Why Calvinists are so successful at making non-Calvinist friends by Peter Lumpkins

How do they do it? You know, Calvinists who are so good at making non-Calvinist friends. I think one of their secrets must be summarized by Dr. Steven Lawson, senior pastor of Christ Fellowship Baptist Church, Mobile, AL. Yes, this is the same Steven Lawson who took the historic Dauphin Way Baptist Church in 1995 and, in just a few short years, grew the church down from virtually mega-church status* to a staggering  650. Dr. Lawson's secret? Focus on the five points of Calvinism and push evangelism by the wayside. Then, leave the church and gut it of all the leadership, taking them with you to start another church down the road.**

Well, that was in 2003 >>>

In 2011, Dr. Lawson is making more non-Calvinist friends by summing up what he believes about those of us who do not quite see his strong Calvinist moorings as biblical. Associated Baptist Press reports Lawson's words at the 2011 Resolved Conference sponsored by Grace Community Church, Sun Valley, CA. Below is a summary of non-Calvinists from Lawson's perspective:

…it is, theologically speaking, "grossly ignorant" to believe that "God looked down the proverbial tunnel of time to see who would choose his Son" and then "in a reflexive manner" chose them for election***

Poor, poor Adrian Rogers. Bless his heart. I often heard him describe God's foreknowledge through the lens of the "tunnel " illustration. Come to find out, he was grossly ignorant.****

Well, there you have it—the secret is out! Why some Calvinists are so successful at making friends with non-Calvinists.

With that, I am…

Peter

Read the entire article here

*approximately 1,500- 2,000 in attendance

**yes I'm intentionally being facetious with this caricature, but, quite honestly, it is not far from the actual facts

***ABP records many other wise sayings Dr. Lawson spoke which demonstrates beyond doubt why non-Calvinists are drawn to him like a magnet draws metal

****though I have to give Dr. Rogers credit--he made it sound like it made a lot more sense than the way Dr. Lawson has described it 

Comments

[aaron]

Mark Driscoll seems to make lots of friends.

[Eric]

I've never even met a Baptist who is as radical as Lawson--and don't want to. But then some of the hyper-Arminians I have met are just as bad. Why can't Baptists seem to find a good Biblical balance and get on with their lives.

I did notice that Dauphin Way called a former professor from Tennessee Temple. Talk about legalistic rednecks...

I guess you get what you call.

[Peter]

Eric,

Yes, brother. We need to find a good balance. And, your implicating Dr. Adam Dooley, who earned a PhD from Southern, a legalistic red-neck strikes the perfect balance, wouldn't you agree?

With that, I am...
Peter

[Scott Slayton]

Your first paragraph is slander. You were not there. You do not have all of the facts. If you want to talk about what he said at Resolved, that is one thing. It's out there in public. Yet I highly doubt that you have enough facts about what happened at Dauphin Way to make the accusations that you make in that first paragraph.

[Peter]

Scott,

I'll give you one accusation of 'slander'. No more.

A) Just because I was not there does not mean I cannot fairly portray what may have been. Do you agree? If so, then my absence does not imply slander now does it?

B) Correct--I do not have all the facts. But then again, who has all the facts about any subject one addresses? The real question concerns whether or not I have enough facts to fairly conclude a point. Consequently, if I have sufficient facts to justify my specific assertion, then that's all the facts actually required. But if my assertion does not go beyond the facts I possess, then your accusation I slandered is not well taken (fyi, yes I have sufficient info to justify my specific assertion).

C) You may doubt what you wish, Scott. The truth is, most of the info concerning Lawson's departure--even sufficient to justify what I asserted in the first paragraph--is public info

D) I openly admitted the way I stated the paragraph you question was an intentionally facetious caricature. Yet you disregard such conceded, upfront info and slam me with slander instead. I suggest you take a deep breath and enjoy life, brother.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Les Puryear]

Scott,

Are the facts of the "growth" of Dauphin Way from 1,500 to 2,000 to 650 in dispute?

Les

[Eric]

And you would consider Tennessee Temple balanced?

[Peter]

Eric,

It doesn't matter what I think about TT. Perhaps the reason Dooley only taught roughly 2 courses adjunctly over his 5+ years in the Chattanooga area as pastor of Red Bank Baptist Church demonstrates he was uncomfortable at TT. Who knows?

Even so, since Danny Lovett has been president, TT has gone through a seismic shift in focus consequently losing the majority of IB support. In addition, I've personally served with TT graduates and found them to be solid, surrendered servants of Christ. Hence, whatever red-neck-legalistic stereotype you've developed about TT may hardly be as accurate as you think.

With that, I am...
Peter

[volfan007]

Peter is right...TT has gone thru a lot of changes here lately...and, the Ind. Bapt. arent too thrilled with them.

Eric, where do you live? What state? I'd be interested to know...

David

[Eric]

The friends I have that graduated from TT tended to be the most legalistic believers I have ever met. But then, I guess they can all change can't they? Just look at how SBS and SWBTS have changed. The independents aren't thrilled with TT and I don't think most Baptists are thrilled with SWBTS.

BTW, I live in Texas which is the hotbed of liberalism, moderates, conservatives, fundamentalists, and great Mexican food. Come see us sometime.

[Tim Rogers]

Brother Scott,

Brother Peter has responded to you and I guess I could agree with him in his assessment. I would encourage you to re-think about your choice of the word "slander." I do not see where Brother Peter has placed anything out there that is false. You may not like the way Brother Peter has placed it in writing, but what he has presented is the truth. The church did decline to 650, Dr. Lawson did push evangelism to the side and he did focus on the 5 points of Calvinism. But, I also agree with you. People that were not there should not assess what happened. So, maybe Brother Peter does not give a complete assessment of all that happened. Your statement makes it appear that you were someone that was there, and in my experience, you would say that you do not fully know all that happened.

When there is a church split there is enough blame to go around for everyone. In one of my ministries I came to a church after they went through a split. I can tell you from personal experience that people are still hurting from that split and some do not want to heal. Thus, you have some that want to push it under the rug while you have others saying: "I do not know what happened." Either way, church splits offer deep wounds that takes many years to heal.

Praying that you, along with Dauphin Way and those at Christ Fellowship Baptist Church are well on the road to healing.

Blessings,
Tim

[Mac Brunson]

Dr Dooley is a very fine, balanced, dedicated pastor and expositor. God is already using him in a great way there at DWay. He is not in the least legalistic (TT) nor is he a five point Calvinist (Southern). He is a very balanced Baptist, and I hope will be used in this convention.

[peter]

Eric,

Well, then; we've differing experiences concerning TT graduates. I have good ones and you apparently not so good. O.K.....

With that, I am...
Peter

[Mary]

See, the Baptist I know aren't pleased with Southern and are happy with the direction of Southwestern. Guess it depends on who you hang around with the "most."

[Eric]

Peter,

I'm glad you had good experiences with them. I'm just going by the few I've known and what people tell me who live in that part of the country. Hopefully they have changed and are doing a good job. I try not to judge a school/seminary by their graduates but sometimes that's the temptation. If they're doing a good job then I'm all for them.

I do have to admit that I was a bit taken back by the statements that Steven Lawson made. I've never actually heard anyone say things like that. Maybe the Lord has just spared me the agony.

Keep up the good work. I do enjoy your blog.

[David R. Brumbelow]

I am a Southern Baptist in Texas who is very pleased with the direction of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. God is doing great things through their ministry.
David R. Brumbelow

[volfan007]

Eric,

When TT was dominated by the Ind. Bapt., I'm sure they were very legalistic. YOu probably encountered some of them...and maybe there were some that came out of TT here lately who would fit that bill. I dont know. But, just because Southern is dominated by a 5 pt. Calvinist also doesnt mean that everyone that graduates from Southern is a 5 pt. Calvinist...does it?

Also, there are rednecks in TN...not all Tennesseans are rednecks. And, not all rednecks are legalistic. Peter and I are rednecks from TN, but we're not legalistic.

:)

David

[Bryan]

In my neck of the woods I would say the blame for who is better at polarizing the other side rests just as much at the foot of non-Calvinists as it does at the foot of Calvinists.

Although I have seen many Calvinists successfully befriend non-calvinists. And though I consider myself a Calvinist , I hardly think my non-Calvinist brothers and sisters are idiots or heretics.

[Eric]

Well, I'm a redneck and I'm sure not legalistic. I'm also a 4 point Calvinist (since I can't go along with irresistible grace). I'm not thrilled at all with the direction of SWBTS but most of them aren't going into the pastorate any more so I guess it doesn't matter. At least we're keeping Paige in his extravagant lifestyle. I do happen to like non-Calvinists too. Its the legalistic believers that give me heartaches.

[Remi]

FWIW,

When I was first introduced to Lawson, the whole DW thing was explained to me and apparently there was a lot of liberalism not related to calvinism that was allowed prior to his coming there(female leadership if I remember, etc).

[volfan007]

Eric,

A lot of Southwestern grads are not going into the Pastorate anymore???? Do you know something that the rest of us do not? Please explain....

David

[Johnathan Pritchett]

I remember Dr. Lawson when he was my pastor at The Bible Church of Little Rock...not a SBC church. My parents left that church for a SBC one and here I am in my early thirties and still a Southern Baptist...shocked that Dr. Lawson is one as well.

I don't like the "looked down the tunnel of time" thing for my non-reformed view...but I like even less the grossly ignorant suggestion that God can only know something (an attribute) because He did something (foreordaining is an action). God has eternally known regardless of whether or not He ordains anything.

If God's knowledge is increased logically subsequent to doing something logically prior in eternity...then there was a logical point in eternity when God was ignorant and His knowledge was increased...which is horrific nonsense only slightly better than open theism because God did His learning in eternity rather than in time.

Thanks Dr. Lawson for your perspective, but it isn't nice to call God ignorant in so many words.

[Eric]

I can't remember exactly where I read it but some publication had statistics that said fewer SWBTS graduates are going into the pastorate. I'll check and see if I can find it again.

[Johnathan Pritchett]

Full critique of Dr. Lawson's statement here.

http://crankycontrarianchristiancommentary.com/2011/07/07/critiquing-my-former-pastor-dr-lawsons-recent-comments-regarding-his-calvinist-man-centered-view-of-election-couched-in-a-god-talk-smokescreen/

[F. Norman]

Bryan:
Please read Dave Hunt's Book, "What Love is This?: Calvin's Misrepresentation of God," and see if you're still willing to come within a few hundred miles of the "C" word.
One of the problems w/God looking down the annals of time to see who would choose Him and who wouldn't is that time isn't linear for He who is "I am that I am." God is presently 'foreknowing' the great-grandchildren of people who are yet to be born. For someone who is simultaneously present at creation and consummation -- how does he foreknow anything? So what does it mean for God to 'foreknow'? I posit that we'll not know those answers on this earth. However, what bugs me is there are those who believe they have such answers -- as Calvin did in his murderous Geneva, where dozens more than Servetus were slaughtered b/c Calvin was trying to establish an essential theocracy. Good thing those folks who were executed for fornication, adultery and such weren't among the elect.

[Johnathan Pritchett]

F. Norman, I can actually agree with the Calvinist's understanding of "foreknow" in a sense. I am not sure if I hold to it, but I don't find it disagreeable that God "fore-loved" as Calvinists typically argue. I can go with that. Romans 8:29 could mean that. It is not correct to assume we can't know what it means.

Sadly, this backfires on the Calvinist (and backfires on many Arminians as well for a different reason when they think Paul simply means "knew beforehand"...which it may simply mean that for the same reasons I give for the passage to Calvinists as to why it backfires)...

Paul never once says God "foreknew" before the foundation of the world in Romans at all. God can't "fore-intimately love" non/not-yet-existent persons. That sounds awfully close to Mormonism and pre-existence of souls eternally. Phooey that.

It may mean God "fore-intimately loved" them though like Calvinists say, though without the pre-temporal language Paul nowhere even uses in the passage (that goes for typical Arminian interpretations as well). So the question becomes "When did God foreknow them?" in that intimate loving way. It can't be "before the foundation of the world" because Paul doesn't say so. However, Paul does give us a time indicator in verse 8:18.

Just because it says God and foreknow does not automatically mean we must import philosophy and jump to pre-temporal assumptions, especially when the passage indicates otherwise.

Which says that the present sufferings are not worth comparing to the glory that is to come, etc.

So looking BACK from when that glory comes, Paul can say God fore-loved them before that time arrived (the "looking back" perspective also best explains the aorist tense of the words used, and centers it completely around Christ rather than pretemporal musings of the philosophical eisegetes). That in verse 18 talking about the present looking to the future is the only time indicator in the entire passage. Hence, 8:29-30 is looking back from that future...which is why Paul can say "glorified" in the aorist because it centers on Christ's glorification leading to believers' eventual glorification.

Paul also says why God fore-loved them (assuming he meant that):

They are in Christ - 8:1, set free - 8:2, walking in the Spirit - 8:4, in the Spirit with the Spirit of God and Christ in them - 8:9-11, those who by the Spirit put to death the deeds of the body - 8:13, led by God's Spirit - 8:14, received a Spirit of adoption by whom they cry out Abba Father - 8:5, the Spirit testifies with their spirit 8:16, children and co-heirs who suffer with Him to be glorified with Him - 8:17, groan eagerly awaiting the adoption and redemption of their bodies - 8:23, hoping for what they do not see with persevering patience - 8:24-25, has the Spirit joining in them in their weakness and interceding in prayer - 8:26, who have had their hearts searched and are interceded for - 8:27, and whom God is working for the good because they love Him - 8:28.

Only by detaching 8:29 from the rest of the chapter does the whole "foreknew" debate even have a shred of worth discussing.

All those things are "fore-intimate loving" words...all of which happen in one's lifetime, none of which is possible "before the foundation of the world" (i.e. logically prior to the creation of the temporal universe) because those people did not even exist whatsoever.

Furthermore, as God "fore-knew/loved intimately Abraham) in Genesis 18:19, which came after Genesis 15:6 when Abraham believed God, Romans 8:29 comes after Romans 3:21-8:28...which means faith precedes God foreknowing a person in this sense that Calvinists always assert (and I sort of go with). It is not hard to follow how the Bible lays things out in the order it lays things out if you don't import things not even there into the text (usually from philosophical concepts and/or other Biblical passages from other books/authors).

On the other hand, if Paul said "foreknew" simply as a way of saying the basic "knew beforehand" (i.e. had knowledge of), which is very possible since the audience in Rome is unfamiliar with Paul's inner lingo since they only knew little of him (mostly rumors apparently from hints early in chapters 3 and 6), it would be a bit of a burden (though not insurmountable) to suggest Paul used his words in technical senses (even with the word Kaleo/call) rather than their typical senses because they didn't have centuries of systematic arguments and the whole of the canon. Not insurmountable since ginosko was used in the LXX of Adam "knowing" Eve, God "knowing" Abraham, Israel in the the book of Amos, etc. which the church in Rome would have had and may have caught the euphemism.

So, if the basic "foreknow" sense is meant here though, then it simply means God foreknew them cognitively before the end when the glory came, not "logically prior to the creation of the temporal universe" because that language is nowhere in Romans, and parachuting conflations of 1 Peter 1 and Ephesians 1, or grasping for Acts 4 even, three of those being from different authors, all of those being in a different contexts, into the Romans 8 passage to make two words in Romans 8:29, "foreknew and predestined" (both in the aorist, along with the rest of the words in the sequence), mean to be saying anything "before the foundation of the world" is the height of eisegesis.

The closest Paul comes in Romans to anything being "beforehand" is before Jacob and Esau were born (Rom. 9:11) which is hardly saying anything about "logically prior to the creation of the temporal universe)

Either way, Calvinism fails with this text (and many Arminian and Molinist interpretations as well) if exegesis means anything to anyone these days.

I say all this as a Molinist-Arminian even.

Just my thoughts on it.

[Bryan]

Norman, have you read the passages in the New Testament referring to God's electing of his people? I know you have. It dismays me to see the way people are so willing to caricature each other, as Hunt is in his book. That said, I know it's easier to caricature an opponent's views than actually work to refute them, I have seen some in the Reformed camp do the same.

Don't worry though. I have read enough slanderous drivel written by people who don't understand what they are arguing against to convince me that, well, some people should never write books. I am thankful though, that Scripture is anything but slanderous drivel, on the contrary, it is the Holy Word of God.

[Bob Hadley]

My prayer is that this issue with respect to Calvinism in the SBC will be handled one way or the other and very soon. It is time for the people in the pew to rise up and speak and decide if we want to be led by the kind of preaching of Lawson and Mohler and a host of others. I do not believe for a minute that the backbone of the SBC will accept this and it is time to do something about it.

I would like an opinion on something... what is the Calvinist position on The Priesthood of the Believer? I know Mohler blasted EY Mullins position on soul competency... but that is about all I can find. My thinking is really very simple... It does not seem to me that the two are reconcilable at all and that means the Calvinist is going to have a very difficult time proving their influence argument... because the Priesthood of the Believer IS a long standing indisputable Baptist distinctive.

In my opinion, Mohler’s comments in 2000 with respect to Mullins’ position is grounds for his dismissal in the first place.

Grateful to be in His Grip!

><>

Peter, Use this post... too many b's in the web address in the first one! Thanks! ><>

[Johnathan Pritchett]

Peter,
Dr. Yarnell would probably agree with you, as would I. Dr. Yarnell clearly demonstrates that the notion of magisterium is deeply embedded in Reformed thinking. Most Reformed Baptist leaders and pastors are too engrossed in the Reformed tradition (not a Baptist one) to allow any Baptist distinctive to interfere with their self-appointments as "Divines" (<- being a dumb non-Reformed Baptist, I actually take great offense at them referring to any created beings "Divines"...but that's just me).

It is part of the Reformed fabric. In tossing off the Pope, many of them became Popes unto themselves and have now done so for centuries.

I understand the Reformed leadership's thinking on this, because they really believe God has picked them in eternity's past to be the new gate-keepers, and after hanging around Reformed churches for so long, they have recognized how "grossly ignorant" their congregations are and think they can't understand the Bible without their "divinely inspired" lens.

;) I kid (sort of)

[Bryan]

Bob, I might have missed something here, and I admit that's entirely possible. But in what ways do Calvinists deny the priesthood of the believer? I can see how some would get that idea with Acts 29 type churches, even though I disagree with that idea. But I don't see in what way a Calvinistic Baptist denies the priesthood of the believer.

[F. Norman]

Bryan:
Hunt's book isn't a charicature at all, but is heavily documented. So, who is charachaturing whom? If you've not read the book, then you have zero standing to speak of it.
Of course I've read the NT -- many times -- and am even more convinced that Calvin and his ilk are wrong. Perhaps I should aspire to be such an erudite exegete as some Calvinists, who are so capable of ferreting holy writ that they can find stuff in the Bible that's not even there.
Would to God that I NEVER arrive at a theology ala Calvin that would condemn, and then approve of the beheading of a teenaged boy who had struck his parents. Ahh, Genevan Calvinsm: I think I see its offshoots among the Taliban, et al.
Read the book, Bryan, and the endnotes. See the scholarly work of Hunt. And then tell me you can still brook Calvin.

[aaron]

I get the impression that many would like all the reformed/Calvinist leaning to go take a hike to another denomination. What I do not think this group understands is how many young reformed people are out there in the SBC. Most of my friends from seminary would have to get out. Guess what? I did not go to SEBTS or SBTS I went to NOBTS. I hope we can all get along.

[peter lumpkins]

Aaron,

Let me be clear: if you got the impression here, it's your own imagination. I take great pains on this blog to state specifically what I critique concerning Calvinism in the SBC. Even so, I find it just a pint shy of absurd that anyone cannot see the visible shift in the SBC elite toward a decidedly positive view of Calvinism not a negative one.

Now, Aaron, since you logged on ignoring the OP and Lawson's explicit theological snobbery in viewing as "grossly ignorant" good men's views--good men of the stature of the late A. Rogers--will you now distance yourself from such remarks like Lawson made, and judge it both unfair and unhelpful in understanding each other? You say you hope we all "get along." So do I brother. So do I. But when loose mouth's like Lawson needlessly pop off at conferences like he did, I'm wondering who really wants whom to get out of the convention.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Remi]

John P.,

You had a good critique of what Lawson said, however, when you tagged on that comment at the end of how James White is the ideal of how to deal with these issues between calvinists and non-calvinists, I almost shot the milk I was drinking through my nose.

What's even more rich is that you posted a link to that on Peter Lumpkins' blog, who James White has viciously attacked, lied about, and smeared for daring to question his actions.

[F. Norman]

Aaron: I'm not asking Calvinists to leave the SBC. I'm simply asking them to read Hunt's book. Have you read it? If not, will you?

[Deakon]

who is A Rogers?

[Steve Evans]

Deakon, please tell me you are being facetious..............if not please study up on one of God's chosen servants.

[Steve Grose]

I have read Dave Hunt's Book, "What Love is This?: Calvin's Misrepresentation of God," and found that the misquotes and improper use of quotes (in other words, removed.. no rather divorced... from context.. such as those by CH Spurgeon) caused me to need to clean house on all of Hunt's books. I realised that I could no longer trust Dr. hunt in other matters. I was quite disturbed by the unscholarly nature of this book.
Grosey

[Phil]

Peter, have you confronted Dooley in his "legalistic" ways or are you just blowing off steam here? Shouldn't you first confront the brother before you such a bold declaration?

[Deakon]

I can't stay away...though I am trying...something incredibly intriguing about Christians ganging up on Christians...are there really Calvinists who think Calvin was amazing? I don't know any...(though I certainly don't know everybody) 100% of the Calvinists I know recognize the incredible shortcomings of Calvin...as Peter has said before, (at least I think this is what he was saying but since Peter is so quick to make sure he is not misrepresented, I'm sure he'll clear this up) Calvinists would be better served called themselves Fullerites...as a 9 Point Calvinist let me be very clear, esp to F Norman, Calvin is no role model...Peter cut off a guy's ear...probably would have killed him had his aim been better...people are crappy...saying Calvinism is bad because of Calvin isn't really helpful...tell me Jesus didn't say that the Pharisee's didn't believe because they couldn't...or something more helpful...oh and did anyone ever figure out if the church in question shrunk because of a prevalence of liberalism as Remi suggested...is Calvinism a straw man for other issues that could have been going on in the church?

[vendlerius]

"Yes, this is the same Steven Lawson who took the historic Dauphin Way Baptist Church in 1995 and, in just a few short years, grew the church down from virtually mega-church status* to a staggering 650."

Yes, because the measure of spiritual growth and God's approval is in numbers. If that is the case, a Carpenter from Nazareth must be a failure in your book, for he went from having a multitude following him to the point where even his own disciples fled in fear and left him alone.

Even when it comes to your rhetoric, you still get a C-

[peter]

Dear vendlerius

And just how do the words you quote necessarily imply your ridiculous deduction? Perhaps I deserve a C- in rhetoric. However, in canons of common sense, I'm afraid you barely pass-- D+

With that, I am...
Peter

[Deakon]

uh he's saying shrinking numbers are, to quote Edwards "no certain sign",...the point you made Peter is that Calvinism ruined the church, though that was hardly substantiated...maybe people didn't like truth...which was the sinking, though glorious, boat Jesus was in...

[peter]

Deakon,

I know what vendlerius "was saying." Unfortunately, what he said is not implied by what I wrote. Clear?

With that, I am...
Peter

[Dr. James Willingham]

There are always those folks who think they have a corner on God by their particular understanding of His truth. One can take the truth and use it as a billy club to beat the brains and the heart out of others or one can see it as a therapeutic paradox, an opposite approach, a paradoxical intervention designed to effect for the better by its opposite apporach. Some times the harsh negative is fitting and appropriate, depending on the state of the persons addressed, etc. I once told a fellow that grace was irresistible. He did not agree. Later, he won a young lady to Christ who responded so readily, that he asked her why. She replied, "O, it was so wonderful that I could not resist it." When she said that, he said that my saying popped into his mind. It took him almost 40 years to change his mind (and some people think we jump into this without thinking. Interesting fact is that my friend's last name is Spurgeon, and, according to a geneaologist he is kin to to C.H.). The theology of the Great Awakenings and the launching of the Great Century of Missions was Sovereign Grace. for 38 years I have been praying for a Third Great Awakening. Perhaps that explains the great increase in Sovereign Grace ministers and believers. However, we need examples, models, mentors, to show how this theology is the most winsome the world has every seen, that it makes believers in it who understand it balanced, flexible, creative, magnetic, and enduring. I think of two examples of winsome Sovereign Grace believers, Dr. Ernest R. Campbell and Dr. R.G. Lee. We are not really trying to make calvinists out of the lost. We are seeking to win them to Christ.

[Randy Everist]

Be careful, Dr. Willingham, that you're not committing the "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" fallacy. I believe God works through multiple theologies, so long as they are true believers in his Son Jesus Christ. Some of the bigger salvation professions in the non-Western world are non-Calvinistic; yet I wouldn't suppose to infer that these are then the preferred theology of God. I also realize you said none of this. It's quite easy, however, for someone reading to make such a leap (and quite understandable), so I thought I'd clear the air.