The 101 Most Influential People Who Never Lived, published in 2006, lists those icons of pop culture’s fiction whose influence is still most felt today. Number two on the list is “Big Brother”, the well-near universally known brain spawn of George Orwell’s 1984.
“Big Brother is watching you” has become the catchphrase for describing the strange feeling that “someone is watching me”—a phenomenon lasting for two full generations of adults since Orwell penned the book in 1948. I’m quite sure many high profile, Southern Baptist Pastors know the feeling to which I refer.
Recently, Dr. Steve Gaines, Senior Pastor of the famed Bellevue Baptist Church, Cordova, Tennessee preached a chapel sermon at the Criswell College in Dallas, Texas. I listened to some of the message but not all at the time of this writing. A couple of initial thoughts.
First, Dr. Gaines is a sensitive worship leader in his own right. As the sermon began, he led the student body in an inspiring chorus that surely set the atmosphere in the service toward positive receptivity for the Word of God. His clear, mellow voice is easy to follow and projects sensitivity to the Spirit’s leadership in the hour.
Secondly, given Bellevue’s deep well of premier preaching from the colorful themes and trance-like attention R.G. Lee commanded to the masterful expository preaching of the late Dr. Adrian Rogers, it stands as no surprise precisely why Bellevue would call Steve Gaines as their Pastor. His articulation seems flawless and his passion stands noticeable even listening through only a partial sermon. With excitement, I anticipate the rest of his message.
Ah, but Big Brother was watching Steve Gaines. Dr. Tom Ascol, Executive Director of Founders Ministries, the largest network of Baptist Calvinists in the Southern Baptist Convention, added the Bellevue Pastor to the long list of those Southern Baptists—especially high profile pastors—who need such theological surveillance.
In his recent post, “Steve Gaines Revives the Caricatures of Calvinism” Dr. Ascol laments the life-long-yet-to-be-experienced-hope when “common caricatures of the doctrines of sovereign grace have been so widely exposed that any self-respecting preacher will be ashamed to keep serving them up…”
He further reminds readers that Founders deputies have thoroughly exposed the innocuous blanks NonCalvinists have been shooting in their six guns for so long by linking to no less than nine tombstones.
Clicking those links leads one on a trail of blood up to Boot Hill where among the dead lie “Black Jack” Graham, Nelson “Poncho” Price and Jerry “Doc Holliday” Vines. I found it humorous that Steve “Slim” Gaines already had a tombstone there with his name on it.
The present lament Dr. Ascol and Founders discovered (through Big Brother network?) about Dr. Gaines this time around is twofold. First, he takes a razor and begins to slice thin pieces of skin off Dr. Gaines back:
“I mean no disrespect, but this highlights much that has gone wrong with the conservative resurgence...Too many are willing to thump their Bibles and boldly declare its inerrancy while denying its sufficiency...If the Bible is inerrant...then shouldn't it be treated with more respect than is shown by those who blatantly neglect (church discipline) or add to (evangelism) its clear teachings?” concluding that “It is dishonest on its face…”
What did Dr. Gaines say that sent Dr. Ascol into an open range war? Here are the words Dr. Ascol himself quoted from the sermon:
“It would emaciate my evangelism if I couldn't walk up to a total stranger and say, "Jesus died for you." There's some people who can't do that. They can't do that. They say, "Jesus died for the elect, I hope you're one of them."
Allow me a note or two and I will defer until a bit later. First note: given Dr. Ascol’s drama, I was disappointed that Dr. Gaines offered such a mild statement. After all, Dr. Gaines was only speaking what would emaciate his evangelism, not Dr. Ascol’s.
For Dr. Gaines and most NonCalvinists—not to mention an entire school of Calvinists who thoroughly reject Limited Atonement to the dismay of Founders Dortian dogma—adhering to the teaching that Jesus’ death makes absolutely no salvific difference, eternally speaking, to a large portion of people they meet, affects, in a significant way, the evangelistic perspective they would have were that doctrine so. Thus, to peel Dr. Gaines hide back and pour in salt seems to me, entirely too much punishment.
Even more, since Dr. Ascol is so well known for his charges of “straw men”, what in blazing saddles does “thump[ing] one’s Bible”, what’s “gone wrong with the conservative resurgence”, or “blatantly neglect[ing] (church discipline)”, have to do with Dr. Gaines expressing his concern that Limited Atonement offers only profound difficulties to his practise of Biblical witnessing? I honestly don’t know...I honestly don't know.
What is telling in the quotes Dr. Ascol offers is that Steve Gaines never identifies the ones toward whom his critique flows. That is, Dr. Gaines never says either “The Founders believe”, “The Reformed teach”, “The Doctrines of Grace deny”, “Particular Redemption is heresy” or “All Calvinists affirm”. At least he did not in the portions of the message I heard.
Nor did Dr. Ascol quote such which, I confidently feel, he darn well would have had Dr. Gaines used these nifty little incriminators. I stand humbly open to correction here for I have not listened to the entire sermon.
But, if I may be more candid, the worse is yet to be: Second note:
“It is dishonest on its face…”
Of course, for Dr. Ascol to charge dishonesty is perhaps the spiciest ingredient that could be added. In fact, the “straw man” dish was much more tasty.
Why? I’ve found people usually construct “straw men” not because they are deceitful about knowledge of the subject but because they are deficient in knowledge of the subject. They move forward on the basis of what they understand.
And, if they are men and women of integrity, they construct critiques—however inadequate such critiques may be because of their deficient knowledge—and construct those critiques honorably.
On the other hand, Dr. Ascol, is not charging Dr. Gaines with constructing a “straw man” under honest pretenses. His words again: “It is dishonest on its face…”
That is, presumably in his fallacious understanding of The Doctrines of Grace—and I cannot over-emphasize Dr. Ascol’s presumptuous procedure here, for in his sermon, Dr. Gaines never identified his target explicitly nor publicly as has Dr. Ascol repeatedly done— Dr. Gaines was unscrupulous, knavish and deceitful in his preaching at Criswell College. Let me show you what I mean, if I may.
Dishonesty is about both intent and action. Most simply viewed, if I overcharged you a dollar, I could have done so by honest mistake or dishonest maneuver. If I mistakenly overcharged you that stands as an honest mistake. But if I intended to overcharge you a dollar, and proceeded to do so, this is not an honest mistake but a morally dishonest intentional action. Most of see at face value the obvious difference between the two. “Dishonest on its face”? Dr. Ascol, this NonCalvinist begs to differ.
If you are going to publicly call on someone to go outside for a quick-draw, kindly refrain from cocking the shotgun under the table. My mind cannot quit churning. I’m wondering now if all our other Cowboys on Boot Hill that Founders so desires us to observe have not been bushwhacked. There is another point I want to get around to here but I’ll come back to it.
Next, Dr. Ascol summons for the second charge in Dr. Gaines’ file:
“Next, Dr. Gaines repeats a canard that should have been put to rest long ago. It was a key point of Jerry Vines' diatribe against Calvinism in 2006. It stems from equating regeneration with the whole work of salvation. Regeneration is sine qua non to salvation, but it is not the full content of salvation. Failure to make that distinction leads to the following fallacious critique...”
Afterward, Dr. Ascol, quotes a hefty section from Dr. Gaines’ sermon which you can read for yourself.
Why Dr. Ascol needed to bring up poor “Doc” Vines, whose arguments, according to Founders, lie belly up at Boot Hill, I do not pretend to know. I gave an alternate account about the “Doc” Vines bushwhackers who, interestingly charged him with similar “misrepresentations” or, in Dr. Ascol’s latest charge, a “canard”—a baseless, derogatory rumor. That’s certainly not a moral upgrade from being immorally dishonest by any stretch.
Nonetheless, I think I’ll let you search for my alternate account yourself and not give you a link if you want to read it. With all the links to ourselves that’s been going on lately, I just don’t have the stomach to do it.
There is one point I’d make here and I’m through. Dr. Ascol confidently informs us that
“Regeneration is sine qua non to salvation, but it is not the full content of salvation.”
Well, as I read Dr. Gaines, he never said it was. Dr. Gaines did say,
“The same theology that says that Jesus only died for some says...you repent after you are saved.”
Even so, no initial problem exists as Dr. Ascol would like us to believe because neither is justification the full content of salvation. Indeed I suppose we cannot precisely say the full content of salvation takes place until after Jesus comes, the bodily resurrection happens and ultimately we’re dwelling in the New Heaven and New Earth.
Nevertheless, which one of us will not confidently insist that the day we were justified is not also the day we were surely saved, even though being justified is not the full content of salvation? I raise my hand and insist with joy!
More problematic for Dr. Ascol is his shoot-up-Dodge assertion here, after mercilessly torching Dr. Gaines’ barn back there. Recall here:
“Regeneration is sine qua non to salvation, but it is not the full content of salvation.”
Now carefully note once again Dr. Ascol’s torches as he flings them toward Slim’s barn:
“Nowhere in God's Holy, inerrant Word do we find an evangelistic appeal based on the idea that Jesus died for the particular person being appealed to. Where is there any record of any apostle going up to a person, stranger or not and saying, "Jesus died for you"? What does it say about one's understanding of evangelism when it would be "emaciated" unless a statement that the Bible nowhere makes nor instructs us to make can be said?”
The words above allege Dr. Gaines was guilty of high hermeneutical crimes by employing an example of evangelistic appeal that is “Nowhere in God's Holy, inerrant Word”, which is entirely absent of “any record of any apostle going up to a person...saying, "Jesus died for you"?. Indeed, “...the Bible nowhere makes nor instructs us to make [that statement].”
If Dr. Ascol means what he says—and I have no reason to believe he does not—could he please give us one single verse in the New Testament that even comes close to saying what he said: “Regeneration is sine qua non to salvation, but it is not the full content of salvation”?
The first problem is the Latin. I’m not a scholar, but I do not believe Jesus informed Nicodemus
“Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. But know, Nicodemus, Regeneration is sine qua non to salvation, but it is not the full content of salvation.”
Nor can Dr. Ascol or his deputies easily alleviate the faux pas by suggesting that I too have built a “straw man” to my liking. Know it is not the words themselves that give the only problem with such a position that Dr. Ascol asserts.
Rather, it is as stated above: I personally and confidently may deduce my being fully saved from my being justified, though justification is only sine qua non to salvation.
And, neither Biblically, theologically nor practically, in my view, is there the least resistance to deducing my being fully saved from my being born again by the Spirit of the Living God. Who among us would even contemplate uttering "I have been born again by the Spirit of God" apart from meaning by that "I have been saved from my sin by the blood of Christ"? Not I.
Big Brother surveillance only pushes Calvinists and NonCalvinists farther apart in the long run. It’s almost as if we’re looking for the most insignificant, imprecise language our brothers across the aisle employ and then, Bam!
What Dr. Steve Gaines said about no one in particular, called for no circle-the-wagons strategy Founders has made it to be. Atmospheres like this inevitably result in sloppy critiques, I hate to say, like Dr. Ascol has offered.
Though sloppy it is, I do not think it dishonest—perhaps emotionally driven—but not dishonest. I count him no liar. I only wish Founders could have given Dr. Gaines the same respect without stooping to moral indictments he did not deserve.
Dr Ascol ended his critique with these words:
“I look forward to the day when this kind of review will be unnecessary...Until that time, those who unabashedly misrepresent...should be held accountable for their words. If doing so causes embarassment [sic], let the cause be rightly traced to the those who perpetuate the caricatures and not to the ones who simply call attention to their misrepresentations..”
Amen. I agree, Dr. Ascol. But on this one, you need to know it’s your face that should be red, not Dr. Gaines'.
Grace. With that, I am…
Peter
Dear Pete "the Pistol" Lumpkins,
You opine that "Big Brother surveillance only pushes Calvinists and NonCalvinists farther apart in the long run."
I would re-opine that the above quote, together with the post of which it is a part, does as much or more to secure your unhappy observation as anything Tom wrote.
I am off to appointments, so I cannot explicate just yet, though I hope to later today.
Grace and peace.
Posted by: Timotheos | 2008.04.24 at 06:56 AM
Geez. I did not realize that Acts 8:26-40, especially 35, were not legitimate verses in the Bible. I'll have to tell my church on Sunday AM we need to tear that portion of our Bibles. No, we cannot have that one-on-one presentation of the Gospel to a single individual.(Tongue FIRMLY embedded in cheek)
Posted by: Luke | 2008.04.24 at 07:59 AM
Peter,
After venturing over to TOM's and reading his post, I am sure the example I have cited does not meet the criteria to the iota of what he has contended. Be that as it may, I still stand by my previous statement although I probably should have used less satire than I did.
Posted by: Luke | 2008.04.24 at 08:41 AM
Pistol Peter,
Let's cut to the heart of the issue:
Please give your answer (A or B) to this simple Multiple choice question:
A) The New Birth is the product of a man's faith.
B)Man's faith is the product of the New Birth.
deputy chadwick
Posted by: deputy chadwick | 2008.04.24 at 09:33 AM
pistol pete,
one of the fellers in bootheel that you left out is johnny "six gun" hunt. they shot him and buried him a long time ago.
peter, you have hit the nail on the head...squarely. this is all definitely what makes me not like the extreme views and aggresive ways of the founder's crowd.
deputy chadwick, man's logic cannot figure out the workings of God....that which the bible does not tell us. what we're told is that Jesus died for the sins of mankind. He offers salvation to the entire world. and, man must respond to the calling of the Holy Spirit in repentance and faith. salvation is totally a work of God...by grace....yet, man must respond to the call of God. and, God earnestly desires that all men be saved....He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked.
as spurgeon used to say...these great truthes are like two sides of a mountain. on one side, there is the sovereignty of God and election and predestination. on the other side, you have man's responsibility and repentance and faith. and, where these two sides of the mountain meet is up in the clouds....unable to be seen by us. but, both sides are equally true.
also, dr. criswell used to say that predestination and election and the sovereignty of God are heaven's point of view. the responsibility of man and repentance and faith are earth's point of view. both are equally true.
yet, some(dortian calvinists and arminians) think that they can see up in the clouds. they have it all figured out.
i dont think so.
david
Posted by: volfan007 | 2008.04.24 at 10:25 AM
hitman david,
Spurgeon ALSO said:
"According to their theory that salvation depends upon our own will-you have first of all this difficulty to meet, that you have made the purpose of God in the great plan of salvation entirely contingent. You have an “if” put upon everything. Christ may die, but it is not certain according to that theory that he will redeem a great multitude; nay, not certain that he will redeem any, since the efficacy of the redemption, according to that plan, rests not in its own intrinsic power, but in the will of man accepting that redemption. Hence if man be, as we aver he always is, if he be a bond-slave as to his will, and will not yield to the invitation of God’s grace, then in such a case the atonement of Christ would be valueless, useless, and altogether in vain, for not a soul
would be saved by it; and even when souls are saved by it, according to that theory, the efficacy, I say, lies not in the blood itself, but in the will of man which gives it efficacy. Redemption is therefore made contingent; the cross shakes, the blood falls powerless on the ground, and atonement is a matter of perhaps. There is a heaven provided, but there may be no souls who will ever come there if their coming is to be of themselves. There is a fountain filled with blood, but there may be none who will ever wash in it unless divine purpose and power shall constrain them to come. You may look at any one promise of grace, but you cannot say over it, “This is the sure mercy of David;” for there is an “if,” and a “but;” a “perhaps,” and a “peradventure.” In fact, the reins are gone out of God’s hands; the linchpin is taken away from the wheels of the creation; you have left the whole economy of grace and mercy to be the gathering together of fortuitous
atoms impelled by man’s own will, and what may become of it at the end nobody can know. We cannot tell on that theory whether God will be glorified or sin will triumph. Oh! how happy are we when we come back to the old- fashioned doctrines, and cast our anchor where it can get its grip in the eternal purpose and counsel of God, who worketh all things to the good pleasure of his will." (Charles Haddon Spurgeon from God's Will & Man's Will) http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0442.htm
John 6:37,
deputy chadwick
Posted by: deputy chadwick | 2008.04.24 at 11:02 AM
Excellent Spurgeon quote.
Posted by: Byroniac | 2008.04.24 at 11:08 AM
byroniac,
thanks. :)
deputy,
i read the quote. i agree with spurgeon that salvation is not dependent on man...because, man, left to himself...will never come to God. he is lost and sinful and dead to God. but, still, there is a factor there that suggests that man must respond to the calling of God. he must "choose" to be saved....in response to the call and convicting of God. it's not that salvation is dependent upon man. it's not. God is the author and the finisher of our faith. but, man still must respond to the God who desires that all men be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth. man must respond the light that he has. he must say yes to the God who takes no delight in the death of the wicked, and to the Savior who would have gathered the chicks under His wing...but, THEY would not.
do you think that spurgeon believed in regeneration before salvation?
david
Posted by: volfan007 | 2008.04.24 at 11:19 AM
I'm pretty sure Spurgeon believed in regeneration before salvation.
Posted by: Bill | 2008.04.24 at 11:29 AM
A telling quote from Dr. Ascol:
Gene has put it well. I simply add that I am not criticizing Dr. Gaines for using "Jesus died for you" in his evangelism. I am criticizing his words at two points: 1) his declaration that if he could not say that, then he could not evangelize; 2) his caricature of anyone who cannot/does not say that in evangelism.
I had a wonderful time last night persuading a friend to be reconciled to God by trusting Christ. At no time did I feel my message was emaciated because I did not use language that is not in the Bible. And, neither did I say, "Jesus died for the elect. I hope you are one of them."
Posted by: Bill | 2008.04.24 at 11:35 AM
hitman david,
You sly dog, you! Isn’t the very “logical” question you refuse to answer, the exact “logical” question you want me to answer?
You stated:
“deputy chadwick, man's logic cannot figure out the workings of God....that which the bible does not tell us.”
Then you ask me,
“do you think that spurgeon believed in regeneration before salvation?”
I will gladly share with you what Spurgeon believed:
Spurgeon’s confession of faith was the 1689 London Baptist Confession. Therefore, I will let Spurgeon’s confession speak for him:
The Faith article of the 1689 LBC states:
1. The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls, is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts, and is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the Word; by which also, and by the administration of baptism and the Lord's supper, prayer, and other means appointed of God, it is increased and strengthened. (2 Corinthians 4:13; Ephesians 2:8; Romans 10:14, 17; Luke 17:5; 1 Peter 2:2; Acts 20:32 )
Now, hitman, according to the “logic” of Spurgeon’s confession of the Faith article, I believe you have enough “logic” to rightly conclude Spurgeon’s answer to your “logical” question.
You and I know Spurgeon’s statement of faith . . . and I know my own.
I will answer your “logical” question when you answer mine. Therefore, what will it be for you, hitman? A or B?
I’m yur huckleberry,
deputy chadwick :D
Posted by: deputy chadwick | 2008.04.24 at 12:53 PM
Dear Deputy Chadwick,
Thanks for the Q. I must say, however, I am not one to wade too deeply into your ordo salutis pool, as refreshing as you make it appear.
That tidy, clear-cut grid of salvation is the unfortunate product of the resurrected scholasticism that Dort put into motion for later Calvinists to take pleasure in arguing about. Instead of angels on a pinhead the Catholic doctors entertained, it became arrangement of pronouncements Dortians debated.
But, I will assert my denial of both A & B.
Not A because the New Birth is itself a divine work exclusively wrought of the Spirit. My anything--including faith--cannot produce the works of God.
Not B because I am not born again apart from faith and neither prior to faith. If I am born again apart from faith, then faith--the one and only condition Scripture repeatedly insists I must possess to reap eternal life--is simply unneccessary. Nor am I born again prior to faith for the same reason.
Not quite an either/or answer you wished, my brother deputy chadwick, but I did the best I could with what I believe to be two deficient options.
With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter | 2008.04.24 at 04:13 PM
Bill,
Dr. Ascol's explanation you mentioned as "telling" is itself part of the ongoing difficulty.
In the second round, Dr. Ascol says this of Dr. Gaines words: "I am criticizing ...his declaration that if he could not say that, then he could not evangelize;"
Where did Dr. Ascol get this conclusion and/or affirmation from what he himself quoted Dr. Gaines saying? Here again is what Ascol quotes of Gaines:
Which part of this says Dr. Gaines declares that "he could not evangelize without saying that"? Dr. Ascol just simply misinterprets Dr. Gaines' words-- an honest mistake, by the way, but still a mistake and a careless one.
The point I make here is this: Dr. Ascol did not do justice to Gaines' words. And, if we employed Dr. Ascol's method toward Steve Gaines in the post under consideration, we'd be forced to conclude "it was dishonest on the face of it" what Dr. Ascol did to what Steve Gaines actually said.
Do I think Dr. Ascol dishonest in his words? I do not. Yet I do think it's sloppy and emotionally driven but obviously short of deceptive.
Why would Founders not offer the same benefit of a doubt toward Steve Gaines instead of charging him with dishonesty and disception in his statements presumbaly about Calvinism?
Grace. With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter | 2008.04.24 at 04:42 PM
Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word.
Trying to determine which comes first, regeneration or faith, is like trying to put in order which attribute of Christ is most important. I was asked by a well educated preacher to put certain attributes of Christ in order along with a room full of fellow pastors. We were devided into groups. After looking at the list of attributes for oh about 2 seconds I finished my assessment. When the time to answer came I was called on first. Here is what I said, " These cannot be put in order, because if Christ is not fully one He is not fully all". What God does to convict our hearts through His word and Spirit cannot be fully comprehended by our human mind. I know I am chosen. I know I am saved. I know I am a regenerate believer in Christ. These cannot be put in order, because without one I am none.
Posted by: Brett Clements | 2008.04.24 at 09:25 PM
Pistol Peter,
Interesting political answer. Are you going to be running against Les in Indy? :D
Seriously: Are you a neo-confessionalist?
deputy chadwick
Posted by: deputy chadwick | 2008.04.24 at 09:55 PM
Brother Dave,
Those quotes from Spurgeon and Criswell show no dichotomy in their beliefs. I think that alot of people confuse the denial of autonomous "free-will" of man by the Reformed as a denial of man's responsibility for his condemnation.
I know of no verse in the Bible, and there are many that I do not "know", that teaches the ability of unregenerate man to please God by "choosing" Him. There are some that teach just the opposite. The verses that are often stated as "proof" of "free-will" choice are not that at all. I believe they simply show that man is responsible for his just condemnation in his disbelief.
Surely if man had "free-will", a gospel preaching madman like the apostle Paul would have appealed to the sensibilities of man's ability to believe on his own. Jesus would have told the Pharisees, "You don't believe because I am not an effective enough evangelist" if this were the case. (That made my skin crawl just typing that, gonna have to ask for repentance)
I didn't mean to turn this into another "Free-will" thing, but I just wanted to point out that there was no discrepancy, as far as I believe anyway, from those quotes you used.
Forgive me if I have been presumptuous, for I am sure that you have heard all these arguments before.
Grace and Peace to y'all...
ABClay
Posted by: ABClay | 2008.04.24 at 10:38 PM
abc,
i think that you and some others in here miss what peter, brett, spurgeon, criswell, and i are trying to say. man is lost, because he is lost...he is sinful. he cannot come to God on his own, nor would he choose to do so. God...in His sovereignty has chosen to come to man. yes, i believe that side of the coin. it's what the bible teaches. i believe in predestination and election because the bible teaches it.
yet, we cant overlook the other side of the fence...which i beleive that many dortian calvinist do. i believe that the tulip guys dismiss the other side of the coin....yet, both are equally true. God elects us. man must respond in repentance and faith. i'm saved only because of the grace of God. yet, i had to make a choice when the Lord called out to me. the choice was yes or no.
also, Jesus looked at jerusalem and said how many times would He have gathered....but, THEY would not. no matter who you say that "they" are...still, Jesus wanted to gather...but, someone would not...thus, He didnt.
in His hometown, Jesus didnt do a lot of miracles...didnt save a lot of people...didnt do a lot of work that He would have done. why not? was it because Jesus just arbitrarily chose to not do it? no, it was due to their unbelief.
also, in ezekiel, the bible says that God takes no pleasure...no delight...in the death of the wicked. He had rather see them repent and have life. in fact, in timothy, it even says that God desires that all men be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth....and, the context there was talking about govt. officials, etc. thus, it would tell me that the all men included people in authority...some who were lost and remained lost. also, in 1 john the bible teaches that Jesus died for the whole world. also, when joshua told the hebrew people to choose ye this day...but as for me and my house we will serve the Lord....was joshua ignorant to what you dortians teach? was he just too ignorant to understand all of this...."you aint got no choice, josh...you are in God's service whether you wanted to or not?"
in the end, i believe that dortian calvinists are too fatalistic. it's a fatalistic theology. and, steve gaines is right. it throws cold water on evangelism. i dont hate dortian calvinists....but yall have adopted a very fatalistic philosophy, or theology.
my dortian, tulip friends, there are too many verses that show that Jesus died for everyone...earnestly desires for everyone to be saved...and that He offers salvation to the world. and yet, some people choose to not be saved. others repond in humble repentance and faith, and they are saved. thus, i cannot hold the tulips with yall.
david
Posted by: volfan007 | 2008.04.24 at 11:13 PM
david: In the end it really doesn't matter, although everytime I'm around I see more and more labels being put on such as Dortian. Dortian? Please. Reformed, Calvinist whatever. It's what I see scripture teaching.
We still believe the gospel should be preached to all. We still believe all should be prayed for. We are still passionate to see many saved and so what does it really matter? We can still unite in the gospel. Calvinism isn't what is given to the lost, the gospel is. Christ came to this earth was born to a virgin, ministered, died, rose again and is now at the right hand of God. He did this so that we might have Life. Nothing else really matters.
Posted by: Debbie Kaufman | 2008.04.24 at 11:29 PM
hitman david,
Excellent straw man: Calvinistic Theology leads to fatalism . . . you ripped ole’ strawboy down in record time! (According to your straw man, you cannot hold hands with Spurgeon) :D
I can build a straw man that will go down as quick as yours: david’s Theology leads to open-theism, universalism, etc.
Now that you defeated your straw man in record time, and I have done the same, let me identify myself for you without using an ounce of straw:
deputy chadwick is: firstly a Christian (as Debbie described), and secondly, a Christian who is a CONFESSIONAL SOUTHERN BAPTIST/NON-ARMINIAN. :D
deputy chadwick
Posted by: deputy chadwick | 2008.04.25 at 07:01 AM
I still haven't seen any of these dortian Calvinistic fatalists identified. Can someone name one, just one? Calvinists preach the Gospel to all. No one ever says something stupid like "God loves the elect and I hope you're one of them". Calvinists have John 3:16 in their bibles too. I don't believe it is fatalistic at all, but rather optimistic. When I get an opportunity to preach, I believe God is at work in the hearts and minds of people. I believe that it is not my own ability or persuasiveness that is the key to winning them. I do not fear that someone will end up in hell because of my own weakness or inability. I sow seed knowing that God gives the increase. I don't get discouraged if people do no respond because it is not my job to get them to respond. It is God's.
As far as fatalism goes, perhaps you are confusing us with premil dispensationalists? :)
Posted by: Bill | 2008.04.25 at 08:08 AM
dortian calvinism is fatalistic...anytime you say that some will be saved...no matter what....and that others dont really have any chance whatsoever to be saved....that's fatalism...pure and simple.
also, let me say this....chad, debbie, bill, and others....if you heard me preach on predestination and election, yall might call me a calvinist. i have been called that. but, when you hear me preach on God's desire to save all men, or on our responsibility to witness, yall might call me an arminian.
that's the way it should be, imho.
david
Posted by: volfan007 | 2008.04.25 at 09:05 AM
David:
I wonder if you've actually read the canons of the Synod of Dort. No fatalism there. It's not a "saved / lost no matter what" theology. It neither denies human responsibility to repent and believe, nor to evangelize.
Your Dortian Friend,
James
Posted by: Rev. | 2008.04.25 at 10:24 AM
I should have added, not only does it not deny these matter, but affirms them.
By His Grace Alone,
James
Posted by: Rev. | 2008.04.25 at 10:25 AM
Peter,
Allow me, if it's possible, to retract my previous comment to you at the beginning of this stream. I find I neither have the time nor the inclination (for now) to explicate my statement. So strike it from the records if you will.
Grace and peace.
Posted by: Timotheos | 2008.04.25 at 10:35 AM
Pistol Peter,
Correction to the previous question that I meant to ask you:
Are you TRANS-Confessional?
the deputy
Posted by: deputy chadwick | 2008.04.25 at 11:29 AM
I still haven't seen one of these insidious dortian calvinists named. Where are they? What is Mr. Gaines preaching against?
Posted by: Bill | 2008.04.25 at 11:48 AM
Bill:
Your 'fatalist/dispy' comment made me laugh out loud! BTW, while I'm a Dortian, I'm certainly not the one Dr. Gaines' was speaking about. The guy he was talking about is a complete moron and a total jerk. Of course, I guess some people might think I *was* the one he had in mind. ;) Is this my friend, Bill A.?
Peter:
Hope you'll come back over to read my reply. Please not the slight edit to address your concern.
James
Posted by: Rev. | 2008.04.25 at 12:31 PM
to believe that some people will be saved...no matter what. and, to believe that some people dont really have a chance to be saved...and dortians believe that they dont, because they are not the elect....is fatalism.
james, did Jesus die for every person in the world....is His death sufficient to cover the sins of every man, woman, boy, and girl who have lived and who are living and who will live?
david
Posted by: volfan007 | 2008.04.25 at 01:58 PM
James: No, I'm afraid we don't know each other. I'm glad to hear that you aren't a total jerk and a moron.:)
Posted by: Bill | 2008.04.25 at 02:03 PM
David:
Again, Dortians don't believe that people will be saved or lost "no matter what" or that some people "don't really have a chance to be saved." That is fatalism. Dortians hold that God uses means, that people's decisions have meaning, and that individuals are responsible for their own choices.
David - YES, the death of Christ is sufficient to cover the sins of every man, woman, boy and girl who have ever lived and who are living and who will live (Canon II.3), but is efficient only for those who believe (the elect).
Bill - hope we get to meet one of these days. :)
Posted by: Rev. | 2008.04.25 at 02:40 PM
Chadwick,
I hope this means you still look up to me! :^)
Let me be as clear as I possibly can: I haven't the slightest idea what a neo-confessionalist is.
And, allow me to show further ignorance from West Georiga: switching to TRANS-confessionalist does not help.
Grace always, you nonburlesonite you. With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter | 2008.04.25 at 03:30 PM
James,
Thanks for logging on here. Though since my whereabouts are now known by you, I may be sorry in the long run since you did your doctoral in history.
Now it will be much harder to get away with "misspeaking" about Church history :^) Not to mention Chadwick could find a partner in calvinistic-crime with you in spoiling my fun here.
I responded to your comment on your site. Know also I did not at all expect you to change your post. I thought it completely amiable as written.
With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter | 2008.04.25 at 03:39 PM
Peter,
Being new to your blog, I must ask have you taken those that are buried in Boot Hill to task to the same level as you have taken Tom Ascol? Or do you make no pretense of even-handedness? I am not being coy in asking, but asking to be sure I understand exactly what you are about.
Morris Brooks
Posted by: Morris Brooks | 2008.04.25 at 09:39 PM
Morris,
Thanks for logging on. Actually, I do not see myself here as an equal opportunity blogger. I make no claim to defending all who deserve it or chastising all who don't. Rather, I do claim to be fair in both defense and chastisement when I attempt either.
That said, if I do "take to task" Tom Ascol or defend Steve Gaines, neither of whom I personally know, my concern is, in either defense or chastisement, was I fair and judicious?
Thus, if I was not fair and/or judicious in either, then it needs to be disclosed. My face is the one that now should flush.
Here, now is my question for you, my brother Morris: was this post fair or unfair, judicious or injudicious to Dr. Ascol? If either unfair or injudicious, how? If not unfair or injudicious...well, I guess that's alright.
Grace. With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter | 2008.04.25 at 10:25 PM
Peter,
Comparing one person's view of fair against another's is like asking Bill Clinton what the definition of is, is. Perspective is the determiner.
I read Tom's blog concerning Steve Gaines and it did not come across to me like it obviously did to you, but at the same time I have had much the same response to things written by some other bloggers as you have. You were not demeaning or untruthful toward Tom, which, some of those who are in Boot Hill, have been towards those who hold to a Reformed soteriology.
Morris
Posted by: Morris Brooks | 2008.04.26 at 08:11 AM
Peter:
Actually, my doctorate is in evangelism (though it included a good dose of Baptist/Church history, of which I've long been a student). Chadwick and I are already compadres, so if we gang up on you I'll try to make sure we continue on amiable terms. ;) We'll have to keep each other from misspeaking. :) (funny!)
James
Posted by: Rev. | 2008.04.26 at 10:44 AM
Brother Morris,
I am glad my post did not come across as either demeaning or untruthful. Thank you.
I will say, however, that I find your "perspective is the determiner" interesting. But how would one know if his or her perspective was fair or unfair, judicious or injudicious?
In addition, since such a massive concession is gifted to the subjective--that is, the personal perspective--I'm wondering how it is possible to have any objective justice whatsoever. Not to mention when 6 billion perspectives collide, with perspective being the determiner. Makes me think alot.
Thanks, Morris. With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter | 2008.04.26 at 01:06 PM
Peter,
If you are reading Steve Gaines and are Arminian in your soteriology, your perspective on what he says most likely will be different than someone with a Reformed view of salvation.
Both Arminians and Calvinists will say that the "objective standard" is the Scriptures, and both would be right. So how come they don't agree? Might it be their perspective of man, of God, of the Scriptures themselves that would determine their postion?
Morris
Posted by: Morris Brooks | 2008.04.26 at 10:25 PM
Morris,
I did not suggest there are not different perspectives, Morris. Thus I'm unsure what your point is. Know also I am not Arminian. Nor is it necessarily inherent that even if I were, I would have a "different" perspective from a Calvinist.
Grace. With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter | 2008.04.27 at 06:32 AM