist, is a lack of “heart religion.” Many Calvinists fashion an idol out of the gold of pure theology and bow down to it. We are sometimes more in love with a system than we are with God and neighbor, and therefore do little more than indoctrinate the converted. It is easy for us to become proud because we are right so strongly believe we are right. Others are more in love with programs, presentation, and growth (not conversions). They bow at the altar of worldly success and forget about the two greatest commandments. They become proud because they have the numbers.
The weakness of our churches in the SBC have little, if anything, to do with Calvinism or superficial church growth strategies. Our weakness comes from a lack of love. I believe this to be true because God has used people, both Arminian and Calvinists, to advance his mission. DL Moody was powerfully used by God, a man who admittedly was no great theologian, and one with whom I find many theological shortcomings. But he clearly loved God and his neighbor and was useful as God’s servant. Spurgeon, George Whitefield, John Wesley and Billy Graham have all been instruments of God on the grand scale despite the variances in their theological convictions.
You see, I don’t believe our screwed up theology can hinder God’s work. He saves in spite of the errors in my doctrine, and he will save in spite of yours. This does not mean theology is irrelevant. On the contrary, if we truly love God we will seek to know him and make him known. This lies at the heart of theology. We must discuss, debate, disagree, and perhaps persuade – but in it all we should be able to cooperate together.
I would perfer to see more humility among all of the brothers, starting with me. We should be able to see our own problems before we see other’s. We should be repenting together because of the greater sins we have in common. I pray that we will, and that God will revive his people.
Joe ~
I want to thank you for that post. It is a blessing to see, as a younger-future-sbc-leader, the young leader be graceful in response to the myriad of words and sound bites among the SBC and beyond now.
I really enjoy reading the blog, it is always refreshing.
joe…good words. been lurking for some time here at the site. i like your perspective on life, ministry, church, theology, etc. praying for you man!!!
I wanted to tear into the people commenting at Ascol’s blog. I was angry last night as I read the words- the attacks- from both sides. Part of me wanted to get all “Jesus-in-the-Temple” on them. Thanks for this, Joe. You are 100% right. Quite frankly, if I weren’t a Christian, if I saw what was going on at Ascol’s blog… I’d point it out as a reason I’m not. That’s the kind of junk that’s just not necessary. Cheap shots are not Christ-like. Period.
“I would perfer to see more humility among all of the brothers, starting with me.”
I would like to illustrate what I see as the impossibility of this statement by using an earlier statement of yours. You identified the following as a sign of a lack of ‘heart religion’: it is easy for us to become proud because we are right[emphasis mine].
I agree with your call for humility, and the responses of the Drs. Caner is not necessarily helpful, although I see it as simply a slight overreaction to the ingrained smugness and condescension of many reformed bloggers.
But statements like “Calvinism is simply the gospel” are just as harmful to the body of Christ as the lack of repentance is to spiritual awakening. Neither ’semi-presbyterianism’ nor ‘used-car salesman’ evangelism is a bigger obstacle to the revival you claim to seek than are your last four words in the second quote I cited.
Wes,
I had seriously considered re-wording that before I posted it to say, “It is easy for us to become proud because we so strongly believe we are right.” I decided against it, assuming people would get my point. What I was trying to show, perhaps not very well, is that we sometimes have different reasons for being arrogant and forgetting our first love. But, for clarity, I don’t mind rewording it. Especially since you think those four words are a hindrance to revival (gotta say, I dont agree with you there).
I do not think humility is impossible for any of God’s people. I think that we can, like all things, learn it from Jesus. So, maybe I am simply more optimistic than you are on this one.
Statements like “Calvinism is simply the Gospel” is essentially a quote of Spurgeon, and when used appropriately it can be helpful. It is not inherantly dangerous. I would strongly disagree that such a statement is “just as harmful to the body of Christ as the lack of repentance.”
You seem to be more sympathetic to the Caners, and I am certainly more sympathetic to Tom Ascol. But I do not want to waste my energies detailing the historical errors and misrepresentations the Caners made. Nor do I want to argue about who is more condescending or smug; The Caners, or some of the commentors on Tom’s blog. It is the wrong fight IMO.
Thanks for commenting though. I hope my adjustment to the post makes it easier to read/interpret.
I appreciate your moderation of your comment. Perhaps I need to do some moderating of my own. It seems to me now that what I said could be interpreted to mean that I think you personally, by using those words, are a hindrance to revival. This is certainly not what I meant, and I humbly apologize for the presence of the implication.
What I see as the obstacle to revival is typified by the attitude, carried in those four words, that I see everywhere I look in the blog world. I was not referring merely, or even mainly, to the Caners and the anthill they kicked over (unwisely so, in my opinion). In blog after blog reformed theology is presented with such derision of any other view as to be entirely off-putting to me, personally.
I probably am more sympathetic to the ideas, if not the approach, that the Caners represent. But I don’t think that would have necessarily been true 6 weeks ago. I have for some time been struggling with soteriology, and when I discovered these blogs, I was excited for the opportunity to explore reformed theology, not just in books, but from those who were living and teaching it. My familiarity up until then pretty much consisted of what the five points were, and that with the help of a handy acronym. What I have found has decidedly colored my view of those who profess to hold to the doctrines of grace, yet display so little grace in their conversation.
(By the way, I didn’t mean to compare the participants in Ascol’s debate to ants in my second paragraph. Just trying to create a picture)
Joe, thank you for your commentary and comments. It is so true that we must all be humble and loving or our ministry and theology is in vain and empty.
But may I interject one note of caution as a balance to your concern: Most, and I mean 99.9%, of the SBC’ers that I know are very humble and loving (Calvinist and non-professing Calvinist alike). I am in an association in So.Cal. that has a minority of professing Calvinist, but all of our pastors are cooperating with love and humility. The same is true of the multitude of pastors that I know in the Bible Belt. In fact, it is the love of God in our hearts that has produced the effectiveness of the SBC; it is precisely a testimony to the amount of such love, that when debating ends we hug necks, pick up our Bibles and together preach the Gospel. You say, “Our weakness comes from a lack of love.” I contend that our strength comes from the abundant love that is found in our colleagues!
But, again, your concern is a warning that we should always be reminded of. I just don’t find it to be practically true of our current situation. If I am wrong, then I am amazed how after 25 years of ministry in pulpits all across America I have not encountered such unlovingness.
Joe, yes! You’ve hit the nail, and I appreciate the call to humility and cooperation (and perhaps some civility and charity with others in our Family mixed in as well).
I picked up Spurgeon’s “The Soul Winner” again today. He wrote: “I hate to hear the terrors of the Lord proclaimed by men whose hard visages, harsh tones, and unfeeling spirit betray a sort of doctrinal desiccation: all the milk of human kindness is dried out of them. . . sniffing out heresy, and making earnest men offenders for a word. . . . Whatever I believe, or do not believe, the command to love my neighbour as myself still retains its claim upon me, and God forbid that any views or opinions should so contract my soul, and harden my heart as to make me forget this law of love!” (pp. 25-26).
Thank you.
Joe,
From a non-Calvinist who is at least mostly Reformed in theology, thank you for speaking common sense. It’s past time we all learned to get along; after all we live together in the same “house.”
Joe,
I think you could also make a strong case that the biggest problem is dishonesty- the angry anti-Calvinists throw around so many lies that you can’t just write it off to being mistaken. One has to perform mental gymnastics worthy of an Olympic gold medal to get to that level. You have to work at it.
You could also argue the the biggest problem is pride. The inability to admit one is wrong. The refusal to submit to the clear teaching of Scripture. The insistence that somehow we merit our own salvation.
Or you could say it’s a lack of love. I believe that I personally could argue myself in circles trying to figure out the root cause. The three sins, like all sins, are inter-connected and do not exist alone.
Ryan,
I make a close connection between, and pointed to it in this post, pride and loss of love for God and neighbor. So, I think we agree on that. I was trying to show that, IMO, the biggest hindrance to what we are about is shared among all kinds of Southern Baptists.
And yes, dishonestly is a major problem, but not on the same scale as the others. I don’t think dishonesty is killing the Convention, though I do think it is eroding the conversations Calvinists and non-Calvinists could be having. And (some will hate me for saying this) I have seen some dishonesty from my own camp. Calvinists has misrepresented various non-Calvinist theologies, often by pointing to their logical conclusions as if their opponent actually believed them. BUT in my experience I have come across much more of that kind of misrepreentation from anti-Calvinists. As much as this troubles me, I think it relates to a conversation in the Convnetion, but not to the work of the Convention as a whole on the same level.
Comment #10 is illustrative of the very thing to which I was referring. The assertions in it drip with the prideful attitude shared by the great majority of what I have read from those who hold a reformed view of soteriology.
In no way do I believe man merits his own salvation. Yet the fact that I cannot agree to a fatalistic predermination that makes me uncapable of freely offering love to God and makes true culpability for damning sin impossible is on my part neither dishonesty nor pride. It is simply an admission that my God is too big for my brain to contain.
Wes, let me say a few things regarding your comments here:
1. First off, I know you have visited my blog at least once and maybe more than that since I am frequent poster over at my friend Jason’s blog and while I do not consider mine to be a “Reformed blog” (heck I don’t even know how to become a member of the League of Reformed Bloggers!), I do hold to the “Doctrines of Grace.” I hope that you have not had a bad experience at my blog or see me as having the type of attitude that you have seen in other bloggers (though I admit that I am just as prideful and prone to being stirred up as the next blogger) and if you have I sincerely apologize.
2. One thing that I have noticed throughout the blogosphere (whether it be Reformed blogs, non-Reformed blogs, Charismatic blogs, Republican blogs or Liberal blogs) there is a problem with online anonymity and arrogance. The internet just breeds arrogance. Additionally, I think people are more willing to confront one another regarding issues of theology and practice online, thus debates are more apt to occur, leading to more heated discussions, and finally resulting in full-blown uncharitable exchanges. This is evident in the current debate over at the Founder’s Blog. I think you can see that both sides have errored greatly (myself included — though honestly I tried to be as charitable as possible, even if I failed).
3. Though blogs are the new (very public) medium, these types of heated exchanges have occurred for centuries (remember Calvin vs that Cardinal), by means of impersonal letters. The nature of written communication is impersonal and prone to acting out of the character one would display in person. Very few people in any camp can resist the temptation to “go off” on another in print when they feel the argument favors them. So, just as Joe’s post points out, it is a matter of the heart and not necessarily the theology.
4. In defense of Ryan’s comments, I don’t think he had honest middle-of-the-road people such as yourself in mind, but rather those who would say things like “Elected because I selected” like that made on the Founder’s posting and other seemingly arrogant statements like that one. I have many, many friends who are not Reformed who would never make a statement like that, nor try to defend their view of soteriology by suggesting that we in any way earn our election. So I wouldn’t take Ryan’s comments personally. I think he was just venting in regards to the Caner’s comments, which I would hope you would oppose in many instances as well (including their tone and lack of willingness to admit an accusation they levied was in any way wrong-headed). BTW, the suggestion that Calvinists are fatalists or believe that culpability is a farse isn’t helpful either, nor is it consistant with your own statements regarding arrogance.
But in the end, Wes, don’t judge the merit of a theological system based on a few people you met on the internet. That would be an ad hominem fallacy of theological proportions. Judge it on how well it stands up to Scripture. Luther was often a jerk, an anti-Semite at the end of his life, and he had terrible fits of flatulation, yet he was spot-on when it came to his critiques of the Catholic Church and without his “95 Theses” and his willingness to arrogantly defy the Church, the Reformation would have taken at least another 200 years to occur.
Thanks, D.R. No apologies are necessary. I have visited your blog, and while I don’t want to name anyone’s blog specifically, it was certainly not one of the ones I had in mind. Until your defense of Piper, nothing I had seen indicated your position in this debate, and even that was, in my opinion, a reasoned defense of someone who is, by most accounts, an outstanding preacher of the Gospel. On many of the blogs to which I was referring, there simply is no other issue, and yours covers many, and quite well.
I agree that this medium does tend to lend itself to vitriol. I recall several occasions when something I have read started my adrenaline flowing in such a way that, had I not forced myself out into the cold night air for a short, calming walk, would have resulted in a response for which I would have been compelled to apologize. Perhaps the Drs. Caner could have used a long walk into a cold headwind. My sympathy for their ideas makes their approach, to me, that much more regrettable.
I try to avoid comments that require apologies, and when an apology is appropriate, I try to offer it promptly. My comments about fatalism and culpability were not made out of arrogance, nor were they directed at anyone. I regret that they seemed to be directed at a previous commentor, in that they were contained in a comment that was critical of that previous comment. They are my heartfelt understanding of what a consistently reformed soteriology must necessarily lead a person to embrace. I don’t see how it can be otherwise.
As I could never hope to equal Gene Bridges in the content of his excellent comments, neither do I want to equal him in length. So I will just say that I hope I have made some sense and thank you, D.R., for your loving criticism and thank you, Joe, for the forum.
God bless.
“…he had terrible fits of flatulation…”
You mean Luther farted a lot? Interesting.
I didn’t think Ryan’s comment displayed a “prideful attitude.” If anything he was unfairly jumped on. That’s a good example of not displaying the spirit Joe is talking about in this post. Keep in mind, once again, I’m saying this from a non-Reformed position. Seems to me from my standpoint there’s plenty of pride and arrogance to go around, but Ryan certainly didn’t show any of that. He’s owed an apology.
For all my difficulties with Calvin’s theology, and certainly for some of his personal foibles, I can’t fault the guy for flatulence…
Following Wade Burleson’s admirable example, I make every effort to direct my criticisms at words and ideas, not at people. I see the “prideful attitude” of which I was critical in the following words: “The inability to admit one is wrong. The refusal to submit to the clear teaching of Scripture.”
Admittedly, my criticism of these comments is borne of a sense of defensiveness they elicit in me, which probably is in violation of the Burleson principle I cited in the previous paragraph. I try to be teachable, and readily admit when I agree that I have been proven wrong. And I certainly try, with God’s grace, to submit every area of my life to what I am convinced is the “clear teaching of Scripture”.
I recognize, however, that these comments were, as D.R. suggested, likely the result of a righteous defensiveness against the over-the-top verbal antics of the Caner brothers. I apologize to the extent I misinterpreted their intent, and also to the extent that I overpersonalized my reaction to them.
And, I apologize for making a qualified apology.
My head hurts…
Did I say Calvin? Now what could have caused that kind of slip? I meant Luther, of course…
Joe-
I agree, there is dishonesty on both sides. While I get sooooo tired of Calvinism being lied about, there’s always one Calvinist in the bunch who’ll start firing off stuff like “Arminians are heretics.” On some websites, just about ALL the Calvinists will say stuff like that.
I guess I see dishonesty as a big problem, because every time the Reformed, and non-Reformed argue, the debate immediately bogs down into silly, tired arguments that an intellectually honest person would stop making. Even if you hate your opponent, you could still have the decency to stop lying about him.
Yes, there’s a lack of love displayed. There’s also a lack of humility and honesty. I just can’t separate them all and say “this one is more important.” I think all sin is just a different manifestation of selfishness.
Joe,
Thanks for the challenge to examine the inner man. Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks; if my heart is set on Christ then my words will be seasoned with grace. Would that I would live and speak like that.
Guys this has definitely been a good and helpful discussion and light-years away from what happened on the Founder’s Blog. Wes, I did not mean to suggest that you were being arrogant in making those comments, but rather in making them you were inconsistent in your assessment of what constitutes arrogance, but I think you know that (still I felt I needed to say this at least for the sake of Stephen who felt I should apologize, which I do if indeed you did take it to mean that). And I appreciate you explaining that it is your honest understanding and not a charge you were trying to heap upon Calvinists. I must admit that reconciling my philosophical beliefs with the theological system of Calvinism was quite a difficult task (and the last great obstacle to me accepting this view).
And Stephen, “You mean Luther farted a lot? Interesting.” Yes, though I cannot recall a good source for this information at this moment. I will have to get back to you on that. I do recall something about Luther believing that was a way to keep Satan from bothering him (though he said that in jest and not with any real theological belief undergirding it). He was, to say the least, an interesting guy.
Good to know I’m in good company with Luther. I mean… what? Who said that?
D.R.,
I should have made clear the “apology” thing wasn’t directed at you. If anything you were spot-on. That was in response to the comment that Ryan’s words were an example of the “prideful attitude” some out there espouse. My bad. At any rate Wes answered my comment, somewhat, so it’s all good.
Hmm…gas as a weapon of spiritual warfare…now THAT’s something interesting. I’ll have to pass that on to a friend of mine who I know will get a major blast out of it. Okay, okay, I’ll stop with the puns now.
Thanks for the discussion guys. I really justed threw this up as a sort of cathartic ramble. The discussion at Tom’s blog was frustrating for me. From my perspective the bulk of the posts were not attacks on Johnny Hunt. Some of the debate was good, but most was a high volume of assertions from the Caners that do not square with history and misrepresent Calvinism. There was also, as is always the case in a comment pool with 200 responses, a lot of missing the point. I believe a debate would be very helpful, and and very hopeful Caner will accept James White’s invitation to debate this openly. That would keep the discussion on track and encourage honesty. Unfortunately, I believe White is not a Southern Baptist, and will be dismissed by Caner as irrelevant to the discussion. I hope I am wrong.
Joe, what a great antidote to what is happening on the other blog. Thanks man
Reading your thoughts on Presbyterianism, there is some irony in all of this. I’ve heard Dever and others argue that in many SBC churches, including the popular megachurches, there seems to be a modified paedobaptism going on. Rather than baptizing babies, we baptize 5, 6, 7 year olds who may or may not really have an understanding of repentance and salvation. (I’m not saying that a kid that young can’t…. just that I’m not sure it would be that common).
And while we talk about the autonomy of the local church, there is a sense in which the SBC can be seen as being ruled by its own “elders.”
Or is that just me?
Yeah, I see that. I even have a problem with the whole baby dedication thing. We don’t do them at Grace. I don’t see the autonomy of the local church being threatened in the SBC, but sometimes the tail does seem to be wagging he dog.
Joe, I think James White is indeed a Southern Baptist. I know that he teaches theology classes — and from what I understand is helping to build the school’s faculty and reputation — out at the Golden Gate extension in Phoenix (I think you have to be SBC to do that, but I am not altogether sure).
Thanks for the info DR. I did not know that. Very cool.
I did look it up and it doesn’t appear that James White is a member of an SBC church, but he is indeed an adjunct professor as I said. So I guess you can be outside of the SBC and still teach at one of the institutions (at least adjunctly). Still, as you predicted Caner did indeed balk at the offer simply because it was not a Southern Baptist. I would like to see him and Voddie Baucham go at it. They could do a loser-leave-town steel cage match where Voddie bodyslams him in the end and puts his foot on Caner’s chest for the three count to end it. But I think Voddie’s too much of a stand-up guy for that. Besides he’s too busy doing evangelism to worry about debating how Calvinists such as he are not witnessing.
I believe that James White is an Independent Baptist. He’ll fit right in with Liberty University / Jerry Falwell, except for the Reformed thing.
James White is an elder in the Phoenix Reformed Baptist church in Phoenix, Az. You can check out his site
I took several classes (Greek and Hebrew) from Dr. White. He is an adjunct Prof, and teaches different subjects at different times, depending on need. Needless to say, apologetics is one of them in which he excells…….
Can someone point me to an objective reference to the differences between Calvanist, Armenian, 2-point, 3-point, 5-point Calvinists, and “anti-Calvinist”?
I am a young Deacon in a large (Sunday School avg – 225-250 people) SBC church in Upstate S.Carolina. I have read quite a bit of the Founders’Blog (Thanks to Alex F’s reference) and this blog pertaining to Calvinism & Johnny Hunt. I have realized that most of the folks on these blogs in the Seminary Network and are more up to speed on this theology than I am.
Thanks.
David,
Followers of Jacob Arminius objected to the Reformed theology common to the churches in the Netherlands that emphasized man’s depravity and the sovereignty of God in all things – even salvation. They drew up five points of contention that they had with this theology. The Synod of Dordt countered with five “canons,” articulating Reformed theology on those issues. Arminianism was condemned as a heresy.
It is important to keep in mind that Reformed theology/Calvinism is much bigger than the five points. It involves how we understand the law of God, the covenants, etc. But popularly, “Calvinism” usually refers to the five points, or the Canons of Dordt.
For someone to say he/she is a “four point Calvinist” means they have a problem with one of those points – probably particular redemption.
To make these points easier to remember some genius decided to use an acronym (geez, this had to be a Baptist preacher): TULIP. To read a brief rundown of the five points, check out this link. For a more detailed summary check out this link. I would recommend The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination by Loraine Boettner for reading. You can get it online here.
The discussion over at Founder’s borders on the absurd. I think that a small, little-known, SBC pastor from a virtually unknown SBC church should debate Dr. Caner, or perhaps a *gasp* elder from one of those churches. All in all, this is a much calmer conversation over here.
I am not sure any debate is going to happen, no matter who proposes it to Ergun or Emir. They haven’t responded since about 3pm, and it is not likely that either will accept Dr. White’s challenge. I know I wouldn’t if I were them. But I think someone like White should be the one to debate Ergun on this, simply because he is very experienced with debates and is prepared to get pushed around and then to push back. This seems important when debated the self-proclaimed “Intellectual Pit Bull of the evangelical world.”
Dave, I would additionally suggest the book “Debating Calvinism” by Dave Hunt and James R. White, which is exactly what it is — a debate between these two men. It is available at http://www.aomin.org or off of amazon. Each has previously written books on the subject. Hunt taking the anti-Calvinistic view and White the 5-pointer view.
I would be absolutely shocked if Caner agreed to a formal debate on this topic. My guess is – it will never happen. I have a feeling that high-ups will catch wind of all their huffing and tell them to knock it off. The institutions/people they work for cannot be pleased with the way these two guys have handled themselves.
Thanks to both Joe & DR!
Theological pride is a killer. Humble ignorance is a killer also. Educated men must pursue speaking the truth in love. May the recent Caner Brothers unleashed episode be an example of how we need to be on our guard and resist the temptation to engage in musing diatribe. We must focus more on articulate discussion and less on winning the battle. God’s truth will prevail. Thanks be to God
Good words Jimmy. Though more often then humble ignorance, I run into an arrogance coupled with ignorance.
I was directed to this post for its particular poignancy on the issue of debate within the church of all kinds. I am not in any way familiar with the issues of Calvinism within the SBC theologically, though I have found my way into the world of theological debate through other entry points. And I just wanted to say how poignant I found your simple words, “Our weakness comes from a lack of love.” I have been attempting to say this (however successfully or unsuccessfully) as well and was grateful to find it in an unfamiliar place. Thank you and God bless.
Nick Richtsmeier: On Being Human and Other Reflections
Wes said: “In no way do I believe man merits his own salvation. Yet the fact that I cannot agree to a fatalistic predermination that makes me uncapable of freely offering love to God and makes true culpability for damning sin impossible is on my part neither dishonesty nor pride. It is simply an admission that my God is too big for my brain to contain.”
I feel the same way Did anyone address this issue in their postings? I didn’t see a response, but it’s an honest question to which a response might help a brother who is still “undecided” on this issue.
“I cannot agree to a fatalistic predermination that makes me uncapable of freely offering love to God”
What makes us incapable of offering love to God is not his predetermination, but our sinful nature. “No one seeks God,” “No one is righteous,” You cannot come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him,” “We were dead in our sins,” etc. all speak to this basic issue. The heart in its “natural” condition will not choose God. We do choose God upon the heart being changed/renewed (regeneration).
We always have the natural ability to choose God or self, but since the fall we have lost the moral ability to choose God and are in need of God’s effective grace to bring it about. Upon receiving such grace, we do freely offer love to him.
Thanks, Joe. I’ll chew on that a while. Another question, though- in not choosing some to be elect, isn’t that basically a way of indirectly/directly damning them? (Even considering that our sinful nature is the root cause.)
An off-the-cuff analogy (though I am not presuming to be at all like God): Imagine I have five children,created in my image, whom I love. Contrary to my wishes that they keep their Sunday outfits clean, they all go play in a giant mud puddle, so I chuck all of them into a swimming pool because they are filthy little beasts. None of them, however, can swim. I then grab two of them and pull them out of the pool. The rest drown.
This is my (warped?) idea of what Calvinism holds. Does that make sense?
Justin, feel free to email me if you want to dialogue a bit more freely (since this post is kind of old). Though keeping it here is fine too.
“in not choosing some to be elect, isn’t that basically a way of indirectly/directly damning them?”
Reformed thinkers explain it this way. God chooses some to save (undeserved grace) and leaves others to answer for their sin (deserved judgment). So Reprobation is God’s decree in eternity past to pass over some, leaving them to experience justice. Condemnation is the actual punishment of their sins. So, no one goes to hell because of God’s choice, they go to hell because of their sin.
“An off-the-cuff analogy (though I am not presuming to be at all like God): Imagine I have five children,created in my image, whom I love. Contrary to my wishes that they keep their Sunday outfits clean, they all go play in a giant mud puddle, so I chuck all of them into a swimming pool because they are filthy little beasts. None of them, however, can swim. I then grab two of them and pull them out of the pool. The rest drown.”
Yeah, this is nothing like the doctrine of election. I personally do not favor analogies like this, so let me explain it the best I can in a comment.
God made man in his image, righteous – but mutable (able to change). Man chose sin and threw himself/his heart into ruin. Our state of total depravity/total inability is our own fault. That we can no longer chose God is completely on us. For God to judge us in this condition is fair, just, even good. For God to demsontrate his mercy on just one individual is more than fair – it is grace. But because of the richness of his grace he chooses a number so great no one can count it.
I think the analogy fits, even after your explanation. Maybe not the chucking into the pool part, but it was the children’s fault that they got dirty – not mine – in the analogy. My grace alone is what saved the ones I chose. I understand, though, that analogies are not perfect.
Perhaps it would be mere speculation on our part, but another question this brings up is why could we accept that God gave man true free will in the Garden of Eden to choose good or evil, but does not today give man a similar free will to choose Him or reject Him?
The anaology does’t work because you have a father negligently throwing his children in the water causing them to drown. It doesn’t work because their inability to swim has nothing to do with their crime/sin. Our inability to “swim” is because we have cut off our own limbs in rebellion against God, thinking that in doing so we will become like God who doesn’t actually have limbs – since he is a spirit. And we have rolled ourselves into the water. but even this illustrations is inadequate.
God has given man a will, and he is a free agent – not coerced in making decisions from without. All reformed theology affirms this. But man only chooses what his nature allows, and our nature/heart in the fallen condition will not choose God until it has been renewed.
Good points to ponder. Thanks for responding!
Thought about it some more. You’re right. The analogy was pretty bad.