« Baptist Identity or Evangelical Anonymity? Part I | Main | The Verdict Just In: The Southern Baptist Convention is in Decline »

2008.04.24

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Timotheos

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.

Luke

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)

Luke

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.

deputy chadwick

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

volfan007

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

deputy chadwick

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

Byroniac

Excellent Spurgeon quote.

volfan007

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

Bill

I'm pretty sure Spurgeon believed in regeneration before salvation.

Bill

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."

deputy chadwick


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

peter

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

peter

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:

“It would emaciate my evangelism if I couldn't walk up to a total stranger and say, "Jesus died for you."

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

Brett Clements

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.

deputy chadwick

Pistol Peter,

Interesting political answer. Are you going to be running against Les in Indy? :D

Seriously: Are you a neo-confessionalist?

deputy chadwick

ABClay

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

volfan007

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

Debbie Kaufman

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.

deputy chadwick

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

Bill

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? :)

volfan007

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

Rev.

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

Rev.

I should have added, not only does it not deny these matter, but affirms them.

By His Grace Alone,
James

Timotheos

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.

deputy chadwick

Pistol Peter,

Correction to the previous question that I meant to ask you:
Are you TRANS-Confessional?

the deputy

Bill

I still haven't seen one of these insidious dortian calvinists named. Where are they? What is Mr. Gaines preaching against?

Rev.

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

volfan007

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

Bill

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.:)

Rev.

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. :)

peter

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

peter

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

Morris Brooks

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

peter

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

Morris Brooks

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

Rev.

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

peter

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

Morris Brooks

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

peter

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

The comments to this entry are closed.