Is It Possible To Fairly Critique?

I’m presently wading through a book that compares and contrasts the methods of two of the 20th century’s most effective  apologists for historic Christianity—C.S. Lewis and Francis Schaeffer.  How surprising both men were so similar in temperament, approach, methodology and in many ways, the theological content upon which they focused in defending the common faith once for all given to the saints.

Both Lewis and Schaeffer considered themselves evangelists.  Their goal was to knock on the front door of people’s inner home.  If the front door was locked, they’d walk around back.  Finding the back door locked, they’d head for the window.  Were the windows barred shut, they’d head for the roof. 

Indeed, one of Schaeffer’s favorite strategies was what he called “lifting the roof off a person’s house.”  By that, Schaeffer was speaking primarily of talking with people, asking questions about their view of ultimate commitments, what there deepest longings and desires were, etc, all the while making mental notes of internal contradictions between what they said and what, in reality, is. 

Once Schaeffer climbed down into their inner fortress and understood where they lived and precisely what they believed in their own words, he gently drove them to the logical conclusions of their positions, all the while filling their house with the sweet perfume of historic Christianity.

Lewis possessed a similar approach to Schaeffer’s roof removal.  For lack of a better term, we’ll simply call it “Draining the Swamp.”  Lewis saw all humanity in the same predicament—drowning in a deadly swamp.  His purpose as an evangelist was to, at all costs, get the people to the bank. 

In addressing the man in the swamp, if the man calls out for help, Lewis quickly pitches a rope.  But just as persistently as was Schaeffer to “lift the roof off,” when no call came or other ways failed, Lewis methodically drained the swamp around the man.

In draining the swamp, Lewis used his God-given skills as a literary evangelist, whereby he, in his own words said “any amount of theology can now be smuggled into people’s minds under the cover of romance without their ever knowing it.” Thus, one can easily see how his love affair with fiction was also a passion to share historic Christianity, the angel dust on which, all his works is sprinkled. 

Two men shook the 20th century with the historic Gospel.  Their influence still carries the day and will for years to come.  Two men whose approaches were so similar and whose goals so identical, yet they never met in person.  Two men, who made it always a prominent feature in their critiques of an unbelieving generation, to be precise and fair in their evaluations of those with whom they differed.  Two men who, oh… by the way.  Did I mention that one was an Arminian and the other a Calvinist?

I must confess, sometimes my emotions get the best of me when I both read and hear unfair portrayals of other people’s positions and/or personal integrity--especially the personal integrity. And, know this:  I possess virtually identical emotions no matter who is offering the critique, whether they are friend or foe to my personal position.  I even slump when I hear a Mormon or a Jehovah’s Witness get painted the wrong color about their views.  Frankly, I am convinced truth doesn’t fear truth. 

In the end, I cannot help how others critique, nor do I sense a Divine call to correctively police the way they critique.  What I can do is purpose that when I attempt to critique my foe, I do so as fairly and precisely as I know how.  That does not remove the risk that I may still be mistaken about the person’s position.  Yet, if I have spoken as fairly as I know how and have evaluated as deeply as my God-given brain will allow, for me, I am acting responsibly and with integrity as I offer what I see the other person’s position to be. 

Again, I could be mistaken about their view.  But from the way I see it, being mistaken does not make me a liar, a deceiver, a slanderer. Mistakenness may be informed but all liars burn in Hell, I read from a Reliable Source.  For my money, I think there stands a huge gap between the two.

I recently had extended discussions on some other blog threads about Dr. Nelson Price’s present essay on Calvinism in The Christian Index.  It saddened me that rather than focus on the content of what Dr. Price had to say, many went after the man himself, calling him a liar, an intentional deceiver, slanderer and even alluding to him as of his father the devil. 

From where I sit, destructively focusing on the integrity of a man like Dr. Price, whose character has stood the test of time and whose service for our Lord as Pastor and Southern Baptist Convention leader dwarfs so many of us, represents nicely the epitome of what’s wrong in evangelical ethics today. 

So many of us who are well able to thinly slice, like so much cheese, theological distinctions to prove an opposing point non sequitur, appear to lack the same sharp edge when making moral distinctions—that is, in this case, morally distinguishing between being sincerely mistaken on the one hand and intentionally deceiving on the other.   

Dr. Price’s public views are up for grabs, gentlemen--even so, only in a manner worthy of our calling in Christ, remembering the rock from which all of us are hewn.  But to snipe one’s character for the lone reason you feel your foe has mistaken your view is, from my perspective, indicative of an even greater problem than imprecise theology.  It very well may demonstrate that the theology for which one is contending remains little more than a hull...an empty, ineffective shell in a person's inner world. 

A holy desire for holy theology is necessary for healthy Churches.  But when personal criticism overshadows proper critique, surely there's nothing holy to say about that. 

May our Lord raise up in us the healthy spirit of Lewis and Schaeffer.

With that, I am…

Peter

Related articles

Francis Schaeffer (1912 - 1984) on the purpose of apologetics

James White critiques Ronnie Rogers' book, "Reflections of a Disenchanted Calvinist" by Peter Lumpkins

CS Lewis celebrated 50 years after death

Revelation of God in Christ must be rooted in Scripture Alone - Francis Schaeffer

Comments

[volfan007]

peter,

another good word. thanks.

volfan007

[Bob]

Thank you, Peter.
A relevant text that seems often ignored, is 1 Corinthians 8:1-3 [ESV], "1Now concerning food offered to idols: we know that "all of us possess knowledge." This "knowledge" puffs up, but love builds up. 2If anyone imagines that he knows something, he does not yet know as he ought to know. 3But if anyone loves God, he is known by God."

It is so easy and tempting huff and puff, and hard to build up.

[peter]

Volfan, my Brother,

Thank you. And, by the way, yes, I am in Georgia. I will never go back to Tennessee.

Not, however, because I would not like to stroll the rolling hills or enjoy the beautiful lakes, but because the sorry raschals revoked my moonshine permit. Since, I had no living there, I moved to Georgia.

With that, I am...

Peter

[peter]

Dear Bob,

Thanks for stopping by. I think you've surely squeezed the right onion, my Brother. It definitively is much easier--and, more satisfying to the ceaseless cravings of flesh--to pick out character flaws than offer compassionate critique.

Have a grace-filled evening. With that, I am...

Peter

[stephen]

Peter,
As a Calvinist I am ashamed when my fellow Calvinist respond in such a manner. I will say though that when someone labeles your beliefs as an evangelical oxymorone it is very difficult to hold back the anger that swells up inside. It is clearly offensive. I am a philosophy student at Texas State University. In my department I am the only Christian that I know of. Most of the student in my deparment are Atheist and the other day some drew a picture of me with words attached making fun of me being a christian. It is very difficult when you recieve such kind of attacks. In your heart you have to fight the anger that burns inside.
Was Dr. Price completly innocent? Maybe. Could he have chosen better words. Probably. Does Dr. Price not understand calvinism or does he understand it and intentionally misrepresent. Who knows except God. Peter, you are right we dont know this and we should not attack him as an individual.
Peter, dont you think it might also be wise to discourage on your blog not just the failings of Calvinist but also the NonCalvinist? I think it would go a long way toward unity and christian discussion. It seems to me that every side on this issue needs to do a little repentence (note i did not say everone. Anyway thanks for the good points.
Blessings in Christ,
Stephen

[Christopher Redman]

Peter,

I'm curious as to why you press Calvinists to dot every i and cross every t and define, defend, and explain the doctrines of grace but the non-calvinists, like Dr. Price, get away with half hearted, historical and theological inaccuracies without any critique by you. It seems that your sole purpose for blogging is to railroad all vocal calvinist and passover as unimportant or insignificant all non-calvinist's misrepresentations of calvinists.

Why?

[selahV]

Peter: I do tend to stay over here more,(not because you are nice to me because sometimes you're down right insulting. :)))) but because the Calvinist folk don't seem to get as rattled with my obtuse questions over here. When I interrupt your conversations with some stupid question, most don't take it like I'm out to trap them into discussing something they'd rather not discuss.

Though some have leaned a little harder than I think I deserved for my ignorance in what I say and ask, for the most part Calvinist here have been kinder and more open to me. It's really hard to answer so many questions to get to an answer for the question one asks in the first place.

No matter how nice we are to some folks in life, nothing matters; no matter how deeply we care; it isn't enough. This is fact. It's life. I've learned that on many fronts--not just in this cyberworld. I am certain that many others such as Chris and Stephen have mentioned may feel as I do from the treatment they have received from others from their opposing camps. I pray I've never done anything or said anything to hurt either of you.

Inside our hearts I think we can all find a bit of leaven. selahV
P.S. ARE YOU GOING TO BE REVIEWING THE BOOK ABOVE IN MORE DETAIL?

[peter]

Stephen,

Please know I very much appreciate your excellent post. And, might I add, Stephen, your way of directly dealing with an issue with which you obviously possess strong, deep convictions, stands as a perfect ezample of precisely how to respond to those with whom you differ. In short, your example stands two feet taller than my post. Thank you.

Know also, I have felt exactly the same as now do you when I was in University years ago. For me, however, most of my public humiliation came not from my classmates, but rather from my Philosophy Professor, against whose brillant rhetorical skills our Lord never saw fit in arming me to squash.

At the time, I thought myself the clown because his arguments I could not crush and, for reasons then unknown, God would not crush. However, now I know God busily worked in everyone of those moments I was humiliated by the Professor. But it wasn't the arguments God kept grinding to powder. Rather it was me and my pride every single time I was made out to be the fool. Hard lesson then. I now look back and smile.

As for Dr. Price being completely innocent, of course, I do not think that needs a reply. Asking is answering as I think you agree.

From my view, no one of us is capable of publicly preaching without, not only the possibility, but also the very real probability of guilt in some way.

Though I have never met him, Dr. Price is a man created in God's Image, fallen, yet recreated in the Image of Christ. He has proven his moral colors through tenured local Church ministry--a triumph in itself, if we consider the recent tragedy of Ted Haggard. He served our SBC faithfully in many capacities. Hence, I possess no reason to wonder if he purposely skewed any portion of Calvinist belief.

And, even granting for the sake of argument, that he totally botched an illustration, attempting to disprove a position with which he disagreed, for me, to pour scalding water on this man's character simply to "vindicate the truth" is geniunely misguided at best and surely immoral at worst.

Thus, this is why my focus was so strong on this particular issue. For me, the crux was more behavioral than belief.

In the end, Stephen--and I realize many of my Brothers who are Calvinists do not appreciate this--the Calvinists' approach to the entire conversation in advocating the Calvinist Resurgence in the SBC is bankrupt. It plain, flat is not working. This is one time philosophical pragmatism really could assist.

The seek out and destroy method, at least that I sense, especially from much of the Calvinist internet community, turns most people completely off. One can go on any number of websites and there--sometimes recorded--will be the sermon of a prominent SBC preacher who dared to speak on Election.

Line by line, word for word, it is usually dissected, laughed at, given satirical commentary and then, more times than not, one can expect him to be summarily dismissed as a wee bit better than a braying jack ass.

For me, I know of no thinking person who is convinced by tactics like that. Perhaps the only ones who like it are the "Circle of Few." If I belonged to a Church where my Pastor was treated with such disrespect, I may never, ever listen to anything Calvinism had to say again--credibility busted.

Tragically, the wedge between Calvinist and non-Calvinist in the SBC continues to be pounded deeper still. And, I honestly do not know what the full answer to our dilemna is. But I have an idea about what it's not--continuing as is on the same course. It's getting worse.

May your night be blessed, my Brother Stephen. With that, I am...

Peter

[peter]

My Brother,

Thanks Chris. I think your question is not at all unfair.

I'm quite sure I appear totally biased toward fellow non-Calvinists and perhaps pound Calvinists with a bigger hammar. I did after all begin this website as a possible "balancing out" due to the fact that, from my view, Calvinists seem to dominate the blogging world in SBC life.

Tell me, Chris, and I really would like to know: are you aware of another blog site that regularly deals with Calvinist/non-Calvinist issues in SBC life that has taken a similar position as mine? Is there another site that has attempted to communicate a moral obligation the Believing Church possesses to, even in the face of assumed error, treat the one who errs with total dignity and respect as a man made in God's Image and remade in the Image of Christ?

If there is an abundance of these sites, my site--at least in its charter vision--may just be in severe jepordy!

For me, I sense no moral obligation nor Divine mandate to correct all error I happen to perceive--whether belief or behavior. Rather, I do possess a deep conviction that, when I am called to count the money, honest numbers are non-negotiable.

In the end, Chris, surely there is more I could have said. Perhaps next time. The greater concern for me is, did I fairly, honestly and with integrity publish a post with which I can honestly sleep? From my vantage point, I did.

Trusting you a night of rest and with that, I am...

Peter

[stephen]

Hello Peter,
I agree with everything you wrote to me except that the Calvinist resurgence is "totally" bankrupt. I do agree with you that the "search and destoy" tatics are not right. Unless it is a "search out the arguements and destroy the arguements" tactic. However I do believe that human nature gets the best of us and we, as humans, naturally slip off of the arguements and begin attacking each other. I don't think this is just Calvinist but also many fundamentalist. Emir Caner said that Calvinist are worse than muslims! If your vision is to try to bring both sides in our convention to conversation I am totally with you. When I graduate i plan to start a blog. My vision for the blog is to present articles or interview from both sides of the dispute. I hope that I can be as objective as possible. My prayer is for people to discuss the issues and not demonize each other. If people dont agree with Calvinism at least they can appreciate it as a theological tradition. Likewise I think those who are not Calvinist would appreciate having their positions understood. Anyhow if you like my idea maybe we could work together to help keep each other objective.
Blessings in Christ,
Stephen

[selahV]

"This is the day which the Lord has brought about; we will rejoice and be glad in it." {ps.118:24AMP) SelahV
P.S. Would someone come over to my question/answer site and answer my question about whatever if you get a chance? http://selahvquestionoftheday.blogspot.com SelahV

[peter]

Stephen,

Thanks, my Brother. And I would love nothing better than to connect with you somehow. I hope the goal of "balance" is at least, "tipping" toward the center here, which by the way, was the purpose of focusing so much on Olson's work.

Next week, I intend, with full permission, to post an essay first printed almost 12 years ago by The Alabama Baptist entitled "God's Sovereignty & Man's Free Will". It's author was the late Dr. Herschel Hobbs, one of Southern Baptist's finest statemen and pastoral theologians.

As a follow up, I will post from the same paper, an essay that appeared a week later written by Professor Timothy George entitled "Amazing Grace, Amazing Love." The former a non-Calvinist, the latter, of course, a brillant Calvinist.

Also, if you care to peek, there is on this site a post under "Limited Atonement" that I posted from a commenter on this Blog. It was a response to Keith Schooley's exposition on 1John 2.2. Timotheos, a convictional Calvinist, originally posted it as a comment. For me, it was so well written and argued that I desired to feature it rather than let it vanish as just another comment. It's greatest attribute, however, was its irenic tone and respect for the other side.

I trust your studies go well today. Grace. With that, I am...

Peter

[Luke]

Peter,
I praise God for finding this blog spot. By Calvinists, I would be labeled Arminianistic and by Arminians, I would be labeled Calvinistic. Sometimes, I feel like the proverbial "stripe in the middle of the road" and I ask myself, "how long will you halt between two opinions?". I believe that in reality, if these are the only two positions allowed, Calvinist or Arminianist, then we have started with the wrong premise. I thank God that on this website, you pursue both sides of the issue in helpful and healthy debate. I must confess, that the character assasination that takes places on other sites really does nothing to engender me towards their positions. In fact, it usually drives me further away. Anway, thanks again and may God be glorified through this blog.

Luke

[selahV]

LUKE: I respect a need for complete anonymonity on your part, but would like to know, if you don't mind sharing, how you ended up in the middle of the road. I am in the middle of the road myself and couldnot have voiced better my feelings on the subject than you in your post.
I guess, what I'd really like to know is as a child, what you were taught, are you a vocational minister, or are you a student?

I love this site because of the freedom to actually ask a question of another that doesn't lift every question of mine into a realm of suspicion. Thank you so much for weighing in on this discussion. How did you happen upon this site?

Pardon my intrusiveness...feel free to respond in any way you so desire, including ignoring me. :)smile:) smile:) smile:) SelahV

[selahV]

Peter & Timotheos: Speaking of Timotheos, where is that fine brother. I went back and re-read his comment/blogpost on Limited Atonement and found one statement I want to ask a question about:
Timotheos said, "On the contrary, Old Testament sacrifices were never meant to take away sin, but the sacrifice of Christ decidedly was and did."
OT sacrifices were not to attone, so what were they for? This is probably the stupidest question one could ask, but Y-not-Go-2-the-Source? SelahV

[volfan07]

peter,

would you comment on this comment that i made over at les's blog?

here it is:

les,

i do know what calvinism is all about. beleive me, i know. i have studied it. i sincerely thought about becoming one at one time. i was persuaded by several reformed fellas to become one....and had many conversations about it with the persuaders. i had dr. nettles and a couple of other five pointers in seminary. believe me i know what yall believe.

my point is, and maybe i'm not smart enough to explain my point very clearly...if you believe in irrestible grace...then really there is no choice in salvation. you either are going to be saved...no matter what, or else, you absolutely have no hope of ever being saved...which means that you dont really have a choice in the matter. thats robotish to me. lost people following thier sin natures and living with no hope out of the pit of hell. and the elect being saved...with no real choice about it...an then following the Lord...with no choice about it. it smacks of fatalism. the lost are gonna be like they are, and the saved are gonna be like they are....with no real choice in the matter.

and, add to that, what i hear about Gods sovereignty from some five pointers...well, thier view sounds very fatalistic to me. what's gonna happen is just gonna happen, no matter what.

i agree that God is sovereign, and nothing happens that He either does not initiate or allow. and, He is sovereignly carrying out His will and purposes on this earth. and, i believe that God honestly, sincerely desires that all men be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth. i beleive that the bible clearly teaches that the Lord is actively working in this world to bring people everywhere to salvation.

also, i believe that man is depraved....dead in his sins...i dont beleive that this means that man cant respond to God though.

also, i believe that election is unconditional...in the sense that God chose to save me just because He wanted to. there was nothing in me that made God choose to come to me. i dont believe though that the Lord arbitrarily chooses sam to be saved, and chooses to let ole joe die and go hellwith no real hope of him getting saved.

also, i believe that atonement is limited to the elect in its effectiveness, but its sufficient to cover the sins of the entire world. 1 john 2:2.

also, i believe in the perseverance of the saints..and really, the preservation of God.

but, i dont believe in the i of tulip at all. irresistible grace. not when i see Jesus weeping over Jerusalem and saying but YOU WOULD NOT. when i read 1 timothy 2 about God who will have all men be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth. or, when i read 2 peter 2 about the false prophets who deny the Lord who bought them. i reject irresistible grace.

and please, i have already heard all the five point calvinist responses to what i am saying. i have heard the arguements. i have seen the way yall try to explain away the verses i am mentioning. i dont agree with yall. plain and simple. i love five pointers in the Lord. i praise God for all the good yall do for the kingdom of God. but, i really believe that yall are wrong about the tulip as yall hold to it, and i believe that many five pointers have gone to the extreme....or have gone to seed as the old timers would say. and, there are many five pointers who are nearly hyper calvinists.....they are more concerned with promoting the system and converting people to be five pointers than they are in just preaching the Gospel and loving the Lord and living for the Lord and winning souls to the Lord.
they are obsessed with five pointism.

wow, i have really said toooo much.

from just a plain ole christian who has been saved by the grace of God and is kept by the grace of God,

volfan007

11/30/2006 02:40:00 PM

thanks from another middle of the road Christian,

volfan007

[peter]

Luke,

Thanks for dropping by. I am glad you found us! My personal hope is, Luke, while obviously we cannot expect to be bias free--I am decidedly non-Calvinist myself--yet we surely can be both honest and respectful with one another as we chat over these issues.

For me, I trust our Lord has smiled more times than not for what we are doing here.

Have a great weekend. With that, I am...

Peter

[peter]

SelahV,

Without rereading Timotheos' statments, I think he may mean that OT sacrifices were what we may call "prototypes". That is, something analogous to something else of a later period or era. For example, the horse & buggy could be considered a "prototype" to the modern automobile. Or, Volfan's moonshine still could be a "prototype" to the Jack Daniel's brewry in Lynchburg, TN.:)

Being so, OT sacrifices were, in some way, analogous to Christ's cross. The eternally significant difference would be that, while the blood of bulls and goats could never take away sin, the blood of the perfect Lamb did. Thus the sacrifices pointed forward to the Cross.

At least, that's how I see it. Grace. With that, I am...

Peter

[peter]

Volfan,

I took a look at your post. What is it that you asking? For me, it communicates very nicely a summary of what you hold to about how humans relate to our Lord and, unless I missed something, there is no significant point I would raise about how you believe we relate to God.

I do see a few glaring points that will undoubtedly convince Calvinists that you actually misunderstand his/her position.

The issue of freedom of the will is tricky. Most Calvinists do not deny free will per se. Some do. But most Baptist Calvinists do not, from my view.

What one must always keep in mind is that when Calvinists speak of free will and man's responsibility, they do NOT mean by that what you mean by that.

Their definition is very different from yours. And, if that is not always kept in mind, you'll end up in a "yes, you do. Oh no I don't" charge/denial pattern of diaolog that leads nowhere.

Also, the idea of fatalism they surely deny. To you, it may look fatalistic. I tend to agree in some respects anyway. But since they deny it, for me, I try to talk about their "determinism" perhaps in other ways.

I trust your weekend well. With that, I am...

Peter

[stephen]

Volfan007,
Hello my brother.
I will captialize my response.
YOU WROTE, "if you believe in irrestible grace...then really there is no choice in salvation."
IF THIS IS TRUE THEN WHAT DO YOU DEFINE "IRRESITABLE GRACE?" DO YOU DEFINE IT AS BEING JUSTIFIED WITHOUT FAITH? THIS IS NOT WHAT I.G. IS. DO YOU DEFINE IT AS: GOD ORDAINING AND BRING ABOUT THROUGH HIS MEANS A PERSON TO MAKE A CHOICE TO REPENT? THIS IS HOW CALVINIST DEFINE IT. IF IT IS GOD ORDAINING THAT WE DO MAKE A CHOICE, HOW CAN YOU SAY THAT THERE IS NO CHOICE. CHOICE IS IMPLIED IN THE DEFINITION. YOU WILL HAVE TO DEMONSTRATE YOUR POINT. IT SEEMS RATHER INCOHERENT.
YOU WROTE, "you either are going to be saved...no matter what, or else, you absolutely have no hope of ever being saved...which means that you dont really have a choice in the matter." I DONT FOLLOW THE LOGIC. PLEASE DEMONSTRATE. SEEMS LIKE AN EITHER/OR FALLACY.
YOU WROTE, " thats robotish to me." I PERFER THE TERM "CLAYISH" LIKE THE POT AND CLAY. READ ROMANS 9 IT CONTAINS A BETTER ANALOGY.
YOU WROTE, "believe that election is unconditional...in the sense that God chose to save me just because He wanted to" SO WHY DOESNT HE SAVE EVERYBODY? IF YOU SAY BECAUSE THEY DID'NT DO X (LIKE CHOOSE HIM, PRODUCE INDUGLENCES, ETC) THEN GOD SAVES ON THE BASES OF SOMETHING WE DO. IT FOLLOWS THEN THAT WE ARE THE ELECT BECUASE OF SOMETHING WE DO.
YOU WROTE, "thier view sounds very fatalistic to me. what's gonna happen is just gonna happen, no matter what."
FATALISM HAS A DIFFERENT MEANING THAT DETERMINISM. IT IS TRUE GOD DOES DETERMINE THE FUTURE THERFORE THE FUTURE IS NECESSARY HOWEVER HE ALSO DETERMINED THE MEANS WHICH ARE ALSO NECESSARY. SO NO ONE IS SAYING "NO MATTER WHAT." CALVINIST AFFIRM THAT BOTH MEANS AND ENDS ARE NECESSARY. IT IS CONTRADICTORY TO ASSERT ENDS WITHOUT MEANS.
YOU WROTE, "also, i believe that man is depraved....dead in his sins...i dont beleive that this means that man cant respond to God though." iF YOU CLAIM TO BELIEVE IN TOTAL DEPRAVITY BU BELIEVE MAN CAN STILL RESPOND YOU HAVE EITHER EQUIVOCATED OR YOU DONT UNDERSTAND THE TERM. TOTAL DEPRAVITY BY DEFINITION MEANS MAN CANT RESPOND TO GOD. DOES PERSON X RESPOND BY 1.) RANDOM CHANCE, 2.) BY EVIL INTENTION, 3.) DOES HE RESPOND WITH A GOOD INTENTION. 1.) IS INCOMPATABLE WITH THE "TERM MAKING A DECISION" DECISION IMPLY'S RATIONALIZATION 2.)MEANS THAT HE IS REALLY NOT RESPONDING IN TRUE FAITH OR LOVEE FROM CHRIST. 3.)WHERE DID THE GOOD INTENTION COME FROM. IF WE AFFIRM THAT HE IS TOTALLY SINFULL THEN HE CAN HAVE NO GOOD INTENTIONS- UNLESS PUT THERE FROM OUTSIDE OF HIMSELF. BUT IF IT IS PUT FROM OUTSIDE OF HIMSELF THEEN WE CANT REALLY SAY HE HAS IN HIMSELF THE ABILITY TO RESPOND.
YOU WROTE, "i dont believe in the i of tulip at all. irresistible grace." oK THST IS FINE. BUT I DO HAVE SOME QUESTIONS.
1.)DOES GOD LACK THE POWER FOR IG?
2.) IF (1) IS GOD REALLY GOD
3.)DOES HE HAVE THE POWER AND CHOOSE NOT USE IT.
4.) IF HE DOES, WHAT DOES THIS MAKE OF THE IDEA THAT YOU SAID HE WANTS TO SAVE EVERY BODY?
5.)IF YOUR ANSWER TO 4 IS THAT, EVEN THOUGH HE CAN SAVE US WITHOUT OUR INPUT HE WANT US TO DO SOMETHING. HOW IS THIS DIFFERENT FROM BEING SAVED BY WORKS. AND/OR CAN YOU REALLY SAY THAT SALVATION IS 100 PERCENT OF CHRIST AND 100 PERENT OF GRACE?

YOU ALSO WROTE, " believe that atonement is limited to the elect in its effectiveness, but its sufficient to cover the sins of the entire world. 1 john 2:2."
IF IT IS SUFFICIENT TO COVER THE SINS OF THE ENTIRE WORLD, IS IT SUFFIENT TO COVER THE SIN OF THEIR LACK OF FAITH AND REPENTANCE. IF YES THEN,
1.)UNIVERSALISM- THIS IS WHERE ARMINIAN BAPTIST DRIFTED TO IN THE 1700'S AND TO THEIR CREDIT IT WAS CONSISTENT. OR..
2.) LIMITED ATONEMENT- THE CALVINIST POSITION
IF CHRIST DEATH IS SUFFIENT THEN EITHER 1 OR 2 IS POSSIBLE

YOU WROTE, "there are many five pointers who are nearly hyper calvinists.....they are more concerned with promoting the system and converting people to be five pointers than they are in just preaching the Gospel and loving the Lord and living for the Lord and winning souls to the Lord.
they are obsessed with five pointism."
IS A SEMINARY PROFFESSOR LEASS EVANGELISTIC THAN A MISSIONARY. WE HAVE HAVE OUR CALLINGS. DON'T INPUNE ANYONES MOTIVE. HOW COULD YOU POSSIBLY PROVE THIS? CAN YOU LOOK INTO THEIR HEARTS... I CAN'T.
IF THEY HAVE A STRONG INTEREST IN THEOLOGY IT IS PUT THERE BY GOD.
VOLFAN, I AM GLAD THAT YOU THINK YOU ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD. ONE QUESTION I THINK YOU MUST ASK YOURSELF IS, "IS MY POSITION INTELLIGIBLE." MANY CALVINIST AND ARMINIANS AGREE THAT YOUR POSITION IS NOT. ANYHOW I HOPE THAT I HAVE NOT BEEN PERCIEVED AS ATTACKING YOU BUT RATHER YOU POST.
BLESSINGS IN CHRIST

[stephen]

Peter,
Your a class act!- this is a good thing!
blesings in christ,
Stephen

[Luke]

Selah V,

I'm sorry that I have appeared anonymous. Is there some place I'm supposed to sign in or what? Really, cause I'm not here to cause trouble or be anonymous.

There are of course certain things I don't reveal over the net but here are some answers. I am a vocational minister of a Southern Baptist Church in Louisiana. I am a graduate of NOBTS and have been involved in the ministry now for about 21 years. I am married and have two children(actually they are adults by age and usually action) though they'll always be my children.

I was raised in church since I was a baby. We were never taught Calvinism OR Arminianism as such. We were simply taught the Scripture. We were taught to read it and memorize it AND practice it. I suppose now, more than ever before in belief and practice, memorizing is extremely important to me and the church I pastor. I was taught and I believe that Jesus' death was for all sinners but is effective in only the lives of those who confess Jesus as Lord. I do not believe that everyone WILL be saved but I believe that everyone CAN be saved. But I don't believe that anyone is ever or has ever been saved EXCEPT by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, that is by Faith Alone in Christ Alone. I preach Jesus Christ as having lived, was crucified, died and was buried, but RISEN and alive even now, coming back soon to call the true church out of this world.

Oh yes, I found this blog through the Founders Website.

I have two eyes, two ears, hair, one mouth(in which my two feet quite well),....Oh, I don't think you intended for me to share any information like that did ya?

Peter, thank you for the welcome and I greatly appreciate the fact that we recognize that we have bias, but try to communicate without being slanderous. That last statement hounds me more and more in my preaching and calls me to a spiritual and moral high ground of which I have not in the past reached very often. But by the grace of God and the power of His might, that is my aim.

Have a great weekend to all and may the resurrection power of Jesus Christ give us hope for whatever awaits ahead.

Luke

[Henry Frueh]

And usually with the A/C theological badminton the spirit of humility runs for cover.

http://judahslion.blogspot.com/2006/07/humility.html

[volfan07]

stephen,

again, i have already heard all the things that you capitalized. i have already hashed over all the objections you have to what i believe. i just about could have written your response to my post myself. bro., i have heard it all before....many times.

again, you are delving in the realm on opinion and philosophy. i just try to stick with what the scriptures teach.

thanks for your concern though.

volfan007

[selahV]

If we aren't careful over here, we're all gonna be hugging each other and praising God. Lands, I love you guys! It's so refreshing to read your posts. All of you. Luke: no special way to sign in. I just always click on the person's name when I read something I like and see if they have a blog. Some do, some don't. Some don't because they don't want folks knowing about them, some don't cause they don't want to bother with these confounded systems. Some just wanna dialog and have no interest in sharing stuff like me. But I was just wondering, and didn't want you to feel you had to answer all my junk if ya didn't want to.

Peter: You have proved what I think of you over and over again. And you already know what I think. I think you are an ol' man going senile. :)...jus kiddin....selahV

[stephen]

Volfan007,
From your opion my position is merely opinion. From my position i see it as fact. If you disagree with mine you must have reasons. However if you opion is contradictory then it is no reason for the simple reason that it is unintelligible. If I told you to affirm round squares could you do it. You may say "yes, i believe in round squares", but would it be intelligible to you... no. Just becuase you say you believe in it doesnt mean you know what you are saying. For that matter just becuase you think you believ something doesnt mean you know what you are saying.
If you knew all the responses why did you say that "irresistable grace" takes away choice. Or that you believe in "total depravity" and yet man could still respond.
Any theology of the atonement has to deal with either universalism or the calvinist limited atonement otherwise the term itself doesnt even make sense. If christ propitiated ever human beings sin from adam to know then he has taken away God judgement from every human from adam until now. This is not merely opinion or philosophy this is true by DEFINITION. That is very important. It is very damaging to your position. It is a contradiction in terms to say that christ death merely makes possible people's salvation. Also we must note that this is one of the big deals in the reformation. That slogan "christ death doesnt save but makes possible salvation" was the position of Roman Catholocism. Basic protestant theology is opposed to that, however that is percisely where the modern synergist are running to.
Also we are both trying to stick with what scripture teaches. I have no idea that you are trying on purpose to pervert the scriptures at all. I am not either. We both want to understand the scriptures, however holding a position that is internally unintelligible is not understanding the scriptures- its like round squares.
Blessing in Christ,
Stephen

[volfan07]

stephen,

thats your opinion. i believe that you have sold out to a system and have blinders on.

i just try to let the bible say what it says and beleive it. i dont try to make it all fit into a system.

have yall read daniel akins new statement....the founders blog posted it. its great. it gave me the term i will now use to describe the nearly hyper calvinist that i know.....extreme calvinists. they are not truly hyper calvinists because they still believe in witnessing. but they are off on an extreme.

volfan007

[selahV]

Volfan, I hate to break the news to you my friend, but your "unintelligence" of what you are saying to Stephen, is clearly intelligent to me. I see what you are saying. I understand what you are saying and have no problems accepting what you are saying.

What I believe may not be relevant or intelligible to others (as in the highly educated beyond reproach Calvinist mind) but for some reason, the good Lord has used my stupidity, ignorance and unintelligible words to transform lives, and bring His children to Himself for over 25 years now.

Maybe no one else in the world sees the fruit born from my branches, but the Lord in His majestic seat at the Father's right hand has seen my fruit. And some day I KNOW I shall hear, "well done my good and faithful servant".

My brain is made for understanding what GOD puts into it. And not what MAN puts into it.

God is not a system. GOD is a person...a living breathing person in whom I am made in His image. I love Him. I adore Him. And I will praise His Holy Name forever and ever and ever. And it doesn't matter to me if everyone cannot hear the melody in my song. I may sing off key to some. But my Father in heaven counts it all as music to His ears.

Sing VolFan, sing. I hear your song. Sing Stephen, sing. I hear your song, too. But listen, listen, listen. So you can hear my song. God bless you all. Extreme, hyper, reformed, deformed, conservative, moderate, liberal, informed and uninformed. I love you all. ALL as in ALL.
SelahV

[stephen]

Volfan007 adn SelahV,
I hope you guys both understand. When I say that your position is unintelligible i am not saying that you guys are "stupid" "uneducated" or somehow less intelligent than I or an other Calvinist. I do not believe that- how could I? I don't know you and even if I did i still could not make that judgement? I am also not saying that I am more spiritual than you guys. I do not believe that at all.
Volfan007 I do hold a system. I admit Clvinism is a system. This doesnt mean i have blinders on. Only when someone admits that they hold a system and is self aware of their own system can they say this. Becuase I know my system it is allows me to evaluate yours. You also, whether or not you realize this, have a system. Proof of this point is the fact that you are not a calvinist. By not being a calvinist you are logically a non-calvinist. Non-calvinism is a system. Also, You are a Baptist. By being a baptist you hold to the principles of a baptistic system. We use terms like "baptist" and "calvinist" to speak clearly and intelligibly about sets of beliefs. My claim, and what i have prooved above, is that your "set of beliefs" are contradictory. When you have a contradictory belief system your system is unintelligible. Like around square. This is an unintelligible concept or lack of a concept. When you relate one verse to another, which is necessary for any interpretation, you are makeing a system. Some system are better that others. Volfan007 if you can't answer the logical problems it is probably time that you reevaluate your system and change some things. It is at this time that I ask your ro reconsider Calvinism.
We can believe a theology that gives 100 percent the glory to God and finds salvation 100 percent in the merits of Christ or we can believe in a system that gives half of the glory to God and half the glory to man. Calvinism gives the glory totally to God. From the Calvinist perspective we contribute nothing but our sin to our salvation. We dont contribute even our decision but that is a gracious gift given to us. You just cant have that logcally in a non-calvinist system. Anyhow Please know that I do not consider you guys less of a christian. I am certainly not an extreme Calvinist just a plain-jane calvinist who first and foremost is a christian that seeks to glorify God in all things especially to witness to a spiritually dead group of philsophy students- that is my sphere of influence.
Blessings in Christ
Stephen

[selahV]

Stephen: You said, "When you have a contradictory belief system your system is unintelligible." Operative words here to me is "you" and "your". When "I" have a contradictory belief system "my" system is unintelligible.

I have no system, Stephen. I only have scripture. I truly don't put one verse above another, I couldn't intelligently explain any of it to you, because every time I read the Living Word, I change to it. So a "system" to me is like this stupid computer in front of me. I can't change anything without it causing chaos with the rest of everything it does or tries to do. It is set in one way and when I try to alter it in anyway, I am met with gobbly-gook and cyber-blocks, and illegal error messages, and you-will-be-shut down. That is what systems do. One can't trust systems. I wish I could explain to you how I know what I know but what I know is so incomprehensible to me. There is no "Bill-Gates or any of his technicians" who can explain it. In fact, all of the techs together cannot explain it, they all differ in the portion or job they have to make this computer system work. Then when one thinks they have the system all figured out someone finds a bug that can attack the system, sends a virus to destroy the system or finds a flaw in the system that must be corrected. I say all this to say that is why I can't answer all the questions. I have NO answers. I have one Jesus. He lived before time. He lived on earth as a man born of the Spirit by way of a virgin's birth. He ministered to the world to show us the Father above and how we are to live in a pleasing holy manner to follow Him and to point others to the Cross. Not to a system. He said if I--Jesus--be lifted up, I will draw all men to Me...not to a system designed by my understanding. But by His Word. Then He was crucified a perfect man--impossible for me--but through His sacrifice His blood covered me because I believe in Him. Then He was raised to Life and seen among men again and now sits at the right hand of the Father. I, because I trust in what He is and has done for me, sit in Him (positionally) as He does next to my Father. I abide in Him because I grew as a branch from Him. Before then I was nothing. Apart from Him, I am nothing. He drew me to Him.

All my life I knew there was a "He" I needed...a "Home" I didn't feel apart of. It wasn't till JESUS was preached crucified that I knew the He I needed had a name called Jesus and the Home I longed for was called Heaven.
I know He has gone to my Home to prepare a room for me. I know it because He said so, not someone's system. I do not understand Calvinism. I do not understand Arminianism. I do understand Jesus tells me to go and tell what I DO know and what I DO know He will use. What I don't know He will fill in the gaps. Maybe, dear Stephen--and I say "dear" with the deepest sincerity within my being--the gaps are to be filled in by Calvinists. Maybe it is to be filled in by Timothy George, Dan Akin, Tom Ascol, Keith Schooley, Peter Lumpkins, Al Mohler, or you. And that is okay with me. I have no arguments with anyone. I am like Paul. I believe that whoever is preaching Jesus is doing what is necessary to LIFT Him up and anyone within their readership or voice who look upon the Lifted Christ will be drawn to Him. I leave the confusion regarding systems, doctrine and all the other stuff to Jesus. He is the One who is The Way, The Truth and The Life. I think He's got it all figured out and someday, we will spend an eternity, (which I believe I am already a part of) sitting at His feet then "doing" what He wants us to do with what we were faithful to do on this earth.

He will take my hay, my stubble and it will be consumed and used to keep the fires of Hell ablaze. He will take my meager amount of leftover gold and silver and give me something to do, even if it is simply entering Calvinism into the Holy Writ of eternity forever. Whatever He chooses to do with me, I accept. I deserve nothing. I rest totally on His merciful, just, Sovereign Love to do as He wills with me.

You said, "Calvinism gives the glory totally to God." So do I. I have no ism. I am just me, doing what little thing I can do. I am a light. I am salt. And I truly, truly, truly believe you and Volfan are too. All I want to do in "word or deed" is to bring Glory to God. I fail when I get my self-centered thoughts and processing of my thoughts beyond the place of Jesus words. I cannot explain Jesus the way Calvinists explain Him. I cannot explain Jesus the way Arminians explain Him. I don't know what ISN'T--IS NOT--about Jesus, the Bible or the Hebrew and Greek meanings of the Gospel. I only know what I know. And to my understanding of His Word, He will only hold me accountable for what I know. Not what others know. He will only hold me accountable for what I do and say--not what others do and say.

You said, "From the Calvinist perspective we contribute nothing but our sin to our salvation."
I can't even contribute my sin to salvation. I am nothing. NOTHING. Nothing is Nothing and sin is nothing. Jesus says apart from Him we are nothing. I am only something IN Jesus, Himself. How He brings me to Himself is not my concern. I just know He did it. Jesus died because God wanted to make a perfect covenant with man to bring him into the "promise" He wants to fulfill in Abraham. I get to partake of that promise because God made a covenant through His Son on which I can curl up in and rest.

You said, "We dont contribute even our decision but that is a gracious gift given to us." I can't argue with that Stephen. I do not know how, because I truly don't know what you mean. I just know that whether me walking into the First Baptist Church in East Hartford, Connecticut was because of Him drawing or me getting up and getting dressed in "presentable" clothing instead of the cocktail garb I usually wore--it doesn't matter. It happened. I didn't know Calvin, Arminius or even the pastor of that church. I'd been living so far on the other side of holiness TO myself that when confronted with the crucified Lord in a sermon, I walked down and aisle and went to Him. I needed Him and He has never failed me. Never ever ever. And I do not think you, Stephen, think I am stupid. I think some people in the Calvinist community think I am stupid. I think some think I am stupid, just as some who are not in the Calvinist community think you are stupid. It is sooooo sad. Because I truly love you all. I even love the homosexual, the harlots, the Enron thieves and the poor misguided women who have bought into a lie that the life within them is an inconvenient blob of nothing.

Thank you, Stephen for caring enough for me to share your understanding of your faith in Our risen Lord. God bless you in your ministry. I hope we can talk more. SelahV

[volfan007]

i agree with selah....what she said.

volfan007