Weekend funny: small church pastor preaches as thousands across the Southern Baptist Convention listen

Times exist when I take myself much too seriously. It happens less now than when I was younger but it still happens nonetheless. Paul's words come to me as an inspired reminder: "I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment" (Romans 12:3 ESV).

Perhaps strict Calvinist, J. D. Hall, might want to join me in remembering the Apostle's humbling words:

Hall's full sermon may be found here.

 

UPDATE #1: Piratechristian radio logged on and safely upped the numbers of J.D. Hall's listeners to 10s of thousands of Southern Baptists! Sweet Georgia peaches.  We poor, ignorant guys in West Georgia just do not know who Southern Baptists' actual influencers really are.

UPDATE #2: Piratechristian could not leave well enough alone. Instead he logged on yet again and upped the number of Southern Baptist listeners to hundreds of thousands!  And just what was the "objective evidence" he provided? His subjective opinion, of course. He cited no sources, no data, no ratings. Just stated an unproved assertion. Unfortunately for him, we just don't accept bald assertions on this site. We insist on more to warrant claims, especially claims which appear questionable such as Hall's sermon definitively had hundreds of thousands of Southern Baptist listeners (200,000 Southern Baptists to be exact).

UPDATE #3: J.D. Hall responded to this little piece on his site. And, know I am perfectly content for interested readers to judge for themselves whether Hall poured you a full glass based on what's been actually said here. By the way, on Hall's thread, two more people claimed they listened to his sermon. Adding them to the three or four here, and the numbers are almost as impressive as the numbers signing up for ObamaCare.

UPDATE #4: Hall now has a quote on his response to this piece by Brannon Howse. I invite readers to take a look to see if Howse offered anything in his comments to overturn what I argued in the thread below; namely, that neither Hall nor Pirate Radio offers any form of substantial evidence to conclude as do they that Hall's sermon had "thousands of Southern Baptist listeners." Howse logs on only rehearsing all the numbers he has for his Worldview Weekend, etc. Fine. How many of those are Southern Baptists and how does he know they listened to Hall's sermon?  For heaven's sake. This is not hard to understand. If one can't offer any tangible proof for the numbers one claims, it seems to me we have not only a right but a duty--at least in some cases--to raise the question concerning the legitimacy of the number.

In addition, Howse goes on to comment on what could only be some type of hearsay as to what I actually questioned on this thread. Why do I say this? Well, he suggests that "some blogger" (presumably that's me) was "claiming that Jordon’s message could not have been heard by many Southern Baptists." Uh?  Why would I do that? And how could I prove it if I actually had claimed something so crass? This is the level of interaction that is all too common in Baptist blogdom. Anyways, I've writtten a short note to Howse concerning his obvious botching of what's been stated here but he has not returned the email as of the writing of this update.

Comments

[peter lumpkins]

Those who think it either silly or surprising to query concerning Calvinistic assurance of faith puzzle me. Questions like "Am I among the elect?" and "How do I know I have true faith and not temporary faith?" have been within the warp and woof of Calvinistic piety for centuries. While to ask "Am I among God's elect?" may be "silly" to us, to Puritans it was a most serious inquiry as Dr. Owen as mentioned.

Furthermore, the question of whether assurance is the consequence of faith or remains part of the core of faith Calvinists still debate. Kendall's Calvin and English Calvinism to 1649, Joel Beeke's Quest for Full Assurance, J.I. Packer, the so-called nadere Reformatie the Puritans pursued all discuss and point to this unsolved theological conflict within Calvinism. Nonetheless, Calvinists in this thread appear to insist there's no problem at all and find it shocking the question would be raised.

[Bill Mac]

"How do I know I have true faith and not temporary faith?"

Peter: I'm sorry to be obtuse, but how is this not a question that applies to non-calvinists also?

It could be that (some) modern Calvinists don't feel obligated to participate in the angst or paranoia of their predecessors. I hold John Bunyan in very high regard, and Pilgrim's Progress is one of the greatest works of literature ever. But Bunyan almost drove himself mad believing a stray thought had caused him to lose his salvation.

I'll gladly concede that some Calvinists struggle with assurance, as I know a lot of non-Calvinists do. What I object to is the idea that because I'm a Calvinist I can't have assurance of salvation. That's the part I find silly.

[Lydia]

"Lydia: It always seems to come down between what I say I believe vs what people tell me I have to believe."

Bill, I stay confused, too, with what you believe or your brand of Calvinism. I have read your comments over at SBCV and SBCT for quite a while and you seemed to be in agreement with most of the YRR/NC most of the time. I suppose you are not.

Convo with Cals these days are confusing. If you phrase back what Neo Cals said or wrote, they will tell you that is not what they said or what they believe. The convos end up being circular and confusing as if the beliefs fit the convo at the time.

Then reading history (As Peter pointed out with the Puritans) one sees that assurance is a constant theme. My point in all of it was that if one has no volition, is a totally depraved worm and was one of the chosen before Adam even sinned then how can they really know? I am thinking that consruct does not allow for any or much personal response. It is as if one does not really exist as a thinking, reasoning person. And if one says they are and were able to respond, then they are elevating themselves to god status and saved themselves.

So my question becomes how do they really know? I am not asking to be contentious. In fact, this has been a theme with "Ex Christians" who are coming out of the YRR/ Neo Cal movement. How do I know that God really chose me?

I realize there are Ex Christians from other doctrinal constructs but I am not seeing the same rabid response from them as I am seeing those coming out of the YRR/Neo Cal determinist god construct.

Perhaps your brand of Reformed is more like Dr. Owens were the Cross was for ALL? I don't know. I was basing my responses to you on not just this thread but a year or so of reading you at SBCT and SBCV.

[Lydia]

"Question for my non reformed brothers,

Do you ever pray for the salvation of your unsaved family and friends.

and why."

Eric, The question itself is instructive. It is none of your business especially the "why". What is it with all this public stand piousness these days? It comes off so contrived.

"5 “And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. 6 But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. "

[peter lumpkins]

Bill Mac,

I responded to the "silly" and "surprising" assertions that are logged here. And, lack of assurance is particularly latent within Calvinism as I mentioned. And it's not just that "(some) modern Calvinists don't feel obligated to participate in the angst or paranoia of their predecessors." Again, much of the discussion is Calvinists exchanging in house. Why in house discussion? Because the question of possessing assurance stems from their die-hard, non-negotiable belief in God's secret election.

Consider:

A) God elects and predestines a definite number of individuals to receive salvation, a number which cannot be added to nor subtracted from. Nor are the individuals known to anyone but God Himself. Thus, it's His secret election

B) Jesus died for and fully paid the sin debt for those and those alone whom God secretly elected to life. No others either have or can receive imputation of their sin onto Christ other than the elect God secretly chose

C) But if God secretly chose the elect, and the elect is only known to Him alone, how can I be sure I am one of the elect having my sin imputed to Christ and not one of the non-elect whose hellish fate is impossible to change because Jesus did not die for me?

It hardly takes a genius to see how this question leads naturally to despair.

[peter lumpkins]

BTW, Dr. Owen solved the dilemma at least in part by rejecting the questionable doctrine of Limited Atonement. For even if God alone knows who the elect are, every person stands on equal footing, so to speak, because Jesus' death was designed for every person not just the secret elect.

Of, course try telling that to many TULIP Calvinists and you'll likely be branded a heretic who believes either Jesus ultimately saved everyone or no one.

[Bill Mac]

Lydia: I believe coming to Christ requires a personal, volitional response. I had no say as to whether I would be born or not. My parents made that choice. And yet I have no problem being assured that I'm alive. I honestly don't see the dilemma. My assurance that I'm alive does not stem from my parent's choice in the distant past, (although obviously that was a necessary condition) but from objective reality in the present.

My assurance of salvation does not flow from election (although as a Calvinist I see it as a necessary condition) but as an objective, present reality. I repented, I believed (and believe), I confessed. I was baptized in obedience. I follow and serve, imperfectly but consistently. There is also a subjective, emotional reality to my relationship with Christ but I'm trying to keep the conversation precise.

Wondering if you are elect is a waste of time. Do you believe? That is the question. There are no non-elect believers (regardless of soteriology). Worrying that you are a non-elect believer indicates (to me) that your theology is screwed up. If some Calvinists (or even a lot) believe that, then they need to be corrected.

Lydia, you seem to equate Calvinism with extreme, microscopic determinism. I can tell you at the very least that I don't believe that.

[Paul Owen]

Another thing I try to point out to my students is that election as such, is not really the issue. Arminians believe in election too. God has predestined some to be saved and others to be lost, and every person is one or the other, elect or non-elect. The real questions are: 1) Does God love me? Yes. 2) Does God want me to be saved? Yes. 3) Is God's grace really made available to me? Yes. 4) Did Christ die for me? Yes. 5) Do I belong to his family? Yes (baptism being the visible sign of my membership). 6) Do I trust in the merits of Christ alone to atone for my sin? Yes (only I can answer that for myself). Only if the answer to any of the above is No or Maybe, do I truly have a warrant to doubt my salvation.

[Mary]

What's being demonstrated here is that there are those who call themselves Calvinists but live as if they are not Calvinists. I know I'm saved because the Bible tells me that they who call upon the Lord are saved. A Calvinist who truly believes Calvinism CANNOT declare this. With Calvinism the saved are saved because of God's election - not because anyone called on the name of the Lord. Of course there's the little problem with the Bible actually declaring that they who call upon the Lord being the ones who are saved.

And you can open a whole other can of worms if you want to speculate about "false conversions" For Calvinists "false conversions" shouldn't be any big deal because those who are elect will be saved and those who are truly "false conversions" never have a chance so why not allow them to believe they have "fire insurance." But how can people be going around thinking they are saved if God only plants the thoughts of salvation into the elect? Doesn't this then indicate that they are elect if they have thoughts of God and His Salvation in their hearts?

But Calvinists want to have it both ways. On the one hand election is wholly of God and only God knows the elect. But on the other Calvinists being the superior beings that they are can determine exactly who are elect and who are not which is why "false conversions" bother them so much - a "false conversion" cannot elect someone who is not elect nor can it non-elect someone who is elect, but it's offensive to Calvinists having people going around pretending to be saved when they don't measure up to Calvinism. Calvinists gotta keep hold of those "keys to the kingdom" don't ya know. And that's where we get the rhetoric of heresy and down grades.

Don't even get me started on how ridiculous it is for someone declaring that listening to someone preach must mean we are "follower's of men." Stuff and nonsense. I only follow Jesus. Men are completely human and thus not worthy of having disciples. What a mess when you have foolish, foolish people declaring themselves to be "follower's" of the latest guru.

[Andrew Barker]

Bill Mac/Eric: I don't want to bang on about assurance but I speak a bit from experience.Although I am definitely not Reformed in my thinking, I do attend a fellowship where the elders are. Most of the congregation are not, which has led to interesting times over the past year. But the thing which struck me when I first joined was the amount of time devoted by the teaching elder to questions of who was saved, who wasn't, how do you know if you're saved, false confessions of faith etc. If people's conduct (not necessarily in our church) wasn't up to scratch, the first thing which was suggested was "are they really of the elect?". Not why has this happened and how do we ensure it doesn't happen to us! It has been quite a thought provoking year in this respect.

My analysis has led me to conclude that even among the 'soundly saved', the doctrine of unconditional election when preached as part of the strict TULIP theology can have a profoundly negative effect on people. I suspect that in many Calvinist congregations the finer details of TULIP are not really discussed and certainly the difficulties are never highlighted so it's only when you venture outside your immediate fellowship that these issues become a reality. What can I say. Welcome to the real world!

[Bill Mac]

Dr. Owen: Doesn't #6 include the previous 5 (with the possible exception of baptism)? No one who can say yes to 6 can possibly say no to the previous 5 (in my opinion).

No one is saved until they call upon God to save them, by trusting in Christ's work on the cross. Election doesn't mean you are saved, only that you will be.

[Bill Mac]

Another thing I try to point out to my students is that election as such, is not really the issue. Arminians believe in election too. God has predestined some to be saved and others to be lost, and every person is one or the other, elect or non-elect.

Dr. Owen: I think you will find that some who post here do not believe this.

[Bill Mac]

Andrew: I have seen this also, but in non-Calvinist churches when someone falls into egregious sin, the question is phrased "I wonder if they are really saved". That is actually a better question, even for Calvinists. Contrary to what some people think, it is possible to live as a Calvinist and not see everything through tulip-colored lenses.

[Paul Owen]

Bill Mac,

Except that (on strict Calvinist principles) a person who might say yes to 6 is always in the uncomfortable situation of not knowing for sure if his faith is true or merely transient, since he cannot be sure about the answer to the other 5 questions. During times of spiritual turmoil, I might rightly question the status of my own faith (seasons of doubt are not foreign to Christian experience), but if I'm following the Bible, I should always be able to answer yes to the other 5 questions. And it is from that confidence that my faith can be strengthened and I can avoid despair.

[Lydia]

'I had no say as to whether I would be born or not. My parents made that choice. And yet I have no problem being assured that I'm alive. I honestly don't see the dilemma. My assurance that I'm alive does not stem from my parent's choice in the distant past, (although obviously that was a necessary condition) but from objective reality in the present."

Bill, You were not a thinking being before you were physically born so it stands to reason you would have no say in being physically born. I am having a hard time connecting that to being born again as a thinking adult.

[Bill Mac]

Lydia: Yes, it's an imperfect analogy.

I obviously can't speak for all Calvinists, but they also do not speak for me. I can only say that my Calvinism causes me no problems with assurance. The bible says all who call upon the name of the Lord will be saved, and I believe that.

[eric]

Lydia,

You seem to be strung tighter than the 2nd cord of a freshly crafted Arpeggione.

Lydia is out...Anyone else open to telling why a non reformed Christian would pray for the salvation of family or friends.

[Lydia]

"Andrew: I have seen this also, but in non-Calvinist churches when someone falls into egregious sin, the question is phrased "I wonder if they are really saved". That is actually a better question, even for Calvinists. Contrary to what some people think, it is possible to live as a Calvinist and not see everything through tulip-colored lenses."

That is probably true, Bill Mac. In my experience it is usually some long time sin problem that would start to question whether one is really being sanctified. (1 Corin 5 is an example) Long time born again believers who are guided by the Holy Spirit don't molest children, commit incest, etc.

(Unless their religion allows them to remain totally depraved worms with wicked hearts after salvation)

However, the difference is while some in non Cal churches might ask that question, in many YRR/NC churches a few are declaring such because they believe as elders they hold the keys to the kingdom or whatever they call it at their church. They get to decide whether one is really saved or not. And often it becomes a matter of whether or not they agree with said elder on some point of doctrine. Then we have the convenience of church discipline to keep such dissent underwraps.

As Mohler explained at a pastors conference a few years back: No, we're here because we believe that those who teach and preach the word of God are God-appointed agents to save God's people from ignorance.

Can God's people remain perpetually ignorant in sanctification? Or do they grow in wisdom, discernment and Holiness? Do we need an elder to tell if it is so? Seems we need mediators between us and Jesus Christ even as long time believers.

What has happened to the priesthood of believer? Oh yeah, we added an "s" back in 2000.

[eric]

I love you in Christ anyway

[eric]

Andrew,

Your comment gives a little light on why you may hold to your position. Not knowing how old you are (in Christ) Bills answer is spot on.

If you have been around long enough, you know that questioning ones salvation goes on in reformed and non reformed churches.

I agree with you that the focus should be on helping one another not accusing one another.

[eric]

Peter wrote:

C) But if God secretly chose the elect, and the elect is only known to Him alone, how can I be sure I am one of the elect having my sin imputed to Christ and not one of the non-elect whose hellish fate is impossible to change because Jesus did not die for me?

It hardly takes a genius to see how this question leads naturally to despair.

Speaking from a reformed Baptist perspective, who says God secretly chose the elect. Who says the elect is only known by him alone. I've never heard that taught in Baptist circles.

Who the elect are before salvation is only known by God.
You agree with that even from your point of view. You would say that only God knows who will trust in him, because God knows past present and future.

We / I see believers (the elect) all around us.

Maybe I'm missing your point.
Perhaps one of the other reformed folks can correct me.

[peter lumpkins]

Sorry. Travelling on road. Only my phone so can't really respond. Will say if I had a nickel for every time denied knowing who the elect are I'd buy you and me both a weeks worth of Starbucks

[peter lumpkins]

Should be 'every time Calvinists denied'

[Andrew Barker]

Eric: I'm certainly missing your point, because you seem to contradict yourself within the space of a few lines ....

Speaking from a reformed Baptist perspective, who says God secretly chose the elect. Who says the elect is only known by him alone. I've never heard that taught in Baptist circles.

Who the elect are before salvation is only known by God.

??!

[Eric]

Sorry,
You are correct.
I thought Peter was saying that we think only the elect are known by God AFTER salvation.
Which is why he questioned how folks could know if they are saved.
This is why I said only he knows the elect BEFORE salvation.

Thanks for correcting me.

[Hobart M. Tucker]

"Another thing I try to point out to my students is that election as such, is not really the issue. Arminians believe in election too. God has predestined some to be saved and others to be lost, and every person is one or the other, elect or non-elect."

Dr. Owen,

Not to be too confrontational, but with regard to the bolded text above, I would offer that what the Bible actually says is that "those whom He foreknew ...

... He predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren."

The Bible does not state the He predestined some to be saved and some to be lost. But that is the result of some believing and some not.

[Paul Owen]

Hobart,
True, election for Arminians is based on God's foreknowledge. Nonetheless, every person is either one of the elect (predestined to be saved on the basis of foreseen faith) or one of the non-elect (predestined to be damned on the basis of foreseen unbelief). That's all I'm saying really.

[peter lumpkins]

Eric,

I might add for strict Calvinists, only God knows who the elect are period--whether pre or post "conversion." This remains one of the reasons for the dilemma which I believe naturally leads to despair. Since only God knows, and since false conversions exist, and since faith can be temporary not permanent, and since Jesus died only for a specific, unalterable number so fixed that no one can be saved not in the number and no one can be lost who is a part of the number, it seems to follow that no criteria exists which could offer the kind of experiential certainty we speak about when we speak of assurance of salvation.

[Andrew Barker]

Dr. Owen, you mentioned that Arminian's also view election as based on God's foreknowledge and people are still predestined to be saved. My own understanding of predestination is that it has nothing to do with being saved, but everything to do with our destiny once we have been saved.

I can't find any scripture which talks specifically about being predestined to be saved. I can find those which talk about being conformed to His image or being adopted as sons but these are both future events, aren't they?

How do you view predestination and are there any particular passages of scripture which lead you to hold these conclusions?

[Hobart M. Tucker]

Dr. Owen,

I can't speak for Arminians, for I am not one of them (nor a Dispensationalist, Calvinist, Romanist, etc.).

I agree that the end result will be that there are the elect and the non-elect. But, you add the conditions that the elect are "predestined to be saved on the basis of foreseen faith" and the non-elect are "predestined to be damned on the basis of foreseen unbelief."

As Andrew pointed out, the Bible does not draw us to those conclusions, but only instructs that we are predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son (Romans 8:29) and to be adopted as His sons (Ephesians 1:5).

[Hobart M. Tucker]

... I would add that the concept on which Ephesians 1:5 is expressed can be found in the preceding verse: He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world.

It is this means that defines predestination.

Unfortunately, too many on this forum and on others appear to omit the phrase "in Him" to alter this passage to read as "He chose us before the foundation of the world."

The Bible tells us throughout the OT and NT it is all about the means.

[Paul Owen]

Andrew and Hobart,

Classical Arminianism denies that God predestines any person to either believe or not believe. But, given God's knowledge of who will or won't believe, God does predestine some to heaven and some to hell. So every person is in one category or the other, even on Arminian principles. Romans 8:29-30 clearly relates predestination to who ends up in glory (i.e. Heaven). So unless on denies God's foreknowledge, all I'm saying is there is a potential sense of "What if I'm not one of the elect?" In all camps.

[Andrew Barker]

Dr. Owen
Romans 8:29-30 clearly relates predestination to who ends up in glory (i.e. Heaven).

I'm not sure about the use of the phrase "ending up in heaven." I think what it is saying is simply that we will be like Him. Once a person is in Him, their destiny is 100% sure.

I do favour the concept that foreknowledge is not so much about knowing something beforehand but in this case to know in the sense of 'love' or place ones love on somebody. In this case, Jesus has always been loved by the Father and when we are placed in Him we share in that blessing.

God may or may not know who will believe on Him and in a sense it makes no difference if you hold that predestination is not about choosing or knowing who will be saved beforehand.

All of the promises of God are in Him and there are no references which use the term into Him. This leads me to believe that before we are saved there is no predetermined outcome. Once we are saved, we are predestined etc etc.

If these above thoughts throw up difficulties of which I may not be aware, please let me know. It would be good to think this through ... again!

[Paul Owen]

Let me come at this from a different angle. In most Christian soteriologies, it is only those who persevere "to the end" who will ultimately be saved in heaven. Those who fail to persevere will not be in heaven. This is true both for classical Calvinist and Arminian soteriologies. And those who persevere to the end are the ones who have been predestined to "glory." Again, nearly all systems agree thus far. But how can I be assured that I am one of the predestined? Only by persevering to the end.

Now, there are those who take a view of eternal security that allows one to NOT persevere to the end, and still be saved. The only result of failing to persevere is a loss of rewards. At first glance, that seems to offer a greater measure of assurance. But in fact it does not. For this view still agrees that it is only those who, at some point, have genuinely trusted in Christ (even if they later fall away) who will go to heaven. The question then becomes, how can I know I have ever truly trusted in Christ? For most Calvinists the answer is linked to the evident fruits of sanctification which result in perseverance to the end. But what is the "evidence" for a genuine profession of faith in the version of eternal security which allows even true believers to fall away? It is not linked to any necessary sanctification and perseverance. So how could one possibly know for certain that they will not fall away? Answer: They can't. And how, if they fall away, could they possibly know that they ever "really" trusted in Christ to begin with? Answer: They can't.

It seems to me that the eternal security doctrine of Charles Stanley, Charles Ryrie, Joseph Dillow, Zane Hodges, etc. really has no adequate grounds of assurance, since there is no real "proof" of genuine faith and conversion that can be pointed to. So one could still be left with doubts about the reality of their conversion experience. In fact, in such a system, the problem is actually more acute. This is why many people in such circles end up going forward to the altar and getting saved repeatedly.

[Paul Owen]

Andrew,

Well, it seems clear to me that the chain of events in view in Romans 8:29-30 clearly leads to heaven. It is in heaven that the saints are "glorified" and fully formed in the image of God's Son. And since it is the predestined who end up there, that seems to establish a clear link between predestination and who ends up in heaven. Again, Wesley and Arminius would agree with me here. So would Molina, and all the Church Fathers whose views differed from those of Augustine.

Now I suspect you are affirming some form of corporate election. Christ is the elect and predestined one, and insofar as we are "in Christ" we too are elect and predestined. That is how some Arminians deal with passages like Ephesians 1:4-5, 11 and Romans 8:29-30. I don't agree with that view, though I recognize it is plausible. It seems to me that Ephesians 1:11 especially counts against this view, as it extends the scope of predestination beyond Christ (and the elect in a secondary sense) to God's predestination of the elect to obtain an inheritance in Christ, "according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will." Does "all things" exclude our coming to be in Christ in the first place? Clearly not, which seems to me to be a problem for the corporate election view.

Yes, we are elect "in Christ." Being in Christ is constitutive of our election. Outside of Christ our election is not realized. Just as being born is a necessary condition of being the elect (since before the foundation of the world God chooses people as real living individuals), so being in Christ is a necessary condition of being the elect. It is as existing (and believing) people that we are "the elect." Nonetheless, God's predestination is the basis both for our existence and our coming to faith. That's how I see it anyways.

As to whether God knows who will believe in him, the only people who deny this are open theists. And that's fine if you want to go that route (I don't really get worked up over it). But that is certainly a departure not only from Calvinism, but classic Arminianism as well.

[Hobart M. Tucker]

Dr. Owen,

Please know I'm not a contrarian and don't mean to sound like a broken record.

I think you're correct that both camps are susceptible to the position of "What if I'm not one of the elect?" That is one of the problems with trying to shape biblical truths through the mechanism of a systematic / dogmatic / contemporary / historical theology.

The Bible says we can be certain of whether we are His or not without it hinging on how someone defines or applies "predestination" or "foreknowledge."

I am not trying to school you on this point, but offer these Scripture references for the benefit of those who would ask for my anchor points:

John 10:4 ... His sheep follow him because they know his voice.

John 10:14 "I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me ...

John 10:16 "I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd."

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

Christ does not need John Calvin, John Wesley, John Darby ... et al. ... to do His work. That's why He sent the Holy Spirit (although I do believe we are instructed to be His body and so His hands and feet -- e.g. 1 Cor. 12:27 & 2 Cor. 5:20):

John 14:15 “If you love Me, keep My commandments. 16 And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you.

John 15:26 “But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me.

John 16:8 "And when He has come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: 9 of sin, because they do not believe in Me; 10 of righteousness, because I go to My Father and you see Me no more; 11 of judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.

12 “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority,but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come.

... and ...

1 John 2:20 But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you know all things. 21 I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and that no lie is of the truth. ...

... 26 These things I have written to you concerning those who try to deceive you. 27 But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him.

[Hobart M. Tucker]

"It seems to me that the eternal security doctrine of ... really has no adequate grounds of assurance, ..."

Trusting Christ is not a "past-tense" event but one that is ongoing.

Likewise, assurance is not the result of a good systematic theology, but of a right relationship with the Christ. That is the only proof anyone needs (to confirm salvation or lack of it).

[Andrew Barker]

Thanks Paul, that's given me plenty to think about. I would certainly not identify with holding to Arminian theology in the main and as you are aware I'm not Calvinist either! I also tend to think of election as just that, 'election' but I appreciate that my views tend to be termed 'corporate' election. I just think that by definition election is corporate so there's no need for the extra label.

I'll come back with more comment if I may at leisure, no hurry here, if that's OK with you.

Again my thanks for your comment.

[Lydia]

"Likewise, assurance is not the result of a good systematic theology, but of a right relationship with the Christ. That is the only proof anyone needs (to confirm salvation or lack of it).""

It is really hard to discuss this stuff in soundbite type comments but I think what Hobart mentions above hits on larger problem. A right relationship with Christ is on going. It is synergistic. We are involved. We are responsible. The work was done on the cross. We embrace it, believe it. Now what? We have the promised Advocate. So.....?

I spent quite a few years in the CGM seeker mega world which would not have recognized the Arminian/Calvin dichotomy. Their doctrine was all about cheap grace. There was salvation then there was going to church, giving money and following the mega guru. That was about it.

In truth, I thought Calvinism was the answer for a while but after much studing history and reading way too much of him and his progeny, I came to the conclusion the end result of that doctrine is much like the end result of the seeker world of cheap grace: Those who claim to be saved cannot help but sin all the time. For the seekers, no prob. Jesus covered taht on the cross. And you WILL make "mistakes" like adultery, etc, etc. For the Calvinists, you cannot help it because your heart is still wicked.

To even try to discuss this in polite company is impossible. Automatically one is accused of "sinless perfection" and if one is not bragging about their sin or wicked heart, they are not really able to fit into either group. This is what passes for evangelicalism today.

So, I remain a woman without a movement. I am one of those strange creatures who believes that Christians will live out character and virtue in this world. They love justice and practice it within their Body. They love mercy but would never cheapen it. They would NEVER sweep evil under the rug. they would NEVER protect child molesters. They would visit them in jail, though. They would not seek to make bank off Jesus' name.

So what is Christianity? How come we look worse than the world in many respects but paper over it with "salvation". Why is it believing in Jesus gives so many a pass for deception, greed and plain old evil?

See, I don't think that IS Christianity. I believe we are to be the Kingdom NOW. And I think that is missing in most of the teaching out there save for guys like Wright who have touched on it quite a bit.

[Scott Shaver]

Lydia:

I'm "polite" company and will have to agree almost to the point with your assessments. Only difference is "man" as "opposed" to woman without a movement.

Isn't it ironic that your "older" tier of preachers now (55-60 in SBC)are "dinosaur throwbacks" (according to younger candidates) to the CGM both on the traditional and neo-calvinistic side. There are a few exceptions I'm sure.

I thought the "church growth" phenomenon couldn't get any worse at one point ....

until I saw it mixed with neo Calvinism in the SBC following the scourge of Pressler, Patterson and Mohler.

What actual purpose does NAMB serve anymore anyway?

[Andrew Barker]

Dr. Owen: I would take issue about the phrasing of your comment "And since it is the predestined who end up there, that seems to establish a clear link between predestination and who ends up in heaven."

I think this is defining the term by what you want it to mean. We both agree that predestination means all Christians will be conformed to His image. But I can find no firm scriptural basis for saying predestination is about who becomes a Christian.

When you say Eph 1:11 extends the scope of predestination beyond Christ this too is because you appear to be defining predestination in the terms which suit your premise. The phrase God works all things according to the council of His will, may include our coming to Christ, but there is no reason why God has to predestine us to bring us to Christ. The text does not actually say this. It is being inferred. In a sense you are using predestination as a self fulfilling prophecy? If you insist that predestination is the pre-determined choice of God then of course we are all predestined. But that's only because you've defined predestination in those terms. If you define it in terms of the destination of each and everyone who comes to Christ, there is no requirement for God to select of indeed not select anybody to come to faith in Christ.

It also raises issues of free choice. I don't see how God can determine everything and yet allow us a truly free choice. I've never been very convinced by the 'soft' determinism argument or Calvin's God wills but is not the author of evil either. These appear to be nothing more than philosophical get-a-rounds! Again, I can never find any scriptural basis for them either.

It does mean that I have to look to some form of very open libertarian sense of free will which I appreciate gravitates towards an open theistic viewpoint. It's not that I don't hold God as sovereign or that he doesn't know his alpha from his omega, it's just that the in between bits don't have to be as fixed as a lot of folks seem to think they have to be. I would say if God determines that he is going to allow free choice in a matter, who am I to disagree!

As to scriptural back-up, every time I hear the words you choose, or come let us reason says the Lord I think to myself, this is God affirming that we really do have a free choice in the matter. When Jesus said "your faith has made you whole" he was being true to His word. God really does appear to be working with us, not just pulling the strings off-stage!

God's plan of salvation was in deed in place before the foundation of the world. But again, people too quickly fit this into a preconceived idea of what predestination is when the text gives no support for this argument. You could say that God's plan was for all in Christ to be made like Him. It does not require any measure of pre-selection on His part as to who is going to be in Christ for this to be true. It's just something people have added on.

I have no objection to the notion that God knows who is going to believe and who is not. To me this is a side issue. Some will argue that for God to know something means that He has already determined it. I don't see that as necessary.

My thoughts regarding this have recently centred around the idea of relationships. If God desires a relationship with each of us, can this be achieved if He already knows what we are going to do, think, say or react at any given time. It may be that our concept of a relationship is very 'human' and that these difficulties may not exist in the mind of God. But from a very human viewpoint, I would find it difficult to have a meaningful relationship with someone who knows everything I'm about to say before I do!! I think in the end I would cease to bother because "you know everything anyway don't you!"

The last section is just my musings, but feel free to come back to me on the nitty gritty of Eph1:11 etc. Thanks again.

[Bill Mac]

But from a very human viewpoint, I would find it difficult to have a meaningful relationship with someone who knows everything I'm about to say before I do!! I think in the end I would cease to bother because "you know everything anyway don't you!"

Andrew: I'm having trouble following you. You seem to have said that you believe God knows everything but in your last sentences you seem to say that you can't have a relationship with a God who knows everything.

[Andrew Barker]

Bill Mac: "You seem to have said that you believe God knows everything"

.... either I did or I didn't. But I didn't mean to either way!

[Bill Mac]

Andrew: In the interest of keeping the conversation going, do you think God is subject to time, as we are? I guess what I am asking is that if God does not know the future exhaustively, is it because He cannot or because He chooses to willfully blind Himself to some things?

[Andrew Barker]

Bill Mac: If God does impose limits on himself you can be sure they are self imposed and not because it fits one of our theories.

Jesus is the obvious example of a self imposed limitation. Not only was he not present everywhere but he got tired, had to learn things ( he didn't know everything) and in the end he died. God is outside time, which he created, so he doesn't have to be limited by it, but at the same time God is consistent and he does not contradict himself.

So if God is restricted in any way by time, it's nothing more than a self imposed restriction and this is why I don't see it as any threat to his sovereignty.