I first posted this piece in June, 2007, about a year after I first started blogging. Since it tells some of my own journey through the doctrines of grace, I'm reposting it for my newer readers1 >>>
I launched this website almost a year ago. I entered blogdom surfing sites, commenting here and there and finally found the energy to go for it myself: SBC Tomorrow was born. Part of the energy came from a simple desire to write...to place my thoughts on paper...to record outwardly what was taking place in the inward workings of my mind.
Another factor that offered poise to begin a site was the dark atmosphere I experienced in some of the more well known Calvinist blogs. By dark I mean to suggest more of a feel than a problem with the content on many of them.
Many do not realize that for years--especially early in my faith journey--I was steeped in the "Reformed" sector of our common faith. My heroes were the same heroes one may find listed on most any Baptist blog today that unapologetically names the name of "Reformed--Warfield and Hodge, Berkof and Boyce, Dagg and Owen, Spurgeon and Whitfield, Sproul and Gerstner.
The first Church God gave to me to Pastor over twenty-five years ago is still listed as a Founders-Friendly Church of Founders Ministries. To "Reformed" theology I am no stranger.
Admittedly, something transformed through the years both spiritually and theologically. Most of my ministry has been as a Pastor in a local Church. While my Master's focus swayed more toward systematic theology--an obvious result of an undergraduate love affair with religion and philosophy--my further studies carried me into my first love of expository preaching, studying with the last of the puritan preachers, Stephen F. Olford. From him, perhaps more than any other, I learned the non-negotiable principle that rules my Biblical life--textual concern always precedes theological concern.
I preached textually--week by week, sermon by sermon, lesson by lesson--working my way through entire books of the Bible, not so much concerned with my message agreeing with last week's assignment. Rather, my concern was with the text before me and whether or not I was faithful to it. Non-negotiable for me was, what the text was saying to them before what the text was saying to me and my congregation.
I offer this snippet of my life to suggest that, contrary to my Calvinist brothers, who seem to suggest that if one goes only to the Scripture from which to drink, Calvinism will be the result. I beg to differ. For it was from my ceaseless guzzling from God's Word itself that the Calvinism I had joyfully embraced began drying up. Neither my philosophy nor my heroes could bandage the bleeding when God's Word began to slice.
And, this transformation was subtle and lengthy lasting over a period of years. I could not say when it began nor can I predict when it will stop. Indeed, I do not want it to stop for I do desire, as miserably as I might fail, that every thought is taken hostage to the Word of God.
I am a non-Calvinist. I cannot help it. To confess any other would rot my integrity. By stating such, I do not mean to either portray a level of achievement for myself or denigrate my brothers and sisters in Christ who see the Doctrines of Grace in such a fashion as historic Calvinism does.
Rather, I mean that is who I am and where I am. You may agree with me, ridicule me, curse me, ignore me. But you cannot define me. My definition comes from a Much Higher Authority than you, I assure.
I am a non-Calvinist. I am definitively not an anti-Calvinist--and that for two simple reasons. First, to be anti-Calvinist is to be anti-Christian. Calvinists stand tall in our common faith deposited to the Church of Jesus Christ. They have faithfully preached the gospel, strived for Church purity as well as left us a trail of theological acumen second to none for God's community on earth. To be anti-Calvinist is to be anti-Christian.
Secondly, to be anti-Calvinist is to be anti-Baptist. Whether or not you accept it, Calvinism dwells deeply within the root system of the Baptist movement. Wherever on God's earth there have been Baptists, there have been Calvinists. As Baptists, we owe much to our Calvinist forefathers. Know this, you who are anti-Calvinist: our river runs red with Calvinist blood spilled for Baptist convictions. When you curse Calvinists, you are cursing your spiritual ancestors.
Why then are not all Baptists Calvinists? Interestingly, the same can and should be said for non-Calvinist Baptists. When the Calvinist curses the non-Calvinist, he too curses his spiritual ancestors. For it could just as easily be argued from our genealogical record, that, wherever you are the world over again or into what era you find yourselves, if you find Baptists, you will find those I choose to call non-Calvinists. They are as likely to be around in any Baptist community as their spiritual kin, the Calvinist.
Alas, however, I am now called a dying breed. I am dubbed an endangered species. For now we hear so much from our spiritual kin that our only true heritage as Baptists is Calvinist. When a non-Calvinist explores the deeper side of Calvinism, many times he is shooed away as a common fly and ordered "Speak no more, thou ignorant fool. Ye know not what ye spew. Tis for us as Calvinists to know and then tell you."
Thus when non-Calvinists attempt to express what they sincerely understand Calvinism to mean, inevitably they now are dubbed anti-Calvinist. The non-Calvinist slowly but surely is heading for extinction if this practice continues.
I am told Dr. Al Mohler and Dr. Jerry Vines are very good friends. Indeed Dr. Vines preached at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary only a few short weeks ago during the Mullins' Lectures. After the lectures, during a Q/A session, a question was posed to Dr. Vines about his views toward Calvinism. I'm further told he replied, making a clear distinction between militant Calvinists and Calvinism. And it was the former not the latter that gave him his deepest caution.
I could not agree more. It is not Calvinism that is the issue in the SBC today, for the reasons I've already given. Rather it is the aggression of a small, but vocal group of militant Calvinists that deny the non-Calvinist to draw from the Baptist well with the same bucket as he. He claims that his understanding of the Doctrines of Grace is the Doctrines of Grace itself.
He poises himself as the only one who faithfully preaches the true Gospel and pronounces Anathema on any other who would dispute his claims: "The Gospel IS Calvinism and Calvinism IS the Gospel!" we hear him proudly assert.
"Contending for the faith, once for all given to the saints" stands as their battle cry. Of course, the faith of which they desire defense is not the Inspired Apostolic Witness of the New Testament itself. Rather it is the TULIP--the five points of developed, theological doctrine known as Calvinism.
I am not an anti-Calvinist. But I am an anti-aggressionist; and I will not sit idly by while aggressive, militant Calvinists ceaselessly poke non-Calvinists in the eye. Bullies do not deserve empowerment.
Grace.
With that, I am...
Peter
1nothing is changed in this version except words run again through a spell check
Well written Peter. Again I have learned something valuable that I can take with me when I am in classes...I pray I continue to have a thirst for God's Word...
Posted by: bigfatdrummer | 2012.03.06 at 07:28 AM
"It is not Calvinism that is the issue in the SBC today, for the reasons I've already given. Rather it is the aggression of a small, but vocal group of militant Calvinists that deny the non-Calvinist to draw from the Baptist well with the same bucket as he."
Thank you Peter for sharing your journey for those of us who have only recently joined your corner of the blogosphere. In the 5 years since your first post of this piece, it appears that "small" has grown significantly, with "vocal" now turned up a few decibels. The old guard of aggressive Calvinism has found new recruits and fresh energy in the New Calvinism movement. Your blog has focused on this militant strain and has drawn attention to SBC and non-SBC influencers leading this rebellion against majority SBC non-Calvinist belief and practice.
Thank you for not sitting on the experiences learned during your early ministry journey, but more importantly for standing on the truths deposited in your spirit from your journey through the Word.
Posted by: Max | 2012.03.06 at 10:00 AM
Peter,
Amen and amen and amen, Brother.
David
Posted by: volfan007 | 2012.03.06 at 11:31 AM
Peter, you said in your original piece:
Peter, that is a great factual and consensus-building quote! I really like the tone of your article and feel that it's a strong "live and let live" approach to cooperation in the SBC. If only you had reposted this article on your blog before Mr. Gerald Harris put together his editorial hodgepodge entitled "The Calvinists Are Here." Perhaps he would have saved himself some embarrassment.
As to the term "aggressive Calvinism," how exactly would you define that? You give some examples but not a precise definition, which would help us understand exactly what you are standing against.
One example of "aggressive Calvinism" you cite is those who say, "The Gospel IS Calvinism and Calvinism IS the Gospel!" I find that example interesting because Jerry Vines, whom you mentioned in your article, is recently quoted in SBC Life and requoted by Mr. Harris in his article as saying:
Isn't Mr. Vines saying that his particular soteriology is closer to the gospel than five-point Calvinism? Isn't this akin to saying "My soteriology is the gospel and the gospel is my soteriology,"? Is Mr. Vines an "aggressive" whatever-his-soteriology-would-be-called? From the logic you've put forth, I must say that he is.
Also, based upon Mr. Harris's article, would you say that that article is "anti-Calvinist" since it didn't focus on "aggressive Calvinism" but Calvinism in general?
Posted by: Ben | 2012.03.06 at 01:18 PM
Peter,
Forgive me for getting off topic, but have you seen this article by Piper? Does this not sound a lot like the things that Pat Robertson says?
http://www.desiringgod.org/blog/posts/fierce-tornadoes-and-the-fingers-of-god/print
David
Posted by: volfan007 | 2012.03.06 at 05:38 PM
David, forgive me for remaining off topic, but this does not sound anything like Pat Robertson says: "Every deadly wind in any town is a divine warning to every town." John Piper says that we cannot attribute a single event as judgment for a single (or grouping) of sins, but rather any sufferings in this world should point us to Christ. Pat Robertson on the other hand, did say this: "If enough people were praying [God] would’ve intervened, you could pray, Jesus stilled the storm, you can still storms,” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/05/pat-robertson-tornadoes-prayer_n_1321686.html
Posted by: Stephen | 2012.03.06 at 06:06 PM
"I have stated before, so it’s not new news, that should the SBC move towards five-point Calvinism it will be a move away from, not toward, the Gospel.”."
Ben, do you not see the irony in questioning this?
The irony is that a human's name is involved with something so sacred and used as "truth". I know this is rationalized away but still....it is there and fewer and fewer are seeing the scandalous irony of it. It is downright idolatry and satan loves it. It actually makes it about Calvin. You cannot escape that. And that is such a shame.
Posted by: lmalone | 2012.03.06 at 06:19 PM
Thanks to Max, David, and bigfatdrummer. I appreciate the encouragement...
Ben,
I appreciate the input. I don't have a handy definition of aggressive Calvinism but I've thoroughly described what I've meant by it through the years by offering examples of it. Founders has been on the front burner now since 1982. And, I think perhaps the most popular current aggressive group would include most of the YRR generally and A29 particularly. The key idea would be exclusion. Dr. Mohler I think represents well an aggressive Calvinism though surely a much more sophisticated, cultured one than I've noted elsewhere. He remains the reigning intellectual icon for aggressive Calvinism in SBC life. That's my perspective now; others may disagree with me (even non-Calvinists).
As for Gerald Harris' article I think he well described the results of what happens when aggressive Calvinism remains unchecked. Some criticized him for being "all over the place." I think he intentionally was "all over the place" because he wanted his readers to see the impact Calvinism was having "all over the place" in the SBC. Again, that's me Ben. I've not talked to Harris about that.
The truth be told, however, I'm almost convinced (but not quite yet) that the fight is fairly well over. Some of us just have not accepted it yet.
Finally, I do not see in Vines the same as you indicate when some Calvinists insist Calvinism *is* the gospel. While Vines would have little doubt, I'm sure, in affirming what he understands the salvific NT message to be is closer to the biblical understanding of the gospel than is strict Calvinism, I do not think he implies Calvinists--even those who embrace LA--either do not or are incapable of preaching the biblical gospel. Presumably one can be further away from the gospel than another without the one further away being "out of range" so to speak of the gospel (and to be sure, even the one allegedly closer to the biblical gospel does not imply he or she has it perfectly mastered). Nor to my knowledge has Vines ever implied such in a message he's preached. And, believe me, I've read hundreds of his sermons.
On the other hand, the language some Calvinists employ is quite different: Calvinism *is* the gospel. Well, if A is B, and C is not A, then, it seems we safely conclude C is not B. The mighty Spurgeon did his spiritual progeny no favors with his now famous dictum.
Grace, Ben. I trust this helps a little.
With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter lumpkins | 2012.03.06 at 06:28 PM
Peter,
I appreciate reading your pilgrimage. One question unrelated to Dr. Vines you mentioned above. I remember a while back the storm over his remarks about being further away from the gospel.
But my question is not really about him as much as what it might mean to be farther away from the gospel. I've seen this in other places mentioned. I just cannot really understand the gospel on a continuum. Paulmwrites about another gospel in Galatians. I think we all agree what that means and I cannot see Paul seeing some continuum.
How would see a gospel continuum. How would you describe or quantify or identify closer or further away from the gospel?
Thanks,
Les
Posted by: Les | 2012.03.06 at 07:53 PM
Peter, your posting was good to read. I ilked its irenic tone. Our Calvinistic brothers are brothers in Christ. But we still must remember that we non-Calvinists and the 5-point Calvinists preach very different atonements. They have one only for the elect, who, they say will and must believe the Gospel. And we have one for the whole world, the benefits of which, we say, based on the Bible's statements, are granted only to those who believe the Gospel. But we also believe the unsaved are given freedom to not believe it. So, the differences between 5-pointers and non-Calvinists are great. Here is a link to my own posting on why we should believe in a Gospel for the whole world, even for those who don't get saved:
http://biblicalfoodforthought.blogspot.com/2011/11/we-should-believe-jesus-christ-died-to.html
Posted by: Bruce K. Oyen | 2012.03.06 at 07:55 PM
"I preached textually--week by week, sermon by sermon, lesson by lesson--working my way through entire books of the Bible, not so much concerned with my message agreeing with last week's assignment. Rather, my concern was with the text before me and whether or not I was faithful to it. Non-negotiable for me was, what the text was saying to them before what the text was saying to me and my congregation."
I assume that "them" here means something like "the original audience of Scripture." Peter, I know this isn't the purpose of your blog at all but I think many would be edified if occasionally you might write on some of the fruits of your exegesis. That's really what I and seemingly many of my young peers have been drawn to in this "new calvinism" or whatever you call it; outsiders looking in say there is some kind of comfort in a philosophical system, but insiders like myself can only point to the soaking up of Scripture that I have seen in guys like Piper and MacArthur. I feel free to disagree with these spiritual heros, but really the times that I disagree is when I see the weakness in their specific interpretations, not in some hole in the system (which I personally don't even use!).
Anyway, thanks for the testimony. May God continue to graciously grant us His Spirit of wisdom and revelation, to further know the hope to which He has called us.
Posted by: Stephen | 2012.03.06 at 10:34 PM
Here is what I wonder. Calvinists and evangelical non-Calvinists will almost always affirm the same gospel: God sent His son into the world to save sinners. The Calvinist and non-Calvinists preachers in the SBC will preach the same message: Jesus came into the world to save sinners. He lived a sinless life and died on the cross for sinners and was raised from the dead and lives even now. He commands sinners everywhere to repent. If you (hearers) will turn from your sin and trust in Christ you will be saved!
So, yes there are intramural debates on the finer points of theology surrounding soteriology. But at the end of the day Calvinists and non-Calvinists can and do affirm the above gospel. Right?
So I don't really understand what the fear of each other in SBC life is all about. Can someone tell me where I'm missing it, assuming I am correct that Cs and NCs can both preach the same above?
Now, I do know there are surely extremes on each "side." But those extremes do not define either side.
Posted by: Les | 2012.03.06 at 11:58 PM
To Ben and Les,
As Bruce mentioned above, the key issue is the atonement. Without a universal satisfaction made for every man in the death of Christ, then some are left without any hope of salvation. If Christ died only for the sins of the elect, as high Calvinism teaches, then there is no "good news" for the rest. They are just as unsaveable as the non-elect angels whose form Christ did not assume, or just as unsaveable as if Christ had not come at all. No talk of a hypothetical or bare intrinsic sufficiency will do either. Only an actual sufficiency stemming from a price paid for all can properly ground an indiscriminate announcement of good news to all men. This is the idea that Dr. David Allen had in mind when he first uttered the following statement at the John 3:16 Conference:
Allen said it before Vines did, so I am assuming that Vines himself got it from Allen at the J316C. I can say what Dr. Allen had in mind because we discussed it at length both before the conference and afterwards.
I am a Calvinist, and so are the following men (Truman and Polhill), and we call concur that a limited imputation of sin to Christ (which is precisely what Owenists believe) undermines the good news for all men. Note what Truman says as he accurately represents the substance of how Owenists present the gospel in #2:
Polhill is just as forthright, and says:
Since the issue is so important, I'll include this lengthy quote from Polhill here as well (note his sufficiency distinction):
The claim is not that high Calvinists (aka "5-pointers") are not preaching the gospel, but that they are undermining it by their doctrine of a strictly limited atonement, such that the majority of mankind (the non-elect) are totally left without a remedy, and thus rendered unsaveable. Hyper-Calvinists saw the connection between salvability and offerability and rejected the idea of "offering Christ" to all men indiscriminately. Universal offerability presupposes universal salvability, and universal salvability must necessarily be grounded in a universal satisfaction. High Calvinists, though they accept "free and indiscriminate offers," are actually undermining the basis for it, and thus "moving away from the gospel, not towards it." As Dr. Curt Daniel, another Calvinist, noted (and Allen references this in his chapter on the atonement):
If you disagree, you will have to demonstrate how there is actually good news for the non-elect on the supposition that Christ did not die for them. On the supposition that Christ did not die for all, then God is not prepared to save all. The gospel is not less than giving people assurance that God himself is both 1) willing and 2) prepared to save all that hear it. Without that, there is no good news given.
One last note: Calvinists, at least in the blogosphere, are CONSTANTLY and CONTINUALLY claiming that non-Calvinists and Arminians are undermining or moving away from the gospel since their system allegedly undermines belief in penal substitution. Since high Calvinists believe a limited atonement alone can salvage belief in penal substitution, they think a universal atonement undermines it, hence their accusations. It's a manifest double standard for them to be upset when their opponents make the same claims about them. Both parties are attempting reductio ad absurdum arguments and thus claiming the other party is "moving away from the gospel." The only question is, which party is correct? Both believe the other party is preaching the gospel, but each party believes the other is inconsistent.
I am therefore not impressed by the feigned outrage and "concern" of high Calvinists who complain about their opponents claim that they are moving away from (or undermining the gospel) since high Calvinists make that claim ALL THE TIME about their opponents, hence the constant twisted quotation of Spurgeon's statement that "Calvinism is the gospel."
Posted by: Tony Byrne | 2012.03.07 at 02:17 AM
Brother Peter,
It has been some time since I have disagreed with you in public but that still doesn't keep me from it. :)
I am not one that believes in an unbroken continuum of Baptists back to John-the-Baptist, but I am one that believes he exhibits the Biblical principles for baptism which makes one a Baptist. Thus, would you now, please help me understand where "Calvinism" was an argument the Apostles had? Not trying to be coy just trying to qualify your statement.Blessings,
Tim
Posted by: Tim Rogers | 2012.03.07 at 06:38 AM
Tim,
Thanks. Don't mind the disagreement at all.
First, any suggestion, of course, that "Calvinists" existed prior to Calvin would technically qualify as anachronism. More properly, Calvinism may better be historically understood as Augustinianism. But the same could be said for Augustinianism: no Augustinianism existed prior to Augustine. Therefore, technically those who insist Paul was a Calvinist or taught Calvinism--not to mention the horrid acclamation that Jesus was a Calvinist or taught Calvinism--are anachronistically reading ideas back into Scripture.
I hope you see what I'm saying--the assertion I make which you challenge makes sense only in a post-Reformation context (or, if you prefer, post-Augustine context).
Second, I do not think John's baptism necessarily exhibits the Biblical principles for baptism which makes one a Baptist. If so, it would be difficult to explain, it seems to me, Acts 18:24-19:7. John's baptism proved insufficient for the Christian church (Acts 2:38ff).
Third, if one wants to get chronologically picky, there was a period--albeit short, but it seems it did exist--when Baptists were exclusively non-Calvinist. It's fairly reasonable to conclude that historically, General Baptist forerunners were on the scene at least a half generation before Particular Baptists, establishing a non-Calvinistic Baptist church in 1609. If correct, there was a time on earth when Baptists existed and Calvinists didn't (i.e. within the Baptist movement). It was a short but nonetheless real period. Adding to this, if we include the Radical Reformers (at least those who upheld Scripture) as Baptist forerunners, then the period is extended substantially.
So, my brother Tim, you got me. I concede that particular point. Even so, while it may make my original assertion much too broad (i.e. general and needful of qualification), testimonies (like mine above), editorials, opinion essays, and other similar pieces in this literary genre lend themselves to generality and therefore must be read in that light. In short, while you showed my assertion needed qualification, I do not think you overturned it.
Hope that helps.
With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter lumpkins | 2012.03.07 at 07:45 AM
Bruce,
Thanks. I appreciate your journey and spiritual-theological pilgrimage. In addition, I like the way you creatively developed a new TULIP. Impressive and it communicates well.
With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter lumpkins | 2012.03.07 at 07:58 AM
"So, yes there are intramural debates on the finer points of theology surrounding soteriology. But at the end of the day Calvinists and non-Calvinists can and do affirm the above gospel. Right?"
I have not read all the comments so forgive me if this is redundant. I would say there is another aspect that is more than intramural and that is the NC view of God's Soveriegnty. Most non Calvinists totally agree with the Soverienty of God but NC define this attribute of God as if God has no "soveriegnty" over His own Soveriegnty. And this Attribute is not balanced in NC doctrine with Justice, Mercy, etc. God is so Soveriegn that He can grant man free will and allow Satan to roam the earth.
So, I think it is more than just Atonement. It is what happens after the Cross with believers that is also very important in the divide between Calvinist/non Calvinist.
Posted by: lmalone | 2012.03.07 at 09:07 AM
"First, any suggestion, of course, that "Calvinists" existed prior to Calvin would technically qualify as anachronism. More properly, Calvinism may better be historically understood as Augustinianism. But the same could be said for Augustinianism: no Augustinianism existed prior to Augustine. Therefore, technically those who insist Paul was a Calvinist or taught Calvinism--not to mention the horrid acclamation that Jesus was a Calvinist or taught Calvinism--are anachronistically reading ideas back into Scripture"
Hence, Systematic Theology.
Posted by: lmalone | 2012.03.07 at 09:14 AM
The desirable and coveted "Best Comment of the Thread" award, hands down, goes to Tony Byrne:
Thanks my brother Tony.With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter lumpkins | 2012.03.07 at 09:41 AM
Peter, I posted this comment earlier this morning and perhaps it got lost in cyber world.
Tony,
You said, "The gospel is not less than giving people assurance that God himself is both 1) willing and 2) prepared to save all that hear it. Without that, there is no good news given."
I'm a 5-point Calvinist and I can affirm that. When I talk to someone at the airport or at work or where ever, about Christ, and I explain to them the gospel, as I stated above last night, and call them to repent, no one can tell me that I'm not giving the person "good news" just because I believe in particular redemption.
When preachers proclaim the gospel to whoever is listening they do not know who God's elect are. If I read you correctly, you are saying or suggesting that a 5 point Calvinist like me is not really offering good news to my hearers, at least some of them. i.e. that my theological behind my presentation renders it disingenuous perhaps?
Theological term for that is hogwash. We all agree that "salvation is of the Lord." If anyone is going to be saved it is because God saves them, right? I acknowledge that my Arminian brethren are preaching the gospel. I think that are wrong in their theology behind their preaching. But when the Arminian (or non-Calvinist as some insist) stands up and calls people to repent and trust Christ I believe in a God who is big enough and sovereign and will save His elect in spite of my Arminian friends inconsistencies as well as mine.
Posted by: Les | 2012.03.07 at 09:41 AM
Tony and Peter,
""The claim is not that high Calvinists (aka "5-pointers") are not preaching the gospel, but that they are undermining it by their doctrine of a strictly limited atonement, such that the majority of mankind (the non-elect) are totally left without a remedy, and thus rendered unsaveable"
Gentlemen, if we "high Calvinists" preach from a platform of limited atonement, we still cannot thwart what God can do to save people.
"the majority of mankind (the non-elect) are totally left without a remedy." That is really nonsense. Whatever you or I believe about the extent of the atonement, God still saves people. My belief cannot do one thing to change what God can and does do when crowds are told that Jesus came to seek and to save the lost and the crowds are told that they must repent and trust Christ.
Posted by: Les | 2012.03.07 at 09:58 AM
PETER:
Great re-post. I'm currently reading, "REFLECTIONS of a DISENCHANTED CALVINIST", subtitle, "The Disquieting Realities of Calvinism" by Ronnie W. Rogers Pastor of Trinity Baptist Church Norman, Okl. It is available from the author or Amazon.com.
It is amazing the repeated parallels between what you posted and what he wrote in his book.
It is a good 'academic read' which answers some very deep Spiritual questions about the "methodology" that Calvinists employ....and the certain end result of those beliefs and methods, if they are honest with themselves.
I recommend it to all...regardless of your current position on the issue.
Posted by: CASEY | 2012.03.07 at 10:35 AM
Brother Les,
This is where we call you to account. I do not do this as a "gotcha" phrase but merely as a "would you look at your statement" phrase. Your statement places all who profess to be "non-Calvinist" as a full-fledged "Arminian". That just is not correct. The basic understanding that makes one fall into the Arminian tribe is the belief that one can lose one's salvation. I honestly do not know of anyone that serves within the SBC that believes one can lose one's salvation. Also, Dr. Akin in his 2007 Baptist Life article stated that an Arminian would not be at home in the SBC.
Thus, refer to those of us who affirm we are non-Calvinists is just not a correct analysis of who we are.
Blessings,
Tim
Posted by: Tim Rogers | 2012.03.07 at 10:54 AM
Peter,
Would you please explain more about the dark side of calvinism that you realized while you were a calvinist
Thank you,
David
Posted by: David | 2012.03.07 at 11:33 AM
CASEY,
Thanks brother. For those interested, here’s a link to Amazon for Reflections of a Disenchanted Calvinist: The Disquieting Realities of Calvinism.. If you’d like to know more about the author, here’s a link to Ronnie Rogers’ website.
With that, I am…
Peter
Posted by: peter lumpkins | 2012.03.07 at 11:37 AM
"Your statement places all who profess to be "non-Calvinist" as a full-fledged "Arminian". "
True. And it is getting tiresome. Most people in the pew have never heard of Arimius. But most have heard of Calvin, ironically.
Posted by: lmalone | 2012.03.07 at 11:40 AM
Les,
Tony actually didn't imply high Calvinists "thwart" God's purposes in the gospel but undermines them. Even so, yes we can thwart God's purposes. Anytime anyone disobeys God, God's purposes are thwarted. What cannot happen, however, from any created being, is actually overturning God's purposes is any ultimate sense.
Nor is it "really nonsense" to conclude, from the doctrine of strict Limited Atonement, "the majority of mankind (the non-elect) are totally left without a remedy." And, just what remedy would you propose would redeem the non-elect, Les, if Christ's blood was not spilled for them?
With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter lumpkins | 2012.03.07 at 11:48 AM
Tim Rogers,
"Your statement places all who profess to be "non-Calvinist" as a full-fledged "Arminian". That just is not correct."
You are correct. As the politicians sometimes do, allow me to walk that comment back. I should have just left it at "non-Calvinist." Thanks for pointing that out.
You bring up an interesting point though. I don't know whether Dr. Akin is correct or not on that statement. In my experience I have known quite a few 4-point Arminians in the SBC.
So, I'm wondering...and I assume you are a non-Calvinist...do you think that most? many? non-Calvinists are comfortable with 4 points of Arminianism in the SBC? I've seen a lot of non-Calvinists declare they are neither Calvinists nor Arminians.
i.e.
Free Will
Conditional election
Unlimited (or universal) atonement
Resistible grace
Posted by: Les | 2012.03.07 at 11:57 AM
Whew! Too many teachings and traditions of men flying through the blogoshere! Since I truly desire to be “right” when I stand before my Maker, I’ve decided to cover all the bases and become a 10-point Armvinist (or perhaps Calminian), by combining all the points available in each camp. No … I guess that wouldn’t work since the 5 points of one slant would essentially cancel out the 5 points of the other persuasion … leaving me with 0-points! Oh my, will there be any stars in my crown?!
Thus, I’ve decided to retreat back to my original position and just be a Christian. I’ll continue the strategy deposited in my spirit from the day I was elected into the Kingdom … to be salt and light as the Lord empowers me to be so. I’m nearing the end of the game and know that I have already won it, regardless of the number of points on my ledger.
Posted by: Max | 2012.03.07 at 03:05 PM
Max, it is us, fallen men and women, who have come up with the various labels. I could wish it were not so. But alas.
Anyway, I still would like someone to tell me how, if I proclaim "if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved" to a crowd, biblical words to be sure, how is what I think about the extent of the atonement "undermining" the gospel as Tony said. I can't save anyone. A non-Calvinist can't save anyone. Only God saves and He does that without any of our works, right?
The case just cannot be made that somehow a 5-point Calvinist undermines the gospel because he believes in unlimited atonement, with all due respect to Tony and the godly men he quoted.
Posted by: Les | 2012.03.07 at 04:10 PM
Les,
The case has been made. Denying it has hardly answers it; it but glibly dismisses it. By the way, you said above, it is "really nonsense" to conclude, from the doctrine of strict Limited Atonement, "the majority of mankind (the non-elect) are totally left without a remedy." I then asked:
The floor is still open for a response.
With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter lumpkins | 2012.03.07 at 04:39 PM
lmalone,
Since it's been several postings since you commented to me, here is the link to what you said above to which I am responding: http://peterlumpkins.typepad.com/peter_lumpkins/2012/03/ramblings-on-being-a-non-calvinist-by-peter-lumpkins.html?cid=6a00d83451a37369e20168e87f78a8970c#comment-6a00d83451a37369e20168e87f78a8970c
Brother, your point is moot. In fact, you are missing the point. There's nothing wrong with using theological labels. I'm sorry that scandalizes you, but it's theological shorthand and nothing more, nothing less. It should scandalize you no more than calling our churches "Baptist" churches.
Posted by: Ben | 2012.03.07 at 05:04 PM
Peter,
Perhaps we could work on a definition of aggressive Calvinism together. As good as you are at giving examples of it, we can surely formulate a definition. Based upon your article, I might offer the following definition:
Aggressive Calvinism = Calvinism that claims to be the only orthodox option and attempts to persuade others of the position by attacking in unfair ways other orthodox notions of soteriology to discredit them so that people will not accept them.
Peter, is this how you would define it?
Posted by: Ben | 2012.03.07 at 05:26 PM
Ben,
Thanks for the suggestion.
With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter lumpkins | 2012.03.07 at 05:29 PM
I entered this comment this morning as well, but I don't yet see it above, so I will enter it again. If it is a repeat, feel free to delete it:
Les describes the Gospel as including these concepts:
The problem comes in your 1st, 2nd, and 3rd statements since you're deliberately using "sinners" in an ambiguous way as code for "the elect" in the case of what you consider "Calvinists," i.e. another code word for "5-pointers only." Clearly your usage of "sinners" in the 4th proposition stands for all sinners without exception that hear the gospel, hence the problematic equivocation. If you use "sinners" for the first three propositions to stand for all sinners without exception, you've abandoned Owenism.
Non-5-pointers (which incidentally is a problematic description) and all evangelical non-Calvinists take your last usage of "sinners" in the 4th proposition above, i.e. all sinners without exception, and apply that usage of "sinners" to all the previous three propositions, so there is a consistency in their use of the term "sinners," such that there is no concealed equivocation.
The bottom line is: It is not entirely the same message!
Posted by: Tony Byrne | 2012.03.07 at 05:33 PM
Tony,
I found one of yours in the spam bucket and posted it above. I didn't see the other one. Nor is it there now...
With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter lumpkins | 2012.03.07 at 05:36 PM
Tony,
I am in no way using he word "sinners" in an ambiguous way. I am simply using scripture.
"The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost."
(1 Timothy 1:15 ESV)
I could also quote "I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance.”
Or, "And when Jesus heard it, he said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.”
So, if it will set better using scripture, how about:
1) Jesus came into the world to save sinners. "The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost."
3) He lived a sinless life and died on the cross for sinners and was raised from the dead and lives even now. "For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly.
3)He commands sinners everywhere to repent. If you (hearers) will turn from your sin and trust in Christ you will be saved! "The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent,"
4. Trust in Christ to be saved from your sin. "because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
Now, how can you ascribe to me or any other Calvinists deliberate ambiguity and "code."
Finally, is that a gospel message or not? Anyone can preach that to anyone. And if i have a presupposition of LA, s what? Does what is in my mind obscure the message that Jesus came to save sinners and if sinners will but run to Him they will be saved?
Hardly.
Posted by: Les | 2012.03.07 at 06:05 PM
Les,
You've missed the point. It's not "does the bible use the term "sinners." The point is that there is an equivocation in your statements, whereas there is not such an equivocation in non-Owenists. You have suggested that we're all saying the same thing, when we are manifestly not. Consider your last statement first:
What is the sense of "sinners" in this statement? Obviously you mean every single individual that hears the external call of the gospel, whether elect or not.
Consider the next three propositions again:
Is your usage of the word "sinners" in these three propositions the same as your usage in proposition #4? No, it is obviously not. What you really mean (but what you're hiding) in proposition #1 is "God sent His Son into the world to save the elect." What you really mean (but what you're hiding) in proposition #2 is "Jesus came into the world to save the elect." What you really mean (but what you're hiding, again) in proposition #3 is "He [Jesus]...died on the cross for the elect..."
Like all high Calvinists, you want the listener to think "God sent His Son into the world to save YOU, and Jesus came into the world to save YOU, and Jesus died for YOU, therefore believe." But, like all Owenists, you can't say that. It's inconsistent with your system, which manifests itself when you use "sinners" to mean "everyone without exception" when you say "God commands all sinners everywhere to repent." No such thing is going on with non-Owenists in their gospel proclamation. Non-Owenists are actually saying what their listeners believe they are saying, namely that "God sent His Son into the world to save every single sinner (which includes YOU), Jesus came into the world to save all sinners (which includes YOU), and Jesus died on the cross for every sinner (which includes YOU), therefore believe, etc."
In the first three propositions you've got "elect, elect, elect," concealed under your usage of the term "sinners," but then switch the sense to "everyone whether elect or not" when you say God commands "sinners" to repent, believe, etc. See the deliberate equivocation on your part yet? The rest of us surely do.
Again, the point is, it is not the same message, as you are equivocating on the term "sinners" and thus concealing your decretal sense and meaning in the first three propositions. To deny that, again, you would have to abandon Owenism.
It's not the same message. One party can assure EVERY single sinner, whether elect or not, that God is both willing AND PREPARED (since there is a universal remedy for all in the universal satisfaction of Christ) to save them all. You, on the other hand, cannot consistently say such a thing since you deny that Christ satisfied for all. God is NOT prepared to save the non-elect in your system as they have no applicable satisfaction made for them. Like we keep repeating, the non-elect are unsaveable in your system, and therefore they are not receiving any good news FROM GOD. The epistemological ignorance of the preacher is totally irrelevant. God Himself is the one making the offer through us, and your system has Him behaving deceptively toward the non-elect. How? God is allegedly "offering" what He doesn't have to give to them, i.e. salvation in Christ. There is no salvation in Christ for them since Jesus did not satisfy for their sins.
Posted by: Tony Byrne | 2012.03.07 at 11:48 PM
Here's another comment I sent that has not yet entered:
Here's a syllogism for you, Les:
1) No one can be forgiven apart from the shedding of blood (see Heb. 9:22).
2) There is no shed blood that was made for the non-elect in this world.
3) Therefore, the non-elect in this world cannot be forgiven.
In order to refute that, you will have to deny one of the first two premises. It will not be the first, for that is manifestly biblical. If you deny the second premise, you will have to abandon a strictly limited atonement view which says Christ's blood was not shed for the sins of any of the non-elect (hence the "double-payment" argument).
Given the truthfulness of the first two premises, then, the third proposition necessarily follows. The non-elect in this world cannot be forgiven. They are in the same state as the sinful angels who have no blood satisfaction made for them. It would be foolish for anyone to "offer" forgiveness to a sinful angel since they cannot possibly be saved without an atoning remedy, no matter what "conditions" are added to the "offer." The same goes with the non-elect humans in this world on the supposition of a strictly limited atonement. Making an "offer" with certain conditions (i.e. repent and believe) to them makes no sense, because if they fulfilled the condition(s), they still could not be saved any more than a sinful angel since they have no remedy.
If you're going to respond to this, focus on the syllogism above. Show us how you get around it, please. And, the only way around it is to deny either the first or second premise.
Posted by: Tony Byrne | 2012.03.07 at 11:50 PM
Les said "So, I'm wondering...and I assume you are a non-Calvinist...do you think that most? many? non-Calvinists are comfortable with 4 points of Arminianism in the SBC? I've seen a lot of non-Calvinists declare they are neither Calvinists nor Arminians."
Les,
I am neither Calvinist nor Arminian. I am unconcerned with measuring myself by any system with which I disagree. Nor do I wish to describe myself by what I am not (e.g. non-Calvinist, non-Arminian, non-wiccan...).
I am Baptist. Historically, I am General Atonement, Anabaptist Kin and Sandy Creek Tradition. I identify much more with Balthasar Hubmaier than with either John Calvin or Jacobus Arminius.
What would you have me call myself?
Posted by: Donald Holmes | 2012.03.08 at 01:49 AM
Tony,
Thanks for your replies. I'll try to get around to my response sometime today. Very full schedule.
Les
Posted by: Les | 2012.03.08 at 07:36 AM
Tony,
I’ve read you on several occasions to say that you believe the Bible to teach both unconditional election AND universal atonement. In other words, you believe the Bible to teach that God sovereignly and graciously chooses whom He will bestow salvation upon AND that God paid the penalty of sin through the sacrifice of Christ for every person who’ll ever live. Is this true?
Now according to your thinking in your first comment to Les and me above (http://peterlumpkins.typepad.com/peter_lumpkins/2012/03/ramblings-on-being-a-non-calvinist-by-peter-lumpkins.html?cid=6a00d83451a37369e20163028d3ec1970d#comment-6a00d83451a37369e20163028d3ec1970d), you basically said that those who believe the Bible to teach particular atonement cannot really share good news with the nonelect because the nonelect are unsavable.
Brother, you who holds to unconditional election, do you not realize the inconsistency of your argument against those who hold to particular atonement? You are actually arguing against yourself as well. The nonelect will not be saved NOT because God did not pay for their sins through Jesus. The nonelect will not be saved because God did not choose them to be saved. If God had chosen them, God would have also paid for their sins through Jesus. So, if the grounds for something being “good news” is the actual ability to be saved, then you who holds to unconditional election are not preaching good news to the nonelect either because even if God paid for their sins through the death of Jesus, they are still unsavable according to your unconditional electionist position.
So, if it’s true that high Calvinists—as you like to call 5-point Calvinists—are undermining the gospel by their doctrine of a strictly limited atonement, such that the majority of mankind (the non-elect) are totally left without a remedy, and thus rendered unsavable, then you as an unconditional electionist are doing the same thing because your unconditional electionist doctrine leaves the majority of mankind (the non-elect) totally without recourse, rendering them unsavable.
In my opinion, you have the wrong idea of what constitutes “good news” in the Scripture. “Good news” is the promise that every person will be saved IF they will believe on Jesus. It really doesn’t matter if the evangelist is a conditional or unconditional electionist or holds to universal or particular atonement. The “good news” doesn’t change. Therefore, the “good news” is good news to both the elect and nonelect alike (however it is you believe the Bible teaches the elect/nonelect came to be thus).
In conclusion, 5-point Calvinism is not a move away from the gospel as Mr Vines, Tony, and apparently Mr. Allen believe. Every person on the continuum between 4-point Arminianism and 5-point Calvinism preaches the same gospel: if you will believe on Christ, you will be saved!
Living because of Jesus,
Ben
Posted by: Ben | 2012.03.08 at 02:05 PM
I love it when Calvinists disagree amongst themselves. It takes me off the hook for a while... ;^)
Grace to both of you, Tony and Ben.
With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter lumpkins | 2012.03.08 at 02:16 PM
Tony,
You told Les above (http://peterlumpkins.typepad.com/peter_lumpkins/2012/03/ramblings-on-being-a-non-calvinist-by-peter-lumpkins.html?cid=6a00d83451a37369e20167638b8d06970b#comment-6a00d83451a37369e20167638b8d06970b), "It's not the same message. One party can assure EVERY single sinner, whether elect or not, that God is both willing AND PREPARED (since there is a universal remedy for all in the universal satisfaction of Christ) to save them all." Brother, you as one who holds to both unconditional election and universal atonement cannot say that God is both WILLING and PREPARED to save every person. You can say that He's prepared, but you cannot say that He is WILLING because you believe the Bible to teach that God willed for only the elect to be saved.
I suppose those of an Owenic stripe would say that God is both willing and prepared to save the elect.
But again, the "good news" is the same to both the elect and nonelect: if you will believe on Christ, you will be saved!
Posted by: Ben | 2012.03.08 at 02:25 PM
Tony,
I think I've finally worked through everything you've had to say up to this point on here. Perhaps my responses to you should have been all one post, but alas they are three.
Concerning this post above, http://peterlumpkins.typepad.com/peter_lumpkins/2012/03/ramblings-on-being-a-non-calvinist-by-peter-lumpkins.html?cid=6a00d83451a37369e20167638b8efb970b#comment-6a00d83451a37369e20167638b8efb970b
You said the following to Les,
I'm afraid your reasoning falls flat with me. Of course, it would be foolish to offer forgiveness to a sinful angel. Christ did not die for the angelic, not even one. However, it is not foolish to offer forgiveness to a sinful human since Christ did die for humanity, every single person who will believe on Christ who are the elect.
Brother, you argue as if we know whom the elect are. Neither conditional nor unconditional electionists know whom the elect are. You cannot know until they believe on Christ, as 1 Thessalonians 1:2-5 so clearly says:
Therefore, since nobody knows whom the elect are, we share the gospel far and wide with every single person, knowing that Christ died for sinful humans and that all who believe on Him will be saved.
Posted by: Ben | 2012.03.08 at 04:27 PM
Ben,
I am going to take some time to reply to this, but call it quits after this response. Some of my posts are ending up in Peter's "spam folder" and almost didn't get posted if I didn't save them. Also, I don't think your real name is "Ben." I would rather avoid conversations with people on the Internet who are hiding, concealing their full name, so as not to own their comments publicly. I suspect that you are someone I probably know under a different name and the person I have in mind is one who had James White officiate at their wedding. If you are who I think you are, then that will make sense. If not, then it probably won't. Anyway, I will nevertheless respond, albeit reluctantly.
For the evangelical non-Calvinists reading this comment, this issue is important. This "Ben" person is probably a "5-point" Calvinistic Baptist who is associated with the "Founders" movement in the SBC. This is significant because one of their heroes is Andrew Fuller. Not only is Ben arguing against Fullerism in what he is saying (though he is probably not aware of it), so are others in that movement, such as Dr. Greg Welty (who used to be at SWBTS but is now at SEBTS), who first brought up the argument that "Ben" is using. A few guys at Triablogue (a hardcore Hyper-Calvinist like Steve Hays who flat out says God is making "ill-meant offers" to the non-elect) picked it up, since they admire Welty. "Ben" didn't come up with it himself. He's seen it floating around in the blogosphere, and now he is trying it out as well, though in a confused and jumbled way.
The argument is that, if a strictly limited atonement view undermines the well-meant offer of the gospel to the non-elect, then so does unconditional election. It's an attempt to say that moderate Calvinsts have the same alleged problem as the high Calvinists, since the former claim to believe in unconditional election. This is significant because it represents a failure to grasp the significant difference between moral and natural barriers, and even the difference between God being UNABLE to give something and God being UNWILLING to give something. In order to maintain his belief in human responsibility as it respects the gospel offer to the unregenerate, Andrew Fuller (like Jonathan Edwards and many others before him) distinguished between moral inability and natural inability. Fuller employed this distinction as well when it came to the atonement, which is why he thought it was important (later on in life) to affirm a real, objective sufficiency in the atonement for all men as a necessary ground for an indiscriminate offer to all men. The Baptist theologian and moderate Calvinist J. M. Pendelton discerned this in Fuller and quotes him at length in Christian Doctrines: A Compendium of Theology (Philadelphia: The Judson Press, 1954), 242-244. Pendelton wrote:
Pendelton rightly understands Fuller. "Ben" and the Founders guys do not, and thus fail to see what Fuller is saying about natural and moral impossibilities. This again comes up in "Letters to Dr. Ryland: Letter III On Substitution," in The Complete Works of Andrew Fuller (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1845), 2:708-709. Notice carefully that Fuller is against the very thing "Ben," Welty and Hays are bringing up. Note the question:
In other words, if election is true, then isn't a gospel invitation to the non-elect just as inconsistent on that basis as an invitation given to the non-elect given a want of sufficiency in Christ's death for them? See it? These Founders-friendly guys are actually argue for a position that one of their heroes (Andrew Fuller) is seeking to refute. Anyway, here's everything Fuller says:
Again, Fuller is saying that if there is not an "objective fullness" in Christ's satisfaction for the non-elect, then their salvation is a NATURAL IMPOSSIBLITY. They do not perish simply for want of a "mind" to embrace Christ, but they also perish for want of an all-sufficient remedy. Later in life Fuller saw all of this and came to embrace a substitution in Christ for all mankind in general (see Works, 2:706-707.
------------------------------------------
"Ben", in his own jumbled way, tries to repeat the Welty/Hays argument (and the argument that Fuller is refuting above), and says:
David Ponter has VERY THOROUGHLY responded to the Welty/Hays argument here (click). One of David's points is worth repeating here in response. He said:
I spoke of Ben's "own jumbled way" above because he inserted this (where I put elipses) unrelated stuff in the middle of his attempted reductio:
According to "Ben's" system, the non-elect do in fact perish because God did not pay for their sins through Jesus. That is precisely the point. In addition to their being left in a state of moral inability through the withholding of regenerating grace, there is the further issue of having no available remedy to trust in for salvation, as Christ in no way satisfied for their sins.
This important point also needs to be made. Even if "Ben's" Tu quoque or attempted reductio ad absurdum was sound, it wouldn't alleviate the problem. It would only be saying, "You too, Tony, have the same problem, given election." THat's not dealing with the problem. It's just accusing others of having the same problem.
Posted by: Tony Byrne | 2012.03.10 at 08:41 AM
Tony,
Let me sum up my position on this.
1. It is ludicrous for others to suggest that I (as a believer in LA) am deliberately being ambiguous when I use scripture to call people to repent to believe, even when I do not know which people in my hearing are elect and which are not. I am simply following the scriptural command to preach the gospel everywhere.
2. I have no problem acknowledging a mystery on this issue. How can I urge people, some of whom are not elect (I presume since I cannot know who) to repent when I know that some of these people are not elect? Well we will just have to ask God some day why He told us to do that.
Spurgeon once preached on Sovereign Grace and Man's Responsibility. He said in his intro.:
I agree with Spurgeon.Google the title and read the whole thing if one desires.
In any case, I will continue to call people, indiscriminately, to repent and believe, for I know that at the end of the day it is not the persuasive words of my preaching that saves any man. It is not my belief system that can save nor can any man be confused by my belief system so as to be lost because of it. And I know that evangelical non-Calvinists who preach, preach the same way and God is pleased to save people through those who believe in universal atonement.
Now you said,
"Here's a syllogism for you, Les:
1) No one can be forgiven apart from the shedding of blood (see Heb. 9:22).
2) There is no shed blood that was made for the non-elect in this world.
3) Therefore, the non-elect in this world cannot be forgiven."
Of course the non-elect cannot be forgiven. If they could, there would be no differentiation between the elect and the non-elect. All would be elect.
Now here is a syllogism for those who believe in a universal atonemnt:
1) No one can be forgiven apart from the shedding of blood (see Heb. 9:22).
2) There is shed blood that was made for the non-elect in this world (universal atonement)
3) Therefore, the non-elect in this world can be forgiven."
Anyone here want to affirm that?
Posted by: Les | 2012.03.10 at 09:07 AM
Ben said:
And in my opinion, so do you. But, if I have the wrong idea of what constitutes "good news" in the Scripture, how is it you are saying we are not preaching gospel messages with significant differences? What you say above seems to make my point. Each of us thinks the other has "the wrong idea" of what constitutes the "good news" when we are engaging in evangelism.
You say:
You're confusing the terms or conditions for receiving the good news with the good news itself, hence your reductionism. If the "good news" is merely "everyone who believes will be saved," or "if you will believe on Christ, you will be saved!," then that's just a bare conditional statement. It's not even an invitation, a call, a command or an offer. First, the gospel is not less than an invitation TO SOMETHING, or TO SOMEONE, but your bare conditional undermines the invitation component of the message. Second, the gospel is not less than a call TO COME TO SOMETHING OR SOMEONE, but your bare conditional statement undermines that call in the gospel. Third, the gospel is not less than a command to OBEY SOMEONE BY COMING TO HIM, but your bare conditional announcment or presentation of a bare conditional is not even a command. "If you believe, you will be saved" is obviously not a command. Again, you're undermining that component of the gospel message. And, lastly, the gospel is not less than an offer, which is a willing proposal/proffer to give SOMETHING to someone on certain conditions. Something must be held out for the taking in order for there to be an offer, but you don't have anything (i.e. a prepared salvation) IN CHRIST for the non-elect to obtain. It's like His cross-work is a genetically engineered remedy that is only applicable to the elect since He only satisfied for their sins alone. Your bare conditional doesn't even specify what it is they are to believe, namely Christ and His accomplishments.
It's as though you're saying the gospel is "believe in the propostion 'if you believe you will be saved'". That's not the biblical object of faith. Christ and His work are the object of faith. If the gospel is "believe in the proposition 'if you believe you will be saved'", then devils can be saved for even they believe that proposition is true. The devils know that proposition is true, which is why they try to thwart people from coming to Christ. Talk about a view entailing pure universalism! :-)
These are just assertions, not arguments. One can see again, however, that you're bringing up the Tu quoque issue of election and particular atonement. Your view of "particular atonement", or more exactly a limited imputation of sin to Christ, does significantly change the way you are understanding the gospel (hence the bare propositional stuff above and Les' "sinners" equivocations). You cannot consistently say there is "good news" for people who are not forgiveable, and on your system the non-elect are unforgiveable. And if some are not forgiveable, then neither are they offerable. Consider again this syllogism I have presented three times:
This has yet to be answered.
You continue:
There it is again! You've reduced the gospel down to something that is NOT even 1) an invitation, or 2) a call, 3) a command or 4) an offer. The rest of us have a gospel that is an invitation, a call, a command and an offer. All you've got is a bare presentation of of a conditional proposition, without even specifying what it is they are to believe! Yet you say we're all believing the same thing about the gospel?! Hardly! What you've said it not even compatible with the Synod of Dort that specifies that "the promise of the gospel is that whosoever believes in Christ crucified [notice the object of faith here] shall not perish." And, since Christ's death is "abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world," those who are called and yet do not believe, but perish in unbelief "is not owing to any defect or insufficiency in the sacrifice offered by Christ upon the cross, but is wholly to be imputed to themselves." Given your limited imputation views, you can't consistently say they perish "wholly" of themselves. They also perish for want of a remedy. Even the Calvinists I quoted above (Polhill, Daniel, etc.) have observed that fact, and I could quote many others.
Posted by: Tony Byrne | 2012.03.10 at 09:35 AM
Tony,
All nice. But the fact remains that several times above I have used the exact words of scripture in a gospel presentation way. No one has responded to that.
Your syllogism, I replied above. My syllogism, no reply.
Posted by: Les | 2012.03.10 at 01:45 PM
All,
This will be my last comment on this thread. As I said above, I have proclaimed something like this many times before:
1) Jesus came into the world to save sinners. "The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost."
3) He lived a sinless life and died on the cross for sinners and was raised from the dead and lives even now. "For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly.
3)He commands sinners everywhere to repent. If you (hearers) will turn from your sin and trust in Christ you will be saved! "The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent,"
4. Trust in Christ to be saved from your sin. "because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
Now God has been pleased to save some through even the weakness of my preaching such as above. While I try by His grace to understand the theology of the scriptures, I know I have holes in my theology. Reformed and always reforming.
So, no matter what anyone else says about my certainly orthodox view of the extent of the atonement, and even if I am wrong, He still saves sinners when I preach to them.
Les
Posted by: Les | 2012.03.10 at 07:11 PM